To be “a developed country” or not to be? The effect of the Paris agreement on Turkish forest law

  • Gökçe GençayEmail author
  • Üstüner Birben
  • Aynur Aydın


The Paris Agreement (PA), which is an important step toward mitigating climate change, has ascribed new responsibilities to the signatory parties that differ from those of the Kyoto Protocol (KP). This study is focused on the new responsibilities and the reasons why Turkey has not yet assigned the agreement into its own domestic law, although it was signed on April 22, 2016. There are several political and legal reasons for this, but the most important is Turkey’s membership in the OECD as a developed country. Besides, developing countries shall be supported by the Green Climate Fund (GCF) at a $100 billion budget per year. Turkey needs GCF support in terms of technology transfer, capacity building, and financial in order to achieve the agreement’s goals. Turkey has demanded privileged status similar to the one in the KP, i.e., whether or not to be deemed as a developed country.

The core aim of the PA is to keep global temperature increases below 20 °C by the year 2030, insomuch as to limit temperature increases even further to 1.50 °C. This goal depends on the mitigation of CO2 levels, which means that countries should mitigate GHG emissions caused by deforestation and take further actions by primarily abandoning fossil fuels, improving/attaching importance to energy efficiency, and changing/improving land use planning. Within this context, the second part of the study analyzes the efficiency level of forestry legislation and Turkey’s climate policies in terms of the responsibilities to be assigned by the PA. The analysis is based on the question as to what extent the Turkish forestry legislation fulfills the responsibilities ascribed by the PA for preventing deforestation. Consequently, it has been concluded that eight criteria determined by the PA are not adequately included in the Turkish forestry legislation and shall require an amendment on a large scale, particularly when Turkey is deemed as a developed country.


Turkey Paris agreement Climate change Forests Development 



  1. Ayanoğlu, S. (1995). Orman ve çevre üzerinde olumsuz etki yaratan yasal düzenlemeler. İstanbul Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 45(1–2), 53–60.Google Scholar
  2. Berger, A., & Tricot, C. (1992). The greenhouse effect. Surveys in Geophysics., 13(6), 523–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bilder, R. B. (1980). International law and natural resources policies. Natural Resources Journal, 20, 451.Google Scholar
  4. Bolin, B. (2007). A history of the science and politics of climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bopp, L., Monfray, P., Aumont, O., Dufresne, J. L., Le Treut, H., Madec, G., et al. (2001). Potential impact of climate change on marine export production. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 15(1), 81–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Callendar, G. S. (1938). The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 64(275), 223–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chakraborty, S., Tiedemann, A. V., & Teng, P. S. (2000). Climate change: potential impact on plant diseases. Environmental Pollution, 108(3), 317–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coskun, A. A. (2005). An evaluation of the environmental impact assessment system in Turkey. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development, 4(1), 47–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coşkun, A. A., & Gençay, G. (2011). Kyoto protocol and “deforestation”: a legal analysis on Turkish environment and forest legislation. Forest Policy and Economics, 13(5), 366–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. ÇŞB, (2011). Türkiye Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı, İklim Değişikliği Ulusal Eylem Planı 2010–2023. (Date of access 19.02.2019).
  11. ÇŞB, (2019). Türkiye Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı, (Date of access 19.02.2019).
  12. Elvan, O. D. (2013). The legal environmental risk analysis (LERA) sample of mining and the environment in Turkish legislation. Resources Policy, 38(3), 252–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elvan, O. D., & Türker, Y. O. (2014). Analysis of Turkish groundwater legislation and policy regarding international principles and conventions. Water Science and Technology, 69(10), 2155–2165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Engin, B. (2010). İklim Değişikliği ile Mücadelede Uluslararası İşbirliğinin Önemi. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (2), 71–82.Google Scholar
  15. Fleming, J. R. (2007). Te Callendar Effect. Published by the American Meteorological Society. ISBN 978-1-878220-76-9.Google Scholar
  16. Gençay, G., Birben, Ü., & Durkaya, B. (2018). Effects of legal regulations on land use change: 2/B applications in Turkish forest law. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 37(8), 804–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Güneş, Y., & Coşkun, A. A. (2005). Legal structure of public participation in environmental issues in Turkey. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 7(03), 543–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Housman, R. F. (1994). International environmental law and industrial ecology. The greening of industrial ecosystems, 108–122.Google Scholar
  19. Henderson-Sellers, J. A. (1990). History of the greenhouse effect. Progress in Physical Geography, 14(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
  20. Höhne, N., Ellermann, C., & Li, L. (2014). Intended nationally determined contributions under the UNFCCC. Discussion Paper.Google Scholar
  21. Karakaya, E., & Sofuoğlu, E. (2015). İklim Değişikliği Müzakerelerine Bir Bakış: 2015 Paris İklim Zirvesi. Uluslararası Avrasya Enerji Sorunları Sempozyumu, 28–30.Google Scholar
  22. Kinley, R. (2017). Climate change after Paris: from turning point to transformation. Climate Policy, 17(1), 9–15. Scholar
  23. Klein, D., Carazo, M. P., Doelle, M., Bulmer, J., & Higham, A. (Eds.). (2017). The Paris agreement on climate change: analysis and commentary. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lemoine, N., & Böhning-Gaese, K. (2003). Potential impact of global climate change on species richness of long-distance migrants. Conservation Biology, 17(2), 577–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lesnikowski, A., Ford, J., Biesbroek, R., Berrang-Ford, L., Maillet, M., Araos, M., & Austin, S. E. (2017). What does the Paris Agreement mean for adaptation? Climate Policy, 17(7), 825–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Levin, K., Rich, D., Bonduki, Y., Comstock, M., Tirpak, D., Mcgray, H., et al. (2015). Designing and preparing intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs). Washington, DC, USA: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
  27. McMichael, A. J., Woodruff, R. E., & Hales, S. (2006). Climate change and human health: present and future risks. The Lancet, 367(9513), 859–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mendelsohn, R., Nordhaus, W. D., & Shaw, D. (1994). The impact of global warming on agriculture: a Ricardian analysis. The American Economic Review, 84(4), 753–771.Google Scholar
  29. Miranda, L. A. (2012). The role of international law in intrastate natural resource allocation: sovereignty, human rights, and peoples-based development. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 45, 785–840.Google Scholar
  30. OGM (2015). Türkiye Orman Varlığı, Orman Genel Müdürlüğü, Accessed 10 November 2018.
  31. OSİB, (2015). Orman ve Su İşleri Bakanlığı, Çölleşme ile Mücadele Ulusal Stratejisi ve Eylem Planı, Accessed 20 February 2019.
  32. Pan, X., den Elzen, M., Höhne, N., Teng, F., & Wang, L. (2017). Exploring fair and ambitious mitigation contributions under the Paris Agreement goals. Environmental Science & Policy, 74, 49–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Patz, J. A., Campbell-Lendrum, D., Holloway, T., & Foley, J. A. (2005). Impact of regional climate change on human health. Nature, 438(7066), 310–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rajamani, L. (2016). Ambition and differentiation in the 2015 Paris Agreement: interpretative possibilities and underlying politics. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 65(2), 493–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Richards, M., Bruun, T. B., Campbell, B. M., Gregersen, L. E., Huyer, S., Kuntze, V., ... & Vasileiou, I. (2016). How countries plan to address agricultural adaptation and mitigation: an analysis of intended nationally determined contributions. CCAFS dataset.Google Scholar
  36. Robinson, S. A. (2018). Climate change adaptation in small island developing states: insights and lessons from a meta-paradigmatic study. Environmental Science & Policy, 85, 172–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Salawitch, R.J., Canty, T.P., Hope, A.P., Tribett, W.R., Bennett, B.F. (2017). Paris climate agreement: beacon of Hope. Springer Climate, Open Access.Google Scholar
  38. Stua, M. (2017). From the Paris agreement to a low-carbon Bretton woods: rationale for the establishment of a mitigation alliance. Springer.Google Scholar
  39. TIPIG, (2013). İklim Değişikliği Eylem Planı Değerlendirme Raporu, Accessed 12 November 2018.
  40. Türkeş, M., Sümer, U. M.. Ve Çetiner, G. (2000). Küresel iklim değişikliği ve olası etkileri, Çevre Bakanlığı, Birleşmiş Milletler İklim Değişikliği Çerçeve Sözleşmesi Seminer Notları (13 Nisan 2000, İstanbul Sanayi Odası), 7–24, ÇKÖK Gn. Md., Ankara.Google Scholar
  41. URL-1, (2019). International Protection of Nature and Wildlife, Accessed 20 February 2019.
  42. Van der Veen, C. J. (2000). Fourier and the “greenhouse effect”. Polar Geography, 24(2), 132–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Velioğlu, N. 2006. Types of forest property and their characteristics. 8th International Symposium on Legal Aspects of European Forest Sustainable Development Proceedings Book p:231–237. İstanbul.Google Scholar
  44. Vij, S., Moors, E., Ahmad, B., Uzzaman, A., Bhadwal, S., Biesbroek, R., ... & Saeed, B. A. (2017). Climate adaptation approaches and key policy characteristics: cases from South Asia. Environmental Science & Policy, 78, 58–65.Google Scholar
  45. Weiss, E. B. (1992). International environmental law: contemporary issues and the emergence of a New World Order. Georgetown Law Journal, 81, 675.Google Scholar
  46. World Economic Situation and Prospects. (2019). Accessed 20 February 2019.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Forestry, Department of Forest EngineeringBartın UniversityBartınTurkey
  2. 2.Faculty of Forestry, Department of Forest EngineeringÇankırı Karatekin UniversityÇankırıTurkey
  3. 3.Faculty of Forestry, Department of Forest EngineeringIstanbul UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations