Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The effectiveness of the Bern Convention on wildlife legislation and judicial decisions in Turkey

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Bern Convention aims to conserve wild flora and fauna and their natural habitats, especially those species and habitats whose conservation requires the cooperation of several states. Turkey became a party to the convention in 1984 and therefore made it binding in terms of domestic law. It was sought to answer the question of how effective the Bern Convention was in Turkish legislation and judicial decisions. For that purpose, first, comparison of the provisions of the Bern Convention with Turkish legislation is carried out by using a four-point scoring chart, and second, the effect of the convention on the judicial decisions was examined by considering whether the Bern Convention was clearly referred in the relevant judicial decisions—47 Council of State decisions were analyzed from 1984 to 2019. It is observed an improvement in Turkish wildlife legislation increased from 17 to 74% per the Bern Convention’s goals and objectives. The proportion of judicial decisions referred to the Bern Convention, which resulted in a positive ecological decision was 87.5%. Decisions that do not refer to the Bern Convention were 66% positive. A comprehensive evaluation of both judicial decisions and legislative analysis showed that there are many deficiencies, especially in terms of migratory species and interstate coordination. To improve judicial decisions, courts should be subjected to mandated capacity-building training/workshops concerning international conventions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AnayasaMahkemesi. (2011). Anayasa Mahkemesi Kararı. http://www.kararlaryeni.anayasa.gov.tr/Karar/Content/7ac79687-362c-4bf2-8bc5-abf857006cb1?excludeGerekce=False&wordsOnly=False. Accessed 27 July 2020.

  • Arslankaya, H. (2014). Türkiye’deki Endemik Orkide Türlerinin Türkiye Biyoçeşitliliğinin Devamı Açısından Önemi (p. 67). İzmir: Ege Tarımsal Araştırma Enstitüsü Müdürlüğü.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, N. (1996). 8 Conflicts over biodiversity. In P. B. Sloep & A. Blowers (Eds.), Environmental policy in an international context (Vol. 2, pp. 217–241). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baslar, K. (2001). Turkey and international environmental law. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2725494. Accessed 27 July 2020.

  • Bevz, O. (2018). Legal regulation of the Emerald network: National and global aspects. Journal of Vasyl stefanyk Precarpathian National University, 5(2), 91–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cirelli, M. T. (2002). Legal trends in wildlife management (Vol. 74). Rome: Food & Agriculture Org.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coșkun, A., & Güneș, Y. (2010). Turkish nature and biodiversity legislation within the context of EU Bird directive and habitat directive. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 19(5a), 1042–1049.

    Google Scholar 

  • Díaz, C. L. (2010). The Bern Convention: 30 Years of nature conservation in Europe. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 19(2), 185–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9388.2010.00676.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DoğaDerneği. (2019). Turkey’s Biodiversity. https://www.dogadernegi.org/en/turkeys-biodiversity/. Accessed 1 January 2019.

  • Eminağaoğlu, Ö., Manvelidze, Z., Memiadze, N., Garden, B. B., & Batumi, G. (2010). Artvin İlinde Nesli Tehlike Altinda Olan Bitki Türleri I 2. Ulusal Karadeniz Ormancılık Kongresi, 20–22.

  • Epstein, Y. (2012). Population-based species management across legal boundaries: The Bern Convention, habitats directive, and the Gray Wolf in Scandinavia. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 25, 549.

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO. (2016). The State of Turkey’s biodiversity for food and agriculture (p. 16).

  • FAO. (2018). Biodiversity of Turkey. In H. Muminjanov, & A. Karagöz (Eds.), Contribution of genetic resources to sustainable agriculture and food systems (p. 222). Ankara.

  • Fleurke, F., & Trouwborst, A. (2014). 7 European regional approaches to the transboundary conservation of biodiversity: The Bern Convention and the EU birds and habitats directives. In Transboundary governance of biodiversity (pp. 128–162). Brill Nijhoff.

  • Genovesi, P., & Shine, C. (2004). European strategy on invasive alien species: Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and habitats (Bern Convention) (Vol. 18–137). Council of Europe.

  • Gross, M. (2012). Turkey’s biodiversity at the crossroads. Current Biology, 22(13), R503–R505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.06.051.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Güneş, Y., & Coşkun, A. A. (2004). Çevre Hukuku. Kazancı Hukuk Yayınları.

  • Güneş, Y., & Coşkun, A. A. (2008). Wildlife laws in Turkey: Conflicts and resolutions. In R. Panjawani (Ed.), Wildlife law: A global perspective (pp. 283–317). Chicago: American Bar Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ituarte-Lima, C., Dupraz-Ardiot, A., & McDermott, C. L. (2019). Incorporating international biodiversity law principles and rights perspective into the European Union Timber Regulation. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 19(3), 255–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-019-09439-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IUCN. (2012). Biodiversity in Turkey. https://www.iucn.org/content/biodiversity-turkey. Accessed 4 February 2019.

  • Jen, S. (1999). The convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats (Bern, 1979): Procedures of application in practice. Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, 2(2), 224–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/13880299909353929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahraman, A., Önder, M., & Ceyhan, E. (2011). Biodiversity and biosecurity in Turkey. In International conference on biology, environment and chemistry, IPCBEE. International proceedings of chemical, biological & environmental engineering (Vol. 24, pp. 33–37). Singapore: IACSIT Press.

  • Karagöz, A., & Sabancı, C. O. (2017). Plant biodiversity governance in Turkey. Türk Tarım ve Doğa Bilimleri Dergisi, 4(1), 57–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaya, Z., & Raynal, D. J. (2001). Biodiversity and conservation of Turkish forests. Biological Conservation, 97(2), 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00069-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KB. (2018). On Birinci Kalkınma Planı, Çevre ve Doğal Kaynakların Sürdürülebilir Yönetimi Çalışma Grubu Raporu (p. 121). Ankara: Kalkınma Bakanlığı.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiziroglu, I., Erdogan, A., & Turan, L. (2013). Biological diversity and its threats in Turkey. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 22(3), 772.

    Google Scholar 

  • Küçük, M., & Ertürk, E. (2013). Biodiversity and protected areas in Turkey. Sains Malaysiana, 42(10), 1455–1460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lutchman, I., Brown, J., & Kettunen, M. (2007). Transatlantic platform for action on the global environment (T-Page) (p. 17). London: Institute for European Environmental Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • MOE. (2001). The national strategy and action plan for biodiversity in Turkey (p. 37). Ankara: Ministry of Environment.

    Google Scholar 

  • MOEF. (2007). UN convention of biological diversity third national report of Turkey (p. 144). Ankara.

  • MOEF. (2008). The national biological diversity strategy and action plan 2007 V2 (p. 176). Ankara.

  • MOF. (1998). First national report of Turkey for UN convention on biological diversity (p. 38). Ankara.

  • Morgera, E. (2010). Wildlife law and the empowerment of the poor. FAO Legislative Study 103.

  • Özhatay, N., Byfield, A., & Atay, S. (2008). Türkiye’nin 122 önemli bitki alanı: WWF Türkiye (Doğal Hayatı Koruma Vakfı).

  • Şekercioğlu, Ç. H., Anderson, S., Akçay, E., Bilgin, R., Can, Ö. E., Semiz, G., et al. (2011). Turkey’s globally important biodiversity in crisis. Biological Conservation, 144(12), 2752–2769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.06.025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharrock, S., & Jones, M. (2011). Saving Europe’s threatened flora: Progress towards GSPC Target 8 in Europe. Biodiversity and Conservation, 20(2), 325–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9912-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trouwborst, A. (2018). Wolves not welcome? Zoning for large carnivore conservation and management under the Bern Convention and EU habitats directive. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 27(3), 306–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trouwborst, A., Boitani, L., & Linnell, J. D. C. (2017). Interpreting ‘favourable conservation status’ for large carnivores in Europe: how many are needed and how many are wanted? Biodiversity and Conservation, 26(1), 37–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1238-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trouwborst, A., & Fleurke, F. M. (2019). Killing Wolves legally: Exploring the scope for lethal Wolf management under European nature conservation law. Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, 22(3), 231–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2019.1686223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trouwborst, A., McCormack, P. C., & Martínez Camacho, E. (2020). Domestic cats and their impacts on biodiversity: A blind spot in the application of nature conservation law. People and Nature, 2(1), 235–250. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, J., Richards, C., Fischer, A., Halada, L., Kull, T., Kuzniar, A., et al. (2007). Conflicts between biodiversity conservation and human activities in the central and eastern European countries. Ambio, 36(7), 545–550. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36%5b545:cbbcah%5d2.0.co;2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work would not have been possible without the support of Prof. Dr. Sun Joseph CHANG from Louisiana State University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Forest Engineering, Faculty of Forestry, İstanbul University-Cerrahpaşa, 34400, İstanbul, Turkey

    Osman Devrim Elvan

  2. Department of Forest Engineering, Faculty of Forestry, Çankırı Karatekin University, 18200, Çankırı, Turkey

    Üstüner Birben & Hasan Emre Ünal

Authors
  1. Osman Devrim Elvan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Üstüner Birben
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hasan Emre Ünal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Üstüner Birben.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Osman Devrim Elvan, Üstüner Birben, and Hasan Emre Ünal declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Elvan, O.D., Birben, Ü. & Ünal, H.E. The effectiveness of the Bern Convention on wildlife legislation and judicial decisions in Turkey. Int Environ Agreements 21, 305–321 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-020-09498-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-020-09498-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation