Enhancing Forest Protected Areas System of Turkey Developing a Business Plan for Küre Mountains National Park and its Buffer Zone

Transcription

1 Enhancing Forest Protected Areas System of Turkey Developing a Business Plan for Küre Mountains National Park and its Buffer Zone Camille Bann Final Report January 2010

2 Table of Contents 1. Background Objective of assignment Scope Approach Over view of KMNP and its buffer zone Preliminary Economic Valuation of KMNP The rationale for valuation Socio-Economic Context Framework for Analysis Provisioning Services Regulating Services Cultural Services Sustainable Financing Analysis for KMNP Overview of Protected Area Financing in Turkey Sustainable financing mechanisms for KMNP Developing a Business Plan Background Challenges facing KMNP Draft Business Plan Steps to Developing the Business Plan Implementation Guidelines Replication Plan Annexes Annex 1. Summary of Financing Scorecards for Turkey Annex 2. Draft Framework of Sub programs Annex 3. Workshop Materials Annex 4. List of Meetings ii

3 Exchange rate 1 USD = 1.50 TL iii

4 1. Background 1.1 Objective of assignment The objective of this assignment was to assist the Ministry of Environment and Forestry in the development of a business plan for the Küre Mountain National Park (KMNP) and its buffer zone, and to recommend how the business planning process could be replicated in eight other forest hotspots in Turkey. 1.2 Scope This 20 day consultancy included an initial assessment of the economic value of the Küre Mountains National Park and the buffer bone, a review of sustainable finance options for the area, and the development of recommendations for developing a business plan for the park and the buffer zone and the replication of this plan across similar sites in Turkey. A two day training course was also provided for 19 people (see Annex 3 for workshop agenda, exercises and list of attendees). The project 1 aims to develop a management plan for the KMNP and a strategy for the buffer zone over the next eighteen months. This management plan will build on a study by Appleton, It is proposed that the Küre Mountains should be managed as a single landscape, comprising a large number of linked and related ecosystems (i.e. rather than looking at the park and the buffer zone as separate jurisdictions). The ecosystems within the area vary from watershed to watershed (particularly influenced by their northerly or southerly aspect) and according to altitude, from the upper slopes of the core area to the lower lying areas. The business plan will set out the financial reality of the management plan, and strategies for maximising the economic potential of the park and buffer zone based on an economic analysis of the area and a review of suitable financing instruments. Given that the management plan is only at the initial stages of development, it is not possible to specify the final programs and activities to be costed under the business planning process at this stage. The business planning component of this assignment has therefore focussed on communicating the objectives and role of the business plan to the project team and park managers and working on drafting outlines and processes for developing the required information. A workplan for finalising the business plan is provided in section 4. The economic valuation of the park is based largely on transfer values and anecdotal information and will be developed over the coming year following a number of specialised studies on, for example, non-timber forest products (NTFP) and tourism. 1 GEF MSP PIMS 1988: Enhancing Coverage and Management Effectiveness of the Subsystem of Forest Protected Areas in Turkey s National System of Protected Areas. 2 Appleton, Outline of a Kure Mountains Conservation, Landscape Management and Sustainable Development Strategy. Government of Turkey / UNDP. GEF MSP PIMS 1988: Enhancing Coverage and management Effectiveness of the Subsystem of Forest Protected Areas in Turkey s National System of Protected Areas.

5 1.3 Approach The information in the report is based on a review of the available reports and data, meetings and interviews during a 10 day mission to Turkey (December 2009) and information developed through tailored exercises at the training workshop. 1.4 Over view of KMNP and its buffer zone KMNP was declared a national park in It covers 37,00ha, with a buffer zone of 80,000ha. The core area is delineated by a range of cliffs and canyons that include pristine and semi pristine natural mixed deciduous and coniferous forest. The global significance of the Küre Mountains biodiversity has been highlighted by its inclusion in the WWF s list of European forest hotspots for conservation. The site is considered to represent the best remaining example of deciduous and coniferous forest of the North Anatolia ecoregion as well as being the best remaining example of the highly endangered karstic mountain areas of the Black Sea Humid Forests ecotype (WWF, 2001). 3 Karstic areas are typically poor in vegetative cover. However, the Küre Mountains with their 1000m thick Jurassic-Cretaceous era limestones not only demonstrate typical karstic properties, but are also covered with lush forest due to the humid climate. The Küre mountains hosts 40 out of the 132 mammals in Turkey, including large mammal species, such as gray wolf, brown bear, Eurasian lynx, red deer, roe deer and wild boar. The park and its buffer zone have been identified as one of the 122 Important Plant Areas (IPA), and also one of the 305 Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) in Turkey. A draft development plan (DDP) was prepared for the park in This plan set out generic principles of management and mapped the park s boundaries 4. The plan distinguishes 3 zones a strict protection zone, a low density recreation zone and a rehabilitation zone. The plan also identifies a buffer zone around the outside of the national park, consisting of a wildlife conservation zone, game management zone, landscape protection zone and an ecological restoration zone. However, the plan was not finalised or officially endorsed. This project seeks to deliver an officially endorsed management plan. It will update and complete the DDP and develop a number of sub plans for key areas such as ecotourism and NTFPs. Management of the area is complicated by the fact that while the buffer zone is legally gazetted, current legislation does not define what a buffer zone is and makes no provision for how such an area should be managed and governed. The General Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Parks (GDNCNP) is responsible for the park, while the General Directorate of Forestry (GDF) coordinates activities around the KMNP. The General Directorate of Forest Village Affairs (ORKOY) provides credit to forest related development activities. A detailed description of the park and the buffer zone can be found in the project document (UNDP, 2008) 5. 3 WWF, Mediterranean Forest: A New Conservation Strategy 4 Kure Daglari National Park, Development Plan. Prepared by the Ministry of Forestry (General Directorate of National Parks and Game-Wildlife) in collaboration with UNEP and FAO UNDP, Project Document GEF MSP PIMS 1988: Enhancing Coverage and Management Effectiveness of the Subsystem of Forest Protected Areas in Turkey s National System of Protected Areas 2

6 2. Preliminary Economic Valuation of KMNP This section presents an identification and initial economic assessment of the ecosystems services both within the KMNP and its Buffer Zone 6. The identification of the economic values for the Kure Mountains National park and its buffer zone is based on WWF s recent qualitative assessment of the benefits of the area 7, interviews and meetings with people involved in the management and use of the park and its buffer zone, and discussions at the workshop. The initial economic values presented are largely based on default assumptions and transfer values from existing studies, and therefore reflect a large degree of uncertainty. The value estimates are supported by anecdotal evidence from informal interviews carried out as part of this assignment. While these estimates can be used as ball park estimates of the value of the various ecosystem services, tailored research, including surveys, is required to develop these initial values. Recommended steps to develop the economic valuation of the KMNP and its buffer zone are presented after each ecosystem service in section This section therefore reflects an initial demonstration of the value of the park and its buffer zone. In order to realise or capture these demonstrated values, in most cases arrangements needs to be put in place through the management plan and evaluated in the business plan. 2.1 The rationale for valuation The economic valuation of the KMNP and its buffer zone attempts to monetise not only the financial flows from the park, but also the non-marketed services such as recreation, subsistence use of NTFPs and carbon storage which contribute to the welfare of society. Identification and monetisation of the full range of services and benefits provides important information to decision makers and is a powerful communication tool. It can demonstrate the potential benefits of protection and sustainable management, and the potential economic costs of non-sustainable practices. Such an analysis can also inform decisions over alternative uses of the area, for example setting out the social and environmental impacts and the opportunity cost of hydro-electric developments within the park and its buffer zone. The economic analysis highlights the potential value of the area based on sustainable use. In order to realise the full value of the area however mechanisms to capture these values need to be defined. For example in the case of KMNP and its buffer zone maximizing nontimber forest products, tourism, and carbon values will depend on specific institutional arrangements that can be developed between national and international stakeholders as part of the management of the park. Valuation of the area therefore underpins strategies to maximise the value of the area through the business planning process. 6 All values presented in this report are nominal values that are no account has been taken of inflation where pre 2009 data has been presented. Unless stated 2009 values are presented. 7 Stolton, S and Higgins, L, Protected Area Benefits Assessment Tool. Kure Daglari Milli Parki,. Turkey. WWF 3

