EFFECTIVENESS CRITERIA FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Firuz D. YASAMIS
Address:
Sabanci University
School of Arts and Social Sciences
Orhanli, Tuzla, 81474
Istanbul, TURKEY
E-mail: firuz@sabanciuniv.edu
JUNE 2001, ISTANBUL
ABSTRACT
Since there is no blueprint commonly acceptable on the national or local
environmental organisations, it is almost impossible to predict the
effectiveness level of these organisations. On the other hand, environmental
organisations, like other societal organisations, are comprised of objectives,
policies, strategies, functions, personnel and financial possibilities.
Basing upon the analysis made in many countries in several continents,
an attempt has been made to develop a list of criteria to measure the
effectiveness of environmental establishments applicable worldwide at either
public or private organisations.
The paper tries to develop a qualitative and descriptive analysis of
environmental management systems using the above-mentioned criteria. Analyses
made on the subject conclude that the overall effectiveness level of
environmental management in the Country is far short than being satisfactory.
It has been pointed out that the environmental management is only at an
embryonic stage at the moment. Environmental management system requires
substantial inputs by all means and from every sources in order to be able to
cope with the already existing and quite significant environmental problems and
to prevent the potential environmental calamities which could take place in the
future.
In short, increasing the performance
level of environmental agencies primarily necessitates an effective
institutionalisation of environmental management in any region/country, which
is concerned in environmental quality upgrading.
KEY WORDS:
Environmental Management, Environmental Planning, Environmental Institutional
Development, and Effectiveness Criteria
Introduction: Basic
Requirements for the Institutionalisation of Environmental Management
Environmental management is still developing in
almost all of the countries of the World and trying to resolve the consequences
caused by emerging and differentiating environmental pollution and defying the
challenges created by the ever-increasing need of environmental quality
upgrading. Some countries established rather powerful institutional set-up and
effectively controlled the potential impacts of prospective human and natural
calamities; whereas, some of them have failed in preventing the emergence of
environmental pollution and providing a secure future for the upcoming
generations.
On the other hand, new philosophies,
strategies, policies and procedures are being developed and put into
implementation at the different parts of the World thus creating new and
inspiring examples to other nations and to public and/or private organisations.
In this regard, a new need comes forward: to indicate and establish a framework
of the basic requirements of an effective environmental management system.
Such an attempt has not been realised yet. The need to orient the
responsible managers/administrators on the path to be followed or at least to
give them a chance to compare the strengths and weaknesses that they have,
makes the attempt to develop such a checklist covering the basic requirements
of an effective institutional set-up rather important. Such an attempt will
definitely require an accumulation of sufficient amount of knowledge and
experience on the practice of environmental administration and management in
both northern and southern countries as well as in the different regions of our
Globe.
This paper will make such an attempt to develop a checklist and the
present conditions of environmental management will be evaluated using the
checklist developed as a yardstick.
National or Top Level
Political Will
In order to have an effective environmental
institution as far as public administration -either national or local- is
concerned, there must be a strong political will at the top decision making
level for both insuring the right of
environment of the citizens and also securing
the sustainable development principle.
The right
for environment should include three
main components: right of
information on environmental matters, public participation in environmental
decision-making and eligibility to
open legal cases at the courts on environmental matters whether directly
affected by the consequences of environmental problems or not.
The concept
of sustainable development can be defined in several ways. The most
commonly known definition of sustainable development is “insuring the continuance of scarce resources for future generations”.
My definition of sustainable development is ‘not to consume the scarce resources at the rate greater than the rate
of self-replenishment’. This understanding necessitates reconciliation
between the economic development needs and the need for ecological
conservation.
These two basic ingredients should be specified
in the Constitution or the least in
the main environmental legislation and
laws of the Country concerned. If applicable, these objectives should be
specified in the National or Local Development Plans. Additionally, environmental master plans should be
developed in order to indicate the ways and means of realising such objectives.
Furthermore, the “State of the
Environment Reports” should be prepared and should be submitted to the
legislative body to allocate due financial resources and also to the public at
large in order to inform them on prospective developments.
In Turkey, Article 56 of the 1982 Constitution explicitly mentions the
“right of healthy and stable environment”:
“Everyone has the right to
live in a healthy and stable environment. It is the duty of the State and the
citizens to develop the environment, to protect environmental health and to
prevent environmental pollution.”
According to this Article, it is one of the functions of the State to
upgrade the environmental quality, to protect environmental health and to
prevent environmental pollution. This Article which is in “the social and
economical rights section” of the Constitution imposes an important obligation
to the State. However, article 65 of the Constitution, which also takes place
in the same section, provides a limit to this obligation. According to the
Article 65, taking into consideration the continuance of economical stability
and the sufficiency of financial resources, the State has to fulfil its social
and economical duties assigned to it by the Constitution. This means that the
State is not obliged to fulfil all the responsibilities stated in this section
of the Constitution. State will perform her responsibilities only within the
limits of her economical resources. While performing these duties, state should
consider the national economical stability as well. Considering the situation
within an environmental framework, although a fundamental duty for the
protection of environment is imposed on the State, an understanding of the
environment as a ‘purified’ object from pollution and inclusive of all
‘positives’ should be eliminated.
Another leading legislative progress, after the Constitution, is “the
Code of Environment” in Turkey. This Code, which came into force in 1983,
furnishes similar provisions and principles. The related article of the Code is
as follows:
“... to protect and improve
the environment which is a common property for all; to use properly the
underground and the natural resources in rural and urban areas; to prevent
water, soil and air pollution; to regulate the provisions and measures in harmony
with economical and social development goals, which shall improve and secure
the health, civilisation and life standards of generations of today and
tomorrow by preserving country’s fauna and flora, and historical and natural
wealth...”
In the “Principles” section of the Code, protection of the environment
is determined as everybody’s duty. Another principle is that it is a necessity
to consider the environment as a factor in the development endeavours. In other
words, even the Code of Environment underlines the fact that development is an
unavoidable fact and considers that there might be a conflict between the
principle of preventing the development and the principle of protecting the
environment.
These two main legal documents have a common denominator: economic
development has the priority and the environmental concerns will be treated
accordingly if national economical and financial constraints enable the State
doing so. Undoubtedly, these provisions are not in an ideal harmony with the
concept of sustainable development. Taking these two factors –article 65 of the
Constitution and the “Principles” section of the Code of Environment- into
consideration simultaneously, it will include some hardships to declare that
the concept of sustainability has some dominant characteristics in the legal
documents. This means that the level of
national political will to further protect and to enhance the environmental
quality is curtailed.
As far as the right of information in concerned, the Code of Environment
brings a very positive power the public. Article 30 of this Code gives the
public the right to apply to the administrative and legal authorities to
prevent pollution. Besides this, the article mentioned above establishes a
solemn base for the right of suing the responsible administrative authorities
in front of the courts. The article is as follows:
“…The ones who have been
aware of or adverted by activities that pollute and destroy the environment may
appeal to the administrative authorities to prevent this activity.”
Thus, the ones who have been adverted by the pollution or by similar
occurrences may require the termination of that activity by applying to the
administrative authorities. This substantial and modern principle shall please
everybody who is engaged in environmental problems.
According to this rule, any person, enterprise, group or community may
require the termination of the damaging activities through applying to the
authorities according to the ‘collective appeal right’ stated in the Code of
Civil Trials’ Procedure and according to the “Code of Administrative Trials’
Procedure”. If the responsible public administration/administrator does not
reply within 60 days, the application will be taken as rejected, and therefore
the right to sue will automatically be arisen. As a matter of fact, the
decision of the State Council (the highest administrative court) regarding
several city parks in Ankara as well as so many others is obtained through this
procedure.
However, it should also be stated that some late legislative
developments on the issue indicate some reactionary tendencies in this regard
and the already established system intended to be weakened by some recent
legislative initiatives. For instance, the recent modification made in the
“Code of Administrative Trials’ Procedure” requires “direct personal relation”
between the case and the plaintiff in order to be eligible to open a case in
front of the Administrative Courts.
Turkey did not initial yet the document prepared at Aarhus, Denmark to
secure the right of information in environmental matters.
As far as the public participation in environmental planning and
decision making is concerned, there is a limited possibility to acquire an
effective role for the public. Only, “The Regulation for Environmental Impact
Assessment” foresees “a public meeting” at the site where a new investment is
planned. However, the authority of the local public and binding power of the
local inhabitants is not at the level that it should have been. The local
inhabitants are just informed on the project and their opinions are only
registered.
As far as the Five Yearly National Development Plans (year 2001 will be
the first year of the 8th Plan) are concerned, only the 7th
Plan has explicit and direct provisions on the betterment of institutional
set-up of the environmental management in the Country. Although, the 7th
Plan has diagnosed the institutional problems accurately and developed
effective solutions, at the end of the seventh year of the implementation
nothing came out as envisaged by the Plan.
Additionally, Turkey, through the State Planning Organisation and with
the collaboration of the Ministry of Environment, recently attempted to prepare
a national environment master plan, “National Environmental Strategies and
Action Plan” (NEAP). The results so far obtained are negligible due to several
institutional reasons.
In this regard, it would not be wrong to state that it is rather
difficult to identify any satisfactory national and even local environmental
master plans and/or optimisation plan so far successfully developed and
implemented.
Additionally, it should also be pointed out that the preparation and
publication of “the State of the Environment Reports” have not yet infiltrated
to the daily routines of the Ministry of Environment and to the national
environmental legislation.
Having all these factors into consideration, it is possible to state that ‘a new concern” for has emerged during
the last 20 years in Turkey on the significance of the environmental
protection. However, it would be rather
difficult to state that a political will on the protection and further
enhancement of the environmental quality already emerged at the national and
local level. The concerns for a rapid economic development and combating
with unemployment problems are still more prioritised than the sustainable
development and environmental protection concerns.
Determination of National
and Local Environmental Aims and Objectives
The concepts of “aims” and “objectives” are generally used
interchangeably. However, to better explain the core subject, the meanings of
these two words needs to be differentiated. “Aim” is the idealistic end-point of any process whereas “objective” is
a tangible, quantifiable, measurable and discrete end-point.
Environmental management, either in national or
in local context, should deliberately and openly specify its aims and
objectives as defined above. In this regard, environmental aims are generally
put 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, prioritising
environmental planning and coordination issues, protecting scarce and vanishing
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 dominant and
forefront aims of the environmental management in several countries.
However, environmental objectives are much important than the aims. An
effective environmental administration should monitor and measure the ambient
quality for each environmental media as well as for each specific area and
should set objectives and/or targets to be achieved in a given period. These
objectives can be stated in the ambient quality standards or in the
environmental master plans or in the site-specific or pollution-specific
optimisation plans.
Assessing the position of Turkey from the point of view of the above
stated concepts, the aims of
environmental management are specified in the laws and regulations.
Additionally, some certain ambient and
emissions and discharge standards are specified in the legislation.
However, some important shortcomings have not yet been abridged: “enforcement” and “compliance management”
of these standards on individual site basis and the lack of optimisation
projects on spatial basis.
The basic failure of the Turkish environmental management system is the
non-capability of enforcing the environmental rules, norms and standards. The
sporadic, insufficient, inefficient as well as ineffective “enforcement
activities” and the lack of any “compliance management system” at the national
or local level provide a rather big room to act freely and indiscriminately to
the environmental offenders and criminals. Additionally, so far no specific
optimisation project have been successfully prepared, planned and implemented
yet which aims at realising a lower level pollution in any given region.
Under these circumstances, it
would not be wrong to state that either environmental aims or environmental
objectives are not clearly and comprehensively specified, promulgated and
enforced in the Country at the national or at the local level. The aims
already specified in the legislation would not mean much in this regard since
they are bound to remain in the books and on the shelves.
Environmental Strategies
An analysis to be made on the main environmental strategies developed
and pursued all over the world will come out with a classification of the
strategies as “command and control
strategy”, “voluntary compliance
strategy” and “financial and
economical tools strategy”. These
three strategies are not mutually exclusive but inclusive and to obtain the
optimum results a combination of them should be put into effect in an effective
environmental administration.
The first main strategy of “command
and control” foresees the effective and efficient development, promulgation
and enforcement of environmental rules, legislation and standards. In this
regard, a public administration unit should be established over the area
concerned and a well designed “compliance management” system should be
initiated.
The “enforcement” and
“compliance management” systems for the environmental rules, norms and
regulation are far away from being satisfactory, efficient and effective due to
the lack of such systemic and institutional setups at the local and national
levels and the related working procedures.
The second strategy of “voluntary compliance” -like BS 7750, ISO 14000, EMAR-EMAS of the
European Union and the President’s “XL” (excellent leadership) program of US-
envisages a well established compliance management system as well as several
“incentive schemes” to encourage the polluters to voluntarily comply with the
rules and regulations. This should result in reducing the cost of compliance
management and avoiding the possibility of frictions between the polluters and
the public authorities.
Turkey has put into effect the series of ISO
14000 standards [1]
including 14001 for several years. However, in addition to the lack of
infrastructure and expertise in environmental auditing, verification, and
registration and certification procedures is not fully established yet. The
Ministry of Environment has no responsibility at the administration process of
ISO 14001 and auditing (mostly), verification and certification have been done
by the Turkish Institute of Standards. So far, it is observed that all the
applicants have received the certificate and no rejection occurred. However,
the “Code of Accreditation” has been enacted by the Parliament several months
ago. It is hoped that this Code will bring a better application mode in this
regard to the Country.
