• 1 The Staff of Editions Berlitz, Dubrovnik and Southern Dalmatia, Lausanne, Editions Berlitz, 1976, p (...)
• 2 Wiesner Birgit, Ganser Armin, Yugoslavia: Dalmatian Coast, from Zadar to the Makarska Riviera inclu (...)

1Postwar mass tourism transformed the eastern Adriatic coast of Yugoslavia from an underdeveloped periphery to a major international destination and a relatively privileged region by the end of the 1960s. Despite the dramatic changes that occurred in the coastal environment as a result of tourism’s explosion, the Yugoslav coast from Montenegro’s border with Albania to the Italo-Slovenian border had a reputation of being clean and well-preserved. With its bright blue sea, dramatic landscapes, and intact historical architecture, this was an idea that was promoted especially in tourism brochures and travel guidebooks. For example, one foreign travel guide to the city of Dubrovnik, published in 1976, told its readers that in southern Dalmatia “fortunately, the Yugoslavs have shown respect for the natural beauty. The economic boom rarely blurs their good sense and good taste. Few of the new hotels jar the environment.”1 Over a decade later, just before the collapse of the Yugoslav Federation and its descent into a bloody civil war (1991), a German- and English-language tourist guidebook for Dalmatia tells its readers that the waters of the Adriatic Sea are still “clean,” and that Yugoslavia has become “environment-conscious.” At the same time, they lament Dalmatia’s overcrowded beaches and the loss of many of the quaint little towns and undiscovered harbors that were once prominent. The authors claim that, “although you can see everywhere the more recent attempts by the authorities to preserve the historic buildings, it is, nevertheless, all too obvious that the beautiful land of Dalmatia is today dedicated to serving the tourist.”2

• 3 Taylor Karin, Grandits Hannes (eds), Yugoslavia’s Sunny Side: A History of Tourism in Socialism, Bu (...)
• 4 Vukonić Boris, Povijest Hrvatskog Turizma [History of Croatian Tourism], Zagreb, Prometej, 2005.
• 5 See for example the edited volumes Luthar Breda, Pušnik Maruša (eds), Remembering Utopia: The Cultu (...)

5A wealth of literature on Yugoslav and Adriatic tourism reveals the importance of touristic flows to the economies and societies of Yugoslavia and its successor states. The edited volume Yugoslavia’s Sunny Side: A History of Tourism under Socialism (2010) was groundbreaking in its historical approach to examining the social consequences of tourism in Yugoslavia.3 This volume and other important recent contributions have also drawn on the important work of Boris Vukonić, who historicized the development of tourism in Croatia by examining the growth and maturation of the tourist industry.4 5Despite the relevance of such works in helping us understand the trajectory of Adriatic tourism, these works only make passing mention of environmental topics.

• 6 Prokić Milica, “Contrasting the ‘Sunny Side’ : Goli Otok and the Islandness of a Political Prison i (...)

6Some important works historicizing environmental transformations on the Adriatic coast, however, are included in the 2017 volume Environmentalism in Central and Southeastern Europe: Historical Perspectives, edited by Hrvoje Petrić and Ivana Žebec Šilj. Yet while this volume includes an insightful analysis by Milica Prokić which breaks down the conceptual and physical “islandness” of two different Adriatic islands,6 tourism is not one of its major points of study. This means that to-date tourism and environmental protection in Yugoslavia have been hardly connected.

• 7 Briassoulis Helen, “Crete: Endowed by Nature, Privileged by Geography, Threatened by Tourism?,” Jou (...)
• 8 Buswell R. J., Mallorca and Tourism: History, Economy and Environment, Bristol, Channel View Public (...)

7As a contextual framework, it is therefore useful to note some recent works that explore the interconnections between coastal society, tourism, and the environment from a historical perspective in the nearby Mediterranean. Helen Briassoulis for example has shown how tourism’s success on the Greek island of Crete changed from being on a “sustainable trajectory” in the 1970s to increasing environmental degradation as tourism expanded rapidly in the 1980s.7 R.J. Buswell uses the case of Mallorca to show how the success of mass tourism has led to “the general degradation of the natural environment.”8 These cases studies from Mediterranean seasides outside of the Iron Curtain suggest some strong parallels between development in socialist and non-socialist states during the Cold War period. These parallels, however, do not tell the whole story, and as we will see, socialist Yugoslavia’s approach to touristic development was unique in many important respects.

• 9 Urry John, “The Tourist Gaze and the ‘Environment,’” Theory, Culture, and Society, vol. 9, n^o 3, 19 (...)
• 10 Visual preservation reflects the dual role of land- and sea-scapes in tourism, which serve as both (...)

9The narrative begins with a discussion of how and why the rise of Adriatic tourism factored into calls for coastal environmental protection. I conclude this section by demonstrating how what John Urry refers to as “aesthetic conservation” – the protection of visual elements of natural and built heritage9 – became such a powerful rationale at the cultural and rhetorical level. The following section examines the ways in which aesthetic conservation and visual preservation were first put into practice by Yugoslavia and its republics,10 especially Croatia, in plans to develop tourism on the coast, particularly the so-called South and Upper Adriatic projects and the Third Adriatic Project. The third and final section examines how the process of implementing visual protection at the official level led to both conflicts between different stakeholders, as seen in the case of the Dalmatian town of Omiš, and severe limitations in terms of responding to environmental pollution as played out on the Croatian island of Hvar. The conclusion sums up the ways in which Yugoslav socialism, heritage creation, and tourism led to an overreliance on visual preservation. Development plans based on this type of environmental protection have had mixed results, characterized by a successful tourism industry and marketing campaign, but an inability to create stable conditions for environmentally sustainable tourism development. The legacy of these socialist-era plans lasts into the present.

• 11 Urry, “Tourist Gaze and the Environment,” op. cit.
• 12 The Francophone concept of “patrimonialization,” as well as several other terms focused on “heritag (...)
• 13 Ibid., p. 17.

10According to John Urry, governments and leaders most often perform three different types of environmental conservation: aesthetic conservation, scientific conservation, and cultural conservation.11 12 While elements of each can be found in the Yugoslav leadership’s efforts, aesthetic conservation dominated as the leadership sought to protect a hybrid land- and sea-scape “in accordance with pre-given conceptions of beauty and the sublime.”13 . As we will see, the protection of the eastern Adriatic coastline – contemporaneous with and dependent on the rise of tourism – was based on engagements between the state, experts, local populations, and the environment itself.

• 14 Petrić Hrvoje, “About Environmental Policy in Socialist Yugoslavia,” in J.R. McNeill, Astrid Mignon (...)
• 15 Ibid., p. 174.

11Hrvoje Petrić has shown how environmentalism developed in socialist Yugoslavia since its foundations by looking at the rise of green movements, environmental protection engagements by the state, and also general awareness. From the 1960s onward, he explains, a general consciousness about the need for environmental protection can be discerned, which likely “reflects a transfer of ideas about environmental awareness from West to East of the sort prevalent elsewhere in Europe.”14 While Petrić’s analysis doesn’t quite mention the role of tourism, he discusses how Yugoslavia’s early environmental movements in the 1970s were based on a questioning of the “state’s traditional emphasis on industrial development, which seemed to imperil the foundations of life, such as air and water.”15 A questioning of the industrialization of the coast beginning in the 1960s came with calls for industry to be replaced by tourism. This carried an implicit argument that tourism was more environmentally friendly than industry. Therefore, this gradual turn towards environmental consciousness in Yugoslavia coincided with a rise in tourism, and also drew on tourism for support. But how impactful was the rise in tourism, and how did it factor into calls for environmental protection?

• 16 At the entrance of the Bakar Bay near Rijeka, for example, a new oil refinery had been built in 196 (...)
• 17 NSK 225.730. Republika Hrvatska, Državni Zavod za Statistiku. Turizam 1995 “Turisti i nočenja od 19 (...)

12By the 1960s, the Adriatic coast of Yugoslavia was undergoing dramatic new changes. New oil refineries had been built,16 new buildings and roads dotted the littoral, and more and more people filled the beaches. The total number of tourists visiting Croatia specifically between 1958 and 1990 increased dramatically and in a consistent trend of increasing numbers of foreign visitors. In 1958 over one million tourists were recorded, with domestic visitors outnumbering foreign ones. A decade later, the total number rose to almost 4 million, with over 3 million foreign guests and fewer than 700,000 domestic guests. From 1985 to 1988, over 10 million guests were recorded each year, by now overwhelmingly represented by foreigners.17

• 18 HR-HDA-2050. Republički Komitet za Turizam 58. Parliament to Bubić, 1975.
• 19 Tangi Mohamed, “Tourism and the Environment,” Ambio, vol. 6, n^o 6, 1977, p. 336-341 (340).
• 20 Taylor Karin, “Fishing for Tourists,” in Taylor, Grandits (eds), Yugoslavia’s Sunny Side, op. cit., (...)

13By the end of the 1960s, tourism had come already to dominate the economies of some coastal towns and communities like the Kvarner islands, southern Dalmatia, and parts of Istria. For example, the island Rab already had its “entire socio-economic development … based on the tourism and catering industry,” with up to 80% of its visitors being foreign by the mid-1970s.18 Elsewhere, tourism was rapidly expanding and making its mark on the coast as a whole. The upsurge in the number of guests, not just in Croatia but also in Slovenia, Montenegro, and Bosnia-Herzegovina, had cemented the place of Yugoslavia’s coast among the most visited of all Mediterranean destinations by the 1970s, just behind the more traditionally established hotspots of Italy, France, and Spain – yet far ahead of Greece and Turkey.19 Also, this growth catapulted the coast from being a poor and underdeveloped periphery to being one of the most economically privileged among all Yugoslav regions: it attracted investment funds for development and had higher living standards.20

• 21 Allcock John, “Yugoslavia’s Tourist Trade: Pot of Gold or Pig in a Poke ?,” Annals of Tourism Resea (...)
• 22 Allcock John, “Tourism and Social Change in Dalmatia,” The Journal of Development Studies, vol. 20, (...)

14Much of tourism’s success in the 1960s derived from political developments that were influenced by the promise of consistent inflows of hard currency. The Five-Year Plan for 1961-1965, for example, planned for a 75% expansion in tourist capacity, followed by an even greater emphasis on tourism in the 1966-1970 Plan.21 This led to further investment and allocation of credit and funds to the tourism sector, which in turn manifested in the erection of new resorts and the expansion of infrastructure, including the completion of the Adriatic Magistral Highway in 1965—thanks to which travelers no longer need yachts and ferries to visit Zadar or Split, or even Budva and other places in the southern Adriatic.22 Coupled with political developments like the visa-free regime for foreign visitors in 1967, tourism was on its way to becoming one of the most significant economic sectors on the Yugoslav Adriatic coastline, most of which fell under the territory of the Socialist Republic of Croatia.

• 23 Medanić, V., “Pomorska i Jadranska Orijentacija” [The Maritime and Adriatic Orientation], Pomorstvo(...)
• 24 Many of these representations, which can be found in the wealth of Yugoslav and Croatian-published (...)

15Although tourism was rapidly expanding, the importance of industry was still seen by the Yugoslav leadership as an essential factor in the modernization of the country, including on the coastline. In 1970, the president of the Croatian parliament, Dragutin Haramija, declared that more development was needed concerning coastal transport and the building of an oil pipeline off the coast, as well as the expansion of coking plants and steel mills. Haramija also proclaimed, however, that the tourism industry needed to be further developed in a way in which the “magnificent hotels and clean beaches” would satisfy the nature-seeking tourists and not spoil the landscape.23 This demonstration of an elite political voice conflating environmentally-responsible development with tourist satisfaction shows how the visual elements of the Adriatic could become essential concerns in policy development. Indeed, presenting and marketing Yugoslavia as a destination of pristine and well-preserved natural beauty (as well as built heritage) and an escape from industrialized life has a long pre-socialist history and has proved extremely successful well into the twenty-first century.24 What is significant to this analysis, however, is that the maturation of the socialist touristic marketing of the Adriatic coast coincided with an evident turn in environmental consciousness.

• 25 Žgaljić Josip, “Do kada neodgovorno zagađivanje, nestaje plavetnilo Jadranskog Mora” [Until when Ir (...)
• 26 Ibid.

17For example, the engineer Josip Žgaljić, who was an expert on oil research in the Adriatic, argued in 1973 that industrial pollution in the northern Adriatic, from Venice to Koper and Pula, would mean the “gradual and certain death of the (still) beautiful blue Adriatic.”25 He also specified how in central Dalmatia pollution and contamination from the fishing, shipping, oil and other industries were threatening the coast. “The Adriatic Sea is still, at least for now … a pleasant blue area where millions of people enjoy and use its benefits,” he maintained, but argued that the current generation needed to take increasing measures for the prevention of pollution. He especially favored laws and regulations that would result in the loss of building and operating permits if enterprises breached them.26

• 27 Iskra Dragutin, “Turizam ili Nafta ?” [Tourism or Oil ?], Pomorstvo, vol. 22, n^o 9-10, 1967, p. 309 (...)
• 28 Turina Ante, “Impostacija problema onečišćenja mora” [The Imposition of the Problem of Marine Pollu (...)

18An earlier example reflecting this sentiment can be found in the argument of Navy Captain Dragutin Iskra, who argued in 1967 that it should be expected that “more and more tourists from smokey cities of the European hinterland want to rush to our shores and our islands to take advantage of their holiday in the surroundings of untouched nature and crystal clear azure sea.” These surroundings, he cautioned, were under extreme danger of being degraded due to industrial pollution.27 Further examples appeared in later years. In 1974, Dr. Ante Turina, an economist and maritime studies expert, declared that “the Adriatic Sea is threatened by the agony of becoming a polluted sea. Therefore, the issue of protection of the Adriatic as a biological, aesthetic, and economic phenomenon makes it a major priority and task” at both the local and international level.28

• 29 Although the Yugoslav authors stressed a socialist vision of economic development, parallel rhetori (...)

19Without directly attacking industry as such, and implicitly accepting the value of industry, these articles drew attention to the notion that industry could harm the aesthetic beauty of the coast. They warned that the loss of natural beauty would negatively affect tourism, economic development, and – eventually – Yugoslavia’s international image. They also conflated environmental protection with successful tourism: tourists came, so the authors reasoned, because the natural surroundings were still pristine; and tourists would go, they warned, if and when the environment became degraded. Thus tourism was linked to environmentalism as a form of visual preservation.29 Implementing measures to protect the coast’s aesthetics, however, would be a tremendous task.

• 30 United Nations. Report of the Interregional Seminar on Physical Planning for Tourism Development. U (...)
• 31 United Nations. Press Release, “Experts on Tourism sent to Yugoslavia under United Nations Technica (...)
• 32 Ibid., p. 2.

21The Adriatic projects were the first large-scale cooperation between the UNDP and a single state. The projects spanned nearly a decade and a half. 30They began as early as 1964 (on the eve of the completion of the Adriatic Highway), when the Federal Government of Yugoslavia requested assistance from the UN in producing a detailed plan for the development of the southern Adriatic coastline, which roughly stretched from south of Zadar to Montenegro’s border with Albania. In response, a team of UN-affiliated experts led by the head of the Vienna University Tourism Institute, Paul Bernecker, traveled to Yugoslavia. At the request of the government, the experts were to tour the “various regions of the country recognized as traditional or potential tourist centres.”31 With representatives from Austria, Switzerland, France, and the United States, the “experiences of countries with highly developed tourist trades were considered essential” by the Yugoslav government.32 The international team spent two months in Yugoslavia touring the Montenegrin, Croatian, and Slovenian coasts, and culminated their trip in Belgrade with a conference involving representatives from various Yugoslav institutes.

• 33 United Nations. “An Evaluation of the Basic Factors,” p. 12. UN. TE 322/Yugoslavia, 1964, p. 140-14 (...)

22Overall, according to the discussion in Belgrade, it was determined that tourism should be the main mode of economic development in the southern half of the Adriatic, and that there was a “need to prevent the destruction of the landscape, and therefore of the economic potential of the national coastal territory, through special architectural and area planning provisions.”33 The conclusions of this UN technical assistance mission led directly to the initiation of the Adriatic projects.

• 34 Socijalistička Republika Hrvatska – Izvršno Vijeće [The Socialist Republic of Croatia – Executive C (...)
• 35 Informacija o Traženju Sredstava Specijalnog Fonda Ujedinjenih Nacija za Izradu Planova, Projekata, (...)
• 36 Letter from Savezni Zavod za Međunarodnu Tehničku Saradnju to SIV – Biro Sekretara [Federal Institu (...)

23One year after the conference in Belgrade, the UN experts’ recommendations convinced the Yugoslav government to request funds from the UNDP for the initiation of the Adriatic projects to focus on developing the “South Adriatic” region, especially the wider Dubrovnik area and the entire Montenegrin coast. President of the Croatian parliament Mika Špiljak informed the Yugoslav Federal Executive Council in Belgrade that the Croatian parliament had considered and accepted a proposal drawn up through cooperation between “relevant bodies” in Croatia and Montenegro.34 Špiljak cited the recommendations of the UN team as justification for planning touristic development in the entire Adriatic region, while arguing that the southern part of the Adriatic coast represented a “quintessential Mediterranean” seaside, largely underdeveloped with sufficient to sparse water supplies, various agricultural opportunities, sandy and pebbly beaches, forested areas, predictably warm climatic conditions, and well-preserved historical urban sites.35 This resulted in an official request to the UNDP by Yugoslavia for funds, and UNDP hastily accepted the request, initially promising support of just over 1 million USD.36

• 37 Mattioni Vladimir, Jadranski Projekti: Projekti Južnog i Gornjeg Jadrana, 1967-1972 [The Adriatic P (...)
• 38 Tekne-CEKOP was also involved in the reconstruction of Skopje after the 1963 earthquake.
• 39 Ibid., p. 54.

24While Yugoslavia looked to UNDP for assistance, the Yugoslav government was the main investor, contributing almost $6 million to the projects based largely on World Bank loans, while the UNDP ended up financing $1,650,000.37 Despite Yugoslavia providing the majority of the funds, the UNDP hired its own foreign consultants to assist the Yugoslavs. These were Shankland Cox & Associates (London), OTAM-Tourconsult (Paris and Rome), SWECO (Sweden), and Tekne-CEKOP (Milan-Warsaw).38 Unfortunately, correspondence between these foreign consultants and the Yugoslav teams, and therefore the extent of their contribution, are absent from the UNDP and national archives in Croatia and Serbia. Nevertheless, according to Vladimir Mattioni, the only author to have written extensively on the projects, it appears that the foreign firms took a far less important role, and the creation of the plans was mainly done by Yugoslavs.39

• 40 UNDP. Physical Development Plan for the South Adriatic Region: Master Plan for Hvar – Proposals for (...)
• 41 Taylor, Grandits (eds), Yugoslavia’s Sunny Side, op.cit., p. 10-11.
• 42 Zinganel Michael, “Unexpected Side Effects: Indirect Benefits of International Mass Tourism on Croa (...)
• 43 Mattioni, Projekti, op. cit., p. 10.

