Assessment of Compliance Performance of Environmental Regulations of Industries in Tuzla (Istanbul, Turkey)

 

 

Firuz D. Yasamis, Ph. D.

Associate Professor

School of Arts and Social Studies

Sabanci University

Tuzla, Istanbul, 34956, Turkey

firuz@sabanciuniv.edu

 

 

Phone: (90) (532) 361 91 56

Fax:     (90) (216) 483 92 50

 

 

ABSTRACT. Although environmental management in Turkey is evolving, its performance needs to be assessed in terms of the extent to which polluters and dischargers are complying with their legal obligations. In spite of this necessity, however, not a single study evaluating the effectiveness of command-and-control strategy of environmental management has been conducted. It is for this reason that it was decided to conduct an analysis of the impact of environmental legislation on a major industrial area in Turkey. Accordingly, Turkish environmental legislation was analyzed and all relevant obligations and responsibilities of industry are identified. Based upon this appraisal, a questionnaire was prepared and used to conduct interviews in Tuzla, Istanbul. From the results, it can be concluded that environmental compliance performance of industry is low. The total of 92 parameters have been questioned. 53 parameters have been found as satisfactory compliance whereas 26 parameters have been classified as partial compliance and 13 as unsatisfactory compliance. The most important reason for inadequate performance is the lack of effective national and local environmental compliance management system. The other leading reasons are found to be low-level environmental consciousness of the people, absence of environmental management system at the sites, inadequacies in environmental subsidies and insufficiencies in public environmental infrastructure. Four recommendations are made to increase the effectiveness of compliance management: establishing an effective environmental compliance management system, accelerating public investment for environmental infrastructure, developing financial subsidies and incentive schemes for environmental investments and encouraging voluntary initiatives.

 

Key Words: Compliance management, enforcement, Turkey, developing countries

 

1.     Introduction

1.1   Purposes and Scope

Environmental management strategies are generally divided into three main categories: command-and-control, voluntary actions and market-based initiatives. Command-and-control is the oldest, the most well known and widely used environmental management strategy all over the world. The prime characteristic of the command-and-control strategy is the promulgation of desired norms of behaviors designed to ensure realization of quantified environmental or public health outcomes and the subsequent assessment of the extent to which conformity between the promulgated norms and the expressed behaviors has been attained.

“Compliance management” aims at compelling and encouraging compliance with specified requirements. However, such efforts must be enforceable, with the legal rules, norms and standards communicated to the regulated parties, and effective legal sanctions defined and imposed on rule-breakers. The public authorities responsible for the protection and enhancement of environmental quality have developed administrative procedures to audit (periodic, pursuant to complaints or as a result of unforeseen accidents) the sites to check the conformity between the rules and the actual status of the site. The situation described above brings a critical issue to the environmental agenda: How to assess the performance of the polluters and enforcement agencies in the pollution prevention activities. Although basically concerned with the level of company environmental performance evaluation, Kolk and Mauser (2002) have rightfully pointed out the significance of the issue of overcoming the problems of implementations stemming from the limited number of companies and sector specificity.

Assessment of performance of the regulated parties is cumbersome. Keeping in mind that monitoring at the sites is crucial, essential and a must for compliance management, performance assessment can be done in two different ways: at the micro (company) level and at the macro (sector, industry, geographical and ecological region) level. While micro-level assessment of compliance can provide information for specific cases (IMPEL 2001), it can encounter a considerable amount of technical difficulties. These include having to conform to standard laboratory testing procedures, following good laboratory practices and employing appropriate methods of analysis as explained by Krages II (1999).

Wang (2000) added another critical aspect to the question addressed above. This concerns the assessment of high-level technologies (such as the case of nuclear power plants) used in a particular industry. Clearly, carrying out the task of environmental compliance in these kinds of industries requires extraordinary inputs. Another major difficulty in this approach is the problem of aggregation of the collected data. This involves the level at which the data should be aggregated. For example, the spatial location (e.g., regional, national), and type of industry (e.g., sector based or collective, including all sectors), as well as the size of the sites included can be selected as the aggregation levels.  The above-mentioned difficulty also covers the issue of extrapolating the results obtained from the regionally collected data to the national level.

As far as the effectiveness of environmental compliance management is concerned in developing countries, a similar position has been taken by Swanson et al (2000) and associates with respect to China. The authors conclude that despite a variety of new laws, regulations and guidelines, enforcement in rural areas remains relatively low.

Two additional macro-level models can also be added to the list: “environmental indicator system” of Walz (2000) and “multi-criteria method” of Lahdelma. (2000) “Environmental indicator system” can be very effective for dealing with spatial concerns by measuring the changes in the environmental media and standardizing the obtained results as dependable benchmarks. (Eve 2000) Likewise, “the multi-criteria method” can also be very effective in environmental planning, especially in the absence of measurable and tangible parameters.

1.2  Legal Status and the Condition of Implementation in Turkey

In order to appreciate the conditions in Turkey, it would be useful to provide a brief summary of extant environmental legislation within an historical framework. Turkey has a long history of environmental legislation, stretching back to the 1920s. It was during this period that major Turkish legislation in this area, which also includes “the Civil Code,” “the Penal Code,” “the Municipal Code” and “the Public Health Protection Code” was enacted. The milestone in the evolution of environmental legislation was the introduction in the 1982 Constitution (Article 56) of the protection of the environment as a human right. A year later, the chief law, “the Environment Code,” was ratified. With the enactment of subsequent environmental regulations such as those pertaining to “Air Quality Protection,” “Water Pollution Prevention,” “Noise Prevention,” “Solid Waste Control,” “Medical Wastes Control,” “Hazardous Waste Control,” “Environmental Impact Analysis,” “Environmental Compliance Management,” along with several others, the apparatus of environmental legislation has been erected, thus creating hundreds of environmental obligations.

Enforcement agencies are numerous in Turkey. The ministries of Environment, Health, Interior, Transportation, Public Works, their field organizations, several general directorates, the provincial governorates, the district sub-governorates, local governments and local environmental councils are the examples of leading public authorities for enforcement.  Lately, the National Gendarmerie, responsible for preservation of law-and-order in rural areas, has established environmental teams in its field organization.  The division of labor, power and responsibilities amongst these authorities is confusing and contradictory and therefore cooperation and coordination are difficult to attain. (Yasamis 1989, 1995a, 1995b)

There has been a great deal of concern expressed by both expatriate experts and international organizations (OECD 1992, 1999, 2002, EU 2001) over Turkey’s overall environmental management performance and the effectiveness of local and national environmental compliance management.

Similar statements and views also appear in official governmental documents. For instance, “NEAP - The National Environmental Strategies and Action Plan of Turkey” (SPO 1998) indicates that permission and compliance management activities are not being effectively implemented. Turkey’s “Long Term Strategy and the Eight Five-Year Development Plan” (SPO 2000) covering the period of 2001-2005 contains similar pronouncements.

The Development Plan rightfully points out the need for the enhancement of environmental management capacity and an increase in the effectiveness of environmental management tools during the upcoming planning period, and gives these responsibilities to the Ministry of Environment (MoE). Therefore, there is a certain need to measure the status of plan objectives vis-à-vis existing conditions in practice. One of the major aims of this research is to abridge the gap in this regard.

1.3  Method of Assessment

Turkey’s essential environment management strategy has been of the “command-and-control” variety, which also becomes the main concern of this study. The other strategies, despite having made some progress, have not yet become fully developed in Turkey. However, given that Turkey is basically a developing country, especially in the field of environmental management, and the inherent difficulties in direct measurement and verification of the statements of industries by independent verifiers, in order to assess the compliance performance of industry, this study combined micro and macro level approaches. It is believed that the common positive aspect -the ability to obtain sufficient amount of information to reach a conclusion- of both approaches will be maximized through this approach.

Tuzla, the epicenter of the research, is one of the most heavily industrialized of the 33 districts comprising the Istanbul metropolitan area. Although the region is home to many other industries, which include such diverse activities as chemical manufacturing, food processing and metal processing, the main industrial activity in Tuzla is concerned with shipbuilding and maintenance.

The North America Industrial Classification System (NAICS) has been used to classify the participants and their frequencies have been given in Table 1.

Interviewers -mostly university students and local government employees- were selected and trained. They received information about the industry’s environmental compliance responsibilities as well as on the merits and contents of the questionnaire. The performance of the interviewers was later checked on a random basis.

      A total of 60 sites are identified from a list, provided by the Istanbul Chamber of Industry, containing the main information on the industrial sites in Tuzla. These companies were contacted, with 59 of them agreeing to participate. After arranging the necessary appointments, interviews were held with the technical managers whose responsibilities include the environmental compliance management for the site. Interviewers did not attempt to verify the accuracy of responses given by the technical managers. However, official permits and other related documents were examined.

 

2. Compliance of Companies

 

 

The results obtained from the survey are given below for each sub-category. To assist the assessment, the answers are grouped into three main categories of ‘unsatisfactory compliance’ (less than 33.3 % of affirmative responses), ‘partial compliance’ (between 33.4 – 66.6 % of affirmative responses) and ‘satisfactory compliance’ (more than 66.7 % of affirmative responses).

2.1 Compliance in General

The questionnaire format is complemented by several questions identifying the industry, such as main area of work, main products, date of establishment, size of the work force, sanitary classification of the premises, existence of the ISO 9000 series of standards on “total quality management” (TQM), existence of the ISO 14000 series of “international environmental management standards” (IEMS), existence of the necessary operating permits, utilization of general subsidies/incentives and utilization of environmental subsidies/incentives from public sources.

33 sites began to work before 1994 and 26 began manufacturing operations after 1994. Number of employees, in order to indicate the sizes of the interviewed sites, is given in Table 2.

As indicated in Table 3, almost half of the respondents were in possession of the “TQM Certificate”, almost all of them having been received after 1977. However, only four sites had obtained the IEM certificate. While almost half of the sites have been granted State Planning Organization (SPO) incentives, only one of them could be considered as an environmental incentive.

Although the possession of TQM certificate has nothing to do with the environmental compliance, it is measured to understand the industries’ attitude towards voluntary initiatives in general. However, it appears that the attitude of the industries vis-à-vis voluntary initiatives (especially for environmental concerns) is rather reluctant.

The correlation coefficient between the number of workers and TQM certificate possession is found to be 0.281 (significant at .05 level). As far as the IEM certificate is concerned, only one small site has received such certificate and remaining three is awarded to bigger sites.

2.2 Performance in Operation Permits and EIA

Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) legislation in Turkey has been in effect since 1994. According to the EIA Regulation, proposed project owners are obliged to prepare an EIA report forecasting and identifying the possible significant impacts of the project on the environment prior to the implementation. Proposed projects are divided into two main categories: projects requiring the “preliminary EIA report” and those requiring the “full-EIA report.” At both junctures, the reports are to be reviewed by the relevant and authorized public agencies. The outcome of the review is three-fold: lack of any possible adverse significant impact thus leading to construction permit, likelihood of significant adverse impact thus requiring full EIA report to identify the possible remedies to eliminate and mitigate the significant adverse impacts and, finally, determination of irreversible and immitigable significant adverse thus leading to the rejection of the proposed project. The results for compliance with operation permits including EIA are given in Table 4.

 

Of the total 59 sites, 22 have been operational since 1994, which means that these sites should possess the “positive EIA decision,” which is the Turkish version of the US term “FONSI” (finding of no significant impact). Of the sites studied, only 4 have acquired such a decision. This is indicative of negligence of an important environmental duty. 

Additionally, only 29 sites have been granted an operation permit by the local municipality, which means that almost half of the sites do not possess such permit. This is further supported by the low correlation coefficient of 0.271 (significant at .05 level) between the number of workers and the possession of operation permit.

As far as the public health permit to be obtained either from the Ministry of Health or the Greater Municipality of Istanbul (GMI) is concerned, the number of companies having such permit (28) is equal to those that do not possess such permit. These conclusions indicate that not only are environmental duties being neglected, but also that public health and municipal duties are only partially being complied with.

2.3 Compliance Performance in Air Quality

A major piece of environmental protection legislation is the “Air Quality Protection Regulation,” which was put into effect in 1986. The obligations of a particular industry for the protection of air quality are indicated in Table 5. Initial assessment of the obtained results for air quality parameters, which are given in Table 5, is basically favorable.

      As indicated in Table 5, 31 obligations out of the total 41 have been satisfied by the industry. Nine are partially complied with only 1 duty being inadequately complied with. Conformity to the following is classified as partial compliance: the “Ringelman” scale, concentration criteria met for particulate matter emissions, Diagram 1 of the regulation pertaining to particulate emission, the criterion on organic vapor and gas emission, the criterion on carcinogenic elements in the emission, emission reports renewed every two years, spraying water at unloading, the criterion on velocity of emission of chimney gases and emission reports submitted to public authorities. Most sites fail to comply with the possessing a preliminary emission permit, thus being classified as being in unsatisfactory compliance.

However, detailed analysis made on the partial and unsatisfactory compliance parameters has indicated that the main reason for inadequate compliance is related to technological insufficiencies, inadequacies of monitoring and measurement at the sites and low level of compliance monitoring by public agencies.  Therefore, it should be stated that the sites are complying with the majority of parameters of lesser significance but are not complying with more significant elements of air quality management such as staying within with emission limits, renewing permits and reporting monitoring results to public agencies.

2.4 Compliance Performance in Water Quality

“The Water Pollution Prevention Regulation” went into effect in 1988. As a consequence of this Regulation, a number of obligations have been imposed on industrial sites. These obligations and the results are given in Table 6.

According to the results, 7 of the obligations are classified as having been satisfactorily complied with, with 5 meeting partial compliance and 3 qualifying as unsatisfactory compliance. The following criteria are classified as partial compliance: site’s waste water system approved by wastewater management authorities, possession of waste water discharge permit, site’s wastewater connected to wastewater discharging or treatment system, possession of discharge quality control permit for industrial wastewater and presence of manholes near wastewater connection points. Sites were found to be in unsatisfactory compliance with the following: possession of wastewater analysis laboratory, results of analyses registered and records kept open for control for 3 years.

