International regimes to protect the ozone layer and combat climate change are at different stages of progress and degrees of effectiveness. These differences can be related to the type of problems they address. However, the mechanisms introduced by the regimes to achieve their goals and participation are equally important. Regime features also explain different responses by individual states. Turkey’s involvement in international action on these two important global issues seems to mirror the comparable achievements of the two regimes. Turkey currently stands in distinctively different positions in the climate

change and ozone regimes although it has pursued almost identical foreign policy with similar goals on the two issues. Despite its initial hesitancy, Turkey has adjusted to the measures introduced by the Montreal Protocol and has become a supportive actor within the regime. In contrast, it has maintained its ambiguity towards international cooperation on climate change, lagging behind global efforts. This chapter analyzes Turkey’s foreign policies on climate change and ozone depletion by examining the factors that have given rise to its inconsistent positions vis-à-vis two important instruments of international cooperation to protect global atmospheric commons. The rationale for choosing these two policies for comparison is twofold. First, ozone and climate change regimes are contrasted in the literature with regard to mechanisms laid down to ensure participation. Thus, analysis of Turkey’s response, as a party classified differently under the two regimes, would shed light on the role of mechanisms. Second, the link made between these two issues in Turkey’s foreign policy-making processes justifies such a comparative analysis. The country’s relatively successful involvement in the ozone regime has frequently been invoked in its quest for differentiated treatment under the climate change regime.1 Comparison of its responses to these issues also provides insight into Turkey’s overall foreign policy on the environment. This chapter argues that Turkey tends to join environmental cooperation if

participation is seen as being in its national interests. National interests in environmental cooperation are defined mostly with reference to economic development, sovereignty over natural resources and security (Cerit Mazlum 2005; OECD 1999). These recurrent themes not only inform interest perceptions but also shape the country’s policy preferences in international

on attached to economic development. This chapter further discusses the ways in which Turkey’s traditional foreign

policy goals and behavior have strong bearings on its position in environmental cooperation. Although it is party to most international environmental agreements, Turkey has mostly displayed a reactive position in their initial stages (OECD 1999). Its cautious stance can be seen as the outcome of a conundrum it encounters in making foreign policy on the environment. The conundrum arises due to incompatibility between different interests stemming from the country’s foreign policy orientation and economic realities. Turkey’s foreign policy is characterized by adherence to values or institutions of Western developed world, which is evident by its membership of the OECD and candidacy to the EU. In conformity with this foreign policy orientation, Turkey is inclined to contribute to environmental protection which is conceived as an important indicator of being a modern state. However, its economic conditions as a developing country drive Turkey in the opposite direction, often resulting in resistance to the measures taken at the international level. Therefore, it finds itself in a difficult position – needing to reconcile conflicting interests stemming from the country’s traditional foreign policy goals and economic aspirations. Hence, its foreign policy on the environment oscillates between economic considerations and environmental imperatives, a feature which has particular impacts on its ozone and climate change policies. Given the determining role of national interests in Turkey’s foreign policy

on the environment in general, and on ozone and climate change issues in particular, the study attempts to analyze how national interests are framed in forming and articulating policy preferences. However, defining national interests in environmental foreign policy formulation is complicated. National interests are neither monolithic nor static. Diverse factors ranging from ideas, domestic actor interests, and international institutions not only shape national interests but also the way they are articulated in negotiations. Interests are also subject to change in the face of new information received and changes in domestic and international conditions, bringing modifications in policy preferences (Sprinz and Weiß 2001). The shifts in Turkey’s position in both regimes illustrate how interests are reframed under changing conditions, both in domestic and international settings. This also demonstrates that the stress put on national interests would function in different ways leading to either a change in or persistence of preferences. So, the shifts in Turkey’s approach to the ozone and climate change regimes exemplify the multifaceted nature of interests.