26The projects have received relatively scant attention in historical literature, perhaps due to their lack of concrete outcomes. For example, the uninhabited village of Malo Grablje on the island Hvar was envisioned as a site of smaller tourist dwellings, promenades, and new greenery.40 However, construction on transforming the village into a tourist settlement never materialized, and it remains largely uninhabited even now. Furthermore, the role of the federal state was merely to secure loans and disburse funding for projects, making the overall structure of power in the implementation of the plans a bit ambiguous. With these factors in mind, the first two Adriatic projects are usually brushed over in histories of tourism in Yugoslavia and Croatia, while the Third Project is hardly present at all. Most works that do mention the Adriatic projects tend to merely frame them as unfulfilled attempts at modernization. The edited work Yugoslavia’s Sunny Side, for example, merely mentions that the projects were ultimately unproductive.41 Michael Zinganel discusses the South Adriatic Project in his work on the social benefits of Adriatic tourism, pointing out how due to decentralization, local authorities “either downsized proposed designs to match their own needs and budgets or realized their own ideas instead.”42 They also lacked public involvement.43

• 44 Ibid., p. 43.

27Despite the lack of concrete outcomes in terms of construction, an important legacy of the South and Upper Adriatic projects is their establishment of an official approach towards environmental protection. As Vladimir Mattioni points out, at the projects’ completion, Yugoslavia found itself “at the forefront and a leader of environmental protection” in the Mediterranean region, making its paradigm of natural protection far more important than the completeness of the developmental fulfillment.44

• 45 UNDP, South Adriatic Project: Physical Development Plan for the South Adriatic Region of Yugoslavia (...)
• 46 UNDP, Orebić-Trstenica: Proposals for Tourist Development at Trstenica and the Extension of Orebić (...)
• 47 UNDP, Orebić-Trstenica, op. cit., p. 74.

28While the projects’ proclaimed goal was the overall socio-economic development of the coast, their main concern was tourism, which they considered to be a catalyst for general growth. The plans for the South Adriatic, for example, considered tourism to be the most suitable economic activity for the coast, much of which was still dominated by agriculture.45 Along with the developers’ faith in the potential of tourism to bring the region out of economic stagnation, environmental protection and preservation of the landscape were seen as a vital component, but the plans never quite defined what they meant by “environment” and “nature.” They most often seemed to be referring to built or natural areas of visual beauty, which in this case were mainly uninhabited beaches, coves, early modern architecture, green areas, and undeveloped surroundings. master plans for Orebić and Trstenica on the Pelješac Peninsula contained some further detail: Orebić should become a type of “garden city,”46 and any shops built on recently reclaimed land should remain single-story so as not to spoil the visual harmony of the area where the dominant elements would “remain the mountains, the landscape and sea.”47

• 48 UNDP, South Adriatic Project, op. cit., p. 18.

29This approach conveys the impression that the planners considered the touristic attraction of the coast to consist of the harmonization of the landscape between clear blue waters and heritage towns and sites. The finalized regional plan for the South Adriatic reveals that the working teams agreed that “the climatic advantages, landscapes and environmental riches of the area should be protected and used to the greatest possible extent for the physical and mental recreation [of the local and foreign population].”48 This idea that the environment should be simultaneously protected from overdevelopment and used for tourist recreation is the framework through which all the detailed plans operated.

• 49 UNDP, Labin: Prostorni Plan Razvoja Turizma: Završni Izvještaj [Labin: Spatial Plan for the Develop (...)

30The final plan for the Upper Adriatic took a similar approach and begins with a description of the physical features of the region. Unlike the South Adriatic, which was considered to have unified environmental features, the Upper Adriatic was highly varied from one area to the next. Because of this, environmental protection had to take into account each unique feature. The plans criticized the unplanned growth of tourist structures and urban areas and suggested that industry and tourism should not conflict with each other. The best way to do this, according to the plans, was to set clear boundaries between touristic and industrial-urban spaces. For example, Labin Municipality in eastern Istria was treated as a pristine site in need of both touristic development and protection of its landscape. In this district, the planners considered that the overall spatial character of the area was beautiful yet undeveloped and heavily agricultural; this made Labin perfect for developing tourism. They planned for a few small hotels to be built close to the beaches in a way that would not spoil the landscape, and therefore the main attraction of the area would be “represented by [the] originality of human relations and preserved but enriched nature and manner of living. They should be but peripherally affected by [modern industrial achievements].”49 In other words, the planners thought that Labin appeared pristine and untouched and should remain so, though at the same time, it should be accessible to a limited number of tourists.

• 50 UNDP, Physical Development Plan for the South Adriatic Region: Split Regional Plan, Split, Shanklan (...)

31The vagueness over what the planners meant when they said the projects needed to take the conservation of nature into account is in stark contrast to the detailed maps, drawings, and images of how new tourist settlements would be arranged and industrial and recreational zones separated. For the most part, they relied on elucidating general principles which mixed the natural and social characteristics of places: “the need to conserve the natural beauty of the coast and landscape, the compact form of the town sand villages, and the intimate quality of social life.”50 No strict definition of what aspects of the environment needed protection, nor any mention the methods to implement such protection, appeared. Instead, planners insisted on more general terms like protection of the landscape, surroundings, ambience, and scenery.

• 51 Parrinello Giacomo, Bécot Renaud, “Regional Planning and the Environmental Impact of Coastal Touri (...)
• 52 Pack, Tourism and Dictatorship, op. cit., p. 122.

32Although these projects were groundbreaking in terms of their financial and scientific engagement with the UN, similar projects were initiated elsewhere in the Mediterranean during the same period, especially in France and Spain. For example, the Mission Racine initiated by the French government also approached tourism, on the Languedoc Roussillon coast, as a driver of economic growth as well as a potential contributor to environmental sustainability.51 It is possible that these projects along the Mediterranean influenced each other, perhaps directly through the participation of cross-national experts in the planning processes. In Spain, the parallels to Yugoslavia’s planning included not only the bid for foreign investment, but also the need to manage conflicts between different groups of users, and the perceived need to avoid “unregulated” development.52

• 53 UNDP, South Adriatic Project – Physical Development Plan for the South Adriatic Region: Final Repor (...)
• 54 Ibid., p. 110-111.
• 55 Pack Sasha D., Tourism and Dictatorship: Europe’s Peaceful Invasion of Franco’s Spain, New York, Pa (...)

33There were, however, several differences between the Mediterranean projects. France’s projects, for example, were centrally planned by the national state.53 In Francoist Spain, touristic development took little account of environmental sustainability. Spain’s policies were more concerned with balancing the values of needed tourists from democratic parts of the west with those held by the conservative dictatorship.54 Coastal tourism appealed to the leadership as a method of initiating broader economic and social development that “offered myriad opportunities for entrepreneurship on every scale,” and presented Spain with an opportunity to regain international legitimacy and an exit out of political isolation.55

• 56 UN 1964, op. cit., p. 12.

34At least rhetorically, Yugoslavia’s projects and policies for developing the coast took Spain and France as negative models. For example, the visiting UN team to Yugoslavia in 1964 mentioned that due to environmental degradation in “some Mediterranean countries,” it had become clear that there was a “need to prevent the destruction of the landscape, and therefore of the economic potential of the national coastal territory, through special architectural and area planning provisions.”56 The Adriatic projects, as indicated above, imagined this achievement. Nevertheless, it was only the Third Adriatic Project, which was less concerned with spatial planning, that succeeded in presenting a unique effort to establish permanent coastal environmental protection in the Adriatic.

• 57 “Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment” (1972), online: http://www. (...)

35In 1972 – the same year that the Upper Adriatic Project reached its final phase – the Stockholm Conference, which was the first major international meeting to discuss environmental issues, was held and produced the Stockholm Declaration, which set the foundation for the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). The declaration begins with the proclamation that “man” is responsible for caring for the environment, as humans are both “creatures and molders” of nature.57 Yugoslavia spared little time in adopting this proclamation and attempting to make it a reality. As a direct reaction to the Stockholm Declaration, Franjo Gašparović, a professor on the Architecture Faculty at the University of Zagreb who had supervised the Adriatic projects, helped to initiate the Third Adriatic Project. This one dealt less with spatial planning for tourism and was more specifically concerned with the protection of the environment.

• 58 Often shortened, in Serbo-Croatian, to Jadran III.

36The Third Adriatic Project, officially titled “The Project for the Protection of the Human Environment in the Adriatic Region of Yugoslavia,”58 again sought cooperation with the UN. With UN and government funding, it lasted from 1972 until the end of 1978. Gašparović acted as director, and other leadership roles were dominated by Croatian republic-level institutions including the Republican Institute for Nature Protection, the Urban Institute of Croatia, and the Institute for Medical Research and Occupational Health-Zagreb. Also included in the project were members and representatives from other government organs, mostly republican committees and secretariats from each Yugoslav republic.

• 59 UNDP and the Government of Yugoslavia, “Projekt o Zaštiti Čovjekove Okoline u Jadranskoj Regiji Jug (...)
• 60 Ibid.
• 61 “Declaration of the United Nations Conference,” op. cit.
• 62 United Nations Development Programme. Project Document. Protection of the Human Environment in the (...)
• 63 DP/UN/YUG-72-004/1. UNDP and SFRY, document: Protection of the Human Environment in the Yugoslav Ad (...)

37Directly inspired by the spirit of the UN Conference in Stockholm, the immediate purpose of the Third Adriatic Project was to examine the consequences of the first two projects on the coastal environment, and it was considered to be a “logical continuation” of them.59 But it also had a functional purpose that would set the framework for all successive development in the Adriatic region. The plan was based on Principles 14 and 15 in the Stockholm Declaration, and according to the plan, all work was to be done based on these two principles.60 These two principles stipulated that development needed to be controlled in order to avoid conflict between the interests of economic development and environmental protection, and that planning for human inhabitants should be done in a way that both avoids negative impacts on the environment, and ensures equitable “economic and environmental benefits for all.”61 The ambiguity of these principles is evident, but the authors of the Third Adriatic Plan tried to apply them. An early version of the project from 1973 claimed that environmental protection would be “harmonized with the overall goals of socio-economic and physical development of the region.”62 Although the planners led by Gašparović did not specify how this could be accomplished, they pledged to establish a “bridge” between development and environmental protection.63

• 64 Ibid., Project Findings, p. 6, 10.
• 65 UNDP, Project Document op. cit., p. 10.
• 66 UNDP, Project Findings, op. cit., p. 52.

38The project gave vague recommendations to realize its primary goal to “define measures and actions needed to attain a dynamic balance between man and his environment, between development and the environment.” Most of its text rehearsed a familiar theme: that the “diverse landscapes and ample scenic attractions are the basic advantages of the Adriatic’s natural resources.”64 This natural landscape had an economic value (through tourism), and demanded protection.65 Interestingly, the Third Adriatic Project was more antagonistic towards industry than the previous plans. It identified industry as a problem for the tourism-designated coastline, and demanded that its value be weighed against that of tourism: “in the case of industries and other development operations carried out close to tourism sites their potential polluting impact of tourist activities must be considered in an aesthetic, ecological and financial sense.”66

• 67 Ibid., p. 13.
• 68 Gašparović Franjo, “The Project on the Protection of the Human Environment in the Yugoslav Adriatic (...)

39As opinion turned against further industrial development along the coast, experts and political leaders seemed to agree that the sea, despite growing concerns of pollution, was “well-preserved” and that its beauty could be protected if tourism was given priority on the coast.67 Franjo Gašparović went so far as to consider tourism and the environment to be allies, arguing in 1976 that “pollution emitted by the touristic sources is relatively insignificant, and can be abated by good management and sufficient finance.”68 However, while the authorities were confident in their ability to properly manage the environment and touristic development, as we will see, financing their visions would prove to be a challenge that thwarted many of their ideas on how to make tourism sustainable.

• 69 Međurepublička Komisija za koordinaciju zaštite Jadranskog područja i mora od zagađivanje, Zaštita (...)

40By the early 1980s, some experts viewed the guidelines established by the Third Adriatic Project as being in need of an update. A new Inter-Republican Commission for the Protection of the Adriatic, founded in 1981, published the document Environmental Protection and Spatial Planning in the Adriatic Region of Yugoslavia after [the Third Adriatic Project] (1982). The purpose of the document was to reflect on the Adriatic projects and set new parameters for how environmental protection in the Adriatic should be carried out in the 1980s and into the twenty- first century. The commission drew on the Third Adriatic Project and continued to stress that the sea was still “unpolluted” (u cjelini nezagađen), and therefore could be saved before further damages threatened its survival.69 In order to justify their program and plans for the protection of the coast, the commission – like the earlier plans – evoked the economic importance of the environment:

• 71 These features were described in the South Adriatic Project as excellent potential tourist attracti (...)

42Omiš in southern Dalmatia became a flashpoint for the type of use conflict that the Adriatic projects were meant to help avoid. With tourism rapidly expanding in southern Dalmatia in the mid-1960s, tension escalated in an episode that involved the public, state-owned enterprises, and the local government over the upgrading and expansion of heavy-polluting factories. The coastal town of Omiš and its surroundings have unique environmental features due to the dramatic canyon of the Cetina River which cuts through the steep karstic mountains of the region, jutting down onto the immediate coastline and separating the seashore from the arid hinterland (see figure 2). The greenish waters of the Cetina River, which begins at the Dinaric Alps, flows directly into the bright blue waters of the Adriatic at Omiš, heightening the dramatic impressions of the scenery. Due to the impressive but difficult terrain and physical makeup of the river canyon and karstic landscape, urban development in Omiš is significantly restricted by the geological features. While the town itself partly straddles the shoreline, the rest sits on the banks of the river and expands eastward away from the coast. The touristic potential of this unique land- and sea-scape stems from its access to both the river and the sea, along with a deep historical tradition dating back to the medieval and early modern periods.71

• 72 Ibid., p. 134.
• 73 “Kratka Povijest Tvornice” [A Short History of the Factory] Gospodarstvo, Dugi Rat, March 15, 2014, (...)

43Despite this unique beauty, the architects of the region’s development pointed out that “the full realization of the touristic potential of Omiš will depend on ending the present pollution of the air by the carbide and cement factories.”72 In addition to being known for its environmental and historical heritage, since the beginning of the twentieth century the coastal strip around Omiš had seen the construction of factories directly straddling the shoreline, including the Dalmacija carbide factory at Dugi Rat (1914), the Kraljevac hydroelectric plant on the Cetina River (1912), and the Renko Šperac cement factory in Ravnice (1908). Some of their dangers were well-known. The Dalmacija carbide factory in Dugi Rat, for example, had horrible working conditions before nationalization; workers were covered by black dust from packing cyanamide (a fertilizer), and experienced severe health problems.73 After suffering damage during World War II, most of the factories were reconstructed and began operating once again under the now nationalized companies running them, and parts of the Dalmacija factory were even upgraded based directly on Italian models by 1962.

• 74 Tiranić, A., “Neiskorištene mogućnosti Omiške komune” [The Unutilized Possibilities of the Omiš Com (...)
• 75 UNDP, Split Regional Plan, op. cit., p. 134.
• 76 V.K. “Hoće li nestati cementne prašine iz Omiša ?” [Will the Cement Dust Disappear from Omiš ?], Vj (...)

44Despite the continued significance of these now aged factories, many locals in Omiš in the 1960s, as tourism grew, started to consider them to be superfluous at best, and at worst, clear enemies of the region’s heritage and potential to develop tourism. By 1963 Omiš had over 4,000 tourist beds, 3,000 of which were in private accommodations belonging to local residents, which meant, according to one Borba news article, that along the coastal strip there was not a single resident who had not been involved in tourism. With leading points like this, journalists and others could argue that it was therefore, tourism – and to a lesser extent agriculture – not industry, that were the future of Omiš.74 While people directly employed in state-owned hotels were less representative, thousands of Omišans engaged with tourism through renting out private rooms in their homes, a practice which had become almost ubiquitous in the region. On the other hand, by the end of the 1960s there were around 2,000 people in Omiš employed in industry and construction,75 with about 280 workers employed by Dalmacija.76

• 77 Kaštelan Jure, “Predgovor” [Foreward], in Poljički Zbornik : Kulturno-Prosvjetno Društvo Poljičana, (...)

45Relatively swiftly, an intense use conflict emerged between pro-industry and pro-tourism camps, with many of the those who depended on both being caught in the middle. In the late 1960s, plans to convert the cement factory in Dugi Rat into a ferrochrome factory aided by an investment from the U.S.-based Phillips Brothers Consortium were announced, and this immediately drew protests from local residents along with the Zagreb-based Društvo Poljičana (The Society of Poljicans) cultural organization, who made their anti-industrial position very vocal. This group of intellectuals and experts were dedicated to preserving and promoting the history of Poljica, a strip of coastal land near Omiš with a unique history that included an early modern independent peasant republic and pirates. The society (founded in 1953) also emphasized the ethnic makeup of the region in ways that could have been perceived as nationalistic by the Croatian republican and Yugoslav federal authorities, including a statement by the editor of their journal that “the people of Poljica are Croats, and they have always called their language: Croatian.”77

• 78 Gracin, Z., Jelenčić F., “Antituristička Tvornica” [Anti-Touristic Factory], Večernji List (10/14/1 (...)

46Much of the protest by Društvo Poljičana and other pro-tourism advocates was directed against the appointment of Milan Trgo as mayor of Omiš in 1969. They objected to the fact that Trgo would act simultaneously as one of the main technical directors of the Dugi Rat carbide factory and be involved in the plan to upgrade the facility. The opposition cited the South Adriatic Project, noting that it designated Omiš as a site for the development of tourism. Since the upgrading of the factory would interfere with the development of tourism, they argued, it therefore contradicted the plans laid out in the project. Furthermore, they demanded that the ferrochrome facility construction be halted and that the loan from the Philips Brothers Consortium be postponed in favor of further analysis and research by expert institutions, especially the Institute for Medical Research and Occupational Health-Zagreb, concerning the health hazards posed by the chemical dust that would be produced by the proposed factory.78

• 79 Ibid.
• 80 Ibid.
• 81 The pro-factory camp was led by Milan Trgo and the president of the Dalmacija Worker’s Council, Vla (...)
• 82 This was heavily disputed, one Borba news article relays a claim by a correspondent in Split that t (...)

47A tense conflict ensued after Društvo Poljičana “energetically opposed” the construction of the new factory by sending remonstrances to the President of the Omiš Assembly, the main Yugoslav investor in the plan Dalmacijacement, the Assembly in Split, and several expert institutions.79 The opposition also spread information that four of the managers of the factory, called out by name in one Večernji List news article, had allocated funds for the factory to buy an exclusive villa in the Meje neighborhood of Split so that they would be “spared from the dust” of the factory.80 This, the society argued, proved that the factory managers didn’t care about the region or its working people, and that the factory would be a heavy polluter. Those in favor of the factory,81 however, also claimed that the citizens were on their side, since the factory employed a large portion of the population.82

• 83 Braut Ivo, “Nerođena Omiška tvornica” [The Unborn Factory in Omiš], Vjesnik (11/23/1969), in HR-HDA (...)

48The local League of Communists responded by condemning Društvo Poljičana’s involvement, with Milan Trgo himself arguing that the South Adriatic Project’s plans for tourism would not come into fruition for up to a decade, that in the meantime the people of Omiš needed to secure a living, and that the factory’s upgrade and expansion would most efficiently contribute to the people’s livelihood.83 His solution for the coexistence of tourism and industry was to install filters in the factory’s chimneys. However, the society was not satisfied with the mayor’s solution.

• 84 Gracin, “Antituristička,” op. cit.
• 85 Mudronja, M., “Priobalni Omiš za turizam” [Coastal Omiš for Tourism], Vjesnik (6/18/1970) in HR-HDA (...)
• 86 F.J., “Omiš,” Večernji List (1/8/1971) in HR-HDA, F.2031-VND, HRV-391, Box 1368, Folder J-10.2, Spl (...)

49The contest continued. Both sides referenced the South Adriatic Project. The opposition cited the project as proof that Omiš was to be reserved for the development of tourism; the pro-factory camp argued that the project was unclear and would be slow to implement, and that the Split Regional Plan stated there was no detailed plan for Omiš yet. Društvo Poljičana and its supporters, for their part, pursued clarification from the experts involved in the Adriatic projects on the plans for Omiš and the place of industry.84 Meanwhile, though the Municipal Assembly of Omiš had been reported as voting earlier in favor of the factory, in June of 1970 a Vjesnik news article announced that the Local Assembly had declared unanimously that the future of Omiš would be dedicated to tourism, that the Renko Šperac cement factory in Ravnice should be closed, and that the Dalmacija factory should be forced to have up-to-date filters installed. Altogether, “it was decided that the prevention of air pollution should be taken into account when raising new industries.” 85With this decision, the municipality continued a “parallel approach” to industry and tourism in which each had to make some compromises.86 Industry and tourism would continue to develop side-by-side.

• 87 Mimica M., Politika (7/2/1974) in HR-HDA, F.2031-VND, HRV-391, Box 1368, Folder J-10.2, Split/Opć. (...)
• 88 N.V., Vjesnik (Split, 8/27/1975) in HR-HDA, F.2031-VND, HRV-391, Box 1368, Folder J-10.2, Split/Opć (...)

50By 1974, the filters had been installed at the Dalmacija plant and seem to have abated some of the air pollution.87 But the contest between local government and Društvo Poljičana continued. In August 1975, the Omiš League of Communists declared that they recognized and supported the society’s educational and cultural work, but that “nationalist and clericalist” elements could be found in the society’s leadership, and that these elements had acted outside of and contrary to the formal parameters of the Constitution and the Socialist Alliance during the conflict over the factory. Accepting this criticism, Društvo Poljičana’s board of directors collectively resigned and a new committee was appointed that was tasked with “harmonizing” the goals of the society according to “constitutional principles.” In the end, the headquarters were moved from Zagreb to Omiš with the intent that the society would be solely dedicated to the history of Poljica and the region. In other words, they would stay out of politics and contemporary questions of economic development.88

• 89 Bakula Marijana et al. (eds), Sanacijski Program Tvorničkog Kruga Bivše Tvornice Ferolegura u Dugom (...)

51While Društvo Poljičana would continue to function in a much more inconspicuous manner, the Dalmacija factory in Dugi Rat operated until the year 2000, despite ongoing protests. It was finally demolished after the 2008 global financial crisis, with many of its materials discarded into the sea and the site left contaminated by the production of chemicals.89 Now only an empty lot on the shore of the Adriatic, the site of the former factory has awaited a new tourist facility since its closure.

• 90 Žižić Dujmo, Marasović Katja, “Tvornica cementa i tvorničko naselje u Ravnicama pokraj Omiša” [The (...)

53A decade after the conflict over the Dalmacija carbide factory, another anti-industrial, pro-tourism environmental movement emerged in Omiš. This one had a far clearer agenda and body of support. It resulted in the eventual and permanent closure of the Renko Šperac cement factory, whose planned closure was halted in favor of a potential update. This conflict resulted in an overwhelming victory for tourism in Dalmatia, and a symbolic victory for tourism on the entire Adriatic coast of Yugoslavia. Unlike the episode in Dugi Rat, the Renko Šperac cement factory’s proposals to re-organized were quickly and drastically thwarted, and the complex was fully closed by 1983.90

• 91 Stari Grad Bay is relatively shallow and is heavily indented, which blocks it from currents.
• 92 HDA. Socijalistička Republika Hrvatske, Republički Komitet za Turizam. Box 57, 2.131 and 2.132 Zašt (...)

55An example of how the ambiguities in official policy left environmental problems unaddressed can be found in the island with the most successful tourism economy in the southern Adriatic, the island of Hvar. A detailed master plan for Hvar was included as part of the South Adriatic Project, and tourism was considered to be the main economic base by which all planning should be determined. The planners emphasized the natural beauty of the island and suggested that its future development should not “spoil” its natural and built scenery. But a decade after the plans were created, sewage problems were still haunting islanders, tourists, and planners alike. In 1976, at the request of the Commune of Hvar, the Institute of Oceanography and Fisheries (Institut za oceanografiju i ribarstvo, IZOR) in Split conducted a field study in the island’s Stari Grad Bay to determine levels of pollution (see figure 3). The resulting report established that most of the bay was contaminated by fecal water at levels such that its shellfish and mollusks, like mussels and clams, should be banned from consumption. The IZOR experts also claimed that a new sewer system was needed desperately, with better treatment and pumping further away from the immediate coastline into the open sea where currents could catch the waste.91 Along with the biological problems under the surface, the town was plagued by a foul smell that both tourists and locals complained about.92

• 93 HDA. Republički Komitet za Turizam. 57/2050. 2.13.2. Mjesna Zajednica Stari Grad, “Molbe za pomoć u (...)

