03_The Economic Analysis of Gokova Special Environmental Protection Area

8/13/2019 03_The Economic Analysis of Gokova Special Environmental Protection Area

1/83

Economic Analysis ofGkova Special Environmental

Protection Area

T.C.

EVRE VE EHRCLKBAKANLII

T.C.EVRE VE EH RC L KBAKANLII

Empowered lives.

Resilient nations.


2/83

Economic Analysis ofGkova Special Environmental

Protection Area

Strengthening the System ofMarine and Coastal Protected Areas of Turkey Project

2011

Prepared by:Camille Bann & Esra Baak

T.C.EVRE VE EHRCLKBAKANLII

T.C.EVRE VE EH RC L KBAKANLIIEmpowered lives.

Resilient nations.

1


3/83

ii Economic Analysis of Gkova Special Environmental Protection Area

2011 Ministry of Environment and Urbanization

General Directorate of Natural Assets Protection (GDNAP)

Alparslan TrkeCad. 31. Sok. No.10 06510 Betepe/Yenimahalle/Ankara

Tel: +90 312 222 12 34 Fax: +90 312 222 26 61

http://www.csb.gov.tr/gm/tabiat

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

Birlik Mahallesi 415. Cadde No. 11 06610 ankaya/Ankara Tel: +90 312 454 1100 Fax: +90 312 496 1463 www.undp.org.tr Empowered Lives. Resilient Nations.

This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profitpurposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of thesource is made. GDNAP or UNDP would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses thispublication as a source. No use of this publication may be made for resale of for any other commercial

purpose whatsoever without permission in writing from GDNAP or UNDP.

For bibliographic purposes this text may be referred as: Bann, C., Baak, E. (2011). The economic analysis of Gko-va Special Environmental Protection Area. Economic Analysis reports for Foa and Gkova in the framework ofenvironmental economics principles. Project PIMS 3697: The Strengthening the System of Marine and CoastalProtected Areas of Turkey. Technical Report Series 3: 80 pp.

This publication is prepared within the framework of large scale Strengthening the system of Marineand Coastal Protected Areas of Turkey Project which is funded by the Global Environment Fund (GEF)and executed by the General Directorate of Natural Assets Protection of the Turkish Ministry of Envi-ronment and Urbanization and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), in partnership

with the General Directorate of Fisheries and Aquaculture of the Turkish Ministry of Food, Agricultureand Livestock and the General Directorate for Nature Conservation and National Parks (GDNCNP) ofthe Turkish Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs.

Technical Report Series: 3

Authors:Camille Bann & Esra BaakCover and Layout Design:Evren alayan

Layout Design Corrections:Glden Atkn Genolu, Gner Ergn & Harun GlsoyCover Photos: Woman repairing fishnet, Harun Glsoy

Sailing Boat, GDNAP ArchivesBoats, Vahdet nal

Photos: 1. Esra Baak, 2. BarAkal, 3. GDNAP Archives, 4. GDNAP Archives,5. GDNAP Archives, 6. Harun Glsoy, 7. BarAkal, 8. Esra Baak, 9. BarAkal,

10.Vahdet nal, 11. Vahdet nal

This document should not be considered as an official Turkish Ministry of Environment and Urbanization, GEFand United Nations document.


4/83

iiiStrengthening the system of the Marine and Coastal Protected Areas of Turkey

Foreword

T urkey is a country surrounded by the sea onthree sides. Turkeys nature and climatic condi-tions adorn it with a significant biodiversity in its

coastal areas. However, there are also problems thattouch these regions and that become more imminenteveryday. Urbanization, industrialization, tourism,other residential areas and activities alike that leadsto irregular and unplanned development that havesevere impacts on coastal and marine areas.

Developments, especially in the economy also in-crease marine transportation and dependency onthe use of marine and coastal areas for develop-ment, housing, commerce, recreational activitiesand basic needs. Furthermore, the pressure of fasturbanization and settlement activities on coastal

areas leads to many problems including loss ofdunes, salt beds and marshes; marine and coastalpollution, deterioration and loss of coastal ecosys-tems. Biodiversity and fertility of coastal and ma-rine areas are faced with this increasing pressure,leading to damages that cannot be undone.

These coastal and marine areas are one of themost precious assets we have and we must pro-tect them. In order to alleviate these pressures andovercome these challenges, relevant structures andinfrastructures for effective implementation and

surveillance to ensure that these areas are sustain-ably managed, preserved and protected withoutbeing deteriorated and with a balanced approachbetween use and protection. In this regard, all re-lated agencies and institutions have to go under acapacity building process to meet the demands ofthe required structures and infrastructures; coop-eration and coordination between all parties haveto be improved and an effective and efficiently op-erating work program and a model for financialresources have to be developed.

In its responsibility area covering a coastline that

extends over some 8,592 km, General Directoratefor the Natural Assets Protection carries out re-search activities for the protection and study ofthreatened and endangered species and habitatsthat are duly specified in the national legislationas well as in international conventions that Tur-key is a party; carries out research activities onthe biodiversity of marine and coastal environ-ments; determines the marine surface vessel ca-pacity of important bays and harbors; establishes

procedures and principles for use of protectionand use of such areas; carries out other integralcoastal management activities and strives to mini-

mize risks that threaten such assets.Protection of marine and coastal resources beinga global priority, Marine Protected Areas are fastdeveloping and expanding as a concept. Turkeyis no exception to this rule where considerableawareness raising efforts are being carried out.

Through the large scale GEF Project entitledStrengthening Turkeys Marine and Coastal Pro-tected Areas covering the term between 2009-2013and with the UNDP as the implementing partner,the General Directorate has taken a very first step

for devising a long term solution for the protectionof marine biodiversity in Turkish coastal waters;for the restructuring of marine and coastal protect-ed areas database and to guarantee effectivenessand sustainability of ecological service functions.

A series of technical reports that are prepared as apart of the project on economic analysis, socio-econ-omy of fisheries in coastal areas, together with otherefforts on the identification of marine sensitive areas,integration of economic principles to planning pro-cesses, ensuring financial sustainability, mitigationof pollutants from marine vessels and determina-

tion of alternative livelihood resources are expectedto yield the following project outcomes:

- Responsible institutions have the capacitiesand internal structure needed for prioritizingthe establishment of new MCPAs and for moreeffectively managing existing MCPAs.

- MCPA financial planning and managementsystems are facilitating effective business plan-ning, adequate levels of revenue generationand cost-effective management.

- Inter-agency coordination mechanisms in placeto regulate and manage economic activitieswithin multiple use areas of the MCPAs.

Documents covering the three main outcomes ofthe Project so far mentioned are submitted to yourperusal.

Osman YMAYADep. Gen. Dir.


5/83

iv Economic Analysis of Gkova Special Environmental Protection Area

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the following people for their contributions to this report: smet Esgin Zorlu(GDNAP Akyaka Office); Bekir Erdoan (GDNAP Mula Office); and, Begm Hazar Gkcan, SercanAcar, Sekin Acar, Melda Tanrkulu and ahika Gnel who assisted with the tourism survey; Dr. Vah-

det nal and Denizcan Durgun who shared data on fisheries economics; all the interviewed parties lo-cally who provided data utilized in the report as well as the GDNAP and UNDP project team.

Acronyms

ESA Ecosystem Service Approach

EU The European Union

GEF Global Environment Facility

GDNAP General Directorate of Natural Assets Protection

IKO International Kite Boarding Organization

MARA Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs

MCPA Marine and Coastal Protected Area

REDD Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation

SEPA Special Environmental Protection Area

SMAP Short and Medium Term Priority Environmental Action Program

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

UNDP United Nations Development Programme


6/83

vStrengthening the system of the Marine and Coastal Protected Areas of Turkey

Table of ContentsForeword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iiiAcknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ivAcronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iv

Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vList of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viiList of Boxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viiYnetici zeti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viiiExecutive summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2. Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.3. Layout of report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2BACKGROUND ON SITE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.1. Biodiversity Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.2. Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.3. Socio-economic characteristics of site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.1. Marine Ecosystem Services Typology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.2. Provisioning services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93.2.1. Food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93.2.2. Raw materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93.3. Regulating services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93.3.1. Regulation of GHGs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93.3.2. Micro-climate stabilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133.3.3. Disturbance Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3.3.4. Waste remediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133.4. Cultural Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133.4.1. Spiritual, religious and cultural heritage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133.4.2. Education and research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143.4.3. Recreation and Tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143.4.4. Landscape and amenity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143.4.5. Biodiversity non-use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153.4.6. Option value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

VALUATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164.1. Provisioning Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174.1.1. Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4.1.2. Salicornia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234.2. Regulating services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234.2.1. Carbon sequestration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234.2.2. Protection against coastal erosion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254.2.3. Waste treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254.3. Cultural services - tourism and recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264.3.1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264.3.2. Tourism Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294.3.3. Valuation of Key Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40


7/83

vi Economic Analysis of Gkova Special Environmental Protection Area

4.4. Summary of Valuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

OPPORTUNITIES TO INCREASE REVENUE FLOWS FROM GKOVA SPA . . . . . . . . . . . . 455.1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455.2. Finance mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465.2.1. Fiscal instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

5.3. Market-based charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465.3.1. Tourism charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465.3.2. Marine Carbon Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465.3.3. Payments for Ecosystem Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475.3.4. Biodiversity offsets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 486.1. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 486.2. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51Appendix 1. List of Interviews, April 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Appendix 2. Tourism Survey Instrument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Appendix 3: Qualitative Assessment of Kadn Azmak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

List of Tables

Table 1. Overview of Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Table 2. Qualitative assessment of marine ecosystem services and benefits at Gkova SEP . . . . . . .10

Table 3. General characteristics of Akyaka and Akapnar fishery cooperatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Table 4. Quantity of fish marketed by Akyaka & Akapnar cooperatives in Gkova 2009-2010 . . . .18

Table 5. Quantity and Value of Fish Marketed in Gkova Inner Bay 2005-2006(covers 2 co-operatives) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Table 6. Akyaka Fisheries Cooperative 2010, Volume of Fish by species / kg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

Table 7. Socio-demographics and economic characteristics of small-scale fishermen . . . . . . . . . . .22

Table 8. Economic / financial results of small scale fishing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Table 9. Global averages and standard deviations of the carbon sequestration ratesand global ranges for the carbon pools by habitat type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Table 10. Potential carbon sequestration value of Posidoniameadows atGkova SEPA . . . . . . . . .24

Table 11. Location and types of tourist facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Table 12. Licenced establishments in Mula province . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33Table 13. Summary of Daily Expenditure by Visitors to Gkova (TL). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

Table 14. Customers per year for surveyed restaurants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

Table 15. Sedir Island - visitor numbers and tourism fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Table 16. Marine related recreational activities valuation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

Table 17. Daily use areas being rented out by GDNAP and their values for 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

Table 18. Summary of valuation results for Gkova SEPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

Table 19. Typology of potential financing mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

Table A3:1. Typology of wetland ecosystem services and a qualitative assessment of Kadn Azmak. .61


8/83

viiStrengthening the system of the Marine and Coastal Protected Areas of Turkey

List of Figures

Figure 1. Map of Gkova SEPA (Source: Kra and Veryeri, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Figure 2. Distribution of seagrasses in Gkova SEPA (Source: Kra and Veryeri, 2010). . . . . . 12

Figure 3. Nationality of visitors to Gkova SEPA (Source: Tourism survey 2011). . . . . . . . . . 30

Figure 4. Quality of Tourism Experience in Gkova SEPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Figure 5. Views reflecting what the visitors like in Gkova SEPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Figure 6. Views reflecting what the visitors do not like in Gkova SEPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Figure 7. Length of stay for Turkish and foreign visitors in Gkova SEPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Figure 8. Distribution of visitors expenditures in Gkova SEPA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Figure 9. Number of Part and Fulltime Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Figure 10. Surveyed Hotel Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Figure 11. Kadn Azmak wetland in Akyaka (by Esra Baak) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

List of Boxes

Box 1.Seagrass meadows (Posidonia oceanica) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Box 2.Akyakas bid to become a Slow City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Box 3. An overview of Akyaka Cooperative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Box 4. Tourism and Recreation in Akyaka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Box 5.Overview of Beaches of Inner Gkova Bay. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Box 6.Overview of Lodgings in Brdbet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Box 7.Mitigating carbon loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Exchange rates

1 TL = US$ 0.6235

1 TL= 0.4

1 = US$1.40


9/83

viii Economic Analysis of Gkova Special Environmental Protection Area

Ynetici zeti

almann Amacve Yaklam

Gkova zel evre Koruma Blgesi (KB) doal, tarihi ve kltrel nemi nedeniyle 1988 y

l

nda de-niz ve kykoruma alanilan edilmitir.

Bu almann amacGkova KBsinin ekonomik analizini gerekletirerek:

Alann temin ettii denizel hizmet ve rnler yelpazesi hakknda farkndalk yaratmak;

Kilit ekosistem hizmetlerinin devamn tehdit eden basklara ve bunlarn ekonomik sonularnaiaret ederek alann srdrebilir ynetimine katkda bulunmak;

Denizel hizmetlerin ekonomik deerini ortaya koyarak ve potansiyel gelir getirici faaliyet ve meka-nizmalarn altnizerek alan iin hazrlanacak olan Planna bilgi tabansalamaktr.

Bu almann da bir parasnoluturduu GEF-UNDP projesi kapsamnda, Gkova KBsi iin al-

ternatif gelir kaynaklarseenekleri ve masraf azaltcmekanizmalarn tespit edilmesi ve bir iplannngelitirilmesi ngrlmtr. Dolaysyla bu rapor alandaki ekosistem hizmetlerinin ve deerlerinintespit edilmesine odaklanm, potansiyel finansal mekanizmalar hakknda sadece st dzeyde bir tar-tma dahil edilmitir.

Gkova KBsinin ekonomik analizi alan hakknda mevcut veri ve literatr taramasna, Eyll 2010 veMart 2011de kilit paydalarla yaplan grmelerden elde edilen verilere ve Haziran 2011de alandayrtlen turizm anketlerine dayanmaktadr. Turizm anketleri, Gkova KBsine gelen turist sayla-r, kalsreleri, harcamalarn nitelik ve yaps, otel doluluk oranlargibi resmi veya baslistatistiklerdebulunmayan bilgilerin derlenmesini salamtr. Anketler 155 ziyareti, 7 turizm operatr, 28 otel ve23 lokanta ile gerekletirilmitir. Ayrca muhtemel yarar transfer deerlerini temin edebilmek, alaniin belirlenen deerleri karlatrmak ve deerleme yaklamlarna dair farklanlaylargrebilmekiin, bata Akdeniz havzasolmak zere, deniz ve kyalanlarnda yrtlmekonomik deerlemealmalarna dair bir literatr taramasda yrtlmtr.

Bu alma iin, Ekosistem Hizmetleri Yaklam (Ecosystem Service Approach ESA) ve MilenyumEkosistem Deerlendirmesinin tedarik, dzenleme, kltrel ve destek hizmetleri snflandrmasna(2005) dayanarak, deniz ve kyekosistemleri hizmetlerine ynelik bir tiploji gelitirilmitir. EkosistemHizmetleri Yaklamdenizel ortamlardaki ekosistemlerin ve bunlarn barndrdbiyolojik eitliliinbireysel ve sosyal refaha katkda bulunduunu aka onaylamaktadr. Yaklam, bu katknn balk gibidorudan tketilen rnlerin temininin ok daha tesine gittiini, denizel ekosistemlerin karbon tut-ma gibi kritik dzenleme fonksiyonlarolduunu takdir etmektedir. Dolaysyla, Ekosistem HizmetleriYaklamkarar alma srelerinde ekosistemlerin bir btn olarak ele alnmasnve saladklarhiz-

metlere deer biilmesini salayan bir ereve sunmaktad

r.

Temel Bulgular

almada Gkova KBsinin bir yllk ekonomik deeri 31.2 milyon ABD dolarolarak hesaplanm-tr. Bu, alann balang aamasndaki deerini yanstmaktadr ve daha detaylalmalarla gelitirilme-lidir. Ortaya karlan deer tedarik hizmetleri (balk), dzenleme hizmetleri (karbon tutma, erozyonkontrol ve su artm), ve kltrel hizmetleri (turizm ve rekreasyon) kapsamaktadr. Ancak, turizmiin kullanlan muhafazakar tahminler ve kaile alnamayan dier ekositem hizmetlerinden tr tes-pit edilen bu deerin alann gerek ekonomik deerinin altnda olduu tahmin edilmektedir. Alanda


10/83

ixStrengthening the system of the Marine and Coastal Protected Areas of Turkey

potansiyel olarak varolduu dnlen fakat bilimsel bilgi ve/veya veri noksanlndan incelenemeyenekosistem hizmetleri arasnda doal ilalar gibi hammaddeler, genetik kaynaklar ve dekoratif rnler;denizel ortamn mikro-iklim dzenlemesinde ve sel, frtnadan korumadaki rol; alann eitim, peyzajve miras deerleri gibi henz zerinde allmamhizmetler bulunmaktadr. Aadaki tablo GkovaKBsi deerleme almasnzetlemektedir.

Tablo. Gkova KBsi deerleme sonularzeti

Hizmet Deer/ ylABD$

Deerleme yntemi Not

Balk 332,854 Piyasa deerleri Bu deer srdrebilir av oranna gre hesaplanmamtr (alan iinbilinmiyor). Rekreasyonel balkl kapsamamaktadr ve balkavmiktarlarnn kayt dolmasndan tr gerek deerine gremuhtemelen dktr.Brt deerlerdir masraflar dlmemitir.

Deniz brlcesi 62,350 Piyasa deerleri 5TL/kg piyasa deeri ve blgedeki lokantalarnn %50sinin sezonbabirer ton talebi olduu varsaylmtr.Brt deerlerdir masraflar dlmemitir.