Thirdly, the main strategy of “economical
and financial tools of environmental management” should insure the
internalisation of negative externalities caused by the polluters and thus
imposes effective financial and economic sanctions on the polluters to correct
the environmental wrong practices, habits and actions. Briefly stating, under
the present circumstances, it is not
possible to find exact, valid and acceptable economical and financial
environmental management tools.
Besides these, some other environmental management strategies have been
developed to realise a more effective environmental administration system.
These include determining the existing ambient environmental quality for each
environmental media concerned, controlling the wastes, emissions and discharges
on spatial/areal, line and point sources basis, assessing the environmental
impacts of social, economical as well as infrastructure development and,
naturally, abating the pollution and nuisances. Within the limits of a paper,
it should be briefly stated that the
present “status-quo” of country’s environmental performance is far away from
being satisfactory. A convincing performance indicator for such a statement
should be “the amount pollution” produced per year in the Country. Undoubtedly,
the amount of emissions, discharges and wastes is increasing gradually and
substantially for years.
Environmental Policies
Daniel J. Fiorino, in his book of “Making
Environmental Policy”, describes three different types of public policies: rational policies, policies based upon a
“bounded” rationality and incremental policies. According to him,
“rationality” in policy making should be defined “as a conscious decision to make the most of the available resources to
achieve whatever it is one sets out to accomplish”. He says that, “As the name suggests, a rational approach
to making public policy assumes a decision process in which goals are clear and
agreed upon. Policy options and criteria for evaluating them are defined, and
information about the consequences of options is complete. In a rational
process, decisions are made in a linear, sequential way by fully informed
people. If the people making policy decisions are doing their jobs, they make
decisions that ‘optimize’ their own as well as society’s interest by driving
maximum benefits from whatever choices they make... It takes very little
experience in large organisations to realise that they do not work in this
way... In most large complex organisation, the situation looks like this: goals
are ambiguous or conflicting; human cognitive skills are limited; time is in
short supply; and policy options are fluid or poorly defined... The concepts of
bounded rationality recognises that although people may aspire to be rational,
they are ‘bounded’ by the limits of resources, time, information and human
cognition... In the incremental model, policy is made in small steps, at the margins
of choice, through ‘successive limited comparisons’. Decisions one year rely on
those decisions that were made in the past. Options and criteria change as the
available information changes and there is a need to develop consensus among
affected parties. Policy tends to happen as much as to be decided on.” [2]
Whatever the level would be in these three different models, at least
there should be some information available to the decision makers and also some
certain options and/or alternatives should be considered by them. Whenever the
environmental policy making is concerned in Turkey it is understood that these basic necessities are substantially
lacking. Despite the reports prepared even by some international
organisations such as OECD,[3] no discrete and material foundations have so far been identified in any
environmental policy making attempt. It would not be wrong to state that environmental policies so far
developed -either rational, or “bounded” rational and even an incremental- are
not at the status that they should be.
To verify the above given statement, the
policies regarding to “air quality” should be briefly assessed and compared
with the policies drawn up in some other countries which have similar social
and economic development characteristics.
Ideally, an air quality management system should contain the following
components: identification of sources, determining ambient air quality,
comparison between the air quality standards and ambient air quality, setting
objectives for future ambient air quality and setting up of controlling and
monitoring system.
Following actions should be performed to establish a sound air quality
policy: setting the standards for ambient air quality, air pollutants, fuels
and productions; assessing existing conditions and parameters in the area
concerned; projecting and modelling of air pollution in the area; developing
air pollution protection and abatement programs; collecting, retrieving and
analysing topographical, meteorological, climatological, demographic,
industrial and transportation data; developing inventories for pollution
sources, types of pollutants and variations in time and over the space;
classifying the pollutants identified, establishing and running monitoring
systems, assessing the impacts of air pollution, developing remedies for future
land-use, location preferences, transportation modes and routes, recreational
development, energy end-use and, finally, planning and programming the actions
to be performed. For the planning
activities, macro and micro meteorological conditions should also be monitored
and, additionally, the source characteristics should be determined.
In order to prevent or at least reduce the air pollution, elimination of
air pollutants at the source should be attempted, clean and alternative energy
sources should be developed and an air quality management system should be
established.
In a project undertaken by the Polish Government and UN bodies of UNDP
and WHO, somewhat about 20 years ago, the above mentioned air quality policy
has been developed for the Upper Silesian Region of People’s Republic of
Poland. The project has first attempted of identify the characteristics of the
model area and then developed a methodology for combating air pollution in the
region. The methodology includes an information system, a monitoring system,
data for decision making, models of dispersion of pollution and transportation
routes and modes, evaluation of technological methods of pollution control,
selection of pollution control methods and methods of assessment of economic
aspects of environmental protection. Thirdly, effects of pollution on humankind,
plants and yields have been analysed.
Basing upon these, an optimisation plan for the solution of
environmental problems of the region has been prepared. Optimisation plan
covers the optimisation model for the costs of pollution emission reduction
methods, selection of air quality criteria for the optimisation of costs of
emission reduction methods and analysis of the results of optimisation
calculations. Lastly, an integrated program of air pollution reduction has been
developed, atmospheric air protection objectives have been determined and a
time schedule for investment and other undertakings have been prepared. [4]
Turkey, so far, has unfortunately not witnessed
yet such a policy development activity for any environmental media such as air,
water, noise or solid wastes. Even though, air pollution in the City of Ankara
and some other provincial centres have been reduced through the introduction of
natural gas to replace hard-coal, lignite and fuel-oil, the main driving reason
for this modification was not the environmental quality concerns but to meet
the demand for more energy. As an another example, the Government’s latest
decision to cancel/postpone the country’s first nuclear power plant
construction scheme has not been taken as a result of a deliberate policy
against the nuclear power but solemnly under the pressures of the ongoing
economic austerity program.
It would not be mistaken to state that Turkey has not so far sufficiently developed sound environmental
policies and put them into effect as binding at least all public organisations.
An important convincing evident in this regard is the paralysed and inefficient
“status-quo” of the “Higher Environmental
Committee” which is comprised of the high level authorities of the relevant
ministries and public agencies and responsible for the development and
promulgation of the Country’s national environmental policies.
Additionally, sound, effective and efficient
environmental policies should also have been developed for other environmental
media such as water quality, noise, solid waste, natural disasters, energy,
radiation, toxic wastes, pesticides. However, the present conditions of these
policies are not different from the one
summarised above.
Environmental Functions and
Procedures
An effective institutional set-up for environmental management requires
clear deliberation of core environmental management functions. These functions
could be technical, administrative, legal, economic and financial in nature. In
this regard, some certain well-established functions and procedures should be
available to the environmental managers and to those who are responsible for
compliance management. Technically speaking, these functions should at least
include the ability to determine the pollution, measuring the environmental
media, emissions and discharges, dispersion of pollutants, changes in time and
over space, developing standards for measurement, analysis and calibration,
developing standards for both sampling and good laboratory practices as well as
several others. From the management point of view, an effective environmental
impact assessment and reporting procedure should be established. “Permit” and
“license” procedures should also be developed to control the operations,
discharges and emissions. Legal procedures should be developed. An
environmental police or inspection system should be developed to prosecute the
offenders and rule-breakers. Additionally, environmental sanctions and
penalties in terms of fines, imprisonment or partial/total or
temporary/permanent closure of the plants should be legislated. As far as the
economic and financial functions are concerned the functions listed in the
Table 1 should be put into implementation.
In other words, protecting the environment also requires several
environmental functions to be performed effectively and efficiently. These
functions include pollution prevention, 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 in terms of free public
access to information, establishing data networks and sharing the data. The
load of external and international relations in environmental management should
not be underestimated.
At the national level, these functions should aim at directly and/or
indirectly preventing the pollution and nuisances. They could also be
protective, corrective functions or supportive functions in nature and must
include fines and penalties. Direct prevention function should include
development of environmental standards, specifying minimum requirements for
production and establishing prohibitions and bans. Whereas, the indirect
prevention function may be pollution taxes or charges, permits and licenses and
effective land-use planning. Science, research, training and education as well
as financial subsidies should be seen as the examples of the supportive
environmental functions. Protective functions include monitoring and
controlling systems, provision of clean fuel or clean raw material,
establishing environmental insurance system and giving the right of application
to correct the environmental mistakes and suing the responsible public
authorities to the general public. The corrective environmental function could
be -amongst several others- abatement and treatment of pollution, reusing or
recycling wastes and establishment of sanitary and secure landfills.
The local functions should also include policy planning, information
gathering and database development, preparation of local environmental master
plans, monitoring systems, assessing environmental impacts and setting up of a
local environmental organisation.
Assessing Turkey’s position from the
environmental functions stated above, one
could not easily claim that all these are well developed and effectively
implemented at the national or local level. Undoubtedly, some of these
functions are also legislated and being implemented by public authorities.
However, the systemic and comprehensive
utilisation of these functions is far away from being satisfactory.
In order to support these statements, three
evidences could be pointed out. First, there is no blueprint so far developed
for provincial environmental management. Secondly, there is no compliance
management system in the Country yet despite the indisputable requisite of the
Code of Environment (Article 16). Finally, it should be pointed out that the
technical infrastructure of environmental management at least in terms of
monitoring systems, laboratories and data inventories has not yet been
institutionalised.
Environmental Criteria and
Standards
Environmental standards
could be ambient quality standards, emission and discharge standards,
production standards, fuel standards and production material standards.
However, environmental standards are the most crucial inputs of the “command and control” strategy.
Environmental esteems of the public at large will be specified “vis a vis” the ambient conditions and
these esteems will be translated into numerical forms and figures and will be
promulgated for all concerned parties. The responsible public administration
will enforce these standards thus paving the way for a better environmental
quality and a more protective shield for the risk groups.
However, standard making is not an easy task.
There are so many crucial problems to be satisfactorily answered. “Which
substances should be standardised?”, “Why they should be standardised?”, “What
is the threshold limit?”, “What are the methods of measurement and analysis?”,
“Is scientific knowledge adequate to make assertions on the subject?” and “What
will be the economical consequences of the new limitation/regulation?” This
type of questions should be answered thoroughly, scientifically, satisfactorily
and directly.
A simple analysis to be made
on how US EPA is developing her air quality standards will reveal the hardships
involved in the process of standard making. According to the “air quality standard making” standard
of EPA the following steps should be followed to promulgate a new air quality
standard: screening of all related materials on the subject, preparing the
draft criteria document, consultations with scientists working on the issue,
first seminar on the draft document, dissemination of the draft document to
related public agencies for appraisal, preparing the second draft criteria
document, preparing the staff report, evaluation of economic implications of
the new regulations, appraisal by the Budget Administration and promulgation of
the new standard by the EPA Administrator to be reviewed five years later.
A comparison made by the
author on the air quality standards of Turkey and the USA revealed the
following conclusions: Turkish standards
are more tolerant. Standard development procedure is not defined in Turkey.
Scientific methods are not satisfactorily utilised in Turkey. The influences of
foreign scientific sources are obvious and predominant in Turkey since the
environmental standards are the translations of the original foreign documents.
[5]
Environmental Planning and
Environmental Auditing
Plan is a program to identify the tools, tasks and timings of the
desired objectives/targets. Plan, under the prerequisites of the concerned
region, taking into consideration the characteristics of the region and also
the time constraints, is also a tool to identify the best utilisation of scarce
resources, realising the maximum interest of the community which is also
interrelated to the physical and economical characteristics of the region
concerned.
Environmental management should rely on two main concepts: strategic
planning and performance management. Strategic planning requires objectives,
strategies, policies, actions, timing and placing for any action in concern.
Affecting all related aspects of the organisation strategic planning also
requires internal assessment, 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 should assess the critical issues involved such
as human resources, financial resources, data resources, weaknesses, present
strategy, organisational structure, organisational culture, strengths,
opportunities, environmental trends, political economic and social trends,
stakeholders, threats, trends in technology, statutory constraints and public
opinion.
Planning process begins with a preliminary work aiming at defining
regional characteristics. These should include demographic, geographic,
topographic, economic, urban and so many other parameters. Later, the
methodology should be determined in terms of monitoring networks, required
minimum basic data, data processing and data banks. The obtained data should be
analysed, mean parametric values as well as maximum and minimum values should
be calculated, frequency distributions should be obtained, trends should be
identified and pollution indices should be developed. Upcoming stage should be
stimulation and modelling and developing solution alternatives. Upon this
analysis, an optimisation model should be developed and an implementation
program or an action plan should be designed. Correspondingly, all
institutional measures should be taken in time.
An ideal environmental planning process should include the following
actions:
·
determining the status of
environment “vis a vis” ambient environmental qualities, ecology,
hydro-geological aspects, land-use pattern, and social and economic
characteristics which will require field studies, surveys, use of satellite
images and use of all related secondary data
·
assessing the availability
of natural resources, minerals and human resources in the area
·
assessing the present
pollution loads in the area which will require stacks and emission surveys,
ambient quality measurement, characterisation and quantification of emissions,
discharges and wastes into the ambient environment, observing the fluctuations
and changes in the ambient environment
·
developing an integrated
environmental management plan considering the assimilative and supportive
capacities of the environment so that development will be within the carrying
capacity of the region which will require mastering existing environmental standards,
understanding the present conditions, making correlation, projection and
extrapolation and developing dilution and dispersion models.
Having all these done, planning will focus on how to optimally match the
assimilative and supportive capacity of the environment. In that regard,
optimal resource allocation choices should be made. Measures against pollution
should be determined. Ways and means of pollutant containment and treatment
should be decided. Social and economic measures should be developed for local
development trends. Re-use of discharged materials should be planned and some
certain economic incentives should be developed.
Certainly, the ultimate objective of planning will be the maximisation
of the utilisation of the assimilative capacity, cognisance of the supportive
capacity, identification of the carrying capacity and controlling the growth
pattern without jeopardising the environmental quality.
In this regard, planning techniques should include the components of
“community based issue analysis”, action planning, implementation and
monitoring as well as evaluation and feedback.
In Turkey, the public sectors approach to planning bases upon a
hierarchical understanding. The top one in the echelon is the 5 yearly
“development plans” based upon sectoral planning concept done by the State
Planning Organisation (SPO). According to the legislation, the second one is
supposed to be the “regional plans” both for land-use and sectoral development.
The scale is foreseen to be as 1/100.000. Institutional responsibility belongs
again to the SPO. However, no such a plan has yet been prepared with the
exception of Southeastern Anatolia Plan. The following one in line is called
“environmental order plan” and supposed to be scaled between 1/25.000 to
1/50.000. The content of this plan is controversial. The Ministry of Public
Works accepts this as a “land-use plan”. On the other hand, the Ministry of
Environment tries to attach an “environmental outlook” to this plan. The legislative documents declare that the
responsibility for this plan belongs to the Ministry of Environment. However,
the Ministry of Environment has not yet prepared a single one yet. On the other
hand, the Ministry of Public Works are making and approving these plans which
are binding on the urban master plans without having any legal authority as a
kind of “land-use planning instrument”. The next one is the urban (city) master
plans on the scale of 1/10.000, which is further sub-divided into
implementation plans of 1/1.000.
Besides these, the environmental regulations put into effect under the
Code of Environment, such as Air Quality Protection, Water Pollution
Prevention, Noise Prevention, Solid Waste Control and some others mention the
concept of planning without defining and describing the content and the
methodology. These environmental plans have
never been prepared yet by any public authority despite almost 15 years elapsed
after the promulgation of these regulations. On the other hand, the Ministry of Environment has done nothing on
the extension of the planning concepts mentioned in the regulations and
contextual and technical development of these plans. Several environmental
management plans –although naive and weak in technique and content- were
prepared by some academicians on behalf of the Ministry of Environment for some
environmental problems, such as “caretta
caretta” protection. However, these
plans do not have any legal backup and do not include any institutional
component for the implementation and enforcement.
The national development
plans and their successes and achievements over environment planning endeavour
have been evaluated earlier. Likewise, “The National Environmental Strategies
and Action Plan” which has been touched upon earlier is going to be another
example in this regard as far as the planning of environment is concerned. And, the attempt made by the Ministry of
Environment for the preparation of “National Agenda 21” is going to be another
typical example of previously mentioned ones.
The conditions of environmental
auditing in Turkey should also be assessed.
Environmental auditing as has been utilised in several countries is
indeed a very beneficial environmental planning tool for private sector and as
well as a very convenient enforcement tool for the public authorities. In this
regard, environmental consultation works
has not yet come to a desired level, national private companies have not yet
been established to provide such services and EMAR-EMAS and ISO 14000 types of
voluntary compliance methods are not being used satisfactorily at the moment.
Organisational Set-up
Environmental management
definitely requires an organisation to manage and administer the ecosystems.
However, the task of establishing an effective and efficient organisation is
not an easy task and necessitates delicate handling of the problem from the
perspective of political preferences, interagency relations, funding
opportunities, creating and reflecting the political will and securing a public
support.
From the political
preferences point of view, determining the mission of the organisation,
defining the major environmental problems to be tackled with, understanding how
these problems are already being taken care of, which existing agencies are
assuming responsibility, the way these agencies are drawing their powers,
setting up the legal framework, understanding the formal procedure of
establishing a new public organisation, determining the ultimate decision
maker, the format of the agency to be established, specifying the
administrative functions of the new organisation, the relations between the
central government and the local governments will be the main issues to be
tackled.
As far as the interagency
relations concerned, determining the environmental programs in effect and the
existing agencies’ managing roles for them, understanding the strengths and
weaknesses of the existing interagency relations and forecasting the need for
cooperation are the ones to be addressed amongst the so many others.
As for the funding and
financing issues are concerned there are several others: determining the
priorities, selecting the decision makers, increasing the role and share of the
private sector, and allocation methods of the money to be spent from budget. [6]
The issues mentioned above
are some of the issues to be tackled with during the institutional appraisal
studies. All of them require full attention and satisfactory solutions. Once
decided, the internal organisation structure should be established for the
operation of core functions such as budgeting, planning, facility management,
personnel administration, information management, external affairs, legal
counselling and policy development. Additionally, the focal points of each
environmental media should be established to set the standards, to monitor the
compliance, to prevent the pollution, to assess the risks and to take remedial
actions.
As far as Turkey’s environmental organisation is concerned, it is
certainly not possible to state that the existing conditions are satisfactory. In reality, just the opposite is correct. There are several reasons for
the ailing organisational structure. The
division of functions between the central government and the local governments
is not satisfactory and is contradictory time to time. Despite the legal
controversies and ambiguities, the central government is given the main
responsibility and the authority to manage and administer the environment.
However, only 34 of total 82 provincial governorates have Provincial
Environmental Directorate and out of about 1.000 districts none of them has any
organisations representing the Ministry of Environment at the district level.
Additionally, the internal organisation of the Ministry of Environment’
headquarter is wrongly and non-functionally established. On the other hand,
with the exception of a few, the local governments do not have any
environmental management unit other than the scavenging services. The ones that have such a unit is far away
from the modern environmental management techniques. There are dozens of
other reasons which support the above given statement. However, the apparent
limits and the length of this paper are the obvious obstacles to investigate
and describe the situation in a greater detail.
Legal Infrastructure and Powers and Authorities for Public Agencies
In one of articles of the author published earlier, the question of “Why
is environment a focus of problems?” was posed. [7] The answer given in the article
is stated below: “There are three main
reasons of understanding the environment concept as a focus of problems: The
first one is that the creators of environmental problems and the ones who give
rise to these problems have the opportunity to not to pay the cost of the quantitative
environmental damage they have caused. This is why environment is becoming a
problem. Someone creates the problem but other people mostly the community pays
for its cost. The second one is that there is no possibility to transfer the
wastes of this planet to other planets. As the waste amount surpasses the level
that nature can absorb, the ones living on this planet Earth will have to face
big losses due to the change of the conditions shaping their lives. As a matter
of fact, some environmentalist philosophers have asserted that, in its history
of last 30-40 years, the World has come nearer to a point fast, which can be
characterised as a catastrophe. The third main reason is the increasing pressure
on the scarce sources and the extinction of some species.”
This analogy basically indicates the necessity of well founded legal
rules, norms and sanctions to solve the dilemma amongst the people -either
individual or legal personality- or between the private personalities and the
public. As briefly summarised above, the “environmental negative externalities”
-in other words pollution and nuisances- create disputes and cause conflict of
interests between the rival parties requiring the intervention of impartial
judicial courts as well the implementation of sanctions to wrong-doers.
The history of legal developments for the
protection of the environment is rather old in almost every country as well as
in Turkey. For instance, in the USA the public health and safety concerns
forced the Congress to enact several laws to protect and enhance the living
conditions through out the last century. Likewise, in Turkey, between the date
of the establishment of the Republic in 1923 and the year 1982 when the New
Constitution has been ratified more than 50 different laws, which have direct
relations to the protection and enhancement of environmental quality, have been
put into implementation. The history of such legislation goes back to
establishment of the new Republic.
In “the Code Civil”, dated 1926,
“responsibilities of the owner” and “the rights of the neighbours” have been
regulated thus paving the road for better environmental relations amongst the
private individuals.
As for the public laws, “The Code on Provincial
Administration”, dated 1949, authorised the provincial governors and district
sub-governors to act as they deem appropriate to deal with the ecological and
environmental problems.
“The Municipal Code”, dated 1930, empowered
municipalities to take every possible action to control and upgrade the urban
hygiene.
Another code dated same year, “the Code of
Public Health”, gave considerable power and authority to protect the public
health, thus local environment, to field administrators and mayors.
Rather important several other regulations,
which are still in effect, were prepared and put the implementation basing upon
above mentioned two Codes regulating the urban and civic law-and-order and
public hygiene.
The 1982 Constitution, which is a cornerstone
in Turkey as far as legal aspects of environment is concerned, clearly
specified the “right for healthy and balanced environment” as one of the human
rights in Turkey. After the enactment of the new Constitution, a series of
environmental legislation came into effect. The very first one was “the Code of
Environment” dating 1983. This Code specified the rights and duties of
citizens, indicated the necessity of a balance to be established between the
developmental and environmental protection concerns, required the utilisation
of cleaner technologies, introduced the polluter pays principle, stated an
overall ban of every kind of pollution, explained the responsibilities of
polluters, brought authority to local administrators to stop industrial
operations in case of environmental crises, set the main principle for the
citizens’ right to apply to public authorities/courts and introduced an
environmental penal system.
Later, Turkey has adopted
the approach of creating special management zones for some areas having
critical ecosystems. “The decree law on Specially Protected Environmental
Zones” has been put into implementation.
Several regulations have
been prepared and put into effect to manage the environmental quality for
important environmental media such as air, water, noise, domestic and hazardous
solid wastes including the Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment as an
integral part of the Code of Environment.
Besides these legislative
efforts, the private and administrative courts as well as the Constitutional
Court have produced so many decisions on environmental quality, interpreting,
consolidating and further developing the legal content already promulgated in
the Country.
Additionally, Turkey became
a partner or a signatory in more than 50 international conventions, agreements
and protocols to protect the national, regional and global environment.
Having this brief
annotation, it is possible to state the
legal foundations of environmental management have always been at least
satisfactory in Turkey either in the pre-1982 Constitution era or during the
pots-1982 Constitution era since the establishment of the New Republic. Consequently,
the powers and authorities of the public administrators are deliberated. The
public authorities have enough legal power to protect the environment. These
legal powers and authorities range from issuing fines to temporary and
permanent closure of production facilities.
The two main deficiencies that should be pointed out here are the contextual misgivings taking place
in some legislation such as ignoring the
principle of sustainable development in the main legal documents, the implicit
preferences for economic development and unemployment against ecological issues
and the non-materialisation of some principles like the polluter pays and the wrong and conflicting administrative
designs and preferences –due to their direct translation from other countries-
taking place in the environmental regulations put into effect after 1982.
These main deficiencies make the environmental regulations specified above
which sets down the main management model for the most important environmental
media rather impracticable, ineffective
and inefficient thus hindering the efforts to protect and enhance the
environmental quality.
Institutionalisation of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) System
Environmental impact
assessment has become the most powerful and effective tool of environmental
management and planning during the last 30 years. 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. To sum, most
of the negative environmental impacts are prevented before the emergence and
sufficient remedies are planned for the expected ones. [8]
This environmental
management/planning technique is being used in several countries successfully
and effectively since 1970s. Turkey has also decided to establish such a system
in 1983 with the Code of Environment enacted that year. Though the Code has stated
that the details will be arranged in a regulation to be promulgated in one-year
time, the regulation has been finalised 10 years later and has become effective
as of January 1st, 1994. Since then, the regulation has witnessed
two major modifications.
An analysis made by the
author on the result so far obtained from the implementation of EIA Regulation
has been discussed in an article and the book mentioned above. [9] As discussed in a rather greater
detail in these references, the problems
of EIA system in Turkey are related to the insufficiency of the required
infrastructure for an effective implementation of EIA in the Country, the
insufficiencies related to the overall design of the EIA system in the
Regulation, the problems encountered during report preparation and evaluation
stages and the problems related to the project construction and operation
phases.
Taking into consideration of these
limitations, it would not be wrong to
state that Turkey has not yet established an effective EIA system, the existing
EIA system requires substantial modification and the implementation conditions
of the system should be improved considerably.
Sufficiency of Environmental Infrastructure: Treatment and Disposal
Facilities, Monitoring Systems, Inventories, Databanks, Networks, Laboratories
and others
An effective environmental
management system requires rich and sophisticated technical equipment to
diagnose, understand and monitor the environmental phenomena over the space and
in time. A pollution phenomenon is full of continuous physical and chemical
reaction cycles. The information and data should be collected, retrieved,
analyzed and should be made ready to other’s utilisation. Furthermore,
pollution and wastes needs to be disposed and abated and treated. This can only
be done through rather sophisticated technologies.
Essentially, the technical infrastructure of environmental management is
rather insufficient in Turkey. Although there are some hopeful indications of
new investments in this regard, such as the construction and operation of
wastewater treatment plants in Ankara, Istanbul, Eskisehir, Antalya and Bursa,
so far only 20 per cent of the wastewater are being treated. Only less than 3
per cent of the municipalities has sanitary and secure landfills and disposal
system. The EU financed main research and development laboratory has been
constructed in Ankara but not fully operational yet and needs considerable
improvement in terms of manpower, expertise and equipment. However, air quality
monitoring systems are ailing and virtually non-existent with the exception of
the City of Ankara though no telemetric system for electronic data transfer has
been established even in Ankara. Databanks and inventories virtually do not
exist. Communication network and laboratories have the similar characteristics.
Naturally, without such an
infrastructure, environmental management can neither be effective or efficient
in any country at the national or at the local level.
Adequacy of Economic and Financial Tools of Environmental Management
As stated earlier, the financial end economic tools are very important
in environmental management and having more space of application in several
countries. A classification of economical tools of environmental management and
the present circumstances in Turkey are summarised below:
Table 1
Economical and Financial Tools of Environmental Management
Type of Tools
Situation in Turkey
TAXES ON EMISSIONS/
DISCHARGES
·
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANSING TAX
·
TAX ON NEW VEHICLE PURCHASE
·
CONTRIBUTION TO BE MADE TO
THE “ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION PREVENTION FUND”
·
FUEL TAX
·
FUEL CONSUMPTION TAX
CHARGES ON EMISSION/
DISCHARGES/USERS
·
WASTE WATER CHARGE
·
AIRPORT CHARGE (?)
TAXES ON PRODUCTS
·
NO
MARKETABLE PERMITS
·
NO
DEPOSIT-REFUND SYSTEM
·
SOLID WASTE CONTROL
REGULATION
SUBSIDIES
·
BOTH NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE
FUNDS
·
ENV. POL. PREV. FUND
·
SPEC. PROT. AREAS FUND
WASTE MARKETS
·
NO
GREEN POINTS
·
NO
ENVIRONMENTAL
ACCOUNTING: MACRO-
MICRO
* NO
ENVIRONMENTAL
INSURANCE
* NO
The
basic tools of economical and financial tools of environmental management and
the present implementation status of them in Turkey have been summarised above.
As it has been indicated in the table, although
there are some “quasi” economical tools of environmental management in the
Country, it is not possible to state that this strategy has found a major place
for implementation in Turkey. To
better appraise the situation, it is necessary to point the minimum conditions
for a “green economical tool”. A green tax must create an enforcing sanction
over the polluter to change his/her unacceptable mode of environmental
behaviour and the rate of taxation should be equal to the marginal cost of
abatement, treatment or disposal of the pollution/waste concerned. Since the “quasi” green taxes in Turkey do
not have these characteristics it would not be possible to talk about the green
taxes in Turkey. There are no environment taxes on products. The concept of
marketable pollution quota has not yet been introduced to the related circles.
Deposit and refunding system exists but not effective. Developmental subsidies
are predominant. Environmental subsidies are also introduced into the national
subsidy scheme recently. However, since all investments are encouraged through
the national subsidy scheme, there is no environmental subsidy in the Country
and the environmental aspects of the economical subsidies are not considered
during the decision making for the new investments. Additionally, present
subsidy concept works against the environmental and ecological interests.
Environmental funds are neither sufficient nor used rationally and sensibly.
Waste markets have not yet been established. Waste collection systems similar
to “green points” is only exemplary in nature but not effective and widespread.
Environmental accounting principles have not yet intruded either at the macro
or micro level. There is no environmental insurance system at the moment.
Consequently,
the development of financial and
economic tools of environmental management should bear one of most important
priorities in Turkey to have more effective environmental management in the
upcoming years.
Environmental Education, Training and Human Resources Planning and
Management
An effective environmental management should aim at changing the
people’s harmful mode of behaviours towards environment, enlightening and
informing the people on the environmental matters and developing expertise and
know-how on environmental technology as well as training professional cadres
for future employment opportunities in the field. In this regard human
resources management and public education functions are extremely important.
People’s unwanted and harmful behaviours can be changed through education and
young generations can be better oriented towards the future environmental
problems. These two basic necessities makes “training
and education for environment” function rather crucial in terms of
effective environmental management.
People’s training -especially for those in the school enrolment age
bracket- can be realised at the formal education institutions ie. primary
schools, high schools and vocational training schools and those who are beyond
the schooling age can be educated through the public education systems and
methods.
On the other hand, professionals should be trained for the posts to take
place in local or national environmental management. Engineers, physicists,
chemists, biologists, economists, lawyers and public administrators are just a
few examples of among several others. Environmental management being a
composite discipline comprising all scientific branches requires a
well-balanced and well-designed manpower planning for the future. “The skill gap analysis” technique
should play a significant role in manpower planning. The required skills and
the amount of manpower to be needed in future should be identified earlier by
taking into the future demands and the potential cadres should be trained
accordingly.
As far as Turkey’s specific conditions are concerned, training and education for environment
could be seen satisfactory since a considerable amount of energy is being spent
in the formal education institutions to reorient the pupils towards the merits
of environmental and ecological conservation. Additionally, the efforts spent
for public education is comparable to other nations.
Lastly, it should be pointed
out that professional and technical training for environment in Turkey –in
general- has nothing less than other countries. Although, there might be some
under-emphasised areas in the university education such as training for environmental
impact assessment, environmental accounting and environmental auditing this
could easily be overcome.
However, what is missing in
Turkey is the manpower planning for future career posts in environmental
management. The surplus of environmental engineers, urban and regional
planners, chemists and physicists is at an alarming level and considerable
amount of well trained and university graduate professionals are now working in
unrelated areas.
“Performance Management” and “Total
Environmental Quality Management” Concepts
The very last criterion in the checklist is devoted to the science of
management. The contemporary management science is basically related to the
concept of “objective”. The overall philosophy of today’s management
understanding concentrates mainly on the “results achieved”. This concept has
several names attached to it: “management
by objectives”, “performance management”, “result management” and “end-management” is the most known
synonym in this regard.
The mutual relation between the
science of environment and the science of management is very strong and both
have a strong common denominator. This common denominator is the concept of
“objective” or “target”. Today’s management concept tries to realise the
previously set objectives or targets and through the monitoring, management
information systems and appraisal components intends to take corrective actions
on this direction as a continuous and iterative cycle. And, today’s science of
environment also sets down ambient quality objectives for future and tries to
achieve them. In this regard, environmental management should set the future
environmental quality objectives and targets and should develop programs and
action plans to realise the desired and intended outcomes.
These parallel approaches unite two disciplines in a very meaningful
format. Environmental management must base upon the concept of performance
management and the overall environmental administration must be run on the
concepts of performances, ends, results and outcomes.
