ASSESSING THE PERCEPTIONS REGARDING THE
INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS OF STATE ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES
Prof. Dr. Firuz D. YASAMIS
School of Economics and Administrative Sciences
Istanbul Aydin University
firuzdemiryasamis@aydin.edu.tr
ABSTRACT
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
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).
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder