economic analysis of foça special environmental protection area

7/28/2019 Economic analysis of Foa special environmental protection area

1/80

Economic Analysis of FoaSpecial Environmental

Protection Area

C.EVRE VE EHRCLK

AKANLII

C.EVRE VE EHRCLK

AKANLII Empowered lives.Resilient nations.


2/80


3/80

Economic Analysis ofFoa Special Environmental

Protection Area

Strengthening the System ofMarine and Coastal Protected Areas of Turkey Project

2011

Prepared byCamille Bann & Esra Baak

T.C.EVRE VE EHRCLKBAKANLII

T.C.EVRE VE EHRCLKBAKANLII

Empowered lives.Resilient nations.

1


4/80ii The economic analysis of Foa Special Environmental Protection Area

2011 Ministry of Environment and UrbanizationGeneral Directorate of Natural Assets Protection (GDNAP)Alparslan Trke Cad. 31. Sok. No.10 06510 Betepe/Yenimahalle/AnkaraTel: +90 312 222 12 34 Fax: +90 312 222 26 61 www.cevresehircilik.gov.tr/gm/tabiatwww.dka.gov.tr / www.mpa.gov.tr

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)Birlik Mahallesi 415. Cadde No. 11 06610 ankaya/AnkaraTel: +90 312 454 1100 Fax: +90 312 496 1463 www.undp.org.trEmpowered Lives. Resilient Nations.

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

For bibliographic purposes this text may be referred as: Bann, C., Baak, E. (2011).The economic analysis of FoaSpecial Environmental Protection Area. Economic Assessment reports for Foa and Gkova in the framework ofenvironmental economics principles. Project PIMS 3697: The Strengthening the System of Marine and CoastalProtected Areas of Turkey. Technical Report Series 2: 76 pp.

This publication is prepared within the framework of large scale Strengthening the system of Marineand Coastal Protected Areas of Turkey Project which is funded by the Global Environment Fund (GEF)and executed by the General Directorate of Natural Assets Protection of the Turkish Ministry of Envi-

ronment and Urbanization and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), in partnershipwith the General Directorate of Fisheries & Aquaculture of the Turkish Ministry of Food, Agricultureand Livestock and the General Directorate for Nature Conservation and National Parks (GDNCNP) ofthe Turkish Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs.

Technical Report Series: 2

Authors: Camille Bann & Esra BaakCover and Layout Design: Evren alayanLayout Design Corrections: Glden Atkn Genolu & Harun Glsoy

Cover Photos: Posidonia and diver, Bar AkalFishnet in Kkdeniz, Cem O. Kra/SAD-AFAGSiren rocks, Cem O. Kra/SAD-AFAG

Photos: 1. Esra Baak, 2. Cem O. Kra/SAD-AFAG, 3. Bar Akal, 4. Cem O. Kra/SAD-AFAG,5. Cem O. Kra/SAD-AFAG, 6. Esra Baak , 7. Harun Glsoy , 8. GDNAP Archives,9. GDNAP Archives, 10. Bar Akal,

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


5/80iiiStrengthening the system of the Marine and Coastal Protected Areas of Turkey

Foreword

Turkey is a country surrounded by the sea onthree sides. Turkeys nature and climatic condi-tions adorn it with a signi cant biodiversity in itscoastal areas. However, there are also problems thattouch these regions and that become more imminenteveryday. Urbanization, industrialization, tourism,other residential areas and activities alike that leadsto irregular and unplanned development that havesevere impacts on coastal and marine areas.Developments, especially in the economy also in-crease marine transportation and dependency onthe use of marine and coastal areas for develop-ment, housing, commerce, recreational activitiesand basic needs. Furthermore, the pressure of fasturbanization and settlement activities on coastalareas leads to many problems including loss ofdunes, salt beds and marshes; marine and coastalpollution, deterioration and loss of coastal ecosys-tems. Biodiversity and fertility of coastal and ma-rine areas are faced with this increasing pressure,leading to damages that cannot be undone.These coastal and marine areas are one of themost precious assets we have and we must pro-tect them. In order to alleviate these pressures andovercome these challenges, relevant structures andinfrastructures for effective implementation andsurveillance to ensure that these areas are sustain-ably managed, preserved and protected withoutbeing deteriorated and with a balanced approachbetween use and protection. In this regard, all re-lated agencies and institutions have to go under acapacity building process to meet the demands ofthe required structures and infrastructures; coop-eration and coordination between all parties haveto be improved and an effective and ef ciently op-erating work program and a model for nancialresources have to be developed.In its responsibility area covering a coastline thatextends over some 8,592 km, General Directoratefor the Natural Assets Protection carries out re-search activities for the protection and study ofthreatened and endangered species and habitatsthat are duly speci ed in the national legislationas well as in international conventions that Tur-key is a party; carries out research activities onthe biodiversity of marine and coastal environ-ments; determines the marine surface vessel ca-pacity of important bays and harbors; establishes

