Business Plan for Kmnp Final Report

8/12/2019 Business Plan for Kmnp Final Report

1/76

Enhancing Forest Protected Areas System of Turkey

Developing a Business Plan for Kre Mountains National

Park and its Buffer Zone

Camille Bann

Final ReportJanuary 2010


2/76


3/76

iii

Exchange rate

1 USD = 1.50 TL


4/76

1. Background

1.1 Objective of assignment The objective of this assignment was to assist the Ministry of Environment and Forestry inthe development of a business plan for the Kre Mountain National Park (KMNP) and itsbuffer zone, and to recommend how the business planning process could be replicated ineight other forest hotspots in Turkey.

1.2 Scope This 20 day consultancy included an initial assessment of the economic value of the KreMountains National Park and the buffer bone, a review of sustainable finance options forthe area, and the development of recommendations for developing a business plan for thepark 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 workshopagenda, exercises and list of attendees).

The project 1 aims to develop a management plan for the KMNP and a strategy for the bufferzone over the next eighteen months. This management plan will build on a study by

Appleton, 2009 2. It is proposed that the Kre Mountains should be managed as a singlelandscape, comprising a large number of linked and related ecosystems (i.e. rather thanlooking at the park and the buffer zone as separate jurisdictions). The ecosystems within thearea vary from watershed to watershed (particularly influenced by their northerly or southerlyaspect) and according to altitude, from the upper slopes of the core area to the lower lyingareas.

The business plan will set out the financial reality of the management plan, and strategies formaximising the economic potential of the park and buffer zone based on an economicanalysis of the area and a review of suitable financing instruments. Given that themanagement plan is only at the initial stages of development, it is not possible to specify thefinal programs and activities to be costed under the business planning process at this stage.The business planning component of this assignment has therefore focussed oncommunicating the objectives and role of the business plan to the project team and parkmanagers and working on drafting outlines and processes for developing the requiredinformation. A workplan for finalising the business plan is provided in section 4. Theeconomic valuation of the park is based largely on transfer values and anecdotal informationand will be developed over the coming year following a number of specialised studies on, forexample, non-timber forest products (NTFP) and tourism.

1 GEF MSP PIMS 1988: Enhancing Coverage and Management Effectiveness of the Subsystem ofForest Protected Areas in Turkeys National System of Protected Areas.2 Appleton, 2009. Outline of a Kure Mountains Conservation, Landscape Management andSustainable Development Strategy. Government of Turkey / UNDP. GEF MSP PIMS 1988:Enhancing Coverage and management Effectiveness of the Subsystem of Forest Protected Areas inTurkeys National System of Protected Areas.


5/76

2

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) andinformation 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 2000. It covers 37,00ha, with a buffer zone of80,000ha. The core area is delineated by a range of cliffs and canyons that include pristineand semi pristine natural mixed deciduous and coniferous forest.

The global significance of the Kre Mountains biodiversity has been highlighted by itsinclusion in the WWFs list of European forest hotspots for conservation. The site isconsidered to represent the best remaining example of deciduous and coniferous forest ofthe North Anatolia ecoregion as well as being the best remaining example of the highlyendangered karstic mountain areas of the Black Sea Humid Forests ecotype (WWF,2001). 3

Karstic areas are typically poor in vegetative cover. However, the Kre Mountains with their1000m thick Jurassic-Cretaceous era limestones not only demonstrate typical karsticproperties, but are also covered with lush forest due to the humid climate.

The Kre mountains hosts 40 out of the 132 mammals in Turkey, including large mammalspecies, 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 1999. This plan set outgeneric principles of management and mapped the parks boundaries 4. The plandistinguishes 3 zones a strict protection zone, a low density recreation zone and arehabilitation zone. The plan also identifies a buffer zone around the outside of the nationalpark, consisting of a wildlife conservation zone, game management zone, landscapeprotection zone and an ecological restoration zone. However, the plan was not finalised orofficially endorsed. This project seeks to deliver an officially endorsed management plan. Itwill update and complete the DDP and develop a number of sub plans for key areas such asecotourism and NTFPs. Management of the area is complicated by the fact that while thebuffer zone is legally gazetted, current legislation does not define what a buffer zone is andmakes no provision for how such an area should be managed and governed.

The General Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Parks ( GDNCNP) isresponsible 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, 2001. Mediterranean Forest: A New Conservation Strategy4 Kure Daglari National Park, Development Plan. Prepared by the Ministry of Forestry (GeneralDirectorate of National Parks and Game-Wildlife) in collaboration with UNEP and FAO. 19995 UNDP, 2008. Project Document GEF MSP PIMS 1988: Enhancing Coverage and Management

Effectiveness of the Subsystem of Forest Protected Areas in Turkeys National System of Protected Areas


6/76

3

2. Preliminary Economic Valuation of KMNP

This section presents an identification and initial economic assessment of the ecosystemsservices both within the KMNP and its Buffer Zone 6.

The identification of the economic values for the Kure Mountains National park and itsbuffer zone is based on WWFs 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 itsbuffer zone, and discussions at the workshop.

The initial economic values presented are largely based on default assumptions and transfervalues from existing studies, and therefore reflect a large degree of uncertainty. The valueestimates are supported by anecdotal evidence from informal interviews carried out as partof this assignment. While these estimates can be used as ball park estimates of the valueof the various ecosystem services, tailored research, including surveys, is required todevelop these initial values.

Recommended steps to develop the economic valuation of the KMNP and its buffer zone arepresented after each ecosystem service in section 2.4-2.6.

This section therefore reflects an initial demonstration of the value of the park and its bufferzone. In order to realise or capture these demonstrated values, in most cases arrangementsneeds 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 thefinancial 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 importantinformation to decision makers and is a powerful communication tool . It candemonstrate the potential benefits of protection and sustainable management, and thepotential economic costs of non-sustainable practices. Such an analysis can also informdecisions over alternative uses of the area, for example setting out the social andenvironmental impacts and the opportunity cost of hydro-electric developments within thepark 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 valuesneed to be defined. For example in the case of KMNP and its buffer zone maximizing non-timber forest products, tourism, and carbon values will depend on specific institutionalarrangements that can be developed between national and international stakeholders aspart of the management of the park. Valuation of the area therefore underpins strategies tomaximise 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, 2009. Protected Area Benefits Assessment Tool. Kure Daglari Milli Parki,. Turkey. WWF


7/76

4

2.2 Socio -Economic Context

The total population of the national parks administrative districts (Kastamonu and Bartin) isapproximately 221,000, of which 30 % live in the province and district centres and 70 % arein rural settlements (Table 1). The inverse is true for Turkey as a whole, for which the urbanpopulation is 65 % of, and rural settlements and 35 % of the total.

Table 1. Population of Kastomounu and Bartin Province2000 CensusProvince District

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 95,691 131,965

Ulus 4,223 25,646 29,869

Total 63,037 167,942 230,979

% 30 70 100Source : 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 P narba and Azdavay, has decreased byhalf within the last 10 years. Present indicators point out that this decrease will go on forsome time, mainly affecting the districts of Kuruca ile, 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 (2000data, Stolton and Higgins 2009). Around 40 of these settlements are estimated to be inBartin. Socio-economic data specific to the buffer zone villages appears to be limited.

The major economic activities in the region are forestry, agriculture, apiculture, woodenhandicrafts, weaving, chestnut collecting and tourism. In the poorest forests zones inKastamonu per capita income is currently lower than 870 TL / year (US$ 580). This can becompared to the average national wage of 7,600 TL / year (US$ 5,050). Income is slightlyhigher in Bart n because of employment in local coal mines and iron and steel works.Strategies to increase local livelihoods are therefore a key issue for the managementand business p lan.

Most young people move away from the area to find work and many villages, especially inthe upper valley landscapes, are populated entirely by elderly retirees. If nothing changes it


8/76

5

is predicted that these villages will be deserted in 20 years from now. As farmland is nolonger worked it is steadily reverting to forest. In Kastamonu the forest area is estimated tohave expanded by about 10% in the past 10 years. The populations of bear, wild boar androe deer have increased as a result, which have caused damage to local farmland withsignificant negative impacts on livelihoods of the remaining farmers.

Appleton, 2009, states From a purely conservation point of view, this decline of ruralcommunities may be considered a good thing. However local people, traditions, customs,design, cuisine and styles of construction are part of the fabric of Kre MountainsLandscape. Traditional agriculture uses organic practices that are increasingly relevanttoday. Traditional crop and animal varieties may be an important genetic resource. Thepresence of open, mixed, traditionally farmed land may ensure the survival of manyimportant plant and animal species that would not be present if the area was entirelyforested.

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 bufferzone 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 NTFPsurvey work. This will help in the analysis of the non timber forest products (NTFPs), forexample it could inform the aggregation of the NTFP values, and in determiningopportunities to increase local livelihoods in the area.

It is apparent that villages in the area are not homogenous in terms of their natural resourcebase and its use, challenges and opportunities. For example Bartin has more agriculturalland and industry. An over view of the characteristics of each villages would enable apotential categorisation of the villages and the development of specific actions to supporttheir development.

2.3 Framework for Analysis The services and benefits of the KMNP and its buffer zone have been characterised withinan Ecosystems Services Approach (ESA) . The ESA provides a framework forconsidering whole ecosystem services in decision making and for valuing the services theyprovide to facilitate maintenance of a resilient and sustainable natural environment. Anecosystem is a natural unit of living things (animals, plants and micro-organisms) and theirphysical environment such as a forest or river. Ecosystem services are the servicesprovided by the natural environment that results in outputs or outcomes that benefit people.

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 8 framework is a widely accepted categorisation ofecosystem services and identifies four categories of services and benefits:

Provisioning services are products obtained from the ecosystem and may includetimber, food and water;

Regulating services are the benefits provided through the regulation of ecosystemprocesses and may include climate and disease control and flood alleviation; and

Cultural services are the non-material benefits that people obtain through spiritualenrichment, cognitive development and recreation and include recreational andaesthetic enjoyment.

8 http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Products.Synthesis.aspx (Synthesis Reports Library)


9/76

6

Underpinning the provisioning, regulating and cultural services are supportingservices such as soil formation and nutrient cycling, which are necessary for theproduction of all other ecosystem services.

It is important to note that the term benefits is taken to mean the final benefits oroutcomes 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 areintermediate 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 bufferzone. This typology was agreed at the project workshop. It is important to note that somebenefits are mutually exclusive. For example capitalising on the carbon storage function ofthe forest has implications for timber exploitation and it is often difficult to maximizebiodiversity as well as timber extraction. For this reason carbon storage is recognised as avalue for the park, but not the buffer zone, while timber values are only estimated for thebuffer zone.

A separate economic analysis and business plan analysis is proposed for the park and thebuffer zone, due to their different uses, functions and institutional arrangements. The valuescould ultimately be added to give a total value for the combined area.

A key motivation for designating Kre Mountains as a protected area is to conserve itsbiodiversity. An expected global benefit of the project will be to stabilise and rehabilitateKre mountains globally significant karstic landscapes and its biodiversity. Regionally theforests are part of the Euxin section of Euro-Siberain Floristic region and represent the bestremaining examples of humid kartsic forest of the Black Sea (UNDP, 2008). The typologyrecognises biodiversity non-use as a distinct benefit component; other elements ofbiodiversity value are captured through the provisioning and regulating services. The non-use (existence) value of biodiversity can only be estimated through stated preferences

techniques, which required specialised surveys and are expensive and time consuming toundertake.

Multi Functional Forest Functional Management Plans

The GDF is in the process of developing multi functional forest plans across Turkey. Themain categories of the multi functional plans economic, ecological and social and sub-cultural, can be fairly easily mapped onto the ecosystem services framework. As a result theforest 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 theirmanagement plans. In Kastamonu updated forest plans for each forest sub districts shouldbe completed in 3 years.

A forest management plan will be developed for the park in 2010.


10/76

7

Table 2. Typology of Ecosystem Services in the KMNP and Buffer Zone.

Ecosystemservice

category

Benefit KMNP Buff erZone

Provisioning Timber XFirewood X

NTFPs (e.g. wooden spoons, bay leaves,chestnuts, hazelnuts, fruits, mushrooms,honey, medicinal plants)

X

Genetic materials X X

Traditional grazing X

Agriculture X

Water (non-commercial use) X

Regulating Climate change mitigation X X

Air quality maintenance X X

Natural hazard protection (flood prevention,landslides) 2

X X

Soil stabilisation X X

Water purification X X

Cultural Tourism X XRecreation (walking, rock climbing,camping, cave visits, canyon passages,bird and wildlife watching, hunting, biking,horse riding sports fishing, excavation ofarchaelogical sites, picnics)

X X

Cultural traditional

folk traditions festivals, clothes,architecture, language, food

scared sites

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 thetypology

2/ Water regulation is hard to separate from natural hazard protection and is therefore not explicitlylisted in the typology


11/76


12/76

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 /

Timber High priority in buffer zone.

Harvesting not permitted in the park.

Harvest per ha - 2 m 3

Assuming 60% (48,000 ha) of the buffer zone isforested, the total harvest in buffer zone 96,000 m 3 per year.

Market price 124 TL/m 3

Value of wood in the buffer zone = 11,904,000TL/year (US$ 7,936,000) or 248 TL / ha.

Nearly 5,555,200 TL/year (US$ 3,703,500) are paidto villagers employed in timber production (40%.

Data is avail

The Databas(timber, minfor paper, etc

Fuelwood High priority in buffer zone.

Harvesting not permitted in the park.

Used for heating in rural areas.

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 villagersemployed in timber production.

No data gaps


13/76

10


Data gaps /

NTFPs Medium for park and buffer zone

Examples medicinal plants, ornamentalplants, chestnut, wild fruits, rose hip, ashtree 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 forestproducts is not permitted in the park this cannot becaptured.

Value for the buffer zone 2,800,000 TL /year

(US$ 18,600,00)

Data is not syrecords.

Within the scundertaken osustainable h

Production n

All revenuesvillages

Grazing High in buffer zone (legal and illegalgrazing).

Illegal grazing occurs in the park.

Around 70% of land in buffer zone is grazed by cattleand water buffalo, and 10% of park area il legallygrazed.

At least 4,000 animals in the buffer.

Not clear on national park

Area grazed based on num

Need inventoplan.

Agriculture No agriculture in park. 30% of buffer zone. Data on crop typ

Market price

Need data onmarket analy

Water Low consumption in park, but highpriority.

In the buffer zone water used for domesticpurposes and a very small amount foragriculture (irrigation). Low priority.

Tap water used in some areas (e.g. Ulus). Bottledwater sold.

No data avai

Could make per househol

Data could b


14/76

11


Data gaps /

Climate High in park and buffer zone. No site data on

Scientific res

Hazardmitigation landslides

High in park and buffer zone. Due to geology (karst environment) and typologythere is a high risk of landslides.

Kurucasile area has high erosion risk.

No data on thpeople, land

Need landsli(impacts).

Hazardmitigation flooding /waterregulation

High Heavy rainfall has resulted in flooding in the region inthe past.

No data.

Need scientiflood waters program.

Waterpurification

High No informati(seasonal dif

Tourism /Recreation

High in park and buffer zone. Current estimate 7,000 visitors per year of the bufferzone & 5,000 for the park.

Potential number of visitors: 30,000 / park and70,000 buffer zone / year

Possible park entrance fee of 2 TL/person.

Expenditure on accommodation and food etc minimum of 60TL per person.

No data on ctourism pote

To be develo

Biodiversity non use

High Limited undebiodiversity.

Culturaltraditions

Medium - High IIgarini caves. Ruins recently discovered in Bartin

Villages strong cultural values textiles, cuisine,festivals, traditional houses, landscape.

Need to documarketing to

Understand vpay for cultu


15/76

2.4 Provisioning Services

Sections 2.4 2.6 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 notpermitted in the national park, so it is considered best to focus on the forests carbon storagevalue 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 commercialtimber 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 limitedarea in the buffer zone, they can be excluded from the analysis.

Table 6. Forest distric ts and sub-distric ts associated with the KMNP

ForestDistrict

Forest Sub-district

Total surface area(ha) - ORBIS data

National Park surfacearea (inside the sub-

district) (ha)

AZDAVAY K rkp nar 10,164.00 99.1 AZDAVAY Kirazda 22,044.80 281.7CDE Aydos 31,779.70 0.5CDE Cide 11,498.50 2,040CDE Da l 7,344.00 2,658.1CDE Gren 24,170.50 2,909.6CDE K z lcasu 9,696.70 513.7CDE eyhda 6,748.00 2,620.2PINARBAI Kurtgirmez 22,640.30 1,578.3PINARBAI Sarn 8,319.20 2,177.9PINARBAI Sorkun 17,428.90 3532

BARTIN Amasra 17,555.80 183.5BARTIN Ar t 23,994.90 5,938.2BARTIN Yenihan 19,063.20 631.3BARTIN Kuruca ile 15,542.20 1,072.70ULUS Drahna 19,338.50 8,515.00ULUS Ulusay 15,495.10 2,420.70 TOTAL 282,824.30 37,172.50

Source : Forestry Department

Data is currently available for two forest districts Bartin and Cide this is presented inTable 7. This data relates to production for the whole forest district, i.e. both in and outsideof 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


16/76


17/76

14

Valuing Timber

The value of timber is based on the sustainable production level per year (m 3) * the marketprice. 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 that60% of the buffer zone is used for forest production. This is considered to be an over-estimate.

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 therecommendation of the project team this is taken as a rough estimate for the entire bufferzone, pending actual data specific to the buffer zone.

The timber processing industry has developed in Turkey over the past 10 years, the valueadded 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 fromforestry operations and from coppiced wood lots. Designated Forest Villages and Forestedge Villages are able to buy fuel wood at lower prices. Appleton 2009 reports that somevillagers near to the national park complain that they did not have access to a reliable fuelwood supply and were forced into illegal cutting. The forestry authorities are also planning toproduce fuel briquettes from compressed sawdust and wood waste and to sell these in thearea, thereby adding value to a forest by product.

Table 8 presents the available data covering two forest districts. Based on a harvest area of7,619, 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 of22,780 TL. These costs reflect the salaries paid to local communities to undertaken theseforestry activities.


18/76

15

Table 8. Fuelwood Produc tion in Bart in and Cide, 2008 1

ForestDistrict

Forest sub-district

Amount cu t(m 3)

Amount so ld

(m3

)

Market value

(TL/2008)1

Asmara 1,457 684 34,494

Amit 1,058 1,058 53,354

Kurucasile 2,747 2,687 135,505

Bartin

Yenuhan 375 3,57 18,911

Cide 3,015 834 46,431

Dagli 1,093 398 21,912

Guren 2,089 601 33,548

Kizil Casu 1,228 177 16,356

Cide

Seydag 265 54 3,003

Total 13,329 6,870 363,514

(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) * themarket 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 tobe 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 iffuelwood is estimated at 363,514 TL/year (US$ 242,342). Costs have not been deductedfrom this so it is an over estimate of net benefit. However, it is based on the quantity offuelwood sold, and may need to be adjusted to capture the any unsold fuelwood useddomestically.


19/76

16

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 doesntdiscolour in the water. However due to over harvesting this tree is now in decline andboxwood collection is illegal. There have been efforts to promote the use of beech wood asan alternative, but this has not caught on due to its lower quality. Illegal use of boxwoodseems widespread.

The most renowned spoon maker in Kastamonu is from Harmangeris Village . He makeswooden spoons and wooden sculptures to order based on mouth to mouthrecommendations. The limiting factor is his time to make the spoons rather than thedemand. 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 of1.75TL, this results in a gross income of 8,750TL / year (US$5,833). More detailed itemssuch 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 800-2000 spoons.

In Ulukaya Village , Bartin, there is a woodcarving workshop and cafe located near thewaterfalls. This spoon maker producers 20 pieces a day through the winter to be sold in thesummer months. In a year around 1000 pieces are sold in total, 1/3rd of which are sugarboxes sold for 40 TL, the rest other products such as spoons sold for 4-20TL depending ontheir 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 fromthe forest.

The project document (UNDP, 2008, Annex 2), based on data obtain from meetings withvillages and briefing files of the Agriculture Department, estimates that 80% of households inthe villages of Tepecik, A kl , Hamangerisi, A a Da l , Celalli and Grpelit ( enpazar district) produce wooden spoons, largely informally. Each households produces on average15 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 350-400,000 TL (box-tree)and 150-200,000 TL (others types of wood). The project document does not specify thenumber of spoons in these bulk orders.

For Kastamounu, Harmangeris region UNDP 2008 estimates the total wood used for spoonproduction 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 metersof 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 10 - 15cm 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 of0.5 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$100,000 800,000).


20/76

17

Recommendations

While wooden spoons and other wood carvings clearly represent a significant incomefor certain households, it is not clear how many households in the buffer zoneengage in this activity and the average level of production. This information could becollected through the NTFP survey. The value of wood carving is complicated by theillegal status of boxwood and the high value this wood commands relative to otherwood species. It is assumed that the upper value estimated here is based onunsustainable use of boxwood resource, and therefore should not be used as anestimate of the sustainable use value.

Boxwood is a very slow growing tree and ensuring a supply of suitable wood isproblematic. Nonetheless, arrangements for the legal use of box wood need to befound based on a sustainable level of extraction. This should be considered in theforth coming forest management plan for the buffer zone. One option is for the woodto be harvested by the forestry department and auctioned or allocated on a permitsystem.

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 whilelinking them to the protection of the KNMP. Souvenir outlets in visitorcentres/ecotourism lodges could be used to sell these products.

Wooden Boats

The construction of traditional wooden boats was once an important industry in the regionbut is now in decline. There are an estimated 5-10 ship manufactures producing 10-15meter sailing boards from high quality chestnut wood ( Castanea sativa) harvested from thebuffer 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 valueof 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 valuefor 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. Thissubsistence value should be added to the marketed value of chestnuts.

In the villages of Dizlermezeci and Pasalilar it is estimated that each household (25households) collects 2 tons a year, which is sold for 1-1.25 TL/ kg. This derives an annualgross income of 2,000TL (US$ 1,333).


21/76

18

The project document estimates a lower average collection of 500kg per household per yearin the villages of Kurucaile (Bartin), resulting in an income of around 400-500 TL (US$350).This suggests a unit price of around 1TL/kg. Chestnuts are then shipped to big traders in

Ankara and Istanbul by local traders (UNDP, 2008).

Hazelnuts

Hazelnuts collection is an old tradition and a good source of income for villages in Bartin. Inthe villages of Dizlermezeci and Pasalilar households collect 1 ton per year. They can besold for 5 TL /kg, resulting in a gross income of 5,000TL/year (US$ 3,250).

Mushrooms

It is said that there are 22 varieties of mushrooms in the forest, which all households collectfor their domestic consumption often sending them to relatives in other parts of Turkey.Mushrooms from the area are not really marketed, and there is the potential to develop andpromote the natural mushroom cuisine of the area as a component of the tourism offering(see Section 2.6).

Household dependence on the forest

Local community dependence on the forest in the area is high. For example, one family inZumrut village only buys tea and sugar from the market, everything else is collected fromthe forest, or produced from their agricultural land or gardens. Some products are sold, forexample jars of rosehip marmalade are sold for 15TL/jar, and mushrooms 5-10 TL/kg.

There are 60 households in Ulukaya Village. The main jobs available to villages areagriculture, husbandry and forestry. All households collect forest products such asmushrooms, rosehip, berries (to make jam). Some products are sold if there is an order, butgenerally forest products are collected for domestic use or sent to relatives.

The NTFP survey could be used to determine what proportion of household food issupplied from the forest.

Apicul ture

Honey production is important in the region for both subsistence and commercial reasons. Itis typically sold to relatives and fellow townsmen living at urban centres. Demand is strongand there is the potential for honey production to be increased if support is available inproduction, certification and marketing. According to the project document, Annex 3,beekeeping is practiced in all villages they surveyed (Table 9). A few households engage in

modern beekeeping techniques. The output is either run or combed honey.


22/76

19

Table 9. Project Document Status of Village bee keeping

Village Number of hh interestedin beekeeping

No of hives Honey yield per hive

Muratbasi 3 90 209

Sumenler 7 100 15-20

Kayabasi 8 600 30

Karakuslu 0 0 -

Celalli 10 50 15-20

Yayla 5 40 25-30

Hamitli 2 35 20-25

Baskoy 4 350 20

Baskoy 20 150 15

Sahin 3 30 -

Karathasan 0 0 -

Asagicerci 1 60 10

Total 63 1405

Source : UNDP 2008 (Annex 3). Data obtained from meetings with villages and from the briefing filesof Agricultural Directorates

There are an estimated 24,000 bee hives in Bartin province , 75% (18,000) of which are inthe buffer zone. Each hive produces around 10-13kg of honey/per year, 85% of which ishighly valued chestnut honey, a speciality to Northern Turkey and thought to have medicinalproperties. Chestnut honey is sold at 40 TL/kg, other honey is sold at 20-25 TL/kg. Takingan average price of 30TL.kg and an output of 10kg per year, the value of honey withinBartins buffer zone is estimated at 7,200,000 TL (US$4.800,000) 9.

There are 170 households in the villages of Dizlermezeci and Pasalilar in Bartin; 11households are producing honey commercially. One local entrepreneur packages andmarkets his own honey and that of other producers in the area. He has 250 hives that arekept near the house in the winter and in the forest buffer zone in the summer. His annualproduction is 13-14 kg per hive. Demand is strong and he sells his honey for 35-45 TL/kg,resulting in an annual gross income of around 135,000TL (US$ 90,000) 10.

There have been some demonstration projects to promote bee keeping in the villages but itis difficult to generate interest. Some people are scared of bees or have allergies. Thehives need to be checked regularly and experience and knowledge is required to besuccessful. The lack of young people in the area is a further limiting factor, as bee keepingis too demanding for the elderly.

The precise level of apiculture activities in the buffer zone is unclear. There is a union ofBee Keepers in Bartin who may have the number of bee hives kept in the buffer zone

9

180,000 hives * 15kg per hive = 270,000 kg * 30TL = 7,200,000 TL10 Based on an output of 13.5kg per hive and market price of 40 TL/kg


23/76


24/76

21

Other

Kastamonu is one of the 5 principle regions in Turkey for the collection of orchids (UNDP,2008). Some illegal collection of orchid tubers for Salep production is evident within the parkand its buffer zone.

Cornel and rosehip are consumed as marmalade or tea. Forest villages collect the flowersof lime trees for domestic consumption and to send to relatives in Istanbul. The importanceand extent of this should be covered in the NTFP survey

Turkey is a major biodiversity hotspot in terms of genetic diversity . There are around 9,000vascular plant species in the country, of which a third are endemic, nearly 1,700 are rare and12 are extinct. There is not much documented information on the genetic diversity of thepark, and this is a difficult benefit to capture. Strategies and protocols need to be developedto assess how to develop the potential benefits to be gained from genetic resources inKMNP.

Stolten and Higgins, 2009 refer to the collection of local herbs in the buffer zone as beingimportant to some groups. There is little concrete information available on the types andquantity of herbs being collected and their uses. This information could be covered in theNTFP survey being undertaken for the project.

Other products that have may have potential and be worthy of investigation includedecorative materials for floristry (pine cones, moss, foliage etc) and medicinal plants, ex situcultivation of horticultural plants ( e.g. Galanthus ).


25/76

22

Valuing NTFPs

With the exception of fuelwood, NTFPs are not currently regulated or recorded in Bartin orKastamonu, so estimates of the value of these products is for now largely anecdotal, basedon discussion with one or two collectors / producers.

The project includes in its work programme research on Non Timber Forest Products. Theplanned project survey should be used to collect the relevant data to carry out the economicanalysis of NTFPs.

Recommendations:

Household survey

Representative survey of the population.

Questions to be asked on key products e.g. bayleaves, mushrooms, boxwood, chestnuts,honey

Quantity collected per year (kg) Quantity for own consumption Quantity sold Market price (TL/kg) No of households collecting in the village

In order to derive aggregate estimates for the area it is necessary to know the number ofhouseholds engaging in a particular activity (collection and production). For example howmany households are engaging in beekeeping or chestnut harvesting in the buffer zone andwhat is the average production per household?

Forest Inventory

The household survey will provide information on the current levels of collection and thecontribution that NTFPs currently make to livelihoods in the area (subsistence pluscommercial use of NTFPs). This household survey should be complemented with a stockanalysis to inform sustainable harvesting rates, and thereby inform the potential value fromsustainable use.

Market Analysis

In order to realise the sustainable harvest value, markets need to exist. An analysis ofdemand / market potential and opportunities for adding value to forest products should beundertaken as a means of maximising potential revenues from the areas NTFPs.

The value of NTFPs can be based on a Benefits Transfer Approach , where the valuesfrom an existing study are applied to the study sites. For a more accurate estimate of thevalue primary research needs to be undertaken. It should be bourne in mind that the valueof the NTFPs is equal to the subsistence plus the marketed quantity.


26/76

23

Croitoru, 2007 11 , assessed the value of NTFP in the Mediterranean region. Turkey isclassified as an Eastern Mediterranean country, for which the value of NTFPs is estimated at20 / hectare (US$28) . Arguably the Kure mountains has more in common with theNorthern Mediterranean where the combined value of NTFPs is estimated at 41 /hectare(US$56).

Moran 2009 12 in his study of the Yildiz mountains adds estimates of mushrooms and honeyfor the Yildiz area to Croitorus estimates of firewood, and other NTFPs to derive a combinedvalue for the Yildiz mountains of 23 /hectare (US$15). Pending the NTFP survey, thisvalue may be taken as the most appropriate transfer value for KMNP. Table 10 presents theresults of these two studies.

Table 10. Estimates of NTFP values in Turkey

Services / Produc ts Value / /hectare Source

Firewood 3

(6TL / US$4)

Croitoru 2007, based on undistorted market inprice of firewood

Mushrooms 1

(2TL / US$1.3)

Moran, 2009, based on Forest District DirectorateInformation

Honey 4

(8.3 TL / US$5.5)

Moran, 2009, based on anecdotal information andassumptions for Yildiz mountains.

Other NTFPs 4

(8.4 TL / US$5.6)

Croitoru, 2007. Includes chestnuts, berries,acorns and medicinal plants. Based on valuesderived from Tucker et al, 2005

Grazing 12

(25TL/ US$8)

Croitoru 2007. Based on substitute good

approach (for forest fodder). Fodder converted tobarley equivalent and valued based on marketprice of barley.

Areas

Yildiz Mountains 23

(48TL/ha / US$15)

Moran 2009. Based on estimates of Honey andMushrooms in Yildiz mountains (2008) andCroitoru estimates for other NTFPs

Average Eastern Med 20

(42 TL / US$28)

Croitoru, 2007

Average Northern Med 41

(85 TL / US$56)

Croitrou, 2007

11 Croitoru, L. 2007. Valuing the non-timber forest products in the Mediterranean region. EcologicalEconomics (63) 768-77512 Moran, D, 2009. Identification and Valuation of Ecosystem Goods and Services in the YildizMountains area. Draft Final Report, November 2009. Technical Assistance for Protection and

Sustainable Development of Natural resources and Biodiversity in the Yildiz Mountains Location,Turkey.


27/76

24

Traditional agriculture

Most of the agriculture in the buffer zone is small scale subsistence farming, producing asmall surplus for sale at local markets. Summer vegetables include tomatoes, cucumber,peppers and aubergine. Spinach, cabbage, turnips and lettuce are grown in the winter.

A detailed assessment of local agricultural practices and their economic value has not yetbeen conducted, although a general description is provided in Annex 3 of the projectdocument (UNDP, 2008). Investment is needed to encourage production of value addedproducts and to provide (cold) storage facilities.

Valuing Agriculture

In order to estimate the value of agricultural activities in the buffer zone information isneeded on:

Area of agricultural land per crop type Average output per hectare per crop type Market price of crop Quantity used for subsistence purposes and quantity sold.

Livestock grazing and fodder collection

Livestock keeping is more widespread in Bart n than in Kastamonu due to more favourableland and climatic conditions. There are 7,581 animals in buffer zone villages in Bartin (2009records of Bartin Provincial Directorate of Agriculture and Rural Affairs), 10% of which are

water buffalo. Water buffalo are culturally important and are still used for transporting logs.Each household has around 3-5 animals, mainly cows. Some of households sell milk, andcows are occasionally sold for religious purposes. Milk and yogurts from water buffalo arethree times the price of normal milk. One village operates as a cooperative. They haveautomated milking facilities and market their products as a group. Husbandry is consideredto contribute to 70% of the subsistence needs of families in the buffer zone.

Only small area of grazing land is available and there are no resources for indoor feeding.The area outside of the agricultural land is either forest or privately owned, therefore theforest area is often used for grazing. A solution to the grazing pressures should beconsidered in the management plan. Stolten and Higgins, 2009 identify the need for grazingmanagement plans, habitat rehabilitation, and better coordination between Ministry of

Environment and Forestry and Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs on these issues.

Valuing Grazing

Table 10 includes a possible transfer value for grazing based on Croitoru 2007 of12/hectare (US$8). This value is based on the substitute good approach (for forest fodder),where fodder is converted to a barley equivalent and the value based on market price ofbarley.

A similar analysis could be carried out for the buffer zone to derive a site specific estimatefor the area.


28/76

25

2.5 Regulating Services

Carbon storage / Climate change mitigation

KMNP covers an area of 37,000 ha, 90% of which is forested, and thereby provides carbonsequestration benefits. At present there are no site specific estimates of the above or belowground biomass for the KMNP, although this information will be developed in the future aspart of the multi functional forest management planning process. Default values can bedrawn from the estimates provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change(IPCC), 13 which are based on regional-specific climate and vegetation data.

KMNP can be classified as a temperate mountain system, with temperatures >10C 4-8months of the year and altitudes approximately >800m (Table 4.1, IPPC 2006). Table 4.3provides the carbon fraction for above ground biomass, i.e. tonne C (per tonne of dry matter(d.m.) for temperate and boreal at default value 0.47 tC/d.m. Table 4.7 provides estimatesof typical above-ground biomass for forest types. A temperate mountain class = 130 d.m.

ha, resulting in 61.1 tons / C / ha (0.47 *130). This is considered to be a conservativeestimate, for example Canellas et al (2008) 14 suggest aboveground biomass values nearer190 tonnes d.m./hectare for other Mediterranean oak forest.

The value of carbon can be conservatively estimated based on the price of carbon credits inthe voluntary offset market around 4.50 TL (US$ 3) per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent(CO2e). A tonne of C emissions is equivalent to 1 x (44/12) = 3.67 tonnes of carbon dioxideequivalent (CO2e). Therefore 61.1 t/C/hectare = 224 t/CO2e /hectare .

The approximate carbon value for KMNP is 224 t/CO2e /hectare * 4.50TL/CO2e =1,008 TL/ha (US$ 672).

This results in a total carbon storage value for the park of 33,529,104 TL (US$ 22,352,736),assuming a forest area of 33,363 ha (i.e. 90% of the park).

Tolunay et al (2007) 15 provide estimates of organic carbon storage in forest soils in Turkey,which are applied to the park in Table 11. Based on a value of 4.50TL per CO2e thisanalysis shows the carbon storage value of the park ranging from 3,282,422 161,337,078TL (US$ 2,188,281 107,558,052). There is clearly a large range of uncertainty aroundthese estimates. Site specific estimates are needed to improve these estimates. Theestimate of carbon value based on the IPPC default data are recommended to be used fornow.

This value can only be realised through an arrangement for payment to Turkey to managethe area for carbon storage. Currently the most likely route is through the voluntary offsetmarket.

13 IPPC 2006 Guideline for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_04_Ch4_Forest_Land.pdf14 Canellas et al, 2008. Silviculture and Carbon Sequestration in Mediterranean Oak Forest chapter17 in F.Bravo et al. (eds), Managing Forest Ecosystems: The Challenge of Climate Change, 317Springer Science + Business Media B.V 200815 Tolnay, D and Comer, A. 2007. Carbon storage in forest soils and status in Turkey. Symposium

of Forests as Solution for Global Climate Change and Water Issues. Turkish Foresters AssociationMarmara Branch, Istanbul, 2007.


29/76

26

Table 11. Organic carbon sto rage in forest soils in KMNP

Forest typeSurface area

(ha) Min. (t/ha) Max. (t/ha) Min (t) Max (t)

Fir 1,036 65 196 67,843 203,220

Mixed (bothconiferous anddeciduous) 23,089 7 374 161,625 8,642,347

Beech forest 1,331 28 227 37,047 302,909

Mixeddeciduousforest 1,372 96 234 131,810 321,503

Marquis 154 2 424 308 65,309

TOTAL carbon 26,983 398,635 9,535,288

Total /C02 e 1,462,991 35,852,684

Source: Yildiray Lise pers com

Notes: 1/ Number may not add due to rounding. 2/ The total forest area accounted for in the table is26,983 ha. The forested area of the park is estimated to be 33,263 (i.e. 90% of the park). The reasonfor the discrepancy is not clear, but should be reconciled in the final valuation of the park.

Table 12 illustrates a similar carbon storage analysis for the buffer. Potential carbon storagebenefits are estimated to range from 6,828,305 - 47,086,797 TL (US$ 4,552,203-31,391,198). Again the uncertainty around these numbers is high. Furthermore, it isunlikely that this value could be captured as it is incompatible with the timber productioncarried out in the buffer zone, and there are no plans to protect the area for this purpose.


30/76

27

Table 12. Organic carbon storage in forest soi ls in the buffer zone

Forest type

Estimated Surface area (ha) Min. (t/ha)

Max. (t/ha) Min (t) Max (t)

Fir 1,134 65.5 196 104,838 5,605,822

Mixed (bothconiferous anddeciduous) 14,977 7 374 572 96,953

Mixedconiferous 228 2.5 424 74,535 609,422

Beech forest 2,681 28 227 628,194 1,532,245

Mixeddeciduous 65,376 96 234 538 29,422

Oak 105 5 279 315 66,729

Marquis 157 2 424 2,128 94,184

Total 25,820 811,119 8,034,777

Total CO2 e 2,976,808 293,269,37

Notes: 1/ Number may not add due to rounding. 2/ The total forest area accounted for in the table is22,820 ha. The forested area of the buffer zone is estimated to be 48,000 (i.e. 60% of the area). Thereason for the discrepancy is not clear, but should be reconciled in the final valuation of the park.

Climate regulation

Land cover can affect local temperatures and precipitation. If the micro climate in KMNPchanged, the forest system could stop developing. This could result in forest fires as iscommon along the Mediterranean coast but which are currently not a problem in the KureMountains due to the humidity.

Soil stabilisation

Vegetative cover plays an important role in soil retention and prevention of land and asseterosion. Soil erosion is a problem is parts of Turkey and the role of natural habitats andvegetation in soil stabilisation is recognised. Research is needed on the role of KMNP in soilstabilisation.

Natural hazard protection - Flood prevention and landsl ides

Through its water regulation function forest can affect the timing and magnitude of run offand flooding, a common problem in Turkey. The role of KMNP in providing flood protectionneeds to be defined.

Air qual ity main tenance

Ecosystems contribute chemicals to and extract chemicals from the atmosphere. The r oleKMNP plays in providing flood protection needs to be defined.


31/76

28

Water purification

Ecosystems can be a source of water impurities but can also help filter out/decomposeorganic wastes. The r ole KMNP plays in providing water purification needs to be defined.

Assessing the impact o f hydro elect ric p lants

There are a number of proposals to develop small scale hydro electric plants in or near thepark. These developments would draw water from the park. As yet there are no detailedhydrological studies of the area so it not clear what impact these hydro electric plants wouldhave on the ecosystem of the park and its buffer zone. The ecosystem in the park isconsidered to be very integrated such that impacts in one part of the system will have knockon effects elsewhere. At its heart is the karsts geology which is the basis of the forest. VallaCanyon is of international importance. The main factor controlling formation of the canyon isthe Devrekani river, if the river changed this would affect and possibly stop the formation ofthe canyon.

Valuing Regulating Services

Often the valuation of regulating services is limited not by economic theory but by a lack ofscientific and physical data, and this is the case for KMNP and its buffer zone. As a startingpoint the regulating functions need to be defined in detail for the area and the impacts on theenvironment and society were these regulating services to be impacted set out. Forexample, if x% of the forest cover was lost what would this mean in terms of water regulationfor the area? If this forest loss resulted in an increased risk of flooding, what impacts wouldthis have (possible damage to property, land and life?) Following this type of analysis and

provision of bio-physical information it will be possible to identify the most appropriatevaluation techniques.

2.6 Cultural Services

Recreation & tourism

The KMNP boasts a number of impressive canyons and waterfalls. Valla Canyon is the 4 th

longest canyon in the world and has the potential to attract international tourists.

There are a number of specialised activities that could be developed in the park including:

Birdwatching and wildlife watching. Kre Mountains are included in the List ofImportant Bird Areas in Turkey , which was updated by the Nature Association andBirdlife in 2004; 129 bird species live in the area and 46 of them are endangered.

Canyoning, caving, rock climbing (adventure sports). Kre Mountains areconsidered one of the richest spots for canyons and caves in Turkey. Currently onlyexperts use the park for this activity, although there is the potential to train localguides to promote this activity.


32/76

29

It is estimated that 300,000 tourists visit the province annually 16. However, there are noestimates of visitors to the park. There are many unmanned entry points into the park so atpresent there is no means of recording visitor numbers. Workshop participants estimatedaround 5,000 visitors to the park and 7,000 visitors to the buffer zone.

Based on an interview in Ulukaya village, one entrepreneur earns a net profit of3,000TL/year from his cafe located by a small waterfall. He estimates that roughly 11,000tourists visit the site over the year, with 60% visiting during the summer months of June, Julyand August. Roughly 1% of visitors are foreign tourists from Germany, Uzbekistan andKorea.

Facilities (entrance gates, visitor centres, trails, signage) need repair and furtherdevelopment in order to attract significant numbers of tourists. Furthermore, understandingsubstitute sites and complementary attractions are important in estimating potential visitornumbers . IIgaz Mountain National Park is the nearest national park. Yildiz mountains isalso nearby. A recent study of Yildiz mountains estimated potential visitor numbers at 3,000visits a year at a value of 12,558 TL a year (Moran, 2009). Other attractions in the regionare the Bolu seven lakes national park, Safrenbolu famous for its old Ottoman houses anda UNESCO World Heritage site, and fishing villages such as Amasra and Cide (which iswithin the buffer zone). The park should be marketed in these areas. The park is welllocated at a 4hrs by bus ride from Ankara and Istanbul.

A benefits transfer approach can be adopted to provide an estimate of a potentialrecreational value for the area. Pak and Turker (2001) 17 derive recreational use values forSazalan Forest Recreation near Trabzon by using Travel Cost and Contingent Valuationmethods. Their study derived a value per visit of 9 TL based on a travel cost demandfunction.

If we assume, for example, that 10% of the tourists (i.e. 30,000) to the province could bepersuaded to visit the park once it is developed and marketed, this would result in a value of270,000 TL (US$180,000 per year). This estimate of potential visitor numbers concurs withthe estimate provide by workshop participants.

If as 2TL entrance fee were introduced, as suggested at the workshop, this would result in abenefit of 60,000 TL / year (US$ 40,000). This is a lower bound estimate of value as it doesnot include consumer surplus.

Note that this value does not include expenditure on accommodation, food or otherpurchases. Based on current visitor estimates (5,000 for the park and 7,000 for the bufferzone), over night costs of 60 TL, and an assumption that people stay 1 night to visit the parkand 3 days to visit the buffer zone, tourism expenditures are estimated at 300,000TL / year(US$200,000) for the park and 1,260,000 TL / year (US$ 840,000) in the buffer zonecurrently. This could increase to 1,800,000 TL/year (US$ 1,200,000) for the park and12,600,000 (US$ 8,400,000) for the buffer zone (based on 30,000 and 70,000 visitorsrespectively).

These estimates are highly speculative and detailed studies of the tourism potential inthe area is required over 2010 to develop the management and business plan.

Accommodation facilities inside KMNP buffer zone are increasing. Local investors arestarting to renovate old houses near the park for tourism purposes and there is an

16 Stolten and Higgins, 200917

Pak, M. and Turker, M. 2001. Determination of forest recreational use value of forest resources inTurkey: Sazalan Forest Recreation Site Sample. FAO.


33/76

30

ecotourism pilot project in Zumrut Village. A well designed ecotourism lodge promoting thetraditional culture of the area Yanik Ali Konagi, supported by an EU grant will be up andrunning Spring 2010. It is hoped that this renovated wooden house will attract visitors fromIstanbul and Ankara, with the potential to draw in international tourists if well marketed. It isproposed to charge guests 60TL per night. Trips to the park will costs 10-15TL per personper day, but will require groups of people to make the transportation costs worthwhile.

Eco-tourism has been identified as one of the most important alternative livelihoods for localcommunities living in the vicinity of KMNP. In an area where there has been significant out-migration and the remaining population is old, tourism is viewed as a means of rejuvenatingthe area, creating jobs and attracting people back to the area to work in the tourism industry.

It seems possible, through good planning and marketing, to create a strong tourism identityfor the area drawing on a number of connecting themes culture (protection of old houses,and traditional costumes), sustainable life style (including local mushroom cuisine),exceptional and well protected nature and geology and related recreational activities.

Valuing Tourism and Recreation

A tourism strategy is to be developed as part of the project, and it is recommended that theneeded economic information and data is collected as part of this strategy development.This will build on a recent tourism study for Kastamonu 18 .

Data / analysis required:

Existing and potential visitor numbers (based on studies of carrying capacity for the area)

Possible entrance fee. Entrance fees were discussed at the workshop, it is likely that a lowentrance fee of 2TL would be proposed so as not to put off visitors

Potential visitor numbers for specialised activities (cave visits, camping etc) and additionalcharges for these activities

Information on hotel capacity and occupancy in area and estimated number of people whocurrently come to visit the park

Hunting

There is hunting in the buffer zone and hunting permits are issued by the park manager. In

Bartin hunters come from Austria, Germany, Spain, France, America, Switzerland. A benefitsharing arrangement is in place whereby 40% of the revenue from hunting is given tovillages.

Valuing Hunting

No of hunters per year * permit price (per species)

The potential value of hunting should be based on defined quotas and an analysis of marketdemand.

18

Yeni, E. et al. Undated. Kastamonu-Bartin Kure Mountains National Park Sustainable TourismDevelopment Strategy 2007-2013 .


34/76

31

Cultural and Historical Values

The area has a long and rich cultural history. The recorded history of the region begins withthe Hittites in 2000 BC. The ancient Silk Road in Amasra located in the immediate environsof the park as well as many historical ruins and parts of the park have been identified by theMinistry of Culture and Tourism as being of special protection status due to historical andarchaeological importance. The region has not been influenced by rapid developments somuch of its natural and cultural heritage has survived. The area has important local traditionsrelated to folk music, traditional clothing and local cuisine; however traditional clothing style,traditional clothing colours, wooden architecture and life style are on the brink of extinction inmany areas around the park (UNDP, 2008).

Natural sacred sites , such as sacred springs in the core area of the park are of localimportance.

Education

Forestry has been a key element of the local economy and has been part of the locallandscape for hundreds of years. The history, traditions and practices of forestry could be ofconsiderable interest to the public and could add to the tourism offer of the area.Establishment for a forestry museum and educational centre in (for example, Azdavay) couldattract more visitors, educate the public and improve the image of forestry. Ideally the centrewould not just include static displays, but also demonstrations of forestry equipment andtechniques (Appleton, 2009).

Biodiversity non-use

The existence, or non-use biodiversity value of the park is likely to be high. However it iscomplex to value (it is only possible through stated preference approaches, which create a

hypothetical market) and is not considered to be a priority for the valuation at this stage.

Table 13 provides a summary of the sub-set of benefits for which it was possible to derivepreliminary economic estimates 19.

19 A recent study - Basak, Esra. 2009. Kackar Mountains Sustainable Foresty and ConservationProject Ecosystem Services Survey Final Report provides the following estimates - NFTPs 7,92 TL/ha; medicinal plants (genetic pool) 8,13 TL/ ha; pollination (increased agriculture products) 4.914,00TL/ ha; soil stabilisation 750,00 TL/ha; travel 123,11 TL/ha and biodiversity 17,31 TL/ha. Thisstudy is only availble in Turkish and it has not been possible to asses the transferability ofthese estimates to KMNP, this should be done by the project team.


35/76

Table 13. Summary of valuation result s.

Ecosystemservice

category

Benefit KMNP

(TL/US$)

Buffer Zone

(TL/US$)

Provisioning Timber Not permitted. 1,595,223 TL/year

(US$ 1,063,482).

Baseddistricproxy Buffer

Provisioning Firewood Not permitted. 363,514 TL/year

(US$ 242,342).

Baseddistricproxy data is

Provisioning NTFP (Collective estimate, cannotbe added to wooden spoons andchestnuts below)

Not permitted. 2,800,000 TL /year

(US$ 18,660,00 US$)

50TL/hectare (US$33)

Basedworksmushr

plants

Also (includ

Provisioning NTFP wooden spoons Not permitted but someillegal harvesting evident.

150,000 12,000,000(US$100,000

800,000).

Basedproduc0.5-4Tunsust

TheseNTFPwood

Provisioning NTFP chestnuts Not permitted. 6,000,000 9,000,000TL/year (US$ 4,000,000

-6,000,000 US$).

Estima


36/76

33

Ecosystemservice

category

Benefit KMNP

(TL/US$)

Buffer Zone

(TL/US$)

Provisioning Traditional grazing Not permitted 26 TL/ha

166,400TL(US$554,666)

Basedestima

Assumzone iassum

Regulating Climate change mitigation 1,008 TL/ha(US$ 672).

33,529,104 TL (US$22,352,736).

Not calculated asunlikely this value wouldbe captured in aproduction forestthrough carbon credits.

This isin thedeal wrealisearoundone of

Cultural Tourism and Recreation

Recreation (walking, rock climbing,camping, cave visits, canyonpassages, bird and wildlife watching,hunting, biking, horse riding sportsfishing, excavation of archaelogicalsites, picnics)

270,000 TL (US$180,000

per year).Expenditure: 300,000TL

/ year (US$ 200,000)

Expenditure: 1,260,000

TL / year (US$ 840,000)

Park:

assumdevelo

Expen(5,000over npeoplevisit testima

This (1,170(8,190

Total 570,000 TL/yearUS$380,000)

33,529,104 TL ( one-off )US$22,352,736)

4,135,137 TL/year(US$ 2,756,758)

Aggrecolum


37/76

3. Sustainable Financing Analysis for KMNP

3.1 Overview

of

Protected

Area

Financing

in

Turkey

An assessment of Turkeys financial systems and processes for funding protected areas hasrecently been completed using UNDPs financial sustainability scorecards (Thomas, 2009) 20.

The UNDP scorecard cards are designed to assist project teams and governments tracktheir progress to make protected area systems more financially sustainable. The scorecardsare targetted at the protected area system level and not at site level and therefore provide anational overview of Turkeys protected areas. They were used to provide context for thespecific discussions on KMNP at the workshop.

The scorecard has three sections:

Part I Overall financial status of the protected areas system. This includes basic protectedarea information and a financial analysis of the national protected area system.

Part II is compartmentalized into three fundamental components for a fully functioningfinancial system at the site and system level - (i) governance and institutional frameworks,(ii) business planning and other tools for cost-effective management (e.g. accountingpractices) and (iii) revenue generation. A summary of the scorecard findings for Turkey ispresented in Annex 1.

Part III Scoring and measuring progress.

The key results and conclusions of this protected area scorecard assessment for the wholeof Turkey are provided below 21.

Financial Assessment The General Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Parks (GDNCNP) is an

administrative unit of the Ministry for the Environment and Forestry. The Directorateis not a separate financial unit in terms of accounting for its operational income,investments or human resources. Hence it is not formally possible to identify specificfunding applied to the Directorate as a whole, Departments or individual protectedareas. The budget includes staff numbers (many of whom perform environmentaland forestry duties as well as national park duties), salaries, operational costs andoverheads.

Each year the national park agencies are required to provide bids for future years to

the Department of Finance based on achievable expenditure levels and knowncommitments. The final national budget is decided on a whole of government basisand whilst the Ministry as a whole has achieved small increases over recent year theoverall funding levels in real terms have remained static. There are no specificmeasures to ensure funds match costs and national parks have been a relatively lowfunding priority. Salary funding is provided directly from the Ministry of Finance toindividual staff members employed by the Directorate.

The process is made difficult by the lack of management plans and of a clear pictureregarding protected area development. Only 50% of parks have managementplans, and no parks have business or detailed financial plans . Financial planning

20

Thomas, 2009. Report on the Sustainable Financing of Protected Areas in the Caucasus Region prepared for WWF, Turkey. 21 This sections is based on Thomas 2009


38/76


39/76

36

Participants at the workshop felt that the key sources of revenue for KMNP going forwardwere domestic government funding, international donor funds / small grants and tourismcharges. Table 14 presents an assessment by workshop participants of the potential rolesof a range of possible financing mechanism for KMNP.

Conclusions and recommendations

While government funding is set to remain the key source of finance for the area otherfinancing mechanism are worth exploring.

Of critical importance will be mechanisms to ensure that local communities benefit fromthe park and that local livelihoods increase. Appleton, 2009 states At present mostcommunity members see no benefits from living near a protected area or in its buffer zoneand therefore have little incentive for contributing to the management and conservation ofthe area. This could be achieved through better management and marketing of NTFPs,continuing to share the benefits of hunting, and arrangements for involving localcommunities in tourism developments in the area.

Opportunities for cost sharing should be explored with local entrepreneurs and NGOs,particular in the area of tourism.

Tourism charges (entrance fees and charges for specific activities such as caving) shouldbe considered once the park facilities have been developed.

There is a strong focus on developing forest carbon offsets by the international communityat present. In order to capitalise on any new facility under a post Kyoto agreement, or toattract investors through the voluntary carbon market, an inventory of the parks carbonstorage should be undertaken.


40/76

37

Table 14. Workshop Assessment of Potential of Financing Mechanisms for KMNP

Financemechanism

Appl icable

(Yes/No)

Services / benefits that can be captured throughmechanism

If yes what inform

DomesticGovernmentFunding

Yes Investments (accommodation, entrance gates,infrastructure, roads).

Staff costs

Annual expenditure degovernments priorities

Conservation is not a budget allocation.

Low delivery rate in increase funding reque

Problems in allocating

No management planclear funds are being u

Donor Assistance

Yes Ecotourism activities

Public awareness

Nature Conservation Education and Training

Equipment

Technical assistance

Limited finance.

Less acceptance of pro

PrivateVoluntarydonations

No Not much interest froprocedures perceived a

The donors may have e


41/76

38

Financemechanism

Appl icable

(Yes/No)


If yes what inform

EnvironmentalFunds

No No legislation.

FiscalInstruments

Yes 7 projects are inserted into 2010 work programme ofBart n Governorship Special Provincial

Administration.

This is not in the priorProvincial Administrat

Benefits &revenuesharing

Yes Hunting tourism (buffer zone).

Non-timber forest products.

Mostly people just thin

Need the approval of General Directorate oParks.

Cost sharing Yes Other governmental organizations work for the

issues under their responsibility and share theirexpertise.

Research activities by NGOs.

Investment for road maintenance and otherinfrastructure by municipalities.

General Directorate of Forestry and GeneralDirectorate of Village Relations carry out activities inthe buffer zone. Gendarmerie forces patrol the area.

Construction of ecotourism centers by private sector/ NGOs.

Fishing station in the buffer zone. Trips to the site.

Lack of coordination.

Having no long term d

Lack of sufficient accthem stay in the neighb


42/76

39

Financemechanism

Appl icable

(Yes/No)


If yes what inform

Resource -use fees

Yes Hunting tourism

Mining (buffer zone)

No entrance fee.

Chestnut, linden, mushthose high economic va

Tourismcharges

Yes Lack of staff.

Insufficient promotion

PES No Ecosystem services arpermitted by the Gover

Telethones toraise money

? Suggested by group me


43/76

40

4 Developing a Business Plan

4.1 Background A protected areas business plan essentially sets out the financial reality of the management

plan. By applying business principles to the management of a protected area the businessplan seeks to improve financial stability and management of the site and attract funding.

There are no protected area business plans in Turkey, although a financial plan was recentlycompleted for Sultan Marshes. The business plan developed for KMNP will therefore sent aprecedent and may act as a template for other forest protected areas. The economicanalysis of the park demonstrates the potential value of the park. One of the roles of thebusiness plan is to set out how Turkey and communities around the park could maximisetheir financial returns from economic activities such as NTFPs and ecotourism, and fromregulating services such as carbon storage. A core component of the business plan is thefinancial plan. The financial plan is based on a systematic process of defining costs andidentifying ways to meet those costs. Good financial planning enables protected areamanagers to make strategic financial decisions such as re-allocating spending to matchmanagement priorities, and identifying appropriate cost reductions and potential cash flowproblems.

The intention is the manage the KMNP and the buffer zone as one unit, the business plancan therefore help provide a framework for the whole area. However, given that differentbodies are responsible for the park and the buffer zone, a separate analysis of the two areasis proposed.

The management plan is likely to cover the 10 year period of 2011 2022, and include a 5year operational plan. It is proposed that the business plan is initially developed for a 5 yearperiod to match the operational plan (2011-2016).

In its assessment of the management of the park, the project document (UNDP 2008) statesthat the park suffers from insufficient number of qualified staff, equipment and offices andhas been deprived of any effective management presence. Clearly there is work to be doneto protect and manage the biodiversity of the park and optimise tourism use of the area. Thebusiness plan will build on the management plan to set out how this can be achieved in afinancially sustainable manner.

The workshop included a session on the objectives and role of the business plan and how itrelates to the management plan, and a closing session on the structure of the business planand how it may be built up.

4.2 Challenges facing KMNP As an introduction into the business planning process for KMNP, workshop participants wereasked to consider the management challenges facing KMNP and its buffer zone and the roleand importance of the business plan. The main points are provided in Table 15.


44/76

41

Table 15. Challenges facing KMNP and its buffer zone and possib le solutions

Major challenges for Kure MountainsNational Park

Recommendations

National parks officials are not responsiblefor the buffer zone since it is outside thenational park boundaries and thereforecannot carry out any activities in the bufferzone. There is less attention from othergovernment bodies

The management plan should consider aMemorandum of Understanding (MOU) among theGeneral Directorate of Forestry, Ministry of

Agriculture, and other related organizations toimprove governance.

Water management outside the nationalpark boundaries is not under theresponsibility of national park authority.There is pressure on the water resources

Valuation of ecosystems services would help todemonstrate their importance

Limited awareness among local peopleand general public on sustainable use ofnatural resources and their economic value.

Use is uncontrolled.

The business plan can help to communicate theeconomic value of the natural resource base, theneed to use resources sustainably, and the need

to raise finance for marketing activitiesIf there is no long term development p lan in the management plan centralgovernmental financial support cannot beallocated at the appropriate times.

Business plan can set out activities and financingrequirements over a five year period

National park revenues are held centrallyand not necessarily reallocated back to thesite. No organizational structure for localmanagement of national parks.

The business plan should recommend anautonomous budget structure for the KMNP, whichallows revenues to be reinvested in the site.Explore use of revolving fund for the park.Planning needs to be more decentralised.

Currently local communities are notcompensated for income loss due toconservation of the park. Local people aretherefore paying the nature conservationbill. Identified areas of concern arefirewood and boxwood. Forestry activity inthe buffer zone has decreased leading to adrop in employment.

Need to commit to developing alternative sourcesof income for local people. There has been nosignificant progress in this area resulting ingrowing disappointment among local people. Thebenefits from tourism should be shared equitably.Small grant projects needed to support localcommunities develop new skills and businessopportunities.

After the project there is a risk that localpeople will feel abandoned

Solutions for sustainable financial managementcan be stated in the business plan, and this can becommunicated to local communities to ensurethem of the long term financial viability of the parkand buffer zone.

There are no sub-plans for NTFPs,ecotourism and hunting setting outsustainable production /carrying capacity.

These sub plans should be part of themanagement planning process.

No management or business plan. Withouta business plan there is no specificidentification of budget needs and it isdifficult to convince central government ofthe need for more funds

Management plan and business plan are to bebuilt up in an iterative manner over the next twelvemonths of the project. They can inform eachother. The business plan can be used tocommunicate needs for more resources tocentral government


45/76

42

Major challenges for Kure MountainsNational Park

Recommendations

Insufficient infrastructure, visitor centre,entrance gates, information boards etc

Need to be costed in the business plan andfinancial support requested / sought

Valuation of resources has not been donetherefore market values and importance ofnatural resources are unknown

Business plan can present initial assessment andsuggest ways to finance research of particularbenefits where a more detailed assessment isrequired

Lack of adequate staff (both in quality andquantity) for managing the site

Staffing needs to be set out in the business planalong with training requirements

Limited marketing of site so national andinternational nature conservationimportance of the site is not well known

Communications and publicity to be costed in thebusiness plan

No data management Need a database and more resources forresearch

No natural product certificates or marketingsystem for products

Financial support for research and developmentneeded

Not much attention to PAN parks studies Suggest budget for site visits / training

4.3 Draft Business Plan

This section presents the available information to inform the business plan and highlightsactions to complete the business planning process. A proposed work plan is presented insection 4.4.

Business Plan Content

The business plan should be a succinct document setting out the financial status, needs,opportunities and challenges of the protected area. It is best viewed as a process, ratherthan a product, that enables managers to makes better decision for the park based on thefinancial and economic information set out in the business plan.

An initial discussion on the content of the business plan was held at the workshop. There isno prescribed format for a business plan and it is the task of the KMNP project team andmanagement to agree the scope and content of the final business plan. A more limitedscope would focus on the financial plan, i.e., it would define the budget and any additionalfunding needs for the activities requited to meet the objectives of the management plan. Amore comprehensive business plan would look more holistically at the economic andfinancial information and operational processes with the objective of ensuring effectivemanagement of the area. Such an analysis would include an assessment of trends,opportunities, options and attempt to address weaknesses and capitalise on strengthsthereby increasing the certainty of delivering on the management plan objectives.


46/76

43

The possible contents of the business plan were discussed at the workshop (see column 1of Table 16). The workshop presentation should be referred to for more details on the bulletpoints presented in column one of Table 16. The results of an exercis

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	sakib-nishu
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Business Plan for Kmnp Final Report

Documents