These results indicate that the industry is neglecting its duties on wastewater management and this is mainly due to the absence of environmental management system of the sites and inadequacies in environmental infrastructure of both the sites and the public.

2.5 Compliance Performance in Noise Quality

“The Noise Control Regulation” was put into effect in 1986. According to this Regulation, site managers have to comply with certain regulations designed to keep noise and vibration levels generated by the site within the range established by the Regulations. These obligations and the results are taking place in Table 7.

As indicated in Table 7, 3 duties are classified as satisfactory compliance whereas 5 as partial and 3 as unsatisfactory compliance. The following criteria are classified as partial compliance: maximum noise levels of different sources of the site within the limits set by the Regulation, vibration level in the site measured, overall noise level in the site in conformity with the maximum allowable limits for human health, noise level of site as measured by neighboring noise sensitive buildings within the limits of the regulation and noise levels of the equipment used at the site systematically measured and kept.

 

The following criteria are measured to be unsatisfactory compliance: adopted noise reducing measures reported to public authorities, barriers erected to prevent the noise and vibration and equipment and machinery insolated to reduce the noise and vibration level.

 

Needless to say, the level of compliance performance for noise is found to be low. It is also clear from the obligations, which are partially or unsatisfactorily complied with that the main reason for the low level of performance is the absence of noise quality management system and related infrastructure.

2.6 Compliance Performance in Solid Waste Management

 The Regulation on Solid Waste Control was put into effect in 1991. According to the regulation series of obligations have been developed to prevent the solid waste problems in the sites. These obligations and the results are given in Table 8.

Twelve parameters have been classified as satisfactory, 5 as partial and 5 as unsatisfactory. The following criteria are classified as partial compliance: application made to the MoE for quota and deposit fee system permit, quota and deposit fee permit obtained from the MoE, number of bottles and their value indicated in the invoices, deposit fee symbol and the code number given by the MoE printed on the package of the product and materials in the solid waste re-used and recovered.

The unsatisfactory compliance was found on the following criteria: necessary information for deposit fee system printed on the label, printed information about the type and the manufacturer on the package, disposal system for the material installed, permit from the MoE for disposal system obtained and permit renewed every three years.

The above given results indicate that the basic steps have been taken in the sites to deal with solid wastes. However, for some elements of the solid waste management (such as, implementing quota and deposit system developed by the Regulation and installing recovery facility at the site for valuable industrial waste) compliance leaves much to be desired.

 

3. Reasons for Low Compliance

In order to determine what kept the sites from fully complying with environmental legislation in Turkey, a survey of obstacles -both primary and secondary- was drawn up and conducted. The list of the predetermined preferential causes of inadequate compliance and the frequency distribution of the answers are given in Table 9.

According to the site managers, the five most important causes for industry’s inadequate compliance are: the inadequacy, inefficacy and inequity of the national and local environmental enforcement system, the less developed status of environmental consciousness in the country, the insufficiencies in national environmental subsidy/incentives schemes, pure negligence and financial inabilities of the company to invest in environmental protection facilities. A significant distinction is found between the big companies and small ones in the replies. For bigger companies, the source of the problem is mainly the low level of consciousness of the people (not realizing the adverse impacts of the pollution) with respect to environmental affairs. According to them, the other causes are: “not being aware of or able to understand the environmental legislation” and “inadequacy, inefficacy and inequity of the national and local environmental enforcement system in the country.” “Pure negligence” is another important factor for inadequate compliance. In contrast, the smaller companies believe that the first three significant causes are: inefficacies in national and local environmental enforcement systems, financial inabilities of the company and the low level of consciousness of people about environmental issues.

 

4. Enforcement Agencies and Their Performances

The last part of the questionnaire was designed to measure the actual performance of the enforcement agencies, which include national ministries, their field organizations and municipalities. According to results, the control exercised by the public authorities -with the exception of GMI- over the sites cannot be assessed as satisfactory.

The environmental performance of GMI produced somewhat better responses. While environmental supervision exercised by local municipalities was rather minimal, that exercised by GMI was relatively greater. Even so, this can hardly be considered satisfactory.

 

5. Discussion

The main findings derived from the present research are outlined below. However, regardless of the conclusions that can be drawn, it ought to be said this type of research could be improved through replicating it in other regions and covering both similar and different industrial sectors. This would help to create a more comprehensive database allowing better statistical analysis, to derive more general and representative statements and to avoid possible biases such as the one that could be caused by the relatively higher number of shipbuilders present in this research. 

The overall results are summarized in Table 11. It is clear from the Table 11 that the compliance of industry with the environmental rules and norms is inadequate. Out of total 92 parameters questioned, satisfactory compliance was found on 53 parameters, partial compliance on 26 and unsatisfactory compliance on 13.

