Economic assessment of Kaş-Kekova Marine Protected Area’s effects on the sustainability of local development

Prepared by: Esra Başak

July 2012

1 This report is published on the responsability of Plan Bleu. The estimations used, opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of Plan Bleu.

2 Table of Contents

Acronyms ...... 4 Introduction ...... 5 Part I: Local development and Kaş-Kekova Special Environmental Protected Area: Current situation and retrospective analysis of key interactions ...... 6 Chapter 1: Local development in the area of Kaş-Kekova: driving forces and socio-economic and ecological trends ...... 6 1.1 Features of local development in Kaş-Kekova area: current situation and retrospective trends ...... 6 1.1.2. Ecological situation ...... 8 1.1.3. Institutional situation ...... 9 1.2 The forces driving development in Kaş-Kekova SEPA ...... 10 1.2.2. The environmental impacts of the economic activities ...... 12 Chapter 2: Kaş-Kekova Special Environmental Protected Area: effects on local development ...... 14 2.1 Portrait of Kaş-Kekova SEPA in 3 dimensions: social, economic and ecological ...... 14 2.1.1. Purpose, objectives and means of governance...... 14 2.1.2. Protected ecosystems and targeted biodiversity ...... 15 2.1.3. Zoning and type of usage regulation in the SEPA ...... 17 2.1.4. Type of visitors to the MCPA by activities ...... 18 2.1.5. Usage volumes and attractiveness of the MCPA ...... 21 2.2 Links between Kaş Kekova SEPA and development in the surrounding area ...... 21 2.2.1. Influence of the Kaş-Kekova SEPA on economical activities in and around the MCPA ...... 21 2.2.2. Adaptation of local economy to the MCPA constraints and sustainable development opportunities ...... 22 2.2.3. Recent institutional changes influencing the development in and around the SEPA ...... 22 Chapter 3: Potential development futures in Kaş-Kekova Area and effects of the SEPA ...... 23 3.1 Scope and timeframe of the projection ...... 23 3.2 Analytical framework of the projection ...... 23 3.3 Description of main drivers and their parameters ...... 24 3.4 Scenarios definition ...... 25 Chapter 4: Assessing the effect of the Kaş-Kekova SEPA on local development in the surrounding area: variations in costs & benefits ...... 25 4.1. Methodology and elements assessed ...... 25 4.2 Summary of the Results for the three scenarios ...... 26 4.2.1. Fishing ...... 26 4.2.2. Tourism ...... 27 4.2.3. Recreation – Daily Boat Tours ...... 28 4.2.4. Scuba Diving ...... 29 4.2.5. Carbon Sequestration ...... 30 4.2.6. Waste Water Treatment ...... 30 4.3 Costs and Benefits Assessment ...... 31 4.3.1 Costs 31 4.3.2 Benefits Assessment ...... 31 4.3.3 Comparative assessment ...... 32 4.4 Conclusion ...... 33 References ...... 35 Annex II – Internet news coverage on reported illegal constructions within the SEPA ...... 40 Annex III – List of Interviewees (September 2011 – February 2012) ...... 41

3

Acronyms

EU The European Union GDNAP General Directorate of Natural Assets Protection MCPA Marine and Coastal Protected Area MedPAN Mediterranean Marine Protected Areas Network MoEU Ministry of Environment and Urbanisation SEPA Special Environmental Protection Area

Monetary conversion rate, December 2011: 1€=2,5TL 1USD=1,9TL

4 Introduction

This study is part of a cross Mediterranean analysis led by Plan Bleu on marine and coastal protected areas’ effects on local development dynamics. Plan Bleu has decided to address the issue of environmental economics in the marine environment based on the 2008 Almeria ministerial declaration of the Parties to the Barcelona Convention which promotes the ecosystemic approach as a support for preserving biodiversity and the natural heritage. Accordingly, Plan Bleu’s programme of work for marine and coastal areas deals with three related issues:

 The economic value of benefits resulting from marine ecosystems  The economic mean and sustainability of marine related activities in the Mediterranean, such as fishing, maritime transport, tourism, etc.  The effects of marine and coastal ecosystem conservation on socio-economic development and the economic assessment of this effect.

This latter question falls within the scope of the Strategic Partnership for the Mediterranean Large Marine Ecosystem, initiated by the Global Environment Facility (GEF). It is Plan Bleu’s aim to describe and quantify the effects of conservation on the local socio-economic situation by focusing on how five geographically different Marine and Coastal Protected Areas (MCPAs) in the Mediterranean are affecting sustainable development at local scale.

Kaş-Kekova Special Environmental Protection Area (SEPA), located in South Western Turkey, was selected as a case study in line with Plan Bleu’s overall objectives. The study aims to highlight the links between MCPA and development by taking into account an ecosystem service approach whose focus will remain on the marine environment of Kaş-Kekova. Along with the outputs from the other case studies, the results of the present study will be used in the formulation of a synthesis report in due course.

5 Part I: Local development and Kaş-Kekova Special Environmental Protected Area: Current situation and retrospective analysis of key interactions The first part of the report introduces the socio-economic and environmental context of the Kaş- Kekova Special Environmental Protected Area (SEPA) and provides the basis for understanding the local development dynamics in the region and in the SEPA.

Chapter 1: Local development in the area of Kaş-Kekova: driving forces and socio- economic and ecological trends In order to comprehend the effect of the Kaş-Kekova SEPA on the local economy and development situation, Chapter 1 focuses on both current and past regional and national socio- economic trends.

1.1 Features of local development in Kaş-Kekova area: current situation and retrospective trends Situated in the province of Antalya, in the Western Turkish Mediterranean, Kaş-Kekova area is rich of archeological and natural features that are found in its terrestrial as well as marine environments. Kaş-Kekova SEPA (orange on Figure 1), declared a protected area in 1990, falls within the administrative authority of two districts, Kaş and Demre (see Figure 1). Figure 1: Map showing the administrative borders in which Kaş-Kekova SEPA is located

(source: Adapted from Google Maps and Turkey’s district divisions by Damien Dessane)

1.1.1. Socio-economic development According to the Turkish Development Ministry’s (the former State Planning Organization) 2003 socio-economic development ranking of the provinces, Antalya ranked as the 10th out of 81 provinces in Turkey.1 According to the same public authority’s 2004 assessment,2 within the province, Kaş district ranked as 321st and Demre district as 278th out of 872 districts of Turkey based on a range of development indicators such as income, employment, demography, education, health, industry, agriculture and other financial indicators3. Kaş and Demre districts do not fully benefit from the economic dynamism of Antalya city because of their distance.

1 Batı Akdeniz Kalkınma Ajansı, 2010. An independent academic research was conducted by Yıldız et al. (2010) for updating the provincial level socio-economic rankings in which Antalya came 7th. 2 District level socio-economic ranking researches have not been conducted since 2004 in Turkey. 3 Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı, 2004

6 Nationally, the average employment rate in 2010 was 43%4. In the Western Mediterranean Region (consisting of Antalya, Burdur and Isparta Provinces) labor force participation was 54,6%5. Among those employed in the greater region (of 15 years and above), 52,2% in the services sector (27,5% in commerce only), about 34% worked in agriculture and 14% in industries (ibid). In Kaş, the unemployment rate was reported as 1,63% while in Demre 3,78% based on 2004 data6. Even though Kaş District center is not located inside the MCPA, it is an important economic and social center influencing the protected area. During high season, Kaş population of around 7.000 people inhabitants (see Table 1) increases to about 20.000 people. Demre city center is of less economical importance than Kaş in terms of tourism. Indeed, only two travel agencies exist in Demre as compared to 23 in Kaş and one diving club as compared to 18 in Kaş. In Demre, the economy relies heavily on greenhouse production and specific tourism highlights such as Myra (Demre’s Lycian name) archaelogical sites and Saint Nicholas Church. Table 1: Population trends since 1970’s in the greater Kaş-Kekova region Total 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 2000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2010 District Kaş 2.099 2.493 3.158 4.002 4.560 6.361 5.922 6.322 6.857 7.041 22.940 centers Demre 5.201 6.790 6.656 11.667 13.793 13.900 15.762 15.662 15.574 15.899 257 204 242 320 284 363 613 641 657 668 Villages Çevreli within Üçağız - 309 306 285 354 411 493 462 513 503 521 1.646 the Kale SEPA Kapaklı 521 539 610 459 317 278 346 434 434 457

Source: Optimar Danışmanlık, 2010 Kale-Üçağız, Çevreli and Kapaklı villages administratively fall within the Demre District to the East of the MCPA. The population shows a remarkable demographical increase for the past 40 years. District centers population increases while village populations are constant. The population density is around 18 people/km2 compared to 93 people/km2 for the province of Antalya which is consistent with the national average of 94 people/km2 7. Kaş district’s population density is in the range of 25 people/km2 compared to 59 in Demre district according to 2004 data8. The age distribution, the occupational distribution and the income levels can be drawn from the socio- economic analysis that has been commissioned by GDNAP to Optimar Consultancy (see Figure 2 & 3).

4 Ministry of Development, 2011 5 Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı, 2007 6 Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı, 2004 7 Batı Akdeniz Kalkınma Ajansı, 2010 8 Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı, 2004

7 Figure 2: Age distribution and range of activities among based on surveys with 317 people in 95 households living in the villages of the SEPA Fishing Other Retired 25% Commercial activities 20%

15%

10% Tourism Agriculture 5%

0% 0 – 9 10 – 19 20 – 29 30 – 39 40 – 49 50 – 59 60 – 69 above Age distribution, active population (green) 70 years SEPA population range of activities

Source: Optimar Danışmanlık, 2011

Figure 3: Income levels in the study area (based on household surveys inside and outside the SEPA, see page 3 for conversion rates)9

Source: Optimar Danışmanlık, 2010

The villages that are within the MCPA are characterised by rural activities dominated by small scale agriculture (see Fig. 2) explaining the income difference from the district centers (Kaş and Demre) defined as “outside the SEPA” in the above figure where commerce and tourism generate higher income (> 1.000 TL). The low income category is nearly three times higher within the villages of the MCPA compared to district centers.

Field interviews reveal that there is an interchangeable job structure in Kaş-Kekova SEPA throughout the year. For instance, people who work as captains and seamen for tourism boats also work as fishermen during the off-season months or in their spare time. This also applies to those working in scuba diving boats in Kaş.

1.1.2. Ecological situation The Kaş area is a part of the Lycian coasts in the Southwestern Turkey (between Fethiye and Antalya) rich in marine biodiversity10 as well as terrestrial biodiversity. The ecological assets of the region are detailed in part 2.1. of this report.

9 The median household income in Turkey being estimated by the OECD at 800TL/month (source: OECD, 2011) 10 WWF Turkey, 2011

8 1.1.3. Institutional situation In Turkey, the national network of protected areas possesses a wide range of conservation status (see Table 2). As a whole, the terrestrial and marine protected areas’ surface occupies over 4 million hectares which represents about 6% of Turkey’s overall surface11. Turkey’s coasts extend to about 8.330 km and a total of ten MCPAs have the status of Special Environmental Protection Area covering over 176 thousand ha and representing about 1.177 km of coastline12. Table 2. Turkey’s protected areas’ (PA) institutional and legislative timeframe October Date August 1956 July 1983 August 1983 July 2003 May 2005 1989 General General General Directorate Directorate Ministry General Directorate of Nature Directorate of Nature of Nature Responsible of Culture General Directorate of Forestry Conservation and Natural Parks of Natural Conservation Conservation organization & Assets and Natural and Natural Tourism Protection Parks Parks

Protection of Cultural Terrestrial Protection of Legislation Forest National Parks Decree and Hunting Wetlands Natural Assets Law (no) 6831 2863 2873 383 4915 25818

Special Type of Gene Wildlife Protective Seed Natural Nature National Nature Nature Environmental Conservation Development Ramsar Sites protected Forests Stands Sites (SITs) Monuments Parks Parks Reserves Protection Forests Areas area Area Number of 194 56 337 1145 105 40 30 31 14 80 12 PA created Coverage 45 Not 897 79 28 315 403 344 5 541 46 575 1 211 254 1 201 285 179 482 (ha) 858 available 657 047 Source: UNDP 2009

Until the summer of 2011, the management of the Special Environmental Protected Areas (SEPAs) in Turkey was under the auspices of the Environmental Protection Agency for Special Areas (EPASA). Through a restructuring of the Turkish Ministries in 2011, SEPAs in Turkey have been placed under the authority of the Ministry of Environment and Urbanization’s (MoEU) General Directorate for Natural Assets Protection (GDNAP). The Tourism Promotion Law which came into force in 1982, has led to increasing land allocation, incentives for tourism investments and a boost in secondary housing demands especially in the untouched coastal zones of Turkey13. Furthermore, the Construction Law numbered 3194 of 1985 in which the plan approval power was shifted to local governmental authorities also led to the rapid and uncontrollable conversion of the coastal areas (ibid). Today increasing secondary housing demands and the drive for further tourism investments place important pressures that Kaş-Kekova SEPA is faced with (see section 1.2.3). For the past ten years, national nature protection policies of the Turkish government have also been reluctant in terms of upholding internationally accepted standards such as EU’s nature conservation directives, Environmental Impact Assessments and other environmental justice issues highlighting a shift in the economic developmental priorities in the country. For example, the draft nature conservation law which is based on the concept of “sustainable use” of protected areas rather than

11 Eken et al., 2006 12 UNDP, 2009; Five additional SEPAs are located in inland areas of Turkey and are also managed by GDNAP. 13 EPASA, 2008b

9 conservation has received negative reactions both from conservation NGOs and local communities as the present conservation statuses will be subject to the re-evaluation of the MoEU14.

1.2 The forces driving development in Kaş-Kekova SEPA This section explores the key economic activities in Kaş-Kekova SEPA that form the backbone of local development. This is done by using published reports and data on the greater Kaş-Kekova region as well as data collected during the field surveys. The main focus of this section is economic activities that are based on marine and coastal Ecosystem Services; therefore, discussions of the agrarian aspects of the MCPA’s economy have been ommitted. Some socio-economic analyses examining the agricultural practices of three settlements located within the SEPA can be refered through the AKS Planlama Mühendislik (2010) and Optimar Danışmanlık (2010) studies.

1.2.1. Key economic activities and their economic share 1.2.1.1. Tourism Starting from the 1980’s, Turkey has been a major tourism destination globally. In 2009, the international tourist arrivals (thousands) amounted to over 25,5 million people with 21 billion US$ revenues15. In 2010, a total of 28,6 million foreign visitors have come to Turkey for tourism purposes which marks a 5,74% increase compared to the previous year16. Compared to global tourism figures of 940 million international arrivals, Turkey’s share is of 3% (ibid). Of these visitors, 58% were from Europe, 21% from Commonwealth of Independent States and 14% from Asia (ibid). This increase has been steady and the trends can be observed in Figure 4. The top five provinces to which foreign visitors have arrived to in 2010 are (in order): Antalya, İstanbul, Muğla, Edirne and İzmir (ibid). The tourist expenditures in Turkey for the same year correspond to about 21 billion US$ out of Turkey’s GDP of 736 billion US$ (ibid), meaning almost 3%. Being the top destination for tourism in Turkey, Antalya province alone covers about 36% of the bed capacities nationally and host 30% of foreign visitors17. The favorable weather conditions and the wealth of cultural and historical features in the province contributes to this effect. Over 9 million tourists (8,5 million foreigners and 500.000 nationals) are recorded to have arrived to Antalya in 2009 (ibid). Figure 4: Visitors Arriving in Turkey - 2003-2010

35 000 000

30 000 000 28 632 204 26 336 677

25 000 000 23 340 911 27 077 114 21 124 886

20 000 000 17 516 908

19 819 833

15 000 000 14 029 558

10 000 000 Number visitorsof

5 000 000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 YILLAR - Years

14 Akyüz, 2011 15 UN World Tourism Organisation, 2010 16 Ministry of Culture and Tourism, 2011 17 Batı Akdeniz Kalkınma Ajansı, 2010

10 Source: Ministry of Culture and Tourism 2011 Much like the rest of the Antalya Province, the predominant economic activity in terms of employment that characterises Kaş district is tourism. Especially in the last 15 years, Kaş area attracts more tourists partly because the road infrastructure has improved and partly because people’s need to escape from the conventional mass tourism in other districts of Antalya. Indeed, Turkey’s mass tourism is increasing due to its relatively stable political condition and reasonable prices. Previously, Kaş was known as a small fisherman village whose economy was mainly based on agriculture and olive production but today it has become an important center of tourism (employing 80% of the active population, personal communication with Kaş governor) appealing both to culture and nature based tourism activities18. According to the Culture & Tourism Information Center manager in Kaş, in 2010, the whole region encompassing Kaş, Kalkan and Patara, has received 180.000 foreign and 80.000 national visitors corresponding to about 3% of the visitors to Antalya. In Kaş, the bed capacity is 4.435 while in Üçağız and Kale it is 310. Furthermore, based on field interviews, a total of 22 real estate agencies provide accommodation options seasonally in Kaş center and Çukurbağ peninsula. 1.2.1.2. Fishing Unlike other parts of the Mediterranean, the biomass in Eastern Mediterranean is lower due to lesser amounts of nutrients thus leading to smaller fish population sizes (personal communication with Dr. Yokeş). In consequence, compared with the rest of Turkey, the fish stocks in Southwestern Mediterranean are limited. At national scale, 64% of Turkey’s fish catch is extracted from Eastern Black Sea, 12% from Western Black Sea, 9% from the Marmara Sea, 8,7% from the Aegean and 6% from the Mediterranean19. Also, due to the sea bottom structure of the MCPA, there are no trawlers in the region. As a result, the fishing activities centered in Kaş-Kekova SEPA remain mostly traditional, fulfilling the Kaş and Kekova region’s needs. In Kaş, a total of 20 licensed fishing boats are registered to the district agricultural authority. The Kaş Fisheries Cooperative represents the people involved in fishing professionally and has 32 members. Fishing season in Kaş lasts about 8-9 months. The typical fishing boat in Kaş is of maximum 9 m and the fishing lines extend to 2,000 m and to a depth of 40-50 m. In Üçağız and Kale villages, about fifteen households or thirty people are involved in fishing activities20. With regards to the volumes of extraction, different figures have been reported by the fishermen in Kaş and Kekova during the field interviews. In Kaş, an annual average of 2-4 tons per boat (or 12 kg/boat/day for a 250 day fishing season)21 were mentioned as opposed to 25 kg/boat/day in Üçağız. The figures provided by Demre agricultural authorities therefore seem as an underestimate (corresponding to 3,6 kg/boat/day on average) compared to these. It should be noted nevertheless that fish stocks (thus catch volumes) not only change seasonally but also with the fishing method used. For 2011, the total amount of fish catch volume in Kaş was 22.225 kg with an economic value of 313.560 TL and other sea products’ volume (such as squids, calamari and lobster) 1.506 kg with an economic value of 46.340 TL totaling 359.900 TL22. This figure in turn corresponds to a daily catch of 4,7 kg/boat for a 250 day fishing season, slightly higher than the averages stated by the Demre agricultural authorities. This may be due to the fact that nearly half of the catch includes high volume fish such as swordfish and blue fish tuna whose catch has been banned since July 2011 in

18 Tural, 2009; Optimar Danışmanlık, 2011 19 Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Animal Husbandry, 2011 20 Optimar Danışmanlık, 2010; personal communications 21 Kaş Port Authority Director, on the other hand, reports a daily 15-20 kg catch in Kaş. 22 Kaş District Food, Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Authoriry, 2011

11 Turkish seas23. The different volumes revealed by the fishermen and those officially recorded point to the lack of fisheries monitoring in the MCPA. 1.2.1.3. Agriculture Within the physical confines of the SEPA, agriculture strikes as the main occupation of the local workforce thus the main revenue-generating activity for local livelihoods in the MCPA (Figure 3). The agricultural practices of the three settlements located within the SEPA are dominated by greenhouse production; 95% of the households in Çevreli, 7.5% in Üçağız, and 70% in Kapaklı villages have greenhouses24. The production is mainly characterised by out of season vegetables and especially green peppers; furthermore in Kapaklı village 20 households also do animal husbandry (ibid). Demre district’s agrarian economy is also dominated by greenhouse productions and field crops (ibid).

1.2.2. The environmental impacts of the economic activities Assessment of the SEPA’s Western section by Demir in terms of chemical polluters as well as petro- hydrocarbons revealed that pollution levels were under acceptable limits in the MCPA25. However, the rapid urbanisation, new marina’s future impacts and the inadequate conditions of the water treatment system in Kaş (lack of diffusers and a short pipeline) should already be foreseen with precautionary principles. Nevertheless, the MCPA receives pollution input coming from the Çukurbağ peninsula (West of Kaş) where none of the houses or hotels are connected to the waste water treatment system. These houses only have septic tanks and are told to discharge illegally during the night. The treatment plant only serves Kaş centre and the new marina. The bigger marine pollution problem in fact is in Üçağız-Kale section where the town is not connected to a proper sewage system as the infrastructural works have been limited due to the town’s archaelogical conservation status.26 This combined with the boats’ pressures in the closed inner sea of Ölüdeniz have led to remarkable pollution levels in the SEPA’s eastern section. Overexploitation of the natural resources especially concern the fish stocks in the MCPA. Problems related to illegal spear gun and dynamite fishing that is carried out extensively in the area are articulated by the majority of the interviewees. The effects of these activities on the ecosystems and populations are of much a higher scale compared to the commercial fishing activities. Conversion of the natural coastal structures has been an on-going pressure in Turkey’s Mediterranean. In 2002, the sustainable tourism assessment of the Lycian coasts conducted by WWF emphasize the pressure of development in all of the natural and agricultural areas close to the coast in the form of tourism operations or housing developments27. Conversion of the sea bottom is another problem in the MCPA. Because of their low growth rate, seagrass species are vulnerable to environmental disturbances; they are crushed or torn apart by the anchors and chains of boats28. Furthermore because of their low density, they float if pulled out from the sediment, and lose their chance to be fixed on the ground (ibid). This problem is observed in the Posidonia oceanica communities of the MCPA and are subject to monitoring. The buoys systems are urgently needed to halt the damage on their habitats.

23 Until July 2011, two boats in Kaş were specialized in swordfish and blue fin tuna fishing. Their catch used to require a modified line and fishing in open seas with an overnight stay. Source: personnal communication with Murat Kara 24 Optimar Danışmanlık, 2010 25 Demir, 2011 26 Household waste water (as well as solid wastes) are collected from the septic sytems by a boat that services as a sewage truck. These wastes partially end up in Demre and partially released in the open seas. This remains as less than a perfect solution for solving Kale and Üçağız settlements’ waste management. 27 Bomger et al., 2002 28 Yokes, 2009

12 1.2.3. Sustainability threshold and degree of overshoot The carrying capacity study that has been conducted in the Kekova section reveal that tour boats and yacht tourism boats impact as well as the settlements of Kale and Üçağız influence the inner bay of Kekova island which has shallow sea bottom structure thus more prone to pollution29. Furthermore, fishing activities (both legal/illegal recreational and commercial fishing) combined with increasing numbers of scuba diving operations carried out in the Western, Kaş section of the MCPA seem to have surpassed the sustainability of the fish habitats and populations (see the results of the scientific monitoring in 2.1.3). According to many stakeholders interviewed especially in Kaş, the general view is that the development capacity has already been reached in the town centre. This is in particularly relevant due to the natural geographic limitations of the settlement. The saturation of the town centre puts development pressure on its surroundings such as the conversion witnessed in the Çukurbağ peninsula and an eventual spill to the SEPA with increased marine pollution risks seems likely.

Figure 6: Illegally built houses in the Ufakdere Bay Based on field interviews, it is agreed that the future and the sustainability of tourism depends on the environmental qualities of the Kaş-Kekova region. Unfortunately development pressures exist on natural maquis habitats and pristine coasts of the MCPA. Annex II presents an overview of the media coverage on reported illegal constructions within the SEPA (links are limited to Turkish language). Source: E.Başak

29 Sualtı Araştırmaları Danışmanlık, 2011

13 Chapter 2: Kaş-Kekova Special Environmental Protected Area: effects on local development 2.1 Portrait of Kaş-Kekova SEPA in 3 dimensions: social, economic and ecological 2.1.1. Purpose, objectives and means of governance Kaş-Kekova protected area has the status of “Special Environmental Protection Area” since 1990 based on Council of ministers’ decree numbered 90/7730. Until 2006, the MCPA only included the Kekova section (for its archaelogical heritage) but through the efforts of marine scientists and WWF Turkey, the Kekova Special Environmental Protection Area was expanded to include the environs of Kaş, rich in marine biological diversity. However, the site’s management is not clustered under GDNAP’s sole authority. Instead, all tasks are allocated between the relevant state authorities31. Nevertheless, terrestrial planning is carried and approved by GDNAP headquarters after having reached the consent of all of the local and central state authorities. In 1991, the 1/25.000 scale (terrestrial) Environmental Plan containing the land use planning policies was prepared for Kekova section of the SEPA and approved by the cultural and natural heritage conservation board. The plan can be considered as a higher scale master plan and has brought restrictions and codes to the historical buildings in Kekova as well as diving limitations in the Aperlai archaeological sections of the SEPA (personal communication with Zerrin Ertaş, GDNAP Antalya). This Environmental Plan went through a revision in 2011 to include the Kaş section of the MCPA and the proposed marine zonings (see Annex I) but needs yet to be approved by high level decision makers. WWF Turkey is actively engaged for facilitating the interactions of the local stakeholders in Kaş- Kekova and the central/regional decision making bodies. This is ensured through the regular meetings of local, technical and high level steering committees that were formed in the framework of their MedPAN pilot project to develop the site’s marine management plan32. Especially the local steering committee members consist of key stakeholders of the MCPA such as GDNAP Antalya, Kaş district governor, fishing cooperative, diving clubs association, Üçağız village headman, representatives of Kaş & Demre district agricultural authorities, representative of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, coast guard staff, Kaş mayor, WWF and other local NGOs. The high level and technical committees meet once a year and the local steering committee meets twice a year. Propositions which can be seen as results of common ground consensus building come out of the local committee meetings and feed the upcoming management plan33. Kaş-Kekova SEPA’s management activities led by GDNAP thus far have included the following:  1/25.000 scale Environmental Plan (1991) and its revision (2011 – awaits approval)  Terrestrial biodiversity assessment (2010)  Marine Biodiversity assessment & monitoring (coordinated by WWF Turkey since 2002)  Socio-economic survey (2011)  Carrying capacity of the MCPA (2011 - confined to Kekova section)  The development and drafting of the marine management plan for the site (to be finalized by the end of 2012)

30 GDNAP, 2011 31 GDNAP (or the former Environment Protection Agency for Special Areas – EPASA) identified over 50 stakeholders in its 2009-2013 strategic plan (EPASA 2008b). 32 WWFMedPro, 2011 33 personal communication with Nilüfer Araç

14  Regular marine water quality monitoring carried out by independent national laboratories and universities.  Solid waste management (in coordination with local authorities)  Underwater archeological surveys (coordinated by Turkish Underwater Research Society - SAD)  Communication, education and other activities (such as setting up the buoys by WWF Turkey) Budgetary figures on GDNAP’s current running costs for the MCPA have not been accessible due to the ministerial restructuring. However, the budget of the pilot MedPAN South project for the preparation of the management plan during four years is € 510.000.

2.1.2. Protected ecosystems and targeted biodiversity The terrestrial areas of the SEPA are mainly dominated by Meditterranean floristic features such as maquis and Pinus species34. The maquis vegetation is dominated by Quercus aucheri (an endemic oak species), Olea europaea and Phillyrea latifolia35. Based on the EUNIS habitat classification conducted as part of the terrestrial biodiversity study for the site (see Table 3), nearly 90% of the terrestrial landcover is natural (with 82,4% of the SEPA covered by forests) while nearly all of the remaining 10% consists by and large of agricultural practices and a very small percent of human settlements (ibid). Table 3: The terrestrial landcover distribution within Kaş-Kekova SEPA Land Olive Green- Forests Phrygana Rock Swamps Agriculture Settlements Graveyards Total Cover groves houses Surface (ha) 8.229 534 344 404 2 318 121 37 1 9.989 Percentage 82 5 3 4 0 3 1 0 0 100 (%) Source: AKS Planlama Mühendislik, 2010

Figure 7: Luschan’s Lycian Salamander, an endemic reptile, is found in Kaş-Kekova SEPA 187 plant genus types and 272 species and subspecies belonging to 51 families were identified within SEPA of which 26 are endemic to Turkey (ibid). Furthermore, the results of the study reveal the presence of 20 different mammal and 96 bird species in the SEPA. Among the mammals, Wild goat (Capra aegagrus) is in the VU (vulnerable) category according to IUCN (ibid). Kaş- Kekova SEPA is also home to 4 amphibian and 16 reptile species. Lyciasalamandra luschani (Luschan’s Lycian Salamander) Source: European Field Herping Community 2008 in IUCN category VU (vulnerable) is endemic to Turkey (ibid). As a result of the geological formation of the region, the coasts in the SEPA are mainly characterized by rocky shores and cliffs that can sharply rise to slopes that eventually reach 550m altitude36. As such, road accessibility of the MCPA remains limited and this has led to relatively well-conserved and undeveloped coastlines (personal interviews). According to WWF’s scientific consultant Dr. Baki Yokeş, more than 1.000 marine species were identified in the region since 200237. Distribution of these identified species are stated as 117 fish species (14 threatened, 11 invasive species), 729

34 GDNAP, 2011 35 AKS Planlama Mühendislik, 2010 36 Demir, 2010 37 Personal communication

15 invertebrate species (19 threatened, 51 invasive species), around 160 algae species (2 threatened, 7 invasive)38. Within the MCPA’s western section, Demir (2011) identified 33 marine species of conservation importance based on Bern and Barcelona conventions to which Turkey is a Party. Among these, The Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus), Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) are listed as “endangered” in CITES’ Appendix I39. The IUCN Red List species listed as endangered/vulnerable are as follows: Sandbar shark (Carcharhinus plumbeus), Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), White grouper (Epinephelus aeneus), Dusky grouper (Epinephelus marginatus), Smooth-hound (Mustelus mustelus), Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus), Red porgy (Pagrus pagrus)40. Box 2 - Dusky grouper, a species under pressure Dusky groupers (Epinephelus marginatus) are an economic fish species found throughout the Mediterranean and Aegean Seas that prefer rocky bottoms (Fish Base 2011). They can reach maximum lenghts and weighs of 150cm and 60kg respectively and can live up to 50 years (Gözcelioğlu, 2011). They are top predators in the marine food chain in the Mediterranean ecosystems and due to their slow maturing process and late reproduction, they are highly vulnerable marine species (Yokeş, 2003) and pointed by the IUCN Red List. Furthermore, under the protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and biological diversity in the Mediterranean – part of the Barcelona Convention - dusky groupers are listed among the species whose exploitation is regulated (Barcelona Convention, 1999). Much like other members of the Epinephelinae subfamily, in Kaş-Kekova SEPA, dusky groupers’ habitats face pressures due to increasing human use and activities (fishing, diving, boating) and especially the population of mature adults is threatened by fishing or migrates due to habitat reduction/destruction (ibid). For instance, to the disappointment of many locals, a legendary dusky grouper of approximately 30kg and 1,20m known as “Süleyman” among the divers and fishermen in Kaş was recently caught illegally by a speargun hunter (field interviews).

Figure 8: Map showing the number of marine protected species encountered during the monitoring scheme at the Western section of the Kaş-Kekova SEPA

Meis Island Number of protected species

38 Tural, 2009 39 CITES, 2011 40 IUCN Red List, 2011

16 Source: Demir, 2011 As far as Posidonia oceanica seagrass communities are concerned, since 2006, 5 to 10% habitat loss is reported for the Ufakdere region on the Western section of the MCPA. The main impact is on the shallow shores that are suitable for anchoring and if only this coastal seabottom of the bay is taken into account, the Posidonia habitat loss can increase up to 40-50% (personal communication). Another important ecological Box 3 – The Puffer Fish: nightmare of the local phenomenon in Kaş-Kekova SEPA is fishermen the presence of ever increasing The Puffer fish (Lagocephalus suezensis), known as the “baloon numbers of Red Sea fish species (68 fish”in Turkey is an introduced species to the Mediterranean in total) and their populations waters. The species seems to have well adapted to its new reaching the MCPA both through habitats in Kaş-Kekova as well. Unfortunately, this their natural passage from the Suez opportunistic invader has sharp teeth that harm the local Canal and via balast waters. The lack fishermen’s gear such as fishing lines, nets and parakete and of predators to control these new influence other marine species (ie. calamar and octopus). The species and climatic changes resulting baloon fish is a concern for the majority of the fishermen in sea water temperature rises in the interviewed in the SEPA as it reduces the lifespan of their gear, creates further costs and it is believed to contain area foster a positive effect on these poisonous subtances. It may be impossible to eradicate the population. They adapt well to the species within the MCPA; however, the species’ population Eastern Mediterranean and tend to monitoring is or would be important to minimize the existing take over the native and endemic fish economic hardships of the local fishermen. populations. Presently some of these exotic species are being caught as they have commercial value41. Field interviews with the fishermen reveal that important commercial fish types for the region are Dusky spinefoot (Siganus luridus) and Marbled spinefoot (Siganus rivulatus) both introduced from the Red Sea. Similarly, certain invasive marine vegetation communities are reported to alter the marine diversity in the MCPA. For instance, in certain areas of Kekova where Posidonia oceanica seagrasses have become degraded or disappeared due to anthropogenic effects, invasives such as Caulerpa racemosa, C. taxifolia, Stypopodium schimper and Halophila stipulacea have colonised leading to dramatic changes in the balance of the ecosystems42.

2.1.3. Zoning and type of usage regulation in the SEPA The SEPA covers a total area of 258,3 km2 (about 0,63% of nationally protected areas) and its borders are roughly situated between 29° 35´ - 29° 55´ east longitudes and 36° 11´ - 37° 13´ north latitudes43, between the tip of the Limanağzı-Fener point in the West and the Kekova Island on the East (see Figure 2). The SEPA is composed of 166 km2 of marine area and 92 km2 of terrestrial area, with 107km coastline44. Kaş-Kekova SEPA currently does not have a legally binding management plan that specifies the zoning and the types of usage within the marine coverage of the MCPA (with the exception of diving prohibitions in Kekova section). Due to archaeological and cultural heritage wealth of the MCPA, currently only regulations about building codes exist within the MCPA (applying especially to Kale & Üçağız). These imply strict renovation and repair permits that often put constraints on the physical living conditions of the people in these areas. Therefore highly negative connotations are evoked by the “protected area” for those living in that section of the SEPA. The zoning is an on-

41 Demir, 2011 42 Sualtı Araştırmaları Danışmanlık, 2011 43 Demir, 2011; EPASA, 2008 44 UNDP, 2009

17 going process that should be finalised within the end of 2012 before the management plan’s foreseen implementation in 2013. However, during the local committee meetings coordinated by WWF Turkey, the following zoning works have been carried out in 201145: - Determination of no-take zones for fishing (professional and recreational practices), - Determination of regulations for recreational fishing (speargun, line fishing, cage), - Determination of zones closed to scuba diving and preparation of a protocol with the diving clubs on the scope of their activities within the SEPA, - Determination of zones where buoys will be set up based on the negative impacts of recreational boats’ anchoring activities (especially on seagrass communities). The details of the proposed zoning and usage regulation principles that have been agreed in the local committee can be found in Annex I of the report.

2.1.4. Type of visitors to the MCPA by activities  Daily Excursion Boats This is a popular activity in the Aegean and Mediterranean coasts of Turkey. Daily marine tours are usually run as self-employed family business in the greater MCPA region (both in Kaş center and in Üçağız). Approximately 100 boats in Kekova and 30 in Kaş which employ around 300 people46. In Kaş, it is reported that the number of boats has not changed since the existence of the MCPA with the main difference being the quality of the boats (mainly in terms of the boat size, see table 5 for type, size and capacity of boats). In Kekova, it is reported that before the 90’s, there was no tourism thus no excursion boats in the region, but instead small fishermen’s boats. Table 5: Type, size and capacity of excursion boats in Kaş-Kekova SEPA Type of boat Little Medium Large Excursion Share Customers' capacity 12 people 35 people 80 people Total port (%) Size of the boat 12 m 20 m 30 m Number of boats 25 4 2 Kaş Customer equivalent 300 140 160 600 14.9% Number of boats 20 75 7 Kekova Customer equivalent 240 2.625 560 3.425 85.1% Total number of daily customers' capacity for Kaş-Kekova excursion boats 4.025 Source: Optimar Danışmanlık, 2010 and interviews Table 6 below presents an estimate of the average annual revenues generated by the daily excursion boats that operate in the Kaş-Kekova SEPA. Other excursion boats also make use of the SEPA for daily use such as 80-100 other boats coming from Çayağzı; however, data is not available on these. The daily prices range between 30-60 TL/person depending on boat size, distance of the excursion and the boats’ occupancy rate. Excursions out of Kekova are generally attracting package tours which settle cheaper prices than Kaş excursions.

Table 6: Annual average revenues generated by daily excursion boats High Season Low Season Area Item Total (90 days) (40 days) Daily number of customers (average) 500 200 Kaş Annual number of customers 45.000 8.000 53.000 Average price (TL/day/person) 42 30

45 WWF Turkey, 2011 46 interviews and Kaş District Tourism Office

18 Revenue (TL/season) 1.890.00047 240.00048 2.130.000 Daily number of customers (average) 850 340 Annual number of customers 76.500 13.600 90.100 Kekova Average price (TL/day/person) 35 27 Revenue (TL/season) 2.677.500 367.200 3.044.700 Total Revenues (TL/year) 5.174.700 Total annual boat excursion customers for Kaş-Kekova 143.100 Source: interviews The expenses of running a daily excursion boat in Kaş-Kekova SEPA have been approximated in Table 7 below.

Table 7: Annual expenses and revenue of excursion boat in Kaş-Kekova SEPA – for a boat of 10-12 m, 12 customers/day, 130 days/year (source: field interviews) Expenses Revenue Profit Profit Item (A) (B) (B-A) Share of (TL/year) (TL/year) (TL/year) Revenue (%) Petrol 4.000 Taxes 2.000 Crew (for one staff) 5.000

39.910 71 Permits and other 1.250 documents Maintenance costs 4.000 Excursions' revenue 56.160 For the whole Kaş-Kekova SEPA, excursion boats’ profit can be estimated at 71% of the total annual revenues calculated in table 6, or 3.677.400 TL/year. For each of the 133 operators, this implies an estimated average profit of 27.650 TL/year.  Scuba Diving The scuba diving activities have started in the 1980’s in Kaş and is considered to be the engine of tourism locally (personal communication with Kaş district governor). According to the professionals at Dragoman company, one of the biggest and oldest scuba operators in Kaş, in the early 1980’s, one foreign company targeting German divers existed in Kaş which by late 80’s increased to three diving schools. In the 1990’s six operators were active locally and by early 2000’s ten companies offered diving in Kaş. In 2011, eighteen diving clubs were based in Kaş, fourteen of which own their institutional boats. Six of these operators remain open throughout the year. In the Kaş section of the MCPA there are about 36 diving spots and 12 of these (concentrated at the “five islands zone”) are more actively used. According to Kaş district tourism office’s 2010 data, 17.927 people dove in Kaş between January – December with a most intensive diving period during May and end of October. According to the Kaş Scuba Diving Centers’ Association KASAD, a total of about 50.000 to 70.000 dives are performed annually in Kaş. This figure is based on each diving club’s average of 3.000 to 5.000 dives. During the high season (mid-June to beginning of October), 90% of the dives take place based on reservation while the rest of the year 40 to 50% is marketed at the door (personal communication with Gökhan Türe, Dragoman). It is reported that 90% of the divers rent the equipment locally (ibid).

47 500 people* 42 TL * 30 days* 3 months (with boats working full-time in the high season) 48 200 people* 30 TL* 13 days* 3 months (with boats working mainly during week-ends in the low season)

19 There are various pricing formulas for the diving excursions in Kaş. Nevertheless, the prices for diving are normally in the following range: one week long diving package49 is 500-600 TL and the average daily diving outing50 is about 80 TL. There are also other pricing options that can include accommodation and transportation. Based on the average single dive fee, it is possible to deduce that the scuba diving revenues in Kaş amount to about 4 – 5,6 million TL annually ( €1,6 to €2,25 million). Considering that 18 diving centers operate in the SEPA and that on average 3 people are employed by each during the high season, 54 people are likely to be employed by the diving sector in Kaş-Kekova.51  Blue Cruises and Yachting Blue Cruises and yacht tourism gains increasing popularity and demand in Turkish Aegean and Mediterranean coasts52. Kaş is no exception to this. With its new marina open since May 2011 that has a capacity of 470 yachts, it is likely that this type of marine tourism will also prosper in the region. The Kaş Port in turn is operated by the Municipality and collects annual fees from the occupying boats. These fees pertain to boats’ space rental, electricity supply and waste water collection services. The total income of the Kaş Port in 2010 is reported to be 253.676 TL compared with 264.573 TL in 2011 corresponding to about 4% increase (Kaş Municipality 2011). The approximate number of commercial and private boats that have used the Kaş Port is 1.000 in 2010 (Kaş Port Authority 2011). Kekova Island and other bays in the MCPA also receive important numbers of Blue Voyage boats and yachts. Because of the fact that Kaş and Kekova do not make up key departure points for these activities (such as Marmaris, Fethiye and others), data has not been accessible and reflected in this initial phase of the report.  Paragliding Paragliding can be done between mid April and mid October on the sharp hills above Kaş where the adventurers land to the Kaş harbor as the finishing point as few flat landing spots are available in the area. Per person price for this activity is 200 TL and an estimated 3.000 people paraglide annually. Thus, the total revenue is in the range of 600.000 TL. With two companies offering this excursion in Kaş, the equivalent of about 7-10 people are employed in paragliding activities throughout the season  Sea Kayaking Figure 9: Sea kayakers paddling near the sunken city in Kekova island Sea kayaking is being operated in the Kekova section of the MCPA mainly by two firms that are based in Kaş; namely Bougainville and Dragoman. The daily price for this activity is 60 TL and an estimated 4.000 people sea kayak annually within the MCPA creating approximate revenues of 240.000 TL. Since these companies offer also additional alternative tourism and excursion options, it is not possible to conclude exactly how much employment is created. Source: E.Başak  Mountain Biking

49 which either consists of ten dives for trained people or 2-3 days of training and 2 days of diving for beginners including the equipment rental 50 whether it be trial dive or a normal dive with rental equipment + lunch 51 Personnal comunication with Gökhan Türe , Dragoman 52 Ministry of Culture and Tourism, 2010

20 Another eco-tourism activity that takes place in Kaş-Kekova SEPA is mountain biking. Four agencies in Kaş district center offer this activity and receive 500 customers each (an average annual of 2.000 mountain bikers). The majority of these adventurers are single day users of the MCPA and the daily guided mountain bike tour ranges between 35-60€/person (including a meal, snacks, transfer and equipment). Based on an average biking tour of 47.5€/person, this amounts to an annual 124,000€ in the MCPA. Individuals may also rent bikes from these companies for 15€/day and it is reported that an annual average 55 people per company (in other words 220 individuals) may be generating an additional 3,300€.

2.1.5. Usage volumes and attractiveness of the MCPA Usage volumes within the MCPA are not formally monitored first of all because, the protected area does not have physical entrance/exit points to directly count visitors. Additionally, the MCPA’s lack of management means an absence of assessment and monitoring of usage data. The Optimar Danışmanlık socio-economic study (2010), estimates an annual volume of 400.000 visitors in the SEPA based on Demre District Governorship’s data. This figure seems like an overestimate and should be used with precaution since the method of calculation for the volume of visitors is not detailed. However, by adding the number of visits for each activity, namely: boat excursions (143.110, see Table 6), scuba diving (20.000 see 2.1.4), trekking (both occasional and for the Lycian way: no data available but can be estimated to 10.000 people a year) and traditional sun/sea vacationers (no data available but can be estimated to 20.000 people a year), the visitors’ number can be approximated about 200.000 benefiting from recreational services provided by ecosystems inside the MCPA. During the visitor surveys conducted in the Optimar study, a large majority of both Turkish and foreign tourists state the natural features of the SEPA as important points of attraction to them53. For the latter this is followed by the cultural heritage of the site, rural lifestyles and combination of these. 2.2 Links between Kaş Kekova SEPA and development in the surrounding area

2.2.1. Influence of the Kaş-Kekova SEPA on economical activities in and around the MCPA The MCPA’s activities do not lead to the increase of the visitors to Kaş-Kekova. Kaş and Kekova are not known as an MCPA but rather have made their individual names based on their unique characteristics: sunken cities for Üçağız-Kale and diving and other adventure/alternative sports for Kaş. In sum, the MCPA is not being used as a marketing tool locally nor regionally. It is stated that the area’s SEPA status “did not provide any substantial conservation but it might have simply prevented rapid collapse” according to a conservationist and that “Kaş-Kekova at least has not been ravaged” by buildings and constructions, according to the head of a local NGO in Kaş. According to the Coast Guard in Kaş : “In the MCPA, there is such a lack of coordination that even if decision makers already know that fisheries are not sustainable, overcoming the problem is difficult.” According to a scientist involved in the marine monitoring of the site, the concept of MCPA does not really exist in Turkey as the legislation for SEPAs is only concerned with terrestrial aspects. In his view, Kaş-Kekova is not any different than any other (non-protected) marine and coastal areas in Turkey for fishing, diving and other marine sectors. Indeed, whereas there are strict restrictions concerning building, construction and activities on the terrestrial parts of the SEPA, the marine environment remains unregulated due to a lack of transposition of the monitoring (scientific, professional, etc.) into legislative measures adapted to local needs.

53 Optimar Danışmanlık, 2010

21 The draft Management Plan for the site currently consists of the proposed zonings (see Annex I) but specific objectives for the site’s use and management as well as action plans covering 5-10 years have yet to be defined. It is the nevertheless the intention of the Management Plan to stabilize the number of scuba diving boats and the fishing activities within the protected area54.

2.2.2. Adaptation of local economy to the MCPA constraints and sustainable development opportunities The early 90’s corresponded to both the establishment of the MCPA and the boost of tourism in Kaş-Kekova and on Turkey’s coast as a whole. Therefore, the economical development (mainly tourism and construction/real estate) could flourish outside of the SEPA leaving the area relatively intact which now constitutes a great asset for scuba diving, boat excursions, sailing, etc. Recently, the development capacity of the area around the SEPA is reaching saturation which implies a mounting pressure on the MCPA’s coasts. The general perception about whether the MCPA fosters the area’s sustainable development remains rather indifferent. The majority of the people interviewed see the changes that have been observed economically or ecologically independent of the area’s declaration as a protected area. In other words, the role of GDNAP in assuring sustainable use of the natural resources is not evident to the eyes of the local stakeholders, both public and private. The main reason for this appears to be GDNAP’s total absence from Kaş-Kekova’s day to day operations. Planning and other decisions regarding the site are taken centrally and not only does GDNAP not have a local office or representation in the SEPA but also it allocates a wide range of its duties to other local governmental bodies. As such, many people within the MCPA are not aware of GDNAP’s position or authority in the site’s management. Some interviews reveal that there is even a confusion between the conservation actions of the national or local NGOs and those conducted by GDNAP.

2.2.3. Recent institutional changes influencing the development in and around the SEPA The restructuring of the relevant Ministries following the elections of June 2011 has been interpreted as a sign of the Turkish government’s reluctance in prioritizing nature conservation principles. This has also affected Kaş-Kekova SEPA in that EPASA, the site’s former management authority was dissolved in August 2011 and instead the General Directorate of Natural Assets Protection (GDNAP) was established. As a result, the public management of the SEPA sites is now conducted by the Provincial Directorates under Provincial Governorships (Antalya in the case of Kaş-Kekova) rather than national management. On the contrary, the financial mechanism of EPASA was independent while GDNAP is now tied to the budget of the MoEU. During field interviews (October-November 2011), numerous local stakeholders raised their concerns regarding the uncertainties of these recent changes: potential increases in conflict of interest due to changes that may occur on the various terrestrial protection degrees existing at the site with implications of natural ecosystems’ conversion.

54 personal communication with Nilüfer Araç, WWF Turkey

22 Part II: Prospective analysis and measurement of the effect generated by Kaş-Kekova SEPA on local development in the surrounding area

Based on the main findings outlined in Part I, this section of the report suggests several development scenarios for the region with the intention of estimating economic effects generated by the Kaş-Kekova SEPA. For this economic valuation, a retrospective analysis has been conducted on parameters such as population and economic growth.

Chapter 3: Potential development futures in Kaş-Kekova Area and effects of the SEPA 3.1 Scope and timeframe of the projection The development scenarios (defined in section 3.4) for the projection of Kaş-Kekova SEPA’s future are generally based on the boundaries of the MCPA strictly speaking. However, in some cases, main sectoral drivers of Kaş have also been considered in the scenarios because of the site’s proximity to the district center which is one of the most dynamic tourism zones in the region. Often, data restrictions on the socio-economic aspects of the SEPA settlements have led to the use of available data from Kaş or Antalya as a reference point. A twenty year timeframe stretching from 2011 to 2030 has been used.

3.2 Analytical framework of the projection The projection of the SEPA’s scenarios over the next 20 year period is an anticipation of the changes in the state of the MCPA. The state consists of the MCPA’s characterisitics (protection status, conservation effort and management, development stage, etc.) which are in turn influenced by relevant identified drivers (population and economic growth, sectoral trends and political decisions). Observed variables are the result of the MCPA state’s evolution and it is manifested in costs and benefits (see chapter 4 for detailed analysis) that can affect the population collectively (i.e. water pollution affects local population’s health: collective cost) and individually (i.e. water quality amelioration leading to increased interest in scuba diving: individual benefit for scuba dive clubs).

Figure 10: Analytical framework for the projections of the consequences of drivers changes on state of the MCPA and variables.

23 3.3 Description of main drivers and their parameters Two main drivers have been considered in developing the scenarios in the report: population and economic growth. For the former, retrospective demography data of Turkish Statistical Institute (TUIK) and CIA for the years 1997-2010 have been used. For the prospective demography projections, the average national growth rate was 1,31%. The same source has been used for the population in Antalya Province (2,62% population growth annually after 2011). The reason for this relatively higher rate compared to the national rate is the economic attractiveness (affecting the tourism sector) as well as the climatic and other environmental appeals (affecting residence). The source for the retrospective population growth within the MCPA is the Optimar study (2010) – see Table 1 in Part I. The prospective annual population growth rate within the SEPA is calculated as 3,33% based on the hypothesis that MCPA population corresponds to 0,08% of Antalya province population.

Figure 11: Retrospective and prospective population growth in Turkey, Antalya and the MCPA

Another driver that has been taken into account in scenario development is the economic growth since this influences the supply and demand fluxes of the ecosystem services considered for the protected area. For the national and regional retrospective economic growth between 2000 and 2010, CIA, IMF, World Bank as well as Turkish Statistical Institute’s data have been used in combination. Given the lack of this data for Kaş-Kekova SEPA, the growth has been estimated based on the assumption that the GDP per household is the same as the Province of Antalya and data on the total number of households that fall strictly within the borders of the MCPA relies on Optimar socio-economic study (2010). With regards to the prospective data for the national GDP growth between 2011-2030, OECD’s economical projections have been used until 2013, followed by the following assumptions: a growth rate of 4,4% until 2020, 4,3% between 2021-2025 and stabilisation of 4,2% until 2030. For Antalya Province, GDP growth is maintained around 12% until 2015 then stabilizes at 7% until 2030. Finally for the MCPA, the GDP/household growth around 13% until 2015 then gradually stabilizes at 7% until 2030 (see Figure 11 below).

24

Figure 12: Retrospective and prospective economic growth in Turkey, Antalya and the MCPA

3.4 Scenarios definition Three scenarios have been formed for the potential development futures in Kaş-Kekova SEPA between 2011-2030.  The first scenario is “business as usual” and is based on official assumptions when available and otherwise on the continuation of the past years’ trends with stabilization on average projections.  The second scenario assumes the implementation of improved conservation measures in the MCPA. This is based on the potential outcomes of the site’s management plan that is presently being formulated through stakeholder consultation and consensus building (expected to be finalized by the end of 2012). Since specific objectives of the management plan concerning the use of MCPA’s ecosystem services were not defined at the time of the scenario building, assumptions have been made for each of the sector/ecosystem service considered.  A final scenario assumes the degradation of the natural features and environmental characteristics of the MCPA due to the following facts. First of all, an important institutional uncertainty exists concerning the site’s management authority due to changes in central government units since the summer of 2011 (see section 2.2.2). Partly as a consequence of the lack of management and monitoring, the environmental degradation would lead to the decline of ecosystem benefits (see some of the current threats in section 1.2.2).

Chapter 4: Assessing the effect of the Kaş-Kekova SEPA on local development in the surrounding area: variations in costs & benefits

4.1. Methodology and elements assessed

In order to assess Kaş-Kekova SEPA’s effect on local development, the main and most relevant benefits from ecosystem services pertaining to the site based on the findings in Part I have been identified and each of the above proposed scenario lines have been detailed respectively. When available, the assessment makes use of past data (1998-2011) either from formal sources or collected from field interviews. In some cases past data was only accessible for a single year (ie. terrestrial land

25 use composition in the case of carbon sequestration and fisheries data as regular record keeping of the catch was not available) rendering the projections less dependable. For the assessment between 2011-2030, calculated data make use of past data when available as well as scenario projections.

As an example, scuba diving activity in the MCPA has been assessed in three varying scenario: in the business as usual scenario, the number of dives is assumed to remain proportional to the tourism demand in Antalya region. In the tighter conservation scenario, the carrying capacity of the MCPA is monitored and stabilized based on the site's eventual management plan. In the third, environmental degradation scenario, MCPA is assumed to have opened to new diving clubs and permits up to 200,000 dives in 2020, followed by a drop of dives number due to unattractive underwater life/polluted sea water. Thus, for each of the element/sector assessed, the scenarios were adapted using the relevant drivers outlined in part 3.3. Similarly, the above explained approach was adopted for assessing the relevant cost bearing stakeholders at the site: the institutions involved in the management and/or conservation of the site have been examined in light of the three defined scenario.

The following sectors and elements have been assessed for the benefits derived from Kaş-Kekova SEPA in light of the explained methodology: fishing, tourism, scuba, daily boat tours, and carbon sequestration. It is important to underline the limited data availability with regards to both benefit and cost calculations as systematic socio-economic and scientific data collection specifically about the MCPA is not being conducted. The management plan is also not finalized thus impeding the accessibility to future financial plans for the site.

4.2 Summary of the Results for the three scenarios

4.2.1. Fishing

The analysis of the fishing benefits is based on the limited data source obtained during field interviews. Only catch data for the year 2011 as recorded by the local Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Animal Husbandry was available and based on personal communications with different sources, this data was also used as a reference for subsequent years.

Albeit the fisheries does not occupy a huge segment in the local economic structure in Kaş-Kekova SEPA (see section 1.2.1.2.), the scenarios demonstrate that the management options can alter the profitability of this income source. In this purpose the value added generated at the fish catch level observed or estimated has been selected as the value indicator of benefits provided by the marine and protected ecosystem to fishermen. The business as usual model where fish stocks and the number of fishermen remain stable in the MCPA shows a significant change on the long-run when fish stocks in the MCPA are improved through the implementation of the management plan (assuming the introduction of no take zones for 10 years and effective monitoring of illegal fishing). According to the scenario, a gradual decrease in catch of 30% in 2022 (limiting the resource’s take as low as 38 tons annually in the MCPA) is followed by 5% catch improvement after 2022 and increased number of fishermen - 3 more every year - until a quota of 52 fishermen is reached in 2026.

26 100 000

90 000

80 000

70 000

60 000

50 000

40 000

30 000 Benefits from fishing activity (€) fishing from activity Benefits 20 000

10 000

0 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029

Year Scenario 1: Trend Scenario 2: Increased conservation measures Scenario 3: Decreased conservation measures

Figure 13: Results of the scenarios for the fishing sector in the MCPA

On the other hand, the degradation of the resource base can clearly be observed in third scenario where MCPA status is assumed to be lost. Here, initial catch levels are higher (1%/year increase the first 10 years) reaching up to 55 tons annually due to increased illegal fishing activities followed by 4%/year catch decline and decreased number of fishermen, 1 dropping every year for the rest of the scenario timeframe. As a result, the benefits obtained from the resource drops to about 42.000€/year. Overall, in this activity fish stock management is crucial. Even though tighter monitoring of fishing activities for about ten years would decrease the benefits, the stocks would replenish and as a consequence benefits would rise sustainably.

4.2.2. Tourism Scenario 1 (blue) shows the evolution trend that tourism in the SEPA would take after 2012 if this sector develops relative to national economic growth. It is noticeable that the benefits linked to tourism have increased 6 fold since the year 2000. This is a demonstration of the regional dynamism as Antalya is an increasingly trusted tourism destination. Scenario 2 (green) reflects tighter conservation measures consisting of, for example, better monitoring of the tourism carrying capacity in the MCPA and the implementation of an intensity limit stabilized at 250 000 tourists a year. This increased monitoring implies higher costs for local operators and eventually for incoming tourists; hence a slight increase in overall benefits as soon as this management decision is implemented. In turn, as a result of better conservation, expenditures also increase thanks to a high quality environment and improved tourism facilities: in this case, expenditures would increase from 115TL (in 2012) to 175TL/day/tourist for the projected time span.

27 85 3,3 75

3,065

55 2,7 45

2,435

25 2,1

Benefits from fishing activity (x 100 000€) 100 (x fishing from activity Benefits 15 Benefits from tourism activity (x 1 000 000€) 000 1 (x activity tourism from Benefits

1,85 19982011 2001 20142004 20072017 2010 20132020 2016 20232019 20222026 2025 20292028 Year

ScenarioScenario 1: 2: TrendIncreased conservationScenario 2: measures Increased conservationScenario measures 3: Decreased conservationScenario 3: measuresDecreased conservationScenario measures 1: Trend

Figure 14: Results of the scenarios for the tourism sector in the MCPA Scenario 3 (red) illustrates the case of the MCPA opening up to tourism developments and the area receiving 5% more tourists annually until 2020, followed by a drop of the overnight stays per tourist (from 5 to 3) due to unattractive coastline and/or polluted sea water. Expenditures are reduced due to mass tourism and package tours: 100TL instead of 115TL/day/tourist. Overall, better conservation would lead to a substantial increase in the benefits offered by tourism (several millions of euros annually compared to the trend) mainly due to a better quality coastal and marine tourism experience for which visitors to Kaş-Kekova are willing to pay more. On the contrary, adopting a mass tourism approach without taking into consideration the carrying capacity of the ecosystems would lead to stagnating benefits and even a gradual deterioration of the region’s attractiveness.

4.2.3. Recreation – Daily Boat Tours

40

35

30

25

20

15 Benefits from daily boat tours (x 100 000€) boat100 (x tours daily from Benefits

10 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 Year

Scenario 1: Trend Scenario 2: Increased conservation measures Scenario 3: Decreased conservation measures

28 Figure 15: Results of the scenarios for the boat tours’ activity in the MCPA Data about daily boat tours in Kaş-Kekova SEPA were not available for the retrospective analysis, except for the year 2011. Scenario 1 follows national tourists’ number increase of 5% annually with prices remaining the same. In scenario 2, the boat carrying capacity is monitored and stabilized at around 250,000 customers annually. The price per excursion is assumed to increase due to a user fee: from 35TL to 52TL. Whereas, for scenario 3, the MCPA management does not limit the number of excursion boats, thus the number of customers rises to 300,000 in 2020, followed by a drop due to unattractive coastline and/or polluted sea water. The price is then assumed to reduce due to competition and package tours: 30TL instead of 35TL per day per person after 2015. The projection for daily boat tours shows similarities with the tourism benefits’ scenarios. However, daily boat tours being practiced intensely in one location (Üçağız), actors have the willingness to control the development of the activity to prevent their incomes from being jeopardized by a degradation of the service and the site. This is why the curve of scenario 1 and 2 are converging towards similar amount of benefits (around 3,6 million €/year), but in the case of tighter conservation measures the number of customers is much lower (in 2030: 250,000 instead of 320,000), which also means that the environmental impacts of the second scenario is lower.

4.2.4. Scuba Diving 3,5 12

3,2

9 2,9

6 2,6

2,33 Benefits from fishing activity (x 100 000€) 100 (x fishing from activity Benefits

Benefits from scuba diving activity (x 100 000€) 100 (x diving activity scuba from Benefits 2,0 0 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 2028 Year Year

Scenario 1:2: TrendIncreased conservationScenario 2: measures Increased conservationScenario measures 3: Decreased conservationScenario 3: measures Decreased conservationScenario measures 1: Trend

Figure 16: Results of the scenarios for scuba diving activities in the MCPA

When comparing the first scenario that follows the trend of tourism demand in the Antalya region and the second scenario representing a limitation of the number of annual dives (120,000 dives/year maximum carrying capacity) and a closer monitoring of the scuba diving activities for environmental conservation, the higher benefits observed is due to an increased turn over from increased price from 32€/dive to 45€/dive.

Scenario 3 depicts the situation that would occur if no conservation measures were taken at the scale of the MCPA to limit the number of dives and closely guarantee that this activity is not harmful to marine ecosystems. In this case, any new diving club could open freely with 10% more dives every

29 year until 2020, followed by a drop of dives’ number due to unattractive underwater life and/or polluted sea water.

Scuba diving being one of the main attractions of the Kaş region and Kaş being one of the most important diving destinations in Turkey, it is important to see that this activity could easily be overexploited and become counterproductive. As seen in the third scenario, unlimited use of the sea for diving purposes generate substantial financial benefits but remain far from being sustainable on the long run.

4.2.5. Carbon Sequestration 3,5 100 3,2 95 90

85 2,9 80 75 2,6

000€) 100 (x 70

65 2,3 60

000€) 100 (x fishing from activity Benefits

service sequestration carbon from Benefits 55 2,0 50 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 Year Year

Scenario 1: Trend Scenario 2: Increased conservation measures Scenario 3: Decreased conservation measures Scenario 1: Trend Scenario 2: Increased conservation measures Scenario 3: Decreased conservation measures Figure 17: Results of the scenarios for the terrestrial carbon sequestration service in the MCPA

Benefits derived from the carbon sequestration service for Kaş Kekova take into consideration solely the terrestrial ecosystems as the carbon absorbing marine vegetation’s presence in the MCPA was reported to be negligable (personal communication with Dr. Yokeş). In scenario 1, land repartion and use remain similar to 2010 thus also the amount of carbon sequestered. In scenario 2, tighter conservation measures are implemented through improved ecosystem management with 2% natural land gained or restored every year. In Scenario 3, ecosystem management is not effective and due to the increasing developmental pressures, land conversion occurs at a rate of 1% a year: it is assumed that there are less forests, more cultivated land and similar amount of guarrigue.

Improved land management and conservation promise higher fluxes of CO2 to be sequestered thus higher benefits considering the global carbon markets. On the other hand, realization of the second scenario could generate globally certified carbon credits.

4.2.6. Waste Water Treatment The marine environment in Kaş-Kekova receives different amounts of untreated waste water from domestic sources according to winter and summer seasons (in the former, the population increases three folds in Kaş and the boats in the closed inner sea of Ölüdeniz have led to marine pollution in the SEPA’s eastern section). Due to the lack of appropriate data, the ecological service of absorption

30 could not be assessed. Indeed, above a certain level, the benefits linked to this service are no longer sustainable. Measuring the sustainable benefits linked to the absorption of organic waste requires to previously set this level, which cannot be done without further research. The methodology proposed implies to define an absorption capacity, to which must be deduced the actual waste emission, and to put a price on the remaining absorption capacity in function of the unit treatment cost.

4.3 Costs and Benefits Assessment

4.3.1 Costs

Due to the data inaccessibility, the assessment of the costs for the site is limited to the sum of the available SEPA’s management expenses and conservation work carried out by WWF Turkey. The management of Kaş-Kekova SEPA is undertaken by GDNAP. Past management costs of the MCPA were derived from GDNAP’s regional budget for the province of Antalya (with the presence of three relatively similar sized SEPAs under GDNAP’s authority in Antalya55, one third of the regional costs was assumed) and a 4% annual increase of costs was adopted based on the institution’s 2008-2011 Action Plan. For WWF Turkey, an annual conservation budget of 127,500 was assumed based on the ongoing project in developing the site’s marine management plan. Even though it is currently uncertain whether the NGO will continue its work in the near future, some of the scenarios speculate that at least the same amount will be spent for the conservation efforts.

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

Institution and partner expenditures 000€) (x100 2

0 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030

Years Scenario 1: Trend Scenario 2: Increased conservation Scenario 3: decreased conservation

Figure 19: Results of the scenarios for management and conservation costs in the MCPA

4.3.2 Benefits Assessment

55 Belek SEPA is 112km2, Patara SEPA is 197km2 and Kaş-Kekova, the biggest in Antalya Province, is 257km2

31 Figure 20 below shows the overall benefits of the ecosystem services and activities in the MCPA. The long term assessment demonstrates that loosening the conservation measures would lead to a drop in the benefits derived. Scenario 1 and 2 follow parallel trends; however Scenario 2 – tighter conservation measures – lead to, on average, 16 million €/year more benefits.

120

100

80

60

40 (x 1(x 000 000 €)

20

0

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Benefits of considered ecosystem services and activities

Year Scenario 1: Trend Scenario 2: Increased conservation measures Scenario 3: Decreased conservation measures

Figure 20: Overall benefits of considered ecosystem services and activities in Kaş-Kekova SEPA

4.3.3 Comparative assessment

The NPV, which points to the difference between the present value of net benefits (minus costs projected for the SEPA) is the appropriate indicator to illustrate social benefits generated by a scenario or project. The graph below shows the Net Present Value (NPV) of the three prospective scenarios for all the ecosystem services relevant to the Kaş-Kekova SEPA: fishing, tourism, scuba, daily boats, and carbon sequestration, taking inflation into account using the deflator given by the Central Bank of Turkey. It is to be noted that since the financial effort related to the SEPA’s management and maintenance remain very low, NPV results in Figure 21 and overall benefits of the ecosystem services in Figure 20 strike as similar.

32 60

50

40

30

ecosystems 20 (x 1(x 000 000 €)

10

0

Net Present Value of considered benefits rendered by 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Year Scenario 1: Trend Scenario 2: Increased conservation measures Scenario 3: Decreased conservation measures

Figure 21: Net Present Value of the three prospective scenarios

If the SEPA continues to be managed as it currently is (blue line), the NPV shows a steady increase as the ecosystems remain relatively well-preserved and management costs stay low. If the SEPA is subject to a tighter conservation policy (green line), the NPV increases significantly in the first phase of the prospective period (especially due to positive effects of the management on tourism and its related recreational activities) and again shows a steady increase. Lowering the conservation standards of the SEPA (red line) would not lead to a major decrease compared to the trend in the first decade of the prospective period; however, this would be followed by an important drop in the NPV on the long run because of the degradation seen in the overall environmental qualities that could be detrimental to the most important economic sectors in the MCPA.

Present Present Net Value of Value of Present

Benefits Costs Value (million €) (million €) (million €) Scenario 1 811 6 805 Scenario 2 1011 8 1 003 Scenario 3 573 3 570

Table 8: Net Present Value of the prospective period for the 3 scenarios

4.4 Conclusion

The hypothesis of conservation scenarios affect differently the provisioning, cultural and regulating ecosystem services at the site. Provisioning services in terms of fishing would be influenced positively by strengthening the conservation measures only after a grace period consacrated to replenish the fish stocks (assuming that illegal fishing is halted in the region). The implementation of

33 no-take zones in the SEPA through the eventual management plan may initially be met with resistance by local and regional fishing communities but some examples are being developed in other SEPAs of Turkey (ie. Gökova and Datça-Bozburun SEPAs) through local consensus-building.

For the cultural services of tourism, scuba diving and daily boat tour operations in the SEPA, the benefits of increased conservation measures would be felt in a relatively short term (within a decade) whereas loosening the conservation policy would lead to higher tourism frequency and tourist numbers in the fashion of package tours and seasonal secondary houses leading to the eventual degradation of the ecosystem services. For instance, the saturation of the marine environment by increasing scuba diving clubs or daily boats could lead to more serious conflicts between these operators and the fishermen.

Compared to the other services, the regulating services of carbon sequestration and organic waste absorption which are vital elements of well-functioning ecosystems are directly and more immediately affected by improved conservation measures. Controlled development within the SEPA would ensure less natural and semi-natural ecosystems’ conversion leading to higher captures of CO2 terrestrially and potentially generate certified carbon credits that can spill the benefits of conservation wider than the region. Similarly, even though the organic waste absorption capacity of the sea does not have a direct market value, it has environmental costs affecting other services with monetary flows. In the analysis, waste water treatment does not strike as sustainable in its current trend nor with the loosened conservation scenario only the efforts to limit the organic waste disposal to the sea can be beneficial in the long term.

All in all, there is a close interaction between the ecosystem services that fall “outside” (ie. Kaş district center) and “inside” the MCPA. Thus the need to adjust management choices accordingly is crucial. For instance, waste water treatment service takes place in the wider marine environment of Kaş-Kekova but influences the provisioning of other ecosystem services that have high net economic benefits such as tourism and recreation both locally and regionally.

Problems associated with the lack of sound data to derive both the consumptive and non- consumptive use values for the site influence the results of this study. Majority of the hypotheses in the scenarios were derived from estimations and not from retraceble data (including for example objectives that should have been available and set for the site’s marine management plan). Lack of consistent and time-series data on fish stocks, fishing activities, local tourism demand and dynamics are important flaws concerning the assessment of local development and sustainability in Kaş- Kekova SEPA, calling for further research.

34 References

AKS Planlama Mühendislik. 2010. Kaş-Kekova ÖÇKB Biyolojik Çeşitliliğin Tespiti Proje Raporu. Ankara.

Akyüz, A. 2011. Legal aspects of nature conservation in Turkey in the period of EU accession negotiations. In: Did You Know About Turkey’s Ecological Issues. EESE 2011 Conference website. http://www.esee2011.org/index.php?p=22. Accessed on 30.11.2011.

Barcelona Convention. 1999. Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity. http://195.97.36.231/dbases/webdocs/BCP/ProtocolSPA9596_eng_p.pdf. Accessed on 19.01.2012

Batı Akdeniz Kalkınma Ajansı. 2010. TR 61 Bölgesi (Antalya, Isparta, Burdur) Bölge Planı 2010- 2013. Antalya.

Bilger, G., Atlamaz, B., Yazar, G. Likya Kıyılarında Ekolojik Bölge Ölçekli Koruma ve Sorumlu Turizm Projesi Sosyo-Ekonomik Altyapı Araştırması Sonuçları. WWF, İstanbul.

CITES. 2011. Convention’s lists of species that are afforded different levels or types of protection from over-exploitation. http://www.cites.org/eng/app/appendices.php. Accessed on 07.12.2011.

EPASA. 2008a. EPASA Institutional Action Plan 2008-2013. Ankara.

EPASA. 2008b. EPASA Strategic Plan 2008-2013. Ankara.

Demir, V. 2010. WWF Türkiye Kaş-Kekova Güney MEDPAN Türkiye Pilot Projesi Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri Veritabanı Oluşturulması. İstanbul.

Demir, V. 2011. Biodiversity Research in Kaş-Antalya Marine Protected Area Planning via Decision Support Systems. İstanbul University, PhD thesis.

Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı. 2004. İlçelerin Sosyo-Ekonomik Gelişmişlik Sıralaması Araştırması. Ankara.

Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı. 2007. Dokuzuncu Kalkınma Planı 2007-2013 – İşgücü Piyasası Özel İhtisas Komisyonu Raporu. Ankara.

Eken, G., Bozdoğan, M., İsfendiyaroğlu, S., Kılıç, D.T., Lise, Y. (eds). 2006. Turkey’s Key Biodiversity Areas. Doğa Derneği. Ankara.

European Field Herping Community. 2008. Luschan Salamander. http://www.euroherp.com/species/Lyciasalamandra_luschani/. Accessed on 15.12.2011.

Fish Base. 2011. Dusky Grouper. http://fishbase.org/summary/Epinephelus-marginatus.html. Accessed 9.12.2011.

