An important judicial decision was made regarding the 'Tented Accommodation Area and Day Trip Area Project' planned to be built in Incekum Bay in Çamlı District of Muğla's Marmaris district. Muğla 4th Administrative Court annulled the "EIA Not Required" decision dated June 20, 2025, given to the project planned to be implemented by Cleo Turizm Marina Yat İşletmemeleri ve İnşaat Sanayi Ticaret AŞ on an area of 17.25 hectares.
In the case filed by Muğla Metropolitan Municipality, in which environmental organizations and citizens were involved, the court ruled that the environmental impacts of the project were not adequately evaluated in line with expert reports, that there were violations of coastal legislation and that natural life could be damaged. In the decision made unanimously on September 21, 2026, it was stated that the EIA process was not in compliance with the legislation, law and public interest.
THE REPUBLIC HAS BROUGHT IT TO THE AGENDA
Cumhuriyet, in its news titled "While the plunder of nature is being discussed, this time a health alarm: Children who came out of the sea rushed to the emergency room", dated July 8, 2026, brought up the allegations about children who applied to hospitals with complaints of vomiting and high fever after swimming in the sea at Incekum Beach.
In the news, Muğla Medical Chamber President Çetin Erdolu drew attention to the deficiencies in inspection and preventive health services, while Neşe Yüzak from the Gökova Akyaka Lovers Association explained the construction pressure in the region, infrastructure problems and the legal struggle launched against the project. With the court annulling the EIA decision, environmental problems in Incekum and objections to the tourism project came to the fore again.
IT WAS SAID "THE TREES WILL NOT BE CUT DOWN" AND THE VEGETATION COVER WAS REMOVED
One of the most striking findings in the court decision was the difference between the commitments made in the project file and the practices in the field. While the company promised that no trees would be cut down within the scope of the project, during the discovery made on February 16, 2026, it was determined that a 6-meter wide road was opened from the parking area to the shore and the vegetation on the route was removed with work machines. In the expert report, it was noted that concrete was used in the assembly of sunbathing platforms on the shore, concrete was poured between the rocks and wooden piles were fixed, and interventions were made to the natural structure of the shore.
In the project file, it was determined that 800 meters long and 6 meters wide vehicle roads and 2 thousand 40 meters long and 3 meters wide pedestrian roads were planned. Experts reported that planning a motorway in the first 50 meters of the coastline is against the provisions of the Coastal Law and relevant regulations.
“A HUGE HABITAT WAS DESTROYED”
Commenting on the decision to Cumhuriyet, Neşe Yüzak from the Gökova Akyaka Lovers Association stated that Incekum has more than one protection status and explained that the region was a recreation area open to public use in the past. Yüzak said, "It is an area where sandbar sharks are protected, a special environmental protection zone and a natural protected area. It is also an archaeological site. The area is covered with an important habitat and maquis cover. Years ago, a recreation area that could be reached by tractor was created in order to generate income for the Çamlı Headman. The people benefited from it and only paid a fee to the headman's office for transportation. The area was really used for the public benefit."
Arguing that construction increased in the region after it was transferred to management, Yüzak claimed that a building registration certificate was obtained for some buildings within the scope of zoning amnesty. Yüzak said, "We gave a negative opinion to this. We stated that a building registration certificate cannot be issued in the protected area in accordance with the legislation, and if it is given, it should be cancelled. As far as we know, the municipality sealed the area and did not give a license. Despite this, operating activities continued in 2026."
“THE ROAD WAS OPENED BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS APPROVED”
Claiming that physical interventions were started before the zoning processes for the project were completed, Yüzak said, "After the EIA decision, the master zoning plan had to be prepared and approved for conservation purposes. However, they did not wait for this. A transformer was built in the region, a road was opened for the transformer. We wanted to go to the area to detect these interventions, but we were not allowed in. We then complained to the gendarmerie. Later, the opened road was reflected in the drone images and we announced the issue to the public."
Stating that the zoning plan had not yet been approved when the road was opened, Yüzak said that a criminal complaint had been filed regarding the issue and that the investigation initiated in Marmaris was continuing.
Drawing attention to the importance of the findings revealed in the court discovery, Yüzak said, "During the discovery we made together with the experts, they were also astonished by the extent of the cutting. A large habitat had been destroyed. The forest engineer wrote in his report that the removal of vegetation caused irreparable damage and that the planned project could not be realized without damaging the natural structure."
7 ENDEMIC, 2 RARE PLANT TAXA ARE AT RISK
In the expert report dated April 20, 2026, which formed the basis for the court's decision, the damages that the ecological richness in Incekum may face due to construction were revealed in detail. It was stated that there are a total of 228 plant taxa belonging to 55 families in the project area and its surroundings, 7 of which are endemic and 2 are rare.
Experts evaluated that if tent platforms, roads and infrastructure works are carried out, the dense forest and maquis tissue in the region will be seriously damaged and endemic species may disappear. It was also noted that natural habitats in the region may be fragmented and the pressure on plant and animal existence may increase due to the facilities planned to be built within the scope of the project.
“UNACCEPTABLE” ASSESSMENT OF FIRE RISK
In the forest engineering expert assessment, it was emphasized that the project area was located in a first degree fire sensitive area. The report stated that 49 accommodation units and the human mobility associated with them will increase the danger of forest fires, especially in the summer months. It was evaluated that human activities on this scale would pose an "unacceptable" risk to forest existence.
The company's commitment to afforestation after the project was completed was also not found sufficient. The expert stated that planting saplings after the natural forest structure and genetic diversity are eliminated will not mean regaining the lost ecosystem.
49 TENTS, 49 POOLS AND DOZENS OF FACILITIES
According to the project file, 4.32 hectares of the 17.25 hectares area was reserved for accommodation and 12.93 hectares for daily use. It was planned to accommodate a total of 98 people in 49 tent units, each for two people. It was envisaged that a 200 square meter platform and an 80 square meter tent would be built on top of each tent, and a 12 square meter ornamental pool would be built next to each unit.
In addition to these, the project also included a 300 square meter swimming pool, country restaurants, buffets, observation terraces, social facilities, administrative and personnel buildings and a 20 meter high observation tower.
Experts determined that there was no information regarding the foundation system and construction technique of some buildings, and that static calculations for tent platforms, building material details, earthquake and wind analyzes were not presented.
THE LOCATION OF THE TREATMENT FACILITY HAS NOT BEEN SPECIFIED
In the decision, attention was also drawn to important deficiencies in terms of infrastructure problems in the region. According to the expert report, although it was envisaged to install a package treatment system in the project, the location of the facility was not shown on the project. It was determined that there was not enough information about the route through which the wastewater would be transported, where the pipelines would pass, and how these works would affect the natural environment.
It was also noted that geotechnical drilling, rock strength testing and soil laboratory tests were not carried out for the areas where some structures will be built. Experts concluded that the geological, hydrogeological and civil engineering evaluations in the project introduction file were scientifically and technically inadequate.
“THEY CAN PREPARE THE EIA FILE AGAIN”
Considering the court decision as an important achievement, Yüzak said that the legal process is not completely over. Noting that the decision could be appealed, Yüzak stated that the company could prepare a new EIA file.
Yüzak said, "After this stage, there will probably be an appeal process. But I think the file is very clear. They can prepare a new EIA file and say that we have completed the deficiencies. Can these happen to us? Yes, they can. But we will not give up our fight."
Stating that, as Gökova Akyaka Lovers Association and Gökova Ecological Life Association, they are fighting not only in Incekum, but also in the protected areas around Gökova Bay and Akyaka, Yüzak said, "We are fighting for many protected areas in Gökova. The natural structure of these areas needs to be protected. We will follow the developments from now on. We will definitely not give up."
UNANIMOUS CANCELLATION BY THE COURT
Muğla 4th Administrative Court also evaluated the objections to the expert report and decided that the report was sufficient to be used as a basis for the decision. Court; He evaluated the technical deficiencies in the project introduction file, physical interventions on the coast, removal of vegetation, road planning contrary to legislation and fire risks together.
In the decision, it was unanimously decided to cancel the transaction dated June 20, 2025, concluding that the "EIA is not Required" transaction was not in compliance with the legislation, law and public interest. The court also decided that the trial expenses of 69 thousand 928 liras and 70 kuruş should be paid by the defendant Muğla Governorship to the plaintiff Muğla Metropolitan Municipality. An appeal against the decision dated 21 September 2026 was left open to the Council of State within 15 days from the day following the notification.