procedures and principles for use of protectionand use of such areas; carries out other integralcoastal management activities and strives to mini-mize risks that threaten such assets.Protection of marine and coastal resources beinga global priority, Marine Protected Areas are fastdeveloping and expanding as a concept. Turkeyis no exception to this rule where considerableawareness raising efforts are being carried out.Through the large scale GEF Project entitledStrengthening Turkeys Marine and Coastal Pro-tected Areas covering the term between 2009-2013and with the UNDP as the implementing partner,the General Directorate has taken a very rst step

for devising a long term solution for the protectionof marine biodiversity in Turkish coastal waters;for the restructuring of marine and coastal protect-ed areas database and to guarantee effectivenessand sustainability of ecological service functions.A series of technical reports that are prepared as apart of the project on economic analysis, socio-econ-omy of sheries in coastal areas, together with otherefforts on the identi cation of marine sensitive areas,integration of economic principles to planning pro-cesses, ensuring nancial sustainability, mitigationof pollutants from marine vessels and determina-tion of alternative livelihood resources are expectedto yield the following project outcomes:- Responsible institutions have the capacities

and internal structure needed for prioritizingthe establishment of new MCPAs and for moreeffectively managing existing MCPAs.

- MCPA nancial planning and managementsystems are facilitating effective business plan-ning, adequate levels of revenue generation

and cost-effective management.- Inter-agency coordination mechanisms in place

to regulate and manage economic activitieswithin multiple use areas of the MCPAs.

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

Osman YMAYADep. Gen. Dir.


6/80iv The economic analysis of Foa Special Environmental Protection Area

AcknowledgementsThe authors wish to thank the following people for their contributions to this report: Emrah Batk andMelis Parmaksz (GDNAP Foa Of ce), ebnem Kuu and zge zgen who conducted the tourismsurveys; Deniz Kutluzen (GDNAP Foa Of ce); Dr. Vahdet nal and Denizcan Durgun who shared

data on

sheries economics; Yal

n Sava and Gkhan Kabolu for sharing GIS related informationabout the site; all the interviewed parties locally who provided data utilized in the report as well as theGDNAP and UNDP project team.

AcronymsESA Ecosystem Service ApproachEU The European UnionGEF Global Environment FacilityGDNAP General Directorate of Natural Assets ProtectionMARA Ministry of Agriculture and Rural AffairsMCPA Marine and Coastal Protected AreaREDD Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and DegradationSEPA Special Environmental Protected Area

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeUNDP United Nations Development Programme


7/80vStrengthening the system of the Marine and Coastal Protected Areas of Turkey

Table of ContentsForeword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iTable of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ynetici zeti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vExecutive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2. Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.3. Layout of report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Background On Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. Biodiversity overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3. Socio-Economic Characteristics of the site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3.1. Marine Ecosystem Services Typology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Provisioning services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.2.1. Food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2. Raw materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3. Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Regulating services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.3.1. Regulation of GHGs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.3.2. Micro-climate stabilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.3.3. Disturbance Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.3.4. Waste remediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.4. Cultural Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1. Spiritual, religious and cultural heritage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143.4.2. Education and research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.4.3. Recreation and Tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.4.4. Landscape and amenity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.4.5. Biodiversity non-use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.4.6. Option value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

VALUATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164.1. Provisioning Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.1.1. Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2. Regulating Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.2.1. Carbon sequestration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.2.2. Protection against coastal erosion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.2.3. Waste treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.3. Cultural Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.3.1. Recreation and Eco-tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.3.2. Tourism Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.3.3. Valuation of Key Activities: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44.4. Summary of the Valuation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4


8/80vi The economic analysis of Foa Special Environmental Protection Area

OPPO RT UNITIES TO INCREASE REVENUE FLOWS FROM FOA SEPA . . . . . . . . . . . . 455.1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.2. Finance mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.2.1. Fiscal instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.3. Market-based charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.3.1. Tourism charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

5.3.2. Marine Carbon Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.3.3. Payments for Ecosystem Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.3.4. Biodiversity offsets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 486.1. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46.2. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Appendix 1. List of Interviews, April 2011. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Appendix 2. Tourism Survey Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

List of TablesTable 1. Overview of Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 2. Qualitative assessment of marine ecosystem services and bene ts at Foa SEPA . . . . . . . .11

Table 3. Volume of Fish Caught in Foa Region in 2010, by species(Foa Fisheries Cooperative & Foa Agriculture & Fisheries Department) . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Table 4. Socio-demographics and economic characteristics of small-scale shermen . . . . . . . . . . .20Table 5. Economic / Financial Results of Small Scale Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21Table 6. General costs of a small shing boat in Foa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21Table 7. Global averages and standard deviations of the carbon sequestration rates

and global ranges for the carbon pools by habitat type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22Table 8. The carbon value of FoasPosidonia meadows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Table 9. Survey Programme for Foa SEPA - June and July 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27Table 10. Estimations on the number of day visitors to Foa SEPA per annum . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33Table 11. Daily Visitor Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Table 12 Customers per year for surveyed restaurants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38Table 13. Marine related recreational activities valuation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42Table 14. Usage fees levied by GDNAP in Foa SEPA (2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43Table 15. Foa SEPA, Summary of valuation results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44Table 16. Typology of potential nancing mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46


9/80viiStrengthening the system of the Marine and Coastal Protected Areas of Turkey

List of FiguresFigure 1. Location of Foa Town (source: Kra&Glsoy 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Figure 2. Natural and Archeological ST zones in Foa SEPA (source: Foa Municipality). . . . . . 4Figure 3. Distribution of Posidonia oceanica in Foa SEPA (Sualt Aratrmalar Dernei). . . . . 22Figure 4. Extent of built-up coastline in Foa SEPA (source: Y.Sava and G.Kabolu) . . . . . . . 24Figure 5. Location of tourist facilities in Foa SEPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Figure 6. Nationality of visitors to Foa SEPA (Source: Tourism survey 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . 27Figure 7. Quality of the tourism experience in Foa SEPA (Source: Tourism survey 2011) . . . . . 28Figure 8. Views re ecting what the visitors like in Foa SEPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Figure 9. Views re ecting what the visitors do not like in Foa SEPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Figure 10. Views and suggestions of the survey respondents on the management of Foa SEPA . 31Figure 11. Length of stay for Turkish and foreign visitors in Foa SEPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Figure 12. Distribution of visitors expenditures in Foa SEPA (av. per person) . . . . . . . . . . 35Figure 13. Distribution of foreign visitors expenditures in Foa SEPA (av. per person) . . . . . . 35Figure 14. Number of Part and Fulltime Employees in Sampled Restaurants . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Figure 15. Surveyed accommodation facilities in Foa SEPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Figure 16. The stops of a typical daily excursion in Foa (source: Nostalji Boats) . . . . . . . . . . 41Figure 17. The distribution of the ecosystem service values for Foa SEPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

List of BoxesBox 1. Seagrass meadows (Posidonia oceanica) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Box 2. Karata: A Local Legend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Box 3. Parakete Fishing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Box 4. The rise and fall of Club Mediterrane in Foa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Box 5. Mitigating carbon loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Exchange rate1 TL = US$ 0.62351 TL= 0.41 = US$1.40


10/80viii The economic analysis of Foa Special Environmental Protection Area

Ynetici zeti

al man n Amac ve Yakla mFoa zel evre Koruma (K) Blgesi, Akdenizfoklarnn da dahil olduu zengin denizel biyolo- jik eitlilii, kltrel ve arkeolojik varlklar ne-deniyle 1990 y lnda deniz ve ky koruma alan ilan edilmitir.

Bu almann amac Foa K Blgesinin eko-nomik analizini gerekletirerek:

Alann temin ettii denizel hizmet ve rnleryelpazesi hakknda farkndalk yaratmak;

Kilit ekosistem hizmetlerinin devamn tehditeden bask lara ve bunlarn ekonomik sonu-larna iaret ederek alann srdrebilir yne-timine katkda bulunmak;

Denizel hizmetlerin ekonomik deerini ortayakoyarak ve potansiyel gelir getirici faaliyet vemekanizmalarn altn izerek alan iin hazrla-nacak olan Planna bilgi taban salamaktr.

Bu almann da bir parasn oluturduu GEF-UNDP projesi kapsamnda, Foa K Blgesi iinalternatif gelir kaynaklar seenekleri ve masrafazaltc mekanizmalarn tespit edilmesi ve bir i plannn gelitirilmesi ngrlmtr. Dolaysy-la bu rapor alandaki ekosistem hizmetlerinin vedeerlerinin tespit edilmesine odaklanm, potan-siyel nansal mekanizmalar hakknda sadece stdzeyde bir tartma dahil edilmitir.

Foa K Blgesinin ekonomik analizi alan hak-knda mevcut veri ve literatr taramasna, Eyll2010 ve Mart 2011de kilit paydalarla yaplan g-rmelerden elde edilen verilere ve Haziran 2011de

alanda yrtlen turizm anketlerine dayanmakta-dr. Turizm anketleri, Foa K Blgesine gelenturist saylar, kal sreleri, harcamalarn nitelikve yaps, otel doluluk oranlar gibi resmi veya ba-sl istatistiklerde bulunmayan bilgilerin derlenme-sini salamtr. Anketler 192 ziyareti, 17 turizmoperatr, 22 otel ve 26 lokanta ile gerekletiril-mitir. Ayr ca muhtemel yarar transfer deerlerinitemin edebilmek, alan iin belirlenen deerleri kar-latrmak ve deerleme yaklamlarna dair farkl anlaylar grebilmek iin, bata Akdeniz havzas olmak zere, deniz ve ky alanlarnda yrtlm

ekonomik deerleme almalarna dair bir litera-tr taramas da yrtlm tr.Bu alma iin, Ekosistem Hizmetleri Yaklam (Ecosystem Service Approach ESA) ve MilenyumEkosistem Deerlendirmesinin tedarik, dzenle-me, kltrel ve destek hizmetleri sn andrmasna(2005) dayanarak, deniz ve ky ekosistemleri hiz-metlerine ynelik bir tiploji gelitirilmitir. Eko-sistem Hizmetleri Yaklam denizel ortamlardakiekosistemlerin ve bunlarn barndrd biyolojikeitliliin bireysel ve sosyal refaha katkda bu-

lunduunu a

ka onaylamaktad

r. Yakla

m, bukatknn balk gibi dorudan tketilen rnlerintemininin ok daha tesine gittiini, denizel ekosis-temlerin karbon tutma gibi kritik dzenleme fonk-siyonlar olduunu takdir etmektedir. Dolaysyla,Ekosistem Hizmetleri Yaklam karar alma sre-lerinde ekosistemlerin bir btn olarak ele alnma-sn ve saladklar hizmetlere deer biilmesinisalayan bir ereve sunmaktadr.

