1. PROTECTED AREAS, ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE & LOCAL LIVELIHOODS AyşegülYılmaz, PhD 15th International Conference of National Trusts Entebbe, Uganda October 1, 2013 THE CASE OF THE TURKISH VILLAGE OF KAPIKIRI

2. Outline 1.Research questions & Importance of study 2.Methods Site description Lake Bafa Nature Park Ancient city of Heracleia The village of Kapıkırı Data collection 3.Findings 4.Policy implications 2

3. 3 What are impacts of top-down protected area governance on resident communities’ socioeconomic well-being? 1.Positive and negative impacts of top-down protected area designation 2.Distribution of impacts across community income groups & social groups 3.The role of tourism in the compensation for the loss of income as a result of conservation 4.What could be the most ideal long-term conservation and development strategy that would benefit both natural & cultural heritage and the local community?

4. 4 Importance of study 1.Local communities receive little attention in conservation studies in general 2.Solutions that address archaeological heritage protection and community development need to be addressed more effectively 3.Insights on the impacts on different community groups and role of tourism 4.Applicability to other contexts 5.Consequences of dual conservation governance

5. Outline 1.Research questions & Importance of study 2.Methods Site description – Protected area boundaries, modern settlement, and location of ruins Village livelihoods Data collection 3.Findings 4.Policy implications 5

6. 6 Site description - Protected area boundaries Adapted from the Ministry of the Environment and Forestry’s long term development plan (2008)

7. Nature- protected area designation (1994) Locals’ socioeconomic development needs Culture- protected area designation (1989) Local Context Tourism demand Livelihoods impact Heracleia Kapıkır ı

8. 8 Source: Distelrath (2011) Site description – Modern settlement pattern & location of ruins

9. 9 Village livelihoods – Animal husbandry

10. 10 Village livelihoods – Fishing

11. 11 Village livelihoods – Olive harvest

12. 12 Village livelihoods – Participation in tourism

13. 13 Village livelihoods – Participation in tourism

14. Phase 1Phase 2Phase 3 Participant observation Informal interviews with farmers, pension owners, women, youth (24) Semi-structured int., senior villagers (5, above age 51) Semi- structured interviews with: - Farmers (47) - Business owners (20) - Young gen. (12, age 16-30) - Village leader - Ticket booth official (MCT) Informal int. with tourists Park manager (MEF) Museum Director (MCT) Official of Div. of Agriculture Local NGO leader Leader of the RCC (MCT) Senior archaeologist at the provincial office of the MCT Professor of Archaeology, University of Muğla Sub-provincial level: Provincial level: National level: Planner, Nature Protection & National Parks (MEF) Coordinator of SCC (MCT) Planner, Tourism div. (MCT) Legislative framework Long-term Management Plan for Lake Bafa Nature Park Other relevant official resources Household questionnaire posed to farmer households (22) Household questionnaire posed to business owners (3) Village level Governance levels 14 Phase 2 Data collection

15. Outline 1.Research questions & Importance of study 2.Methods Site description – Protected area boundaries The village of Kapikiri Data collection 3.Findings 4.Policy implications 15

16. 16 What are impacts of top-down protected area governance on resident communities’ socioeconomic well-being? 1.Positive and negative impacts of top-down protected area designation 2.Distribution of impacts across community income groups & social groups 3.The role of tourism in the compensation for the loss of income as a result of conservation 4.What could be the most ideal long-term conservation and development strategy that would benefit both natural & cultural heritage and the local community?

17. The younger generation had tendency to out- migrate, calling into question the future of the village 17 Socioeconomic well-being “The past was a period of abundance... Today, making a living has become a daily struggle.” Senior villagers & farmers ”We can not build new homes for our sons. They can't get married.” Farmers

18. 18 What are impacts of top-down protected area governance on resident communities’ socioeconomic well-being? 1.Positive and negative impacts of top-down protected area designation 2.Distribution of impacts across community income groups & social groups 3.The role of tourism in the compensation for the loss of income as a result of conservation 4.What could be the most ideal long-term conservation and development strategy that would benefit both natural & cultural heritage and the local community?

19. Positive 1.Nature-protected area status around lake a major factor of continued tourism. 2.Tourism benefits to business owners and farmers 19 Positive and negative impacts and distribution across community groups Negative 1.Noregard for villagers’ socioeconomic development needs resulting in illegal activity 2.Distribution of tourism benefits very unequal 4.Farmers lacking financial resources to cover costs of fines were not able to provide housing for next generations 5.Threats to the integrity of both ancient and modern settlement "Pension owners eat the cream of conservation.” - Farmer

20. 20 What are impacts of top-down protected area governance on resident communities’ socioeconomic well-being? 1.Positive and negative impacts of top-down protected area designation 2.Distribution of impacts across community income groups & social groups 3.The role of tourism in the compensation for the loss of income as a result of conservation 4.What could be the most ideal long-term conservation and development strategy that would benefit both natural & cultural heritage and the local community?

21. Contribution of tourism to farmers’ income small Tourism replaced some of the traditional livelihoods activities No employment opportunities for younger generation Extensive outmigration of the younger generation, calling into question the future of the village Pollution a major threat to tourism 21 The role of tourism

22. 22 Impacts on integrity of the traditional village

23. 23 Impacts on integrity ofarchaeological heritage

24. 24 Impacts on integrity ofarchaeological heritage

25. Both farmers’ and business owners’ perceptions negative Powerless but believed conservation happened because of their presence Local officials not attentive to their needs Pessimism regarding the village’s future 25 Villagers’ perceptionsNature of governance Top-down decision-making power concentrated at higher (national and provincial) levels Local level more progressive and pluralistic regarding conservation No fixed set of criteria for designation of culture- protected areas All governance levels critical about dual power structure

26. Strict and top-down conservation combined with weak management not successful, also causing unequal distribution of benefits from conservation More powerful groups benefitted more from conservation Villagersaware about conservation, but ask for a strategy that regards their socioeconomic needs Governance not addressing local needs Majority of younger generation likely to out-migrate Future of village looked rather bleak 26 Summary

27. Local level - better equipped and empowered A comprehensive (values-based, participative, adaptive, ) approach to protected area management planning for areas that combine both natural and cultural heritage resources Values-based approach to designation Adherence to a specific set of criteria for quality protected area governance and management (legitimacy, transparency, accountability, inclusiveness, fairness, connectivity and resilience) A single conservation agency (or umbrella organization) 27 What conservation and development strategy?

28. 28 Thank You!