ASSESSING THE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING THE INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS OF STATE ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES

ASSESSING THE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING THE INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS OF STATE ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES


Firuz D. YASAMIS, Ph. D
Associate Professor




Valiler Sitesi A-5 No. 7
Vatan Caddesi, Tuzla, Istanbul 34940
Turkey


fdy@ttnet.net.tr
(90) (532) 3619156
(90) (216) 3953181


Increasing the performance of the state environmental agencies (SEAs) necessitates an effective institutionalization of governmental environmental management functions. There are examples of successful and unsuccessful SEAs in several parts of the world. Analysis and assessment of these cases can deliver useful insights for the institution builders. The objective of this paper is the assessment of the institutional effectiveness of the SEAs in Turkey. A checklist is developed including 16 criteria and 123 sub-criteria to measure the effectiveness of the SEAs. 28 national and international experts have formed a Delphi panel and evaluated the national and local conditions. Results, based upon the perceptions of the experts, indicate that the overall effectiveness of the SEAs far less from satisfactory. Negative consensus has been reached over the effectiveness of 13 out 16 criteria and 95 out of 123 sub-criteria while no consensus has been achieved over the rest of the parameters. The survey has also proven that the Delphi technique can be effectively used for the purpose. Utilisation of checklist method is also useful in diagnosing the ailing components of the SEAs. It is recommended that this approach can be used in similar cases elsewhere.

KEY WORDS: State Environmental Agencies, environmental management, Turkey, Delphi.
1. Introduction

The State Environmental Agencies (SEAs) aim to resolve the undesirable outcomes of environmental pollution and to develop remedies for the needs of environmental quality upgrading, as is the case in Turkey. The SEAs in Turkey have been assigned to similar duties by the Constitution and the main environmental legislation. Article 56 of the 1982 Constitution explicitly mentions the “right of healthy and balanced environment.” According to this Article, the state and the citizens are responsible for upgrading environmental quality, protecting environmental health and preventing environmental pollution. However, according to the Article 65, the State will execute this responsibility within the limits of available financial resources. “The Environmental Code” (Republic of Turkey -RoT- 1983) furnishes similar provisions and principles. It, however, had not contributed to the concept of sustainable development as it is primarily concerned with economic development and the generation of employment. Nevertheless, these two main legal documents have a common denominator: economic development has priority and environmental concerns will be dealt with only if financial constraints permit. Undoubtedly, these provisions are not compatible with the concept of sustainable development. This means that the level of national political will to further protect and to enhance the environmental quality is severely curtailed.
As far as the right to know is concerned, the Environmental Code furnishes the public with a strong, definitive tool. Article 30 of this Code guarantees the right to apply to administrative and legal authorities in order to prevent pollution. Besides this, it establishes a sound basis for the right to sue administrative authorities responsible for environmental protection in the courts in the event that they fail in their respective duties. Therefore, both real and legal persons may petition the authorities to have environmentally detrimental activities terminated. The responsible agency has to reply within 60 days. If it does not, the petition will be taken as rejected and the right to sue will automatically be granted to the plaintiff. New legislation entitled “Freedom of Information” (RoT 2004) has secured the right to know in environmental matters. Through the adoption of other new legislation, “the Penal Code,” (RoT 2004) environmental crimes have been re-defined and new legal sanctions, which include jail sentences for unlawful polluters, have been created. Nevertheless, the possibilities for public participation are limited. For example while “the Regulation for Environmental Impact Assessment” foresees a “public meeting” at the site where new investment is planned, the local inhabitants are merely informed about the project and their opinions simply registered. Only the “7th National Development Plan” (SPO 1998) has explicit and clear-cut provisions on the improvement of institutional set-up. Although, the 7th Plan diagnosed the institutional problems accurately and developed effective solutions, by the end of the plan period only a few of the recommendations had been realized. Moreover, despite the fact that Turkey prepared the “National Environmental Strategies and Action Plan” (NEAP) (SPO 1999), its results have thus far been negligible, too.
It should also be pointed out that the preparation and publication of the “State of the Environment Reports” have become part of neither the daily routines of the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF) nor the mechanisms of national environmental legislation-making.
A new concern has emerged during the last 25 years in Turkey with respect to the significance of environmental protection. However, it would be rather difficult to state that political will to protect and further enhance the quality of the environment has emerged at the national and local administrative levels. The concerns with rapid economic development and combating the problems of unemployment still have more priority than rendering the development more sustainable and protecting the environment.
While some countries have established successful institutional examples and effectively controlled the negative impacts of environmental and ecologic pollution, others have failed to prevent pollution. New philosophies, strategies, policies and procedures are being developed and implemented in different parts of the world. The diffusion of these trends is creating new and inspiring examples for others (Busch and others 2004). There are several examples worldwide which indicate the changing nature of the SEAs (Wang and others 2000). The first example is the new public management reform initiative in the USA by the introduction of “Governmental Performance and Results Act” (GPRA) of 1993, which had considerable impact on the SEAs, resulting in further enhancing the outcome achieved (US Congress 1993). One of the most visible outcomes of this approach is the “performance partnership agreements” between the EPA and the SEAs, which aims to increase the institutional effectiveness of environmental government organizations. OECD developed similar attempts known as “Environmental Performance Reviews” (EPR), which is further supported by the UNEP and Asian Development Bank and “Public Environmental Expenditure Management” (PEEM), which is a framework for designing successful environmental expenditure programs and choosing the right implementing institutions. The European Union (EU) has developed new approaches to environmental policies such as strategic planning, free access to environmental information and subsidiarity. The World Bank has provided strong support for the establishment of the National Environmental Strategies and Action Plans (NEAPs) and accepted NEAPs as a pre-condition for the eligibility of receiving credits.
The second example is the workshop organized by the International Network of Environmental Compliance and Enforcement (INECE). The results of the workshop and the national papers presented have indicated that there is a need for the development of a commonly acceptable and practicable performance measurement system for environmental compliance and enforcement activities (INECE 2003).
Finally, countries all over the world are trying to improve the performance and institutional effectiveness of their SEAs. For instance, China has developed a new environmental performance assessment methodology in collaboration with the World Bank. Similar attempts are being carried out in several other countries ranging from Newly Independent States to Argentina and to Canada (INECE 2003). These initiatives attempt to develop national remedies to local demands for more institutional effectiveness in the SEAs. A recent OECD study has outlined the differing approaches for the improvement of environmental public service delivery capacities of the SEAs. These approaches are ranging from the rigid and hierarchical ones in which the mandates are limited to the establishment of different environmental departments in other ministries to the establishment of inter-ministerial working groups or cabinet-level committees, commissions of enquiry, task forces and to significantly decentralized systems (OECD 2001).
Therefore, a need comes forward: to establish a framework of the basic requirements of an effective SEA. However, assessment and evaluation of the SEAs either at the national or local level has always been difficult and cumbersome due to the complexity of both the issues involved and ability to measure the institutional effectiveness levels. Development of criteria and the establishment of monitoring systems offer potential to solve the problem. Unfortunately, this is not an easy task and the assessment of the effectiveness of the SEAs has not been satisfactorily done. Such an inability, consequently, leads to deficiencies in both diagnosing the ailing components of the system and developing counter measures for the ineffective and inefficient procedures. However, studies done in this regard are rather limited (Clerici and others 2004).
This study aims at bridging the gap between the felt needs and the emerging obstacles in measuring the effectiveness level of national and local SEAs, thus creating a kind of benchmark for the assessment. In this regard, firstly, a list of effectiveness criteria has been developed, and, then, a field study has been carried out to measure the institutional effectiveness of the national and local SEAs in Turkey.

INSERT FIGURE 1

2. Materials and Method

The Delphi technique, (Helmer 1967 a, Helmer 1967 b, Jantsch 1967, 1972, Ament 1973, Enzer 1973, DeLurgio 1998, Martino 1992, Gokhale 2001, Linston and Turoff 2002) being a data collection and forecasting method, aims at removing ambiguity by improving the scientific quality of existing common knowledge through the integration of experts’ ideas. According to some writers (Linstone and Turoff 2002) “Delphi may be characterized as a method for structuring a group communication process so that the process is effective in allowing a group of individuals, as a whole, to deal with a complex problem.” Delphi is the process of constructing reality through the integration of experts’ opinion.
There are 28 panel members in this study, with three of them being international experts working in international organizations (WB, EU and French Water Management Company) and having considerable knowledge about the status of environmental management (EM) in Turkey. The remaining 25 (four university professors, three governors, three sub-governors, two mayors, four provincial directors of Environment, one State Planning Organization -SPO- expert, four NGO directors specialized in environmental matters and four industry managers) are national experts representing the academia and professional fields.
In order to measure the effectiveness of the SEAs, 16 criteria were developed by the author, based upon the analysis made over the SEAs of several countries, which were further broken down into 123 sub-criteria. Questions forming the questionnaire were in the form of stating an idea, opinion or a judgment on the questioned subject, matter, fact or parameter. The same questionnaire was used in all rounds. However, the phrases in the tables below are shortened versions of the statements appearing in the questionnaire. The members of the panel were requested to indicate their decisions by marking an (X) on the most relevant alternative in the list of the answers, ranging from “1-strongly agree” to “5-strongly disagree” (Likert scale), which best reflects the respondent’s opinion and knowledge. In addition, the panel members were asked to state the reasons for their choice. In order to inform the other members, these justifications were conveyed to them in the subsequent rounds, without displaying the name of the respondent. Frequency distributions (FDs), means (Ms), standard deviations (SDs) and members’ opinions were announced in succeeding rounds to other members by the Project Controlling Center. The research was carried on the Internet through e-mails. Three rounds of questions and answers were completed.
It was expected that at the end of each cycle, Ms would approach either side of the scale and SDs (the first standard deviation representing the 68 percent of respondents) would become smaller thus indicating whether or not consensus was achieved amongst the members of the panel with respect to the questioned sub-criterion. Therefore, the computation of the Ms and SDs became vital in understanding and deciding about the level of effectiveness of the sub-criterion. This was followed by the calculation of the mean of the means (MMs) and the mean of the standard deviations (MSDs) for the criteria. Meanwhile, sequence graphs of the Ms and SDs of each round were obtained to observe the changes of the respondents through out the survey and Pearson “r” values were computed for the Ms and SDs of each round to measure the correlation amongst the rounds. Finally, overall MMs and overall MSDs for all 123 questions were calculated to derive a general judgment over the effectiveness of the SEAs in Turkey.
The author predetermined that a negative consensus would be declared for the questioned criterion if 68 per cent of the respondents (first standard deviation) rated the criterion more than the median value (rounded sum of MMs and -/+ MSDs values of the final round is equal to or greater than the median value of 3) and a positive consensus would be declared if the 68 per cent of the respondents rated the criterion less than the median value (rounded sum of MMs and MSDs is less than 3). A non-consensus will be declared if the above-described value were both considerably smaller and bigger than the median value. Therefore, for example, MMs = 4.08 and MSDs = ± 0.79 (3.29-4.87) would be declared as a negative consensus; MMs = 2.05 and MSDs= ± 0.75 (1.30-2.80) would be declared as a positive consensus; MMs = 3.11 and MSD = ± 0.89 (2.22-4.00) would be declared as non-consensus and MMs = 3.60 and MSDs = ± 0.74 (3.60-0.74 = 2.86 ~ 3.0) would also be declared as a negative consensus.

3. Results and Discussion

The criteria of effectiveness and their corresponding sub-criteria are briefly explained below. The results (Ms, SDs and decision) of the survey are also presented in the tables designed for each criterion and sub-criterion. Therefore, the findings of the research for all components of the SEAs are given in the tables.

3.1 Political Will

Existence of political will to assure the right of environment and the sustainable development is necessary for an effective SEA. Furthermore, the right for environment includes three sub-criteria: the right to know, public participation and accessibility to judiciary on environmental matters. The right of environment and sustainability should be regulated in the constitutions or in the main legislation of the country concerned and should also be formulated in national development plans or in the investment plans of local governments. The SEAs should utilize the “State of the Environment Report” system, which is being successfully used by the parliaments in some countries for the justification of budgetary allocations for environmental expenditures. Based upon these facts, the panel members were asked the following questions to assess the willingness at national or local administrative levels for protection of the environment. The Ms and the SDs of the responses are given below in Table 1.

INSERT TABLE 1

The MMs is 3.60 and MSDs is ± 0.79 for 12 questions. Therefore, a negative consensus was achieved on this criterion meaning that political will has not been generated in the country. No positive consensus was encountered for the sub-criteria whereas negative consensus has been achieved over 6 sub-criteria. Consensus was not achieved for the rest of the sub-criteria. The result is discouraging for national environmental will. Local governments’ rating on the issue was even lower than that of the central administration. In this assessment, the expatriate members of the panel were more optimistic than the national members. Among the national experts, those representing industry were more positive than professionals, academicians and NGO representatives. Participation in environmental decision-making and the non-existence of the “State of the Environment Reports” were indicated as the most ailing components of the environmental will in Turkey.

3.2 Environmental Aims and Targets

“Aim” is the idealistic end-point of any process whereas “target” is a tangible, quantifiable, measurable and discrete end-point. Environmental aims are usually determined as planning the risks involved; assessing, managing and enhancing the carrying capacity and improving the quality of life in the area concerned. Integrating environmental and developmental decision making procedures at all levels, preventing environmental pollution and nuisances, prioritizing environmental planning and coordination issues, protecting scarce resources, institutional development of environmental impact assessment and reporting schemes, creating environmental databanks and inventories and establishing administrative focal points are also adopted as the aims of the SEAs in several cases.
However, environmental targets are different than aims. An effective administration should monitor and measure the quality for each environmental medium as well as for each specific area and should set targets to be achieved in a given period. These targets can be stated in the quality standards or in the environmental master plans or in the site-specific or pollution-specific optimization plans.
In addition to the GPRA of the USA, Sweden has adopted a new legislation on “target”- based public environmental management recently, which is comprised of principles, objectives, interim targets, strategies, and follow-up mechanisms. The overall aim of the initiative is to develop efficiency in environmental policies (Edvardsson 2004).
In Turkey, the aims of the SEAs are specified in the laws and regulations. Additionally, some certain standards for emissions and discharges are specified in the legislation.
The questions and the results are given in Table 2.

INSERT TABLE 2

Negative consensus was achieved over this criterion meaning that environmental aims and targets have not been determined satisfactorily. The analysis indicated that while the expatriate members and members representing the industry of the panel are evenly divided into opposing ideas, the other members were quite clear on the insufficiency of the environmental aims and targets. Consensus has not been achieved over the national political will when it has been taken as an individual sub-criterion. Negative consensus has been achieved over the sub-criterion of local governments’ will. Therefore, the situation is worse in local governments compared to central government.

3.3 EM Strategies of the SEAs

EM, which is solely used from the SEAs’ point of view in this research, can be defined as “control in the use of natural resources and the implementation of measures to ensure their conservation, the protection of habitats and the control of hazards” (Markandya and others 2002). EM strategies, as carried out by the national and local SEAs, can be divided into three main categories: command-and-control, voluntary EM and market-based instruments (Smith 2000).
A command-and-control strategy relies on environmental rules, standards and sanctions. A voluntary EM strategy tries to eliminate the sanctions and encourages people to voluntarily share environmental targets. The “ISO 14000 series of International Environmental Management Standards (IEMS),” the “Eco-Management and Auditing Regulation (EMAR)” of the EU, the “President’s Excellence and Leadership Program” and “Common Sense Initiative” of the US EPA and voluntary agreements between industry and the SEAs are the examples of this strategy. Market-based instruments of EM intend to assure the internalization of negative externalities caused by the polluters and thus impose effective financial and economic sanctions on the polluters to correct environmentally inappropriate practices, habits and actions. All of these strategies have somehow found place in Turkey. However, the scope of implementation remains limited when compared to the country’s needs and the status of practice in other countries.
Table 3 gives the questions asked and obtained results.

INSERT TABLE 3

Negative consensus was achieved for this criterion. The results indicate that the SEAs in Turkey have not satisfactorily developed or implemented EM strategies. Negative consensus was achieved on 5 sub-criteria; consensus failed to be obtained on the rest of the sub-criteria. The respondents rate conditions in local governments even less favorably.

3.4 Environmental Policies

Reports of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development on Turkey (OECD 1992, 1999) indicate that discrete and material foundations have not been identified in environmental policies. Development plans, the NEAP and the national and local Agenda 21s support this contention. The rhetoric of these documents has not been satisfactorily translated into action. The survey asked panel members several questions pertaining to policies and got the following results.

INSERT TABLE 4

Negative consensus was achieved on the adequacy of environmental policies in Turkey. Out of a total of six criteria having to do with environmental policies, two (activities of the MoEF and the SPO) sub-criteria achieved no consensus while negative consensus was achieved over the rest of the sub-criteria. Local policy development is even less favorable than that at the national level. The merger of the ministries of Environment and Forestry has not changed the pessimistic outlook of the panel members. NGOs were the most critical sub-group for environmental policies of both national and local SEAs.

3.5 Environmental Functions and Procedures

The functions of the SEAs can be technical, administrative, legal, economic or financial in nature. Some functions and procedures should be available to environmental managers and to those who are responsible for compliance management. At a minimum, these functions ought to include the ability to determine the extent of pollution in the environmental media. These include level of emissions, discharges, and dispersion of pollutants, and recording changes over time and space. Standards for measurement, analysis and calibration, as well as appropriate sampling and sound laboratory practices are also crucial. An effective environmental impact assessment and reporting procedure is an essential part of the SEAs. Permit and licensing procedures that can control operations, discharges and emissions should not be ignored. This goes for the development of legal procedures, too. A means through which rule-breakers are prosecuted is also an indispensable part of a workable SEA system. This can include the creation of legal sanctions like fines, imprisonment or partial, total, temporary or permanent closure of plants that are in violation of regulations. Still other functions of the SEAs are the prevention of pollution, risk assessment and reduction, improvement of science for environment, research and technology, provision of environmental education to the masses, regulatory development, enforcement, strategic planning and budgeting, funding, managing human resources, training for environment, information resources management, free public access to information, establishing data networks and sharing the data. The load of external and international relations of the SEAs should not be underestimated. The questions directed to the panel members and the obtained responses with respect to the sufficiency and effectiveness of environmental procedures are given below.

INSERT TABLE 5

Negative consensus (MMs = 3.97 and MSDs ± 0.74) was achieved on national environmental functions and procedures. This results was also confirmed by the answers given to a summary judgment: “The effectiveness and competency levels of the functions and processes … as performed by all responsible ministries, the Ministry of Environment (and Forestry) and “the Specially Protected Areas Administration” and by their field organizations till now since the establishment of these institutions within the context of national SEAs are good and positive.” The M of the answers given to that judgment was 3.79 with a SD of ± 0.74. The proximity of this value to the value of the MMs and MSDs is striking. 22 sub-criteria were measured. Negative consensus was achieved on 20 sub-criteria. No consensus was achieved only on two sub-criteria and there was no positive consensus.

INSERT TABLE 6

Results of the survey on the effectiveness of the local environmental functions and procedures are provided in Table 6. A stronger negative consensus was achieved on local environmental activities. The MMs obtained for this question was 4.08 with a MSDs of ± 0.72. Negative consensus was achieved on all sub-criteria. Again the proximity of the MMs and MSDs to the value of summary judgment should be noted. The summary judgment was as follows: “The effectiveness and competency levels of the functions and processes as listed in the questions … and as performed by the local governments within the context of local SEAs are good and positive.” The M was 4.07 and SD was ± 0.60 for this question. This basically indicates a strong but negative consensus having been achieved amongst the panel members, with the institutional effectiveness of the local governments being graded even less compared to central government.

3. 6 Environmental Criteria and Standards
Environmental standards are the most crucial inputs of a “command-and-control” strategy. What the public cares about and what it wants has to be determined under the given characteristics of the ambient environment. This then must be translated into numerical and tangible values. By enforcing these standards, public agencies will pave the way for better environmental quality and the creation of a more protective shield for groups at risk. Environmental standards have also been promulgated in Turkey. In order to measure their effectiveness and sufficiency, the following questions were asked.

INSERT TABLE 7

The results given in Table 7 indicate that there was no consensus on environmental standards in Turkey (MMs = 3.32, MSDs = ± 0.99) amongst the members of the panel. Likewise, no consensus was achieved on five out of six sub-criteria and only one negative consensus was achieved for the sub-criterion of standardization of standard making. There was no positive consensus for any sub-criterion. However, the inclination towards the ineffectiveness of the environmental standards should be noticed. The cross tabulation analysis showed that the international members of the panel and the members coming from the industry were more satisfied compared to other subgroups. The academicians and the provincial directors of the Ministry of Environment became the most critical subgroups in this category.
3.7 Environmental Planning

Along with the performance management, strategic planning was the most essential component of a management system. Strategic planning requires objectives, targets, strategies, policies, actions, timing and placing for any action in concern. It also requires both internal and external assessment, measurable targets, priority development, internal consensus and an environmental observatory to monitor both the developmental activities and changes in environmental parameters. Furthermore, strategic planning must assess the critical issues involved, such as human resources, financial resources, data resources, strengths and weaknesses, present strategy, organizational structure, organizational culture, opportunities, environmental trends, political economic and social trends, stakeholders, threats, and trends in technology, statutory constraints and public opinion. The planning process begins with preliminary work designed to define regional characteristics. Demographic, geographic, topographic, economic and urban parameters are among the many parameters that must be included. Later, a methodology should be determined for data gathering and retrieval in terms of monitoring networks, minimum data required, data processing and data banks. The obtained data should be analyzed, mean parametric values as well as maximum and minimum values calculated, FDs obtained, trends identified and pollution indices developed. The succeeding stage should be simulation and modeling and developing solution alternatives. An ideal environmental planning process should include the following: determining the status of environment; assessing the availability of natural resources, minerals and human resources in the area; assessing the present pollution loads in the area; developing an integrated environmental planning considering the assimilative and supportive capacities of the environment.
This approach has best been defined by the GPRA of 1993 in the USA. The EPA formulated its own version of environmental planning under the guidance of GPRA and requested the development of “strategic planning,” “goal planning,” “annual performance plans,” “performance results,” “cost accounting” and “the planning, budgeting, analysis and accountability” (PBAA) system from the SEAS.
In Turkey, planning conducted in public agencies mainly consists of land-use schemes and is hierarchical in orientation. The top plan in the hierarchy is the 5-year “development plans” which are conducted by the SPO and based upon the concept of sector planning. The second level is supposed to be the “regional plans” both for land-use and sector development. Institutional responsibility again belongs to the SPO. However, with the exception of Southeastern Anatolia Plan, no such a plan has yet been prepared. The next level is called the “environmental order plan.” The content of this plan is controversial. The Ministry of Public Works (MoPW) looks at this plan as a “land-use plan” whereas the MoEF approaches it in more ‘environmental’ terms. Then there are the urban plans, which are further subdivided into implementation plans. Additionally, such environmental regulations as “Air Quality Protection,” “Water Pollution Prevention,” “Noise Prevention” and “Solid Waste Control” also mention the concept of planning without actually defining and describing the content and the methodology. These environmental plans have never been prepared by any public agency despite the fact that nearly 20 years have passed since the promulgation of these regulations.
The questions prepared under these considerations are seen in Table 8.


INSERT TABLE 8

Negative consensus was achieved over the sufficiency of environmental planning activities in Turkey (MMs = 3.86, MSDs = ± 0.65). Correspondingly, negative consensus was obtained over four out of five sub-criteria. No consensus was achieved over the private environmental auditing companies’ contributions to the solution of industrial environmental problems.

3.8 Institutional Set-up: Old and New Organization Models

EM requires an organization to manage and oversee the environment. However, the task of establishing an effective and efficient SEA necessitates delicate handling of the problem from the perspective of political preferences, interagency relations, funding opportunities, creating and reflecting political will and securing public support. Determining the mission of the organization, defining the major environmental problems that need to be tackled, understanding how these problems are already being taken care of, which existing agencies are assuming responsibility, and the way in which these agencies derive powers; setting up the legal framework, understanding the formal procedure of establishing a new public organization; determining who will make the ultimate decisions; deciding on the format of the agency to be established; and specifying the administrative functions of the new organization as well as the relations between the central government and the local governments will be the main issues to be tackled. As far as interagency relations are concerned, determining the environmental programs in effect and the managing role of existing agencies for them; understanding the strengths and weaknesses of existing interagency relations; and forecasting the need for cooperation are the major issues to be addressed. As far as funding and financing issues are concerned, there are several other concerns that have to be dealt with. These include the determination of priorities, selection of decision-makers, expansion of the role and the share of the private sector, and methods by which money to be spent from the budget is allocated (Ryding 1992). Once decided upon, the internal organizational structure should be established for the operation of core functions such as budgeting, planning, facility management, personnel administration, information management, external affairs, legal counseling and policy development. Additionally, the focal points of each environmental media should be established to set standards, to monitor compliance, to prevent pollution, to assess risks and to take remedial action.
The organizational structure of the Turkish SEAs is given in Figure 1. The system is divided into two main branches: central government agencies (including field organization) and the local governments. In the central government, in addition to the main institution of the MoEF, there are several other ministries taking part in the system. In the MoEF, in addition to the central ministerial organization, a special unit has been formed to manage the Specially Protected Areas. Two funds have been established for both organizations. However, these funds are not operational at the moment. There are two different types of municipalities in the country: the two-tier metropolitan municipalities and the single tier municipalities. The municipalities also have significant responsibilities. The following sub-criteria tried to be measured.

INSERT TABLE 9

Negative consensus was achieved over the effectiveness of the institutional set-up of the SEAs of Turkey at the national and local level (MMs = 3.79, MSDs = ± 0.79). Negative consensus was also achieved on seven out of nine sub-criteria.

INSERT TABLE 10

Turkey has recently witnessed an organizational shake up, mainly upon the advice of the EU experts. Under this reorganization, the ministries of the Environment and Forestry were merged. Through this unification, both the central and the field organization of the both ministries were modified. The panel members were asked to predict the future success of this modification. Negative consensus has been achieved over the chance of success of the new model.

3.9 Legal Infrastructure

An effective SEA requires well-founded legal rules, norms and sanctions. Negative externalities create disputes and result in conflict of interests between rival parties requiring the intervention of impartial judges as well the implementation of sanctions to wrongdoers. The history of legal developments for the protection of the environment is rather long in Turkey. Pertinent legislation goes back to establishment years of the new Republic. In the Code Civil (RoT 1926, 2003) “responsibilities of the owner” and “the rights of neighbors” have been regulated thus paving the way for better environmental relations amongst the private individuals. In the domain of public law, “the Code on Provincial Administration” (RoT 1949), authorized the provincial governors and district sub-governors to act, as they deemed fit to deal with ecological and environmental problems. The Municipal Code (RoT 1930), empowered municipalities to take every possible action to control and upgrade the urban sanitation. Another code dated same year, the Code of Public Health (RoT 1930 a), gave considerable power and authority to protect public health. Several other regulations, which are still in force, were prepared and put into effect based upon two above-mentioned codes regulating the urban sanitation and civic law-and-order.
The 1982 Constitution, a cornerstone in environmental law, specified “the right to healthy and balanced environment” as a human right. With the new constitution, a series of environmental legislation came into effect. Later, Turkey adopted the approach of creating special management zones for some areas having critical ecosystems. “The Decree on Specially Protected Environmental Zones” (RoT 1985) has been put into implementation.
Several regulations have been prepared to manage environmental quality in such areas as air, water, noise and domestic and hazardous solid wastes. Recent legislation on public administration and local government reform increased the role of local governments in environmental matters. New penal code has developed new definitions and sanctions for environmental crimes. Moreover, the courts, including the administrative courts and the Constitutional Court, have made binding decisions on environmental quality, and in the process have interpreted, consolidated and further developed the legal content. Turkey has also become a partner of or signatory to more than 50 multinational agreements on environment.

INSERT TABLE 11

No consensus was achieved on either the criterion of sufficiency of legal powers or the three sub-criteria.

3.10 Institutionalization of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

EIA has become the most effective tool of the SEAs during the last 30 years, especially in the developed world. Principally, EIA requires forecasting and analysis of the potential impacts of any undertaking before the site selection; final commitment of financial resources and final decision over the technical process to be employed for the proposed investment is made (Yasamis 1997). Turkey decided to establish such a system in 1983 with the enactment of the Code of Environment. Though the code states that details would be spelled out in a regulation to be issued within one-year, it took more than ten years for that regulation to be prepared, becoming effective only as of January 1st, 1994. Since then, the regulation has gone through three major modifications. The sites and projects subject to EIA have been delineated on two different lists. The first list, called “full-EIA,” requires EIA for important and large-scale projects and infrastructures. The second list, called “preliminary-EIA,” identifies the small projects subject to EIA. Management responsibility of both lists belongs to the MoEF now. However, the management responsibility for the second list has been delegated to governors. The panel members were asked the questions with answers statistically evaluated and summarized in Table 12.

