ENDGAME:
THE FIGHT FOR MARINE PROTECTED AREAS IN TURKEY

Yalçin Savas and Cem Orkun Kiraç

SAD-AFAG

Turkey, one of the great peninsula countries of the world, is unique, bordered as it is by four bodies of sea having a distinct ecology and oceanography: the Black Sea, the Sea of Marmara, the Aegean and the Mediterranean. With links to the Atlantic via Gibraltar and the Red Sea through Suez, these seas have brought considerable marine species diversity to Turkey.

The fragile health of Mediterranean coastal ecosystems is symbolised by a number of rare, threatened and endangered species. These include two endangered species of sea turtle, the loggerhead Caretta caretta and the green Chelonia mydas, the otter Lutra lutra, Audouin’s gull Larus audouinii, the migratory summer visitor Eleonora’s falcon Falco eleonorae, the endemic sea grass Posidonia oceanica that still grows in extensive meadows in many areas and, last but not least, the Mediterranean monk seal Monachus monachus, Europe’s most endangered species, of which fewer than a 100 individuals still survive along Turkish coasts.

Monk seal pup Derya, born in the Foça SPA

Today, if lucky and patient enough, nature lovers still have a reasonably good chance of observing these species. On the other hand, the monk seal’s disappearance from the Black Sea, and Marmara, and its dwindling populations along the Aegean and Mediterranean coast must be viewed with great apprehension. The sharp decline and fragmentation in the population was first recorded during the 1970s (Berkes et al. 1979, Ronald & Duguy 1979). Since then, the species has been brought to the verge of extinction in the Black Sea [see Witnessing the monk seal's extinction in the Black Sea, TMG 4(2): November 2001] and it is fast losing its hold in the Marmara, where only a few individuals survive (Kiraç et al. 1998). Realistically, the only populations that can still be considered viable are those inhabiting the Aegean and Mediterranean coasts of Turkey.

The degradation of coastal habitats in Turkey first began in earnest in the 1970s, with damage accelerating by the decade due to intense and unplanned coastal urbanization, including new roads being driven into formerly pristine areas. Disturbance and harassment of wildlife by tourists has also penetrated the remotest reaches of Turkey’s coastlines, including dark and inaccessible monk seal caves. Overfishing and illegal fishing has only worsened this bleak picture of Turkey’s coastal deterioration. Ironically, although the country’s first marine protected area was declared as long ago as 1966 along the shores of the Dilek Peninsula National Park (covering a marine zone extending 1 km. offshore), there has been little or no progress so far in instituting effective management measures for any of the country’s established marine protected areas.

	Turkey's MPAs (click to enlarge)

Despite that obvious shortcoming, the Turkish authorities have succeeded in establishing many coastal protected areas under a variety of different statutes and legal mechanisms. Together (counting only NPs and SPAs) these constitute more than 10% of the total Turkish coastline. At the very least, this has resulted in protection against a deluge of coastal zone development investment schemes often pursued without any form of environmental impact assessment. Unfortunately, lack of efficient management and resources is seriously undermining the viability of many of these areas.

MPA legislation

In Turkey, there is no single law that regulates marine protected areas. There are, however, six basic legal mechanisms which frame the issue on a national scale and these can be divided into two main categories: a) marine and b) coastal / land based.

Marine based legislation

The oldest of these legal instruments is the Aqua Products Law (No. 1380), first issued in 1971 and subsequently revised in 1986. The Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) is responsible for applying this legislation that seeks to regulate exploitation of marine and other aquatic organisms, and which stipulates that every decision related to fishing must be announced through an official gazette called the ‘Aqua Products Circular’. According to the law, MoA personnel have primary responsibility for its enforcement. If needed, however, other official bodies may be called upon to fulfil this duty, including the coast guard, police, the gendarmerie forces, and, in the absence of these, even village aldermen (muhtar). The Aqua Products Law, on the other hand, does not incorporate nor define any marine or coastal protected area status.

Under the law, the Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for preparing any legislation deemed necessary to protect aqua products as well as other commercially insignificant but ecologically valuable marine species, including sea turtles and the monk seal. MoA exercises its obligations through the biannual Aqua Products Circular, prepared and applied by the General Directorate of Protection and Control under the guidance of an advisory board formed by MoA officials, universities, fishing cooperatives and unions, aquaculture enterprises and fisheries institutes.

Coastal / land based legislation

1. The Law on National Parks (No. 2873), issued in 1983, contains four different types of protected area designation:

According to the Law on National Parks, the MoF may designate protected status if the candidate areas lie within registered forest lands; if not, the decision is the preserve of the Council of Ministers. The law also states that MoF must obtain approval from other relevant ministries on implementing any management plan for National Parks. For protected areas other than NPs, the Ministry need only consult the Ministry of Tourism (MoT).

The law assigns responsibility for guarding these protected areas to the “Forest Rangers” of the MoF. Infringements in NPs are subject to the Law on Forests (No. 6831), Law on Hunting (No. 3167) and the Law on Aqua Products (No. 1380), with fines being levied in double. In other cases, 1-6 months’ imprisonment may apply.

2. The Law on Protection of Cultural and Natural Assets (No. 2863), issued in 1983, defines all cultural and natural assets – known or to be discovered – as “State Property”.

Governed by the Ministry of Culture, the law allows “SIT” status to be conferred upon designated areas, offering varying degrees of protection. First degree SIT status, for example, effectively prohibits any kind of construction, while 2nd and 3rd degree restricts the type and extent of construction permitted.

The Ministry of Culture’s (MoC) “Higher Council for Protection of Cultural & Natural Assets” determines the general principles governing SIT protection areas, and forms local Protection Councils that are required to implement those principles in terms of formation and management of candidate reserves. According to its founding legislation, any governmental organization (including municipal authorities) and the courts must abide by the decisions of local Protection Councils. Infringements are subject to heavy fines or 2-5 years’ imprisonment.

The law attaches special importance to underwater cultural and natural assets, and specifically prohibits “sport diving” in defined underwater SIT areas. Following the introduction of this law, the MoA also banned professional diving for aqua product harvesting in such areas.

3. The Law on Environment (No. 2872), issued in 1983, assigns authority to the Council of Ministers to declare Specially Protected Areas (SPAs), for areas deemed of national or international significance.

The first three SPAs were established along Turkey’s SW coast at Gökova, Köycegiz-Dalyan and Fethiye-Göcek in July 1988. The Authority for Specially Protected Areas (ASPA) was established a year later to fulfil responsibilities relating to the creation and management of SPAs. Although originally a subsidiary of the Prime Ministry, the ASPA was transferred to the Ministry of Environment in August 1991. During the following decade (1988-1999) ASPA designated another 10 SPAs, 6 of which are coastal – making 9 coastal SPAs in total. Within the SPA structure, “Sensitive Zones” are defined as nature reserves in which human usage must be strictly regulated and controlled by a sufficient number of adequately trained and equipped personnel.

By means of these various laws, Turkish governments during the 1980s distributed legal responsibility for environmental protection among four ministries. While marine protection status is only defined specifically in the Law of Protection for Cultural and Natural Assets, all other statutes are also legally applicable to the sea.

As a result of these various legal mechanisms, all four ministries have exercised their respective authority autonomously to establish coastal and marine protected areas in Turkey.

The MoF, even before the advent of the National Park law, took the first step forward for marine conservation by establishing the Dilek Peninsula National Park in 1966. This was followed by the declaration of the Olimpos–Beydaglari National Park in 1972. A year later, Gelibolu Peninsula Historical National Park was established, followed by Marmaris National Park in 1996. Dilek Peninsula NP was enlarged to include the precious wetland of nearby Menderes Delta in 1994.

Apart from National Park status, Nature Protection Area and Nature Park status have also been employed by the MoF to establish coastal and marine protected areas. Studies by the Ministry’s General Directorate of National Parks and Game-Wildlife are continuing in order to increase the number of protected areas defined by the NP law. Although seven are coastal and marine, the total number of protected areas controlled by MoF is 141, having a total area of 8,315.72 km2. MOF’s coastal and marine protected areas amount to 1,637.80 km2 and cover a combined coastline more than 380 km long.

The nine coastal SPAs established under the Environment Law cover a combined surface area of 3,841.5 km2 and a coastline more than 960 km long. “Sensitive Zones” have already been defined in some areas, such as the Siren Rocks in the Foça SPA protecting caves used by monk seals (following SAD-AFAG’s recommendation to ASPA) and Iztuzu Beach in Dalyan-Koycegiz SPA used by nesting C. caretta. At present, the Authority for Specially Protected Areas has no intention of adding to the current network of 13 SPAs in Turkey.

In accordance with the Protection of Cultural and Natural Assets Law, many stretches of Aegean and Mediterranean coast are designated as 1st Degree Natural SIT Areas and thus closed for development. Ever-increasing in number, the total area of coast under SIT protection is difficult to estimate. This is the most easily applicable of all protected area designations in Turkey, and the penalties for infringements are also the severest of all. Local Protection Councils wield considerable power, even over local government and other legislation, to the extent that any development, even if previously fully approved, will have its planning permission revoked following designation as a Natural and Archaeological SIT area. While the PC’s decree can be challenged in court, the plaintiff must be in possession of compelling scientific evidence to have any hope of overturning the decision.

To date, the MoC has underwater SIT areas in 58 localities, of which 5 are in the Black Sea, 5 in the Sea of Marmara, 25 in the Aegean and 23 in the Mediterranean. These are mainly concerned with protecting archaeological treasures, although recently some were established to protect monk seal breeding sites from potential disturbance caused by divers. All other 1st Degree Natural SIT areas along Turkish coasts (largely concentrated in the Aegean and the Mediterranean regions) are mainly terrestrial although some do extend into the sea in various shapes and sizes. The largest of these coastal-marine SIT areas were established around the Resadiye Peninsula (Datça), Kekova and on the western coasts of the Gulf of Antalya. Since Natural SIT status can easily overlap with other forms of legal protection, extensive areas within NPs, nature parks, nature protected areas and SPAs have also been declared 1st Degree Natural SITs, constituting an additional defence against coastal development.

Although no protected area status is defined by the Law on Aqua Products, the MoA has established some areas in which fishing is regulated, either by total prohibition or by permitting only low-impact fishing methods. Two no fishing zones were established within the marine area of Dilek Peninsula National Park (some 200 meters wide) and in Olimpos–Beydaglari National Park, incorporating the small archipelago of Bes Adalar that is an important monk seal habitat. Another, in Kizilliman Bay in south Turkey, was established around a cave suitable for monk seal breeding following research by SAD-AFAG’s Mediterranean Programme team. MoA has also banned industrial fishing methods (trawling, purse-seining etc.) in three individual coastal zones (Foça, Yalikavak and west Icel) in support of monk seal conservation efforts. By permitting only low-impact fishing in these zones, it is hoped that artisanal fishers will find some relief from their severe economic hardship, and begin to realise that they will benefit from the conservation process.

Although levels of protection vary considerably, and population numbers and trends are often ill-defined, monk seals are found in a number of Turkey’s coastal and marine protected areas, including:

Monk seals also benefit from fisheries-related legislation, as indicated earlier:

• A small No Fishing Zone (1 km long and a few hundred meters breadth), was established by the MoA in January 1999 on the western shores of Kizilliman near Bozyazi in the Cilician Basin. As reported in previous issues of TMG, scientific research has demonstrated a marked recovery in fish stocks, raising hopes that the same model might be applied successfully in other areas.

MSPAs still on the drawing board

	The Bodrum Peninsula as seen from Karaada Island, part of a proposed MSPA being squeezed by tourism and development pressures

In 1998, SAD-AFAG recommended that 12 specially designed Monk Seal Protected Areas (MSPAs) be established to protect key populations of the species in Turkish waters. The list of sites, based on two decades of accumulated knowledge and data, includes 2 coastal zones in the Black Sea, 2 in the Marmara, 5 in the Aegean and 3 in the Mediterranean. Subsequent meetings of the National Monk Seal Committee (NMSC) however, a body coordinated by the Ministry of Environment, decided to proceed only with five sites initially, with the remaining 7 to be considered at a later stage [see Five sites set to become Monk Seal Conservation Areas, TMG 3(1): May 2000]. The decision making process, however, has continued to face obstacles and delays, most notably on disagreement between the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Development on the authorization for preparation of development (and zoning) plans for each area, delineating basic management requirements on such issues as core zones (breeding caves where no human activities should be permitted), buffer zones (allowing some intermediate human activity), allocation of aquaculture areas, diving and other pursuits.

Little or no progress on establishing these vital monk seal sanctuaries, however, is likely to be seen until the NMSC members can authorize the preparation of management zoning plans. Powerful economic interests have also tended to exert a negative influence upon the creation of refuges for the monk seal (TMGs, passim], with the Ministry of Tourism voicing its opposition to several proposed MSPAs, particularly in the Foça-Karaburun and Bodrum locations.

Problems in marine protected areas

Inadequate management

Despite their number and diversity, marine protected areas in Turkey suffer from very similar problems that can only compromise their ultimate effectiveness.

Management is generally inadequate in both planning and execution, with integrated coastal zone management – where both human and environmental factors are included in the protection equation – still an alien concept in most areas.

While NPs and SPAs generally possess rudimentary management plans, other types of protected area, such as SIT zones that offer strict protection against construction, often do not.

As a general rule, even where management plans do exist, regulation and enforcement is weak. Historically, this has had a significant impact on monk seals and their conservation in Turkey, often creating the comforting illusion that protection does exist, even if it is not legally enforced.

	Monk seal habitat in Olimpos–Beydaglari NP – under siege from summer tourism and water sports

Indeed, lack of effective management and its stark effects can be seen in two National Park areas that were, at least in part, originally intended to protect monk seals, Dilek Peninsula and Olimpos–Beydaglari.

Didier Marchesseaux (1989) estimated that as many as 20 individual seals inhabited the Dilek Peninsula in 1987. Today, however, it appears that monk seals are extremely scarce, according to information received from local people as well as the NP Director. Lack of management and lack of enforcement must be considered primarily to blame for that decline, particularly a failure to address the hostility of local artisanal fishermen by bringing them into the conservation process. Summer tourism, forestry road construction, and illegal hunting continues to threaten the area. The last confirmed monk seal sighting, by a dive guide from Kusadasi, was of a lone individual in January 1997 [see Dynamite, Seals and the Dilek Peninsula NP, TMG 3(1): May 2000] – although a few unconfirmed observations are reported from time to time.

Inadequate enforcement is also risking monk seal breeding sites in the Olimpos–Beydaglari NP. The Besadalar islands lying off Cape Gelidonya have been a recognised monk seal haunt since 1978, when Fikret Berkes reported a sighting of 5 seals, including several young (Berkes 1978). Local fishermen, divers and tourists continue to report monk seal sightings within Olimpos NP borders, and yet intensifying summer tourism, particularly water sports, is posing a serious threat to the viability of the NP in protecting monk seals.

Lack of qualified staff, inadequate funding, equipment and training is also a common phenomenon. National Parks often lack the resources to build up and maintain a detailed knowledgebase of their respective ecosystems, including their fauna and flora. Particularly where population trends are concerned, inadequate knowledge can obviously exacerbate management problems.

While NPs possess local directorates with a clearly-defined organisational structure, the capacity to operate as required is clearly limited by lack of qualified personnel and equipment. Both of these shortcomings have a severe impact on monitoring and guarding.

The Authority for Specially Protected Areas (ASPA) has local directorates in only 2 of 13 SPAs (Göksu and Köycegiz-Dalyan) thus seriously limiting its ability to monitor and detect illegal activities. Such inefficiency poses a serious threat to vulnerable coastlines where monk seals live, and it is often left to concerned NGOs and local citizens to report instances of illegal constructions of houses, tourist facilities or roads. In fact, SAD-AFAG has alerted the ASPA to illegal construction activity within its SPAs on several occasions since 1993.

Cultural and Natural Assets Protection Councils (CNAPC) are located in various districts of Turkey, responsible for assigning and administering the Ministry of Culture’s SIT protection status. As a rule, the Councils generally rely on advice and expertise from outside sources, including specialised institutes, universities and NGOs. Particularly when compared to other alternatives, protection status can be swiftly conferred upon a designated area by the SIT procedure. While this has led to the creation of numerous SIT areas with varying degrees of protection, and although penalties for infringement can be harsh and act as an efficient deterrent against prohibited activities, this legal protection mechanism too, has no integrated research or surveillance component.

A case in point is the 1st degree Natural SIT area at Kotan-Sigacik, just south of Çesme on the Aegean coast. It was in this area, during the early 1980s, that the pioneering monk seal researcher and conservationist Prof. Bahtiye Mursaloglu began her groundbreaking studies in mother-pup relations, at times observing up to 7 seals occupying a single cave. Returning to the same shelter several years later, Mursaloglu lamented the fact that she could find only a single seal (Mursaloglu, pers. comm., 1993), despite its remoteness from human activity. The decline, she concluded, was symptomatic of the seal’s declining fortunes all along Turkey’s coastline. Indeed today, despite 1st degree status, the cave that was once home to a large family of seals appears to be only very rarely used or even to have been abandoned entirely.

Patrolling the Foça SPA: undermined by lack of funds and bureaucratic confusion

Even in Turkey’s flagship SPA for monk seals, Foça, guarding efforts have been sporadic and haphazard for a number of years [TMGs, passim], largely due to lack of funding and political will, coupled with the inevitable bureaucratic confusion resulting from the involvement of multiple government agencies.

Other potential problems lie in inter-ministerial relations, and a tendency towards fragmentation, resulting in gaps overlaps in responsibility, duplication and conflict of effort.

All the relevant ministries (MoE, MoF and MoC), for example, have the authority to extend protected areas into marine zones, both in existing reserves and those pending official designation. The same ministries are also able to impose regulations on designated marine protection zones, and to convey their decisions to the MoA and coast guard for the purposes of enforcement. The ministries, however, have never seized that opportunity, except in the creation of marine protection zones at Dilek and Olimpos by the MoF. The principal reason for this reluctance is a lack of concept of marine protection, together with absence of expert staff to design and tailor management plans to the specific needs of each individual area concerned.

The way ahead

Many of these problems are begging for solutions, particularly where conservation is faced with the daunting task of ensuring adequate protection for critically-endangered species such as the monk seal. Turkey, like other Mediterranean states, has certain legal obligations under international treaties to establish and manage reserves properly and yet as they stand at present, MPAs in Turkey are not fulfilling the promise expected of them. Achieving meaningful protection for the monk seal and its threatened habitats calls for the following actions as a matter of priority:

1. All protected areas must have detailed management plans, tailored to the unique needs of each in terms of species biodiversity, habitat, human impacts etc. Multi-disciplinary scientific research programmes are required in order to provide the knowledgebase for designing these management plans. Above all, plans must be based on the concept of integrated coastal zone management, encouraging practical ways in which local human communities can play their role in the conservation process.
   
   
2. Management authorities should be structured in such a way as to facilitate practical cooperation between the various government ministries, departments and enforcement agencies concerned, thus helping to eliminate gaps and overlaps in authority that currently exist. At the same time, there is also a need to ensure that bureaucratic complications do not hinder efficient, day-to-day operation of the protected areas.
   
   
3. The structure of day-to-day management operations should reflect the need for flexibility, allowing the management authority to adapt regulations to changing circumstances, such as those governing fishing, public access etc.
   
   
4. Specialised training in protected area management and guarding needs to be extended and improved in relevant government ministries.
   
   
5. An adequate supply of funding and equipment is essential in order to achieve efficient protected area management.
   
   
6. Research programmes designed to monitor potential changes in protected area ecosystems should form part of the integrated management plan, and involve universities and NGOs under coordination of the relevant management authority.

With the monk seal population still dwindling along much of Turkey’s coastline, it is also vital that rapid progress be made in establishing the network of specially-designed MSPAs in the key habitat areas of the species. It is unlikely that Monachus monachus will survive in Turkey without these MPAs and management reforms to existing protected areas.