Alaçatı estuary was an important wetland and bird attraction center. Fragile coasts of the region unproficiently zoned for the urbanization and an artificial “Venice” is constructed on the inland sea.
İzmir Alaçatı, one of the windiest, pristine and quite coastal areas in Turkey, became a highly disputed issue due to coastal area usage change by the new arbitraments in 2006.
Landscape beauties, cultural properties and biological richness of Alaçatı are the main values which increase its chance to become a worldwide wind surfing area. This corner of Aegean which hasn’t suffered massive tourism and urbanization “as yet” is an attraction center for windsurfing, bird watching and hiking activities. World surfers are certainly coming for the clean sea and high winds of this area, not for concrete houses…
However, two important arbitraments are taken consecutively about this area on its nature conservation. İzmir No.1 Cultural and Natural Properties Protection Council decreased the sit degree level of some of natural and cultural protection areas mostly adjacent to the coasts in Çeşme and Alaçatı (near Izmir) in February 2006 from first grade to second and third grades and furthermore protection statue of some sit protected areas are removed. Later on, Ministry of Culture and Tourism had approved İzmir Çeşme Alaçatı Paşalimanı Culture and Tourism Development Area Landscape Planning in April 2006 and the arbitrament became valid by publishing in the official gazette.
As a consequence of the degradation of the protection statues, urbanization became possible in 112.000 square meters covering natural habitats and coasts; 14 golf courses in Alaçatı and tourism facilities with 70.000 designated bed capacity leaded up in accordance with Landscape Planning.
Some non-governmental organizations kept a close watch on these progresses and appealed to the court with two cases. Underwater Research Society (SAD), Nature Society (Doğa Derneği), Aegean Nature Society (Ege Doğa Derneği) and Hatice Banu Dökmecibaşı (who owns a resident in Çeşme) appealed to court to initiate the cases in April 2006 by the volunteer advocacy service of Gökhan Candoğan. Field studies and exploration studies are conducted by the experts from universities.
Regarding the Izmir 2nd Administrative Court 28.11.2007 dated decision, case is won partially for some of the protection areas. However the court rejected abatement of commission’s arbitraments for the rest of the areas. Hereupon prosecution appealed against the court’s rejection and court is still in debate in the Supreme Court.
On the other side, second case comprise rejection request of 659 numbered Principle Arbitrament concerning protection areas grading with the related arbitraments of “Regulation About Conservation Regional Commissions Composition” and “Regulation About Conservation Required Cultural and Natural Properties Determination and Registration” which form basis on the protection areas grading changes.
6th Department of Higher Court granted a decision of "ceasing the execution" on Landscape Planning on the date of 25.02.2008 after three month work. Thus claimant organizations achieved great success on the protection of these areas.
Mediterranean Monk Seal is one of the most delicate species of Alaçatı coasts. Deterioration of natural charactertics of the region is a serious threat for all of the species (on the right). Alaçatı is an important worldwide windsurfing center. It owes its reputation to its continuous and strong winds and its shallow water alike. The marina and waves of motor yachts are negatively effecting windsurfers (on the left).
Alaçatı, Sığacık and Doğanbey coasts, located in Çeşme, Urla and Kuşadası triangle, are the last pristine areas of the region surrounded by concreted tourism centers mentioned above. These coasts comprise various species habitats and degradation of the protection areas and approval of Landscape Planning will definitely cause the extinction of these species. Since wild animals won’t be able to survive between the residents.
Claimant organizations and Hatice Banu Dökmecibaşı argue against this attempt with the justifications; additionally related agencies and organizations indicate that they are ready to contribute the process to create long term, transparent and constant solutions. In fact, biological diversity and natural habitats, briefly nature is destroying always with the same method. Individually taken arbitraments are slowly cleaning out healthy ecosystems.
Methodology of the protection areas’ degradation is a real matter of fact! What kind of changes occur after the studies on the protection areas to cause the degradation of these areas (natural, cultural or provincial protection areas) from first grade to second, third grades or removal of the protection statue?
In my opinion, a sit degree change of any protected areas is a crucial fact. I believe that conservation council should corporate with academicians, experts and NGOs and have to took support by legal entities or individual person before changing grading of a protection area or removal of it. This method will be efficient not only in terms of availing of wider scientific platform and being more transparent but also rendering those concerned people, NGOs and academicians sharing this important responsibility in this way.
Loss of habitat is the worst catastrophe that nature could face with and is surely an irreversible process. I can’t remember any example that responsible organizations realize the mistake about coastal zoning for construction, reconsider the plans in the interest of nature, demolish the buildings and recover the destroyed nature by the restoration of habitats. In this respect, we should proceed more carefully considering the past about the coastal areas -especially before new roads constructions and all kinds of urbanization-. I would like to emphasize that revision of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulation is necessary in interest of nature with a positive discrimination.
In conclusion, it’s necessary to carefuly distinguish the coasts which can be urbanized from those which certainly should not be and higher interests of the nature and the society must be considered in the long term.
.jpg)