However, when the obligations with which there is only partial or unsatisfactory compliance is looked at in detail, the picture that emerges is one that indicates an absence of the essential elements of environmental management systems, techniques and methods as well as necessary environmental infrastructures. This surfaces as the most important finding of the research. What this means is that environmental measures available to the sites including environmental policies, institutional set-up and infrastructures, manpower, know-how, environmental management techniques and skills are rather limited.

Two main reasons for this are the “inadequacy, inefficacy and inequity of the national and local environmental enforcement system” and the “less developed status of environmental consciousness in the country.” However, when the answers given to some critical questions (such as IEM certificate, EIA compliance, permits, monitoring activities and informing public authorities on monitoring results), which indicate the presence of an effective environmental management system in the site, are examined, it is understood that the absence of such a system also contributes to the inadequacy in compliance performance. For instance, only 4 sites have acquired the IEM certificate. It is clear from this that the industry is not particularly enthusiastic about dealing with such voluntary initiatives. The environmental management systems of the sites are virtually ineffective, if not absent. This means that industry is not able to use such possibilities offered by voluntary initiatives as IEM standards, which includes the development of corporate environmental policy and establishment of environmental management system for the site. Although there are encouraging pockets of conformance with respect to meeting some obligations, there has been no comprehensive compliance with the regulations. What this means is that industry is just trying to get by with the required permits to construct the site and eventually operate it. In view of the lack of effective national and local compliance management this is an understandable behavior.  This adverse outcome is basically due to the lack of compliance management despite the “new Regulation of Environmental Compliance Management” enacted about two years ago, but which has not actually been put into effect yet.

The analysis based on the results indicates two other important deficiencies, which are related to public environmental policies with respect to environmental subsidies and environmental infrastructures such as sewage systems, wastewater collection and treatment facilities and solid waste collection, disposal and treatment centers. Besides the lack of an environmental compliance system, it is also understood that national and local environmental policies, environmental management tools including financial ones and infrastructures are not compatible with the requirements of the industry in the region.

Another interesting point to be discussed and explained is related to the free admission by the company managers that there were a number of inadequacies regarding compliance with the rules and regulations. Such a disclosure, most likely unheard of in other countries, in addition to the assurances given by the interviewers that the results will only be used for scientific purposes perhaps explains why the managers failed to be intimidated by extant sanctions thus leading to the low level of effectiveness of enforcement of environmental regulations in the country.

 

6. Conclusion and Recommendations

The overall objective of the Tuzla research was directed to understanding the conditions in practice and to the assessment of implementation status of environmental rules and regulations in Turkey through a selected industrial district of Istanbul, which will lead to the development of matching environmental policies for the identified problems as well as solution models for the bottlenecks encountered during both enforcement activities carried out by public officials and compliance securing activities of the sites.

The results indicated that the performance of local industries for compliance with environmental obligations is not favorable and encouraging under the present circumstances. Although several reasons have been identified, the most important cause of low performance was the ineffective institutional set up of compliance management and enforcement activities carried out by public environmental agencies.

Basing upon the findings of Tuzla research, four main recommendations have been developed to strengthen the capacity of environmental compliance management in Turkey as explained below.

Firstly, the establishment of an effective national environmental compliance management system is essential. In this regard, a specific inspection agency such as environmental controllers, inspectors or auditors and even an environmental police force should be institutionalized within the provincial organizations of the central government or in the local governments. The recent development realized by the National Gendarmerie in this regard is considered to be an encouraging sign.  Initially, the new Compliance Management Regulation should be reviewed and further enhanced in line with the “recommendation of the EU Parliament and of the Council providing for minimum criteria for environmental inspections” in the Member States (2001/331/EC - 4 April 2001) and then the inspection manuals and guidelines should be prepared in line with the Regulation and the EU proposals. After giving necessary training to the inspectors, the sites should be periodically inspected and legal sanctions should be applied against rule breakers. The results of the inspection should be registered in a database and the company should be informed about the results and the timing of the subsequent audits. Enforcement agreements -including informational visits- between the public agencies and the industrial sites should also be codified and institutionalized. The activities of “the IMPEL - European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law” and the work developed jointly by the US Environmental Protection Agency and the Polish government on the principles of environmental enforcement in early 90s and then further developed by the “INECE - International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement” can provide important insights in this regard. (EPA 1992, IMPEL 2001)

This seems to be the main priority and solution for the problems caused by deficiencies in compliance management system in Turkey. However, the new system should be jointly developed by the regulators and company managers taking into consideration the needs and expectations of both sides.

Secondly, public investment for environmental infrastructure such as wastewater collection and treatment centers and solid waste collection, disposal and treatment facilities that could be commonly used by the sites should be enhanced. This will ease the financial burden on the industry to better comply with the legal obligations. Most of the site managers indicated their willingness to comply with the rules provided that common public environmental facilities are accessible. This is in line with the results obtained from the survey, which indicate that the smaller sites are more likely not to comply with the rules than the bigger companies.

Thirdly, financial subsidies and incentive schemes for private environmental investments should be developed further. This also means the enhancement of market- based management tools such as green taxes and charges, credits with low interest rates, tax exemptions, rebates and reductions, environmental insurance and tradable pollution quotas. The analysis indicates that the one of main reasons for inadequate compliance is the low level of economic incentives for environmental investments. Smaller companies need more economic incentives to deal with the environmental investments.

Lastly, voluntary initiatives should also be encouraged so as to increase the environmental compliance performance and to strengthen the command-and-control activities. (Hall 1994, Kajura 1994) The enlargement of the concept of developing one’s own on-site environmental management system and environmental policy would be incentives for greater and better compliance with the rules. As indicated earlier, the chance of having voluntary certificates is positively correlated to the size of company.

The developing nations, although there are differences in their economic and social characteristics in addition to the differences in their levels of development, exhibit similar institutional deficiencies for environmental compliance management as observed in Turkey. Therefore, the conclusions derived and the recommendations made for the enhancement of environmental enforcement works in Turkey should also be valid for other developing nations.

 

Literature Cited

Commission of the European Communities, EU 2001. 13.11.2001 SEC (2001) 1756. 2001 Regular report on Turkey’s progress towards accession. Brussels, 103 pp.

Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA) USA, (1992). Principles of environmental enforcement. Washington DC, 218 pp.

Eve, Evaldice, Fransisco A. Arguelles and Philip M. Fearnside. 2000. How well does Brazil’s environmental law works in practice? Environmental impact assessment and the case of Itapiranga private sustainable logging plan. Environmental Management 26: 251-267.

Hall, John. (1994) Promoting voluntary compliance: environmental auditing, outreach and incentive programme – Texas, USA, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Environmental Enforcement. INECE.  505-515.

IMPEL (2001). Best practice in compliance monitoring. Sweden, pp. 49.

Kajura, Henry Muganwa. (1994) Promoting voluntary compliance: environmental auditing, outreach and incentive programme – Uganda, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Environmental Enforcement. INECE. 517-526.

Kolk, Ans and Mauser, Anniek. 2002. The evolution of environmental management: From stage models to performance evaluation. Business Strategy and the Environment. 11: 14-31.

Krages II, Bert P. 1999 Environmental testing, official methods and attitude toward noncompliance. Environmental Management. 24/2: 141-149.

Lahdelma, Risto, Pekka Salminen and Joonas Hokkanen. 2000. Using multi criteria methods in environmental planning and management. Environmental Management. 26/6: 595-605.

OECD. 1992. Environmental policies in Turkey, Paris, 173 pp.

OECD. 1999. Environmental performance review of Turkey, Paris, 114 pp.

OECD. 2002. Working together towards sustainable development: OECD experience. Paris, 85 pp.

State Planning Organization of Turkey. 1998. The national environmental strategies and action plan. Ankara, 70 pp.

State Planning Organization of Turkey. 2000. Long term strategy and the eight five-year development plan 2001-2005. Ankara, 243 pp.

Swanson, Kate E., Richard G. Kuhn and Wei Xu. 2001. Environmental policy implementation in rural China: A case study of Yhang, Zhejiang. Environmental Management. 27/4: 481-491.

Walz, Rainer. 2000. Development of environmental indicator systems: Experiences from Germany. Environmental Management. 25: 613-623.

Wang, Ming Shen, J.K. Fang and William M. Bowen. 2000. An Integrated Framework for Public Sector Management in Developing Countries. Environmental Management, 25: 463-476.

Yasamis, Firuz D., 1989. Environmental management and planning, 1989, Ankara, 173 pp. Turkish.

Yasamis, Firuz D., 1995 a. Basic tools of environmental management, 1995, Ankara, 240 pp. Turkish.

Yasamis, Firuz D., 1995 b. Criteria of effectiveness for national and local environmen­tal organizations. New Turkey. 5: 238-255. Turkish

 

TABLE 1

INTERVIEWED SITES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NAICS CLASSIFICATION	FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION	PERCENTAGE
Food Manufacturing
4	6.8
Textile Mills
1	1.7
Textile Product Mills
2	3.4
Apparel Manufacturing
2	3.4
Paper Manufacturing
1	1.7
Chemical Manufacturing
8	13.6
Plastics and Rubber Products Manufacturing
4	6.8
Primary Metal Manufacturing
1	1.7
Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing
5	8.5
Machinery Manufacturing
2	3.4
Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing
1	1.7
Transportation Equipment Manufacturing
26	44.1
Miscellaneous Manufacturing
2	3.4
Total
59	100.0

 

TABLE 2

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

 

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES	FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION	PERCENTAGE
Less than 50	14	23.7
50-100	14	23.7
More than 100	31	52.6
TOTAL	59	100.0