INSERT TABLE 12

No consensus was achieved on either the criterion of effectiveness of EIA or two sub-criteria related to full-EIA and preliminary-EIA.

3.11 Technical Infrastructure

An effective SEA requires expensive and sophisticated technical equipment to monitor, diagnose and understand the environmental phenomena over time and space. Furthermore, pollution and wastes needs to be treated and disposed of safely. Although there are some hopeful indications of new investments in this regard, such as the construction of wastewater treatment plants in bigger cities, so far only 20 per cent of the urban wastewater is being treated and only less than three per cent of the municipalities have sanitary and secure landfills and disposal systems for solid wastes.


INSERT TABLE 13

Negative consensus was achieved on (MMs = 4.31, MSDs = ± 0.63) the criterion of sufficiency of infrastructure and the four sub-criteria as indicated in Table 13.

3.12 Market-Based Instruments

The market-type financial end economic tools are being applied more globally. Although there are some “quasi” economic tools of EM in Turkey, they have not gained considerable momentum. The wielding of economic and financial tools ought to have the effect of changing the unacceptable behavior of polluters. For this to work, however, the tax rate should be at least equal to the marginal cost of abatement, treatment or disposal. The concept of marketable pollution quota has not yet been introduced. Deposit and refunding systems exists but are not effective. Developmental subsidies are predominant. Environmental subsidies have also been introduced into the national subsidy scheme recently. Environmental funds are neither sufficient nor used rationally and sensibly. Waste markets have not yet been established. Waste collection systems similar to “green points” are only exemplary in nature but not effective or widespread. Environmental accounting principles have not yet introduced at either the macro or micro level. Neither is there an environmental risk insurance system set up at the moment. Consequently, the development of financial and economic tools of EM should be one of the most important priorities in Turkey. Having them would allow for more effective EM in the upcoming years.

INSERT TABLE 14

The adequacy of economic and financial tools in Turkey with the exception of effectiveness of pollution emission charges/fees sub-criteria was another area of the survey in which the panel members achieved negative consensus (MMs = 4.17, MSDs = ± 0.68).

3.13 Environmental Education and Human Resources Management
An effective SEA should aim at changing the people’s environmentally undesirable mode of behaviors towards environment through enlightening and informing the people on the environmental matters, developing expertise and know-how on environmental technology and training professionals for future employment opportunities. Since environmental management is a composite discipline combining branches of science, it requires a well-balanced and well-designed manpower planning.

INSERT TABLE 15

Another negative consensus was achieved on the criterion of sufficiency and effectiveness of the environmental training and human resources management for environment in Turkey. Negative consensus also was achieved on all of the six related sub-criteria.
3.14 Management Concepts
The very last criterion in the checklist is devoted to the science of management. Contemporary management science is basically related to the concept of “target.” The overall philosophy of today’s management understanding concentrates mainly on the “results achieved.” The mutual relation between the science of environment and the science of management is very strong and both have a strong common denominator: “target”. Management tries to realize set targets. Through monitoring, environmental management information systems and appraisal components it intends to take corrective actions as a continuous and iterative cycle. In this regard, the SEAs should set future environmental quality targets by developing programs and action plans to realize the desired and intended outcomes. This approach has been realized as a major management reform in the US by the introduction of GPRA, which requires strategic plans, performance plans, and annual performance reports.
In Turkey, however, under the obtained results of the panel, it is not possible to say that such an understanding of management is prevalent at the SEAs. The results are given in Table 16.

INSERT TABLE 16

The panel members achieved a strong consensus on the non-existence of modern management techniques in the environmental enforcement and compliance management institutions at both national and local levels.

4. Findings

The findings of the research for all sub-criteria are provided in the tables above. An overall summary of the survey (MMs and SDs for each criteria) is also given in Table 17. Thus, the effectiveness of each sub-criterion was decided. This was followed by the decisions for every criterion on the list. Finally, the overall effectiveness of the SEAs was determined.

INSERT TABLE 17

To sum:
1. None of the measured criteria or sub-criteria obtained positive consensus. The panel members achieved negative consensus on 13 out of 16 criteria and on 95 sub-criteria out of total of 123. Only on three criteria (environmental standards, legal powers and the EIA system) was no consensus at all achieved. Therefore, results indicate a firm negative evaluation of the institutional effectiveness of the SEAs in Turkey. This basic fact indicates a need for a radical shake-up of the existing mode of practices of the SEAs at national and even more, at the local levels. This finding is line with other studies on the issue. A recent study (Sezer and others 2003) concluded that limited financial input is not the sole reason for the ineffectiveness of the SEAs. On the contrary, it found that the main reason was related to weak capabilities of policy implementation and enforcement in Turkey.
2. The opinion of the experts on the overall effectiveness of the SEAs is negative. Also in the three successive rounds of expert views showed a tendency towards consensus. The overall MMs of 123 questions was 3.42 in the first round, which became 3.87 in the second round and 3.85 in the final round. Therefore, negative perceptions increased amongst the members of the panel as the rounds proceeded. The calculated MMs of 3.85 in the final round is rather remarkable and points to an overall dissatisfaction of the experts with the system. The sequence graph of Ms of each question is given below. The discrepancy between the first round and the subsequent second and third round is clear.

INSERT FIGURE 2

3. The MSDs narrowed down from 1.07 in the first round to 0.91 in the second round and to 0.78 in the final round. This reduction is a statistically important finding of the survey and proves the dependability of the Delphi technique in creating a consensus over such confused and vague issues as judging environmental success in a country. The sequence graph of the SDs of each round is given in Figure 3. Again the discrepancy between the first and the subsequent rounds is easily visible.

INSERT FIGURE 3

The correlation tables of the Ms and SDs are given in Table 18 below. The correlation of Ms of each round with other rounds was found to be significant at the 0.01 level, which indicates the consistency amongst the rounds. The correlation of SDs between the second and the third round was found to be significant at the 0.01 level, which indicates the consistency between these two rounds.

INSERT TABLE 18


5. Conclusions and Recommendation

Two important conclusions are drawn from the survey.

1. The results given above support the hypothesis of the research: through the developed checklist and the Delphi technique it is possible to assess the effectiveness of the SEAs at national and local level.

