EnhancingForestProtectedAreasSystemofTurkey

Developing a Business Plan for Kre Mountains National

Park and its Buffer Zone








Camille Bann




Final Report
January 2010


ii

Table of Contents
1. Background........................................................................................................................ 1
1.1. Objective of assignment ............................................................................................... 1
1.2. Scope ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.3. Approach...................................................................................................................... 2
1.4. Over view of KMNP and its buffer zone ....................................................................... 2
2. Preliminary Economic Valuation of KMNP......................................................................... 3
2.1. The rationale for valuation............................................................................................ 3
2.2. Socio-Economic Context .............................................................................................. 4
2.3. Framework for Analysis................................................................................................ 5
2.4. Provisioning Services................................................................................................. 12
2.5. Regulating Services ................................................................................................... 25
2.6. Cultural Services ........................................................................................................ 28
3. Sustainable Financing Analysis for KMNP....................................................................... 34
3.1. Overview of Protected Area Financing in Turkey ....................................................... 34
3.2. Sustainable financing mechanisms for KMNP .......................................................... 35
4. Developing a Business Plan ............................................................................................ 40
4.1. Background ................................................................................................................ 40
4.2. Challenges facing KMNP ........................................................................................... 40
4.3. Draft Business Plan.................................................................................................... 42
4.4. Steps to Developing the Business Plan ..................................................................... 49
4.6. Implementation Guidelines......................................................................................... 52
4.7. Replication Plan ......................................................................................................... 52
Annexes................................................................................................................................ 54
Annex 1. Summary of Financing Scorecards for Turkey.................................................. 54
Annex 2. Draft Framework of Sub programs.................................................................... 61
Annex 3. Workshop Materials .......................................................................................... 65
Annex 4. List of Meetings................................................................................................. 72
iii

Exchange rate
1 USD = 1.50 TL


1.Background
1.1 Objectiveofassignment
The objective of this assignment was to assist the Ministry of Environment and Forestry in
the development of a business plan for the Kre Mountain National Park (KMNP) and its
buffer zone, and to recommend how the business planning process could be replicated in
eight other forest hotspots in Turkey.
1.2 Scope
This 20 day consultancy included an initial assessment of the economic value of the Kre
Mountains National Park and the buffer bone, a review of sustainable finance options for
the area, and the development of recommendations for developing a business plan for the
park and the buffer zone and the replication of this plan across similar sites in Turkey. A
two day training course was also provided for 19 people (see Annex 3 for workshop
agenda, exercises and list of attendees).
The project
1
aims to develop a management plan for the KMNP and a strategy for the buffer
zone over the next eighteen months. This management plan will build on a study by
Appleton, 2009
2
. It is proposed that the Kre Mountains should be managed as a single
landscape, comprising a large number of linked and related ecosystems (i.e. rather than
looking at the park and the buffer zone as separate jurisdictions). The ecosystems within the
area vary from watershed to watershed (particularly influenced by their northerly or southerly
aspect) and according to altitude, from the upper slopes of the core area to the lower lying
areas.

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

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

1.3 Approach
The information in the report is based on a review of the available reports and data,
meetings and interviews during a 10 day mission to Turkey (December 2009) and
information developed through tailored exercises at the training workshop.
1.4 OverviewofKMNPanditsbufferzone
KMNP was declared a national park in 2000. It covers 37,00ha, with a buffer zone of
80,000ha. The core area is delineated by a range of cliffs and canyons that include pristine
and semi pristine natural mixed deciduous and coniferous forest.
The global significance of the Kre Mountains biodiversity has been highlighted by its
inclusion in the WWFs list of European forest hotspots for conservation. The site is
considered to represent the best remaining example of deciduous and coniferous forest of
the North Anatolia ecoregion as well as being the best remaining example of the highly
endangered karstic mountain areas of the Black Sea Humid Forests ecotype (WWF,
2001).
3

Karstic areas are typically poor in vegetative cover. However, the Kre Mountains with their
1000m thick Jurassic-Cretaceous era limestones not only demonstrate typical karstic
properties, but are also covered with lush forest due to the humid climate.
The Kre mountains hosts 40 out of the 132 mammals in Turkey, including large mammal
species, such as gray wolf, brown bear, Eurasian lynx, red deer, roe deer and wild boar.
The park and its buffer zone have been identified as one of the 122 Important Plant Areas
(IPA), and also one of the 305 Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) in Turkey.
A draft development plan (DDP) was prepared for the park in 1999. This plan set out
generic principles of management and mapped the parks boundaries
4
. The plan
distinguishes 3 zones a strict protection zone, a low density recreation zone and a
rehabilitation zone. The plan also identifies a buffer zone around the outside of the national
park, consisting of a wildlife conservation zone, game management zone, landscape
protection zone and an ecological restoration zone. However, the plan was not finalised or
officially endorsed. This project seeks to deliver an officially endorsed management plan. It
will update and complete the DDP and develop a number of sub plans for key areas such as
ecotourism and NTFPs. Management of the area is complicated by the fact that while the
buffer zone is legally gazetted, current legislation does not define what a buffer zone is and
makes no provision for how such an area should be managed and governed.
The General Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Parks (GDNCNP) is
responsible for the park, while the General Directorate of Forestry (GDF) coordinates
activities around the KMNP. The General Directorate of Forest Village Affairs (ORKOY)
provides credit to forest related development activities.
A detailed description of the park and the buffer zone can be found in the project document
(UNDP, 2008)
5
.

3
WWF, 2001. Mediterranean Forest: A New Conservation Strategy
4
Kure Daglari National Park, Development Plan. Prepared by the Ministry of Forestry (General
Directorate of National Parks and Game-Wildlife) in collaboration with UNEP and FAO. 1999
5
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
3

2.PreliminaryEconomicValuationofKMNP

This section presents an identification and initial economic assessment of the ecosystems
services both within the KMNP and its Buffer Zone
6
.
The identification of the economic values for the Kure Mountains National park and its
buffer zone is based on 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 its
buffer zone, and discussions at the workshop.
The initial economic values presented are largely based on default assumptions and transfer
values from existing studies, and therefore reflect a large degree of uncertainty. The value
estimates are supported by anecdotal evidence from informal interviews carried out as part
of this assignment. While these estimates can be used as ball park estimates of the value
of the various ecosystem services, tailored research, including surveys, is required to
develop these initial values.

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

This section therefore reflects an initial demonstration of the value of the park and its buffer
zone. In order to realise or capture these demonstrated values, in most cases arrangements
needs to be put in place through the management plan and evaluated in the business plan.
2.1Therationaleforvaluation

The economic valuation of the KMNP and its buffer zone attempts to monetise not only the
financial flows from the park, but also the non-marketed services such as recreation,
subsistence use of NTFPs and carbon storage which contribute to the welfare of society.
Identification and monetisation of the full range of services and benefits provides important
information to decision makers and is a powerful communication tool. It can
demonstrate the potential benefits of protection and sustainable management, and the
potential economic costs of non-sustainable practices. Such an analysis can also inform
decisions over alternative uses of the area, for example setting out the social and
environmental impacts and the opportunity cost of hydro-electric developments within the
park and its buffer zone.

The economic analysis highlights the potential value of the area based on sustainable use.
In order to realise the full value of the area however mechanisms to capture these values
need to be defined. For example in the case of KMNP and its buffer zone maximizing non-
timber forest products, tourism, and carbon values will depend on specific institutional
arrangements that can be developed between national and international stakeholders as
part of the management of the park. Valuation of the area therefore underpins strategies to
maximise the value of the area through the business planning process.

6
Allvaluespresentedinthisreportarenominalvaluesthatarenoaccounthasbeentakenofinflationwhere
pre2009datahasbeenpresented.Unlessstated2009valuesarepresented.
7
Stolton,SandHiggins,L,2009.ProtectedAreaBenefitsAssessmentTool.KureDaglariMilliParki,.
Turkey.WWF
4

2.2 SocioEconomicContext

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

Table 1. Population of Kastomounu and Bartin Province
2000 Census Province 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 70 100
Source: Project Document, 2008

The rate of decrease in rural population in the region is far higher than the national average,
for example, the rural population in the districts of Pnarba and Azdavay, has decreased by
half within the last 10 years. Present indicators point out that this decrease will go on for
some time, mainly affecting the districts of Kurucaile, Amasra and Ulus.

KMNP and its buffer zone
There are almost no settlements in the core area of KMNP. Around the park there are some
20-30,000 people (varying seasonally) in about 60 rural settlements in eight districts (2000
data, Stolton and Higgins 2009). Around 40 of these settlements are estimated to be in
Bartin. Socio-economic data specific to the buffer zone villages appears to be limited.
The major economic activities in the region are forestry, agriculture, apiculture, wooden
handicrafts, weaving, chestnut collecting and tourism. In the poorest forests zones in
Kastamonu per capita income is currently lower than 870 TL / year (US$ 580). This can be
compared to the average national wage of 7,600 TL / year (US$ 5,050). Income is slightly
higher in Bartn because of employment in local coal mines and iron and steel works.
Strategies to increase local livelihoods are therefore a key issue for the management
and business plan.
Most young people move away from the area to find work and many villages, especially in
the upper valley landscapes, are populated entirely by elderly retirees. If nothing changes it
5

is predicted that these villages will be deserted in 20 years from now. As farmland is no
longer worked it is steadily reverting to forest. In Kastamonu the forest area is estimated to
have expanded by about 10% in the past 10 years. The populations of bear, wild boar and
roe deer have increased as a result, which have caused damage to local farmland with
significant negative impacts on livelihoods of the remaining farmers.

Appleton, 2009, states From a purely conservation point of view, this decline of rural
communities may be considered a good thing. However local people, traditions, customs,
design, cuisine and styles of construction are part of the fabric of Kre Mountains
Landscape. Traditional agriculture uses organic practices that are increasingly relevant
today. Traditional crop and animal varieties may be an important genetic resource. The
presence of open, mixed, traditionally farmed land may ensure the survival of many
important plant and animal species that would not be present if the area was entirely
forested.

Recommendation: Developing a socio-economic profile of the buffer zone villages
It is recommended that the project obtains (or generates) a list of the villages in the buffer
zone and their profile (number of households and basic socio-economic characteristics).
This may be available from public records, if not this could be generated through the NTFP
survey work. This will help in the analysis of the non timber forest products (NTFPs), for
example it could inform the aggregation of the NTFP values, and in determining
opportunities to increase local livelihoods in the area.
It is apparent that villages in the area are not homogenous in terms of their natural resource
base and its use, challenges and opportunities. For example Bartin has more agricultural
land and industry. An over view of the characteristics of each villages would enable a
potential categorisation of the villages and the development of specific actions to support
their development.

2.3FrameworkforAnalysis
The services and benefits of the KMNP and its buffer zone have been characterised within
an Ecosystems Services Approach (ESA). The ESA provides a framework for
considering whole ecosystem services in decision making and for valuing the services they
provide to facilitate maintenance of a resilient and sustainable natural environment. An
ecosystem is a natural unit of living things (animals, plants and micro-organisms) and their
physical environment such as a forest or river. Ecosystem services are the services
provided by the natural environment that results in outputs or outcomes that benefit people.
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
8
framework is a widely accepted categorisation of
ecosystem services and identifies four categories of services and benefits:
Provisioning services are products obtained from the ecosystem and may include
timber, food and water;
Regulating services are the benefits provided through the regulation of ecosystem
processes and may include climate and disease control and flood alleviation; and
Cultural services are the non-material benefits that people obtain through spiritual
enrichment, cognitive development and recreation and include recreational and
aesthetic enjoyment.

8
http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Products.Synthesis.aspx (Synthesis Reports Library)
6

Underpinning the provisioning, regulating and cultural services are supporting

services such as soil formation and nutrient cycling, which are necessary for the
production of all other ecosystem services.

It is important to note that the term benefits is taken to mean the final benefits or
outcomes realised by society from the services provided by the KMNP and its buffer zone.
The benefits generated by supporting services are not valued independently as they are
intermediate benefits which contribute to the provision of a range of final benefits.
Table 2 presents a typology of the services and benefits provided by the park and its buffer
zone. This typology was agreed at the project workshop. It is important to note that some
benefits are mutually exclusive. For example capitalising on the carbon storage function of
the forest has implications for timber exploitation and it is often difficult to maximize
biodiversity as well as timber extraction. For this reason carbon storage is recognised as a
value for the park, but not the buffer zone, while timber values are only estimated for the
buffer zone.

A separate economic analysis and business plan analysis is proposed for the park and the
buffer zone, due to their different uses, functions and institutional arrangements. The values
could ultimately be added to give a total value for the combined area.
A key motivation for designating Kre Mountains as a protected area is to conserve its
biodiversity. An expected global benefit of the project will be to stabilise and rehabilitate
Kre mountains globally significant karstic landscapes and its biodiversity. Regionally the
forests are part of the Euxin section of Euro-Siberain Floristic region and represent the best
remaining examples of humid kartsic forest of the Black Sea (UNDP, 2008). The typology
recognises biodiversity non-use as a distinct benefit component; other elements of
biodiversity value are captured through the provisioning and regulating services. The non-
use (existence) value of biodiversity can only be estimated through stated preferences
techniques, which required specialised surveys and are expensive and time consuming to
undertake.

Multi Functional Forest Functional Management Plans
The GDF is in the process of developing multi functional forest plans across Turkey. The
main categories of the multi functional plans economic, ecological and social and sub-
cultural, can be fairly easily mapped onto the ecosystem services framework. As a result the
forest department is familiar with the full range of goods and services offered by forest areas,
and will be collecting information and data on these functions in the development of their
management plans. In Kastamonu updated forest plans for each forest sub districts should
be completed in 3 years.
A forest management plan will be developed for the park in 2010.

7

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

Ecosystem
service
category
Benefit KMNP

Buffer
Zone
Provisioning Timber X
Firewood 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 X
Recreation (walking, rock climbing,
camping, cave visits, canyon passages,
bird and wildlife watching, hunting, biking,
horse riding sports fishing, excavation of
archaelogical sites, picnics)
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 the
typology
2/ Water regulation is hard to separate from natural hazard protection and is therefore not explicitly
listed in the typology
8

Table 3 provides a summary of valuation techniques, while Table 4 suggests some potential
application of these approaches. The actual choice of valuation approach will depend on a
number of factors including resources, time, data and level of accuracy required. Table 5
presents the output of the workshop session on the identification and valuation of the parks
and buffer zones ecosystem services.

Table 3. Summary of Valuation Approaches
Types of approach Example
Market prices
Revealed Preferences Production function approach
Hedonic pricing
Travel cost method
Averting behaviour
Stated Preferences
(hypothetical market)
Contingent Valuation
Choice Modelling
Benefits transfer Can be based on any valuation approach
Cost based approaches
Second best, only provide proxy
values
Opportunity cost
Cost of alternative/substitute goods
Replacement cost approach

Table 4. Potential application of valuation approaches
Valuation method Ecosystem service valued
Market prices Marketed products timber, fish, fuel
Cost based approaches Depends on existence of relevant market for the
ecosystem service in question. For example, man-
made defences being used as proxy for forest storm
protection; expenditure on water filtration as proxy for
value of water pollution damages
Production function approaches Environmental services that serve as input to market
products e.g. effects of water quality on forestry output
Hedonic pricing Attributes that can be appreciated by potential buyers,
e.g. ecosystem services that contribute to air quality,
visual amenity, landscape
Travel cost All ecosystem services that contribute to recreational
experience
Stated Preferences approaches All
Table5.WorkshopOverviewofEcosystemsandServicesintheKMNPandBufferZone
(pricesandvalues,asreportedbyworkshopparticipants,canbetakentoreflectcurrentvalues)
Importance Available information (qualitative / quantitative /
monetary)
Data gaps / Steps to fill 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 is
forested, 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 = 11,904,000
TL/year (US$ 7,936,000) or 248 TL / ha.
Nearly 5,555,200 TL/year (US$ 3,703,500) are paid
to villagers employed in timber production (40%.
Data is available and regularly updated.
The Database could be improved by detailed classification
(timber, mining pole, telephone pole, industrial wood, wood
for 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 villagers
employed in timber production.




No data gaps.
10

Importance Available information (qualitative / quantitative /

monetary)
Data gaps / Steps to fill data gaps
NTFPs Medium for park and buffer zone
Examples medicinal plants, ornamental
plants, chestnut, wild fruits, rose hip, ash
tree fruit, mushroom, linden, wild pear,
medlar, bayleaf, nuts, thyme, rosemary,
orchid bulbs, blackberry, raspberry.
Estimate of price 50TL/ha (US$ 33)
Value for park 1,850,000 TL / year (US$
1,233,300). However, since harvesting of forest
products is not permitted in the park this cannot be
captured.
Value for the buffer zone 2,800,000 TL /year
(US$ 18,600,00)
Data is not systematically collected and there are no
records.
Within the scope of this project inventories will be
undertaken on sample plots to assess availability and
sustainable harvest rates for key forest products.
Production needs to be planned and marketing is needed.
All revenues from the sale of NTFPs should go to the local
villages
Grazing High in buffer zone (legal and illegal
grazing).
Illegal grazing occurs in the park.
Around 70% of land in buffer zone is grazed by cattle
and water buffalo, and 10% of park area illegally
grazed.
At least 4,000 animals in the buffer.
Not clear on area grazed and number of animals in the
national park.
Area grazed in park and buffer zone could be estimated
based on number of animals per household.
Need inventory of animals and development of grazing
plan.
Agriculture No agriculture in park. 30% of buffer zone.

Data on crop types and area available.
Market price of crops can be sourced.
Need data on production, incomes to households and
market analysis.
Water Low consumption in park, but high
priority.
In the buffer zone water used for domestic
purposes and a very small amount for
agriculture (irrigation). Low priority.


Tap water used in some areas (e.g. Ulus). Bottled
water sold.
No data available on water consumption.
Could make an estimate based on average consumption
per household.
Data could be sourced from municipalities.
11

Importance Available information (qualitative / quantitative /

monetary)
Data gaps / Steps to fill data gaps
Climate High in park and buffer zone. No site data on carbon storage.
Scientific research / field sampling needed.
Hazard
mitigation
landslides
High in park and buffer zone. Due to geology (karst environment) and typology
there is a high risk of landslides.
Kurucasile area has high erosion risk.
No data on the risks and likely impact of those risks to
people, land infrastructure etc.
Need landslide risk analysis and data on possible dames
(impacts).
Hazard
mitigation
flooding /
water
regulation
High Heavy rainfall has resulted in flooding in the region in
the past.
No data.
Need scientific studies. Monitoring can be carried out of
flood waters in the park requires a long term monitoring
program.
Water
purification
High No information on water availability throughout the year
(seasonal differences).
Tourism /
Recreation
High in park and buffer zone. Current estimate 7,000 visitors per year of the buffer
zone & 5,000 for the park.
Potential number of visitors: 30,000 / park and
70,000 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 carrying capacity or visitor numbers and profile,
tourism potential and demand.
To be developed under the projects tourism strategy.
Biodiversity
non use
High Limited understanding of distribution and range of
biodiversity. Scientific studies needed.
Cultural
traditions
Medium - High IIgarini caves. Ruins recently discovered in Bartin
Villages strong cultural values textiles, cuisine,
festivals, traditional houses, landscape.
Need to document and articulate cultural values in when
marketing tourism.
Understand value and economic potential, willingness to
pay for cultural experience.
2.4ProvisioningServices

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 not
permitted in the national park, so it is considered best to focus on the forests carbon storage
value rather than its commercial timber value (see section 2.5).
Around 60% of the buffer zone, 48,000 ha, is estimated to be forest and used for commercial
timber extraction. There are 5 forest districts (Azdavay, Cide, Pinarbasi, Bartin and Ulus),
and 17 sub-forest districts that are partly located within the buffer zone to varying degrees
(Table 6). Given that two of the sub districts, Kirpinar and Aydos, have only a very limited
area in the buffer zone, they can be excluded from the analysis.

Table 6. Forest districts and sub-districts associated with the KMNP
Forest
District
Forest Sub-
district
Total surface area
(ha) - ORBIS data
National Park surface
area (inside the sub-
district) (ha)
AZDAVAY Krkpnar 10,164.00 99.1
AZDAVAY Kirazda 22,044.80 281.7
CDE Aydos 31,779.70 0.5
CDE Cide 11,498.50 2,040
CDE Dal 7,344.00 2,658.1
CDE Gren 24,170.50 2,909.6
CDE Kzlcasu 9,696.70 513.7
CDE eyhda 6,748.00 2,620.2
PINARBAI Kurtgirmez 22,640.30 1,578.3
PINARBAI Sarn 8,319.20 2,177.9
PINARBAI Sorkun 17,428.90 3532
BARTIN Amasra 17,555.80 183.5
BARTIN Art 23,994.90 5,938.2
BARTIN Yenihan 19,063.20 631.3
BARTIN Kurucaile 15,542.20 1,072.70
ULUS Drahna 19,338.50 8,515.00
ULUS 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 in
Table 7. This data relates to production for the whole forest district, i.e. both in and outside
of the buffer zone. The data demonstrates a value of 424 TL per ha harvested. Total costs
(cutting, dragging and transportation) are 1,633,891TL. The costs reflect salaries to local
13

communities to undertake these forestry activities. This results in a net benefit of 1,595,223
or 209 TL per ha harvested. The proportion of this value attributed to the buffer zone is not
yet available.
Table 7. Forest Production for Bartin and Cide, 2008
1

Forest
District
Forest sub-
district
Area
harvested
(ha)
Amount cut
(m
3
)
Amount
sold
(m
3
)
Market value
(TL/2008)

Asmara 581 3,083 2,862 290,738
Amit 400 6,105 6,105 537,865
Kurucasile 964 11,086 9,465 1,329,856
Bartin
Yenuhan 429 3,352 3,201 426,980
Cide 168 641 4,703 296.209
Dagli 565 3,015 33
2
2,660
Guren 109 2,175 2,640 151,160
Kizil Casu 459 4,679 3,129 175,815
Cide
Seydag 74 1,046 278 17,831
Total 7, 619 33,034 32,416 3,229,114
(US$2,152,742)
Source: Forestry Department
Notes: 1/ The table aggregates timber, mine poles, industrial timber and fibre chip
production. Fuelwood is covered separately in Table 8. Unit prices for these products are:
timber 169 TL/m
3
; mine pole 125 TL/m
3
; industrial timber 110 TL/m
3
; fibre chip 56 TL/m
3
.
2/ This is based on the sale of industrial timber only. It is not clear why no sale quantities
are reported for timber or mine poles for this forest sub-district.
14

Valuing Timber
The value of timber is based on the sustainable production level per year (m
3
) * the market
price. This data is held by the Forestry department.
The workshop estimated the value of timber in the buffer zone at 11,904,000 TL/year
(US$7,936,000), or a per hectare value of 248 TL (Table 5). This estimate assumes that
60% of the buffer zone is used for forest production. This is considered to be an 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 the
recommendation of the project team this is taken as a rough estimate for the entire buffer
zone, pending actual data specific to the buffer zone.
The timber processing industry has developed in Turkey over the past 10 years, the value
added through processing could be estimated and included here.

Fuelwood
Much of the demand for fuelwood in the area is met through the sales of off cuts from
forestry operations and from coppiced wood lots. Designated Forest Villages and Forest
edge Villages are able to buy fuel wood at lower prices. Appleton 2009 reports that some
villagers near to the national park complain that they did not have access to a reliable fuel
wood supply and were forced into illegal cutting. The forestry authorities are also planning to
produce fuel briquettes from compressed sawdust and wood waste and to sell these in the
area, thereby adding value to a forest by product.
Table 8 presents the available data covering two forest districts. Based on a harvest area of
7,619, fuelwood value is estimated at 47 TL/ha. The cost of fuelwood production (cutting,
dragging and transportation) are estimated at 386,223 TL (2008), resulting in a net loss of
22,780 TL. These costs reflect the salaries paid to local communities to undertaken these
forestry activities.
15

Table 8. Fuelwood Production in Bartin and Cide, 2008
1

Forest
District
Forest sub-
district
Amount cut
(m
3
)
Amount sold
(m
3
)
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
) * the
market price. This data is held by the Forestry department.
The workshop estimated fuelwood in the buffer zone at 3,000,000 TL/year (1,950,000 US$),
or 53TL/ha (Table 5). This is based on a production area of 48,000 ha and is considered to
be an over estimate.
Using the data available on two forest districts (Table 8) as a proxy for the entire buffer zone,
as suggested by the project team and pending a more complete data set, the value if
fuelwood is estimated at 363,514 TL/year (US$ 242,342). Costs have not been deducted
from this so it is an over estimate of net benefit. However, it is based on the quantity of
fuelwood sold, and may need to be adjusted to capture the any unsold fuelwood used
domestically.



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 doesnt
discolour in the water. However due to over harvesting this tree is now in decline and
boxwood collection is illegal. There have been efforts to promote the use of beech wood as
an alternative, but this has not caught on due to its lower quality. Illegal use of boxwood
seems widespread.
The most renowned spoon maker in Kastamonu is from Harmangeris Village. He makes
wooden spoons and wooden sculptures to order based on mouth to mouth
recommendations. The limiting factor is his time to make the spoons rather than the
demand. In 2009 he produced 5,000 spoons. A simple boxwood spoon costs 3 TL,
compared to 0.5 TL for a spoon made from beech wood. Assuming an average price of
1.75TL, this results in a gross income of 8,750TL / year (US$5,833). More detailed items
such as a connected spoon and fork carved from the same piece of wood costs 20TL.
Animal sculptures, for example ox and deers sell for 50-80TL and make one day to make.
Beech wood is auctioned by the forestry department for 150 TL per m
3
. 1 m
3
can make 800-
2000 spoons.
In Ulukaya Village, Bartin, there is a woodcarving workshop and cafe located near the
waterfalls. This spoon maker producers 20 pieces a day through the winter to be sold in the
summer months. In a year around 1000 pieces are sold in total, 1/3rd of which are sugar
boxes sold for 40 TL, the rest other products such as spoons sold for 4-20TL depending on
their size. His income from wood carving is estimated to be between 14,800-26,000 TL /
year (US$ 9,866 17,333), minus transportation costs 600TL for collecting boxwood from
the forest.
The project document (UNDP, 2008, Annex 2), based on data obtain from meetings with
villages and briefing files of the Agriculture Department, estimates that 80% of households in
the villages of Tepecik, Akl, Hamangerisi, Aa Dal, Celalli and Grpelit (enpazar
district) produce wooden spoons, largely informally. Each households produces on average
15 spoons a day on 200 days in a year, resulting in an annual production of 3,000 spoons.
These spoons are sold in bulk to wholesale traders at prices of 350-400,000 TL (box-tree)
and 150-200,000 TL (others types of wood). The project document does not specify the
number of spoons in these bulk orders.

For Kastamounu, Harmangeris region UNDP 2008 estimates the total wood used for spoon
production to be 10,000 cubic meters a year. This is assuming that 1 cubic meter of
industrial wood yields 300 spoons and that each household therefore uses 10 cubic meters
of wood a year for spoon carving, and that 1,000 households are engaged in this production.
Local people interviewed concluded that for Ulukaya region, 100 boxwood trees with 10 - 15
cm diameters are used in spoon making per year.

Assuming that the total annual spoon output of a household is around 3,000, and a price of
0.5 TL 4TL income from spoon making ranges from 1,500TL - 12,000TL (US$1,000
8,000). If it is further assumed that 1,000 households (project document assumption)
produce spoons, the value for the area is 150,000 12,000,000 TL/year (US$100,000
800,000).



17

Recommendations
While wooden spoons and other wood carvings clearly represent a significant income
for certain households, it is not clear how many households in the buffer zone
engage in this activity and the average level of production. This information could be
collected through the NTFP survey. The value of wood carving is complicated by the
illegal status of boxwood and the high value this wood commands relative to other
wood species. It is assumed that the upper value estimated here is based on
unsustainable use of boxwood resource, and therefore should not be used as an
estimate of the sustainable use value.
Boxwood is a very slow growing tree and ensuring a supply of suitable wood is
problematic. Nonetheless, arrangements for the legal use of box wood need to be
found based on a sustainable level of extraction. This should be considered in the
forth coming forest management plan for the buffer zone. One option is for the wood
to be harvested by the forestry department and auctioned or allocated on a permit
system.
The development of tourism would be good for wood carving industry in the buffer
zone, and offers a way for increasing the livelihoods of the local communities while
linking them to the protection of the KNMP. Souvenir outlets in visitor
centres/ecotourism lodges could be used to sell these products.


Wooden Boats
The construction of traditional wooden boats was once an important industry in the region
but is now in decline. There are an estimated 5-10 ship manufactures producing 10-15
meter sailing boards from high quality chestnut wood (Castanea sativa) harvested from the
buffer zone. This is a good example of adding value to a forest raw material.
Valuing Wooden Boats
No value estimate is available. The following steps are recommended to estimate the value
of wooden boats:
Confirm number of manufacturers
For each manufacturer, estimate net profit per year from boat sales (market price of
boat * number of boats sold minus costs (wood costs, labour, transport etc)
Aggregate to derive total value

Chestnuts
Based on interviews carried out under this assignment around 3,000 tonnes (3,000,.000 kgs)
of chestnuts are collected annually from the buffer zone in Bartin and sold at 2-3 TL/kg,
resulting in a gross value of 6,000,000 9,000,000 TL/year (US$ 4,000,000 6,000,000).
This is clearly a significant value, surpassing the current available estimates of timber value
for the area. Chestnuts are also bartered, especially in the winter, for potatoes, olive oil,
flour, rice, margarine, sugar, tea potato and are therefore important to households. This
subsistence value should be added to the marketed value of chestnuts.
In the villages of Dizlermezeci and Pasalilar it is estimated that each household (25
households) collects 2 tons a year, which is sold for 1-1.25 TL/ kg. This derives an annual
gross income of 2,000TL (US$ 1,333).
18

The project document estimates a lower average collection of 500kg per household per year
in the villages of Kurucaile (Bartin), resulting in an income of around 400-500 TL (US$350).
This suggests a unit price of around 1TL/kg. Chestnuts are then shipped to big traders in
Ankara and Istanbul by local traders (UNDP, 2008).
Hazelnuts
Hazelnuts collection is an old tradition and a good source of income for villages in Bartin. In
the villages of Dizlermezeci and Pasalilar households collect 1 ton per year. They can be
sold for 5 TL /kg, resulting in a gross income of 5,000TL/year (US$ 3,250).
Mushrooms
It is said that there are 22 varieties of mushrooms in the forest, which all households collect
for 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 and
promote 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 in
Zumrut village only buys tea and sugar from the market, everything else is collected from
the forest, or produced from their agricultural land or gardens. Some products are sold, for
example 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 are
agriculture, husbandry and forestry. All households collect forest products such as
mushrooms, rosehip, berries (to make jam). Some products are sold if there is an order, but
generally forest products are collected for domestic use or sent to relatives.
The NTFP survey could be used to determine what proportion of household food is
supplied from the forest.

Apiculture
Honey production is important in the region for both subsistence and commercial reasons. It
is typically sold to relatives and fellow townsmen living at urban centres. Demand is strong
and there is the potential for honey production to be increased if support is available in
production, 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.







19

Table 9. Project Document Status of Village bee keeping

Village Number of hh interested
in 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 files
of Agricultural Directorates
There are an estimated 24,000 bee hives in Bartin province, 75% (18,000) of which are in
the buffer zone. Each hive produces around 10-13kg of honey/per year, 85% of which is
highly valued chestnut honey, a speciality to Northern Turkey and thought to have medicinal
properties. Chestnut honey is sold at 40 TL/kg, other honey is sold at 20-25 TL/kg. Taking
an average price of 30TL.kg and an output of 10kg per year, the value of honey within
Bartins buffer zone is estimated at 7,200,000 TL (US$4.800,000)
9
.
There are 170 households in the villages of Dizlermezeci and Pasalilar in Bartin; 11
households are producing honey commercially. One local entrepreneur packages and
markets his own honey and that of other producers in the area. He has 250 hives that are
kept near the house in the winter and in the forest buffer zone in the summer. His annual
production is 13-14 kg per hive. Demand is strong and he sells his honey for 35-45 TL/kg,
resulting in an annual gross income of around 135,000TL (US$ 90,000)
10
.
There have been some demonstration projects to promote bee keeping in the villages but it
is difficult to generate interest. Some people are scared of bees or have allergies. The
hives need to be checked regularly and experience and knowledge is required to be
successful. The lack of young people in the area is a further limiting factor, as bee keeping
is too demanding for the elderly.
The precise level of apiculture activities in the buffer zone is unclear. There is a union of
Bee 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 TL
10
Based on an output of 13.5kg per hive and market price of 40 TL/kg
20

villages. This union provides technical advice to bee keepers, and has a long term aim of
increasing marketing. This information could also be derived through the NTFP survey.

Valuing Honey - Recommendations
Obtain more accurate estimates of bee hives per household in the buffer zone villages from
the Bee Keeper Union in Bartin.
Derive similar information for Kastamonu through NTFP survey.

Marketing
Processing of forest raw materials and marketing is needed to increase the returns to
communities from their forest products, and thereby create more stable and sustainable
livelihoods. There have been some initiatives in this area, most notable by Aa eri a
NGO in Bartin who managed an EU grant supporting the marketing of forest products. This
project developed a labelling and canning system and provided training on production
techniques. The project worked with women in 20 villages, who have subsequently sold
their products in fairs and festivals in Istanbul and Izmir. Other examples include handicrafts
(e.g. wood carving), honey packaging and processing and preservation and packaging of
fruits and vegetables.
All these enterprises are very small scale; the joint marketing of local products across the
area needs to be considered to achieve the benefits of economies of scale. Ultimately a
logo / common brand could be developed to market the products from the KMNP buffer
zone.


Bayleaves
Turkey has an estimated 95% of the commercial bayleaf production globally. One company
in Bartin is cleaning bay leaves and selling them on as a raw product. The bayleaves are
sourced from around eight villages in the area, only one of which is located in the buffer
zone. The company purchases bayleaves locally for 0.25-0.35 TL/kg, and sells them at 1-
12TL /kg depending on the quality. In Europe the leaves are sold for up to 16 euros /kg.
The company processes around 1,000 tons of raw bay leaves/year resulting in 200-250
tones of final leaves. The demand is estimated at 5 times this amount.
Forestry sub plans are produced for bay leaves in the region, and could be consider for the
buffer zone in the development of the next forest management plan.





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 park
and its buffer zone.

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


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

Stolten and Higgins, 2009 refer to the collection of local herbs in the buffer zone as being
important to some groups. There is little concrete information available on the types and
quantity of herbs being collected and their uses. This information could be covered in the
NTFP survey being undertaken for the project.
Other products that have may have potential and be worthy of investigation include
decorative materials for floristry (pine cones, moss, foliage etc) and medicinal plants, ex situ
cultivation of horticultural plants (e.g. Galanthus).


22

Valuing NTFPs
With the exception of fuelwood, NTFPs are not currently regulated or recorded in Bartin or
Kastamonu, so estimates of the value of these products is for now largely anecdotal, based
on discussion with one or two collectors / producers.
The project includes in its work programme research on Non Timber Forest Products. The
planned project survey should be used to collect the relevant data to carry out the economic
analysis 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 of
households engaging in a particular activity (collection and production). For example how
many households are engaging in beekeeping or chestnut harvesting in the buffer zone and
what is the average production per household?

Forest Inventory
The household survey will provide information on the current levels of collection and the
contribution that NTFPs currently make to livelihoods in the area (subsistence plus
commercial use of NTFPs). This household survey should be complemented with a stock
analysis to inform sustainable harvesting rates, and thereby inform the potential value from
sustainable use.
Market Analysis
In order to realise the sustainable harvest value, markets need to exist. An analysis of
demand / market potential and opportunities for adding value to forest products should be
undertaken 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 values
from an existing study are applied to the study sites. For a more accurate estimate of the
value primary research needs to be undertaken. It should be bourne in mind that the value
of the NTFPs is equal to the subsistence plus the marketed quantity.
23

Croitoru, 2007
11
, assessed the value of NTFP in the Mediterranean region. Turkey is
classified as an Eastern Mediterranean country, for which the value of NTFPs is estimated at
20 / hectare (US$28). Arguably the Kure mountains has more in common with the
Northern 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 honey
for the Yildiz area to Croitorus estimates of firewood, and other NTFPs to derive a combined
value for the Yildiz mountains of 23 /hectare (US$15). Pending the NTFP survey, this
value may be taken as the most appropriate transfer value for KMNP. Table 10 presents the
results of these two studies.
Table 10. Estimates of NTFP values in Turkey
Services / Products Value / /hectare Source
Firewood 3
(6TL / US$4)
Croitoru 2007, based on undistorted market in
price of firewood
Mushrooms 1
(2TL / US$1.3)
Moran, 2009, based on Forest District Directorate
Information
Honey 4
(8.3 TL / US$5.5)
Moran, 2009, based on anecdotal information and
assumptions for Yildiz mountains.
Other NTFPs 4
(8.4 TL / US$5.6)
Croitoru, 2007. Includes chestnuts, berries,
acorns and medicinal plants. Based on values
derived from Tucker et al, 2005
Grazing 12
(25TL/ US$8)
Croitoru 2007. Based on substitute good
approach (for forest fodder). Fodder converted to
barley equivalent and valued based on market
price of barley.

Areas
Yildiz Mountains 23
(48TL/ha / US$15)
Moran 2009. Based on estimates of Honey and
Mushrooms in Yildiz mountains (2008) and
Croitoru 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. Ecological
Economics (63) 768-775
12
Moran, D, 2009. Identification and Valuation of Ecosystem Goods and Services in the Yildiz
Mountains area. Draft Final Report, November 2009. Technical Assistance for Protection and
Sustainable Development of Natural resources and Biodiversity in the Yildiz Mountains Location,
Turkey.
24

Traditional agriculture
Most of the agriculture in the buffer zone is small scale subsistence farming, producing a
small 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 yet
been conducted, although a general description is provided in Annex 3 of the project
document (UNDP, 2008). Investment is needed to encourage production of value added
products and to provide (cold) storage facilities.


Valuing Agriculture
In order to estimate the value of agricultural activities in the buffer zone information is
needed 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 Bartn than in Kastamonu due to more favourable
land and climatic conditions. There are 7,581 animals in buffer zone villages in Bartin (2009
records 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, and
cows are occasionally sold for religious purposes. Milk and yogurts from water buffalo are
three times the price of normal milk. One village operates as a cooperative. They have
automated milking facilities and market their products as a group. Husbandry is considered
to 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 the
forest area is often used for grazing. A solution to the grazing pressures should be
considered in the management plan. Stolten and Higgins, 2009 identify the need for grazing
management 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 of
12/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 of
barley.
A similar analysis could be carried out for the buffer zone to derive a site specific estimate
for the area.
25

2.5RegulatingServices

Carbon storage / Climate change mitigation
KMNP covers an area of 37,000 ha, 90% of which is forested, and thereby provides carbon
sequestration benefits. At present there are no site specific estimates of the above or below
ground biomass for the KMNP, although this information will be developed in the future as
part of the multi functional forest management planning process. Default values can be
drawn 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 4-8
months of the year and altitudes approximately >800m (Table 4.1, IPPC 2006). Table 4.3
provides 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 estimates
of 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 conservative
estimate, for example Canellas et al (2008)
14
suggest aboveground biomass values nearer
190 tonnes d.m./hectare for other Mediterranean oak forest.

The value of carbon can be conservatively estimated based on the price of carbon credits in
the 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 dioxide
equivalent (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 this
analysis shows the carbon storage value of the park ranging from 3,282,422 161,337,078
TL (US$ 2,188,281 107,558,052). There is clearly a large range of uncertainty around
these estimates. Site specific estimates are needed to improve these estimates. The
estimate of carbon value based on the IPPC default data are recommended to be used for
now.
This value can only be realised through an arrangement for payment to Turkey to manage
the area for carbon storage. Currently the most likely route is through the voluntary offset
market.

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.pdf
14
Canellas et al, 2008. Silviculture and Carbon Sequestration in Mediterranean Oak Forest chapter
17 in F.Bravo et al. (eds), Managing Forest Ecosystems: The Challenge of Climate Change, 317
Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2008
15
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 Association
Marmara Branch, Istanbul, 2007.
26

Table 11. Organic carbon storage in forest soils in KMNP

Forest type
Surface area
(ha) Min. (t/ha) Max. (t/ha) Min (t) Max (t)
Fir 1,036 65 196 67,843 203,220
Mixed (both
coniferous and
deciduous) 23,089 7 374 161,625 8,642,347
Beech forest 1,331 28 227 37,047 302,909
Mixed
deciduous
forest 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 is
26,983 ha. The forested area of the park is estimated to be 33,263 (i.e. 90% of the park). The reason
for 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 storage
benefits 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 is
unlikely that this value could be captured as it is incompatible with the timber production
carried out in the buffer zone, and there are no plans to protect the area for this purpose.
27

Table 12. Organic carbon storage in forest soils in the buffer zone
Foresttype
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 (both
coniferous and
deciduous) 14,977 7 374 572 96,953
Mixed
coniferous 228 2.5 424 74,535 609,422
Beech forest 2,681 28 227 628,194 1,532,245
Mixed
deciduous 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 is
22,820 ha. The forested area of the buffer zone is estimated to be 48,000 (i.e. 60% of the area). The
reason 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 KMNP
changed, the forest system could stop developing. This could result in forest fires as is
common along the Mediterranean coast but which are currently not a problem in the Kure
Mountains due to the humidity.
Soil stabilisation
Vegetative cover plays an important role in soil retention and prevention of land and asset
erosion. Soil erosion is a problem is parts of Turkey and the role of natural habitats and
vegetation in soil stabilisation is recognised. Research is needed on the role of KMNP in soil
stabilisation.
Natural hazard protection - Flood prevention and landslides
Through its water regulation function forest can affect the timing and magnitude of run off
and flooding, a common problem in Turkey. The role of KMNP in providing flood protection
needs to be defined.
Air quality maintenance
Ecosystems contribute chemicals to and extract chemicals from the atmosphere. The role
KMNP plays in providing flood protection needs to be defined.
28

Water purification
Ecosystems can be a source of water impurities but can also help filter out/decompose
organic wastes. The role KMNP plays in providing water purification needs to be defined.

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

Valuing Regulating Services
Often the valuation of regulating services is limited not by economic theory but by a lack of
scientific and physical data, and this is the case for KMNP and its buffer zone. As a starting
point the regulating functions need to be defined in detail for the area and the impacts on the
environment and society were these regulating services to be impacted set out. For
example, if x% of the forest cover was lost what would this mean in terms of water regulation
for the area? If this forest loss resulted in an increased risk of flooding, what impacts would
this 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 appropriate
valuation techniques.

2.6CulturalServices

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 of
Important Bird Areas in Turkey, which was updated by the Nature Association and
Birdlife in 2004; 129 bird species live in the area and 46 of them are endangered.
Canyoning, caving, rock climbing (adventure sports). Kre Mountains are
considered one of the richest spots for canyons and caves in Turkey. Currently only
experts use the park for this activity, although there is the potential to train local
guides to promote this activity.
29

It is estimated that 300,000 tourists visit the province annually

16
. However, there are no
estimates of visitors to the park. There are many unmanned entry points into the park so at
present there is no means of recording visitor numbers. Workshop participants estimated
around 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 of
3,000TL/year from his cafe located by a small waterfall. He estimates that roughly 11,000
tourists visit the site over the year, with 60% visiting during the summer months of June, July
and August. Roughly 1% of visitors are foreign tourists from Germany, Uzbekistan and
Korea.
Facilities (entrance gates, visitor centres, trails, signage) need repair and further
development in order to attract significant numbers of tourists. Furthermore, understanding
substitute sites and complementary attractions are important in estimating potential visitor
numbers. IIgaz Mountain National Park is the nearest national park. Yildiz mountains is
also nearby. A recent study of Yildiz mountains estimated potential visitor numbers at 3,000
visits a year at a value of 12,558 TL a year (Moran, 2009). Other attractions in the region
are the Bolu seven lakes national park, Safrenbolu famous for its old Ottoman houses and
a UNESCO World Heritage site, and fishing villages such as Amasra and Cide (which is
within the buffer zone). The park should be marketed in these areas. The park is well
located at a 4hrs by bus ride from Ankara and Istanbul.
A benefits transfer approach can be adopted to provide an estimate of a potential
recreational value for the area. Pak and Turker (2001)
17
derive recreational use values for
Sazalan Forest Recreation near Trabzon by using Travel Cost and Contingent Valuation
methods. Their study derived a value per visit of 9 TL based on a travel cost demand
function.
If we assume, for example, that 10% of the tourists (i.e. 30,000) to the province could be
persuaded to visit the park once it is developed and marketed, this would result in a value of
270,000 TL (US$180,000 per year). This estimate of potential visitor numbers concurs with
the estimate provide by workshop participants.

If as 2TL entrance fee were introduced, as suggested at the workshop, this would result in a
benefit of 60,000 TL / year (US$ 40,000). This is a lower bound estimate of value as it does
not include consumer surplus.

Note that this value does not include expenditure on accommodation, food or other
purchases. Based on current visitor estimates (5,000 for the park and 7,000 for the buffer
zone), over night costs of 60 TL, and an assumption that people stay 1 night to visit the park
and 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 zone
currently. This could increase to 1,800,000 TL/year (US$ 1,200,000) for the park and
12,600,000 (US$ 8,400,000) for the buffer zone (based on 30,000 and 70,000 visitors
respectively).

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

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

16
Stolten and Higgins, 2009
17
Pak, M. and Turker, M. 2001. Determination of forest recreational use value of forest resources in
Turkey: Sazalan Forest Recreation Site Sample. FAO.
30

ecotourism pilot project in Zumrut Village. A well designed ecotourism lodge promoting the
traditional culture of the area Yanik Ali Konagi, supported by an EU grant will be up and
running Spring 2010. It is hoped that this renovated wooden house will attract visitors from
Istanbul and Ankara, with the potential to draw in international tourists if well marketed. It is
proposed to charge guests 60TL per night. Trips to the park will costs 10-15TL per person
per 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 local
communities 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 rejuvenating
the 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 identity
for 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 the
needed 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 low
entrance fee of 2TL would be proposed so as not to put off visitors
Potential visitor numbers for specialised activities (cave visits, camping etc) and additional
charges for these activities
Information on hotel capacity and occupancy in area and estimated number of people who
currently 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 benefit
sharing arrangement is in place whereby 40% of the revenue from hunting is given to
villages.
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 market
demand.

18
Yeni, E. et al. Undated. Kastamonu-Bartin Kure Mountains National Park Sustainable Tourism
Development Strategy 2007-2013.
31

Cultural and Historical Values

The area has a long and rich cultural history. The recorded history of the region begins with
the Hittites in 2000 BC. The ancient Silk Road in Amasra located in the immediate environs
of the park as well as many historical ruins and parts of the park have been identified by the
Ministry of Culture and Tourism as being of special protection status due to historical and
archaeological importance. The region has not been influenced by rapid developments so
much of its natural and cultural heritage has survived. The area has important local traditions
related 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 in
many areas around the park (UNDP, 2008).
Natural sacred sites, such as sacred springs in the core area of the park are of local
importance.
Education

Forestry has been a key element of the local economy and has been part of the local
landscape for hundreds of years. The history, traditions and practices of forestry could be of
considerable 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) could
attract more visitors, educate the public and improve the image of forestry. Ideally the centre
would not just include static displays, but also demonstrations of forestry equipment and
techniques (Appleton, 2009).

Biodiversity non-use
The existence, or non-use biodiversity value of the park is likely to be high. However it is
complex 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 derive
preliminary economic estimates
19
.

19
A recent study - Basak, Esra. 2009. Kackar Mountains Sustainable Foresty and Conservation
Project 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. This
study is only availble in Turkish and it has not been possible to asses the transferability of
these estimates to KMNP, this should be done by the project team.

Table 13. Summary of valuation results.

Ecosystem
service
category
Benefit KMNP
(TL/US$)
Buffer Zone
(TL/US$)
Comment
Provisioning Timber Not permitted. 1,595,223 TL/year
(US$ 1,063,482).
Based on forestry department data for 2 forest
districts (buffer and non-buffer zone). Used as
proxy for entire buffer zone. This is a net benefit.
Buffer zone specific data is required.
Provisioning Firewood Not permitted. 363,514 TL/year
(US$ 242,342).
Based on forestry department data for 2 forest
districts (buffer and non-buffer zone). Used as
proxy for entire buffer zone. Buffer zone specific
data is required.
Provisioning NTFP (Collective estimate, cannot
be added to wooden spoons and
chestnuts below)
Not permitted. 2,800,000 TL /year
(US$ 18,660,00 US$)
50TL/hectare (US$33)
Based on benefits transfer from Moran, 2009, and
workshop estimate. Includes firewood,
mushrooms, honey, chestnuts and medicinal
plants.
Also includes an estimate of 26TL for fodder
(included below).
Provisioning NTFP wooden spoons Not permitted but some
illegal harvesting evident.
150,000 12,000,000
(US$100,000
800,000).
Based on an assumption that 1,000 households
produce 3,000 spoons a year and they are sold at
0.5-4TL. This upper value is assumed to reflect
unsustainable use of box wood, so needs revision.
These estimates need to be verified through the
NTFP survey and a sustainable use plan for box
wood set out.
Provisioning NTFP chestnuts Not permitted. 6,000,000 9,000,000
TL/year (US$ 4,000,000
-6,000,000 US$).
Estimate for Bartin only.
33

Ecosystem
service
category
Benefit KMNP
(TL/US$)
Buffer Zone
(TL/US$)
Comment
Provisioning Traditional grazing Not permitted 26 TL/ha
166,400TL
(US$554,666)
Based on Croitoru, 2007 and included in Morans
estimate of NTFPs.
Assumes 20% of the non forested area in buffer
zone is used for grazing (data is need to verify this
assumption).
Regulating Climate change mitigation 1,008 TL/ha
(US$ 672).

33,529,104 TL (US$
22,352,736).
Not calculated as
unlikely this value would
be captured in a
production forest
through carbon credits.
This is based on a carbon credit price of 4.50TL/ha
in the voluntary carbon offset market. An offset
deal would need to be formalising in order to
realise this benefits. This is a lot uncertainty
around this estimate. This should be treated as a
one off value.
Cultural Tourism and Recreation
Recreation (walking, rock climbing,
camping, cave visits, canyon
passages, bird and wildlife watching,
hunting, biking, horse riding sports
fishing, excavation of archaelogical
sites, 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: Based on transfer value of 9TL per visits and
assumption of 30,000 visitors to the park once
developed.
Expenditure bsed on current visitor estimates
(5,000 for the park and 7,000 for the buffer zone),
over night costs of 60 TL, and an assumption that
people stay 1 night to visit the park and 3 days to
visit the buffer zone, tourism expenditures are
estimated at.

This could increase to 1,800,000 TL/year
(1,170,000 US$) for the park and 12,600,000
(8,190,000 US$) for the buffer zone.
Total 570,000 TL/year
US$380,000)
33,529,104 TL (one-off)
US$22,352,736)
4,135,137 TL/year
(US$ 2,756,758)

Aggregates numbers highlighted in bold in each
column.

3.SustainableFinancingAnalysisforKMNP
3.1OverviewofProtectedAreaFinancinginTurkey
An assessment of Turkeys financial systems and processes for funding protected areas has
recently been completed using UNDPs financial sustainability scorecards (Thomas, 2009)
20
.
The UNDP scorecard cards are designed to assist project teams and governments track
their progress to make protected area systems more financially sustainable. The scorecards
are targetted at the protected area system level and not at site level and therefore provide a
national overview of Turkeys protected areas. They were used to provide context for the
specific discussions on KMNP at the workshop.