7 2.2 Socio Economic Context The total population of the national park s administrative districts (Kastamonu and Bartin) is approximately 221,000, of which 30 % live in the province and district centres and 70 % are in rural settlements (Table 1). The inverse is true for Turkey as a whole, for which the urban population is 65 % of, and rural settlements and 35 % of the total. Province Table 1. Population of Kastomounu and Bartin Province District 2000 Census Urban Rural Total Kastamonu Pinarbasi 2,262 3,619 5,881 Azdavya 3,496 5,514 9,940 Cide 5,795 17,260 23,055 Senpazar 2,678 3,814 6,492 Bartin Kurucasile 2,074 6,668 8,742 Amasra 6,235 9,730 15,965 Centre 36,274 95, ,965 Ulus 4,223 25,646 29,869 Total 63, , ,979 % Source: Project Document, 2008 The rate of decrease in rural population in the region is far higher than the national average, for example, the rural population in the districts of Pınarbaşı and Azdavay, has decreased by half within the last 10 years. Present indicators point out that this decrease will go on for some time, mainly affecting the districts of Kurucaşile, Amasra and Ulus. KMNP and its buffer zone There are almost no settlements in the core area of KMNP. Around the park there are some 20-30,000 people (varying seasonally) in about 60 rural settlements in eight districts (2000 data, Stolton and Higgins 2009). Around 40 of these settlements are estimated to be in Bartin. Socio-economic data specific to the buffer zone villages appears to be limited. The major economic activities in the region are forestry, agriculture, apiculture, wooden handicrafts, weaving, chestnut collecting and tourism. In the poorest forests zones in Kastamonu per capita income is currently lower than 870 TL / year (US$ 580). This can be compared to the average national wage of 7,600 TL / year (US$ 5,050). Income is slightly higher in Bartın because of employment in local coal mines and iron and steel works. Strategies to increase local livelihoods are therefore a key issue for the management and business plan. Most young people move away from the area to find work and many villages, especially in the upper valley landscapes, are populated entirely by elderly retirees. If nothing changes it 4

8 is predicted that these villages will be deserted in 20 years from now. As farmland is no longer worked it is steadily reverting to forest. In Kastamonu the forest area is estimated to have expanded by about 10% in the past 10 years. The populations of bear, wild boar and roe deer have increased as a result, which have caused damage to local farmland with significant negative impacts on livelihoods of the remaining farmers. Appleton, 2009, states From a purely conservation point of view, this decline of rural communities may be considered a good thing. However local people, traditions, customs, design, cuisine and styles of construction are part of the fabric of Küre Mountains Landscape. Traditional agriculture uses organic practices that are increasingly relevant today. Traditional crop and animal varieties may be an important genetic resource. The presence of open, mixed, traditionally farmed land may ensure the survival of many important plant and animal species that would not be present if the area was entirely forested. Recommendation: Developing a socio-economic profile of the buffer zone villages It is recommended that the project obtains (or generates) a list of the villages in the buffer zone and their profile (number of households and basic socio-economic characteristics). This may be available from public records, if not this could be generated through the NTFP survey work. This will help in the analysis of the non timber forest products (NTFPs), for example it could inform the aggregation of the NTFP values, and in determining opportunities to increase local livelihoods in the area. It is apparent that villages in the area are not homogenous in terms of their natural resource base and its use, challenges and opportunities. For example Bartin has more agricultural land and industry. An over view of the characteristics of each villages would enable a potential categorisation of the villages and the development of specific actions to support their development. 2.3 Framework for Analysis The services and benefits of the KMNP and its buffer zone have been characterised within an Ecosystems Services Approach (ESA). The ESA provides a framework for considering whole ecosystem services in decision making and for valuing the services they provide to facilitate maintenance of a resilient and sustainable natural environment. An ecosystem is a natural unit of living things (animals, plants and micro-organisms) and their physical environment such as a forest or river. Ecosystem services are the services provided by the natural environment that results in outputs or outcomes that benefit people. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 8 framework is a widely accepted categorisation of ecosystem services and identifies four categories of services and benefits: Provisioning services are products obtained from the ecosystem and may include timber, food and water; Regulating services are the benefits provided through the regulation of ecosystem processes and may include climate and disease control and flood alleviation; and Cultural services are the non-material benefits that people obtain through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development and recreation and include recreational and aesthetic enjoyment. 8 (Synthesis Reports Library) 5

9 Underpinning the provisioning, regulating and cultural services are supporting services such as soil formation and nutrient cycling, which are necessary for the production of all other ecosystem services. It is important to note that the term benefits is taken to mean the final benefits or outcomes realised by society from the services provided by the KMNP and its buffer zone. The benefits generated by supporting services are not valued independently as they are intermediate benefits which contribute to the provision of a range of final benefits. Table 2 presents a typology of the services and benefits provided by the park and its buffer zone. This typology was agreed at the project workshop. It is important to note that some benefits are mutually exclusive. For example capitalising on the carbon storage function of the forest has implications for timber exploitation and it is often difficult to maximize biodiversity as well as timber extraction. For this reason carbon storage is recognised as a value for the park, but not the buffer zone, while timber values are only estimated for the buffer zone. A separate economic analysis and business plan analysis is proposed for the park and the buffer zone, due to their different uses, functions and institutional arrangements. The values could ultimately be added to give a total value for the combined area. A key motivation for designating Küre Mountains as a protected area is to conserve its biodiversity. An expected global benefit of the project will be to stabilise and rehabilitate Küre mountains globally significant karstic landscapes and its biodiversity. Regionally the forests are part of the Euxin section of Euro-Siberain Floristic region and represent the best remaining examples of humid kartsic forest of the Black Sea (UNDP, 2008). The typology recognises biodiversity non-use as a distinct benefit component; other elements of biodiversity value are captured through the provisioning and regulating services. The nonuse (existence) value of biodiversity can only be estimated through stated preferences techniques, which required specialised surveys and are expensive and time consuming to undertake. Multi Functional Forest Functional Management Plans The GDF is in the process of developing multi functional forest plans across Turkey. The main categories of the multi functional plans economic, ecological and social and subcultural, can be fairly easily mapped onto the ecosystem services framework. As a result the forest department is familiar with the full range of goods and services offered by forest areas, and will be collecting information and data on these functions in the development of their management plans. In Kastamonu updated forest plans for each forest sub districts should be completed in 3 years. A forest management plan will be developed for the park in

10 Table 2. Typology of Ecosystem Services in the KMNP and Buffer Zone. Ecosystem service category Benefit KMNP Buffer Zone Provisioning Timber X Firewood NTFPs (e.g. wooden spoons, bay leaves, chestnuts, hazelnuts, fruits, mushrooms, honey, medicinal plants) X X Genetic materials X X Traditional grazing Agriculture Water (non-commercial use) X X X Regulating Climate change mitigation X X Air quality maintenance X X Natural hazard protection (flood prevention, X X landslides) 2 Soil stabilisation X X Water purification X X Cultural Tourism X X Recreation (walking, rock climbing, camping, cave visits, canyon passages, bird and wildlife watching, hunting, biking, horse riding sports fishing, excavation of archaelogical sites, picnics) Cultural traditional folk traditions festivals, clothes, architecture, language, food scared sites X X X X Education X X Biodiversity non-use X X Notes: 1/ Fisheries (provisioning) was considered to be low priority and was therefore removed from the typology 2/ Water regulation is hard to separate from natural hazard protection and is therefore not explicitly listed in the typology 7

11 Table 3 provides a summary of valuation techniques, while Table 4 suggests some potential application of these approaches. The actual choice of valuation approach will depend on a number of factors including resources, time, data and level of accuracy required. Table 5 presents the output of the workshop session on the identification and valuation of the parks and buffer zones ecosystem services. Table 3. Summary of Valuation Approaches Types of approach Example Market prices Revealed Preferences Stated Preferences (hypothetical market) Benefits transfer Cost based approaches Second best, only provide proxy values Production function approach Hedonic pricing Travel cost method Averting behaviour Contingent Valuation Choice Modelling Can be based on any valuation approach Opportunity cost Cost of alternative/substitute goods Replacement cost approach Table 4. Potential application of valuation approaches Valuation method Market prices Cost based approaches Production function approaches Hedonic pricing Travel cost Stated Preferences approaches Ecosystem service valued Marketed products timber, fish, fuel Depends on existence of relevant market for the ecosystem service in question. For example, manmade defences being used as proxy for forest storm protection; expenditure on water filtration as proxy for value of water pollution damages Environmental services that serve as input to market products e.g. effects of water quality on forestry output Attributes that can be appreciated by potential buyers, e.g. ecosystem services that contribute to air quality, visual amenity, landscape All ecosystem services that contribute to recreational experience All 8

12 Table 5. Workshop Overview of Ecosystems and Services in the KMNP and Buffer Zone (prices and values, as reported by workshop participants, can be taken to reflect current values) Importance Available information (qualitative / quantitative / monetary) Data gaps / Steps to fill data gaps Timber High priority in buffer zone. Harvest per ha - 2 m 3 Data is available and regularly updated. Harvesting not permitted in the park. Assuming 60% (48,000 ha) of the buffer zone is forested, the total harvest in buffer zone 96,000 m 3 per year. The Database could be improved by detailed classification (timber, mining pole, telephone pole, industrial wood, wood for paper, etc.). Market price 124 TL/m 3 Value of wood in the buffer zone = 11,904,000 TL/year (US$ 7,936,000) or 248 TL / ha. Nearly 5,555,200 TL/year (US$ 3,703,500) are paid to villagers employed in timber production (40%. Fuelwood High priority in buffer zone. Used for heating in rural areas. No data gaps. Harvesting not permitted in the park. Total quantity harvested from the buffer zone 100, 000 m 3 per year. Market price 30 TL / m 3 Value of fuelwood - 3,000,000 TL (US$ 2,000,000) per year. Around 1,200,000 TL (40%) is paid to villagers employed in timber production.

13 Importance Available information (qualitative / quantitative / monetary) Data gaps / Steps to fill data gaps NTFPs Medium for park and buffer zone Examples medicinal plants, ornamental plants, chestnut, wild fruits, rose hip, ash tree fruit, mushroom, linden, wild pear, medlar, bayleaf, nuts, thyme, rosemary, orchid bulbs, blackberry, raspberry. Estimate of price 50TL/ha (US$ 33) Value for park 1,850,000 TL / year (US$ 1,233,300). However, since harvesting of forest products is not permitted in the park this cannot be captured. Value for the buffer zone 2,800,000 TL /year Data is not systematically collected and there are no records. Within the scope of this project inventories will be undertaken on sample plots to assess availability and sustainable harvest rates for key forest products. Production needs to be planned and marketing is needed. (US$ 18,600,00) All revenues from the sale of NTFPs should go to the local villages Grazing High in buffer zone (legal and illegal grazing). Illegal grazing occurs in the park. Around 70% of land in buffer zone is grazed by cattle and water buffalo, and 10% of park area illegally grazed. At least 4,000 animals in the buffer. Not clear on area grazed and number of animals in the national park. Area grazed in park and buffer zone could be estimated based on number of animals per household. Need inventory of animals and development of grazing plan. Agriculture No agriculture in park. 30% of buffer zone. Data on crop types and area available. Market price of crops can be sourced. Need data on production, incomes to households and market analysis. Water Low consumption in park, but high priority. In the buffer zone water used for domestic purposes and a very small amount for agriculture (irrigation). Low priority. Tap water used in some areas (e.g. Ulus). Bottled water sold. No data available on water consumption. Could make an estimate based on average consumption per household. Data could be sourced from municipalities. 10

14 Importance Available information (qualitative / quantitative / monetary) Data gaps / Steps to fill data gaps Climate High in park and buffer zone. No site data on carbon storage. Scientific research / field sampling needed. Hazard mitigation landslides High in park and buffer zone. Due to geology (karst environment) and typology there is a high risk of landslides. Kurucasile area has high erosion risk. No data on the risks and likely impact of those risks to people, land infrastructure etc. Need landslide risk analysis and data on possible dames (impacts). Hazard mitigation flooding / water regulation High Heavy rainfall has resulted in flooding in the region in the past. No data. Need scientific studies. Monitoring can be carried out of flood waters in the park requires a long term monitoring program. Water purification High No information on water availability throughout the year (seasonal differences). Tourism / Recreation High in park and buffer zone. Current estimate 7,000 visitors per year of the buffer zone & 5,000 for the park. No data on carrying capacity or visitor numbers and profile, tourism potential and demand. Potential number of visitors: 30,000 / park and 70,000 buffer zone / year To be developed under the project s tourism strategy. Possible park entrance fee of 2 TL/person. Expenditure on accommodation and food etc minimum of 60TL per person. Biodiversity non use High Limited understanding of distribution and range of biodiversity. Scientific studies needed. Cultural traditions Medium - High IIgarini caves. Ruins recently discovered in Bartin Villages strong cultural values textiles, cuisine, festivals, traditional houses, landscape. Need to document and articulate cultural values in when marketing tourism. Understand value and economic potential, willingness to pay for cultural experience. 11

15 2.4 Provisioning Services Sections present the available information on the ecosystem services of the park and its buffer zone and where possible derives preliminary value estimates. Recommendations for developing the preliminary analysis presented here are also provided. Timber The KMNP forest area is 33,263 ha (90% of the total park area). Timber harvesting is not permitted in the national park, so it is considered best to focus on the forests carbon storage value rather than its commercial timber value (see section 2.5). Around 60% of the buffer zone, 48,000 ha, is estimated to be forest and used for commercial timber extraction. There are 5 forest districts (Azdavay, Cide, Pinarbasi, Bartin and Ulus), and 17 sub-forest districts that are partly located within the buffer zone to varying degrees (Table 6). Given that two of the sub districts, Kirpinar and Aydos, have only a very limited area in the buffer zone, they can be excluded from the analysis. Forest District Table 6. Forest districts and sub-districts associated with the KMNP Forest Subdistrict Total surface area (ha) - ORBIS data National Park surface area (inside the subdistrict) (ha) AZDAVAY Kırkpınar 10, AZDAVAY Kirazdağı 22, CİDE Aydos 31, CİDE Cide 11, ,040 CİDE Dağlı 7, ,658.1 CİDE Güren 24, ,909.6 CİDE Kızılcasu 9, CİDE Şeyhdağ 6, ,620.2 PINARBAŞI Kurtgirmez 22, ,578.3 PINARBAŞI Sarnıç 8, ,177.9 PINARBAŞI Sorkun 17, BARTIN Amasra 17, BARTIN Arıt 23, ,938.2 BARTIN Yenihan 19, BARTIN Kurucaşile 15, , ULUS Drahna 19, , ULUS Ulusçayı 15, , TOTAL 282, , Source: Forestry Department Data is currently available for two forest districts Bartin and Cide this is presented in Table 7. This data relates to production for the whole forest district, i.e. both in and outside of the buffer zone. The data demonstrates a value of 424 TL per ha harvested. Total costs (cutting, dragging and transportation) are 1,633,891TL. The costs reflect salaries to local

16 communities to undertake these forestry activities. This results in a net benefit of 1,595,223 or 209 TL per ha harvested. The proportion of this value attributed to the buffer zone is not yet available. Table 7. Forest Production for Bartin and Cide, Forest District Forest subdistrict Area harvested (ha) Amount cut (m 3 ) Amount sold (m 3 ) Market value (TL/2008) Bartin Asmara 581 3,083 2, ,738 Amit 400 6,105 6, ,865 Kurucasile ,086 9,465 1,329,856 Yenuhan 429 3,352 3, ,980 Cide Cide , Dagli 565 3, ,660 Guren 109 2,175 2, ,160 Kizil Casu 459 4,679 3, ,815 Seydag 74 1, ,831 Total 7, ,034 32,416 3,229,114 Source: Forestry Department (US$2,152,742) Notes: 1/ The table aggregates timber, mine poles, industrial timber and fibre chip production. Fuelwood is covered separately in Table 8. Unit prices for these products are: timber 169 TL/m 3 ; mine pole 125 TL/m 3 ; industrial timber 110 TL/m 3 ; fibre chip 56 TL/m 3. 2/ This is based on the sale of industrial timber only. It is not clear why no sale quantities are reported for timber or mine poles for this forest sub-district. 13

17 Valuing Timber The value of timber is based on the sustainable production level per year (m 3 ) * the market price. This data is held by the Forestry department. The workshop estimated the value of timber in the buffer zone at 11,904,000 TL/year (US$7,936,000), or a per hectare value of 248 TL (Table 5). This estimate assumes that 60% of the buffer zone is used for forest production. This is considered to be an overestimate. Based on data for 2 forest districts for 2008 the market value of timber is 3,229,114 TL/year (US$2,152,742). The net benefit is 1,595,223 TL/year (US$1,063,482). On the recommendation of the project team this is taken as a rough estimate for the entire buffer zone, pending actual data specific to the buffer zone. The timber processing industry has developed in Turkey over the past 10 years, the value added through processing could be estimated and included here. Fuelwood Much of the demand for fuelwood in the area is met through the sales of off cuts from forestry operations and from coppiced wood lots. Designated Forest Villages and Forest edge Villages are able to buy fuel wood at lower prices. Appleton 2009 reports that some villagers near to the national park complain that they did not have access to a reliable fuel wood supply and were forced into illegal cutting. The forestry authorities are also planning to produce fuel briquettes from compressed sawdust and wood waste and to sell these in the area, thereby adding value to a forest by product. Table 8 presents the available data covering two forest districts. Based on a harvest area of 7,619, fuelwood value is estimated at 47 TL/ha. The cost of fuelwood production (cutting, dragging and transportation) are estimated at 386,223 TL (2008), resulting in a net loss of 22,780 TL. These costs reflect the salaries paid to local communities to undertaken these forestry activities. 14

18 Table 8. Fuelwood Production in Bartin and Cide, Forest District Forest subdistrict Amount cut (m 3 ) Amount sold (m 3 ) Market value (TL/2008) 1 Bartin Asmara 1, ,494 Amit 1,058 1,058 53,354 Kurucasile 2,747 2, ,505 Yenuhan 375 3,57 18,911 Cide Cide 3, ,431 Dagli 1, ,912 Guren 2, ,548 Kizil Casu 1, ,356 Seydag ,003 Total 13,329 6, ,514 (US$ 242,342) Source: Forestry Department Notes: based on unit value of 50.4 TL / m 3 Valuing Fuelwood The value of fuelwood can be based on the sustainable production level per year (m 3 ) * the market price. This data is held by the Forestry department. The workshop estimated fuelwood in the buffer zone at 3,000,000 TL/year (1,950,000 US$), or 53TL/ha (Table 5). This is based on a production area of 48,000 ha and is considered to be an over estimate. Using the data available on two forest districts (Table 8) as a proxy for the entire buffer zone, as suggested by the project team and pending a more complete data set, the value if fuelwood is estimated at 363,514 TL/year (US$ 242,342). Costs have not been deducted from this so it is an over estimate of net benefit. However, it is based on the quantity of fuelwood sold, and may need to be adjusted to capture the any unsold fuelwood used domestically. 15

19 Non Timber Forest Product Wood carved spoons Spoon carving is an important cottage industry for some villages in the buffer zone. Traditionally boxwood has been used, which is highly prised as a durable wood that doesn t discolour in the water. However due to over harvesting this tree is now in decline and boxwood collection is illegal. There have been efforts to promote the use of beech wood as an alternative, but this has not caught on due to its lower quality. Illegal use of boxwood seems widespread. The most renowned spoon maker in Kastamonu is from Harmangeris Village. He makes wooden spoons and wooden sculptures to order based on mouth to mouth recommendations. The limiting factor is his time to make the spoons rather than the demand. In 2009 he produced 5,000 spoons. A simple boxwood spoon costs 3 TL, compared to 0.5 TL for a spoon made from beech wood. Assuming an average price of 1.75TL, this results in a gross income of 8,750TL / year (US$5,833). More detailed items such as a connected spoon and fork carved from the same piece of wood costs 20TL. Animal sculptures, for example ox and deers sell for 50-80TL and make one day to make. Beech wood is auctioned by the forestry department for 150 TL per m 3. 1 m 3 can make spoons. In Ulukaya Village, Bartin, there is a woodcarving workshop and cafe located near the waterfalls. This spoon maker producers 20 pieces a day through the winter to be sold in the summer months. In a year around 1000 pieces are sold in total, 1/3rd of which are sugar boxes sold for 40 TL, the rest other products such as spoons sold for 4-20TL depending on their size. His income from wood carving is estimated to be between 14,800-26,000 TL / year (US$ 9,866 17,333), minus transportation costs 600TL for collecting boxwood from the forest. The project document (UNDP, 2008, Annex 2), based on data obtain from meetings with villages and briefing files of the Agriculture Department, estimates that 80% of households in the villages of Tepecik, Aşıklı, Hamangerisi, Aşağı Dağlı, Celalli and Gürpelit (Şenpazarı district) produce wooden spoons, largely informally. Each households produces on average 15 spoons a day on 200 days in a year, resulting in an annual production of 3,000 spoons. These spoons are sold in bulk to wholesale traders at prices of ,000 TL (box-tree) and ,000 TL (others types of wood). The project document does not specify the number of spoons in these bulk orders. For Kastamounu, Harmangeris region UNDP 2008 estimates the total wood used for spoon production to be 10,000 cubic meters a year. This is assuming that 1 cubic meter of industrial wood yields 300 spoons and that each household therefore uses 10 cubic meters of wood a year for spoon carving, and that 1,000 households are engaged in this production. Local people interviewed concluded that for Ulukaya region, 100 boxwood trees with cm diameters are used in spoon making per year. Assuming that the total annual spoon output of a household is around 3,000, and a price of 0.5 TL 4TL income from spoon making ranges from 1,500TL - 12,000TL (US$1,000 8,000). If it is further assumed that 1,000 households (project document assumption) produce spoons, the value for the area is 150,000 12,000,000 TL/year (US$100, ,000). 16

20 Recommendations While wooden spoons and other wood carvings clearly represent a significant income for certain households, it is not clear how many households in the buffer zone engage in this activity and the average level of production. This information could be collected through the NTFP survey. The value of wood carving is complicated by the illegal status of boxwood and the high value this wood commands relative to other wood species. It is assumed that the upper value estimated here is based on unsustainable use of boxwood resource, and therefore should not be used as an estimate of the sustainable use value. Boxwood is a very slow growing tree and ensuring a supply of suitable wood is problematic. Nonetheless, arrangements for the legal use of box wood need to be found based on a sustainable level of extraction. This should be considered in the forth coming forest management plan for the buffer zone. One option is for the wood to be harvested by the forestry department and auctioned or allocated on a permit system. The development of tourism would be good for wood carving industry in the buffer zone, and offers a way for increasing the livelihoods of the local communities while linking them to the protection of the KNMP. Souvenir outlets in visitor centres/ecotourism lodges could be used to sell these products. Wooden Boats The construction of traditional wooden boats was once an important industry in the region but is now in decline. There are an estimated 5-10 ship manufactures producing meter sailing boards from high quality chestnut wood (Castanea sativa) harvested from the buffer zone. This is a good example of adding value to a forest raw material. Valuing Wooden Boats No value estimate is available. The following steps are recommended to estimate the value of wooden boats: Confirm number of manufacturers For each manufacturer, estimate net profit per year from boat sales (market price of boat * number of boats sold minus costs (wood costs, labour, transport etc) Aggregate to derive total value Chestnuts Based on interviews carried out under this assignment around 3,000 tonnes (3,000,.000 kgs) of chestnuts are collected annually from the buffer zone in Bartin and sold at 2-3 TL/kg, resulting in a gross value of 6,000,000 9,000,000 TL/year (US$ 4,000,000 6,000,000). This is clearly a significant value, surpassing the current available estimates of timber value for the area. Chestnuts are also bartered, especially in the winter, for potatoes, olive oil, flour, rice, margarine, sugar, tea potato and are therefore important to households. This subsistence value should be added to the marketed value of chestnuts. In the villages of Dizlermezeci and Pasalilar it is estimated that each household (25 households) collects 2 tons a year, which is sold for TL/ kg. This derives an annual gross income of 2,000TL (US$ 1,333). 17