PROCEEDING
OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON
EUROPEAN
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
Ümİt
ERDEM, Bahar ZAFER, Bahrİye
GÜLGÜN
AND
Okan YILMAZ
Ege
University, Bornova, İzmir, Turkey
The
mining area in Lefke-Gemi Konağı, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus where
the mining works had been started by CMC in 1913, produced primarily copper at
the beginning and later secondary products like copper sulfate (CuSO4),
hydro sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and gold was produced by
cyanide leaching method. Unfortunately, these mining processes left the area as
a threat for Eastern Mediterranean after the American company left the region.
The
area is classified as a noticeable coastal ecosystem but sadly the high amounts
of arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium and selenium in the environment are
surprisingly noticeable in the aspect of human health. When Lefke is examined
historically, agriculture reduced and the soil lost its abundance as soon as
mining started. Even though the mentioned company had promised re-cultivation
and recreation. It didn't keep its promises, so problems increased and expanded
because the pollution in water, air and soil effected the biodiversity,
water-soil balance was effected, apart from agricultural productions of olive,
citrus and carobs, many historical values like Vuni Palace and ruins of Soli
encountered the danger of vanishing.
Copper
production processes are given start by an United States of America (USA)
company (CMC company ) since 1913 in the mentioned region. Production of cupper
as a primary product, and the later secondary productions like CuSO4 (Cupper
sulfate), H2SO4 (Hydrosulfuric acid) and gold by cyanide leaching method were
the activities came out to be out of control system which caused ongoing
international wide environmental problems. The company is observed to abandone
the process area under the pretext of Turkish Peace Operation by 1974, beside
their prior promises for recultivation . The region is an important coastal
ecosystem. Referring to various research reports declared, unfortunately
arsenic, barium, cadmium, and selenium are found out to be high in amounts, at
the region.
By
a comparative consideration of changes in local peoples life since 1913 when the
mine activity is given start, we find out that
as the mine activites have progressed local agriculture got in regression,
production of citrus fruits (as the mayor one) is decreased likewise the grape
production in Baglikoy (4).
Production
of cupper, with a history of 5000 years at the region would be the fate of
Cyprus. The region is in Trodos, Magmatic complex where we see the iron, pyrite
and cupper (calcopyrite), sulfuric gem, in Trodos pads. In this long history,
the name of the island finally took place in the literature after the terms
Cyprium, Cuprum and finally as “Cyprus”. For such a basic reason the locals
of the island do still use the name “Kıprıs”
than “Kıbrıs” in Turkish. Thus
Cyprus is also an archeologically cupper ore strata. Sulfuric gem in the region
is in forms of
pyrite,calcopyrite,marcasit, sfalarid, galen,bornit, zinc and sulfur lairs.
These lairs often exist at the base or upper parts of the lava pads in efficient
volcanic status.
The
sulfur mineralization in the region is formed by the abilites of thermal loaded
fluids (hydrothermal) at the bottom
parts of the ocean. Sources of pollutants that have threatened the livelihood of
soil, vegetation, ground water and sea have been the crude gem reservoirs
- an uncovered one at Lefke,
and a covered one at Karadağ - and
chemical wastes, accumulated wastes, wastes of gold process with cyanide, major
wastes of copper flotation plants, waste pools with pyrite consisting 25-30 %
sulfur at Gemikonağı harbour in the region of
Karadağ, south west of Lefke.
In
our observations at Gemikonagi puddle where constructed over Maden Stream as a
soil filled dam, we conclude that iron, sulfur of cupper and “trailings”
carried by surface waters will form acidic environment in drinking and
irrigation waters due condensation of heavy metals (4).
Lefke-Gemikonagi
gem plantation is profoundly operated by CMC since 1913. But after all, the
company has proposed the Turkish Peace Operation as an excuse and abandoned the
area in status of “valley of
death” with all the wastes left back by 1974 (Figure 2).
Current
condition is a typical sample for environmental destruction and a deadly strike
on ecological balance. For this reason the area should be taken in consideration
in current status as an open laboratory sample for environmentalists and whom
care for their future life. Referring to our observations on the local pollution
levels after the mine process activities, there we found four distinctive levels
of status from sea level up to mountains. These are;
1.
Wastes of gold having the possibility of consisting in cyanide at the
entrance area of Gemikonagi plantations,
2.
Wastes of cupper flotation at the entrance areas of
Gemikonagi plantations,
3.
Waste pools consisting in condensed pyrite mineral having 30% sulfur in,
separated to uprising 6 branches of waste pools.
4.
Cupper accumulations and also wastes of trailing in apparent streams at
Karadağ region due to mine production extractions.
Analyses
covered with water samples indicate the acid leakage to marine environment in
important amounts. Unfortunately these values given above, exceed the acceptable
value levels of environmental health. There by, a point should be indicated that
the conduction ability of seawater is high due to salinity of seawater. Thus if
water samples could be taken in analyse in fresher form, current values in hand
to be found at higher values would be an aspect of a research.
According
to analyse results, iron element in soils are in high amounts and could be found
up to concentrations of 6.1%. The
washed out surface soils and condensation of iron element in mine plantation
could explain the reason of rather high amount of iron element found in under
surface horizons. Distribution of iron in this kind of soil formation is mainly
found to be in between the levels of 2.00-3.50 %. Prior studies covered at mine
wastes, the highest datum is valued to be 14.77 %. Cupper to be found in between
amounts of 5-150 ppm. is determined to be very
high in amounts in analysed soil
thus there is a definite accumulation of cupper in soil or in another words
there is a cupper pollution.
Dispersion
limits of manganese element in this type of soil should be 200-600 ppm. where it
is higher in inspected soils. Zinc element is found to be slight in amounts in
nature where average value is 50 ppm. but the values could reach up to 300ppm.
Lithosphere dispersal of cadmium element average is 0.1ppm., and could be 0.5
ppm at the upper layer. Although this element is found out to be low in amounts in the waste accumulations, it is still one of
the most risky and endangering element for human, fauna and flora life. Soils
indicate over value for cobalt referring the analyses of surface soils with
15ppm value.
Average
value for lead element in lithosphere is 16.0
ppm. Calculated values for iron element at these soil are over this value
reaching to level of 45 ppm. at surface soils as a proof for the accumulation of
lead. Lead is hold by the intense organic formations in soil. Likewise in prior
research studies by the same researchers it is encountered that values for lead
could reach up to 82.75 ppm in some of the waste pools.
Crom
element likewise lead, became dense in surface soil as these kind of elements do
accumulate in soils of forest leftovers or humus. Relative to this interaction,
values increase up to 25.90 ppm at surface layers where as decrease down to 1.30
ppm at undersurface layers. Dispersal of aluminium is found out to be in 1-6
ppm. lithosphere average levels. Lowest value, 01.8 ppm. for aluminium is found
at undersurface layers. The reason for this low value could be explained due to
the % density of sand set and % CaCO3 reaching up to 35.72ppm. and 35.83 ppm. of
high values. We know that amount of aluminium decrease in the regions where
values for limestone is high (1).
Lefke
Cupper Mine mud pools are primitive in structure and threatening for public
health. Amount of waste is in high emission level covering a very wide area. It
is determined that the waste mud, irrigation waters, garden soils, leaves of
fruit and vegetable do consist high amounts of carcinogen heavy metals. The
region is contaminated. There exists a chronic exposure that will cause cancer
and /or systemic diseases for local people whom do inhabit for long terms,
consuming the water, fruit, vegetable, meat and milk of the region (3).
Material
and Method
Soil
and water analyses are realized in Soil Department Laboratory by Altınbaş, Ü.
(1), physical, chemical and heavy metal analyses completed with these samples
within the principles defined in the nearby presented literature (Slavin, 1968;
Merck, 1973; Chen, 1991).
Production
of gold is a very popular agenda of the day. There we encounter many companies
and firms planning gold production activities by mining operations. Cyprus
aspect is rather apart of this attitude. The problem in here is that the mine
given start operating by 1913 to be left back in wrong timing, without planning
and consciousness. The problem is derived from the preconditions of those times,
permitting this kind of an activity without any obligation for environmental
assessment. Today it is known in common that there is the fact of Environmental
Effects Assessment put emphasis on at international level. That is, what we
tried to adapt into application though from reverse phase. It is because that
the issue is not solely a Cyprus problem. East Mediterranean is under a threat.
Mediterranean, south of Europe, north coastlines of Africa are under danger.
Thus;
A)
Current status of environmental conditions should be determined and B)
Precautions for probable effects of the SLEEPING
or already AWAKE GIANT should be cleared out. “ Current Status of
Environment Investigation” is an evaluation study of information and knowledge
database for further studies on the subject and the region. The database will be
used for Recultivation and Rehabilitation applications. The study should cover
meteorologic, geologic, hydrogeologic, hydrologic, mine beds, soil
specifications, forest-landscape-recreation- flora fauna of protected areas,
current pollution load, Socio-culture and Socio-economy
data and such kind of specifications. Specialist groups, individuals that have
covered research activities in certain times, gathered and inquired knowledge on
the issue and related literature material are the most important sources of
information for this study.
There
should be an alternative effort to be put on land use potential and protected
areas. Such kind of sample study could be progressed as follows:
The
current status of mentioned area should be determined with the help of the
examinations of 1/25.000 scaled area, 1/ 10.000 scaled Cadastral, 1/5.000 and
1/1000 scaled Gemikonagi project, 1/25.000 scaled topographical maps. Potential
of the field as a protected natural area should be determined as a prior
activity. To define the status of nature protection areas and priorities of
conservation, “Natural Protection Area Assessment Form” (Table1) (6) should
be used for evaluation.
The
method used for this aim is known as the “grid
method” used for many kind of aims in Land Scape Planning. Grids to
refer 100m*100m land squares in the boarders of the study area would be
convenient for objectivity in field analyses. Every square as one unit will be
evaluated in itself accordingly to “Natural Protection Area Assessment
Form”. And potential sources determined in per unit could be valued over (%)
percentages to define the conservation priorities.
It
is possible that all single source titles given by
“Natural Protection Area Assessment Form” would not be available in
every area. For this reason available sources in the field would be taken in
consideration but the alter stated but non-existing ones wouldn’t.
Criteria’s should be scored to match total “100” point for the ease of
evaluation. As a principle, unavailable source values should be added to
available ones to be valued over score 100 (Table 2).
Field
observation outcomes and maps are important reference guides for studies on the
available source potential of the area. In assessment of hydrological
specifications as natural source, solely the current stream beds are taken in
consideration for mayor source of evaluation and scores of alter specifications
should be added on its score value (Table 3).
Table
1. “Natural Protection Area Assessment Form” ( DP : Evaluation Score
EP : Added Scores ) (6)
A NATURAL
SOURCES |
Aa PHYSICAL
SOURCES |
HYDROLOGIC PROPERTIES
AaI
(according to protection priority) |
5 |
1 0 |
Aa
I1 Wetland |
5 |
|
Aa
I2 Sea side |
4 |
||||||
Aa
I3 Lake side |
3 |
||||||
Aa
I4 Stream side |
2 |
||||||
Aa
I5 Brook side |
1 |
||||||
Aa
II GEOLOGIC
PROPERTIES |
5 |
1 0 |
Aa II 1 Waterfall,
cave, fault, coast, cove, crater etc. |
3 |
|||
Aa II 2 Important
place which have geologically vital importance |
2 |
||||||
Aa
III EDUCATIONAL
SITUATION |
5 |
1 0 |
Aa
III 1 % 0-19 |
1 |
|||
Aa
III 2 % 20-39 |
2 |
||||||
Aa
III 3 % 40-59 |
3 |
||||||
DP:
15 |
Aa
III 4 % 60-79 |
4 |
|||||
EP:
20 |
Aa
III 5 % 80-100 |
5 |
|||||
Ab BIOLOGICAL
SOURCES |
Ab
I THE FOREST AREAS WHICH MUST
BE CONSERVED AS THEIR PECULIAR VALUES (according to protection priority) |
5 |
1 5 |
Ab
I 1 Area % 0-19 |
2 |
||
Ab
I 2 Area % 20-39 |
4 |
||||||
Ab
I 3 Area % 40-59 |
6 |
||||||
Ab
I 4 Area % 60-79 |
8 |
||||||
Ab
I 5 Area % 80-100 |
10 |
||||||
Ab
II The areas which include rare , endemic or endangered species |
5 |
||||||
AbIII
Habitats, ecosystems, natural and cultural areas which are required to
conserved |
5 |
||||||
Ab
IV The
areas show different peculiarities of plant cover
|
5 |
1 5 |
Ab
IV 1 Thicket, brushwood meadow |
0 |
|||
Ab
IV 2 Only thicket, brushwood |
8 |
||||||
Ab
IV 3 Brushwood, meadow, infrequent thicket |
6 |
||||||
Ab
IV 4 Brushwood, infrequent thicket |
4 |
||||||
DP:
20 |
Ab
IV 5 Meadow, infrequent thicket |
2 |
|||||
EP:
15 |
Ab
IV Empty areas |
0 |
|||||
AESTHETIC
SOURCES |
Ac
I Visual Feature (according
to protection priority) |
1 0 |
|
Ac
I 1 Panoramically view |
10 |
||
DP:
45 |
Ac
I 2 Nice view vistas |
7 |
|||||
EP:
25 |
Ac
I 3 General view and vistas |
3 |
|||||
B CULTURAL
SOURCES |
Bb
Historical |
Ba
I Historical and archeological place and thing |
10 |
||||
Bb
OTHER
CULTURAL SOURCES
|
BbI
Architecture and art |
3 |
|||||
BbII
Anthropologic, ethnographic, sociologic |
2 |
||||||
Bb
Agricultural Areas
(according to protection
priority) |
1 0 |
5 |
Bb
III 1 Area % 0-19 |
2 |
|||
Bb
III 2 Area % 20-39 |
4 |
||||||
Bb
III 3 Area % 40-59 |
6 |
||||||
DP:
25 |
DP:
15 |
Bb
III 4 Area % 60-79 |
8 |
||||
EP:
35 |
EP:
10 |
Bb
III 5 Area % 80-100 |
10 |
||||
C RECREATIVE
SOURCES |
Ca
THE
AREAS WHICH CAN USE FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSE |
CaI
Promenade place |
3 |
GOOD |
2 0 |
||
CaII
Traditional purpose areas |
3 |
||||||
CaIII
Festival areas |
3 |
AVERAGE
|
1 0 |
||||
CaIV
Hunting areas |
3 |
||||||
CaV
Sportive activities areas |
3 |
BAD |
0 |
||||
DP:
20 |
DP:
20 |
CaVI
Summer place areas |
3 |
||||
EP:
10 |
EP:
10 |
CaVII
Areas for daily use |
3 |
||||
D EDUCATION INSTRUCTION
RESEARCH AREAS |
Da
LONG
TERM RESEARCH AREAS |
Dab The
place fitting for research and education as criticize of reaching ability.