Karbon tutma 792,064 Piyasa deerleri(kanlan harcamayaklam)

Orman karbon piyasasna benzer ekilde Mavi Karbon Kredipiyasasnn geliecei varsaylmtr. Dolaysyla bu deer henzyakalanmamaktadr. Karbon piyasa deeri 11.2 $/ tCO2edeeriolarak alnmtr.

Erozyonkontrol

2,844,800 Yarar transferi Mangos ve arkadalar(2010). Her kymetresi iin 160,000 avro,Gkova KBsindeki 159 kmlik Posidonia ayrlarna ve alann%8nin risk altnda olduuna dayanarak.

Atksu artm 10,148,400 Yarar transferi Mangos ve arkadalarna (2010) dayanarak, Trkiye kylariinhesaplanan 229 milyon luk artm hizmeti Gkova KBsindekikysal alana taksim edilmitir.

Turizm /Rekreasyon

17,051,104 Piyasa deerleri alma kapsamnda yrtlen turizm harcamalaranketine veblgeye gelen ziyareti saylarna dair muhafazakar kestirimlere (ylda

30,000 geceleyen ve 100,000 gnbirlik ziyareti) dayanarak.TOPLAM 31,231,572

Alann deerlerinin yaklak %55i turizm ve rekreasyona dayanmaktadr ve blgede turizm sektrnsrdrebilir bir ekilde ynetmenin nemine iaret etmektedir. Gkova KBsi iin hesaplanan atksuartma hizmeti de nemli bir boyuttadr (toplam deerin %32,5i). Ancak bu deer yarar transferi me-toduyla llmtr ve blgeye spesifik aratrmalarla iyiletirilmelidir. Bunun iin ncelikle korumablgesindeki denizel artm hizmetinin bilimsel almalarla tanmlanmasgerekmektedir.

Deerleme sonular alandaki Posidonia ayrlarnn karbon tutma ve erozyon kontrol hizmetlerine

dayanan ekonomik nemini vurgulamaktadr. Karbon tutma deeri alana zel almalar yrtlerek,Gkovadaki Posidonia ayrlarnn karbon depolama ve tutma kapasiteleri incelenerek rafine edilmeli-dir. Mavi Karbon piyasasnn geliiminde gzlemlenen ilgi gz nnde tutulduunda bu aratrmalaryrtmek iin ok uygun bir zamandr.

Alandaki balkln deeri 332,854$ olarak hesaplanmtr. Bu deer rekreasyonel balklkapsama-masndan ve genelde balk avmiktarlarnn kayt dolmasndan tr gerek deerine gre muhte-melen dktr, fakat bu tahmin srdrebilir av miktarndaha iyi yanstabilir. Balklk iin ekonomikdeer srdrebilir av oranna gre hesaplanmaldr ve bu oran Gkova iin bilinmemektedir. Blgede


11/83

x Economic Analysis of Gkova Special Environmental Protection Area

zellikle youn yasa dbalk avfaaliyetlerinden tr (zpknla avclk) balkln gelecei kayguyandrmaktadr. Dolaysyla balkln srdrebilirlii asndan balk stoklaranaliz edilmelidir.

Alandaki ekosistem hizmetleri yerel ekonomi ve kalknma asndan da nemlidir. Akyaka BelediyeBakanna gre, Akyaka ekonomisinin %60-80i kyya dayanmaktadr; bylece denizel koruma nem-lidir. Turizm ve rekreasyon ilenin GSMHsnn %60noluturmakta ve 500 kiiye salanan igc ile

Akyaka ekonomisi iin elzemdir. lede 170 kk iletme (lokanta, kafe ve oteller) turizme baldr.Ayrca Brdbet blgesinde yaklak 50 kii daha turizmden geinmektedir. Hane geimi ayrca ba-lkla da dayanmaktadr. rnein Akyakada yaklak 60 hane balklk yapmakta ve Akapnarnfusunun %70i balklkla uramaktadr. Ancak son aratrmalar blgedeki kk lekli balklksektrnn dzensiz ve dk gelir seviyeleri nedeniyle tehdit altnda olduunu ortaya koymaktadr.Bunun ana nedeni blgede youn olarak yrtlen yasa davclk faaliyetleridir.

Bu i imkanlar isizlik oranlarnn yksek ve alternatif gelir kaynaklarnn snrlolduu bu blgedenemlidir. Akyakada isizlik oran%8 civarnda, blge genelinde %3tr ve Gkova Krfezi ierisindenfusun yaklak %40nn gelirleri asgari cretin altndadr.

Ekonomik ve kltrel nemlerine ramen, Gkova KBsindeki ekosistem hizmetleri hem nicelik

hem de nitelik olarak ciddi basklarn altndadr. Bunlarn banda arve yasa dbalk av, turizmdenkaynaklbasklar ve kysal yaplama gelmektedir.

neriler

alma sonucunda, deerleme yntemlerinin iyiletirilmesine ve denizel ekosistem hizmetlerinin dahaetkin ve srdrebilir ynetilmesine ynelik bazneriler gelitirilmitir. rnein;

Balklk iin yaplan deerleme ve balklk ynetimi, srdrebilir av orannn (miktar) net fay-daya (gelirler eksi masraflar) arplmasna dayandrlmaldr. Srdrebilir av oranlarnn tespit edi-lebilmesi iin alandaki balk stoklarnn dzenli bilimsel aratrmalarla incelenmesi gerekmektedir.

Alana zel dzenleme hizmelerineodaklbilimsel almalar bu hizmetleri daha iyi anlamak vedeerlemeye k tutmak asndan gerekmektedir. Bu srasyla u hizmetleri kapsamaktadr: kar-bon tutma, erozyon kontrol, sel ve frtnadan korunma ve atklarn zmsenmesi.

ncelikli aratrma alanolarak alandaki Posidoniaayrlarnnsaladhizmetler incelenmelidir.Gkova KBsine zel olarak yrtlecek almalarla ayrlarn saladkarbon tutma ve depo-lama oranlarTrkiyeyi yeni gelien Mavi Karbon piyasasnda avantajlbir konuma tayabilir.

Turizm blgenin deniz koruma alanstatsn btnleyici bir ekilde gelimeli ve ynetilmelidir.Blgenin turizm tama kapasitesini ortaya koyan bir alma ile turizm geliiminin snrlarbelir-lenmeli ve buna balolarak turizm master planveya stratejisinin oluturulmasve uygulanmasnerilmektedir. Bu, turizmi saysal olarak artrmak yerine alann tama kapasitesine uygun yk-sek kalitede bir turizm deneyimine odaklanmaldr. Master plan alann denizel koruma statsn

tamamlaycolmalve blgedeki Yavaehir kriterlerine uyumu gzetmelidir. Master plan G-kova KB zerindeki turizm basklarn(katve svatkladan kaynakldenizel ve kysal kirlilikgibi) azaltmaya ynelik ve turizme balaltyapykuvvetlendirmeye ynelik mekanizmalarara-trmaldr.


12/83

xiStrengthening the system of the Marine and Coastal Protected Areas of Turkey

Executive summary

Objectives of study & approach

Gkova was declared a Special Environmental Protection Area (SEPA) in 1988 on account of its natural,historical and cultural significance. The objective of this study was to undertake an economic analysisof Gkova Special Environmental Protection Area (SEPA) in order to:

Raise awareness of the range of marine goods and services provided by the site

Contribute to the sustainable management of the site by highlighting pressures threatening the vi-ability of key ecosystem services and the economic implications of this

Inform the business plan to be developed for the site by demonstrating the economic value of marineservices and highlighting potential revenue generating activities and mechanisms.

It should be noted that other components of the GEF-UNDP project under which this study sits are fo-cused on the identification of feasible income generating options, the determination of cost-offsetting

mechanisms and the development of a business plan for Gkova SEPA. Therefore this report is focusedon the identification and valuation of ecosystem services and only provides a high level discussion ofpotential financing mechanisms

The economic assessment of Gkova SEPA is based on a review of the available data and literature onthe site, interviews with key stakeholders and data gathered through a site visit in March 2011 and atourism survey undertaken in June 2011. The tourism survey was able to provide information on thetourist numbers, duration of their stay, composition and expenditure patterns, and hotel occupancy rateswithin Gkova SEPA, which is not available from official or published statistics. The survey covered 155visitors, 7 tour operators, 28 hotels and 23 restaurants. A literature review of economic valuation stud-ies of marine and coastal areas from the region was also undertaken to provide potential transfer values,benchmarks against which to assess values derived for the site and insights on valuation approaches.

A typology of marine and coastal ecosystem services has been developed for this study following theecosystem service approach (ESA), which is based on the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) clas-sification of ecosystem services into provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services. The ESAexplicitly recognizes that ecosystems such as marine environments and the biological diversity containedwithin them contribute to individual and social wellbeing. Importantly it recognizes that this contribu-tion extends beyond the provision of goods such as fish to the natural regulating functions of marineecosystems such as carbon sequestration. The ESA therefore provides a framework for considering wholeecosystems in decision making and for valuing the services they provide.

Key Findings

This study estimates the economic value of Gkova SEPA at around US$31.2 million per year. This pro-vides an initial value of the site, which needs to be refined through further study. This value incorporateprovisioning services - fish and salicornia, regulating services carbon sequestration, erosion protectionand waste treatment, and cultural services tourism and recreation. It is considered to be an underesti-mate in that conservative estimates have been used for example for tourism and a number of potentiallyimportant services are not included in this total. Ecosystems services thought to be present (or potentiallypresent) at the site which cannot be estimated due to a lack of scientific information and/or data are raw materials such as natural medicines, genetic resources and ornamental resources, which have yet tobe studied at the site; the role the marine environment plays in micro-climate regulation, the role of the


13/83

xii Economic Analysis of Gkova Special Environmental Protection Area

marine environment in flood and storm protection, the sites heritage value and educational value and thesites landscape and amenity value.

Table. Summary of Valuation results for Gkova SEPA

Service Value/ year

US$

Valuation approach Comment

Fish 332,854 Market prices This is not based on a sustainable harvest rate, which is unknown.This estimate does not include recreational fishing and may bebased on an under-reporting of fish catch.This is a gross value costs have not been deducted

Salicornia 62,350 Market price Market price of 5TL/kg and assumption that 50% of restaurants inarea demand 1 ton per seasonThis is a gross value costs have not been deducted

Carbonsequestration

792,064 Market prices (avoidedcost approach)

Assumes development of market in blue carbon credits analogousto the forest carbon market. This value is therefore not currentlycaptured. Based on market price of carbon of US$11.2 / tCO2eq

Erosion

protection

2,844,800 Benefits transfer Mangos et al(2010). Based on 160,000 Euro per meter of

coastline, 159km of Posidoniabeds in Gkova SEPA and 8% ofthe area at risk.

Waste treatment 10,148,400 Benefits transfer Based on Mangos et al(2010) estimate for Turkey of 229 millionEuros apportioned to the study site based on length of itscoastline.

Tourism /Recreation

17,051,104 Market prices Based on a conservative estimate of tourist numbers (30,000overnight visitors and 100,000 day visitors per year) and a surveyof tourist expenditure

TOTAL 31,231,572

Around 55% of the value is attributable to tourism and recreation in the area highlighting the impor-tance of sustainably managing the tourism industry. The estimate of waste treatment function of Gko-va SEPA is also significant (around 32,5% of the total). However this value is based on a value transferapproach and needs to be refined through site specific studies. This first requires scientific studies todefine the provision of this service at the site.

The valuation results highlight the economic importance of the sites Posidonia meadows, which resultin the estimated benefits of carbon sequestration and erosion protection. The carbon sequestration val-ue could be refined through site specific studies of the storage and sequestration functions performedby Gkovas Posidonia meadows. Such studies would be timely given the current interest in develop-ing a market in Blue Carbon.

The value of fish is estimated at US$332,854. This may be an underestimate as it does not include thevalue of recreational fishing and may be based on under reporting of actual catch, however it may bet-ter reflect a sustainable fishery resource value. The economic value should be based on a sustainableharvest level, which is not specified for the area, and there are concerns that the fishery is currently onan unsustainable path due largely to illegal fishing. Fish stocks therefore need to be analyzed to assessthe sustainability of the fishery.

The sites ecosystem services are also important to local livelihoods and economies. According to themajor of Akyaka, between 60-80% of Akyakas economy is dependent on the coast, therefore marineprotection is important. Tourism and recreation are vital to the Akyakas economy representing 60% of


14/83


15/83

1Strengthening the system of the Marine and Coastal Protected Areas of Turkey

INTRODUCTION

T his study is an activity under the Global En-vironment Facility - United Nations Develop-ment Programme (GEF-UNDP) project Strength-ening the Protected Area Network of Turkey:Catalyzing Sustainability of Marine and CoastalProtected Areas.

The proposed long-term solution for marine bio-diversity conservation in Turkeys territorial sea isa reconfigured Marine and Coastal Protected Area(MCPA) network designed to protect biodiversitywhile optimizing its ecological service functions.The success of this long-term solution is seen torest on three main pillars: (i) the existence of keyagencies capable of identifying and managingsensitive and biologically significant MCPAs; (ii)the application of economic analysis to informthe planning and management of MCPAs and theintegration of sustainable financing mechanisms;and (iii) inter-sectoral co-operation that buildson the relevant strengths of various managementagencies and branches of Government and civilsociety to solve marine biodiversity conservationchallenges. This study relates to the developmentof the second pillar.

1.1. Objective

The objective of this study was to undertake an

economic analysis of Gkova Special Environ-mental Protection Area (SEPA) in order to:

Raise awareness of the range of marine goodsand services provided by the site

Contribute to the sustainable management ofthe site by highlighting pressures threateningthe viability of key ecosystem services and theeconomic implications of this

Inform the business plan to be developed forthe site by demonstrating the economic value

of marine services and highlighting poten-tial revenue generating activities and mecha-nisms.

It should be noted that other components of theGEF-UNDP project under which this study sitsare focused on the identification of feasible in-come generating options, the determination ofcost-offsetting mechanisms and the developmentof a business plan for Gkova MCPA. Therefore2


16/83

2 Economic Analysis of Gkova Special Environmental Protection Area

this report is focused on the identification andevaluation of ecosystem services and only pro-vides a high level discussion of potential financ-ing mechanisms.

1.2. ApproachThe economic assessment of Gkova SEPA isbased on a review of the available data and lit-erature on the site, interviews with key stake-holders and data gathered through a site visit inMarch 2011 and a tourism survey undertaken inJune 2011. A list of people consulted is providedin Appendix 1, while the tourism survey instru-ment is provided in Appendix 2. A literature re-view of economic valuation studies of marine andcoastal areas from the region was also undertaken

to provide potential transfer values, benchmarksagainst which to assess values derived for the siteand insights on valuation approaches.

This assessment draws heavily on two recentstudies of the area:

SAD-AFAG1led a 22 month project to designa draft Integrated Coastal and Marine Man-agement Plan for Gkova SEPA (Kra andVeryeri, 2010). The project partners wereThe Rubicon Foundation of the Netherlands,

GDNAP formerly known as the Environ-mental Protection Agency for Special Areas(EPASA), and the Ministry of Agriculture andRural Affairs (MARA). The study undertookscientific and socio-economic surveys andanalysis and covered the whole of GkovaSEPA.

The European Union (EU) Short and MediumTerm Priority Environmental Action Program(SMAP) III Gkova project2 Preparation ofIntegrated Coastal Zone management for the

Inner Gkova Bay and Sedir Island (2006-2009),was co-ordinated by Mula Universityand the project partners were the Governanceof Mula province, the Municipality of Akya-ka and GDNAP (former EPASA). This study

1 SAD-AFAG is a Turkish NGO, which specialises in the research and protection of marine and coastal habitats.2 SMAP III is the third stage of the European Union Short and Medium-term Priority Environmental Action Programme (SMAP)

evaluated the current economic activities inthe area such as tourism, fishing and agricul-ture, and considered ways of enhancing theincome of local communities. A review of theliterature was combined with field surveys toprovide an up to date overview of the scientif-

ic evidence for the site. This study covers 80%of the Gkova SEPA.

An Ecosystem Service Valuation Framework wasdeveloped for the assessment, which provides acomprehensive list of marine and coastal servicesprovided at the site (see Section 3). This frame-work provides the basis for understanding therange of benefits provided by the marine ecosys-tem and the pressures that they face.

While it is clear that the marine, coastal and terres-

trial ecosystems are interrelated in the area, thisassessment is focused on the ecosystem servicesprovided by the marine environment. They in-clude coastal services, such as tourism and recre-ation to the extent that these are clearly dependenton the marine environment. However, given theimportance of wetlands in the area, a high levelqualitative assessment of Kadn Azmak (wetland)has also been undertaken (see Appendix 3).

1.3. Layout of report

The rest of this report is set out as follows: Sec-tion 2 provides an overview of the site and thepressures that it faces plus available informationon the socio-economic characteristics of the area;Section 3 presents the marine ecosystem servicestypology and a qualitative assessment of the ser-vices provided by the site; Section 4 presents thevaluation of individual ecosystem services wherethe required bio-physical and monetary data isavailable; Section 5 discusses potential financingmechanisms: and, section 6 concludes. Appendix1 lists the people interviewed during field visits inMarch 2001, Appendix 2 presents the tourism sur-vey instrument and Appendix 3 presents a quali-tative analysis of Kadn Azmak.


17/83


BACKGROUNDON SITE

G kova was declared a Special EnvironmentalProtection Area (SEPA) in 1988 on accountof its natural, historical and cultural significance.It covers an area of 307 km2. Figure 1 presentsa map of Gkova SEPA, indicating the locationof wetlands (Kadn Azma, Akbk, nar and

Akapnar), vegetation and built up areas.

Gkova SEPA includes the following districts -Akyaka, Gkova, Akapnar, Gke, aml, Kara-caky and etibeli. Akyaka District, an importantsettlement in the northeast of the Gkova Gulf, islocated 28 km away from Mula, the Provincialcapital. Akyaka is backed by abruptly rising pinecovered mountains and features a number of beach-es and the Kadn wetland, which meets the sea atAkyaka. Another significant area in the region isSedir Island3situated in the south of Gkova Gulf.The island is uninhabited and a popular touristdestination due to its rare ooid sands and tabletsbelonging to Hellenistic and Roman periods.

2.1. Biodiversity Overview

The area resembles typical Mediterranean coast-line vegetation, flora and fauna (SMAP, 2010) andis mainly composed of untouched areas. Erygiumthorifolium, an endemic flora species for Gkova,Data and Sandras Mountains region has been

identified at the site. High maquis strands com-posed of, for example, sandlewoods, gum tressand Quercus cacciferaare also important.

Kra and Veryeris (2010) literature review re-vealed 905 Macrozoobenthic species inhabitingthe region, including 23 threatened species. Fieldwork undertaken in 2010 identified 6 threatenedspecies A.aerophoba (Porifera), L.lithophaga,P.nobilis (Mollusca), P. lividu (Echinodermata),S.latus(Crustacea) and T.galea (Mollusca). Withthe exception of the sea urchin P.lividusand goldsponge A.aerophoba, all these species were onlyrepresented by a few individuals. Alien speciessuch as echinonderm Synaptula recipocans arepresent at the site, but due to the lack of data,the impact of alien invertebrates is unknown. Interms of species richness Boncuk bay and Brd-bet ranked first and last respectively.

3 Also known as Ketra, Setra, Sedir or Sehirlioglu island3


18/83


Figure 1. Map of Gkova SEPA (Source: Kra and Veryeri, 2010).

characterized by their fast (or moderately fast)growth, with relatively short life spans.

Alien puffer fish (Lagocephalus sceleratus), is re-garded as one of the worst alien fish of the entireMediterranean Sea. Several local fishermen havereported its harmful effects to fishing gear, butmany are unaware of its toxic features (Kra andVeryeri 2010).

The site is one of the worlds well known nurs-ery grounds for the endangered sandbar sharks(Carcharhimus plumbeus).At certain periods of theyear, sandbar sharks come to breed at Boncuk, butare threatened by fishing activities and waste wa-ters discharged by boats.

Kra and Veryeri (2010) identified 142 bird spe-cies within Gkova SEPA. The most importantbird areas include: Gkova wetland and plain

A literature survey by Kra and Veryeri (2010)revealed the presence of 352 fish species in thearea, comprising almost 73% of all fish species inTurkey, including 24 threatened species. Surveysrevealed 71 fish species belonging to 31 families inGkova Bay. Boncuk Cove has the highest num-ber of fish species (52) followed by Karaca (38 spe-cies). The lowest number of species was recordedat Bordubet. Six species, known to have a commondistribution along the entire Aegean Sea coasts

were present at all localities: damselfish (Chromischromis), Mediterranean rainbow wrasses (Coris

julis), two banded sea bream (Diplodus vulgaris),gray mullet (Lioza sp), painted comber (Serranusscriba), and silver cheeked toadfish (Lagocephalussceleratus).

An analysis of fish resilience revealed that themajority of species (91%) fall into the category ofhigh and medium resilience. These species are


19/83


(including the dunes along the coast), amlwet-land and delta and Karaca. The southern part ofGkova wetland is the richest and at the sametime the most sensitive part of the SEPA. Impor-tant bird species include - Osprey (Pandion haliate-tus), Eleonoras Falcon (Falco eleonorae), Bonellis

Eagle (Hieraaetus fasciatus), Shag (Phalacrocoraxaristotelis desmatestii), Audouiins gull (Larus au-douinii), Caspian tern (Sterna caspia), KruppersNuthhatch (Sitta kreuepen) and Rueppels warbler(Sylvia rueppeli). Bird populations are threatenedby coastal and wetland habitat destruction, hunt-ing pressures and poaching.

There are estimated to be 5 to 9 monk sealsoccu-pying Gkova SEPA, which are thought to interactwith the monk seals occupying Data SEPA. Themost important monk seal habitats exist along thenorthern coast of Gkova SEPA between the northborder (just next to ren town) known as Focini-er and nar beach in the east, where there are 9caves suitable for breeding and at least 30 cavesand caverns suitable for resting. The western partof the north coast of Gkova SEPA is consideredparticularly important for monk seals as adult fe-males have been observed.

2.2. Pressures

The main pressures facing the site are sum-marised in Table 1 and include illegal fishing,tourism pressures and pollution caused by theuse of agro-chemicals. An estimated 8% of thecoastal areas are under direct influence of humanactivities in terms of man-made structures - hu-man settlements, hotels, coastal facilities such aspiers, docks and roads (Kra and Veryeri (2010).

Pressures on the site are both caused by and im-pact the viability of a range of sectors highlight-ing the need for different Government Ministriesto co-ordinate their management of the area. Ananalysis of the pressures facing Gkova SEPA isalso presented in Kra and Veryeri (2010) andSMAP (2010).

Table1.OverviewofPressur

es

Pressure

Description

PolicyDriver/Context

Sector

Responsible

Overfishing/

Illegalfishing

Fishingcoopera

tivesintheareaestimatethatapproximately2.5tonsof

groupers,1ton

ofdentexand

1.5-2tonsofseabassareillegallycaughtinone

season(nal&

Erdem2009a).Illegalspear-fishingiso

fparticularconcern.The

illegalcatchofw

hitegrouperisthoughttobehighertha

nthelegalcatchbythe

cooperatives.Illegalfishingbyoutsidersnegativelyimpactsthelivelihoodsof

localfishingcom

munities.

Fishingbybigb

oats(e.g.,purseseinersandtrawlers)isprohibitedintheInner

GkovaBay,bu

tdoesoccurresultinginseriousdamag

etothefishnurseryand

thestocksinthe

region.

6No-takezo

neswereintroducedin2010inaneffortto

regeneratefishstocksinthearea.However,ineffective

monitoringa

ndcontrolmeansthatillegalactivities,

especiallyth

euseofspeargunfishing,continue.W

ithout

propermonitoringandcontroltheno-takezoneswillbe

ineffective.

Fishery

Boatanchors

Mediterraneane

ndemicspeciesPosidoniaoceanica(se

agrasses)have

decreasedsignificantlyorbecomeextinctinthebedsoftheinnerbay,mainly

duetothedamagecausedbyanchoringoftourboatsa

ndfishingboats(SMAP

III).

Posidoniabeds

onsomespotssuchasthesouthcoast

ofTuzlaBaymaybe

affectedbyboatanchors.

Aschemeto

mitigatetheimpactofanchoringonthe

marineenvir

onmentinanotherSEPA,site-Gcek-

Dalamancoves,commencedin2009withthecreation

of50moorin

gsites.Eachmooringsiteisestimated

toreduce/stopthedegradationofatleast30m2of

posidoniabeds.Asimilarmitigationschemeisfores

een

forGkovaS

EPAaspartofthemanagementplan.

Fishing,

Tourism


20/83


21/83


2.3. Socio-economic characteristics of site4

According to the State Planning Agency (2003), theAegean region is Turkeys second most developedgeographic zone and Mula ranks as the 13thmostprosperous province in the country. Employment

in the Southern Aegean Region comprises 28%in agriculture, 26.8% in services including tour-ism, 22% in commerce and 22% in industry (TUK2009).

Socio-economic information on Inner Gkova bayis provided in SMAP III5. The population of InnerGkova bay is approximately 8,356 (2007 Address-Based Census). Household income is derived from:agricultural production and stock farming 19%;tourism (salaried) 33%; retired 24%; hotel and hos-tel operation 7%; small tradesmen 6%; other 8%;

and, fishery 3%. While overall agriculture is themain activity, soil quality is declining and farm-ers are finding it harder to earn enough to survive.Agriculture is also not appealing to the young andthe agricultural workforce is ageing. The primarysource of income differs from one town or villageto another - fishing, boat owning and tourism inAkyaka; fishing in Akapnar; agriculture and boatowning in aml; and, agricultural production inetibeli and Gke Villages.

In Akyaka around 500 people are employed intourism. In addition there are60 households in-volved in fishing and 15 households in agricul-tural activities such as growing olive trees andsesame. In general people are moving towardstourism and a dependence on other areas for theprovision of agricultural products. Some peopleare reportedly exploring agri-tourism activities.According to the major of Akyaka, between 60-80% of Akyakas economy is dependent on thecoast, therefore marine protection is important forthe economy. The unemployment rate at Akyaka

is 8%, compared to 3% for the region.

4 This section is largely based on (SMAP III, 2010)5 Socio-economic data specific to Gkova SEPA is not available.

Akapnar has a population of approximately516. Around 70% of the population is engaged infishing, 10% in animal husbandry, 10% in farm-ing and 10% work outside Akapnar. Due to theshortage of jobs in the village, around 40% of theyoung are estimated to work in the tourism sector

in Marmaris.

Sarn is a village located 10 km away from Ak-bk. There are 12 professional and 5-6 semi pro-fessional fishing vessels in Akbk. All the own-ers of professional fishing vessels are members ofSarn-Akbk Fishery Cooperative.

The main source of income in aml Village isfarming, animal husbandry, beekeeping, fishingand tourism. There are 20 boats used for toursto the Sedir Island. Turnaldepend onfarming

(vegetables and olives), beekeeping and animalhusbandry.

Sources of income in the Town of Gkova arefarming, animal husbandry, service sector (paidwork in Marmaris Aksaz), retirement pension(70% of town people are retired) and tourism. Theprincipal source of income in the Gke Villageisfarming and animal husbandry. Another sourceof income is transportation.

Around 40% of the population have incomes be-low the minimum wage; this ranges from 16%in Akyaka to 64% in Turnal. Around 7 % of thepopulation moved to the region within the last5 years, 15% have been living in the area for thelast 5-10 years, 15% for 11-15 years, 13% for 16-20years and 49% for 20 years or more. In terms ofeducational attainment, 63% are primary schoolgraduates, 22% are elementary school graduatesand 11 % are higher education graduates. Thesocio-economic characteristics of fishermen with-in Gkova SEPA are discussed in more detail in

Section 4.1.1.3.


22/83


QUALITATIVE

ASSESSMENTOF ECOSYSTEMSERVICES

3.1. Marine Ecosystem Services Typology

A typology of marine and coastal ecosystem ser-vices has been developed for this study followingthe ecosystem service approach (ESA), which isbased on the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

(2005) classification of ecosystem services into thefollowing four categories:

Provisioning services relate to the tangibleproducts, such as fish and pharmaceuticals,provided by marine ecosystems

Regulating servicesrefer to the marine envi-ronments natural processes such as waste as-similation and carbon sequestration that con-tribute to social wellbeing.

Cultural servicesmay be associated with both

use and non-use values and relate to the non-material benefits obtained from ecosystems,for example, through tourism and education-al use of the marine environments.

Supporting servicesare necessary for the pro-duction of all other ecosystem services (e.g.soil formation or nutrient cycling). They differfrom the other services in that their impactson people are either indirect (via provision-ing, regulating or cultural services) or occurover a very long time.

The ESA explicitly recognizes that ecosystemssuch as marine environments and the biologicaldiversity contained within them contribute toindividual and social wellbeing. Importantly itrecognizes that this contribution extends beyondthe provision of goods such as fish to the naturalregulating functions of marine ecosystems such ascarbon sequestration. The ESA therefore providesa framework for considering whole ecosystems indecision making and for valuing the services theyprovide.

It is important to note that economic valuation isfocussed on the final benefits or outcomes re-alised by society from the services marine ecosys-tems provide, not the services and functions thatcontribute to those outcomes. This is to avoiddouble counting. The benefits generated by sup-porting services, while fundamental to the provi-sion of final benefits, are not valued independentlyas they are intermediate benefits which contribute4


23/83


to the provision of a range of final benefits. Theirvalue is captured in the valuation of the final out-comes associated with the services they support.Supporting services include soil formation andretention, primary production and habitat provi-sion6.

Health is also not explicitly listed as an ecosys-tem service as health benefits are considered tobe provided by a range of services such as fish,flood protection benefits and a clean environmentfor recreation. The health cost associated witha deterioration in these services may be used tomeasure the benefits provided by the marine eco-system. Biodiversity is also considered to becross cutting, the final benefits of which could beassociated with a range of services. An exceptionis biodiversity non-use which is listed a separateservice.

Table 2 provides a typology of marine ecosys-tem services and a qualitative assessment of themarine ecosystem services provided at GkovaSEPA. Each ecosystem services has been rated asfollows: ** means that the service is important, *means that the service is provided, - means theservice is not relevant at the site, and ? meansthat there isnt enough information to determinewhether the services is present or not, so its provi-

sion is uncertain. Table 2 also identifi

es the sectorsthat are supported by (or benefits from) the pro-vision of each ecosystem service and the sectorsthat can influence the quality and quality of thatservice.

The typology presented in Table 2 does not in-clude marine sub-habitat types, which can in-clude hard beds; rocks, muds, sands, gravels, sea-grass meadows and caves. The extent of servicesprovided will depend on the specific sub habitattype. The available data at Gkova SEPA did not

warrant this level of detail, with the exception ofthe posidonia meadows (seagrasses) which forma key input into the economic valuation. In sup-port of this approach Austen et al, 2010 states thatIn the case of the marine environment the spatial

6 Many organisms provide living habitat through their normal growth, for example, reef forming invertebrates and meadow forming sea grass beds.These natural marine habitats can provide an essential breeding and nursery space for plants and animals, which can be particularly important forthe continued recruitment of commercial and/or subsistence species. Such habitat can provide a refuge for plants and animals including surfacesfor feeding and hiding places from predators. Living habitat plays a critical role in species interactions and regulation of population dynamics, andis a pre-requisite for the provision of many goods and services (Beaumont et al 2007).

data is less essential, as most marine environmentsdeliver most marine ecosystem services, albeit todiffering amounts.

3.2 Provisioning services

3.2.1 Food

The two main food products provided by GkovaSEPA are fish and salaconia.

3.2.2 Raw materials

These products relate to the extraction of marineorganisms for all purposes other than human con-sumption. Marine raw materials include seaweedfor industry and fertilizer, fishmeal for aquacul-

ture and farming, pharmaceuticals and ornamen-tal goods such as shells. The provision of geneticresources, natural medicines and ornamentalproducts at the site is unknown.

3.3 Regulating services

3.3.1 Regulation of GHGs

A key service provided by marine ecosystems istheir capacity to sequester carbon dioxide. Theocean is estimated to hold about one third of allanthropogenic CO

2 emissions and has two inter-

connected CO2

absorption circuits: the biologicalpump and its physico-chemical counterpart. Atthe global level, the latter has been responsible formost of the capture of CO

2of human origin, while

the biological pump is consider still be working asit did before the dawn of the industrial age (Nelle-mann et al, 2009). The sequestration of CO

2emit-

ted by human activities by the physico-chemicalpump (through a process of solubility), shows lit-

tle dependence on ecosystem quality. However,it leads to the gradual acidification of the oceans,which will have a considerable effect on marineecosystems and the living resources produced,particularly in the Mediterranean (CIESM, 2008;


24/83


Table 2. Qualitative assessment of marine ecosystem services and benefits at Gkova SEP

ESType

Service Benefit / outcome MarineArea

Sectors supportedby ecosystemservice

Sectors impacting /influencing the provision ofecosystem service

ProvisioningServices

Food Commercial and subsistence fish

and wildlife

** Households,

Fishery, Tourism

Households, Fishery,

Agriculture, IndustryRaw materials Industrial purposes - seaweed - Households,

Industry(constructionmaterials)

Households, Industry

Natural medicines obtained frommarine dependent species

? Household Households, Fishery,Agriculture, Industry

Genetic resources - variety in genepool in marine flora and fauna

? Agriculture Fishing, Tourism, agriculture

Ornamental resources e.g., shellsused as jewellery, handicrafts

? Industry Industry,Fishing, Tourism

Source ofenergy (fueletc)

Energy provision e.g., tidal power - EnergyHouseholds

Transport Commercial use of waterways _ Industry

RegulatingServices

Regulation ofGHGs

Carbon sequestration ** Potentially all Potentially all

Micro-climatestabilization

Influence on temperature,precipitation, wind, humidity etc

* Potentially all Potentially all

Disturbanceregulation

Flood and storm protection * Tourism, Industry,Households/Urban Settlement,agriculture

Potentially all

Erosion control * Tourism Potentially all

Wasteassimilation

Detoxification of pollutionWater purification

* TourismIndustry

Potentially all

CulturalS

ervices

Spiritual,religious,culturalheritage

Archeological ruins (historicalnot recreational value). Use ofmarine environment in books, film,painting, folklore, national symbols,architecture, advertising

? Tourism,Households

Potentially all

Educational A natural field laboratory forunderstanding marine processes

* Households Potentially all

Recreationandecotourism

Recreational fishing, birdwatching,hiking, diving, sailing, canoeing,Holiday destination (aesthetic views), archeological ruins (historical notrecreational value)

** Tourism Potentially all

Landscapeand amenity

Property price premiums ** Tourism Potentially all

Biodiversitynon-use

Enhanced wellbeing associated forexample with bequest or altruisticmotivations

* Potentially all Potentially all

Code: ** service important, * service provided, - service not relevant, ? uncertain of provision


25/83


Gambaiani et al, 2009). This issue, about whichlittle is yet known, is the subject of many initia-tives currently underway (Orr, 2009) and a Eu-ropean research programme including the socio-economic consequences is set to be launched inthe near future.

At the local level, the flow of carbon from the sur-face towards the sediment depends on biological

processes, which in turn depend on ecosystemquality (and does not lead to the acidification ofthe environment).

About 35-50% of the carbon production of thecoastal ocean is estimated to be a result of the pho-tosynthesis by marine macrophytes including sea-grasses (Duarte and Cebrian 1996). These marineplants have a global average biomass of about 180g C m-2 and an average net production of about400 g C m-2 yr-1, ranking amongst the most pro-

ductive ecosystems in the biosphere (The Encyclo-pedia of Earth 2011).

In the Mediterranean the matte (sheaths and rhi-zomes) produced by the Posidonia meadows storea carbon flow, which has been estimated at 1.2million tonnes of carbon per year (Pergent, 1997).Thus the preservation or restoration of thesecoastal ecosystems contributes to the sustain-ability of this ecosystem service. The Mediterra-nean Posidoniaaccumulates in its subsurface largequantities of organic material derived from its

roots, rhizomes and leaf sheaths embedded in of-ten sandy sediments (Lo Iacono et al 2008). Theseorganic deposits can reach up to several meters asthey accumulate over thousands of years formingwhat is known as matte, whose high content in or-ganic carbon plays a crucial role in the global car-bon cycle (ibid). Posidonia oceanica is considered

to be one of the most extensive coastal reservoirsof CO2because of the preservation of this mattealong the Mediterranean coasts over time (Du-arte et al2005). This in-situ accumulation of largequantities of biogenic materials over millennia isan important ecological phenomenon and occursonly in few ecosystems such as peats, coral reefsand mangroves besides seagrass meadows (Ma-teo et al1997).

Despite their global importance, there is grow-ing evidence that seagrasses are experiencing anunprecedented level of damage and deteriora-tion (Orth et al 2006). It is estimated that seagrassmeadows are being lost due to anthropogenicecosystem impacts at a rate of up to two footballfields per hour, roughly similar to tropical rainfor-est conversion (Unsworth & Unsworth 2010).

Gkova SEPA is rich in seagrasses. Posidonia

beds which are located at a depth of between 0and 30m were mapped at the following coasts byKra and Veryeri (2010): Northern coasts of theGkova SEPA, Boncuk bay, Yediadalar; the foursouthern islands and adjacent coasts of GkaaLiman, Karagac Liman, Sakli Cove, Kufre Cove;Brdbet Liman, between Mersincik Burnu atthe north; and, Gkova SEPA border at the south.The total area of Posidonia (calculated by GIS) is13,005,918 m2. Around 92% of the Posidoniadistri-bution in Gkova SEPA exits within the southerncoast area (i.e., coasts of the South, south-west of

Gkova settlement). Figure 2 illustrates the distri-bution of seagrasses within Gkova SEPA.

Posidonia can provide a range of regulating ser-vices, in addition to carbon sequestration, as dis-cussed in Box 1.

5


26/83


Figure 2. Distribution of seagrasses in Gkova SEPA (Source: Kra and Veryeri, 2010).

Box 1. Seagrass meadows (Posidonia oceanica)

Posidonia oceanica are a type of land-based flowing plant, which returned to the marine environment some 120 to 100 mil-lion years ago. They form vast underwater meadows (also known as beds) at a depth of between 0 and 50 metres in the

open seas and in the brackish and saltwater coastal lagoons. Posidonia oceanica is endemic to the Mediterranean and ahighly productive system supporting high levels of biomass (Lo Iacono et al2008). Despite being endemic its distribution isrestricted due to anthropogenic disturbances; their total surface area witnhin the Meditterranean is about 38,000 km 2 (Man-gos et al2010).

Posidoniaseagrass communities provide a wide range of Ecosystem Services:

The Posidoniameadows are the leading Mediterranean ecosystem in terms of biodiversity provision, supporting a quarter

of its recorded marine species over an area estimated to cover almost 1.5% of the seabed.

They serve as spawning grounds and nurseries for many commercial species and the source of major primary production,

thereby supporting the fishing industry.

They protect beaches against erosion (by reducing hydrodynamism and by trapping sediment in the matte). The dead

leaves of Posidonia oceanica found on shores act as a natural barrier reducing the energy of the waves and minimizing

erosion. They also play an important role in beach and dune systems.

They encourage water transparency, thereby supporting tourism and providing an effective tool for monitoring the quality ofcoastal waters.

They trap and absorb man-made CO2. According to a recent report seagrasses are the most effective species in terms of

long-term carbon storage (Laffoley and Grimsditch, 2009).

They produce oxygen and are known as the lungs of the sea with +/- 14 lt O2/m/day capacity on average

The cycle nutrients through their plant growth.

They operate as coastal water filters. Subsurface rhizomes and roots stabilize the plant while erect rhizomes and leaves

reduce silt accumulation.

Source: Based on Mangos et al 2010


27/83


3.3.2 Micro-climate stabilization

Oceans play a role in regulating the atmosphere andmodulating weather. While it is thought that thisecosystem services is provided by Gkova SEPA,there are no scientific studies defining this service.

3.3.3 Disturbance Regulation

Flood and storm protection. Marine flora and fau-na can help defend coastal regions by dampeningand preventing the impact of tidal surges, stormsand floods. This disturbance alleviation serviceis provided by a diverse range of species, such assalt marshes, mangrove forests and sea grass beds,which bind and stabilize sediments and createnatural sea defences (Huxley, 1992; Davison andHughes, 1998 as reported in Beaumont et al2007).

These natural sea defence systems protect infra-structure and investments in vulnerable coastalareas, and would need to be replaced by man-made alternatives if damaged or lost. This serviceis important in Turkey given the concentration ofsocio-economic activities on Turkeys coasts; 27 ofTurkeys provinces border the sea and 30 millionpeople live by the coast (UNDP, 2010). It is alsoconsidered important in Gkova SEPA, given thecommunities that live along the coastline and theimportance of tourism infrastructure.

Coastal erosion is a natural phenomenon widelyobserved in the Mediterranean, particularly incoastal zones with soft substrate. According tothe European Environment Agency (EEA, 2006)20% of European coasts are threatened by erosion(i.e. around 20 000 km).

The Mediterraneans Posidoniameadows provideprotection against erosion through three mainfunctions. Firstly, its foliage, which limits hydro-dynamics by 10 to 75% under the leaf cover (Gaciaet al., 1999). Secondly, the banquettes formed byits dead leaves and rhizomes on beaches - that canreach a height of between 1 and 2 metres - buildsa structure that protects the coastline againsterosion (Guala et al., 2006, Boudouresque et al.,2006). Thirdly, the Posidoniamatte traps sediment(Dauby et al., 1995, Gacia and Duarte, 2001), thuscontributing to their stability. Jeudy de Grissac,1984 estimated that the degradation of a one me-ters thickness of Posidoniaduff could lead to thecoastline retreating by twenty meters.

According to Kruger et al, 2004, large sections ofthe beach area in the Gulf of Gkova are sufferingfrom erosion and over the last 35 years the beachline is estimated to have receded by 40 to 70m.The previous dense vegetation of Oleander, Tam-arisks, Willow and Pine Trees can be recognized

by remains of roots and shoots, which are nowpartly submerged. The erosion process aroundKadn Azmak increased following the clearing ofbeach vegetation, construction of a wave breakerand pier and repeated dredging of the harbour.

3.3.4 Waste remediation

A significant amount of human waste, both or-ganic and inorganic, is deposited in the marineenvironment. This waste would require addition-al treatment if it were to be taken up by terrestrialsystems, and therefore would entail increase treat-ment costs. Marine living organisms store, buryand transform many waste materials through as-similation and chemical de and re-composition(Beaumont et al, 2007). The capacity of marine eco-systems to absorb, detoxify, process and sequesterwaste shows a wide variation. Some toxic pollut-ants, such as heavy metals, cannot be convertedinto harmless substances, whereas some organicwaste can even encourage ecosystem develop-ment through its biomass and benefit ecosystems.

Marine ecosystems provide an ecosystem servicefor the quantity of waste below the threshold atwhich it becomes harmful to them (Mangos et al2010).

While this service is thought to be provided byGkova SEPA, there are no site specific studiesdefining or quantifying this service for the area.

3.4 Cultural Services

3.4.1 Spiritual, religious and cultural heritage

The marine environment may be linked to the cul-tural identity of a community, or associated withreligion, folk lore, painting, cultural and spiritualtraditions. Communities that live by and are de-pendent on the sea for their livelihood often at-tach special importance to marine ecosystems thatplay a significant role in the economic or culturaldefinition of the community (Beaumont et al2007).


28/83


Gkova SEPA is considered to have a strong wa-ter heritage. The NGO Friends of Gkova-Aky-aka are currently undertaking a study as part ofthe Euromed Heritage 4 program of the EuropeanCommission; the studys objective is to rediscoverthe Mediterraneans water heritage. While stud-

ies of the spiritual, religious and cultural valuesspecific to the marine environment have not beenundertaken it is clear that within Gkova SEPAa number of communities have developed in andaround its bays and traditional (small-scale) fish-ing is still important to a number of households.

Akyaka was the location of the historic city of Id-yma and has remains reaching back to at least the4th century B.C. when it was founded as a Cariancity. The Idyma urban zone may have extendedfrom the immediate east of Akyaka to the villageof Kozlukuyu, three kilometers away. The acrop-olis, 200 meters of city walls and several rocktombs are located along a steep climb 600 metersabove sea level. The acropolis was explored by theFrench archaeologist Louis Robert in 1937. TodayAkyaka is well known for its distinct architecturebased on the designs of Nail akrhan, who com-bined the traditional building style of his home-town Ula with the necessities of common life. In1983 he was awarded the Aga Khan Prize for Ar-chitecture for the house he built in Akyaka.

Building on its cultural heritage, Akyaka hopes tobecome a Slow City. This could change the qual-ity of tourism in the area (see Box 2).

Box 2. Akyakas bid to become a Slow City

Cittaslow is a movement founded in Italy in 1999, whichnow has a growing international network of over 120towns in 18 countries across the world that has adopted aset of common goals and principles. Cittaslow towns aimto support local businesses, foster local traditions, protectthe environment, welcome visitors and encourage activeparticipation in community life.

Seferihisar, 50 km west of Izmir, became Turkeys firstslow city in October 2009 and Akyaka is in the processof becoming Turkeys second. Akyaka aims to developa world-renowned boutique holiday resort that respectsnature (including organic agriculture and sustainable fish-eries management), preserves its architectural heritage,promotes local traditions and food, and focuses on sus-tainable ecological tourism. Citaslow accreditation willbrand the area, and help to attract more domestic andinternational tourists throughout the year.

3.4.2 Education and research

Marine living organisms provide stimulus for edu-cation and research. Beaumont et al (2007) cites anumber of uses of marine information including: thestudy of microbes in marine sediments to develop

economical electricity in remote places; the inhibi-tion of cancerous tumour cells; the use of Aproditesp. spines in the field of photonic engineering, withpotential implications for communication technolo-gies and medical applications; the development oftougher, wear resistant ceramics for biomedical andstructural engineering applications by studying thebivalve shell. In addition, marine biodiversity canprovide a long term environmental record of envi-ronmental resilience and stress.

There have been a number of scientific studies of

Gkova SEPA underpinning the development ofan action plan for the area and the potential of fur-ther studies of the areas important biodiversity in-cluding its posidonia meadows is significant. Thesite can also been used to educate school childrenand visitors of the services offered by the marineenvironment.

3.4.3 Recreation and Tourism

Marine ecosystems provide the basis for a wide

range of tourism and recreational activities, re-sulting in significant employment opportuni-ties for coastal communities and contributionsto GDP. Tourism is an important activity withinGkova SEPA and closely linked to the marine en-vironment. A range of marine based recreationalactivities are currently offered including kite surf-ing, boat tours and sailing.

3.4.4 Landscape and amenity

Landscape and amenity services provided by

marine ecosystems attract tourists and general-ly make the area an attractive place to visit andlive. This benefit can be captured through prop-erty price premiums in the area and the returnsto coastal businesses (restaurants and hotels) rela-tive to non-coastal businesses.


29/83


3.4.5 Biodiversity non-use

Biodiversity non-use relates to the benefits peoplederive from marine organisms unrelated to theiruse. Such benefits can be motivated by bequest val-ues (the value placed on ensuring the availability ofmarine ecosystems for future generations), and exis-tence value (a benefit derived from simply knowingthat the marine ecosystem biodiversity exists).

3.4.6 Option value

Option value relates to currently unknown poten-tial future uses of marine biodiversity and reflectsthe importance of more uses being discovered inthe future. The biodiversity may never actuallybe exploited, but there is benefit associated withretaining the option of exploitation.

6


30/83


VALUATION OF

ECOSYSTEMSERVICES

I n 2008, a World Bank study put the total an-nual figure for all marine ecosystem servicesat more than US$20 trillion. This estimate onlyaccounted for the marine ecosystem goods andservices for which a market already exists and istherefore considered to be an underestimate.

This section presents, where possible, monetaryestimates for the ecosystem services identified inTable 2 as being present at Gkova SEPA. Themonetary estimates have been derived using mar-ket pricing or value transfer valuation approach-es. Market price approaches include the use ofmarket prices to value traded ecosystem servicesand also the so called cost based approaches. Theuse of market pricesfor marine ecosystem servic-es that are traded reflect a lower bound estimateof its value, as they do not capture the consumersurplus7element of value. They are therefore onlyproxies of welfare value. However, such estimatesare still very informative and relatively straightforward to derive. Cost based approaches takethe cost of replacing a service or averting a dam-aging impact on a marine resource as a proxy forthe value of the benefits provided by the marineenvironment. They suffer from the same compli-cations as market prices and risk the under-valua-tion of non-market goods

Value transfer (also called benefi

ts transfer) in-volves the application of values from an existingstudy (often called the study site) to a new study(often referred to as the policy site) where con-ditions are similar and a similar policy context isbeing investigated. Value transfer is a practicalmeans of demonstrating the monetary value ofmarine benefits. It is cheap and quick relative toprimary research, but there are a number of fac-tors which influence the reliability of the trans-fer exercise. The quality of the original study isobviously a key consideration for value transfer

applications. In order to minimize errors / un-certainty, the primary research study should bebased on adequate data and a theoretically soundapproach. The degree of similarity between thestudy site and the policy site is also a major factor.Value transfer will be more reliable if the policy

7 Consumer surplus is the amount an individual is willing to pay abovethe market price. The price reflects the cost of obtaining a good, notthe actual benefit derived from its consumption, which is equal tothe market price plus consumer surplus.

7


31/83


site is located within the same region / country asthe study site, and displays similar site character-istic (e.g. size, services and availability of and dis-tance to substitutes). Other factors affecting thereliability of the value transfer exercise include:the reference condition (i.e., how closely the base-

line at the study site matches the baseline at thepolicy site); the proposed change in the provisionof the service (i.e., the magnitude of the changeand whether the valuation is of a change in thequantity or the quality of an attribute); and therange/ scale of the commodity being valued (e.g.,one site or many sites valued and physical area).

As well as providing welfare measuresan attempthas been made to illustrate the importance ofthese ecosystem services in terms of the jobs theycreate and their contribution to local livelihoods.

The marine ecosystem services valued are fish,salicornia, carbon sequestration, protection againstcoastal erosion, waste treatment and tourism andrecreation. Where relevant, background is provid-ed on these services i.e., physical (quantitative)data, management structure, pressures and oppor-tunities for development. For the regulating servic-es (carbon sequestration, protection against coastalerosion, waste treatment) a review of relevant valu-ation evidence for the region is also presented.

4.1 Provisioning Services

4.1.1 Fish

4.1.1.1 Background

The fisheries of Gkova are relatively well studied,and this section draws on work by nal & Erdem(2009b), nal (2010) and Kra and Veryeri (2010).

There are three fishery co-operatives in Gkova

SEPA. The oldest cooperative Akapnar FisheryCooperative was founded in 19738, while AkyakaFishery cooperative was founded in 1992 and Sarni-Akbk Fishery cooperative in 1999. According toKra and Veryeri (2010) around 60% of small scalefishermen in Gkova SEPA are members of coopera-

8 This was originally the Gkova and Akapnar Region Fishery Co-operative. In 1992 the fishermen of Akyaka left the cooperative andfounded the Akyaka Fishery Cooperative.

tives, while nal and Erdem (2009b) state that 87% oftraditional fishermen in Inner Gkova Bay belong tothe Akyaka or Akapnar cooperative. Table 3 sum-marises some general characteristics of Akyaka andAkapnar cooperatives. Sarni-Akbk Fishery coop-erative is estimated to have 12 members.

Table 3. General characteristics of Akyaka andAkapnar fishery cooperatives

Characteristic Akyaka Akapnar

2004 2006 2008 2004 2006 2008

Registered members 29 35 40 26 30 30

Active members 24 26 32 26 30 10

Active member ratio (%) 86 74 80 100 100 33

Registered ratio 37 81 75 100 88 88

Non-members - 8 13 - 4 4

Employees 2 2 2 2 2 2

Source: nal & Erdem 2009b

Box 3 presents additional information on AkyakaCooperative, based on field interviews in March2011.

Box 3. An overview of Akyaka Cooperative

The Akyaka Co-operative consists of 41 members, themajority of which (30 members) are totally dependent onfishing (others are also involved in agriculture). Fishing ispracticed using long line/ paragat and the main speciescaught are seabream, red mullet and mackerel.

In the past shrimp were an important resource valued at35-40TL/kg, but they have disappeared from the area. Thereasons for this are unsubstantiated but could be related topollution, sediment deposited in the sea following the 2004earthquake or overfishing by trawlers. Groupers have alsodeclined over past 10 years due to illegal fishing. Hotwater from a nearby thermal power station may also be af-fecting the hydrology and hence fish productivity.

The cooperative building also acts as a fish market and is

open daily from 9am 5pm. This cuts out the need for mid-dlemen and as a result only 8% of cooperative membersmarket their fish outside the cooperative (selling to restau-rants or middlemen) compared to 57% in Akapnar (nal& Erdem 2009b). The cooperative has data for the past 10year