The scorecard has three sections:
Part I Overall financial status of the protected areas system. This includes basic protected
area information and a financial analysis of the national protected area system.
Part II is compartmentalized into three fundamental components for a fully functioning
financial system at the site and system level - (i) governance and institutional frameworks,
(ii) business planning and other tools for cost-effective management (e.g. accounting
practices) and (iii) revenue generation. A summary of the scorecard findings for Turkey is
presented in Annex 1.
Part III Scoring and measuring progress.
The key results and conclusions of this protected area scorecard assessment for the whole
of 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 Directorate
is 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 specific
funding applied to the Directorate as a whole, Departments or individual protected
areas. The budget includes staff numbers (many of whom perform environmental
and forestry duties as well as national park duties), salaries, operational costs and
overheads.
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 known
commitments. The final national budget is decided on a whole of government basis
and whilst the Ministry as a whole has achieved small increases over recent year the
overall funding levels in real terms have remained static. There are no specific
measures to ensure funds match costs and national parks have been a relatively low
funding priority. Salary funding is provided directly from the Ministry of Finance to
individual staff members employed by the Directorate.
The process is made difficult by the lack of management plans and of a clear picture
regarding protected area development. Only 50% of parks have management
plans, and no parks have business or detailed financial plans. Financial planning

20
Thomas,2009.ReportontheSustainableFinancingofProtectedAreasintheCaucasusRegionpreparedfor
WWF,Turkey.
21
ThissectionsisbasedonThomas2009
35

is performed at the national level and based on the aggregate of money received by
the Directorate; distributions are made to the provincial administrators who perform
the implementation function. The planning system does not extend to individual
protected areas and financial plans are therefore not integrated with management
plans and investment and operational costs are not phased and increased over time
to fit the reality of available funds.
Consultations with senior staff within the DGNCNP indicate that funding to achieve a
satisfactory basic level of operation would require a 50% increase and a 100%
increase to achieve the optimum level.
Recommended enhancements include economic valuation studies, comprehensive
management plans and the formation of a Business Development Unit to provide
organisational capacity and the means of achieving the new management paradigm.
The key revenue sources are budget funding, earned incomes and donor income.
Earned income includes park entry fees, leasing beach side resorts to private
operators, hunting fees, sale of wetlands goods and services and bank interest.

Legal, Regulatory and Institutional Framework
The legal, regulatory and institutional framework is reasonable well defined with
existing laws, regulations and policies are in place to exercise management
consistent with centralized control.
However the framework does little to enable local level delegation being exercised,
facilitate funding assistance to local communities, or facilitate economic valuation
studies and the integration of these studies into the development of budget priorities.
There are little or no arrangements in place for protected area management to
reduce the cost burden to government through delegated management or wise use
of resources.
In the case of the Hunting and Wildlife Department and the Wetlands Department,
the framework does provide for a revolving fund into which revenues received can be
collected and used for the benefit of the protected area.

Business Planning and tools for Cost Effective Management
Protected area site level planning is performed at only a very basic level. Both
management planning and business planning are at a low stage of development.
Accounting and audit systems are in place which closely track expenditure and
revenue flows and facilitate reporting to the national financing strategy.
Basic training is provided to protected area staff to facilitate budget development and
the maintenance of accounting records.
Revenue generation measures at the site level are minimal, consisting of entry fees
(some 1,000 visitors in 2008) and fines. Policies for business concessions and
payment for environmental services have yet to be developed.

3.2SustainablefinancingmechanismsforKMNP
The workshop participants felt that additional central government funds for managing the
park would be available if a convincing business case was made for the funds. In the past
budget has been unspent as it has been difficult to identify activities to allocate the money to.
Thomas (2009) estimates that only 60% of money is spent by the Directorate. Unspent
money has to be returned and makes it difficult to raise money for future years. The
business plan is key in this respect by setting out a clear path for expenditure and its
justification. Good financial planning is therefore required to secure increased funding.
36

Participants at the workshop felt that the key sources of revenue for KMNP going forward
were domestic government funding, international donor funds / small grants and tourism
charges. Table 14 presents an assessment by workshop participants of the potential roles
of 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 other
financing mechanism are worth exploring.
Of critical importance will be mechanisms to ensure that local communities benefit from
the park and that local livelihoods increase. Appleton, 2009 states At present most
community members see no benefits from living near a protected area or in its buffer zone
and therefore have little incentive for contributing to the management and conservation of
the area. This could be achieved through better management and marketing of NTFPs,
continuing to share the benefits of hunting, and arrangements for involving local
communities 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) should
be considered once the park facilities have been developed.
There is a strong focus on developing forest carbon offsets by the international community
at present. In order to capitalise on any new facility under a post Kyoto agreement, or to
attract investors through the voluntary carbon market, an inventory of the parks carbon
storage should be undertaken.

37

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

Finance
mechanism
Applicable
(Yes/No)
Services / benefits that can be captured through
mechanism
If yes what information is required / what are main
obstacles?
Domestic
Government
Funding
Yes

Investments (accommodation, entrance gates,
infrastructure, roads).
Staff costs
Annual expenditure defined by national budget and central
governments priorities.
Conservation is not a priority, resulting in uncertainty over
budget allocation.
Low delivery rate in previous years makes it difficult to
increase funding requests.
Problems in allocating budget (like hiring staff).
No management plan and business plan, therefore not
clear funds are being used effectively.
Donor
Assistance
Yes

Ecotourism activities
Public awareness
Nature Conservation Education and Training
Equipment
Technical assistance
Limited finance.
Less acceptance of project approach among stakeholders.
Private
Voluntary
donations
No Not much interest from private sector, and government
procedures perceived as onerous.
The donors may have expectations.

38

Finance
mechanism
Applicable
(Yes/No)
Services / benefits that can be captured through
mechanism
If yes what information is required / what are main
obstacles?
Environmental
Funds
No No legislation.
Fiscal
Instruments
Yes

7 projects are inserted into 2010 work programme of
Bartn Governorship Special Provincial
Administration.
This is not in the priority list of Bartn Governorship Special
Provincial Administration, so there may be no allocation.
Benefits &
revenue
sharing
Yes Hunting tourism (buffer zone).
Non-timber forest products.
Mostly people just think themselves.
Need the approval of General Directorate of Forestry and
General Directorate of Nature Conservation and National
Parks.
Cost sharing Yes Other governmental organizations work for the
issues under their responsibility and share their
expertise.
Research activities by NGOs.
Investment for road maintenance and other
infrastructure by municipalities.
General Directorate of Forestry and General
Directorate of Village Relations carry out activities in
the 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 development plan (management plan).
Lack of sufficient accommodation for the visitors. Most of
them stay in the neighbouring cities or towns.
39

Finance
mechanism
Applicable
(Yes/No)
Services / benefits that can be captured through
mechanism
If yes what information is required / what are main
obstacles?
Resource -
use fees
Yes Hunting tourism
Mining (buffer zone)
No entrance fee.
Chestnut, linden, mushroom collection. No resource fee for
those high economic values.
Tourism
charges
Yes

Lack of staff.
Insufficient promotion of the site
PES No Ecosystem services are valued yet and not currently
permitted by the Government.
Telethones to
raise money
? Suggested by group members.



40

4 DevelopingaBusinessPlan
4.1Background
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 business
plan 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 recently
completed for Sultan Marshes. The business plan developed for KMNP will therefore sent a
precedent and may act as a template for other forest protected areas. The economic
analysis of the park demonstrates the potential value of the park. One of the roles of the
business plan is to set out how Turkey and communities around the park could maximise
their financial returns from economic activities such as NTFPs and ecotourism, and from
regulating services such as carbon storage. A core component of the business plan is the
financial plan. The financial plan is based on a systematic process of defining costs and
identifying ways to meet those costs. Good financial planning enables protected area
managers to make strategic financial decisions such as re-allocating spending to match
management priorities, and identifying appropriate cost reductions and potential cash flow
problems.
The intention is the manage the KMNP and the buffer zone as one unit, the business plan
can therefore help provide a framework for the whole area. However, given that different
bodies are responsible for the park and the buffer zone, a separate analysis of the two areas
is proposed.
The management plan is likely to cover the 10 year period of 2011 2022, and include a 5
year operational plan. It is proposed that the business plan is initially developed for a 5 year
period to match the operational plan (2011-2016).
In its assessment of the management of the park, the project document (UNDP 2008) states
that the park suffers from insufficient number of qualified staff, equipment and offices and
has been deprived of any effective management presence. Clearly there is work to be done
to protect and manage the biodiversity of the park and optimise tourism use of the area. The
business plan will build on the management plan to set out how this can be achieved in a
financially sustainable manner.
The workshop included a session on the objectives and role of the business plan and how it
relates to the management plan, and a closing session on the structure of the business plan
and how it may be built up.
4.2 ChallengesfacingKMNP
As an introduction into the business planning process for KMNP, workshop participants were
asked to consider the management challenges facing KMNP and its buffer zone and the role
and importance of the business plan. The main points are provided in Table 15.




41

Table 15. Challenges facing KMNP and its buffer zone and possible solutions
Major challenges for Kure Mountains
National Park
Recommendations
National parks officials are not responsible
for the buffer zone since it is outside the
national park boundaries and therefore
cannot carry out any activities in the buffer
zone. There is less attention from other
government bodies
The management plan should consider a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among the
General Directorate of Forestry, Ministry of
Agriculture, and other related organizations to
improve governance.
Water management outside the national
park boundaries is not under the
responsibility of national park authority.
There is pressure on the water resources
Valuation of ecosystems services would help to
demonstrate their importance
Limited awareness among local people
and general public on sustainable use of
natural resources and their economic value.
Use is uncontrolled.
The business plan can help to communicate the
economic value of the natural resource base, the
need to use resources sustainably, and the need
to raise finance for marketing activities
If there is no long term development plan
in the management plan central
governmental financial support cannot be
allocated at the appropriate times.
Business plan can set out activities and financing
requirements over a five year period
National park revenues are held centrally
and not necessarily reallocated back to the
site. No organizational structure for local
management of national parks.
The business plan should recommend an
autonomous budget structure for the KMNP, which
allows 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 not
compensated for income loss due to
conservation of the park. Local people are
therefore paying the nature conservation
bill. Identified areas of concern are
firewood and boxwood. Forestry activity in
the buffer zone has decreased leading to a
drop in employment.
Need to commit to developing alternative sources
of income for local people. There has been no
significant progress in this area resulting in
growing disappointment among local people. The
benefits from tourism should be shared equitably.
Small grant projects needed to support local
communities develop new skills and business
opportunities.
After the project there is a risk that local
people will feel abandoned
Solutions for sustainable financial management
can be stated in the business plan, and this can be
communicated to local communities to ensure
them of the long term financial viability of the park
and buffer zone.
There are no sub-plans for NTFPs,
ecotourism and hunting setting out
sustainable production /carrying capacity.
These sub plans should be part of the
management planning process.
No management or business plan. Without
a business plan there is no specific
identification of budget needs and it is
difficult to convince central government of
the need for more funds


Management plan and business plan are to be
built up in an iterative manner over the next twelve
months of the project. They can inform each
other. The business plan can be used to
communicate needs for more resources to
central government
42

Major challenges for Kure Mountains

National Park
Recommendations
Insufficient infrastructure, visitor centre,
entrance gates, information boards etc
Need to be costed in the business plan and
financial support requested / sought
Valuation of resources has not been done
therefore market values and importance of
natural resources are unknown
Business plan can present initial assessment and
suggest ways to finance research of particular
benefits where a more detailed assessment is
required
Lack of adequate staff (both in quality and
quantity) for managing the site
Staffing needs to be set out in the business plan
along with training requirements
Limited marketing of site so national and
international nature conservation
importance of the site is not well known
Communications and publicity to be costed in the
business plan
No data management Need a database and more resources for
research
No natural product certificates or marketing
system for products
Financial support for research and development
needed
Not much attention to PAN parks studies Suggest budget for site visits / training

4.3DraftBusinessPlan

This section presents the available information to inform the business plan and highlights
actions to complete the business planning process. A proposed work plan is presented in
section 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, rather
than a product, that enables managers to makes better decision for the park based on the
financial 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 is
no prescribed format for a business plan and it is the task of the KMNP project team and
management to agree the scope and content of the final business plan. A more limited
scope would focus on the financial plan, i.e., it would define the budget and any additional
funding needs for the activities requited to meet the objectives of the management plan. A
more comprehensive business plan would look more holistically at the economic and
financial information and operational processes with the objective of ensuring effective
management of the area. Such an analysis would include an assessment of trends,
opportunities, options and attempt to address weaknesses and capitalise on strengths
thereby increasing the certainty of delivering on the management plan objectives.
43

The possible contents of the business plan were discussed at the workshop (see column 1
of Table 16). The workshop presentation should be referred to for more details on the bullet
points presented in column one of Table 16. The results of an exercise to draft a table of
contents for the business plan are presented in Table 16 (columns 2 and 3). There is some
discrepancy between the outline proposed for the national park and the outline proposed for
the buffer zone. It is recommended that the park and the buffer zone adopt the same
business plan structure.
Action: An early action is for the project team and the park managers to agree a final
outline / structure of the business plan taking into consideration the level of detail it is
practical and desirable to go into.
Table 16 indicates that sections in this report that would inform potential sections of the
business plan, and what sections would need to be written. Many of the unwritten sections,
e.g. preface and park overview, are of a general nature and should be able to draw on
existing project documents and the forthcoming management plan.

44

Table 16. Draft outline for business plan

Outline for discussion
at workshop
Proposed for National
Park
Proposed for Buffer
Zone
Directors Forward

Executive Summary

Park Overview

Economic & Market
Analysis

Historical Context

Current Park Operations

Financials

Priorities & Strategies

Additional Information

Acknowledgements
Preface
To be written
Introduction (Location,
Importance, History, Socio-
Economical aspects)
To be written
Business plan approach
To be written
Financials (Legal context,
financial system operations,
financial resources analyses,
delivery rate at last 5 years)
To be developed from draft
financial information
presented and programs and
activities presented below
SWOT Analyses
To be written
Strategic business plan
(Vision, financial
management strategy,
financial resources and
availability)
To be written. Chapter 3 will
inform this section
Monitoring and Evaluation
To be written
Implementation (Work plan)
To be written see guidance
in section 4.6
References
Annexes
Contents
To be written
Summary
To be written
Park Overview
To be written
Economic & Market
Analysis
To be finalised based on
chapter 2.
Historical Context
To be written
Current Buffer Zone
Operations
To be written
Financials (graphics and
analyses, USD based
exchange rates)
To be developed from the
draft financial information
and program and
activities drafted below
Priorities & Strategies
To be written drawing on
chapter 3 & conclusions
of this report
Additional information
reports, maps, graphics,
etc.)
To be written
45

Draft Financial Information

Currently the main sources of finance of the park are Government, GEF and small grants.
Available estimates of park budgets and expenditure is presented in Table 17. These
estimates exclude salary costs.
Action: Develop this information for the final business plan.
Table 17. Government Budget for Kastamonu and Bartin (excluding salaries) / TL
Budget

Categories of expenditure Year
Kastomunu Bartin
2006 300,000
2007 300,000 14,000
1

2008 600,000 64,000
2009 147,000 Kastmounu - Mapping, computers, capacity
building, co-ordination
Bartin Visitor centre, chairs tables.
40,000 TL also provided by GEF project to
buy equipment for the visitor centre
2010 1,000,000 385,000TL Infrastructure / visitor centre, trails,
informational panels
Notes. 1. Prior to 2008 not much budget was allocated to Bartin, as it was not widely appreciated
that more than half the park is located in Bartin,
There are currently three park staff in Kastamonu (a manager, guard and driver) and seven
in Bartin (1 secretary, 2 rangers, 1 engineer, 1 manager, 2 drivers). The staff in Bartin and
Kastamonu deal with a range of issues - recreation, wildlife, protecting stray dogs, legal
hunting, wetlands, construction. As a preliminary estimate both park mangers would like 20
staff, giving a total of 40 staff for the entire park. This would include managers, engineers,
ecologists, vets, rangers, drivers and office staff. Staff costs in Bartin are estimated to be
currently around 152,000 TL per year. Protected areas in Turkey currently have on average
4-6 staff, however other protected areas in Eastern Europe and Central Asia have staff
numbers of between 40-60.
Draft program and activities
Once the management plan is clearer it will be possible to define the programs and activities
for the park. A draft framework of programs, subprogram and activities was presented to
workshop participants (See Annex 2). Table 18 presents a revised list of programs based on
the workshop discussions.
46

Table 18. Draft Programs and Activities: Kure Mountains National Park Buffer Zone
Program Sub-program
Resource Protection and
management
Patrolling
Survey and Inventory
Monitoring and Evaluation
Habitat and Wildlife Management
Information Integration and Analysis
Cultural Resources Management
Research
Training and Awareness Environmental Education (staff, teachers, students)
Public Outreach and Information
Rural Development Support
Volunteer program
Tourism and recreation Sustainable Tourism Plan - Development &
Implementation
Visitor Revenue Generation
Marketing and Promotion
Interpretive Infrastructure and Services
Trails
Camp grounds
Concession Management
Community Use

Buffer zone only
Forestry
Agriculture
Non-Timber Forest Products
Water
Cultural Use
Management and
Administration
Governance
Planning
General Administration
General Management
Financial Management
Park wide safety
Fundraising & partnerships
Facility Operation and
Maintenance
Telecommunications
Infrastructure Operations and Maintenance
Vehicle Operations and Maintenance
Road Operations and Maintenance
Management and
Administration
1

Infrastructure management and administration (Facility
Operation and Maintenance)
Financial Management
Fundraising & partnerships
Management monitoring
Note: 1 / One group combined the management and administration program and the facility
operation and maintenance program under the management and administration program
47

Tables 19 and 20 present initial thoughts on the possible activities under the training and
awareness program for the national park, and the tourism and recreation program, for the
buffer zone respectively.
Table 19. Training and Awareness Program for the National park
Sub program Activity Needs
(e.g. staff, training, equipment,
studies, construction)
Formal education
program
Supporting schools
Signing a protocol with
Provincial Directorate of
National Education and
training of teachers in the
buffer zone schools
Designing and publishing
training materials (CD,
brochures, posters, short
documentary films)
Awareness raising for local
people
For example documentaries
and short films broadcasting
in local media, radio
interviews, poster and
brochures
Designing and publishing
training materials (CD,
brochures, posters, short
documentary films)
Public outreach and
information
Introduction to ecotourism
and PAN Parks concept
Pilot lodge and consultant
Product packaging training
Enhancing marketing of local
traditional products by
packaging.
Expert, workshop,
cooperation with public
training and employment
institution using traditional
fabric.
Developing traditional
wooden handicrafts
A training course on
Developing and diversifying
traditional wooden
handicrafts
Expert, workshop,
cooperation with public
training and employment
institution
Rural development
support
Organic agriculture training
course
Expert, certificate,
implementation site, local
seed traits




48

Table 20. Tourism and recreation Program for the buffer zone.
Sub program Activity Needs
(e.g. staff, training, equipment,
studies, construction)
Establishing infrastructure
and management
Identification of walking paths
and viewpoints at:
1. Entrance gate Ilca
waterfall walking path
2. Viewpoint at Catak
Canyon
3. Ilgarini Cave
Staff (1 mapping expert, 1
civil engineer, 3 workers), 1
bulldozer
Sustainable development of
local communities
Establishing local product
marketplaces
Establishing one market
place in Bartn Ulukaya
region
1 carpenter, 4 workers
Transport, raw material (a
surface area of 20 m
2
- 8 m
3
timber)

49

Based on a discussion with the park managers, Table 21 presents an initial list of priority
activities for the area from their perspective.
Table 21. Priority Activities
Kastamonu Bartin
4 visitor centres
2 museums providing information on the park
3-4 trails of at least 5km, with good signage and
information
Small information centres in boarding villages
1-2 centres for disabled people
Ecologist / biologist attached to National Park.
This person would have a role in education in
local schools etc.
Supporting NGOs and creating partnerships
Working with local people
Establishing a monitoring programme
Planning for the production of NTFPs
including inventories and implementation
plans.
Patrolling
Producing promotion materials brochures /
documentaries to show at the visitor centre and
possibly on national television.
Restoration of village houses to encourage
tourists to the area. Currently tourists stay in
Pinarbasi/ Asmaya
Establishing nature training packages
Infrastructure, trails, information panels
Study trips to other PAN parks

Action: Develop the list of programs and activities for the park and buffer zone when a draft
management plan is available.

4.4 StepstoDevelopingtheBusinessPlan

The workshop allowed the timely communication of the business plan concepts and contents
to key people involved in the development of the management plan and business plan for
the KMNP and its buffer zone, and the ultimate execution of these plans. There is a strong
and committed team and finalisation of the business plan should be possible within the
project period.
Progress with the business plan is now dependant on development and definition of the
management plan. The key steps necessary to develop the business plan, along with a
possible timeline are described below. The timelines are likely to need amendment by the
project team to align with other planned project deliverables, such as drafting of the
management plan and completion of the survey work.
50

Work plan
Nominate one person responsible for delivering the business plan from the core
management team (January 2010). A steering group for the business plan should
also be selected consisting of 5-6 people, who will agree the work plan to develop the
business plan, assign responsibilities for tasks and review outputs. This group could
hold regular meetings to review progress against planned deliverables.
Based on workshop outputs (see Table 11) and information provide in this report
(e.g. economic analysis presented in Chapter 2) agree structure, level of detail and
priorities for the business plan (by February 2010). At this stage a detailed work
plan should be developed for delivering the business plan based on an
understanding of other project deliverables that will inform the business plan.
Undertaken socio-economic studies of the buffer zone villages (February 2010)
Development of economic valuation of forest and buffer zone (January June
2010). See chapter 2 for specific recommendations for each benefit. Efforts should
initially be focussed on developing more reliable estimates of NTFPs and tourism.
o NTFP surveys are planned under the project and should collect the necessary
economic data based on representative surveys of households in the
buffer zone. It may be worth exploring the possibilities of universities/
students assisting with these household surveys and the economic analysis
of NTFPs in the region. The household survey can be supported by an
inventory of NTFPs under the multi-functional forest management plan work.
This will inform the sustainable harvest rate of NTFPs. If possible the NTFP
study should include a market analysis.
o A tourism strategy is also being undertaken by the project and should be used
to collect data and information to undertaken an economic assessment of the
potential of tourism in the park and buffer zone.
o It would also be useful to develop site specific information on the carbon
storage benefits of the park to be a position to seek forestry carbon offset
arrangements. It is likely that these studies will not be possible within the
project period and should be itemised and costed in the business plan.
o Longer term research studies to better understand the regulating functions of
the park are recommended. It is likely that these studies will not be possible
within the project period and should be itemised and costed in the business
plan.
Following development of the management plan and other planning reports, the core
management team for the park / business plan steering group should draft the
programs and activities to achieve the objectives of the management plan. This
will form the bases of the financial plan. Reference can be made to the development
of the financial plan at Sultan Marshes (April May 2010).
Collect information and data to cost the draft activities (June July 2010)
Analysis costs of program and activities and define budget needs and likely funding
gaps (August 2010)
Finalise sustainable financing plan for the park and its buffer zone, presenting
strategies to address any major funding gaps (August 2010)
51

Draft business plan document (September 2010)

Consultation on plan with, for example, government ministries, protected area staff,
NGOs, local communities, donors and consultants (October 2010)
Finalise business plan (December 2010)
This draft work plan is summarised in Table 22.

Table 22. Summary Draft work plan for KMNP and Buffer Zone Business Plan
Task Date Comment
Nominate steering group and
person responsible for
delivering business plan
January 2010
Agree structure and level of
detail for business plan
February 2010 At this stage the a more
detailed work plan should be
agreed
Undertake socio-economic
analysis of households in
buffer zone
February 2010
Develop economic valuation
of forest and buffer zone
January June 2010 This assumes an economic
valuation of the park will be
included in the business plan
Draft programs and activities
to achieved management
plan
April-May 2010
Cost program and activities June - July 2010
Finalise sustainable
financing plan
August 2010
Draft business plan September 2010
Consult on plan October 2010
Finalise business plan December 2010

52

4.6ImplementationGuidelines
Only high level generic implementation guidelines can be developed at this stage. These
guidelines will need to be developed once the management and business plan are finalised.
It is not yet clear what information will be generated by the project within the project period.
For example the level of detail of the NTFP study and market analysis is uncertain;
additional research may be required on the back of the project studies to refine this priority
resource. Some investments will also be realised within the project period as they have
been included in the 2010 program. The park managers will obviously be clear on what
these investments are and additional investments needed to be included in the first financial
plan.
It would be logical to implement any strategic opportunities identified in the business plan in
the following order:
Quick wins (high gain / high priority). This may relate to site specific studies of
carbon storage and market analysis of NTFPs
Long term investment and high gain
Long term investment and lower gains
The implementation strategy will be guided by the priorities and objectives of the park and
the buffer zone and an understanding of the likelihood and magnitude of any proposed
action or investment in contributing to these objectives.
The implementation plan should set out a work plan and assign responsibilities accordingly.
4.7 ReplicationPlan
It is hoped that the business plan for KMNP and its buffer zone can serve as a template and
example for the eight other forest hot spot in Turkey. To this end a best practice approach is
aimed at. However, give that this is the first business plan to be developed in Turkey the
business plan is likely to be limited in scope by data availability, time constraints and in-
country expertise. The lesson learnt in developing the business plan for KMNP should be
documented and shared with the other sites. Where outputs have not met best practice the
reasons for this should be explained and the ideal outputs summarised for information. In all
cases a practical approach should be adopted for the development of the business plan,
which recognises that the business plan should be seen as a process that can be developed
and built on through the on-going planning periods.
The other forest hot spots are: Forests of Istanbul; Ibradi-Akseki Forest, Antayla; Amanos
Mountains Hatay; Karcal Mountains, Artvin; Datea Peninsula and Bozburum; Firtia Valley,
Rize; Babadag Mountain, Fethiye; and, Yenice Forests Karabuk. These eight sites cover
an area of 1,076,838 ha (UNDP, 2008).
Some of the other 8 hot spots are managed by institutions other than GDNCNP and GDP,
for example the Forest Research Institute, Authority for SPA, and Ministry of Culture and
Tourism. It is therefore important that these organisations are brought into the development
of the business plan.
53

As an initial step in developing business plans for these sites a workshop could be held to
disseminate the outputs of the KMNP business plan and to start generating information
needed to inform the business plan for the eight individual forest hotspots.
The workshop could be organised along similar lines to the workshop held for KMNP,
updating the presentations and workshop exercises as appropriate. The purpose would be
to start to generate a picture of:
Challenges facing management of the site
The ecosystem services and benefits of the area, and available data to estimate
these benefits, building on the template of ecosystem services developed for KMNP
Discuss financing arrangements and opportunities for generating additional revenue,
building on sustainable financing strategy developed for KMNP
Programs and activities proposed to realise the management options of the area,
using the programs and activities template developed for KMNP.
Following the workshop the development of the business plan for each site could follow the
steps set out in Section 4.5 for KMNP and its buffer zone.
54

Annexes
Annex1:SummaryoffinancingscorecardsforTurkey
Note: Tables summarised from Thomas 2009.
Legal, regulatory and institutional frameworks
PAs Wildlife Wetlands Special
Protected
Areas
Comments
Element 1 Legal, policy and regulatory
support for revenue generation by PAs
Scale: 0 none, 1 some, 2 a few, 3 fully
(i) Laws are in place that facilitate PA
revenue mechanisms
3 3 3 3 Specify the revenue
generation mechanism that
are not permitted under the
current legal framework
Revenue generation
mechanism are shared by a
number of Departments &
Agencies in accordance
with the legislation of
Turkey (SPA)
(ii) Fiscal instruments such as taxes on
tourism and water or tax breaks exist to
promote PA financing
0 - 0 Payment for environmental
services not allowed as yet
Element 2 - Legal, policy and regulatory
support for revenue retention and sharing
within the PA system
Scale: 0 no, 1 under development; 2 yes,
but needs improvement, 3 Yes, satisfactory

(i) Laws, policies and procedures are in
place for PA revenues to be retained by
the PA system
2 3 3 3
(ii) Laws, policies and procedures are in
place for PA revenues to be retained, in
part, at the PA site level
0 3 3 0
(iii) Laws, policies and procedures are in
place for revenue sharing at the PA site
level with local stakeholders
0 3 0 2 Allowed only at Gallipoli NP
Element 3 - Legal and regulatory
conditions for establishing Funds (trust
funds, sinking funds or revolving funds)
22

Scale: 0- No, 1 Established, 2- Established
with Limited capital, 3 Established with
adequate capital

(i) A Fund have been established and
capitalized to finance the PA system
0 3 0 0 Revolving Fund exists

22
Where a PA system does not require a Trust Fund due to robust financing within government, award full 9
points
55

Scale: 0 None, 1 Some, 2- Quite a few, 3 -

Fully

(ii) Funds have been created to finance
specific Pas
0 1 0 0
Scale: 0 None, 1- Partially, 2-Quite well, 3 -
Fully

(iii) Funds are integrated into the national
PA financing systems

0 3 0 0
Element 4 - Legal, policy and regulatory
support for alternative institutional
arrangements for PA management to
reduce cost burden to government
Scale: 0 None, 1- Under development, 2
Yes, but needs improvement, 2 Yes,
satisfactory

(i) There are laws which allow and
regulate delegation of PA management
and associated financial management for
concessions
3 2 3 0
(ii) There are laws which allow and
regulate delegation of PA management
and associated financial management for
co-management
1 2 3 0 Allowed in co-managed
areas
(ii) There are laws which allow and
regulate delegation of PA management
and associated financial management to
local government
0 2 3 0 Protocols developed
(Wetlands)
(iv) There are laws which allow private
reserves
0 0 0 0
Element 5 - National PA financing
strategies
Score: 0 - Not begun, 1- In progress, 3
completed, 5 under implementation

(i) Degree of formulation, adoption and
implementation of a national financing
strategy
5 5 5 5
(ii) The inclusion within the national PA
financing strategy of key policies:
Score: 0 No, 2 - Yes
- Revenue generation and fee levels
across PAs
2 2 2 2 Specify the tariff levels for
the PAs

- Criteria for allocation of PA budgets to
PA sites (business plans, performance
etc)
2 2 2 2 List the budget allocation
criteria (Management
Plans) (National Parks)
Priority for RAMSAR sites
(Wetlands)
56

Visitor numbers to be
increased by 10% per
annum for each year until
2013 & similarly for tourism
revenue at a rate of 7%
(SPA)
- Safeguards to ensure that revenue
generation does not adversely affect
conservation objectives of PAs
2 2 2 2
- Requirements for PA management
plans to include financial sections or
associated business plans
0 2 2 2 Financial strategies pick up
MP provisions
Element 6 - Economic valuation of
protected area systems (ecosystem
services, tourism based employment etc)
Score: 0 None, 1- Partial, 2 Satisfactory,
3- Full

(i) Economic data on the contribution of
protected areas to local and national
development
0 0 - 0 Provide summary data of
value
(ii) PA economic values are recognized
across government
1 0 0 0 Only within Ministry of
Environment (PA)
Element 7 - Improved government
budgeting for PA systems
Score: 0-No, 2- Yes
(i) Policy of the Treasury towards
budgeting for the PA system provides for
increased medium to long term financial
resources in accordance with
demonstrated needs of the system.
2 2 2 2 A funding gap still exists
when funding is compared
with EPASA budget bids
(SPA)
(ii) Policy promotes budgeting for PAs
based on financial need as determined
by PA management plans.
2 2 2 2
(iii) There are policies that PA budgets
should include funds for the livelihoods of
communities living in and around the PA
as part of threat reduction strategies
0 2 2 2 Not enough policies exit but
practices followed in fact
Element 8 - Clearly defined institutional
responsibilities for PA management and
financing
Score: 0- None, 1 partial, 2 Improving, 3-
Full

(i) Mandates of institutions regarding PA
finances are clear and agreed

3 3 3 3
Element 9 - Well-defined staffing
requirements, profiles and incentives at
site and system level
Score: 0- None, 1 Partial, 2 Almost there,
3 - Full


57

(i) There are sufficient number of

positions for economists and financial
planners and analysts in the PA
authorities to properly manage the
finances of the PA system
1 1 1 1
(ii) Terms of Reference (TORs) for PA
staff include responsibilities for revenue
generation, financial management and
cost-effectiveness
0 1 1 1 Proposed to be included by
2008 for budget preparation
& project management
(SPA)
(iii) Laws and regulations motivate PA
managers to promote site level financial
sustainability
(eg a portion of site generated revenues
are allowed to be maintained for on-site
re-investment and that such finances are
additional to government budgets and not
substitutional)
0 1 1 0
(iv) Performance assessment of PA site
managers includes assessment of sound
financial planning, revenue generation
and cost-effective management
1 - 1 1
(v) PA managers have the possibility to
budget and plan for the long-term (eg
over 5 years)
0 1 0 1 Yearly only
Score & Percentage to total possible
score
30
(38%)
52
(67%)
39
(50%)
34
(44%)


58

Business Planning and Tools for Cost Effective Management

PAs Wildlife Wetlands SPAs Comments
Element 1 PA site-level business planning Score: 0 Not begun, 1- Early stage, 2-
Near complete, 3- Completed.

(i) PA management plans showing objectives,
needs and costs are prepared across the PA
system
2 1 1 3 61% (25/41 Nat Parks)
52% (17/33 Nature
Reserves)
10% of Wildlife sites
4 % of wetlands (77%
of RAMSAR sites)
All SEPAs have a form
of MP
(ii) Business plans, based on standard
formats and linked to PA management plans
and conservation objectives, are developed
for pilot sites
0 1 0 3 All SPAs have a form
of Business Plan (SPA)
(iii) Business plans are implemented at the
pilot sites
(degree of implementation measured by
achievement of objectives)
0 - 0 3
(iv) Business plans are developed for all
appropriate PA sites (business plans will not
be useful for PAs with no potential to generate
revenues)
0 - 0 3
(v) Financing gaps identified by business
plans for PAs contribute to system level
planning and budgeting
0 - 0 3
(vi) Costs of implementing business plans are
monitored and contributes to cost-effective
guidance and financial performance reporting
0 - 0 3
Element 2 - Operational, transparent and
useful accounting and auditing systems
Score: 0 None, 1- Partial,
2 - Near complete, 3- Fully completed

(i) Policy and regulations require
comprehensive, coordinated cost accounting
systems to be in place (for both input and
activity based accounting)
3 1 1 3
(ii) There is a transparent and coordinated
cost and investment accounting system
operational for the PA system

3 1 3 3
59

(iii) Revenue tracking systems for each PA in

place and operational
1 1 1 3 Ministry of Finance
only
(iv) There is a system so that the accounting
data contributes to national reporting
3 1 3 3 Very effective system
in operation (SPA)
Element 3 - Systems for monitoring and
reporting on financial management
performance
Score: 0 None, 1- Partial, 2 - Near
completed, 3 - Complete and operational

(i) All PA revenues and expenditures are fully
and accurately reported by government and
are made transparent
1 1 2 3
(ii) Financial returns on investments from
capital improvements measured and reported,
where possible (eg track increase in visitor
revenues before and after establishment of a
visitor centre)
1 - 0 1
(iii) A monitoring and reporting system in
place to show how and why funds are
allocated across PA sites and the central PA
authority
3 - 2 3
(iv) Financial performance of PAs is evaluated
and reported (linked to cost-effectiveness)
1 - 0 3
Element 4 - Methods for allocating funds
across individual PA sites
Score: 0- No, 1- Partially
23
, 2- Yes
(i) National PA budget is appropriately
allocated to sites based on criteria agreed in
national financing strategy
2 1 2 2
(ii) Policy and criteria for allocating funds to
co-managed PAs complement site based
fundraising efforts
0 1 2 2
Element 5 - Training and support networks to
enable PA managers to operate more cost-
effectively
Score: 0- Absent, 1- Partially done, 2-
Almost done, 3 Fully

(i) Guidance on cost-effective management
developed and being used by PA managers
0 0 0 2
(ii) Operational and investment cost
comparisons between PA sites complete,
available and being used to track PA manager
performance
1 - 0 3
(iii) Monitoring and learning systems of cost-
effectiveness are in place and feed into
management policy and planning

1 - 1 2

23
1partiallyaddedbytheevaluator,notpartofUNDPtemplate.
60

(iv) PA site managers are trained in financial

management and cost-effective management
1 1 3 1 Some training in
tendering (Wildlife)
(v) PA site managers share costs of common
practices with each other and with PA
headquarters
24

1 1 2 3 Personal
communications
(Wildlife)
Total Score and percentage of total score of
possible score
23
(38%)
11
(18%)
23
(38%)
55
(90%)

24
Thismightincludeaerialsurveys,marinepollutionmonitoring,economicvaluationsetc.
61

Annex2.DraftFrameworkofSubprograms

Resource Protection and Management Program
Sub program Description / example of activities
Patrolling

Prevention of illegal activities in the park; inspection of
visitor permits.
Patrols, construction of controls stations and trails,
training
Inventory and research

Data collection to improve knowledge of the park and
its management
Inventories of fauna & flora; [rapid ecological
assessments] ; [participatory rural appraisal]; [priority
research projects to be indentified perhaps on
regulating services]
Monitoring

On- going monitoring of park resources
Habitat and Wildlife
Management

Management activities to protect priority species and
ecosystems
Development of Forest management plan; [Restoration
plans?]
Information Integration
and Analysis

GIS/GPS activities and their analyses
Cultural Resources
Management

Archaeology, ethnography, library, museums and
archives, historic structures, cultural landscapes
management and related

62

Training and Awareness Program

Sub program Description / example activities
Formal Education
Program
Support to schools
Public Outreach and
Information
Public meetings, press releases, news briefs, special
reports, co-ordinations of public events
Local Development and
Assistance
Help to local associations to implement projects designed
to improve the social and economic well being of
communities living within the periphery of the park.
Training, advice on funding options, direct funding of
projects
Volunteer Program Support from volunteers in supporting the park

Tourism and Recreation Program
Sub program Description / example activities
Sustainable Tourism Plan Development & Implementation of plan
Training Training of local guides
Visitor Revenue
Generation

Visitor registration and entrance stations; Sale of
souvenirs and other commercial products; Monitoring of
tourist numbers / impact on park
Marketing and Promotion

Website creation and maintenance; development of
administrative flyers, videos and other materials,
Interpretive Infrastructure
and Services

Interpretive activities such as guided walks, visitors
centre interpretive program, signs
Trails

Establishment, management and maintenance of trails in
the park including signage, sweeping, redirection,
vegetation and/or rock fall removal, hazard tree removal,
construction of foot bridges, or other related activities
Campgrounds

Regular management of campgrounds and their facilities
including toilets, tent shelters, and other areas within the
camp site
Concession Management Price evaluation, product and service inspection, and
contract negotiations with concessionaires
63

Community Use (Buffer Zone Only) Program

Sub program Description / example activities
Forestry

Ensuring optimal / sustainable forest use in the buffer
zone
Forest management plan; Concession management;
Monitoring

Agriculture

Ensuring optimal/sustainable agriculture use in the buffer
zone
Monitoring; outreach
Non-Timber Forest
Products

Ensuring sustainable harvesting of NTFPs and optimal
marketing of products
Market studies
Water Ensuring sustainable and equitable use of water
resources

Management and Administration Program
Sub program Description / example activities
Planning Large scale structural or programmatic planning,
including responses to legal threats, design of new
buildings
General Administration Procurement, contracting, filing, typing and general
office logistics
General Managements Staff management, short term planning and
institutional relations
Financial Management Budget, accounting and financial analysis activity, as
well as annual reporting requirements
Health and Safety Emergency medical services, vehicle and boat safety,
general safety of staff and visitors
Fundraising &
partnerships
Development of alliances and relationships with
national and international groups
Implementation of financing strategy

64

Facility Operation and Maintenance Program

Sub program Description / example activities
Telecommunications Maintenance of radios, telephones, internet for
communication within the park
Building and Utilities
Operations and
maintenance
Keep park buildings in good working order and upkeep
Vehicles operations and
maintenance
Maintenance for example of Cars, boats, motorbikes
Road Operations and
Maintenance
Maintenance of transportation routes

65

Annex3:WorkshopMaterials
Workshop Agenda
GEF MSP PIMS 1988: Enhancing Coverage and Management Effectiveness of the
Subsystem of Forest Protected Areas in Turkeys National System of Protected Areas.
Workshop on Business Planning and Sustainable Financing of Turkeys Forest Protected
Areas. 7-8 December 2009, Bartin
Objectives:

To provide an overview of Protected Areas Business Planning (including the
valuation of ecosystem services and sustainable financing of protected areas),
and to consider suitable sustainable financing options for Turkeys Forest
Protected Areas
To consider the information needed to develop the business plan for KMNP and
its buffer zone

7 December
Item Agenda item Lead Start time
1 Welcome Introductions PMU 09.30
2 Background Yildiray Lise 09.45
3 What is a Business Plan? Camille Bann 10.00
4 Break 11.00
5 Exercise: Management Challenges &
the role of Business Planning for
KMNP and its buffer zone
All 11.15
6 Lunch 12.30
7 Identifying and Valuing Ecosystem
Services
Camille Bann 13.30
8 Break 14.30
9 Exercise: Identifying and Valuing
Ecosystem Services for KMNP and its
buffer zone
Camille Bann 14.45
10 Wrap up Yildiray Lise 16.15

8 December
Item Agenda item Lead Time
1 Sustainable Financing Options Camille Bann 09.30
2 Break 10.45
3 Exercise in Sustainable Financing
Options for KMNP and its buffer zone
All 11.00
4 Lunch 12.30
5 Developing a Business Plan Camille Bann 13.30
6 Break 14.45
7 Business planning exercise for KMNP
and its buffer zone
All 15.00
8 Next steps & close Yildiray Lise 16.15

WorkshoppresentationsavailableinTurkishandEnglishonrequest
66

WorkshopExercises
Exercise1.ManagementChallengesandtheRoleandImportanceoftheBusinessPlanforKure
MountainsNationalPark
Objective
TogetparticipantsthinkingaboutthelinksbetweentheManagementPlanandtheBusiness
Plan
Structure
Divideintotwogroups
YildiraytopresentthemanagementobjectivesfortheKMNP(10mins).FollowingonfromCamilles
lastslideoutliningthecontentofatypicalbusinessplan,outlinecontentofManagementPlanand
thedifferencesbetweenthetwo
35minsdiscussion
30minfeedbacktoplenary.Eachgroup15minseach(5minstopresentkeypointsand10mins
discussion)
Forallexercisesneed2volunteersfromthegrouponetotakedetailednotesandonetoreport
backtothegroup.AllwrittennotestobegiventoYildiray.
Task
Groupstoanswerthefollowingquestions:
WhatarethemajorchallengesforKureMountainsNationalPark?
HowwouldaBusinessPlanhelptoovercometheseproblems?
67

Exercise2:IdentifyingandValuingEcosystemServicesinKureMountainsNationalPark
Objective:
ToagreeandprioritisetheecosystemservicesprovidedbyKureMountainsNationalPark
andtheBufferZone.
Identifyavailabledataforvaluingtheseecosystemservicesanddevelopaplanforcollecting
missingdata.
Structure:
Threegroups
Group1:Forestry(timber,firewoodandNTFPs)
Group3:Otherprovisioningservices(traditionalgrazing,agriculture,water)andall
regulatingservices
Group2:CulturalServices
1hrdiscussion.30minsfeedbacktotheplenary
Task:
Refertoexcelsheet.Doyouagreewiththelistofservices?Arethereanymissingbenefits?
Foreachbenefitcompletethetemplateprovided.AseparateanalysisfortheParkandBufferZone
isrequired.
Benefit: Nameofnotetaker:
Park BufferZone
Importance:High/Medium/Low
Description
Quantitativeinformation(quantity
collected/areaharvested/numberof
visitorsetc)current&potential(based
onsustainableproduction)harvests

Marketprice/availableestimatesof
value

Datagaps
Stepstofilldatagaps
68

Exercise3.IdentifyingPotentialFinancingOptionsforKMNP
Objective:ToidentifysustainablefinancingoptionsandasustainablefinancingactionplanKMNP
Structure:
2groups
Ihourdiscussion
30minsfeedbacktoplenary
Task
Step1:Identifypotentialfinancingmechanismsusingtable.
FinancingCheckList
FinanceMechanism Applicable
(Y/N) and
why
Services/Benefitsthat
can be captured
throughmechanism
If yes what information is
required / what are main
obstacles?
Domestic
GovernmentFunding

DonorAssistance
Private Voluntary
donations

FiscalInstruments
Benefits & revenue
sharing

Costsharing
EnterpriseFunds
Resourceusefees
Tourismcharges
PES

Step2:DevelopstepsforimplementingasustainablesustainablefinancingplanforKMNP(Parkand
BufferZone).Prioritisethemechanismstobeimplemented/explored.Categoriseashigh,medium
andlow.
69

Exercise4:DevelopingaBusinessPlanforKMNP
Objective:ToagreethestructureofKMNPBP,identifykeyprogramsandactivities,availabledata
andprogramforgeneratingmissingdata.
Structure
2groups.OnegroupdiscussthePark,theothergrouptodiscusstheBufferZone.
Ihourdiscussion
30minutesfeedbacktoplenary
Task
1.Doyouagreewiththeproposedoutlineforthebusinessplan?Ifnotsuggestchanges
Masoala National Park
Business Plan
Another example Proposed for KMNP
Introduction
Managers Forward
Executive Summary
Park Overview
Historical Context
Current Park Operations
Financials
Priorities & Strategies
Additional Information
Acknowledgements
Executive Summary
Managers Forward
Protected Area Overview
Market Analysis
Functional Area Analysis
Financials
Strategies & Priorities
Marketing Plan
Economic Impact
Analysis
Managers Forward
Executive Summary
Park Overview
Economic & Market
Analysis
Historical Context
Current Park Operations
Financials
Priorities & Strategies
Additional Information
Acknowledgements

2.Referringtohandoutondraftprogramsandactivities,doyouagreeprogramsandactivitiesfor
thepark?Ifnotsuggestchanges(seeAnnex2)
3.ForprogramandactivitiestobeincludedintheBusinessPlanidentifyfillinTemplateprovided
(below).

70

Program:
Sub-Program:
Activity:
Describe activity:




Estimate needs (e.g. staff, training, equipment, vehicles, professional services,
research studies, construction)




Comments:

71

LISTOFTRAINEES
No Name Surname Organization EmailAddress
1 Muge Altinalan
MoEFGeneralDirectorateofNature
ConservationandNationalParks
mugealtinalan@yahoo.com
2 Hulya Ozbek
MoEFGeneralDirectorateofNature
ConservationandNationalParks
aralzeynep@yahoo.com
3 Y.Ziya Ergene
MoEFGeneralDirectorateofAfforestration
andErosionControl
yusuf0653@hotmail.com
4 Erdogan Erturk
MoEFGeneralDirectorateofNature
ConservationandNationalParks
erdoganerturk@yahoo.com
6 Cihangir Altun
MoEFGeneralDirectorateofNature
ConservationandNationalParks
cihangiraltun@hotmail.com
7 Ercan Yeni
BartnProvincialDirectorateofEnvironment
andForestry
ercanyeni@yahoo.com
8 Duygun Bastanlar WWFTurkey duygunb@gmail.com
5 Mustafa Yilmaz
MoEFGeneralDirectorateofNature
ConservationandNationalParks
yilmazmustafa@gmail.com
10 Burak Tatar
MoEFGeneralDirectorateofNature
ConservationandNationalParks
burbody@gmail.com
11 Kenan Ozturk
MoEFGeneralDirectorateofNature
ConservationandNationalParks
kofettahoglu@yahoo.com
12 Fitnat Williams KureMountainsEcotourismAssociation tetis.ekoturizm@hotmail.com
13 Yusuf Bas KastamonuRegionalDirectorateofForestry yusufbas.6155@hotmail.com
15 Basak Avcioglu WWFTurkey bavcioglu@wwf.org.tr
16 Ramazan Dikyar GeneralDirectorateofForestry ramazandikyar@yahoo.com
17
smail Mentes KastamonuProvincialDirectorateof
EnvironmentandForestry
mentesismail@yahoo.com
18
Zeki Saltu BartnProvincialDirectorateofEnvironment
andForestry
zekisaltu@hotmail.com
19
remSaglam Fide KastamonuProvincialDirectorateof
EnvironmentandForestry
irsafi@hotmail.com

72

Annex4:ListofMeetings
INDIVIDUALSCONSULTEDDURINGTHEFIELDTRIPtoKUREMOUNTAINSNATIONALPARK
NameSurname Province Town/Organization Notes
BayramKockaya Kastamonu KastamonuRegional
DirectorateofForestry
DeputyRegionalDirectorofKastamonuRegional
ForestryDirectorate
Ebruzdemir Kastamonu KastamonuRegional
DirectorateofForestry

AliOrtaakarsuci Kastamonu ProvincialDirectorateof

AgricultureandRural
Affairs

EkremTopa Kastamonu ProvincialDirectorateof

AgricultureandRural
Affairs

RamazanDikyar Kastamonu Kastamonu Supervisorofforestmanagementplansinthebuffer

zone.
smailMente Kastamonu ProvincialDirectorateof
Environmentand
Forestry
HeadofNPandProjectOfficer
YkselErdoan,Yasemin
Erdoan,hisfather,and
HuseyinGulcan
Kastamonu Harmangerivillage Spoonandotherhandicraftsmaker.
OsmanCivelek Kastamonu Azdavay MayorofAzdavay
FitnatWilliams Kastamonu Azdavay ManagerofYankAliKona
Zhtelikandhis
family
Kastamonu ZmrtVillage OwnerofKaliPension,andpreparinglocalproducts
forhouseholduse
ErcanYeni Bartn ProvincialDirectorateof
Environmentand
Forestry
HeadofNPandProjectOfficer
GalipArslan Bartn AaeriNGO HeadofNGO
AhmetCetinkayaandhis
family
Bartn Ulukayavillage Spoonmakerfromboxwood,andalsotheownerof
thefacilitybythewaterfall.
ErdemSancar Bartn ProvincialDirectorateof
AgricultureandRural
Affairs

BarAta Bartn ProvincialDirectorateof

AgricultureandRural
Affairs

IlhanOzgurYurt Bartn YAPRAKBartin

EnterpriseGroup
EcologicalFoodIndustry
andTradeInc.Co.
ProductEngineer
Tahirzkanca Bartn Dizlermezecivillage Beekeeperwhoisalsotheheadoflocalforestry
cooperatives.

73

INDIVIDUALSCONSULTEDINANKARA
NameSurname Organization Role Notes
OsmanOzturk GeneralDirectorateofNature
ConservationandNationalParks
DeputyDirector
General
ProjectCoordinator
MustafaYurdaer GeneralDirectorateofForestry HeadofForest
Managementand
Planning
Department
DeputyProjectManager
NihanYenilmezArpa GeneralDirectorateofNature
ConservationandNationalParks
ProjectManager
NeseErsoz GeneralDirectorateofNature
ConservationandNationalParks

DamlaAkyildiz UNDPTurkey ProjectAssistant
YildirayLise UNDPTurkey DeputyProject
Manager

AyhanCagatay GeneralDirectorateofForestry
BanuKarabiyik GeneralDirectorateofForestry