(according to protection
priority) |
1 0 |
2 0 |
Dab
1 1-10 dak. |
10 |
|
Dab
2 11-20 dak. |
9 |
||||||
Dab
3 21-30 dak. |
8 |
||||||
DP:
6 |
Dab
4 31-40 dak. |
7 |
|||||
EP:
4 |
Dab
5 41-50 dak. |
6 |
|||||
Db SHORT
TERM RESEARCH AREAS |
Dab
6 51-60 dak. |
5 |
|||||
Dab
7 61-70 dak. |
4 |
||||||
Dab
8 71-80 dak. |
3 |
||||||
DP:
10 |
DP:
4 |
Dab
9 81-90 dak. |
2 |
||||
EP:
20 |
EP:
6 |
Dab
10 91-100 dak. |
1 |
||||
E NEGATIVE
EFFECTS |
Ea ANTHROPOGENIC
FACTORS |
Ea
I Air pollution
- |
2 |
||||
Ea
II Neglect I - |
2 |
||||||
Ea
III Water pollution i
- |
2 |
||||||
Ea
IV Loud i
- |
2 |
||||||
Ea
V other negative factors
- |
2 |
||||||
Table
2 .“Natural Protection Area Assessment Form” and for Research Area
Specifications “Natural Status Assessment Criteria’s and Scores” as a
sampling (6)
(A)
NATURAL RESOURCES
Aa
(15 points) |
Aa
(20 points) |
Ac
(10 points) |
AaI
(5 points) |
Ab
I (Discarded out ) |
Ac
1 (10 points) |
AaII
(Discarded out ) |
Ab
II (Discarded out ) |
Ac
2 (6 points) |
AaIII
(10 points) |
Ab
III (Discarded out ) |
Ac
4 (4 points) |
|
Ab
IV (Discarded out ) |
|
(B)
CALTURAL RESOURCES (25 Points)
Ba
(Discarded out ) |
Bb
(Discarded out ) |
|
Ba
I (Discarded out ) |
|
Ba
II (Discarded out ) |
|
Ba
III (25 points) |
|
%1-19
(5 points) |
|
%20-39
(10 points) |
|
%40-59
(15 points) |
|
%60-79
(20 points) |
|
%80-100
(25 points) |
(C)
RECREATIONAL RESOURCES (20 Points)
CaI
(Discarded out ) |
CaII
(Discarded out ) |
CaIII
(Discarded out ) |
CaIV
(Discarded out ) |
CaV
(Discarded out ) |
CaVI
(Discarded out ) |
Ca
VII (20 points) |
Good
(20 points) |
Average
(10 points) |
Bad
(0 point) |
(D)
EDUCATION, INSTRUCTION AND RESEARCH AREAS
(10 points)
Da
(Discarded out ) |
Db
(10 points) |
|
Good
(10 points) |
|
Average
(5 points) |
|
Bad
(0 point) |
(D)
NEGATIVE EFFECTS (Discarded out )
TOTAL
: 100 Points
|
Table
3. Scores Representing the
Research Area Priorities of Conservation, as a sampling (6)
65-81
squares with degree points, First degree of priority for conservation |
49-64
squares with degree points, Second degree of priority for conservation |
33-48
squares with degree points, Third degree
of priority for conservation |
17-32
squares with degree points, Forth degree of priority for conservation |
1-16 squares with degree points, Fifth degree of priority
for conservation |
The
same situation’s distribution to squares, in a sample area, at Figure 3, is
presented. Likewise at Gemikonagi the same method must be considered for each
square unit in further studies and analyse of all risks.
Biosphere
reserves comprehends the ecosystems of unique populations, areas of spectacular
natural values and ecosystems that are changed or fragmented as samples of land
scapes relative to traditional land use but which do still present the chance
for natural rehabilitation. Biogenetic rezerves are areas where we find a rich
gene diversity of fauna and flora. These areas should be large in dimensions to
be convenient for effective protection. Gemikonagi has the dimensions to be such
an area.
Although
criterias of International Specially Protected Areas are not given in a
fullproof definition of law, they are areas of ecological importance, delicate
to environmental fragmentation and deterioration under the stress and threat of
dense pollution. These areas are boardered and assessed accordingly to carry
their natural and historical heritage to new human
generations. That’s why organizations on world should adopt the
subject, in haste. (6)
Beside
all, nature or environment protection areas should occupy fields of traditional
landuse samples. Nature protection areas do have all status of
protection where Natural SIT is among.
Areas of natural SIT do have the specifications of being originally
natural ( the level of being anthropogenic affects-free), entire (an
unfragmented habitat), large (entirety of habitat where the natural values are a
part), estetic, typical, representative and other.
Figure
3 Conservation and Progression Priorities
Distribution in Squares, as a
sample (6)
Also
in many countries, SIT status is vital for protecting natural areas under the
management responsibilities of local administrations where
the area could exist nearby of secondary house investments and /or
intense constructional use. The
subject should be paid attention considering the settlement and location, nearby
and far environment of the area.
In
frame of all these ideas and thoughts, Gemikonagi, Recultivation and
Rehabilitation operations should be given start immediately. The reason for this
is, Gemikonagi CMC wastes, to be concluded as the biggest environmental problem
of world, are a prior issue of law.The subject must be called for attention of
international law committees. Although the issues of Cyprus press are
proactivites specific to Lefke, the subject is an international one. The threat
of the issue comprehends East Mediterranean countries; Turkey, Israel, Egypt,
Sudan, Greece, Italy and Central Mediterranean countries. An important point
here is that, this subject directly affective on human life shouldn’t
be handled or specified by a structural or political attitude. It is
determined by previous research studies covered before the Turkish
researcher’s that there is a very big problem of heavy metals like arsenic,
baryum accumulation in Eastern Mediterranean. Without a “Risk Analyse” there
shouldn’t be any agricultural activity, water consumption, cattle feed and the
most important, entrance to the area (4).
Research
studies show that beside all findings the pollution area is much wider than the
declarations. The waste area declared to cover 2000 acres is determined to be
much bigger than this total. Management of water foundations is a very critical
point at this phase as these waters if not directed properly do carry the wastes
to drinking and all kind of consumed waters and sea. Considering this situation
in the basin, underground and surface waters should be handled accordingly.As
mentioned before, beside the 2000 acres danger area, the surrounding environment
do also present a big threat. According to Prof.Dr.H.G.BARTH’s determinations
such
kind of an area in need of rehabilitation
in Germany, would require a cost of at least 500.000 $ . (4). It is definite
reality that there is a heavy metal pollution of arsenic, barium, cadmium in
Eastern Mediterranean, thus the region should be rehabilitated as soon as
possible. Area, affected from the mine company activities should be accepted to
cover 500 km². In
the observations it is determined that there exists 8 million tons of waste in
the area.
If
to revise, the problem is a regional one, concerning the Mediterranean
countries. That’s why there is need for a global approach. The
responsibilities for solutions shouldn’t be devoted solely to Cyprus.
Including United States of America, representatives of related countries should
be gathered, in a concerned council. The council should define the progress,
management, and finalisation procedure of the required processes within
scientific and legal dimensions. The ethic, also requires this cooperation. Not
to be forgotten that the science doesn’t have a nationality and it is
universal. And it could only be possible to achieve realistic and practical
solutions by activating the legal branches. As the nationality of environmental
problems is the whole world, any world individual has got right on this entirety
and for law.
References
1)
ALTINBAŞ,Ü., 1999: "Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti Lefke-Gemikonağı,
CMC Bakır Madeni İşletmeciliğinin Doğal Kaynak Olan Toprak, Su ve Bitki Çeşitliliği
Üzerine Çevresel Etkileri" E.Ü. Çevre Sorunları Uygulama Ve Araştırma
Merkezi, BORNOVA- İZMİR.
2)
BILDIR,E., 2000: "Bakır" Lefke ve Yöresinin Sesi, Çevre ve Tanıtma
Derneği Yayın Organı, Lefke-KIBRIS.
3)
DOĞAN,F., 1999: "Kıbrıs Lefke Bölgesindeki Bakır Madeni Atık Alanlarının
Yarattığı Çevre Sorunları ve Halk Sağlığı İlişkisi"
E.Ü. Çevre Sorunları Uygulama Ve Araştırma Merkezi, BORNOVA- İZMİR.
4)ERDEM,Ü.,
1999: "Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti Lefke-Gemikonağı, CMC Madencilik
Şirketi Tarafından Yaratılan Çevre Sorunu Ön Raporu" E.Ü. Çevre
Sorunları Uygulama Ve Araştırma Merkezi, BORNOVA- İZMİR.
5)
ÖZGÜRÜN,A., AKGÜL,E., 2000: Gemikonağı ve Kıbrıs Maden
Şirketi Çevre İrdelemesi, Prof.Dr.Ümit ERDEM Danışmanlığında,
Lisans Tezi, E.Ü.Ziraat Fakültesi Peyzaj Mimarlığı Bölümü, Bornova-İZMİR.
6)
ZAFER.(TÜRKYILMAZ),B.,1999: "İzmir Efem Çukuru Mevcut Durum Değerlendirme
Raporu (Base-Line Study)", D.E.Ü.Çevre Sorunları Uygulama Ve Araştırma
Merkezi, BUCA-İZMİR.