2. Analysis of answers helps to diagnose the ineffective, inefficient and ailing components of the existing system at the criteria (13 out of 16) and sub-criteria levels (95 out of 123) thus paving the way to plan and implement the corrective actions to be taken for a better performance in the future. This also proves that such an approach can be used in places where detailed appraisal is not easy due to the lack of data and information.
The realization of an effective SEA either at the national and local level is a complicated and difficult job. Even so, countries are still attempting to establish environmental bodies. A dependable, well-structured and scientifically proven approach can help these countries in their struggle to increase the institutional effectiveness of national and local SEAs.
Despite the growing number of the SEAs and inherent difficulties in establishing such an organization, technical consultancy and guidance provided to them so far remained limited, and unsatisfactory in many countries. An attempt has been made in this paper to fill this gap. The above given results of the survey indicate that the survey have achieved its objectives. It is shown that the assessment of the effectiveness of the SEAs through the Delphi technique is possible.
Therefore, it is recommended that the method and the checklist developed in this survey can be used for similar purposes elsewhere.
LITERATURE CITED
Ament, R. H. 1973. Comparison of Delphi forecasting studies. Pages 164-175 in Search for Alternatives: Public Policy and the Study of the Future. Winthrop Publications. London.
Busch, P.O., H. Jörgens, and K. Tews (eds). 2004. The global diffusion of regulatory instruments: The making of a new international environmental regime. http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2004-021a.htm
China State Environmental Protection Administration. 2001. CIPPS: New information tools for China’s environmental agencies: A final project report to infoDev. www.infodev.org/projects/environment/147CIPPS/147final.pdf
Clerici, N., A. Bodini, and A. Ferrarini. 2004. Sustainability at the local scale: Defining highly aggregated indices for assessing environmental performance. The Province of Reggio Emilia (Italy) as a case study. Environmental Management. On line. 17 November 2004.
DeLurgio, S. A. 1998. Forecasting principles and applications. Irwin McGraw Hill. 802 pp.
Edvardsson, K. 2004. Using goals in environmental management: The Swedish system of environmental objectives. Environmental Management 34 (2):170–180.
Enzer, S. 1973. Delphi and cross impact techniques: an effective combination for systematic future analysis. Pages 143-163 in Search for Alternatives: Public Policy and the Study of the Future. Winthrop Publications. London.
Gokhale, A. A. 2001. Environmental initiative prioritization with a Delphi approach: A case study. Environmental Management 28 (2): 187 – 193.

Helmer, O. 1967 a. Systematic use of expert opinions. The Rand Corporation. California. 11 pp.
Helmer, O. 1967 b. Analysis of the future: The Delphi method. The Rand Corporation. California. 11 pp.
INECE. 2003. Measuring what matters. Proceedings from the INECE-OECD Workshop on environmental compliance and enforcement indicators. 3-4 November 2003. OECD. Paris.
Jantsch, Erich. 1967. Technological Forecasting in Perspective: a Framework for Technological Forecasting, its Technique and Organisation; a Description of Activities and an Annotated Bibliography. OECD. Paris, 401 pp.
Jantsch, Erich. 1972. Technological planning and social futures. Hallstead Press. 256 pp.
Linstone, H. A, and Turoff M. (eds). 2002. The Delphi Method: techniques and applications. Electronic book. http://www.is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook
Markandya, A., Parelet, R., Mason P., and Taylor T. 2003. Dictionary of environmental economics. Earthscan Publications. 196 pp.
Martino, J. P. 1972. Technological forecasting for decision-making. McGraw Hill. New York, 462 pp.
OECD. 1992. Environmental policies in Turkey. Paris, 172 pp. In Turkish.
OECD. 1999. Environmental performance review: Turkey. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/30/2452088.pdf
OECD. 2001. Environmental outlook. Electronic book. www1.oecd.org/publications/e-book/9701011E.PDF
Republic of Turkey. 1926. Code Civil. In Turkish.
Republic of Turkey. 2003. Code Civil. In Turkish.
Republic of Turkey. 1983. Code of Environment. In Turkish.
Republic of Turkey. 1930. Code of Municipalities (1930). In Turkish.
Republic of Turkey. 1930 a. Code on Public Health. In Turkish.
Republic of Turkey. 1949. Code on Provincial Administration. In Turkish.
Republic of Turkey. 1985. Decree Law on the Specially Protected Zones. In Turkish.
Republic of Turkey. 2004. Code on Freedom of Information. In Turkish.
Republic of Turkey. 2004. Penal Code. In Turkish.
Ryding, S. O. 1992. Environmental management handbook. Lewis Publishers. Amsterdam, 777 pp.
Sezer S., Kocasoy, G., and Aruoba C. 2003. How vital is the “lack of funding” in effective environmental management in Turkey? Waste Management 23 (5): 455-461.
Smith, T. B. 2000. Evolving strategies for environmental management in Asia: From command-and-control to voluntary compliance. Australian Journal of Public Administration. 22 (1): 3-32.
SPO. 1998. National development plan. State Planning Organization, Turkey. http://ekutup.dpt.gov.tr/plan/viii/plan8i.pdf
SPO. 1999. National environmental strategies and action plan (NEAP). State Planning Organization, Turkey. http://ekutup.dpt.gov.tr/cevre/eylempla/neap.html
US Congress. 1993. Governmental performance and results act. www.whitehouse.gov/omb/mgmt-gpra/gplaw2m.html
Wang, M. S., Fang, J. K. and. Bowen W.M. 2000. An integrated framework for public sector environmental management in developing countries. Environmental Management 25 (5): 463 – 476.
Yasamis, F. D. 1997. Environmental impact assessment. Ankara, 336 pp. In Turkish.










FIGURE 1
THE SEAs IN TURKEY
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
Greater Municipality/Mayor
Municipality/Mayor
Provincial Special Administration
/Governor/Elected Members
Village/Headman
CENTRAL ORGANIZATION
FIELD ORGANIZATION
Ministry of Environment and Forestry
Other ministries/SPO
Specially Protected Areas Administration
Fund: Environmental Protection
Fund: Specially Protected Areas
Provincial Governor

Provincial Director

District Sub-governor

District Director
Provincial Foundation of Environment/Governor
Higher Council of Environment

Council
of Environment
Provincial Local Council of Environment / Governor

























FIGURE 2
MEANS IN ALL ROUNDS












FIGURE 3
SD VALUES IN ALL ROUNDS












TABLE 1
EXISTENCE OF NATIONAL AND LOCAL WILL
SUBCRITERIA
M
SD
CONSENSUS
1. Political will in Turkey at the national level
3.57
0.79
NEGATIVE
2. Political will in Turkey at the local government level
3.82
0.67
NEGATIVE
3. “The Right of Environment”-central government
3.46
0.84
NONE
4. “The Right of Environment”-local government
3.79
0.50
NEGATIVE
5. Participation in the central government
4.14
0.59
NEGATIVE
6. Participation in the local government
4.04
0.58
NEGATIVE
7. Accessibility to judiciary
3.36
0.78
NONE
8. The Turkish Constitution and the “Sustainable development principle”
3.46
1.07
NONE
9. “Sustainable development principle” and the basic legislation
3.11
1.13
NONE
10. “Sustainable development principle” and National Development Plans and the annual investment programs
3.11
1.07
NONE
11. “Sustainable development principle” and the “National Environmental Strategies and Action Plan”
2.71
0.98
NONE
12. Existence of “State of the Environment Reports”
4.64
0.49
NEGATIVE
Overall
3.60
0.79
NEGATIVE













TABLE 2
SETTING ENVIRONMENTAL AIMS AND TARGETS
SUBCRITERIA
M
SD
CONSENSUS
1. Development of “aims” and “objectives/targets” of national environment management
3.61
0.96
NONE
2. Development of “aims” and “objectives/targets” of local environment management
4.00
0.54
NEGATIVE
Overall
3.81
0.75
NEGATIVE




















