Torn between development and preservation

Being currently among the most visited countries worldwide^[1], a tourist in Turkey is anything but a rare sight, especially along the coastline of the Mediterranean, where (mass) tourism in the country began and still continues to grow. Tourism, the temporary displacement of people for health, sport, entertainment, travel or holiday,^[2] has turned out to be one of the biggest streams of income for the present Turkish economy. The highest numbers of foreign tourists in 2022 arrived from Germany, followed by Russia and the UK.^[3] While international tourism is currently even exceeding the pre-pandemic levels of 2019 and before, domestic tourism has not fully recovered yet.^[4] Given the current economic situation in Turkey and the struggle of many Turks to make ends meet, this development might not be completely surprising.

However, how has Turkey become the touristic destination it is today? Compared to other Mediterranean countries such as France, Italy or Greece, touristic development in Turkey started relatively late. Although the state planning agency was set up in 1960 to promote touristic development by means of 5-year plans, it was not until the “Tourism Encouragement Law” in 1982 that the process was significantly accelerated. It included several incentives to encourage construction and infrastructure development. The law incorporated provisions for the long-term allocation of publicly owned land to investors, the provision of main infrastructure by the government, loan supports as well as subsidized utility prices in electricity, water, and gas consumption. Paired with a liberalisation of the economy and a growing affordability of mobility, mass tourism emerged as the main form of tourism in Turkey. This so-called sea-sand-sun tourism is still the dominating form of tourism in Turkey to this day. Partly responsible for this is the absence of long-term and sustainable planning, as the framework for touristic development was given mainly by short-term 5-year-plans until the first proper long-term tourism policy was established in 2007.^[5] Initially, the tourism sector was only seen as an economic phenomenon. Consequently, social, cultural and environmental implications were for the longest time underestimated and largely ignored.^[6]  

Beyond the coastal areas

In the recent years, touristic development has seen a further acceleration, often to the detriment of the environment and local communities. In 2003, the “Tourism Encouragement Law” was amended and lead to a further centralisation of planning practices. The Ministry of Culture and Tourism was granted the authority to approve all plans that concern cultural or touristic protection as well as development zones.^[7] At the same time, an increase in touristic diversity could be observed, which also lead to a spread of touristic activity beyond the coastal areas. Nevertheless, apart from Istanbul, the Turkish coastal areas are still the main areas of interest for domestic and international tourism.^[8]

Under the AKP, touristic development gained further velocity and importance. Developmentalist policies have been pushed and installed to boost Turkey’s growth, working towards the goal of promoting progress.^[9] This can be underlined by taking a look at the most recent development plan that covered the years of 2019-2023. According to this plan, tourism has been given the status of a “priority development sector” – together with agriculture and the defence industry.^[10] By giving a priority status to the sector, a diversification and transformation of the sector was envisioned. In line with these plans, the “Tourism Encouragement Law” was amended once again in 2021, giving larger authorisations to the Ministry of Tourism and centralising the decisive power in their hands.^[11] Regarding a sustainable development in line with environmentally friendly practices however, the wording stayed vague: “Sustainable tourism practices will be developed with an environmentally sensitive and responsible approach”^[12]. Within this framework that lacks environmental sensitivity, multiple instances of allocation of public lands for private development have been recorded.^[13] By finding legislative loopholes, even forest were cut down, leading to a further destruction of the environment.^[14] 

Untouchable stream of income 

Nevertheless, why was tourism selected as one of the priority areas of the Turkish economic development? Simply said, because there is a lot of money at stake. In the past, and arguably still today, tourism is seen as an easy source of foreign income and an important tool to tackle macroeconomic problems.^[15] Given that the Turkish economy has been in a crisis mode for the past years, facing high inflation and dramatic price increases, tourism acts like an almost untouchable stream of income for the AKP regime, even if that may happen at the expense at its cultural heritage, citizens and nature, who are a main factor of Turkey’s touristic potential. Undoubtedly, tourism generates revenues, reduces unemployment and stimulates investments. 

However, who really benefits from all this influx of money? Besides local businesspeople and companies, various allies of Erdoğan seem to have enlarged their wealth through tenders and incentives in the areas of construction, mining and energy. One of the most prominent cases directly concerns Minister of Tourism, Mehmet Nuri Ersoy, who owns a hotel company, which operates multiple hotels along the Turkish coastline.^[16]

In a way, the AKP continued and enforced the development paradigm, which was always present in modern Turkey. The essentiality Kemalist position, that development through economic is the foundation for progress, has not been fundamentally challenged by different ideologies and interests. With one exception: Environmental politics and activists.^[17]

In the past years and decades, Turkish society has become more sensitive to environmental issues. Tuna & Mutlu argue that nevertheless, Turkish society is partially torn between a demand of socioeconomic development and environmental sensitivity.^[18] While the authors debate that large parts of Turkish society are more favourable of the developmental perspective, they also underline that environmental problems take more and more public consideration. This consideration and call for protection oftentimes start at the local level, as past events such as Bergama and Akkuyu have shown. The mobilisation happens mainly out of concerns for the survival of the local communities.^[19] However, green protests can be and have been more than ‘just’ the enactment of concerns over the local forest, village or river. As the connection between environmental mismanagement/degradation and authorisation rule becomes more and more evident, these protests are also a possible platform to demand a more transparent governance. 

In addition to that, they have the potential to point out corruption, a lack of rule of law and bad governance.^[20] By materialising this potential that goes beyond a mere preservation of the local environment, the green movement has become one of the liveliest vectors of confrontation against governmental policies and authoritarian rule. Considering that the sector of tourism is an economic priority in Turkey, it comes to no surprise, that it constitutes the ideal playing ground of opposing interests between the green movement and governmental development policies.

The current tourism industry in Turkey can therefore be positioned at the crossroads of multiple demands and expectations. One the one hand, the touristic sector is expected to supply the struggling Turkish economy with a reliable stream of income. 

On the other hand, the environmentally conscious public and activists are more and more aware and vocal about the immense negative impacts tourism has on flora, fauna, cultural heritage and – last but definitely not least – the people living in touristic areas. In between all these different demands and visions, one will find the local communities, who are at the forefront of the struggle between preserving their communities and nature around them, meeting their economic needs and dealing with non-participatory decisions processes.