Temel Bulgularalmada Foa K Blgesinin bir yllk ekono-mik deeri 37 milyon ABD dolar olarak hesaplan-mtr. Bu, alann balang aamasndaki deeriniyanstmaktadr ve daha detayl almalarla geli-tirilmelidir. Ortaya karlan deer tedarik hizmet-leri (balk), dzenleme hizmetleri (karbon tutma,erozyon kontrol ve su artm), ve kltrel hizmet-leri (turizm ve rekreasyon) kapsamaktadr. Ancak,turizm iin kullanlan muhafazakar tahminler vekaile alnamayan dier ekosistem hizmetlerinden

tr tespit edilen bu deerin alan

n gerek ekono-mik deerinin altnda olduu tahmin edilmektedir.Alanda potansiyel olarak varolduu dnlenfakat bilimsel bilgi ve/veya veri noksanlndanincelenemeyen ekosistem hizmetleri arasnda do-al ilalar gibi hammaddeler, genetik kaynaklar vedekoratif rnler; denizel ortamn mikro-iklim d-zenlemesinde ve sel, frtnadan korumadaki rol;alann eitim, peyzaj ve miras deerleri gibi henzzerinde allmam hizmetler bulunmaktadr.Aadaki tablo Foa K Blgesi deerleme al-masn zetlemektedir.


11/80ixStrengthening the system of the Marine and Coastal Protected Areas of Turkey

Tablo. Foa K Blgesi deerleme sonular zetiHizmet Deer/ yl

ABD$Deerleme yntemi Not

Balk 6,207,254 Piyasa deerleri Profesyonel balk av miktarlarnn kayt d olmasndan ve rekreasyonelbalkln dahil edilmemi olmasndan tr muhtemelen gerek deeregre dk bir deerdir. Ancak, bu tahmin srdrebilir av miktarn daha iyi

yanstabilir (u an alan iin bilinmemektedir).Brt deerlerdir masraflar dlmemitir.Karbontutma

408,218 Piyasa deerleri(kanlan harcamayakla m)

Orman karbon piyasasna benzer ekilde Mavi Karbon Kredi piyasasnngeliecei varsaylmtr. Dolays yla bu deer henz yakalanmamaktadr.Karbon piyasa deeri 11,2 $/ tCO2edeeri olarak alnmtr.

Erozyonkontrol

5,263,731 Yarar transferi Mangosve di . (2010). Her ky metresi iin 160.000 avro, Foa K Blgesindeki 45,2 kmlik Posidonia ayrlarna ve alann %52sinin riskaltnda olduuna dayanarak.

Atksu artm 882,000 Yarar transferi Mangosve di .ne (2010) dayanarak, Trkiye kylar iin hesaplanan 229milyon luk artm hizmeti Foadaki 23kmlik kysal alana taksim edilmitir.

Turizm/Rekreasyon

24,305,000 Piyasa deerleri alma kapsam nda yrtlen turizm harcamalar anketine ve blgeyegelen ziyareti saylarna dair muhafazakar kestirimlere (ylda 20.000

geceleyen ve 139.750 gnbirlik ziyareti) dayanarak.TOPLAM 37,066,203

Alann deerlerinin %65i turizm ve rekreasyonadayanmaktadr. Bu bulgu, turizm kaynakl geliraknn devam edebilmesi iin blgede endst-riyi srdrebilir bir ekilde ynetmenin nemineiaret etmektedir.

Turizm ve rekreasyonu takiben, balklk yllk

6,2 milyon ABD dolarlk bir ortalama ile ikinci ennemli ekonomik deeri oluturmaktad r. Bu dee-rin, profesyonel balk av miktarlarnn ve gelirlerinbyk lde kayt d gerekletirilmesinden verekreasyonel balkln hesaba dahil edilmemi olmasndan tr gerek deerine gre daha d-k olduu tahmin edilmektedir. Ancak bu deerFoadaki balkln srdrebilir av orann yan-stmaz. Alan hakkndaki mevcut literatr ve al-malar, ve deerleme almas srasnda blgedeyrtlen grmeler balk stoklarnn ynetimi vesrdrebilirlii konusunda yasa d avcln yo-unluundan kaynakl kayglar ortaya koymutur.

nerileralma sonucunda, deerleme yntemlerinin iyi-letirilmesine ve denizel ekosistem hizmetlerinindaha etkin ve srdrebilir ynetilmesine ynelikbaz neriler gelitirilmitir. rnein;

Ticari ve rekreasyonel balklk iin yap landeerleme srdrebilir av orannn (miktar)

net faydaya (gelirler eksi masra ar) arp lma-sna dayand r lmaldr. Foada balk lk sek-trnden elde edilen yksek ekonomik getiri-lerin devam edebilmesi iin balk stoklarndakapsaml ve dzenli saysal analizler yapl-mas elzemdir. Ayrca, Foa K Blgesindebalkln ynetiminde ekosistem tabanl biryaklam gerekmektedir.

Foa K Blgesi snrlarndaki kynn %60 yerleim alanndan olumaktad r. Dolaysy-la, blgede ileride yap lmas ngrlen tu-rizm veya iskan amal herhangi bir geliiminhem denizel hem de karasal evrede biyolojikeitlilik zerinde yarataca etkileri hesap-lanmal ve dzenlenmelidir (r, kirlilik girii).Foann tarihi yapsn korumas ve younbir turizmlemeden saknmas arttr. Turizm

sektrnn srdrebilirlii denizel alandayrtlen etkin bir ekilde ynetilen faaliyet-lere dayanmaldr. u anda snrl bir sezonaks tl olan turizm rzgara dayal rekreasyo-nel faaliyetler araclyla uzat labilir.

Alandaki dzenleme hizmetlerinin zn olu-turan ekolojik sreler daha iyi kavranmaldr(r, Foadaki Posidonia ayrlarnn kysal eroz-yonu nlemedeki rol). Bunun gibi alana spe-si k bilimsel ( ziksel) veriler ekonomik analizindayandrlaca temelleri salamlatracaktr.


12/80x The economic analysis of Foa Special Environmental Protection Area

Executive Summary

Objectives of study & approachFoa Special Environmental Protection Area (SEPA)was designated as a Marine and Coastal ProtectedArea (MCPA) in 1990 on account of its rich marinebiodiversity (including its Mediterranean monkseals), cultural and archeological heritage.

The objective of this study was to undertake aneconomic analysis of Foa SEPA in order to:

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

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

Inform the business plan to be developed forthe site by demonstrating the economic valueof marine services and highlighting poten-tial revenue generating activities and mecha-nisms.

It should be noted that other components of theGEF-UNDP project under which this study sitsare focused on the identi cation of feasible incomegenerating options, the determination of cost-off-setting mechanisms and the development of a busi-ness plan for Foa SEPA. Therefore this report isfocused on the identi cation and valuation of eco-system services and only provides a high level dis-cussion of potential nancing mechanisms.

The economic assessment of Foa SEPA is basedon a review of the available data and literatureon the site, interviews with key stakeholders anddata gathered through site visits in September2010 and March 2011 and a tourism survey under-taken in June 2011. The tourism survey was ableto provide information on the tourist numbers,duration of their stay, composition and expendi-ture patterns, and hotel occupancy rates withinFoa SEPA, which was not available from of cialor published statistics. The survey covered 192visitors, 17 tour operators, 22 hotels and 26 restau-rants. A literature review of economic valuationstudies of marine and coastal areas especially fromthe Mediterranean region was also undertaken

to provide potential transfer values, benchmarks

against which to assess values derived for the siteand insights on valuation approaches.

A typology of marine and coastal ecosystem ser-vices has been developed for this study follow-ing the ecosystem service approach (ESA), whichis based on the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment(2005) classi cation of ecosystem services into pro-visioning, regulating, cultural and supporting ser-vices. The ESA explicitly recognizes that ecosystemssuch as marine environments and the biological di-versity contained within them contribute to individ-ual and social wellbeing. Importantly it recognizesthat this contribution extends beyond the provisionof goods such as sh to the natural regulating func-tions of marine ecosystems such as carbon seques-tration. The ESA therefore provides a frameworkfor considering whole ecosystems in decision mak-ing and for valuing the services they provide.

Key FindingsThis study estimates the economic value of FoaSEPA at around US$37 million per year. This pro-vides an initial value of the site, which needs tobe re ned through further study. This value in-corporates provisioning services ( sh), regulatingservices (carbon sequestration, erosion protectionand waste treatment), and cultural services (tour-ism and recreation). It is considered to be an un-derestimate of the economic value of the site in thatconservative estimates have been used for examplefor tourism and a number of potentially impor-tant services are not included. Ecosystems servicesthought to be present (or potentially present) atthe site which cannot be estimated due to a lack ofscienti c information and/or data are raw mate-rials such as natural medicines, genetic resourcesand ornamental resources, which have yet to bestudied at the site; the role the marine environmentplays in micro-climate regulation, the role of themarine environment in ood and storm protection,the sites heritage value and educational value andthe sites landscape and amenity value. The Tablebelow provides a summary of the valuation resultsfor Foa SEPA.


13/80xiStrengthening the system of the Marine and Coastal Protected Areas of Turkey

Table. Summary of valuation results for Foa SEPAService Value/ year

US$Valuationapproach

Comment

Fish 6,207,254 Market prices Probably an underestimate due to under reporting of fish catch andrecreational fishing is not included. However this estimate may better reflecta sustainable catch level, which is unknown for the site.