TABLE 3
DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGIES
SUBCRITERIA
M
SD
CONSENSUS
1. Sufficiency of “the command and control strategy” by the central government and by its field organizations
3.89
0.63
NEGATIVE
2. Sufficiency of “the command and control strategy” by the local governments
4.07
0.60
NEGATIVE
3. Adequacy of “voluntary compliance strategy”
4.29
0.85
NEGATIVE
4. Effectiveness of “ISO 14001” system
3.46
0.88
NONE
5. Effectiveness of “the market-based instruments of EM”
4.36
0.56
NEGATIVE
6. Success of the central government in developing and implementing strategies
3.43
1.00
NONE
7. Chance of success of the recently formed “The Ministry of Environment and Forestry”
3.50
1.07
NONE
8. Success of the local governments in developing and implementing strategies
4.18
0.55
NEGATIVE
Overall
3.90
0.77
NEGATIVE






















TABLE 4
ADEQUACY OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
SUBCRITERIA
M
SD
CONSENSUS
1. Success of MoE in developing national environment policies
3.21
0.92
NONE
2. Success of the State Planning Organization in developing environmental policies
3.54
0.96
NONE
3. Success of “The Administration of Specially Protected Areas” in developing policies
3.64
0.78
NEGATIVE
4. Success of the Central Government’s “High Environment Committee” in developing policies
4.18
0.72
NEGATIVE
5. Success of the local governments in developing local environmental policies
4.18
0.61
NEGATIVE
6. Chance of success of the new model of “the Ministry of Environment and Forestry”
3.79
0.79
NEGATIVE
Overall
3.76
0.80
NEGATIVE























TABLE 5
SUCCESS IN CENTRAL ENVIRONMENTAL
FUNCTIONS AND PROCEDURES
SUBCRITERIA
M
SD
CONSENSUS
1. Determining pollution
3.86
0.80
NEGATIVE
2. Measuring the environment quality of environmental media, emissions and discharges of pollutants and spatial and temporal diffusion patterns of the pollutants
3.82
0.61
NEGATIVE
3. Developing standards for monitoring, measurement, sampling, analyzing, calibration and good laboratory practices
3.75
0.65
NEGATIVE
4. Effective implementation of “permitting” and “licensing” systems/procedures for work place operations and for the emissions and discharges of the pollutants and the wastes
3.64
0.78
NEGATIVE
5. Prevention of pollution
3.93
0.60
NEGATIVE
6. Environmental risk assessment, planning, management and reduction activities
4.00
0.72
NEGATIVE
7. Scientific researches and technology development studies for environment
4.04
0.84
NEGATIVE
8. Insuring sufficient budget and financial resources for environmental activities
4.32
0.61
NEGATIVE
9. Managing environmental funds in a way that contributes to environmental protection activities
4.50
0.84
NEGATIVE
10. Establishing human resources planning and management system for environment
4.18
0.55
NEGATIVE
11. Fulfilling the international obligations and responsibilities on environment
3.39
0.79
NONE
12. Environmentally sound land use planning
4.04
0.64
NEGATIVE
13. Establishing economic incentive schemes for environmental protection and enhancement
4.36
0.56
NEGATIVE
14. Establishing measurement and monitoring systems
3.96
0.58
NEGATIVE
15. Providing clean-fuel and raw materials to producers to protect the environment
3.93
0.86
NEGATIVE
16. Establishing environmental insurance system against the environmental risks and accidents
4.36
0.87
NEGATIVE
17. Abating/combating/cleaning up the pollutions
3.93
0.86
NEGATIVE
18. Establishing wastewater treatment facilities is good and positive
3.71
0.81
NEGATIVE
19. Establishing secure land filling and disposal sites for solid wastes
4.00
0.67
NEGATIVE
20. Establishing re-cycling and re-use facilities for recoverable solid wastes
4.11
0.88
NEGATIVE
21. Taking precautions/measures against noise
4.00
0.86
NEGATIVE
22. Taking precautions/measures against air pollution
3.54
1.00
NONE
Overall
3.97
0.74
NEGATIVE


















TABLE 6
SUCCESS IN LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL FUNCTIONS AND PROCEDURES
SUBCRITERIA
M
SD
CONSENSUS
1. Determining pollution
4.11
0.74
NEGATIVE
2. Measuring the environment quality of environmental media, emissions and discharges of pollutants and spatial and temporal diffusion patterns of the pollutants
4.11
0.79
NEGATIVE
3. Developing standards for monitoring, measurement, sampling, analyzing, calibration and good laboratory practices
4.11
0.74
NEGATIVE
4. Effective implementation of “permitting” and “licensing” systems/procedures for work place operations and for the emissions and discharges of the pollutants and the wastes
3.93
0.54
NEGATIVE
5. Prevention of pollution
4.11
0.69
NEGATIVE
6. Environmental risk assessment, planning, management and reduction activities
4.25
0.70
NEGATIVE
7. Scientific researches and technology development studies for environment
4.29
0.76
NEGATIVE
8. Insuring sufficient budget and financial resources for environmental activities
4.25
0.70
NEGATIVE
9. Managing environmental funds in a way that contributes to environmental protection activities
4.43
0.69
NEGATIVE
10. Establishing human resources planning and management system for environment
4.32
0.55
NEGATIVE
11. Fulfilling the international obligations and responsibilities on environment
4.18
0.90
NEGATIVE
12. Environmentally sound land use planning
4.00
0.54
NEGATIVE
13. Establishing economic incentive scheme for environmental protection and enhancement
4.36
0.68
NEGATIVE
14. Establishing measurement and monitoring systems
3.96
0.74
NEGATIVE
15. Providing clean-fuel and raw materials to producers to protect the environment
3.86
0.89
NEGATIVE
16. Establishing environmental insurance system against the environmental risks and accidents
4.21
0.88
NEGATIVE
17. Abating/combating/cleaning up the pollutions
3.86
0.80
NEGATIVE
18. Establishing wastewater treatment facilities is good and positive
3.68
0.61
NEGATIVE
19. Establishing secure land filling and disposal sites for solid wastes
3.79
0.79
NEGATIVE
20. Establishing re-cycling and re-use facilities for recoverable solid wastes
4.11
0.79
NEGATIVE
21. Taking precautions/measures against noise
4.11
0.57
NEGATIVE
22. Taking precautions/measures against air pollution
3.79
0.79
NEGATIVE
Overall
4.08
0.72
NEGATIVE















TABLE 7
SUFFICIENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS
SUBCRITERIA
M
SD
CONSENSUS
1. Suitability and sufficiency of the ambient environment quality standards
3.07
1.21
NONE
2. Suitability and sufficiency of the standards for polluted air emission and wastewater discharges
2.96
1.17
NONE
3. Suitability and sufficiency of the standards relating to production materials/inputs
3.43
0.69
NONE
4. Suitability and sufficiency of the fuel standards
3.11
0.99
NONE
5. Suitability and sufficiency of the implementation status and conditions of ISO 14000 series “International Environment Management Standards”
3.39
0.92
NONE
6. Standardization of environmental standard making procedures
3.93
0.98
NEGATIVE
Overall
3.32
0.99
NONE





















TABLE 8
SUCCESS IN ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
SUBCRITERIA
M
SD
CONSENSUS
1. The national environmental planning activities
4.11
0.57
NEGATIVE
2. The local environmental planning activities
4.25
0.59
NEGATIVE
3. Satisfaction over “The National Agenda 21” of Turkey
3.68
0.61
NEGATIVE
4. Success of the activities in relation to “The Local Agenda 21”
3.71
0.66
NEGATIVE
5. Satisfaction over the private environmental auditing companies’ contributions to the solution of industrial environmental problems
3.57
0.84
NONE
Overall
3.86
0.65
NEGATIVE
























