Geoheritage in Europe

and its conservation

Wimbledon, W.A.P. and Smith-Meyer, S. (eds.)

1
Geoheritage in Europe and its conservation Geoheritage in Europe and its conservation

ProGEO
Wibledon, W.A.P. & Smith-Meyer, S. (eds.). 2012. (The European Association for the Conservation of the Geological Heritage)
Geoheritage in Europe and its conservation. ProGEO. 405 pp.

The only record of the history of our planet lies in the rocks beneath our feet:
Oslo September 2012 rocks and the landscape are the memory of the Earth. Here, and only here, is it
possible to trace the processes, changes and upheavals which have formed our
planet over thousands of millions of years: the more recent part of this record,
ISBN : 978-82-426-2476-5 of course, includes the evolution of life, including Man. The record preserved in
the rocks and landscape is unique, and much of it is surprisingly fragile. Today it
is threatened more than ever. What is lost can never be recovered, and therefore
© ProGEO
there is an urgent need to understand and protect what remains of this our com-
mon heritage.
Layout: John Erik Hals, Grafonaut.no
Set in Times New Roman ProGEO objectives are:
• To promote the conservation of Europe’s rich heritage of landscape, rock,
fossil and mineral sites.
Technical production:
Lars Erikstad, Norwegian Institute for Nature Research/ • To inform a wider public of the importance of this patrimony, and of its
Natural history Museum, University of Oslo for ProGEO relevance to modern society.
Norway with good help from Norwegian Directorate for • To advise, in our countries and in Europe as a whole, those responsible for
Nature Management and Geological Survey of Norway. protecting our Earth heritage
• To organise and participate in research into all aspects of planning, science,
Editors contact information: management and interpretation that are relevant to geoconservation.
William A. P. Wimbledon, Dept of Earth Sciences, University
• To involve all countries in Europe, exchanging ideas and information in an
of Bristol, Queens Road, Bristol BS8 1RJ, United Kingdom
open forum, and taking a full part in conservation in a global setting, including
Sylvia Smith-Meyer, NVE, Box 5091 Majorstua, 0301 Oslo, the formulation of conventions and legislation.
Norway. E-mail: [email protected]
• To work towards an integrated European listing of outstanding geoscience
sites, thus enabling full support to be given to the work of other international
bodies, as well as to national initiatives towards site protection.

Printed: AiT Otta, 1000 copies • To achieve an integrated approach to nature conservation, promoting a holistic
approach to the conservation of biological and physical phenomena.

Cover photo: Diamantino Pereira

If you share these aims, join us and work with ProGEO!
More information: www.progeo.se
 

2 3
Geoheritage in Europe and its conservation Geoheritage in Europe and its conservation

Contents:

This book is dedicated to Preface6 Kazakhstan200

Gerard Gonggrijp, the founder and secretary of the Conserving our shared geoheritage  14 Latvia208
European Working group (EWGESC).
Albania20 Lithuania216
and
Austria30 F.Y.R. of Macedonia 224
George Black, the first president of ProGEO.
Belarus40 The Netherlands 232
Belgium52 Norway246
Bosnia and Herzegovina 62 Poland254
Bulgaria68 Portugal264
Croatia80 Romania274
Czech Republic 92 Russia288
Denmark100 Serbia300
Estonia106 Slovakia310
Finland114 Slovenia322
France124 Spain334
Germany132 Sweden344
Greece144 Switzerland358
Hungary158 Turkey366
Iceland170 Ukraine378
Republic of Ireland 180 United Kingdom 392
Italy188