 

 

TABLE 3

CERTIFICATES AND SUBSIDIES

 

COMPONENT	FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION	PERCENTAGE
TQM- ISO 9000
Yes	29	49.2
No	30	50.8
IEM - ISO 14000
Yes	4	6.8
No	55	93.2
ENVIRONMENTAL SUBSIDY FROM SPO
Yes	1	1.7
No	58	98.3

TABLE 4

OPERATION PERMITS AND EIA

 

PARAMETERS	AFFIRMATIVE	NEGATIVE	RATE (%)
SATISFACTORY COMPLIANCE (none)
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
Operation permit obtained from local governments	29	30	49.1
Operation permit obtained from the public health authorities	28	28	50.0
UNSATISFACTORY COMPLIANCE
Decision of “Positive Environmental Impacts” obtained from the MoE	4	22	15.4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 5

AIR QUALITY

 

PARAMETERS	AFFIRMATIVE	NEGATIVE	RATE (%)
SATISFACTORY COMPLIANCE
Emission permit obtained	34	11		75.5
Conformity to the emission permit	39	6		86.6
Observance of minimum chimney height standards	28	10		73.7
Conformity to “Bacharach” scale	20	8		100.0
Gases containing particulate matter filtered	7	2		77.7
Production process carried out in covered areas where particulate emission is unpreventable	7	0		100.0
Fine particles transported in covered containers	5	0		100.0
Fine particles stored in covered areas	5	2		71.4
Protective measures taken against fine particles at loading/unloading and packaging sites	6	1		85.7
Wind barriers protecting against sand storms established	1	0		100.0
Vegetation serving as wind barrier planted	1	0		100.0
Conveyor belts covered	2	0		100.0
Wind barriers in place	1	0		100.0
Non-hurling at loading and unloading	4	0		100.0
Product covered with plastic membranes	1	0		100.0
10 % humidity applied to the layer	2	0		100.0
Roads at the sites covered with bituminous material or cement	44	1		99.7
Roads at the site regularly cleaned	44	1		99.7
Other preventive measures taken to minimize the dust generation on the roads at the site	38	6		86.3
Dust/particulate filters emptied in covered areas	11	3		78.5
Conformity to the criterion on inorganic chlorine emission	6	2		75.0
Conformity to the criterion on inorganic fluoride emission	6	1		85.7
Conformity the occupational health standards	58	1		98.3
Gases emitted unhindered into the ambient environment to secure dilution	25	2		92.5
Possession of chimney(s)	23	3		88.4
Adverse environmental impacts on the minimized	53	3		94.6
Non-recoverable items handled/disposed of in environmentally sound ways	58	1		98.3
Necessary measures taken to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts	51	7		87.9
Gaseous wastes eliminated through appropriate means	30	5		85.7
Necessary measures taken to minimize the adverse impacts of the emission	11	5		68.7
Analysis of emissions, including those of chimney gases, regularly carried out	42	17		71.1
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
Conformity to “Ringelman” scale	8	6		57.1
Concentration criteria met for particulate matter emissions	5	6		45.5
Conformity to Diagram 1 of the Regulation on particulate emission	10	9		52.6
Conformity to the criterion on organic vapor and gas emission	9	12		42.9
Conformity to the criterion on carcinogenic elements in the emission	9	11		45.0
Emission reports renewed every two years	38	21		64.4
Spraying water at unloading	10	11		47.6
Conformity to the criterion on velocity of emission of chimney gases	14	14		50.0
Emission reports submitted to public authorities	37	22		62.7
UNSATISFACTORY COMPLIANCE
Preliminary emission permit obtained	4	11		26.6

 

 

 

TABLE 6

WATER QUALITY

 

 

PARAMETERS	AFFIRMATIVE	NEGATIVE	RATE (%)
SATISFACTORY COMPLIANCE
Pre-treatment of industrial wastewater performed	20	5	80.0
Possession of balancing pool where required	15	7	68.1
Possession of permit for discharge of cooling water into the waste water collection system	5	2	71.4
Industrial wastewater in conformity with the discharge values set by the Regulation	19	7	73.0
Possession of permit for discharge drainage/rainstorm drainage water into the waste water collection system	47	12	79.6
Not diluting the industrial wastewater with unpolluted water before discharge	20	3	87.0
Absence of discharge of solid wastes, sludge from the treatment centers, or any inflammatory or explosive, or toxic material into sewage system	57	2	96.6
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
Site’s waste water system approved by wastewater management authorities	32	27	54.2
Possession of waste water discharge permit	21	38	36.0
Site’s wastewater connected to wastewater discharging or treatment system	29	30	49.1
Possession of discharge quality control permit for industrial wastewater	16	9	64.0
Presence of manholes near wastewater connection points	25	34	42.3
UNSATISFACTORY COMPLIANCE
Possession of wastewater analysis laboratory	16	43	27.1
Results of analyses registered	8	51	13.5
Records kept open for control for 3 years	8	51	13.5

 

TABLE 7

NOISE

 

 

PARAMETERS	AFFIRMATIVE	NEGATIVE	RATE (%)
SATISFACTORY COMPLIANCE
Protective materials provided to the workers	49	10	83.0
Noise levels of the different sources/machinery/equipments measured and controlled	41	18	69.5
Necessary precautions taken to prevent noise by appropriate location and installation of the equipments inside and outside the site	41	18	69.5
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
Maximum noise levels of different sources of the site within the limits set by the Regulation	24	35	40.6
Vibration level in the site measured	20	39	33.9
Overall noise level in the site in conformity with the maximum allowable limits for human health	30	29	50.8
Noise level of site as measured by neighboring noise sensitive buildings within the limits of the Regulation	27	32	47.8
Noise levels of the equipment used at the site systematically measured and kept	29	30	49.2
UNSATISFACTORY COMPLIANCE
Adopted noise-reducing measures reported to public authorities	6	53	10.2
Barriers erected to prevent the noise and vibration	11	48	18.6
Equipment and machinery insolated to reduce the noise   and vibration level	15	44	25.4

 

TABLE 8

SOLID WASTES

 

 

PARAMETERS	AFFIRMATIVE	NEGATIVE	RATE (%)
SATISFACTORY COMPLIANCE
Non-recoverable solid waste disposed of in an environmentally sound manner	54	5	91.5
Packaging material collected and recovered at sites where deposit fee system is utilized	2	0	100.0
Site’s solid wastes managed in an environmentally sound manner	51	8	86.4
Container lids closed	59	0	100.0
Solid waste containers sufficient	57	2	96.6
Effective and preventive measures taken against adverse environmental, health and aesthetic impacts as well as for malodor and dust generation	55	4	93.2
Collected industrial wastes transported in closed containers not to pollute the environment	57	2	96.6
Transportation measures taken for industrial waste if located outside the municipal boundaries	21	4	84.0
The least solid-waste-generating technology employed	45	14	76.3
Absence of hazardous material in the solid waste	46	13	78.0
Valuable items in domestic wastes of the site sorted and recovered, and then transported to municipal waste disposal sites	45	14	76.3
Measures developed to reduce the solid waste generation in the site	40	19	67.8
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE
Application made to the MoE for quota and deposit fee system permit	1	1	50.0
Quota and deposit fee permit obtained from the MoE	1	1	50.0
Number of bottles and their value indicated in the invoices	1	1	50.0
Deposit fee symbol and the code number given by the MoE printed on the package of the product	1	1	50.0
Materials in the solid waste re-used and recovered	38	21	64.4
UNSATISFACTORY COMPLIANCE
Necessary information for deposit fee system printed on the label	0	1	0
Printed information about the type and the manufacturer on the package	0	1	0
Disposal system for the material installed	0	4	0
Permit from the MoE for disposal system mentioned above obtained	0	2	0
Permit renewed every 3 years	0	1	0

 

TABLE 9

THE FIRST AND SECOND REASON

OF INADEQUACIES IN COMPLIANCE

REASONS	FIRST CHOICE	SECOND CHOICE
Insufficiencies in national environmental subsidy/incentives schemes	11	9
Pure negligence	3	9
Ineffective legal sanctions	1	4
Not being aware of or not being able to understand the environmental legislation	8	1
Lack of environmental management system of the site	1	1
Inadequacies of the technical capacity of the site	0	2
Inadequacy, inefficacy and inequity of the national and local environmental enforcement system	7	14
Less developed status of environmental consciousness in the country	13	10
Financial inabilities of the company to invest in environmental protection facilities	7	8
Other reasons	8	1
TOTAL	59	59

TABLE 10

COMPLIANCE CONTROL ACTIVITIES

 

 

 

 

INSPECTION DONE WITHIN THE LAST 365 DAYS	FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION	PERCENTAGE
MoE / Provincial Directorate of Environment
YES	27	45.8
NO
32	54.2
Ministry of Health/Provincial Directorate of Health
YES	13	22.0
NO	46	78.0
District Sub-governorate
YES	19	32.2
NO	40	67.8
Greater Municipality of Istanbul
YES	38	64.4
NO	21	35.6
Local Municipality
YES	6	10.2
NO	53	89.8

 

 

TABLE 11

OVERALL RESULTS

 

PARAMETERS	SATISFACTORY COMPLIANCE	PARTIAL COMPLIANCE	UNSATISFACTORY COMPLIANCE	TOTAL
Operation permits - EIA	0	2	1	3
Air quality	31	9	1	41
Water quality	7	5	3	15
Noise	3	5	3	11
Solid waste	12	5	5	22
TOTAL	53	26	13	92