“We failed in ecologically sensitive tourism and waste management”

The fight against illegal and environmentally harmful tourism investments in Turkey has a long history. Activists work both to improve existing legal regulations in favor of the environment and ecology and to pursue legal action against those who violate the rules and harm the environment.

We spoke with Tuncay Koç about the legal framework for protecting natural and historical sites in Turkey, conservation mechanisms, and other legal topics that might interest environmental activists.

Tuncay Koç graduated from the Ankara University Faculty of Law in 1996. For many years, he worked at the Environment and Zoning Board of the Antalya Bar Association. Later, he served in the Environment and Urban Law Commission of the Union of Turkish Bar Associations. 

Currently, he is a member of the Lawyers for Environment and Ecology Movement as well as the Contemporary Lawyers Association.

Looking at Turkey in general, how would you assess the current state of environmentally sensitive policies, if any, especially in relation to touristic development? What is the most relevant legislation regarding touristic development and environmental protection?

In fact, tourism and environmental policies are contradictory. Tourism is human-orientated and covers an area of sightseeing or visiting. This means that the natural or historical/archaeological area is exposed to more human impact. For this to be sustainable, the impact of tourism on natural and cultural areas should be minimised. Unfortunately, this is not done in our country and these areas are negatively affected by touristic activities. In this respect, let me state that in reality, we have not been able to develop an environmentally sensitive tourism and we have failed in waste management. I can say that the comfort of the touristic area is prioritised, not the future of historical, archaeological and natural areas. 

As for the legislation, there is no single legislation on this issue. We have a basic Environmental Law that must be followed. Apart from this, there are separate regulations for forests and National Parks Law, Law on the Protection of Cultural and Natural Protected Areas, and separate regulations for touristic facilities. In other words, there are many laws and regulations on the subject, but there are great problems in the integrated implementation.

Looking at the Antalya region, especially the coast between Antalya and Finike, what is the situation here?

The coast of the western side of Antalya is richer than the eastern side with many bays. There are also historical cities such as Phaselis. Especially in the Kemer-Kumluca line, there are many beaches and hotels. There is an understanding of tourism in which the sea and the beach are emphasised in coastal use. However, most of the beaches here are allocated to hotels or private businesses. It is becoming more and more difficult for the local people to benefit from them free of charge. The coastal law clearly states that the coasts are under the rule and saving of the state. However, the state uses this saving in favour of private enterprises. The cost of this is expensive. On the other hand, we see that there is not enough infrastructure to protect the sea. Since the Kumluca-Finike line is the coast of the agricultural region, tourism is not very developed.

Has the situation improved or worsened compared to the first years of tourism development? Is there more environmental awareness today?

The answer to this question may vary depending on how you look at it. If you look from the tourism side, the number of beds and tourism revenues have increased a lot. Last year, it was announced that 16 million tourists travelled to Antalya alone. This is a very high figure and may be pleasing for the tourism sector.  

But at the same time the natural environment has been destroyed. In the last 40 years, three and a half per cent of Turkey's total forest area has been allocated to the energy, mining and tourism sectors.  Most large hotels in Antalya are built in forest areas. This destroys the ecosystem. At the same time, it puts a burden on the environment beyond its lifting capacity. Because of the groundwater drawn by hotel pools and golf courses (and for other reasons), groundwater can be found deeper in the ground. 

We can say that environmental awareness has increased compared to the past. However, since a human-centred tourism approach still prevails in Turkey and necessary measures are not taken, the ecosystem is rapidly deteriorating.

Has there been a noticeable change in the pace of development and environmental policies under AKP rule since 2002? Have there been any visible consequences of the transfer of power from AKP to CHP in Antalya in 2019 and beyond?

The AKP government sees natural and cultural assets only as resources. For this reason, it wants to monetise them in the short and medium term. For this reason, the natural environment has rapidly deteriorated. Historical and cultural sites are not given due importance and are not properly protected. This neo-liberal view seeks to completely monetise these areas. It is not possible to protect the ecosystem and history with such an approach. 

The change of local governments in 2019 had an important consequence. New mayors do not undertake giant projects. Therefore, there were no major new burdens on the ecosystem or the infrastructure of the city. But there was no positive improvement either.

How is the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) respected as far as the territory is concerned? Is there any way to ensure that environmental impact assessments are done properly?