GDNAP. 2011. Kaş-Kekova SEPA. http://www.ozelcevre.gov.tr/icerik-25-Kas-Kekova.html. Accessed on 23.11.2011.

35

Gözcelioğlu, B. 2011. Denizlerimizin Sakinleri. EPASA & UNDP Publication. Ankara.

IUCN. 2011. Red List of Threatened Species. http://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed on 07.12.2011.

Kaş District Food, Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Authoriry. 2011. Deniz Balıkları ve Diğer Deniz Ürünleri İstihsali 2011. Kaş, Antalya.

Kaş Municipality. 2011. Budgetary Statistics. Kaş, Antalya.

Kaş Port Authority. 2011. Kaş Port’s 2010 Statistics. Kaş, Antalya.

Ministry of Culture and Tourism. 2010. Distribution of the Flag Q Yachts (for commercial & private use) Arrived in Turkish Ports by Years. General Directorate of Investment and Enterprises. Ankara.

Ministry of Culture and Tourism. 2011. Border Statistics & Archaelogical Site Statistics 2010. General Directorate of Investment and Enterprises. Ankara.

Ministry of Development. 2011. Fundamental Economic Indicators – January 2011. http://www.dpt.gov.tr/PortalDesign/PortalControls/WebIcerikGosterim.aspx?Enc=83D5A6FF03 C7B4FC8604E0A9DA903A71. Accessed 14.12.2011.

Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Animal Husbandry. 2011. Distribution of Fisheries according to the seas. General Directorate of Fisheries and Aquaculture Products.

OECD. 2011. Society at a Glance 2011 - OECD Social Indicators.

Optimar Danışmanlık. 2010. Kaş-Kekova Özel Çevre Koruma Bölgesi Sosyo-Ekonomik, Tarihi ve Kültürel Değerlerin Araştırılması Projesi. Ankara.

UNDP. 2009. Strengthening Protected Area Network of Turkey: Catalyzing Sustainability of Marine and Coastal Protected Areas Project. UNDP Project Document. Ankara.

UN World Tourism Organisation. 2010. Annual Report.

Sualtı Araştırmaları Danışmanlık. 2011. Kaş-Kekova Özel Çevre Koruma Bölgesi “Ölüdeniz Alanı” Taşıma Kapasitesinin Belirlenmesi Projesi Sonuç Raporu. Ankara.

Tural, U. 2009. Executive Summary Results of Marine Biodiversity Research – MedPAN South - Turkey Pilot Project. WWF Report. Istanbul.

Turkish Statistical Institute. 2010. Address Based Population Registration System Results. Ankara.

Western Mediterranean Development Agency. 2010. Regional Plan 2010-2013. Antalya.

WWF Turkey. 2007. Lycian Coast Project and the Creation of Kaş-Kekova SEPA (2000-2006). Powerpoint presentation.

WWF Turkey. 2011. Annual Project Report. Istanbul.

36 WWF MedPo. 2011. The MEDPAN South Project. Accessed on 29.11. 2011. http://mediterranean.panda.org/about/marine/marine_protected_area/the_medpan_south_project

Yıldız, E.B., Sivri, U. & Berber, M. 2010. Türkiye’de İllerin Sosyo-ekonomik Gelişmişlik Sıralaması. Publication Name & pages to be filled

Yokeş, B. 2003. Marine Biological Richness – WWF Turkey Eco-Regional Conservation and Responsible Tourism on the Lycian Coast.

37 Annex I – Proposed Zoning Maps and Respective Decisions for Kaş-Kekova SEPA - as of September 2011 (source: WWF Turkey 2011).

Map 1 showing zones 1 to 8 (Western, Kaş section of the MCPA)

Zone 1: Name – Liman Ağzı C: Kovan Island - Besmi Island - Recreational fishing: All types are prohibited - Recreational fishing: All types are prohibited - Commercial fishing: All types of commercial - Commercial fishing: All types are prohibited fishing prohibited except for seasonal bonito - Anchoring: Prohibited fishing - Diving: Diving with equipment is permitted - Anchoring: Prohibited - Diving: Permitted Zone 4: Name – Ufak Dere Bay A: Zone 2: Name – Fener Dışı - Recreational fishing: All types are prohibited - Recreational fishing: All types are prohibited - Commercial fishing: All types are prohibited - Commercial fishing: Permitted - Anchoring: Prohibited - Anchoring: Permitted - Diving: Diving with equipment is prohibited - Diving: Diving with equipment is prohibited B: - Recreational fishing: All types are prohibited Zone 3: - Commercial fishing: Prohibited A: Archaelogical site prohibited to diving - Anchoring: Permitted - Recreational fishing: All types are prohibited - Diving: Diving with equipment is prohibited - Commercial fishing: Permitted - Anchoring: Permitted Zone 5: Name – İnönü Bay - Diving: Diving with equipment is prohibited - Recreational fishing: All types are prohibited - Commercial fishing: Permitted B: Heybeli Island - Anchoring: Prohibited - Recreational fishing: All types are prohibited - Diving: Permitted - Commercial fishing: All types are prohibited - Anchoring: Prohibited Zone 6: Name – Between Çılpacık Island - Diving: Diving with equipment is prohibited and Bohça İskelesi Point - Recreational fishing: All types are prohibited

38 - Commercial fishing: Permitted Zone 8: Name – Between Çondur Point - Anchoring: Permitted and Hidayet Bay - Diving: Diving with equipment is prohibited - Recreational fishing: All types are prohibited - Commercial fishing: Permitted except for Zone 7: Name – Aperlai Archaelogical SIT diving spots - Recreational fishing: All types are prohibited - Anchoring: Prohibited - Commercial fishing: All types are prohibited - Diving: Diving with equipment is permitted - Anchoring: Prohibited - Diving: Diving with equipment is prohibited

Map 2 showing zones 9 & 10 (Eastern, Kekova section of the MCPA)

Zone 9: Zone 10: Name – Karalos Port - Recreational fishing: All types are prohibited - Recreational fishing: All types are prohibited - Commercial fishing: Prohibited - Commercial fishing: Prohibited - Anchoring: Prohibited - Anchoring: Prohibited - Diving: Diving with equipment is permitted - Diving: Diving with equipment is permitted

Other Suggestions: - Recreational and commercial fishing are permitted except for designated areas - Prohibited in the entire area to use a speargun by free diving - Prohibited to catch crawfish by free diving - All the other relevant regulations in the national bans and notices concerning commercial and recreational fishing apply at the site - Permitted to anchor except for designated areas - Permitted to dive with equipment except for designated areas - Permitted to free dive in the whole site

39 Annex II – Internet news coverage on reported illegal constructions within the SEPA

Sısla Bay: http://www.devadim.com/pagelist/konu.php?id=6665&sayfa=1#lastMessage http://www.medyantalya.com/manset/cennet-koya-ock-izni-olmadan-is-makinesi-soktular.html http://www.acikgazete.com/editorden/2009/12/23/cekekkondu-ya-jet-inceleme.htm?print

Ufak Dere & İnönü Bays: http://www.odatv.com/n.php?n=akpli-eski-vekil-hangi-koya-kacak-tesis-yaptirdi-0506111200

http://www.acikgazete.com/editorden/2011/06/04/fakdere-deki-kacak-yapilar-derhal- muhurlenmeli.htm?aid=41847

http://www.odatv.com/n.php?n=burokrasi-yavas-kacak-yapilar-hizli-ilerliyor-1506111200

http://www.odatv.com/n.php?n=kacak-yapilara-kacak-elektrik-cektiler-1408111200

40 Annex III – List of Interviewees (September 2011 – February 2012)

Interview Institution Person’s Name Title Date WWF Turkey Nilüfer Araç Project Officer 28.09.2011 Haliç University Baki Yokeş Dr. 07.10.2011 Istanbul University Volkan Demir Dr. 19.10.2011 Antalya Provincial Ministry of Environment & Urbanisation – Zerrin Ertaş City Planner 26.10.2011 GDNAP Information Bureau Antalya Provincial Culture and Aysun Çobanoğlu & Head & 27.10.2011 Tourism Ministry Mücella Kılınç Agencies/Watersports Bureau Head Antalya Provincial Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Animal Sevgi Can Engineer 28.10.2011 Husbandry

Western Mediterranean Fisheries Yılmaz Emre Director 28.10.2011 Research Institute Association for the Protection of Hüseyin Yılmaz Member 30.10.2011 Lycian Seamen Karakaya Osman Doğan and Kaş Fishery Cooperative Board Members 31.10.2011 Ramazan Bayram Kaş Culture & Tourism Mustafa Aydın Manager 31.10.2011 Information Center Dragoman Outdoors Company Murat Draman Co-owner 31.10.2011 Halis Sevgin Kaş Restaurants Association Association Head 31.10.2011

Kaş Port Authority Cahit Çelebi Director 01.11.2011 Kaş District Food, Agriculture Murat Kara Technician 01.11.2011 and Animal Husbandry Authority Kaş Municipality Abdullah Gültekin Mayor 01.11.2011

Kaş Tourism Promotion Mustafa Eriş Association (Kaşturder) Association Head 01.11.2011

Kaş-Kalkan-Patara Hotel Burak Çorumluoğlu Association Head 01.11.2011 Operators’ Association Recreational Boat NA Ramazan Aliçavuşoğlu 02.11.2011 Owner (Üçağız) Yusuf & Güzide Kalealtı Motel (Üçağız) Owner 02.11.2011 Başkaya Recreational Boat NA Turgay Poyraz 02.11.2011 Owner Üçağız Coast Guard Ali Mert Second commandant 03.11.2011

41 NA Yusuf Mazıllı Fisherman (Üçağız) 03.11.2011 Üçağız Headman Salihcan Çan Village Headman 03.11.2011 Kaş Coast Guard Ferhat Başarslan Commandant 03.11.2011

Sıtkı Erdoğan NA Fisherman (Kaş) 04.11.2011

Association of Turkish Travel Association Agencies (TÜRSAB) & Phellos Osman Ayaz representative & 04.11.2011 Travel company owner

Kaş Real Estate Association Dursun Şavra Staff 04.11.2011 Kaş Municipality Selçuk Torun Accountant 04.11.2011 District Governor Kaş District Governorship Selami Kapankaya 04.11.2011

Uğur Yavaş Natura Blue Company Paragliding Operator 04.11.2011

NA Yusuf Yavuz Freelance journalist 04.11.2011 Demre District Food, Agriculture Mr. Durmuş Technician 15.11.2011 and Animal Husbandry Authority Dragoman Outdoors Company Gökhan Türe Co-owner 16.02.2012

42