Carbonsequestration

408,218 Market prices(avoided costapproach)

Assumes development of market in blue carbon credits analogous to theforest carbon market. This value is therefore not currently captured. Basedon a market price of carbon of US$11.2 / tCO2eq.

Erosionprotection

5,263,731 Benefits Transfer Mangoset al (2010). Based on 160,000 Euro per meter of coastline, 45.2 kmof Posidoniabeds in Foa SEPA and 52% of the area at risk.

Wastetreatment

882,000 Benefits transfer Based on Mangoset al (2010) estimate for Turkey of 229 million Euros andapportioned to the study site based on length of its coastline (23km).

Tourism /Recreation

24,305,000 Market prices Based on a conservative estimate of tourist numbers (20,000 overnightvisitors and 139,750 day visitors per year) and a survey of tourist expenditureundertaken by this study.

TOTAL 37,066,203

Over 65% of the sites value is attributable to tour-ism and recreation in the area highlighting theimportance of sustainably managing the tourismindustry in order to secure this revenue ow.

Following tourism and recreation, sh, estimatedat US$ 6.2 million per annum, is the second mostsigni cant economic asset. This is likely to be anunderestimate of current revenue ow because itdoes not include recreational shing carried out inFoa and because there is a general tendency for shermen to under report their actual catch andearnings. However, this estimate does not re ect asustainability harvest rate for the sheries in Foa.The available literature and studies on the site and eld interviews for this study raise concerns about sheries management and the future sustainabilityof the stocks in the region due to the intensity of il-legal shing activities at the site.The valuation results also highlight the econom-ic importance of the sites regulating services, inparticular the sites Posidonia meadows, whichprovide erosion protection and carbon sequestra-tion bene ts (14% and 1% of the total economicvalue respectively).

RecommendationsThe study has identi ed a range of recommenda-tions aimed at the re nement of the valuation es-timates and improved sustainable management ofthe marine ecosystem services. For example;

In terms of commercial and recreational sh-eries, the valuation should be based on a sus-tainable harvest rate (quantity) multiplied bynet bene ts (revenues minus costs). Compre-hensive (and regular) quantitative analysis ofthe sh stocks is therefore urgently neededin Foa to sustain the high economic returnscoming from the sector. Furthermore, an eco-system based approach to sheries manage-ment is necessary in the Foa SEPA.

Over 60% of the coast in Foa SEPA is built-

up, thus further development for tourismpurposes should be regulated in terms its bio-diversity impacts both in the marine and ter-restrial environments (i.e., waste inputs). It isessential that Foa retains its quaint historicalcharacteristics and avoids intensive tourismdevelopments. The tourism sectors sustain-ability needs to be based on a range of well-managed marine activities. The currentlylimited tourism season could potentially be


14/80

extended through wind-based recreationalactivities.

Improved understanding of the ecologicalprocesses that underpin the regulatory ser-vices at the site are needed (i.e., site speci c

studies on the role of Posidonia in impor-tant functions such as coastal erosion pro-tection) in order to obtain site speci c sci-enti c (physical) data on which to base theeconomic analysis.


15/801Strengthening the system of the Marine and Coastal Protected Areas of Turkey

INTRODUCTION

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

The proposed long-term solution for marine bio-diversity conservation in Turkeys territorial sea isa recon gured Marine and Coastal Protected Area(MCPA) network designed to protect biodiversitywhile optimizing its ecological service functions.The success of this long-term solution is seen torest on three main pillars: (i) the existence of keyagencies capable of identifying and managingsensitive and biologically signi cant MCPAs; (ii)the application of economic analysis to inform

the planning and management of MCPAs and theintegration of sustainable nancing mechanisms;and (iii) inter-sectoral co-operation that buildson the relevant strengths of various managementagencies and branches of Government and civilsociety to solve marine biodiversity conservationchallenges. This study relates to the developmentof the second pillar.

1.1. Objective

The objective of this study was to undertake aneconomic analysis of Foa Special EnvironmentalProtected Area (SEPA) in order to:

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

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

Inform the business plan to be developed forthe site by demonstrating the economic valueof marine services and highlighting potentialrevenue generating activities and mechanisms.

It should be noted that other components of theGEF-UNDP project under which this study sitsare focused on the identi cation of feasible incomegenerating options, the determination of cost-offsetting mechanisms and the development of abusiness plan for Foa SEPA. Therefore this reportis focused on the identi cation and evaluation of2


16/802 The economic analysis of Foa Special Environmental Protection Area

ecosystem services and only provides a high leveldiscussion of potential nancing mechanisms.

1.2. ApproachThe economic assessment of Foa SEPA is based

on a review of the available data and literatureon the site, interviews with key stakeholders anddata gathered through a site visit in March 2011and a tourism survey undertaken in June 2011. Alist of people consulted is provided in Annex 1,while the tourism survey instrument is providedin Annex 2. A literature review of economic valu-ation studies of marine and coastal areas from theregion was also undertaken to provide potentialtransfer values, benchmarks against which to as-sess values derived for the site and insights on

valuation approaches.An Ecosystem Service Valuation Framework wasdeveloped for the assessment, which provides acomprehensive list of marine and coastal services

provided at the site (see Section 3). This frame-work provides the basis for understanding therange of bene ts provided by the marine ecosys-tem and the pressures that they face.