56Almost ten years later, in 1986, the problems still had not been solved. That year the local Commune of Hvar sent a letter to the Executive Council of the parliament in Zagreb asking for assistance. In the letter, the representatives from Hvar referenced the South Adriatic Plan for its acknowledgment of the island’s touristic potential and how tourism could continue to grow without spoiling the natural beauty. However, they argued, this could not be possible unless the problem of sewage was solved. The letter claimed that, based on the report by IZOR, the Stari Grad Bay was “one big septic tank.”93 Although the district of Hvar had begun work on sewage treatment with their own funds, they requested an additional 300 million dinars from the republic budget to help build a new sewer pipeline. They ended claiming that if they did not receive immediate help, an epidemic would be introduced that would certainly destroy tourism in the area and negatively affect the whole of Yugoslavia.

• 94 HDA. Republički Komitet za Turizam. 57/2050. 2.13.2. Socijalistička Republika Hrvatske – Izvršno vi (...)
• 95 Republic of Croatia – Ministry of Development and Reconstruction, National Island Development Progr (...)

57Despite the compelling argument from Hvar, almost a year lapsed before parliament responded: after discussing the matter with the republican committees for tourism and for construction, parliament had decided to deny the request for funds. The response continued: the cleaning of the bay and the reconstruction of the sewage system did not reflect a “general social need,” and therefore funds could not be secured from the republican budget.94 Providing no concrete suggestions, the parliament declared that the matter should be undertaken with the interest of workers’ self-management in mind, as well as collaboration with the self-managing wastewater management groups in Split. After the denial of funding, the issue of sewage in Hvar went unabated up to the collapse of socialist Yugoslavia. In 1997 most wastewater on Hvar was still being pumped directly into the sea without proper treatment, and many towns and villages still had no sewers at all.95

• 96 HR-HDA. Republički Komitet za Turizam 2050. Box 58, 2.13.2 Zaštita Okoliša. Prijedlog Deklaracije o (...)

59In 1992, for example, working closely with the new Ministry for Environmental Protection, Spatial Planning, and Construction, the Croatian parliament drew up a draft Declaration of Environmental Protection in the Republic of Croatia. The declaration remarks that Croatia, due to its historical circumstances, has been unsuccessful in protecting its natural resources in many areas. With this in view, it pledges to rectify past mistakes by implementing “special measures to rehabilitate the most endangered parts of the Adriatic coastal area, preventing its further pollution … to preserve the attractiveness of the Adriatic area, extremely important for economic prosperity.”96As this declaration makes clear, despite Croatia’s attempts throughout the 1990s to distance itself from the state-socialist environmental policies of Yugoslavia – in which Croatia’s republican leadership often took a role – the new government (led by the Croatian Democratic Union [Hrvatska demokratska zajednica, HDZ]) maintained an identical view of the coast, seeing it as a valuable national resource in need of protection due to its economic potential.

• 97 UN, Economic Commission for Europe, Committee on Environmental Policy, Environmental Performance Re (...)
• 98 Dwyer Larry, “Introduction,” in Larry Dwyer, Renata Tomljenović, Sanda Čorak (eds), Evolution of De (...)

60By the time Croatia entered into the twenty-first century, it had adopted a new tourism slogan: “The Mediterranean as it Once Was.” This was a clear reflection of the continued success that ideas about the preserved nature of the Adriatic coastline brought to Croatian tourism. Tourism became so successful under the new tagline that while the number of foreign tourist overnight stays in 1997 was only 61.5% of the 1985 total (over 40 million),97 by 2015 the number of overnights swelled to over 70 million, surpassing the previous 1986 peak record of around 68 million.98 But the vague measures outlined in Yugoslavia’s Adriatic projects continue to inspire approaches toward coastal protection in the face of such dramatic rises in tourism by emphasizing its beauty. This emphasis might have helped ensure tourism’s success, but it also overlooks problems like enduring use-conflicts and pollution in the sea.

• 99 UN, Croatia 1999, op. cit., p. 161-162.

61The ambiguities in the Adriatic projects that carried forward into the environmental policies of the 1980s and 1990s ensured that Yugoslavia and Croatia were able to maintain a reputation of protecting the visual environment, and that Adriatic tourism was environmentally friendly.99 On this reputation, Yugoslavia was a leader in transnational Mediterranean protection networks including the Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP) and the Blue Plan. Independent Croatia also benefitted from international trust in its conservation strategies, successfully inducting three Adriatic sites into the UNESCO World Heritage list (in Dubrovnik, Kotor, and Split).

• 100 OECD, Environmental Policies in Yugoslavia, a Review by the OECD and its Environment Committee unde (...)
• 101 ibid., p. 137.

62Yugoslavia did make substantial commitments to environmental protection. It boasted dozens of national parks with more square kilometers under protection than in France, Italy, Turkey, and Spain,100 including seven national parks in Croatia and Montenegro that together covered over 68,000 hectares.101

• 102 Wiesner, Yugoslavia, op. cit., p. 4.

63Nevertheless, the Adriatic projects, especially the Third Adriatic Project, contribute to a mixed legacy of Yugoslav environmentalism. The process of commodifying heritage that occurred on the eastern Adriatic coast ensured that the visual aspects of its environment – its clear blue waters, intact ancient and early modern architecture, and dramatic landscapes – were preserved in ways that would attract tourists. This was done through international collaboration and in the framework of the dominant values of Yugoslavia’s socialist society. Local conflicts over the use of resources, priority areas of development, and disagreements about the best method for achieving modernity could all be contained within a commitment to maintaining the region’s aesthetics, even without an equal commitment to maintaining the health of people, animals, land, air, or water. As the tourist guidebook quoted at the beginning of this analysis claimed, by the time the Yugoslav Federation ended, parts of the coast – like Dalmatia – had been, and continue to be, “dedicated to serving the tourist.”102