4 5
 Geoheritage in Europe and its conservation • Turkey

TURKEY Introduction
The modern concept of geological heritage is rela-
Noah’s Flood and Noah’s Ark, Nimrod (Nemrud
in Turkish), and the Camels of Nimrod helped
to popularize these activities, but, unfortunately,
tively new to Turkish Earth-science literature and
Nizamettin Kazancı all this was stopped suddenly in the late 1970s
Turkish society. However, such terms as wildlife,
Fuat Şaroğlu because of a troubled political situation in the
nature protection and ecology have been familiar
Ahmet Doğan country.
since the 19th century. This is to be expected, as
Necip S. Mülazımoğlu The Superior Council for the Conservation of
modern geology in Turkey began in the 1930s,
in particular with the founding of the Institute of Natural and Cultural Property (founded in 1961
Mineral Research and Exploration (MTA). and revised in 1983 and 2005) and the Regional
Conservation Council (1961), which are advisory
MTA, the Turkish geological surveying institution,
and technical committees of the Ministry of Cul-
was founded in 1935 through the contributions of
ture, respectively, are the bodies that authorized
senior western geologists, some of whom wanted
such matters as site selection, registration and
to escape from the nationalistic atmosphere in
conservation, but they concentrated mainly on
Europe (http://www.mta.gov.tr/english/mta/his-
archaeological sites and movable cultural objects,
tory.html). They worked both for MTA as field
paying less any attention to natural ones. This was
geologists and at universities in İstanbul and
probably a necessity, due to the extremely high
Ankara. At that time, a new generation completed
number of cultural sites in Turkey. Moreover,
their geology education in Turkey and abroad,
the geology of the country is so rich and complex
and a strong survey programme was started for
(from Precambrian to Quaternary), that registra-
the preparation of geological maps (at scales of
tion of all kinds of natural sites, even only of the
1:250,000 and 1:100,000). In the 1950s, after
most important, would have severely affected
completion of the mapping programme, it was
society, as there would not have remained enough
concluded that Anatolia included many unique
living space (Fig. 1). As a result, only geological
formations, stratigraphic sections, fossil fauna,
sites in or around registered archaeological sites
structures, landforms, and so on. These were
were fortunate enough to achieve protection, e.g.
described in hundreds of scientific reports and
the Pamukkale Quaternary travertines near Hiera-
papers as significant contributions to the Earth
polis (Denizli) and the tuff cones and maar in
sciences. For example, the term mélange with its
Cappadocia (Nevşehir) (figure 2-4).
modern meaning was first introduced to the litera-
ture by Bailey and McCallien (1950) as one of the An increasing population, combined with indus-
results of these Turkish studies (Şengör, 2003). In trial development, began to cause the loss of forest
the late 1960s and 1970s, the number of geologi- and farmland in Turkey, and the state had to put
cal research projects increased significantly, and an article into the Constitution in 1961 about the
then meetings, panels and workshops about these maintenance of forest boundaries. This was leg-
geological monuments began to be organized islation that was also good for the conservation of
under the ‘umbrellas’ of the Geological Society many geological sites situated in forested areas.
of Turkey (TJK; which was, unfortunately, closed Additionally, many places had been registered
down in 1985) and MTA. Brainstorming about as national or natural parks (figure 1), and so
natural heritages and how it could be conserved they had already been efficiently protected. The
increased (Ketin, 1970; Öngür, 1976), and the first results of a recent project show the importance
Turkish popular geo-journal, Yeryuvarı ve İnsan, of national parks not only for wildlife and nature
was released by TJK to draw attention to “nature conservation, but also for the protection of geo-
monuments” (Arpat, 1976, Arpat and Yılmaz, sites (Kazancı et al., 2007, 2008, 2009).
1976). Some historical or mythological stories like In the 1980s, governments had to pay more atten-
tion to natural sites as the society showed interest
in them as a result of television and other media,
Left: Meke maar in Capadoccia. Photo W.A.P. Wimbledon

366 367
Turkey • Geoheritage in Europe and its conservation Geoheritage in Europe and its conservation • Turkey

Figure 1. Geographic distribution of some selected and protected areas of Turkey. Note that a symbol of each group represents three or
more sites in the same region. The geosites (460) in the map are from Jemirko’s list, however the registered natural sites are over 1,160.

and private and some new official bodies were directives for the protection of the environment
founded for the protection of the natural environ- that have been created by different offices or min-
ment. Inclusion of some sites in UNESCO’s istries at different times, each resulting from their
World Heritage List promoted progress. In 1997, own particular needs. The most emphasized terms
a national action plan was prepared for heritage within the context of Turkish legislation are “natu-
protection (Bademli, 1997). However, only a ral matter”, “natural object”, “natural monument”,
small part of the plan has thus far been realized. “natural parks”, “natural objects to be protected”,
JEMIRKO, the first NGO in Turkey for ProGEO and, in addition, the two geological terms “fos-
activities, was formed in the year 2000. sil” and “mineral”. However, the meaning and/
Finally, one can easily say that there are many or frame of each term are defined separately as
authorities, many laws, and many bureaus, in appendices of the related text, to avoid misleading
addition to a considerable enthusiasm amongst applications. The current legislation can be cat-
officers, to protect the nature and/or natural herit- egorised in two groups as follows:
age of Turkey; but, in contrast, threats to geosites
are increasing parallel to popularization of the Laws directly related to protection
geoheritage and relevant concepts within the Four laws in Turkey authorise some institutes to
society. Subsequently, new methods and/or new protect the environment, lands and some sites.
techniques are urgently needed to achieve geocon- However, geoconservation is scarcely found in
servation. these laws and when it does appear in the articles,
it is mentioned as the ‘physical environment’ or
Legal base ‘natural sites’.
Geological heritage or geosite terms are not The Law on the Conservation of Natural and
included in Turkish legislation, in such words, in Cultural Property (No. 2863) was enacted by the
spite of the mention of all kinds of natural objects.
It is noteworthy that there are many laws and Right: Figure 2. Some touristic and protected geosites in Anatolia.

368 369
Turkey • Geoheritage in Europe and its conservation Geoheritage in Europe and its conservation • Turkey

Environment and Forestry changed to the Ministry

of the Water and Forestry and the Ministry of the
Urban and Environment was formed in 2011.
The Turkish state bureaus involved in nature con-
servation can be categorized into three groups as
authorized, responsible and related organisations.
The related ones seem to be the most crowded
and most important, as they produce the scien-
tific information about geosites and the natural
heritage. Presently, the body with most authority
and directly responsible for conservation is the
General Directorate of Culture and Museums
(www.kulturvarliklari.gov.tr). It replaced, in 2004,
the old “General Directorate for the Conserva-
tion of Cultural and Natural Property”. It applies
Figures 3. Some registered but non-touristic geosites.
law No. 2863 as did the previous institution, but
in the past this focused mostly on cultural sites.
The second most involved institute concerned
Ministry of Culture in 1983, and it mostly targets 5403) was enacted in 2005 by the Ministry of the As result, the legislation of Turkey that relates to with conservation is the General Directorate of
archaeological sites and objects. Under it, all Environment and Forestry as agriculture, nature nature conservation is highly detailed. It is pos- Nature Conservation and National Parks (www.
kinds of historical and natural monumental mate- and wildlife were endangered because of rapid sible that in some cases the abundance of so many milliparklar.gov.tr). This is also a young admin-
rial belong in the ownership of the state, and trade, urbanism and accelerating industrial activities. instructions and regulations may create a large and istration, formed in 2004 under the Ministry of
export and private use are forbidden. Since July This law specifies that all medium- and large-size unwieldy bureaucracy. the Environment and Forestry (now, the Ministry
2003, responsibility for the protection of the natu- projects and all investments in rural areas have to of Water and Forestry). For years it has focused
ral heritage has been entrusted to the Ministry of prove that they do not threaten nature. on national parks only, but for the last five years
Organisation and policy
the Environment and Forestry from the Ministry it has been authorized to concern itself with both
of Culture, as the latter has been combined with It is hard to say that there is a well-designed Turk- national parks and nature protection; though its
Laws indirectly related to protection
the old Ministry of Tourism. In 2011, a new insti- ish policy concerning nature conservation, in spite legal power is restricted in comparison with that
tute, the General Directorate for Conservation of It is possible to say that the legal base in Turkey of these many regulations. The large span of the of the earlier mentioned body. A nice competition
the Natural Properties was designated under the has been revised completely in the last decade, dates of enactment of the aforementioned laws, between these two authorized directorates occa-
Urban and Environment Ministry. particularly since 1985, towards the protection and the abundance of responsible institutes may sionally provides some good opportunities for the
of the environment. Hence, many laws describe support this suggestion. Laws and instructions environment and conservationists. A third organi-
The Law for the Environment (No. 2872) was the responsibilities of institutions and prescribe were formed when needed, and defined only the sation is the Environmental Protection Agency for
enacted in 1983 and revised in 2006, and under limits to anthropogenic activities, in the way of limitations of anthropogenic activities. Particu- Special Areas (www.ockkb.gov.tr/EN/), founded
it all kinds of activities and investments in rural nature conservation. The Law for Construction larly after the Rio Conference in 1992, regulations in 1989 by a cabinet decision, to examine and pro-
areas, including on private land, have to be kept (No. 3194; 1985), The Law for Coasts (No. 3621; became more prohibitive and the main policy is tect important areas like islands, lakes, peninsulas,
at a distance from the registered protected sites, 1990), The Law for Forests (No. 6831; 1956), to apply current rules and instructions. On the and coastal zones or deltas. It worked under the
and also such activities and investments have to and The Law for Mines and Mining (No. 5177; other hand, the present administrative system for telescopic control of the Ministry of the Environ-
be permitted by the Ministry of the Water and For- 2004) provide significant legal bases for the pro- conservation seems to be very strong, as three ment and Forestry until 2011, but its name is now
estry or the Urban and Environment Ministry. tection of physical and biological environments. ministries (the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, the General Directorate for Conservation of Natu-
The Law for National Parks (No. 2873) was However, some other laws promote anthropogenic the Ministry of the Water and Forestry and the ral Properties and it is under the Ministry of the
enacted in 1983 by the Ministry of Agriculture and events and land use. For example, the Law for Ministry of the Urban and Environment) and Urban and Environment.
Forestry of that time, in order to conserve scientif- the Encouragement of Tourism (No. 2634) was many institutes are involved. It is worth noting
ically, naturally and culturally interesting parts of enacted in 1982 and has been revised in 2003 to Some institutions, even if they are not responsible
here that formal and/or governmental organisa-
lands, forests and mountains, and under it speci- enlarge the authority of the Ministry of Culture for the area of nature conservation, have behaved
tions can change when a new government comes
fied areas can be designed as “national parks”. and Tourism over all wildlife, eco-tourism, and very responsibly and served efficiently in the
in. For instance, two previous ministries, Culture
geo-tourism etc. protection and development of the environment.
The Law for Soil (Protection of) and Landuse (No. and Tourism were merged in 2002, the ministry of

370 371
Turkey • Geoheritage in Europe and its conservation Geoheritage in Europe and its conservation • Turkey

One of them is the General Directorate of State meetings have promoted the idea of geoconserva-
Hydraulic Works (DSI). It makes an effort to tion in Turkey.
search for and protect surface- and ground-waters There are many, large and small, conservation-
in addition to concerning itself with matters of ist NGO groups (not less than fifty) supporting
water assurance, consumption and management efforts to conserve nature, the environment, wild-
(www.dsi.gov.tr/english). The General Directorate life, animals, animal rights, wetlands, soil, water,
of Afforestation and Erosion Control is another landscape etc. Only the Turkish Association for
hidden hero of nature conservation in Turkey, Protection of Geological Heritage (JEMIRKO) is
establishing suitable plants on mountains and in involved in geoheritage and geoconservation. The
rural areas, and particularly in burned areas (www. basic activities of these bodies are the introduction
agm.gov.tr). Fires, which are a common envi- and some promotion of their special topics. How-
ronmental problem in the whole Mediterranean ever, their contributions to nature conservation are
region, trigger rapid erosion and this is one of the significant as they are bridges between society,
main threats to geosites and geoheritage areas in nature and state bureaus. Mostly dependent on
Turkey (Kazancı et al., 2005). their activities, internal tourism and particularly
Bodies concerned with geoconservation have geotourism has increased in recent years. It has
important roles in research into and the introduc- brought good income, but sometimes it has caused
tion of geosites and geoheritage to both societies an increase in site mismanagement. Presently,
in general and ministries, as these institutions are official, responsible and related bodies have been
experts in the Earth sciences. However, they have seeking a sustainable solution.
no official or legal responsibility for this topic.
The General Directorate of Mineral Research
Site selection and registration
and Exploration (MTA), the geological surveying
organisation of Turkey, is the first of such bodies In the Turkish legislation three types of registra-
(www.mta.gov.tr/english). It produces different tion are possible for both cultural and natural sites,
maps, sections and all kinds of scientific informa- and these are classified as first-, second- and third-
tion about physical nature. In addition, MTA is order, for conservation purposes. The first-order
the owner of the largest natural history museum sites are closed to all kind of usage and activity.
of the country, and so it can present powerful The second-order sites are closed to new construc-
publicity about natural formations. The Turkish tion, but previous usage can continue, whereas the
Petroleum Corporation (TPAO: www.tpao.gov. third-order sites are open for activities, provided
tr) is another institution working on sub-surface the appropriate permissions are obtained from the
exploration of the country, even if it has focused ministries.
on petroleum. During their expeditions its Earth The registration of a cultural or natural site
scientists have discovered and published on many for conservation is carried out by the Superior
geosites and geological monuments. Council for Conservation (SCC) and Regional
Ninety-six universities and twenty-six geol- Conservation Council (RCC) that work accord-
ogy departments are another important group of ing to given regulations and instructions. For
related specialist bodies. The Geological Society our topic, the important rule is the Regulation
of Turkey (TJK: 1945-1985) and then the Cham- on Identification and Registration of Immovable
ber of Geological Engineers (JMO: founded in Cultural and Natural Property to Be Protected,
1974), which are two NGOs of Earth scientists, released in 1987 and based on law No. 2863.
have since 1946 organised annual geological According to this regulation, the registration pro-
congresses without a break in the series, and these cedure must start with identification of a relevant
site which is already known (that is, selected
informally). Selection and registration seem to be
Left: Figure 4. Some selected but non-protected geosites. essentially the same activity. Scientific reports,

372 373
Turkey • Geoheritage in Europe and its conservation Geoheritage in Europe and its conservation • Turkey

publications, or proposals for registration from of the official registration procedure. All Earth characteristics of the geosites (e.g. Wimbledon, bad housing development, the area of each area
individuals or bureaus can be reasons for the RCC scientists, whether members of the association or 1996; Barretino et al., 1999). Typical or not, they and their combined total are fairly large (12,111
to start identifying a site or sites. A team of three not, can join in the selection process. There is a are far from reflecting the real geosites or the geo- km2). Of course, there are many individual geo-
or more experts prepares a detailed report about detailed, descriptive form used to propose a “geo- site potential of the country. Jemirko’s list, even sites within these areas, but they are not cited as
the site for the RCC, adding its own assessment site” that is distributed widely to colleagues and it is not official, can give much more relevant the intrinsic values behind protection. Fourteen
in terms of possible registration. When agreeing is also published on the web. Proposals are evalu- geoscientific information. Only 107 of the 1,166 areas and their 33 geosites have been listed by
with the report, the RCC considers the sugges- ated by the relevant subject committee, each of registered sites are in the Jemirko’s list. The dif- Jemirko. It is nice that all these areas have been
tions and/or objections from different sides and which is formed by five appropriately experienced ference between lists of Jemirko and the ministry actively protected by gendarmes and park rangers,
then it publicizes the registration. This decision is geologists, and if necessary they visit the site. is probably due to various interpretations of geo- as it is done in the national parks.
open to objections raised by the SCC, but it rarely The results are discussed in the general assembly conservation of the proposers.
changes. The number of RCCs in the country is of JEMİRKO for a final decision and then they are The Ministry of the Water and Forestry has deter- Management
twenty-eight, and they work like a court. announced. Proposers follow the categorisation mined four conservation categories based on law
of geosites in ProGEO’s geosites classification According to present legislation, the management
As for nature conservation, the selection and reg- No. 2872. These are 1) National Park, 2) Nature
scheme (e.g. Theodosiou-Drandaki et al., 2004). of a registered site is the responsibility of the
istration works for a site as set out in the Law for Park, 3) Site for Nature Conservation and 4)
A geosite may occur in more than one category. institution that accepted the selection and regis-
the Environment (No. 2872) is the same, more Nature Monument. Presently, Turkey has forty-
In the last ten years, JEMİRKO has identified 460 tration of that site. However, not all sites can be
or less, as for cultural sites, with the exception one national parks covering an area of 897,657 ha,
geosites (and 8 potential geoparks) through its efficiently managed, because of the large number
of conservation councils. Instead of councils, thirty four nature parks in 79,047 ha, thirty-one
procedures (www.jemirko.org.tr) (figure 1). How- of sites and various additional technical problems
bodies authorized by the Ministry of the Water nature conservation areas in 46,575 ha and one
ever, about one fourth of these geosites is cited in (budget, insufficient number of experts, authoriza-
and Forestry and the Ministry of the Urban and hundred and five nature monuments covering
the official list. tion problems within offices and so on). The best
Environment identify, discuss and then register 5,286 ha (www.milliparklar.gov.tr and www.kul-
management that has been working for years is
the sites. Generally, procedure starts upon a noti- turvarliklari.gov.tr). Except for some of the nature
that which was set up in the National Parks, where
fication letter from a naturalist, a local authorized Protected sites monuments, all others belong to the state. Of the
a separate team was formed for each park by the
person and/or even a villager about the beauty nature monuments registered, nearly all are old,
Apart from categorising registration types as first-, related general directorate. A manager, a few
and significance of the site. Later, experts of the individual trees and/or a patch of forest included
second- and third-order, sites are put into differ- officers and up to ten park rangers work for each
relevant bureaus visit the site to identify the regis- old trees. The sites registered by the Ministry of
ent categories by authorized bodies of the related national park. The majority of the park budget
tration type and category. This work can take time the Water and Forestry seem to have been selected
ministries. According to a description of the SCC is provided by the state; they even have some
due to different technicalities together with short- only for biological conservation; however there
based on law No. 2863, there are six categories of income from visitors.
age of experts in the relevant offices. However, is no discrimination in the regulations. Except for
sites: 1) Archaeological sites (7,766), 2) Natural Some impressive archaeological and natural sites
the designation of an area as a national park or a some biological monuments like old trees, 176 of
sites (1,166), 3) Urban sites (220), 4) Historical have been designed as open-air museums by the
first-order area in private ownership can only be the 211 natural sites mentioned above, are already
sites (142), 5) Superimposed sites, in two or more Ministry of Culture and Tourism, and so they
decided by the cabinet upon the suggestion of the in the list of Jemirko.
categories (393), and 6) Urban archaeological changed from being ordinary sites to being tour-
relevant ministries. A Special Environmental Protection Area is
sites (35). The numbers in the brackets display istic places. The management of some of these
The number of registered sites will be given the number of sites in that category through the another category for nature conservation. Four-
sites is very good and there are even competitions
in the next chapter. When looking at the list of country. The total, 9,722 sites, are under the three teen sites (areas) have been registered and given
between different institutions because of their high
these selected sites, one can see a limited num- levels of protection described above (first, second, first-order importance by the Turkish Environment
incomes. Unfortunately, the number of such lucky
ber of geological sites, most of which are caves and third order). The general opinion is that these Protection Agency (now the General Directorate
natural sites is not much more than ten or fifteen,
and/or landscapes (www.kulturvarliklari.gov.tr/ sites represent only one third of the unregistered for the Conservation of Natural Properties) (www.
and the rest of them are without a protector. Pri-
BelgeGoster.aspx). This is not unexpected when sites. Unfortunately, only a few registered sites ockkb.gov.tr/EN/). All are famous and touristic
vatisation and the hiring out of caves and other
we consider the country’s geology; however, are being efficiently protected (Figs. 2-4). places i.e. Köyceğiz, Gökova, Datça, and Belek,
interesting sites seem to be a new government
identification of geosites needs further expertise. etc and some of them are also registered by other
The number of Natural Sites on the list of the policy. It is hoped that this policy will serve for
It seems that a satisfying result can be obtained institutions. For instance, the Ihlara Valley of the
Ministry of Culture and Tourism is relatively high the conservation of geosites. There is no wide-
with the contributions of NGOs and related insti- Cappadocia region, and Pamukkale in western
(1,166) and the majority of them are geomorpho- spread or systematic management or maintenance
tutions; otherwise this old debate will continue Anatolia have been included in different catego-
logical or simple geographical sites i.e. landforms, of geosites, nor do any have a management plan
(Ketin, 1970; Öngür, 1976; Sol and Ünder, 1999; ries of all lists. Since the main goal of the Special
waterfalls, valleys, beaches, lakes or wetlands. that is focussed on their geo(morpho)logical inter-
Kazancı, 2001). Environmental Protection Area registration is to
It should be noted that they are natural forma- est.
JEMİRKO’s way is rather different from that protect nature and the landscape particularly from
tions, but relatively few of them display typical

374 375
Turkey • Geoheritage in Europe and its conservation Geoheritage in Europe and its conservation • Turkey

National Park and Its Surrounding. Published by General

Facilities Conclusions References Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Parks and
Arpat, E., 1976, İnsan ayağı izi fosilleri; yitirilen bir doğal anıt. the Turkish Association for Protection of Geological Heritage
Natural formations and geological heritage in Turkey is a large reservoir of natural heritage Yeryuvarı ve İnsan 1(2), 45-49. (JEMIRKO), Yozgat, 60 pp (in Turkish).
Turkey can attract much interest where they have due to the complex geological evolution of the Arpat, E. and Güner, Y., 1976, Göktaşı çukuru mu, çökme Ketin, İ., 1970, Türkiye’de önemli jeolojik aflormanların
a photogenic appearance and touristic potential. country, although, unfortunately, it has not yet çukuru mu? Yeryuvarı ve İnsan 1, 12-13. korunması. Türkiye Jeoloji Kurumu Bülteni 13 (2), 90-93.
Publications are mostly in the form of advertising, compiled a complete inventory of its geological Bademli, R.R., 1997, National Action Plan for Environment; Öngür, T., 1976, Doğal anıtlarin korunmasında yasal dayanaklar.
Protection of Natural, Historical and Cultural Sites and Mat- Yeryuvarı ve İnsan 1(4), 17-23.
instead of educational or scientific introductions. heritage. Moreover, the abundance of cultural and ters. A publication of State Planning Organisation, 55 pp.,
Şengör, A.M.C., 2003, The repeated rediscovery of melanges
It is striking that nearly all-scientific research has historical heritage together with a heavy burden Ankara, Turkey (in Turkish). See http://ekutup.dpt.gov.tr/ for
and its implications for the possibility and the role of objec-
PDF file.
ignored the natural heritage character of the Turk- of official regulations (mostly serving archaeo- tive evidence in the scientific enterprise. Geological Society
Bailey, E.B. and Mc Callien, W.J., 1950, The Ankara mélange of America, Special Paper 373, 385-445.
ish geosites. Recently, NGOs and some amateur logical sites) seems not to have had a positive and Anatolian thrust. Bulletin of Mineral Research and Explo-
Sol, A. and Ünder, H., 1999, A model for the conservation of
sport groups interested in trekking, biking or influence on geoconservation. The government ration, Turkey 15, 12-22.
geological remains as documents. Environmental Geology
hunting have started to contact local administra- and the ministries are very active on conserving Barettino D., Wimbledon W.A.P., Gallego E. (Eds), 1999, 37, 26-28.
Geological Heritage: Its Conservation and Management.
tions to work on natural sites, and leaflets and the cultural sites, but not similarly keen on taking ProGEO European Association for the Conservation of the Theodossiou-Drandaki, I, R. Nakov, W.A.P. Wimbledon,
A.Serjani, A. Neziraj, H. Hallaci, G. Sijaric, P. Begovic, T.
booklets have been produced although they are far care of the registered natural sites, excluding the Geological Heritage and Sociedad Geologica de Espana,
Todorov, Pl. Tchoumatchenco, A. Diakantoni, Ch. Fassou-
Madrid, 212 pp.
from being satisfactory. In order to conserve the national parks and some special areas. It is possi- las, N. Kazancı, F. Saroglu, A. Dogan, M. Dimitrijevic, D.
Kazancı, N., 2001, Jeolojik miras üzerine. Mavi Gezegen Der- Gavrilovic B. Krstic, D. Mijovic, 2004, IUGS Geosites pro-
geosites, it is known that education and research ble to say, unfortunately, that only 65-70 geosites gisi, 2001/4, 4-9. ject progress - a first attempt at a common framework list for
are necessary as permanent efforts. Thanks to in the list of Jemirko have been conserved by the south eastern European countries. In: M. Parkes, Ed., Natural
Kazancı, N., 2012, Geological Background and Three Vulnerable and Cultural Landscapes- the Geological Foundation. Pro-
JEMİRKO’s encouragement, some university government to international standards. On the Geosites of the Kızılcahamam Çamlıdere Geopark Project ceedings of a Conference 9-11 September 2002, Dublin Cas-
in Ankara, Turkey. Geoheritage (in press with DOI 10.1007/ tle, Ireland, Royal Irish Academy, Dublin, pp. 81-90.
geology departments have recently formed stu- other hand, some progress on this topic has indi- s12371-012 0064-2).
dent working groups for natural heritage. These cated that good developments will be realized in a Wimbledon, W.A.P., 1996, National site selection; a stop on the
Kazancı, N., Şaroğlu, F., Kırman, E., Uysal, F., 2005, Basic road to a European Geosite List. Geologica Balcanica 26,
are organising indoor activities for local people. moderately short time. State institutes like MTA, threats on geosites and geoheritages in Turkey. In: Confer- 15-27.
ence on Geoheritage of Serbia. Published by the Institute for
In addition, MTA has decided to set up a project DSI and TPAO (see the Organisation and Policy Nature Conservation of Serbia, Belgrade, p. 149-153.
group for professional research on geoparks and chapter for full form of the names) and a social Kazancı, N., Suludere, Y., Mülazımoğlu, N.S., Tuzcu, S., Mengi, The authors are grateful to Yaşar Suludere, Ediz Kırman and
natural heritage, and Ankara University has prom- group, JMO, have recently started to get involved H., Hakyemez, Y. , Mercan, N., 2007, Geosites of Soğuksu Fatih Uysal for technical helps included typing and figure
National Park and Its Surrounding. Published by General design and to Dr Margaret Sönmez of the Middle East Techni-
ised to start a graduate programme on the subject. in research on geosites and geoconservation. Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Parks and cal University for the linguistic improvement of the manuscript.
the Turkish Association for Protection of Geological Heritage W.A.P Wimbledon and T. Todorov improved the manuscript
“The Kızılcahamam-Çamlıdere Geopark” which JEMIRKO, which is the only, and a very young, (JEMIRKO), Ankara, 60 pp (in Turkish). significantly.
is the first in Turkey could be realized in 2011 such association, focuses directly on the geologi-
Kazancı, N., Suludere, Y., Mülazımoglu, N.S., Tuzcu, S., Mengi,
as a joint project of the state bureaux and NGOs cal heritage. What is more, its geoparks proposals H., Hakyemez, Y., 2008, Geosites of Hattuşaş ve Alacahöyük
National Parks and Their surroundings. Published by Gen-
mentioned above (www.jeoparkankara.com). It have received great attention from Earth scientists eral Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Parks
comprises 23 geosites, some of which are endan- and local administrators, as they will promote geo- and the Turkish Association for Protection of Geological
Heritage (JEMIRKO), Çorum, 78 pp (in Turkish).
gered (Kazancı, 2012). tourism activities. As result, geosite, geopark and
Kazancı, N., Suludere, Y., Mülazımoğlu, N.S., Tuzcu, S.,
geoconservation ideas are enlarging in the society, Mengi, H., Hakyemez, Y., 2009, Geosites of Yozgat Çamlığı
bringing hope for the future.

Contact information
Nizamettin Kazancı, Fuat Şaroğlu, • Fuat Şaroğlu • Ahmet Doğan • Necip S. Mülazımoğlu
E-mail: [email protected]
All authors: Jeolojik Mirası Koruma Derneği (JEMİRKO), P.O. Box 12,
06100 Maltepe, Ankara, Turkey. (http://www.jemirko.org.tr )

376 377