1.3. Layout of reportThe rest of this report is set out as follows: Sec-tion 2 provides an overview of the site and thepressures that it faces plus available informationon the socio-economic characteristics of the area;Section 3 presents the marine ecosystem servicestypology and a qualitative assessment of the ser-vices provided by the site; Where the requiredbio-physical and monetary data is available fora given ecosystem service, Section 4 presents thevaluation of individual ecosystem services; Sec-

tion 5 discusses potential nancing mechanisms:and, section 6 concludes. Appendix 1 lists thepeople interviewed during eld visits in March2001 and Appendix 2 presents the tourism surveyinstrument.



BACKGROUND ONSITE

F oa Special Environmental Protected Area(SEPA) is located in the Aegean Region andencompasses a large part of the Foa district,oneof Izmir Provinces 30 districts (zmir Governor-ship 2010). The area was granted SEPA status in1990, largely on account of its monk seal popula-

tion. It covers 71.38 km2

and is the smallest ma-rine and coastal SEPA in Turkey (EPASA 2008).Foa is surrounded by Izmir Bay in the West,Menemen county in the East, andarl Bay in theNorth, and is located 70 km away from Izmir towncenter (Figure 1). It includes one sub-district and5 villages within its administrative boundaries.Foas small archipelago is made up of the fol-lowing islands from South to North: Incir, Fener,Orak, Pite, Metalik, Hayrsz and Kartdere Islandsand the Siren Rocks on the Western shores of Orak

Island (GDNAP 2011). Aegean Sea

Foa

zmir

Figure 1. Location of Foa Town (source: K ra&Glsoy2008)

Foa is one of the 12 ancient Ionian cities, namedPhocaea, and has signi cant archeological features3



protected under S.I.T. status1 (Akurgal 1998). Theregion also encompasses natural and architecturalS.I.T. protection of 1st and 2nd degrees (ibid).

In addition to the areas of natural and archeo-logical conservation status, Foa also has a mili-tary base with three brigades. These overlappingzones of restricted use have shaped the pro le ofthe town in terms of settlement (see Figure 2).

1 The Ministry of Culture and Tourism, General Directorate of Con-servation of Cultural and Natural Assets assigns conservation statusof varying degrees in Turkey based on the The Law of Conserva-tion of Cultural and Natural Properties (dated 21.07.1983; No: 2863;amended by law no: 3386 and 5226). First degree natural sites aresites of exceptional natural characteristics that should be conservedand only used for scienti c purposes. Second degree natural sitesare conserved areas where some tourism-oriented construction can beallowed.

2.1. Biodiversity overviewMediterranean monk seals ( Monachus monachus)have lived in Foa for thousands of years and thetown reportedly takes its name from the species,fok in Turkish (Kra & Glsoy 2008). Thereare only approximately 500-600 MediterraneanSeals in the world and the species is at risk of ex-tinction (ibid). The species is therefore of highglobal conservation concern and is listed underthe Bern Convention (Council of Europe 1979).

The number of Mediterranean Seals on Turkeyscoasts is estimated to be less than 100 (ibid),while the number of monk seals in Foa is esti-mated to be between 6 to 10 (Sualt Aratrmalar Danmanlk 2008). The coasts in the region are

Figure 2. Natural and Archeological ST zones in Foa SEPA (source: Foa Municipality)



Research on the sh species identi ed 50 spe-cies pertaining to 24 families in Foa SEPA, allconsisting of local shes (Sualt Aratrmalar Danmanlk 2008). Of these, brown meager(Sciaena umbra) and dusky grouper (Epinephelusmarginatus ) are listed as species of conservation

concern under the European Councils Bern Con-vention (ibid). Furthermore, 30 differentalgaespecies pertaining 19 families have been observedin the SEPA (ibid).

2.2. Overview of pressures

Table 1 provides an overview of the pressures fac-ing the site. One of the most pressing issues is theprevalence of illegal shing activities which leadsto overexploitation of the marine stocks and con-sequently affects the whole food chain. The ma-rine biodiversity of the MCPA is thus threatened.Another key pressure is the overuse of the coastsand seas, which leads to the degradation of theecosystems and related services. Daily excursionboats and other marine vehicles which exceed thecarrying capacity of the site are among the maindrivers of this pressure, leading both to the de-struction of sea bottom and marine pollution. Thispressure compounded by insuf cient municipalinfrastructure such as waste water inputs, leakageof boats bilge water, waste water and solid waste.Other pressures include invasive species (an al-gae) and increasing freshwater demands drivenby tourism in the high season.

In general the site requires a cohesive manage-ment plan3 whose implementation is effectivelyenforced in order to tackle these pressures.

