T-PVS(99)74: Specific Site, Status of the Green Turtle Chelonia mydas on the Turkish coast

T-PVS (99) 74

-2-

Marine Turtle Conservation in the Mediterranean

Status of the Green Turtle Chelonia mydas Nesting Beaches in Kazanlı, Akyatan, Samandağ on the Turkish Mediterranean Coast Report for the 19th Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention).

Report prepared by Filiz Demirayak, Environmental and Wildlife Management Consultant commissioned by MEDASSET The Mediterranean Association to Save the Sea Turtles September, 1999

PREFACE This report is funded by and prepared for MEDASSET (Mediterranean Association to Save the Sea Turtles). The objective is to give a picture of the current status of the Green turtle Chelonia mydas at three key nesting beaches. The strong belief behind this study is that urgent actions need to take place in order to transfer valuable staff time and limited budgets to gather the results from conservation efforts.

The author of this report observes mainly negative progress over the eight years she has worked on these important beaches. Following almost 10 years of effort from conservation organisations and government bodies, on the eve of the millennium we have lost one of the most important of the three designated beaches, namely Kazanlı. The true impact of this catastrophe on the population of Chelonia mydas will probably never be known. For the turtles of Kazanlı, time has run out. But, this human based destruction should stand out as a beacon and warning to what could easily happen to other key nesting sites. We need to mobilise media attention to what has happened at Kazanlı and then use this international publicity to support the actions to protect the remaining nesting sites. What has happened is shocking and it is right that people should be shocked. The required actions for what remains at Kazanlı and the other two beaches (Akyatan and Samandağ) are inexpensive and not time consuming.

They naturally should take place within the context of our responsibility to respect another species rights.

It would be time wasting to question the failures of the past. Instead, it is time to take responsible steps to protect a very small length of the remaining nesting beaches and with all the technical knowledge at our disposal to attempt over time to restore the ones that we have destroyed.

It is worth while believing that with good will from Turkish government, knowledgable and committed staff from Ministry of Environment and the newly elected mayors of the nesting beaches, there is a good chance to achieve the proposals and recommendations laid out in this report. It is also extremely important to gather the support from international NGOs and inter-governmental organisations. Finally there is a big task for national NGOs to review their objectives to take action with the local people, with support from public at large.

Citation: Demirayak, F., 1999, The Status of the Green Turtle Chelonia mydas Nesting Habitat in Kazanlı, Akyatan and Samandağ on the Turkish Mediterranean Coast, MEDASSET (UK).

All rights reserved. Reproduction of this report is allowed for educational and other non-commercial use, provided that the source in acknowledged.

-3-

Contents of the Report

T-PVS (99) 74

Pages

Preface Acknowledgments Introduction 1. Problems 2. Summary of Recommendations for each nesting beach References

1 2 2 3 3 4

The Status of the Green Turtle C. mydas Nesting Habitat in Kazanlı The Status of the Green Turtle C. mydas Nesting Habitat in Akyatan The Status of the Green Turtle C. mydas Nesting Habitat in Samandağ

5-11 12-15 16-19

Acknowledgments This report has been made possible because of the support from Mrs. Lily Venizelos. As people who believe in sea turtle protection as well as the close cooperation required in conservation work between two countries, Greece and Turkey it has been a great pleasure for me to work with her for the protection of the Mediterranean sea turtles.

Special thanks to Dr. Keith Corbett and Dr. Chris Tydeman for their encouragement to continue work for sea turtles.

I would like to thank to Dr. Sancar Ozaner telling me his personal observations and special thanks to Samandağ Mayor Mr. Ganim Canbolat, Ahmet Durmaz and the other members of Forest Fire Team from Adana Forestry Directorate working in Akyatan.

Finally my sincere thanks to Richard B. T. Titchen (who made the first ever video film documenting the status of the sea turtle nesting beaches in 1998 for the Berne Convention) who accompanied me during my field trip, helped me to edit the report and constantly supports me in my work to protect sea turtles.

INTRODUCTION In the Mediterranean, only Green turtle Chelonia mydas and the loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta are know to nest, although the leatherback turtle Dermochelis coriacea has been recorded in the sea. It is estimated that only 300-400 C. mydas and 2000 C. caretta females nest in the Mediterranean annually (Groombridge, 1990). It is for this reason that both species are identified as endangered and vulnerable by the IUCN respectively.

The populations of Mediterranean sea turtles are decreasing from year to year owing to the interaction of human activities (fisheries as regards the marine environment and the occupation/deterioration of the sandy beaches as regards the terrestrial environment). There are also strong signs of a general decline in the populations of turtles nesting on monitored beaches ( UN/RACSPA, Action Plan for the Conservation of Mediterranean Marine Turtles).

On available information Turkey is the most important single country in the Mediterranean as regards the total number of nesting females per season, as well as species diversity both C. mydas and C. caretta (Groombridge, 1990).

Mainly C. mydas nesting takes place along central and eastern parts of Antalya Bay, as specific locations Belek beach together with C. caretta nesting and no C. mydas nesting found west of Belek.

But the important nesting sites have been identified between Mersin and Syria border, significant Chelonia nesting is largely restricted to Kazanlı, Akyatan-Yumurtalık and Samandağ (Geldiay, 1984; Baran & Kasparek, 1989, Groombridge, 1990; Yerli & Demirayak, 1996) (Map 1). Groombridge (1990) estimate 1000 females’ nests along of all these beaches extrapolated from the previous surveys.

1. PROBLEMS

T-PVS (99) 74

-4-

In Turkey, as elsewhere in the Mediterranean, Chelonia mydas population is under serious threat from loss of nesting habitat due to sand extraction associated coastal erosion and badly planned tourism investments. In the marine environment fisheries cause mortalities, persecution by fishermen, accidental capture in fishing nets and collisions with boats. The scale of the problems can be seen from the following table according to the major C. mydas nesting beaches.

Erosion

Tourism

Pollution & Marine debris

Light pollution

Fisheries Predation

Disturbance during the nesting

K1

High

Medium

High

High

Medium

Low

High

K2

High

Medium

High

High

Medium

Low

High

Kazanlı

K3

High

Medium

High

High

Medium

Low

High

Akyatan

Akyatan

?

Low

Medium

Low

High

High

Low

Meydan

High

High

High

Low

Medium

?

Low

Seyh Hıdır

High

High

High

High

Low

Low

High

Çevlik

High

High

High

High

Medium

?

High

Area

Samandağ

Section

2. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EACH NESTING BEACHES Appendix 7 of the document T-PVS (98) 62 produced by Council of Europe, Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats Standing Committee presents also Recommendations for Turkish Government with species requirements including C. mydas and C. caretta.

In the light of observations made during latest field trip in August 1999 and previous experiences, the following proposals are prepared to improve the nesting beaches and Chelonia’s status in three major beaches. These actions are prioritiesed in urgent (U), mid-term (M) and long-term (L) groups and time scales. Urgent actions are required to be ready for the nesting season in the year 2000. Mid-term actions should cover the years between 2000-2002 and long term ones should be started by the year 2000 and monitored evaluated and adjusted.

Strict control of Beach sand rehab. extraction

Control Pollution & beach clean up

Strict Light Control of Screening Fisheries

Control & monitor Predation

Pop. monitoring survey

Kazanlı

U

U

U

U

M

U

U

Akyatan

M

L

M

L

M

U

U

Samandağ

U

U

U

U

M

L

U

Beach

-5-

T-PVS (99) 74

REFERENCES 1.

Baran, İ. And Kasparek, M., 1989, Marine Turtles Turkey, WWF.

2.

Brown, L., and Macdonald D.W., 1995, Predation on Green Turtle C. mydas Nests by Wild Canids at Akyatan Beach, Turkey. Biological Conservation, 71 (55-60), UK.

3.

Carswell, A. 1992, Kazanlı Hatchling Rescues Project, DHDK, İstanbul.

4.

Groombridge, B., 1988, Marine Turtles in the Mediterranean-Distribution, Population Status and Conservation, World Conservation Monitoring Centre, U.K.

5.

Langeveld, M. and Sarıgül, G., 1990, Sea Turtle Nesting on the Beaches of SouthEast. Society of the Advancement of Oceanography in the Netherlands, Amsterdam.

6.

Magnin, G., and Yarar, M., 1997, Important Bird Areas in Turkey, DHKD, İstanbul.

7.

Salathé, T. and Demirayak, F., 1992, Towards a Management Plan for the Proposed Akyatan Nature Reserve, Tour du Valat, Arles and DHKD, İstanbul.

8.

Smart, A.C. and Coley, S.J. 1990, Kazanlı Turtle Project, Department of Zoology, University of Leicester, UK.

9.

Oruç, A., Demirayak, F., Şat, G., 1996, Fisheries in the Eastern Mediterranean and Its Impact on Sea Turtles, DHKD-WWF, İstanbul.

10. Ozaner, S., 1996, Accelerated Coastal Erosion in the Turkish Mediterranean Coast. Coastal Management and Habitat Conservation, 1996 Leiden.

11. Yerli, S. and Canbolat, et all, 1998, Batı Akdeniz Bölgesin’deki Deniz Kaplumbağalarının Korunmasına Yönelik Yönetim Planı İlkeleri, Çevre Bakanlığı Ç.K.G.M. Yay. Ankara.

12. Yerli, S. and Canbolat, et all, 1998, Doğu Akdeniz Bölgesin’deki Deniz Kaplumbağalarının Korunmasına Yönelik Yönetim Planı İlkeleri, Çevre Bakanlığı Ç.K.G.M. Yay. Ankara 13. Yerli, S. and Canbolat, et all, 1998, Özel Çevre Koruma Bölgeleri’nde Deniz Kaplumbağalarının Korunmasına Yönelik Yönetim Planı İlkeleri, Çevre Bakanlığı Ç.K.G.M. Yay. Ankara 14. Yerli, S. and Demirayak, F., 1996, Marine Turtles in Turkey: A Survey on Nesting Site Status, DHKD, CMS Rep. No. 96/4 İstanbul.

15. Whitmore, C. 1991, Kazanlı Coastal Zone Situation Report, HKD, CZM Section, İstanbul.

T-PVS (99) 74

-6-

The Status of the Green Turtle Chelonia mydas Nesting Habitat in Kazanlı September, 1999

Contents 1. Introduction 1.1. Area importance to sea turtles 1.2.Location 2. Problems 2.1. Erosion 2.2. Light Pollution 2.3. Agriculture & Fishing 2.4. Predation 2.5. Pollution & Litter 2.6. Disturbance during nesting 3. Today...

4. What should be done?

Annex 1: Summary of the selected nesting data collected at Kazanlı beach between 1988-1994.

References

1.

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Importance to sea turtles The first surveys about Kazanlı beach date back to late 1970’s (Hathaway, R.R., Geldiay, R.) and since then the area has been identified as an important Chelonia mydas nesting ground, not only by scientists but also by fishermen. There are even earlier reports from the 1960’s that turtles were hunted on the beaches between Kazanlı and Yumurtalık (Smart, & Coley,). According to Baran and Kasparek (1989), local people mention participating in the Chelonia fisheries during 1960’s, when significant numbers were loaded into the company lorries and taken away. Today sea turtle hunting has been prohibited by the law.

Kazanlı beach is approximately 4 km long. The 1988 survey counted 192 emergencies resulting in 125 nests (80 % track/km) (Baran & Kasparek, 1989). In the 1994 survey, 216 C. mydas nests and a 48 % nests/km was found. Kazanlı beach is amongst two of the most important C. mydas breeding ground in the east Mediterranean.

However, at the beginning of the 1990’s a catastrophic change occurred in the status of Kazanlı beach both from a coastal and sea turtle point of view. Basically, the whole beach began to be eroded away and it is possibly now the first example of a sea turtle nesting habitat to have physically disappeared.

Consequently this report will concentrate its focus on the habitat situation.

1.2.Location Kazanlı beach lies 10 km to the east of Mersin, at the western end of the Çukurova Delta. Kazanlı is an agricultural village situated almost 3 km to the north of the beach. The beach itself is popular for long camping vacations and for local tourism.

The beach is about 4 km long and for the purpose of this Report has been divided into four sections and marked for convenience as K1 through to K4. The beach in front of the Soda-Chrome Factory

-7-

T-PVS (99) 74

(K4); the section starting at the factory sea wall and extending to the municipal beach, bordered on the other end by a sewage stream (K3); towards the east up to the Altınkum Hotel (K2); and the remaining section (K1).

The section of the beach (K3), which is almost 0.5 km east of the factory, was backed by low sand dunes with bamboo fences and ended with an effluent channel (Groombridge, B., 1988). This was the section where the majority of the nesting took place, but 93 % of the nesting occurred over a 500-600 m. section. K3 has narrowed to 3m in place due to the erosion, which was first observed in 1994 survey. Today it has been reduced to almost 0.5m, and the sand dunes have virtually disappeared because of the construction of commercial greenhouses, which now lie in ruins.

All four beaches are generally pebbly at the shoreline, with fine sand right up to the shoreline (Yerli & Demirayak, 1996). Following the stream at the East End of K3 the road passes behind K2 and runs towards K1.

2. PROBLEMS The following chapter reviews the problems stated by the previous surveys. Today, K3 (formally the densest nesting area) has virtually ceased to exist as a beach and it is no longer possible for any nesting to take place. So, some of the problems stated for the other beaches are not valid for K3, particularly when comparing nesting density etc.

2.1. Erosion In the 1988 survey by Baran and Kasparek (1989), several factors that had an impact on turtles were stressed. It was observed that the bamboo fencing behind the main nesting beach was being shifted seaward and consolidated as a flood protection for the arable hinterland The effect of this was to critically reduce the width of the beach available for nesting (Groombridge, B., 1988).

Langeveld and Sarıgül (1990), Smart and Coley (1990) also mentioned erosion as major problem in Kazanlı. The reason for the erosion was identified as having been caused by the sea wall at the West End of K3.

This resulted in the beach’s fine sand being carried away by the sea and the seawater encroaching right up to the low sand dunes. In a video survey conducted in 1998 for presentation at the Berne Convention, the videographer (Richard T. Titchen) was unable to walk on the beach without getting wet. In fact the videographer felt that this area could no longer be described as a beach. A view that was supported by the images. Finally, the road running parallel to the beach was also seen to cause significant erosion as well as light pollution.

2.2. Light Pollution Light pollution is also very critical. It has been described as another major problem for the entire area by the researcher in Kazanlı. K3 is especially heavily affected by light pollution due to very bright, white lights from the factory. Although some small efforts were made by the factory to screen their lights following DHKD’s efforts in the 1992 nesting season (Carswell, A. 1992), this screening ceased to exist in subsequent years. It is not only K3 that is adversely effected by light pollution, but pollution also occurs at the other sections (K1 and K2). These are heavily affected by the lights from cafes, hotels, and restaurants along with the street illumination of the beach road. Finally, a newly built football ground is lit up at nighttime with very high and bright white halogen floodlights and is situated only 5 meters away from the beach without any screening.

Stories on collecting hatchlings from campsites, bars and greenhouses have been always told by holidaymakers, university research students, researchers, local people and by the author of this report.

2.3. Agriculture & Fishing

T-PVS (99) 74

-8-

There has been always a close relation between agriculture and beach erosion in Kazanlı. The greenhouses are behind the K3 are a classic example. In the early 1990’s it was suggested that there should be a 2-3 meter buffer zone between greenhouses and the dunes (Smart & Coley, 1990). The farmers and the municipality choose to build artificial sand dunes to stop the salt and sand effect going inland to the greenhouses. The greenhouses have fixed the dunes and consequently they now prevent the natural transportation of sand by the wind (Ozaner, 1996).

Fishing boats are constantly observed along the Kazanlı shoreline both small fishermen laying semicircular nets about 50-100 meters from the shore as well as trawlers and long liners farther out to sea, but well within the restricted fishing area.

In the main, fishermen do not like turtles because of the damage that they can do to their nets. It is quite common to find washed over turtles lying at the beach and even a dead juvenile Trionix triunguis has been found (Demirayak, 1994).

2.4. Predation Predations on nest by dogs have been as well as the disturbance of the emergences has been observed (Smart & Coley, 1990, Yerli & Demirayak, 1996). Ghost crabs (Ocypode cursur) are common on Kazanlı and they predate nests as well as the hatchlings (Baran & Kasparek, 1988, Smart & Coley, 1990, Yerli & Demirayak, 1996). There is also a high level of both land and sea-born litter on the beaches, which attracts rats that in turn predate on the turtle nests (Smart & Coley, 1990).

2.5. Pollution & Litter A previous survey in Kazanlı discovered that chromium levels in sediment at the sea edge was very high (Langeveld & Sarıgül, 1988) this resulted in the evolution of very hard structures on the beach (Demirayak, personal observations, 1994, 1997, 1999).

There has been always tremendous amount of plastic and litter at the beach, some of which was carried from the sea, and some left by the holidaymakers or wind blown from the greenhouses and other operations close to the shore.

2.6. Disturbance during nesting On K3 the beach is visited at night by people staying at the campsite, and on K2 and I the beaches are occupied at nighttime by people walking or sleeping. These people mainly come from the campsite hotel and many of the bars, which are open until the early hours of the morning.

As much as the nightly activities by holidaymakers and locals, heavy noise and music also significantly disturb the turtles nesting pattern.

3. TODAY...

During the field trip (August 1999) no nests or hatchlings emergence was observed. Based on information gathered from the local people there was only one nest at K1 where hatchlings were disoriented toward the cafe behind the beach. Local people reported no nesting at K3.

As can be seen by the references, compatible surveys have been undertaken over a period of time which have clearly underlined the importance of Kazanlı as a sea turtle nesting beach as well as identifying the steps that were need to be taken to safeguard its future. Some identified Kazanlı as one of the most important nesting sites for Chelonia mydas on the Turkish Mediterranean coastline. For nearly 8 years the factory management have been advised, warned, requested and campaigned by several organisations to move the sea wall. The main reason for the catastrophic beach erosion in the area. Despite all the warnings by the Ministry of Environment and the other organisations, no positive steps were taken by the factory owners with the result that K3 has now completely disappeared and the remaining two beaches are suffering from further serious erosion. In 1998 the sea wall has partly removed by the factory but the erosion is still continuing and is likely to do so for many years to come.

-9-

T-PVS (99) 74

According to Dr. Sancar Ozaner’s1 personal observations (1999), between 1993-1999 the erosion occurred from 3 to 6 meters. Ozaner, made measurements over the 10 km coastal zone around Kazanlı nesting beach. However about 15 m eroded at the mouth of Deliçay river between 1956 and 1974, and an additional erosion of 10 to 39 m between 1974 and 1993 (Ozaner, 1996). This larger erosion along the 10 km coastal zone was identified by the following factors (Ozaner 1996): •

Gravel and sand extractions

•

Occupation of the coastal dunes (about 10 ha) by Soda-Chrome Factory which was built in 1974.

•

Occupation of the sand dunes (about 80 ha) by the greenhouses during last decade.

•

Diversion of Deliçay river in the last 20 years.

•

Construction of Mersin harbour in 1950.

These reasons explain that there was already large-scale erosion along the Kazanlı coast dating back several decades. But, following the occupation of the dunes by the Factory along with the building of the sea wall the erosion moved from severe to catastrophic, particularly at K3 where turtles used to nest densely.

Obviously the erosion at K3 is not only caused by the sea wall but also by the greenhouses. They were placed immediately behind the very shallow dunes and even sand was taken from the dunes for the plant beds.

During the field trip between 10-25th of August 1999 the following were observed on Kazanlı beach: • K3 beach is only 1 meter length in most places and there is no room for sea turtle nesting.

• The greenhouses behind the beach are no longer in use, and have been destroyed by the sea and wind effect since the beach has disappeared.

• The campsite development behind the K2, has increased its lighting, but the owner of the site is still very sensitive to the turtles problems and ready to take any recommendations that will be proposed to him.

• The road behind the beach is still there but promise has been made by the new mayor (Mr. Kenan Yıldırım) to remove it completely.

• The hotel called Altınkum uses fences on the beach, which is against the coastal law. The hotel itself is built on the beach resulting in light pollution problems.

• A new football ground built behind the road and only 5 meters away from the beach at the end of K2 and has tall, bright lights at nights, which clearly disorientate the hatchlings.

• An illuminated cafe is situated at K1, behind the road and a couple of tents were observed on the beach.

• The beach is inappropriately used for small-scale sand extractions and a number of big concrete blocks have been placed on the beach. .

• There is no sign or information about sea turtles.

The 1994 survey, basically a compact report, takes into account the previous surveys and their protection priorities and proposals. The following table shows the proposal recommend by all responsible parties to protect the Kazanlı habitat. It should be kept in mind the habitat loss in Kazanlı was already in process when the 1988 and 1994 reports published.

1

Sancar Ozaner is a PhD geomorpologist who is working on beach erosion along Turkish Mediterranean coast over years. Dr. Ozaner concentrate on sea turtle nesting beaches especially Kazanlı, Samandağ and Anamur where the erosion is at catastrophic scale.

T-PVS (99) 74

- 10 -

Name & Number of Beach K3 K2 & K1 K3

Priority Measures high

K3 & K2 K3

very high very high

K3 K2 & K1 K3, K2 & K1 K3, K2 & K1

very high

K3, K2 & K1

high

K2 & K1

very high

K3, K2 & K1 K3, K2 & K1

high high

high

very high high

Proposed Measures Stop the sand extraction. remove/tear down the sea wall rehabilitation of K3 remove greenhouses back treatment system should work properly Light screening fishing should be banned during the nesting season dog predation should be stopped, crab predation should be monitored road behind the beach should be removed beach clean-up public awareness

Implementation Todate Partly stopped Done None None Partly None None None

Decision taken recently None a project will be started

by TUBITAK supported by the municipality.

Table 1: Protection and priority measures need to be taken and their current implementation.

4. WHAT SHOULD BE DONE? From an optimistic point of view there are still a number of things that can be done to save the beach.

Since there are not enough surveys to identify where the sea turtle population might have moved following the loss of the main nesting beach, there could be no assurance that the population would come back to beach even we regain it. But as part of our responsibility to the protection of this species we have to take all the steps available to us.

For the past eight years the author of this report has constantly monitored the ongoing status of the sea turtle nesting beaches on Turkey’s Mediterranean coastline. Kazanlı, one of the most important, is undoubtably the most adversely effected, in fact its status is highly critical. Over a number of years, the lack of protection and control has demonstrated the worse things that can happen to a nesting habitat.

Any steps taken now will take many years to reverse the current situation. It is not going too far to say that the situation is shocking. The author of this report strongly recommends that the maximum attention be drawn to this nesting area in the media; at a political level and amongst the international conservation community. Even if the task of redressing the appalling situation is highly daunting, Kazanlı should be used as an illustration of what can happen if the necessary protection measures are not undertaken. What has happened at Kazanlı is already starting to happen at habitats such as Manavgat further down the coast to the west. If any real action is to take place here and elsewhere the relevant people need to be shocked and a well-orchestrated media campaign needs to be developed to support the work of the conservationists on the ground. A conservation communications consultant can be employed to develop an international communications campaign, which will hopefully have the same impact as the Dalyan campaign.

Part of the sea wall still remains and this should be immediately removed. A Steering Committee should be established by the responsible parties who are Kazanlı municipality and the Soda-Chrome Factory management. A Scientific Committee comprising amongst other of a geomorphologist and a coastal engineer should advise the Steering Committee. There is an ongoing survey funded by TUBİTAK2 called Monitoring of Turkish Coasts by Geographic Information System. This project 2

TUBİTAK – Turkish Scientific and Technical Research Institute of Turkey.

- 11 -

T-PVS (99) 74

should support the rehabilitation project scientifically. The funding for the rehabilitation project should be provided by the Factory. A national and international NGO can take a role in facilitating the feasibility surveys and bringing the relevant parties together.

A Chelonia monitoring survey should start by the year 2000 nesting season supported by an NGO and the scientific team.

The new Kazanl覺 mayor is a key person concerned about the importance of the beach and hopefully sea turtles. He has already promised to remove the road that runs behind the beach. His good will should be taken advantage of for the well being of the turtles and any effort he makes should be supported and encouraged.

Another project, again initiated by TUB襤TAK and called The Scientific Project for Diminishing Coastal Erosion will be executed by Dr. Ozaner. Similar projects should be carried out by an NGO on sea turtles and a core group can be establish from the local people to continue to disseminate a long term awareness program, including beach clean up activities.

The necessary emergency actions are shown in the following table.

Name & Number of Beach K3, K2 & K1

Priority Measures very high

Proposed Measures Identify & monitor population where to move?

K3, K2 & K1

high

Stop the sand extraction.

K3

high

K3 & K2

very high

K3 K3, K2 & K1 K3, K2 & K1 K3, K2 & K1

very high very high very high high

Remaining from the sea wall should be removed completely Rehabilitation of the beach priority to K3 Remove greenhouses back Proper treatment system Light screening Fishing should be banned during the nesting season

K3, K2 & K1

high

K2 & K1

very high

K3, K2 & K1

high

dog predation should be stopped, crab predation should be monitored road behind the beach should be removed beach clean-up

K3, K2 & K1

high

public awareness

Table 2: The further steps need to be taken in Kazanl覺 beach.

Parties Responsible for Implementation Researchers, international NGOs, Ministry of Environment Local govern. & municipality Soda-Chrome Factory Soda-Chrome Factory Municipality Municipality Soda-Chrome Factory Municipality Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Environment Municipality & researchers Municipality (decision has taken recently) Municipality & local NGO or people TUBITAK project, national NGOs, municipality.

T-PVS (99) 74

- 12 -

ANNEX 1 Summary of the selected nesting data collected at Kazanlı beach between 1988-1994.

Years Researchers

1988

Baran & Kasparek

156 emergence3 125 nests 47/km nest density

Langeveld & Sarıgül Smart & Coley Yerli & Demirayak

1988

1990 2nd July-12th August

1994

116 nests

480 emergence 74 nests (estimated) 402 emergence 216 nests

REFERENCES 1. Baran, İ. and Kasparek, M., 1989, Marine Turtles Turkey, WWF. 2. Carswell, A. 1992, Kazanlı Hatchling Rescues Project, DHDK, İstanbul.

3. Groombridge, B., 1988, Marine Turtles in the Mediterranean-Distribution, Population Status and Conservation, World Conservation Monitoring Centre, UK. 4. Langeveld, M. and Sarıgül, G., 1990, Sea Turtle Nesting on the Beaches of SouthEast. Society of the Advancement of Oceanography in the Netherlands, Amsterdam.

5. Ozaner, S., 1996, Accelerated Coastal Erosion in the Turkish Mediterranean Coast. Coastal Management and Habitat Conservation, 1996 Leiden.

6. Smart, A.C. and Coley, S.J. 1990, Kazanlı Turtle Project, Department of Zoology, University of Leicester, UK. 7. Yerli, S. and Demirayak, F., 1996, Marine Turtles in Turkey: A Survey on Nesting Site Status, DHKD, CMS Rep. No. 96/4 İstanbul.

8. Whitmore, C. 1991, Kazanlı Coastal Zone Situation Report, HKD, CZM Section, İstanbul.

3

Of these data 134 emergencies and 95 nests occurred on K3 (0.5 m) part of the beach, which is not existing today.

- 13 -

T-PVS (99) 74

The Status of the Green Turtle Chelonia mydas Nesting Habitat in Akyatan September, 1999

Contents 1. Introduction 1.1. Location and Area importance to sea turtles 2. Problems 2.1. Tourism 2.2. Fishery 2.3. Predation 2.4. Pollution & Litter 2.5. Disturbance during nesting 3. Today...

4. What should be done?

References

1. INTRODUCTION Today, there are not many beaches left on the Mediterranean coast where the presence of humans does not cause a problem for the Green turtle Chelonia mydas nesting. In comparison with the other two (Kazanlı and Samandağ) Akyatan is the only beach in the East Mediterranean where Green Turtle can nest safely away from man made threats. Today in Akyatan beach the major problem is predation. If we could reduce our own negative effects on sea turtle populations, predation by non-human predators would be only the part of the natural balance. Now, we may be have to concentrate to minimise the negative effects of the predation at Akyatan beach as well as preventing any further human made developments at this very important protected area.

1.1. Location & Area importance to sea turtles The Akyatan area comprises some of 22 km pristine sandy beach, which is formed as a part of Çukurova Delta by the Seyhan and Ceyhan Rivers. The beach is bordered with the YD4 drainage canal at the south of Tuzla settlement and the strait at the east where Akyatan lagoon opens into the sea. A typical cross-section along the 22 km beach would show 60-70 m of beach followed by sand dunes up to 10 m in height. This extensive sand dune area is planted with Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Acacia cyanophylla, and Pinus sp. in order to stabilise the dunes. The land behind the dunes is mainly used for agriculture. The shallow Akyatan lagoon covers about 5,000-8,000 ha, and bordered by extensive mudflats and some reedbeds.

The site is significant for its breeding populations of Marbled Teal, Black Francolin, Purple Gallinule, Stone Curlew, Kentish Plover, Spur-winged Plover and Little Tern. Large number of waterfowl winter including the Greater Flamingo, Shelduck and Coot. During migration the site is important for the Pygmy Cormorant and especially waders, including Avocet, Kentish Plover and Little Stint (Magnin & Yarar, 1997).

Beside its biological importance, the lagoon supports a traditional fishery, and functions as a groundwater recharge basin, as a nutrient and pollutant retention basin, and provides water for grazing and agriculture along its shores. The entire complex forms an extremely rich example of a Mediterranean coastal wetland and a Chelonia mydas nesting and breeding ground (Salathé & Demirayak, 1992).

T-PVS (99) 74

- 14 -

The area was approved as a Permanent Wildlife Reserve by Ministry of Forestry in 1987, was given Natural SIT Status by the Ministry of Culture in 1998 and was designated as a Ramsar Site by Ministry of Environment in 1999. There is no specific protection status for the sea turtles but the SIT status covers beach itself as well.

In their 1988 survey following 8 days of observation, Baran and Kasparek (1989) observed 331 emergencies with 108 confirmed nests.

In 1988 Langeveld and Sarıgül (1990) observed 296 emergence which 102 of them were nests at several dates total of 8 days.

Brown and Macdonald (1995) surveyed a total of 13 km of the beach from east end to the centre on Canids predation and they identified 480 emergencies with 24 confirmed nests, 3 of which were identified as C. caretta.

Yerli and Demirayak (1996) identified 1208 C.mydas and 73 C. caretta emergencies and of these 496 were C. mydas nests and 23 were C. caretta nests.

2. PROBLEMS Of the total 22 km nesting beach almost 10 km of is vital for Green turtle (Baran & Kasparek, 1988; Langeveld & Sarıgül, 1990, Yerli & Demirayak, 1994). When compared with the other beaches the problems are relatively small.

2.1. Tourism Although the area has thus far avoided the threat of urbanisation, there are still effects of domestic tourism at the beach. One of the major threats comes from the camp sites at the both ends of the beach.

At the west end of the beach there is a holiday camp site for army families. This has already opened an easy access for tourists during the nesting season to the central part of the beach.

The increasing development of holiday facilities at Tuzla beach further west is of some concern.

Currently several thousand campers use the beach in the summer and increasingly small holiday apartment blocks and individual houses are spreading along the beach on the both sides of the end of the access road coming from Tuzla. The survey shows that Tuzla beach has minor importance for the nesting, but it is unclear if this is because this part of the beach is physically unsuitable for turtles, or because of the disturbance already created by tourist activities (Salathé & Demirayak, 1992). At the west end of the Akyatan beach the nesting density is also lower than the central part.

At the east end of the beach the strait of the Akyatan Lagoon gives a natural protection for the area but there is still pressure from the town Karataţ to make use of the beaches. The camp site of Harb-Ýţ effects the east end of the nesting beach with its lights, resulting in a low density of nesting.

2.2. Fishery Fishing is one of the most important economic activities in the town of Karataş. Fishermen from the Karataş harbour have reported that marine turtles frequently get tangled in the nets during the winter season as well. They have also been reported that they release turtles back to the sea whenever possible. However, there can be no doubt that the by-catch phenomenon poses the greatest threat to turtles and needs to be urgently addressed.

Trawlers have been seen to violate the 3 mile limit even outside of the fishing season. According to preliminary first results of a DHKD-WWF project called “Assessment of Impact of Fisheries at the East Mediterranean’ a total of 160 C. mydas and 26 C. caretta were caught by trawl nets operating from 5 boats over 28 weeks (Oruç & Demirayak et all 1996).

Fishermen also reported that a remarkable amount of Trionix triunguis are caught by accidental catch and T. triunguis is unpopular amongst the fishermen because they find them dangerous find dangerous and that’s why they are commonly killed.

2.3. Predation

- 15 -

T-PVS (99) 74

A fully fledged survey was undertaken on predation in Akyatan by Brown and Macdonald in 1992 (Brown & Macdonald, 1995). Although the predation issue has been stated in the other surveys as well (Baran & Kasparek, 1989, Langeveld & Sarıgül, 1990), the figures from the above mentioned report will be used in this report to show the size of the predation. Yerli & Demirayak in 1994 also recorded that of a total of 496 nests 132 were predated. A total of 6100 eggs were predated of which 4400 were by jackals and 600 by crabs. The predators of the remaining 1100 eggs could not be identified (Yerli & Demirayak, 1996).

According to Brown & Macdonald sea turtle nest predation as severe as that at Akyatan has been recorded elsewhere. At least 75 % of the turtle nests at Akyatan failed due to predation by foxes and jackals. The tracks of these predators in the sand indicated that they were systematically searching for turtle nests, apparently using the turtle’s tracks as a guide to locate the nests (Brown & Macdonald, 1995).

During their survey in 1992; no evidence of predation on adult turtles was found but 67.7 % of all nests were predated. All known C. caretta nests and 63.8 of all known C. mydas were attacked and this predation could have been underestimated due to the non identification of nests.

2.4. Pollution & Litter Çukurova has the most extensive cotton farming in Turkey. This involves extensive use of agricultural chemicals. Pollution is widespread due to these chemicals’ leaking into irrigation canals from which they are carried to the sea via drainage canals (Yerli & Demirayak, 1994).

The Akyatan beach is affected by marine debris, which is common in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Because the coastal currents move from east to west much of the debris comes from the international waters.

2.5. Disturbance during nesting The level of human disturbance during the nesting is low, but still may affect the population.

Compaction of sand effects hatchlings emergence and it takes a remarkably long time to reach the sea.

Some hatchlings get stuck in tractor tracks.

Local small fishermen camps at the central zone of the nesting may also create a disturbance during the nesting. Their tents can be erected on top of the nests by accident nest tracks are naturally cleared by the wind.

3. TODAY...

During the field trip to the area (August 10th 1999) it was observed that there was no ongoing survey on turtles.

During previous years an Italian group work called Chelon was present on an annual basis, but the dissemination of their data and information has not been forthcoming.

One dead juvenile C. mydas was found at the beach without any trauma visible, the assumption being that it drowned in fishing net.

A C.mydas emergence was observed and ended with a nest. According to information from the forestry fire emergency team members in 1999 nesting season, the nesting went on more or less as in previous years with at least 200 nests having been observed. They reported that in 1998 they provided full data to Chelon.

There were quite lots of tractor tracks passing the beach mainly parallel to the sea and in every direction.

There were also a couple of small fishermen tents on the beach at the main nesting zone.

By the entrance of the forest and dune area, Forestry Directorate has built gates and the guards are controlling the entrances to the area, which is a good step taken by the Directorate. The tractors mainly

T-PVS (99) 74

- 16 -

come from the west end of the beach. Meanwhile the Forestry Directorate staff is quite well aware about the sea turtles and highly concerned to join efforts for its monitoring and conservation.

4. WHAT SHOULD BE DONE? The sea turtle population has been severely depleted by previous commercial hunting (Groombridge, 1990), increasing urban and tourism development and pollution, a natural process such as predation became another pressure on the sea turtle population. As Akyatan’s importance grows for turtles due to the loss of the other sites, the level of predation has become unacceptable. Since elsewhere turtle nests have been effectively protected from red foxes by the use of wire-mesh “carpets”, the same method can be used in Akyatan as well. This technique, although labour-intensive, could be the solution to the nest predation. However, it would be extremely useful to initiate a tagging program with a proper survey that should cover the long-term period. It should be kept in mind that any survey and project should be implemented in cooperation with a national NGO and university together in order to be able to run education, awareness and conservation activities simultaneously.

On the other hand the survey should be extended toward the east of Karataţ to the Yumurtalýk Bay. Ađyatan are also untouched beaches. According to Baran & Kasparek (1989) along with the personal observations of Whitmore and Demirayak the nesting density is remarkable, but trawlers from Yumurtalýk report a high number of accidental catches in this region during the winter.

Yumurtalık and Akyatan already have legal protection status. These status boundaries should be extended out to sea if the marine environment is well surveyed and identified as wintering and mating grounds. If the Chelonia’s status is as serious as most of the recent surveys indicate, the Yumurtalık area and Akyatan could be a last chance to prevent extinction of the species. If the area should be protected because the other nesting beaches are mostly destroyed, it must done without any hesitation.

The west end of the beach should be closed to stop the entrance of the vehicles. The forestry directorate guards should be stricter with the small fishermen at the beach and tractors should not allowed to go to beach.

On the other hand, the presence of many tourists in Karataş and Tuzla during summer provides the opportunity for educational activities and awareness programs. This can be initiated by a national NGO and eventually delegated to a local NGO. Illegal trawlers should be monitored and be kept away from the whole area. Training programs for fishermen should continue or be reinstated until the survey results have been collected.

If we consider the importance of Akyatan to the Green turtle and wildlife as whole, a proper management plan required for the area. A management plan can also help to organise and coordinate the surveys and the conservation efforts in terms of time and budget.

REFERENCES 1. Baran, İ. and Kasparek, M., 1989, Marine Turtles Turkey, WWF. 2. Brown, L., and Macdonald D.W., 1995, Predation on Green Turtle C. mydas Nests by Wild Canids at Akyatan Beach, Turkey. Biological Conservation, 71 (55-60), UK. 3. Groombridge, B., 1988, Marine Turtles in the Mediterranean-Distribution, Population Status and Conservation, World Conservation Monitoring Centre, UK. 4. Langeveld, M. and Sarıgül, G., 1990, Sea Turtle Nesting on the Beaches of SouthEast. Society of the Advancement of Oceanography in the Netherlands, Amsterdam.

5. Magnin, G., and Yarar, M., 1997, Important Bird Areas in Turkey, DHKD, İstanbul.

6. Oruç, A., Demirayak, F., Şat, G., 1996, Fisheries in the Eastern Mediterranean and Its Impact on Sea Turtles, DHKD-WWF, İstanbul.

7. Salathé, T. and Demirayak, F., 1992, Towards a Management Plan for the Proposed Akyatan Nature Reserve, Tour du Valat, Arles and DHKD, İstanbul.

8. Yerli, S. and Demirayak, F., 1996, Marine Turtles in Turkey: A Survey on Nesting Site Status, DHKD, CMS Rep. No. 96/4 İstanbul.

- 17 -

T-PVS (99) 74

The Status of the Green Turtle Chelonia mydas Nesting Habitat in Samandağ September, 1999

Contents 1. Introduction 1.1. Location and Area importance to sea turtles 2. Problems 2.1. Erosion 2.2. Tourism 2.3. Marine debris 2.4. Light pollution 2.5. Fishery 2.6. Disturbance during nesting 3. Today...

4. What should be done?

References

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Location Samandağ beach borders the Asi Delta plain, and the Çevlik and Deniz neighbourhoods of Samandağ are located at the opening of the district to the sea. The ancient Seleucia Pieria seaport to the north has been filled with the sediment from Asi River.

The Samandağ nesting ground can be divided into three sections: the southern part from the rocky promontory at the Syria border to the mouth of the Asi River (Oranthes) is approximately 1,3km long and 10-30 m wide is sheltered beach with fine sand, which is referred to as Meydan beach.

The next section from the mouth of Asi River to the Seyh Hıdır Tomb is 10.3 km long, its width varies between 15 to 20 meters and narrowed toward Asi River mouth. This beach will be called as Seyh Hıdır beach.

The last section is the northern section that is called as Çevlik beach referred to the town behind the beach. It is from Seyh Hıdır Tomb to the Çevlik fishermen harbour at the north. This beach is 4 km long and width reaches 60 m in places.

1.2. Area importance to sea turtles Of the three beach sections above, The Seyh Hıdır beach is the densest part for the nesting activity. It is of great significance for the Mediterranean as a whole, as well as being the second most important beach along the Turkish Mediterranean coast, with respect to C. mydas (Yerli and Demirayak, 1996).

Kinzelbach found a dead C. mydas in Samandağ beach in 1982. He also reported 2 tracks at the Çevlik beach and another dead one in June and 7 nests in August 1988. During the 1988 survey in July, 52 C. mydas tracks were reported, 13 of which led to nests (Baran and Kasparek, 1989). For the 1994 survey, research focused on 5 km long Seyh Hıdır beach from June to September 15th. 319 emergencies of C. mydas were recorded of which 113 C. resulted in nesting. The nesting density was found as 23 nests/km 5 km of the total 10,5 km beach.

2. PROBLEMS

T-PVS (99) 74

- 18 -

2.1. Erosion Over many years legal and illegal sand extraction was undertaken at Samandağ beach especially around Asi River mouth. As a result, some farmers with land behind the dunes in the vicinity of sand extraction area have been left with infertile land Obviously, sea turtles have also lost their nesting ground in that particular part of the beach.

The former Gendarme Station building illustrates the scale of the erosion in that area. The building was originally located 192 m away from the shore, whereas in February 1993 the length of the beach from the building to the shoreline was only 54 m (Ozaner, 1993). In 1994 based on personal observations the distance was even less than the above figures indicate (Demirayak, personal obs., 1994). In stormy weather the sea reaches right up to this building and verifies Ozaner’s claim that erosion reached 192 m in that area (Yerli and Demirayak, 1996).

According to Dr. Ozaner’s measurements (1996): Between the years 1974 and 1993 the effect of the three dams on the Asi River, two in Syria and one in Turkey, the erosion was measured between 12-18 m. A catastrophic erosion of 71 m and 136 m also occurred due to the excessive sand extraction legally operated with Antakya Governorship permission between 1973 – 1991. The 10-15 meters high dunes were excavated down to the ground water level.

The excavation area started from the northern part and gradually moved toward the south with an annual loss of 300 m. (personal comments from Ganim Canbolat- Samandağ mayor between these dates and now). The sand mine closed in 1991 because the sand had finished. Following that the beach erosion started partly compensated by sediments carried by Asi River (Ozaner, 1996).

According to Dr. Ozaner’s unpublished measurements (1999) along the Samandağ coast the erosion is around 3 to 14 meters.

The area the sand extraction took place was major nesting ground for the C. mydas as explained by the figures at Chapter 1.2.

2.2. Tourism Tourism development is in place along the Samandağ coast but is progressing with lower speed due to remoteness of the area. Holiday houses of 150 duplex units (Altınkum) have built at the south edge of the Meydan beach.

From Seyh Hıdır Tomb towards Asi River mouth a line of the one floor holiday houses have been built by local people basically from Samandağ town. In from of the Seyh Hıdır tomb a 4 floor hotel has been built by Ministry of Treasury as one of the first buildings closer to the shoreline. Unfortunately, this construction has set a bad example for further development schemes At the northern part of the beach –Çevlik beach- a road runs parallel to the beach and 2 to 3 floor buildings are situated on the landward side. Çevlik beach is very popular for local people who come for the long summer holidays, and Seyh Hıdır is also becoming a popular destination 2.3. Marine debris Samandağ beaches are covered with horrendous amount of marine debris. Most of these are washed ashore by the east Mediterranean currents and originate in countries such as the Lebanon and from international waters.

This debris seriously effects the hatchlings chances of making it to the sea. The plastics-bags that cover nests effect the nest temperature and the sand humidity as well as blocking the nest mouth for hatchling emergence and providing obstacles. The plastics in the sea might be another reason for the high number of the dead turtles observed at the beach. It is common for turtles to mistake plastic bags and other receptacles for jelly fish … part of their staple diet (Baran & Kasparek, 1989, Yerli & Demirayak, 1996).

2.4. Light pollution

- 19 -

T-PVS (99) 74

Lights reflect towards southern end of the Seyh Hıdır beach where nesting density is high. The Ministry of Treasury building is high enough to be seen from Asi River mouth of the nesting beach.

Altınkum Holiday houses are another light source during the nesting season for the Meydan beach. Çevlik beach is illuminated by the high street lights and the lights from entertainment establishments.

2.5. Fishery Mostly gill net fishing takes place around the Asi River mouth. Between the Çevlik and Asi River mouth daytime fishing with nets from boats were observed. (Yerli and Demirayak, 1996). Around fifty-five fishing boats are registered in Çevlik Harbour and use a variety of fishing methods such as multi-hook long lines, gill nets, trawl, bottom trawl and others.

Since Samandağ is a border town nightime fishing activities are limited. Fishing boats are required to be back in the harbour before dark.

2.6. Disturbance during nesting There are night visitors at the beach mainly until midnight.

3. TODAY...

During the field trip in August 1999 the following observations were made: A couple of days old 2 nests were identified in front of the hotel at the north end of Seyh Hıdır beach.

One emergence without nest observed near Asi River mouth. Fishermen were interviewed and reported that there were only a small number of turtles coming to the beach this year.

The sand extraction has completely stopped. The beach is trying to recover itself with the aid of the sediments taken down by Asi River. The Samandağ mayor (Mr. Canbolat) stated that he is very concerned about the issue and will never allow any large-scale sand extraction from the beach.

Following several public meetings two people involved in sand excavation are now subject to a current court case.

Light pollution is same as in previous years reflecting towards the main nesting beach.

Local people living near Seyh Hıdır beach blame sea turtles as a reason of their problems with the government to regard to the coastal line and land tenure problems.

There were only a couple of small fishermen using nets by the Asi River mouth in the river.

Samandağ beach is an important beach for the Green Turtle, especially in the light of the loss of Kazanlı beach.

4. WHAT SHOULD BE DONE? The Samandağ mayor is concerned for sea turtles, which is uncommon in many nesting beaches. A strong awareness program should be proposed and run with the municipality, which in this case has a good chance of being implemented.

The author of this report discussed several possibilities for the protection of the beach with the mayor during the field trip, in the light of current situation and based on some realistic lessons learnt from the other beaches. Since the tourism development is ongoing activity and there are already dense housing projects at certain parts of the beach, it would be quite unrealistic to expect protection for all beaches.

Also the main nesting occupies the zone both sides of the Asi River mouth and towards Seyh Hıdır Tomb. This area is fortunately free of buildings, difficult to access, unpopular for the holidaymakers.

As agreed with the Samandağ mayor, high priority can be given to this part to: •

Create a Green Turtle sanctuary at that part of the beach.

T-PVS (99) 74 • • • • • •

- 20 -

Prevent light pollution, Have consultation and input by scientists to help beach rehabilitation Running regular beach-clean up programs.

Decrease the access at night during the nesting season Establish information signs.

Running awareness and education programs.

The last item has chance to gather medium term result since the local people in this region are open to cooperation, and the education level of the people is higher than in other similar areas.

There is also a local NGO that has been active in the area over a number of years. In order to continue they need assistance in developing funding along with technical support to run education and awareness programs.

Finally a regular annual survey is required to identify the population status in the area.

REFERENCES 1.

Baran, İ. And Kasparek, M., 1989, Marine Turtles Turkey, WWF.

2.

Groombridge, B., 1988, Marine Turtles in the Mediterranean-Distribution, Population Status and Conservation, World Conservation Monitoring Centre, U.K.

3.

Langeveld, M. and Sarıgül, G., 1990, Sea Turtle Nesting on the Beaches of SouthEast. Society of the Advancement of Oceanography in the Netherlands, Amsterdam.

4.

Oruç, A., Demirayak, F., Şat, G., 1996, Fisheries in the Eastern Mediterranean and Its Impact on Sea Turtles, DHKD-WWF, İstanbul.

5.

Ozaner, S., 1996, Accelerated Coastal Erosion in the Turkish Mediterranean Coast. Coastal Management and Habitat Conservation, 1996 Leiden.

6.

Yerli, S. and Demirayak, F., 1996, Marine Turtles in Turkey: A Survey on Nesting Site Status, DHKD, CMS Rep. No. 96/4 İstanbul.