The second important management concept of our
today’s understanding is the total quality management (TQM) concept. Having
rather long historical and theoretical roots in the USA and Japan, the TQM has
become a very rewarding approach especially for private sector companies. It
was rewarding because the overall productivity and profitability increased
clients’ satisfaction upgraded and employee satisfaction largely generated in
the companies using the concepts of TQM such as “continuous improvement/development”,
“zero fault “and” client-centrism.
Total environmental quality
management (TEQM) has similar characteristics like TQM. The environmental
administration, either national or local, should always have the concept of
continuous improvement in the environmental quality.
Both understanding has also close relations
with the concept of “strategic management and planning” as briefly explained
earlier. This concept covers almost all
related segments of the performance management and TQM. In that regard, it
should be indicated that environmental management should base upon the concept
of strategic management and planning.
In Turkey, however, it is not possible to declare that such
understandings are dominant in either at the national level or at the local
level. Therefore, one of top priority should be assigned to the development of
a modern management concept in an effective environmental institution.
Scientific Significance and Problems of the Model: Verification,
Quantification, Social Indicators and Environmental Management Indices
It should be clearly stated here that the model
described above is purely based upon the author’s individual knowledge and
experiences on the issue gained in several countries.
In this regard, it is quite apparent that the
scientific validity, dependability and reliability concerns have to be
satisfied through further researches and tests in order to make the model valid
for other countries or regions.
As far as the reliability and validity is
concerned, the quantification and weighing of the criteria mentioned above will
carry an utmost importance. However, this obstacle can be overcome rather
easily. The indicators to quantify the criteria could be determined through
“Delphi” sequencing and forecasting technique and the data to be used can be
classified in nominal, ordinal or interval scale. For verification purpose, a
group of countries can be taken as a sample group -having sufficient and
dependable environmental data- and again through the “Delphi” technique the
experts in these countries could be asked to weigh and quantify the criteria.
The results to be obtained should be compared
and correlated with the actual environmental performances of these countries in
terms of amount of pollution, discharge and waste produced every year or
environmental expenditure per capita. If possible, regression analysis should
be made using the correlation coefficients obtained from the statistical
computations.
Upon the verification of the model, several
indices of environmental management could be achieved which can be used in
testing and diagnosing the overall environmental management characteristics,
deficiencies and superiority of any given society.
Conclusion
The realisation of an effective institutional set-up for environmental
management either at the national and local level is rather a complicated and
difficult job in any country. On the other hand, several environmental
administrations so far established and are being established in almost every
corner of the World.
However, despite this overwhelming trend, no such an attempt has so far
been done yet, to guide, advice and consult these activities by creating a
checklist basing upon the scientific researches and previous experiences gained
in other parts of the World.
In this paper, an attempt has been made in this regard. Several criteria
have been selected and analyzed accordingly. It is believed that the checklist
developed here can easily be quantified and weighed thus paving the road to
have management indices in due regard.
Such a checklist and indices, hopefully, will further contribute to the
overall improvement and enhancement of the science of environmental management
in our Globe by all means.
REFERENCES
Yasamis, Firuz D., Basic Tools of Environmental Management, 1995,
Ankara, Imge Publishing, p. 240.
Yasamis, Firuz D., Environmental Management and Planning, 1989,
Ankara, p. 173.
Yasamis, Firuz D., Environmental Causes of Infant Mortality,
1991, Ankara, p. 224.
Yasamis, Firuz D., Environmental Impact Assessment,
Ankara, 1997 p. 336.
Yasamis, Firuz D. The Problems of the Environmental Impact
Assessment System in Turkey and Their Solutions, Turkish Administrative
Review, No: 410, Mart 1996, Ankara, pp.37-57.
Yasamis, Firuz D. Institutional Problems Related to the
Management of Istanbul and Some Solutions Proposals Turkish
Administrative Review, Ankara, No. 411, pp. 71-92.
Yasamis, Firuz D., “Urban Linear
Infrastructure Provision in Ankara (Water, Sewerage, Underground Transport)”,
Turkish Administrative Review, Ankara, No. 414, pp. 49-101.
Yasamis, Firuz D., “Urban Linear
Infrastructures: Barcelona”, Turkish Administrative Review, No. 416, pp.
65-116.
Yasamis, Firuz D., A New Cornerstone in the Relations of
Environment and Industry Environment and Man, No. 38, pp. 36-41.
Yasamis, Firuz D., ISO 14000: International Environmental
Management Standards, Turkish Administrative Review, Ankara, 1998, No.
419, pp.7-34.
Yasamis, Firuz D., “Turkish
Environmental Law: An Overview of Legal Principles”, In Memoriam of Dr.
Iur. Lawyer Faruk Erem, Union of Turkish Bars, Publication no 8, Ankara, 1999,
pp. 879-906.
Fiorino, Daniel J., “Making
Environmental Policy”, University of California Press, 1995, pp. 269.
Ed. Kamieniecki, Sheldon, George A. Gonzalez and Robert O. Vos, “Flashpoints in Environmental Policy
Making”, State University of New York Press, 1997, pp. 367.
UNDP, WHO, People’s Republic of Poland, “Environmental Protection Final Report”, March 1979, Katowice, pp.
207.
OECD, “Environmental Policies in
Turkey”, 1992, Paris, pp. 171.
OECD, “Environmental Performance
Review: Turkey”, 1999, Paris, pp. 185.
Ryding, Sven-Olof, “Environmental
Management Handbook”, Lewis Publishers, 1992, pp. 776
[1] International Environmental Management Standards developed by the
International Standards Organization.
[2] Fiorino, Daniel J., “Making
Environmental Policy” pp. 13.
[3] OECD reports: “Environmental Policies in Turkey” and “Environmental
Performance Review: Turkey”.
[4] UNDP, WHO, People’s Republic of Poland, “Environmental Protection
Final Report”, March 1979, Katowice, pp. 207.
[5] Yasamis, Firuz D., “Basic Tools of Environmental Management” and
Yasamis, Firuz D., “International Environmental Management Standard: ISO
14000”, Turkish Administrative Review,
Ankara, 1998, no: 419, p. 7-34.
[6] For further elaboration please look at, Sven-Olof Ryding,
“Environmental Management Handbook, Lewis Publishers, 1992, pp. 776.
[7] Yasamis, Firuz D., “Turkish
Environmental Law: An Overview of Legal Principles”, In Memoriam of Dr. Iur.
Lawyer Faruk Erem, Union of Turkish Bars, Publication no 8, Ankara, 1999, pp.
879-906.
[8] See, Yasamis, Firuz D., “Environmental Impact Assessment”.
[9] Yasamis, Firuz D., “The Problems of the Environmental Impact
Assessment System in Turkey and Their Solutions”, Turkish Administrative
Review, no. 410, March 1996, Ankara, pp.
37-57.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder