SINIRDA KARBON DÜZENLEME MEKANİZMASI KAPSAMINDA TÜRKİYE’NİN SEKTÖREL KONUMU

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Avrupa Birliği tarafından uygulamaya konulan Sınırda Karbon Düzenleme Mekanizması (SKDM) kapsamında Türkiye’nin sektörel ihracat yapısını, AB pazarına yönelim ve geçiş dönemindeki raporlama performansı boyutlarıyla incelemektedir. Çalışma, karşılaştırmalı betimleyici analiz yaklaşımına dayanmakta ve nedensel bir model kurmayı amaçlamamaktadır. Analiz iki resmi veri kaynağına dayanmaktadır: T.C. Ticaret Bakanlığı’nın 2021–2023 dönemine ait dış ticaret istatistikleri ve Avrupa Komisyonu’nun SKDM Gözden Geçirme Raporu [COM(2025) 783] kapsamındaki Q4 2023–Q2 2025 dönemi Geçici Kayıt Sistemi verileri. Raporlama performansı, veri kısıtı nedeniyle firmalar tarafından bildirilen gerçek emisyon verisi raporlama oranı üzerinden operasyonel olarak tanımlanmıştır. Bulgular, sektörler arasında hem ihracat yönelimi hem de raporlama performansı bakımından belirgin farklılıklar bulunduğunu göstermektedir. Türkiye, 18,3 milyon tonluk ihracat hacmiyle AB’ye SKDM kapsamındaki ürünlerde ikinci sırada yer almakta; çimento ve alüminyum sektörlerinde dünya birincisi konumundadır. Bununla birlikte ticari ağırlık, emisyon yoğunluğu ve raporlama performansı bakımından sektörler arasında yapısal farklılıklar bulunmaktadır. Özellikle alüminyum sektörü, yüksek AB pazar bağımlılığı, yüksek emisyon yoğunluğu ve görece düşük raporlama oranının bir arada bulunmasıyla en kırılgan sektör olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Buna karşılık demir-çelik sektörü, güçlü raporlama performansı ve daha dengeli pazar yapısıyla görece avantajlı bir konumdadır. Bu çerçevede çalışma, makro düzeydeki analizlerin ötesine geçerek ihracat yönelimi, emisyon yoğunluğu ve raporlama performansını sektörel düzeyde birlikte değerlendiren bütünleşik bir analitik çerçeve sunmaktadır.

Keywords

• Sınırda Karbon Düzenleme Mekanizması (SKDM)
• İhracat Yönelimi
• Raporlama Performansı
• Türkiye Dış Ticareti
• Yeşil Dönüşüm

Sectoral Position of Türkiye under the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism

Abstract

This study examines Türkiye’s sectoral position within the scope of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) implemented by the European Union, focusing on export orientation toward the EU market and reporting performance during the transitional period. The study adopts a comparative descriptive analysis approach and does not aim to establish causal relationships. The analysis is based on two official data sources: foreign trade statistics published by the Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Trade for the period 2021–2023, and the CBAM Review Report [COM(2025) 783] along with Transitional Registry data published by the European Commission covering Q4 2023–Q2 2025. Reporting performance is operationally defined as the rate of actual emissions data reporting due to data limitations. The findings reveal significant sectoral heterogeneity in both export orientation and reporting performance. Türkiye ranks as the second-largest exporter of CBAM-covered goods to the EU with 18.3 million tonnes and holds the top global position in the cement and aluminium sectors. However, structural differences across sectors are observed in terms of trade volume, emission intensity, and reporting performance. The aluminium sector emerges as the most vulnerable, combining high EU market dependence, high emission intensity, and relatively low reporting rates. In contrast, the iron and steel sector holds a comparatively advantageous position with strong reporting performance and a more balanced market structure. This study contributes to the CBAM literature by providing an integrated analytical framework that simultaneously evaluates export orientation, emission intensity, and reporting performance at the sectoral level, moving beyond macro-level assessments.

Keywords

• Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• Export Orientation
• Reporting Performance
• Türkiye’s Foreign Trade
• Green Transformation

References

1. Acar, S., Aşıcı, A. A., & Yeldan, A. E. (2022). Potential effects of the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism on the Turkish economy. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24(6), 8162–8194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01779-1
2. Altay, N. (2024). Trade policy review of Turkey. The World Economy. https://doi.org/10.1111/twec.13609
3. Beaufils, T., Ward, H., Jakob, M., & Wenz, L. (2023). Assessing different European carbon border adjustment mechanism implementations and their impact on trade partners. Communications Earth & Environment, 4, 131. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00788-4
4. Branger, F., & Quirion, P. (2014). Would border carbon adjustments prevent carbon leakage and heavy industry competitiveness losses? Insights from a meta-analysis of recent economic studies. Ecological Economics, 99, 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.12.010
5. Das, K., & Bandyopadhyay, K. R. (2025). Impact of carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) on steel decarbonization in India: A multi-stakeholder perspective on ambition vs. equity. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 25(2), 195–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-025-09662-4
6. Dechezleprêtre, A., & Sato, M. (2017). The impacts of environmental regulations on competitiveness. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 11(2), 183–206. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rex013
7. Eicke, L., Weko, S., Apergi, M., & Marian, A. (2021). Pulling up the carbon ladder? Decarbonization, dependence, and third-country risks from the European carbon border adjustment mechanism. Energy Research & Social Science, 80, 102240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102240
8. Hebebrand, C., & Laborde, D. (2022). High fertilizer prices contribute to rising global food security concerns. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Erişim Adresi: https://www.ifpri.org/blog/high-fertilizer-prices-contribute-rising-global-food-security-concerns/

9. European Commission. (2025a). Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of the Regulation on the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism [COM(2025) 783 final]. Brussels:
10. European Commission. Erişim Adresi: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025DC0783
11. European Commission. (2025b). Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. European Union. Erişim Adresi: https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism_en
12. ICAP. (2025). Turkey adopts landmark climate law paving way for national ETS [News]. Erişim Adresi: https://icapcarbonaction.com/en/news/turkiye-adopts-landmark-climate-law-paving-way-national-ets
13. Larch, M., Schmeißer, A. F., & Wanner, J. (2021). A tale of (almost) 1001 coefficients: The deep and heterogeneous effects of the EU-Turkey customs union. Journal of Common Market Studies, 59(2), 242–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13058
14. Long, I., Inclan, C., Conway, D., Mikolajczyk, S., Voyvoda, E., Yeldan, A. E., Aşıcı, A. A., & Mert, E. (2023). Potential impact of the carbon border adjustment mechanism on the Turkish economy: Quantification of the economic impacts and review of climate policy response options. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.35666.12485
15. Mol, A. P. J., & Spaargaren, G. (2000). Ecological Modernization Theory in debate: A review. Environmental Politics, 9(1), 17–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010008414511
16. Mörsdorf, G. (2022). A simple fix for carbon leakage? Assessing the environmental effectiveness of the EU carbon border adjustment. Energy Policy, 161, 112596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112596
17. Naegele, H., & Zaklan, A. (2019). Does the EU ETS cause carbon leakage in European manufacturing? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 93, 125–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2018.11.004
18. Perdana, S., & Vielle, M. (2022). Making the EU carbon border adjustment mechanism acceptable and climate friendly for least developed countries. Energy Policy, 170, 113245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.113245
19. Porter, M. E., & van der Linde, C. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 97–118. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.9.4.97
20. Schmitz, H. (2015). Green transformation: Is there a fast track? In I. Scoones, M. Leach, & P. Newell (Eds.), The politics of green transformations (pp. 170-184). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315747378-11
21. Shuai, J., Wang, W., Liu, H., Huang, C., Yi, T., Zhao, Y., & Shuai, C. (2024). The impact of the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism on the global iron and steel trade and emission reduction. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31(14), 21524–21544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-32528-2
22. Ticaret Bakanlığı. (2024). Sınırda Karbon Düzenleme Mekanizması (SKDM) Sunumu. Ankara: Ticaret Bakanlığı. Erişim Adresi: https://ticaret.gov.tr/data/65dc9d3113b8762768385d66/Ticaret%20Bakanl%C4%B1%C4%9F%C4%B1%20SKDM%20Sunum-23022024.pdf
23. T.C. Çevre, Şehircilik ve İklim Değişikliği Başkanlığı. (2025). Türkiye emisyon ticaret sistemi yönetmeliği taslağı yayımlandı (pilot 2026–2027, uygulama 2028–2035). Erişim Adresi: https://iklim.gov.tr/turkiye-emisyon-ticaret-sistemi-yonetmeligi-taslagi-yayimlandi-haber-4519
24. Ülgen, S., & Cömert, H. (2024). EU-Turkey economic relations in the era of geo-economic fragmentation (SWP Comment No. 40/2024). https://doi.org/10.18449/2024C40
25. World Commission on Environment and Development. (WCED). (1987). Our common future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. United Nations. Erişim Adresi: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf
26. Zhong, T. (2023). Sustainable international trade: Achieving a balance between economic growth and environmental responsibility. Frontiers in Business, Economics and Management, 12(2), 7-10. https://doi.org/10.54097/fbem.v12i2.14583