I am sorry to say that Environmental Impact Assessment activities are only on the legislative level. This is visible in the EIA Statistics announced by the Ministry of Environment and Urbanisation. There have been very few negative EIA decisions so far. A lot of large projects are divided into many smaller ones which results in decisions that do not require an EIA. This is also acted out by the Governorships, which do not have sufficient and meritorious staff in this regard. The state uses its authority in favour of companies from a neo-liberal perspective rather than within the framework of protectionism and a sustainable understanding. This perspective must change first and foremost. Otherwise, a great thirst (water problem) awaits us in Antalya.

Do international NGO's (WWF, Greenpeace, etc.) play a role in the region? If so, how are they perceived by local people?

Greenpeace does not have any activities in Antalya. I know that the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) carries out various activities especially for the protection of the Kaş region. Compared to the past, the local people are more welcoming to these organisations. First of all, of course, it is necessary to gain the trust of the local people, which is not always easy. In Kaş, the WWF has achieved this.

Who are the main actors of environmental protests along the coastlines close to Antalya? Is it mostly local people or activists/people travelling to the region from elsewhere to protest?

In Antalya, if an activity that will harm the environment is to be protested, it is definitely done by the local people. If they think that the ecosystem of their natural environment will be damaged, someone from the local community will definitely lead the way. No activists come from outside. However, sensitive environmentalists sometimes support the protests.

In your opinion/observation: What is the strength of the environmental movement? Do they act more locally in the Antalya region or are they part of a wider network?

In Turkey, there is no central organisation, or it is very inadequate. Protests develop with the power of the locality itself. A few years ago, when a gold mine to be built in Mount Ida was on the agenda, thousands of people travelled to Mount Ida and joined the protest. This is partly related to media visibility. Again, many people travelled to the area with their own means to support the cutting down of the Akbelen forests in Muğla. In Antalya, too, local people act with their own power. For example, the people of the region opposed the construction of buildings in Phaselis. However, many archaeologists from outside also voices their opposition to the project.

With the transfer of all decision-making power to the Ministry in recent years, how likely is appropriate civic participation in future planning processes?

Centralisation is not a good choice for local democracy. Decisions taken without knowing the area produce other problems. In all kinds of planning, of course, we should act together with the local components. However, we are moving far away from this understanding. Local dynamics are only taken into consideration during election times and are then forgotten afterwards. This is neither healthy nor correct.

In what ways, if any, do local communities, activists and civil society act as a buffer to compensate for the lack of state policies and/or measures to protect the environment?

This is a broad question. Clearly, for the last 10 years, people have been struggling to protect their natural and historical sites, the sea and the forest from their own state. They take to the streets and file lawsuits. Especially with the growth of the construction sector in Turkey, unplanned mining quarries (stone and marble quarries) have caused the people to revolt. The forest ecosystem was destroyed and had a negative impact on groundwater. The Isparta-Sütçüler region is in a very grave situation. There, a mining quarry is wanted to be opened in cedar forests. The people living in that region oppose this. If the region is an unpopulated region or if there are not enough people to oppose it together, the mines cause great damage to nature.

In what way has and will tourist development become a class issue (key words are privatisation, gentrification, etc.) Are there any measures or initiatives to combat this?

Probably most of the tourists in the world are the upper and middle upper class of their own country. It is good to learn about other places and cultures, but we also carry our carbon footprint with us wherever we go. A tourist consumes much more water and energy than the local people. They produce waste. These people also have an environmental cost, but I don't think countries take them into consideration. They [the countries] only focus on future tourism income. Especially in Turkey, there is no special effort of the state in this regard. There should definitely be a tourism tax for touristic provinces such as Antalya. This tax should then be transferred to the local level and used to strengthen the infrastructure, to dispose of wastes in a healthy way and to keep the seas clean. 

As mentioned above, natural and historical assets should not be seen from a neo-liberal perspective. The de facto privatisation of coasts in this respect is a major problem. It is clear that forest and water assets, which are the most important assets for the future, disappear in a shorter time with privatisation policies. If we do not take precautions, we will be roasted more quickly in the global climate crisis.

What do you think should be done to protect nature and provide a socially just environment for local people?

First of all, some legislations should be amended to give rights to local people. For example, the Mining Legislation. While the Special Provincial Administration and the Governorship used to have authority in the licensing process, now the authority has been completely centralised. The right to information and participation mentioned in the EIA Regulation and enshrined in the Aarhus Convention must be realised. In Turkey, public participation meetings are entirely for show within a framework drawn by the companies. 

Law amendments should be made in the municipal legislation to mobilise the local community. Local people should be involved in decisions. For this, there should be an open and transparent information process. However, local people are the last to learn that a cement factory or a hotel will be built next to them. In order to ensure openness and participation, the government must first and foremost agree to share its power with the local people. This is also an area of political struggle.