TABLE 9
EFFECTIVENESS OF INSTITUTIONAL SET-UP
SUBCRITERIA
M
SD
CONSENSUS
1. Organizational success and effectiveness of “the Turkish Ministry of Environment”
3.86
0.93
NEGATIVE
2. Success of the “Environment Protection Fund”
4.11
0.69
NEGATIVE
3. Organizational success and effectiveness of the Administration of Specially Protected Areas
3.43
0.69
NONE
4. Success of “The Fund of Specially Protected Areas”
3.68
0.61
NEGATIVE
5. Organizational success and management effectiveness of “the Provincial Environment Directorates”
3.75
0.70
NEGATIVE
6. Organizational success and management effectiveness of” the Provincial Environment Foundations”
3.96
0.92
NEGATIVE
7. Lack of environmental organization at the sub-provincial level
3.82
1.36
NONE
8. Success of “The Local Environment Committees”
3.61
0.69
NEGATIVE
9. Organizational success and management effectiveness of “the Greater Municipalities and Municipalities”
3.93
0.54
NEGATIVE
Overall
3.79
0.79
NEGATIVE











TABLE 10
OPTIMISM ABOUT THE NEW ORGANIZATIONAL MODEL
SUBCRITERIA
M
SD
CONSENSUS
1. Appropriateness of merging the Ministry of Forestry and the Ministry of Environment
3.96
1.07
NEGATIVE
2. Chance of success of the new model in future
3.89
0.88
NEGATIVE
3. Chance of success of the new field organization model (the Provincial Directorate of Environment and Forestry)
3.86
0.93
NEGATIVE
Overall
3.90
0.96
NEGATIVE




















TABLE 11
ADEQUACY OF LEGAL POWERS AND AUTHORITIES
SUBCRITERIA
M
SD
CONSENSUS
1. Sufficiency of legal powers/authorities
3.32
1.02
NONE
2. Effectiveness of environmental penalties/sanctions
3.18
1.16
NONE
3. Lack of environmental police
3.50
1.20
NONE
Overall
3.33
1.13
NONE






















TABLE 12
SUCCESS OF EIA
SUBCRITERIA
M
SD
CONSENSUS
1. Effectiveness of the Environmental Impact Assessment practices of the central government
3.43
1.00
NONE
2. Effectiveness of the preliminary environmental impact assessment practices of provincial governorates and the Local Environment Committees
3.32
0.90
NONE
Overall
3.38
0.95
NONE
























TABLE 13
ADEQUACY OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE
SUBCRITERIA
M
SD
CONSENSUS
1. Adequacy of urban and industrial wastewater treatment centers
4.39
0.57
NEGATIVE
2. Effectiveness and adequacy of air quality monitoring systems
4.18
0.77
NEGATIVE
3. Adequacy of sanitary/secure solid waste disposal/land filling sites and solid waste recycling facilities
4.61
0.50
NEGATIVE
4. Adequacy of environmental analysis laboratories
4.07
0.66
NEGATIVE
Overall
4.31
0.63
NEGATIVE
























TABLE 14

EFFECTIVENESS OF MARKET BASED TOOLS
SUBCRITERIA
M
SD
CONSENSUS
1. Effectiveness of environmental tax system
4.64
0.62
NEGATIVE
2. Effectiveness pollution emission charges/fees, wastewater discharge charges/fees and user charges/fees systems
3.57
1.03
NONE
3. Effectiveness of indirect environmental taxes on changing consumers’ environmentally negative behaviors in a way that contributes the protection of environmental quality
3.89
0.79
NEGATIVE
4. Development of marketable pollution quota system
4.50
0.64
NEGATIVE
5. Success of the “deposit fee” and “quota”
4.00
0.72
NEGATIVE
6. Success of the system of waste markets
4.00
0.72
NEGATIVE
7. Success of the Green Point system
4.11
0.57
NEGATIVE
8. Success of the environmental accounting system
4.50
0.51
NEGATIVE
9. Effectiveness of the environmental insurance system
4.36
0.49
NEGATIVE
Overall
4.17
0.68
NEGATIVE























TABLE 15
EFFECTIVENESS OF EDUCATION FOR ENVIRONMENT
AND HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
SUBCRITERIA
M
SD
CONSENSUS
1. Effectiveness of formal education institutions
4.14
0.36
NEGATIVE
2. Effectiveness of the education for environment given by the higher education institutions
4.11
0.50
NEGATIVE
3. Effectiveness of informal education institutions
4.36
0.56
NEGATIVE
4. Sufficiency of professional training programs.
3.86
0.65
NEGATIVE
5. Sufficiency of in-service training provided by the Ministry of Environment for the employees
3.89
0.74
NEGATIVE
6. Effectiveness of the human resources management
4.21
0.57
NEGATIVE
Overall
4.10
0.56
NEGATIVE














TABLE 16
EFFECTIVENESS OF MODERN
MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES IN THE SEAs
SUBCRITERIA
M
SD
CONSENSUS
1. Effectiveness of the contemporary management methods and techniques at the national SEAs
4.07
0.60
NEGATIVE
2. Effectiveness of the contemporary management methods and techniques at the local SEAs
4.43
0.57
NEGATIVE
Overall
4.25
0.59
NEGATIVE

















TABLE 17

SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS
CRITERIA
MMs
MSDs
CONSENSUS
NATIONAL AND LOCAL WILL
3.60
0.79
NEGATIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
3.81
0.75
NEGATIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGIES
3.90
0.77
NEGATIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
3.76
0.80
NEGATIVE
CENTRAL ENVIRONMENTAL FUNCTIONS AND PROCEDURES
3.97
0.74
NEGATIVE
LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL FUNCTIONS AND PROCEDURES
4.08
0.72
NEGATIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS
3.32
0.99
NONE
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
3.86
0.65
NEGATIVE
INSTITUTIONAL SET-UP
3.79
0.79
NEGATIVE
NEW ORGANIZATIONS
3.90
0.96
NEGATIVE
LEGAL POWERS AND AUTHORITIES
3.33
1.13
NONE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
3.38
0.95
NONE
ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE
4.31
0.63
NEGATIVE
ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL TOOLS
4.17
0.68
NEGATIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND HRM
4.10
0.56
NEGATIVE
MODERN MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES
4.25
0.59
NEGATIVE
OVERALL
3.85
0.78
NEGATIVE
























TABLE 18

MEANS AND STANDARD
DEVIATIONS
CORRELATION OF EACH ROUND

MEANS
STANDARD
DEVIATIONS
R1
R2
R3
R1
R2
R3





ROUNDS

R1
Pearson Correlation
1.000
.496*
.490*
1.000
.056
.112
Sig. (2-tailed)
.
.000
.000
.
.539
.216
N
123
123
123
123
123
123

R2
Pearson Correlation
.496*
1.000
.917*
.056
1.000
.780*
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.
.000
.539
.
.000
N
123
123
123
123
123
123

R3

Pearson Correlation
.490*
.917*
1.000
.112
.780*
1.000
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.000
.
.216
.000
.
N
123
123
123
123
123
123














* Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).