3 Foa SEPAs management plan has been prepared with the participa-tion of the relevant local and central authorities and stakeholders asof May 2011; however, the strategy for its implementation remainsunclear.

known to be one of the most convenient habitatsfor seals due to their rich sh stocks and the shal-lowness of the sea (GDNAP 2011) thus the speciesfeeds around the MCPA (Kra & Glsoy 2008).The Siren rocks, on the western coast of Orak Is-land, consist of caves that provide reproduction

habitat for the seals. In 1991, Foa was selected asa Pilot Monk Seal Conservation Area (PMSCA) inorder to implement the National Strategy for theConservation of the Monk Seal (Glsoy & Sava 2003). In 1992, small scale coastal trawlers knownregionally as trata and r p have been banned inthe area in order to reduce the disturbance to themonk seals. Between 1991 and 2004, the Underwa-ter Research Society SAD-AFAG conducted con-sistent conservation and monitoring activities inthe region speci c to the species.

Ornithological research carried out in Foa identi- ed 118 bird species with 68 of them breeding inthe site (Dndren 2007). Especially the islandsthat fall within the SEPA as well as the coastlinesprovide breeding grounds and refuge for the fol-lowing bird species of conservation signi cance :little kestrel (Falco naumanni), shag (Phalacrocoraxaristotelis desmarestii), peregrine (Falco peregrinus),little stern (Sterna albifrons) and Audouins gull(Larus audouinii) (Ekenet al 2006).

Approximately 50% of the terrestrial section inFoa SEPA is covered with red pine forests. The ora is mainly composed of maquis and shrubs.The following species occur in the forests - wildboars, wolves, foxes, jackals, martens, partridges,turtle doves and quails. Just to the South of theSEPA is the Gediz Delta, a globally importantwetland with Ramsar status, which is a stopoverplace for migrating birds and rich in the sh spe-cies. In the winter and autumn wild geese areseen in great numbers in the region.2

2 GDNAPs website speci c to Foa SEPA: http://www.ozelcevre.gov.tr/icerik-18-Foca.html.


20/80



T a

b l e 1

. O v e r v

i e w o f

P r e s s u r e s

P r e s s u r e

D e s c r

i p t i o n

P o

l i c y

D r i v e r

/ C o n

t e x t

S e c

t o r

R e s p o n s

i b l e

I n v a s i v e m a r

i n e

s p e c

i e s

C a u

l e r p a

r a c e m o s a v a r .

c y l i d r a c e a

C a u

l e r p a r a c e m o s a v a r . c y l

i d r a c e a ,

a n

d i n v a s i v e m a r

i n e s p e c

i e s ,

e n t e r s

t h e

M e d

i t e r r a n e a n

f r o m c h a n n e

l s ( S u e z a n d

G i b r a

l t a r ) . I

t

i s a m o n g t

h e f a s t e s

t s p r e a d

i n g m a r

i n e w e e

d i n t h e A e g e a n a n

d

h a s n e g a t i v e e f

f e c t s o n

b i o d i v e r s i

t y a n

d e c o s y s t e m s

( A k a l a n d

C i r i k 2 0 0 7 )

- T h e

d i s t r i b u t

i o n o

f t h i s a l g a e

i s n o

t m o n i

t o r e

d

- N o a c

t i o n s

t o d a t e h a v e

b e e n u n

d e r

t a k e n

t o

e r a d

i c a t

i o n

t h i s s p e c

i e s

M a r

i n e

t r a n s p o r t , F

i s h i n g

L a c k o f

f r e s

h w a t e r

s u p p

l i e s a n

d w a t e r

t r e a

t m e n

t f a c

i l i t i e s

F o a

t o w n c e n t e r s e e s a

f i v e -

f o l d p o p u l a t

i o n

i n c r e a s e

d u r

i n g

t h e

h i g

h t o u r

i s m m o n t

h s ( S u a

l t A r a t r m a l a r D a n m a n

l k

2 0 0 8 ) . T h i s p u t s p r e s s u r e o n

l o c a

l f r e s h w a t e r r e s o u r c e s .

W h i l e

o n l y

h a l f o f t h e

8 w e l

l s a r e u s e d

d u r

i n g

t h e w

i n t e r , a l

l w e l

l s

a r e u s e d a

t f u l

l c a p a c

i t y d u r

i n g

t h e s u m m e r -

b u t t h i s r e m a i n s

i n s u

f f i c i e n t . F

u r t h e r m o r e ,

7 5 % o f

t h e

h o u s e h o

l d s

a r e c o n n e c

t e d

t o c a n a

l i s a t i o n s y s t e m s

i n F o a a n

d t h e r e s t

h a s s e p

t i c t a n k s .

F o l l o w

i n g t r e a t m e n

t , t h e w a t e r s a r e

d i s c h a r g e d n e a r

t h e

O r a

k

I s l a n d a t

6 0 m

d e p

t h v i a a

3 k m t u n n e l . T

h i s , a l o n g w

i t h o u t p u t s

c o n t a i n i n g s u s p e n

d e d s o

l i d m a t

t e r

f r o m

G e d

i z R i v e r , i

m p a c

t t h e

m a r

i n e e n v

i r o n m e n

t i n

t h e

S E P A

.

- P o o r u r

b a n p

l a n n i n g

- I n e f

f i c i e n t w a t e r t r e a t m e n

t s y s

t e m s

i n l o c a

l

a n d r e g

i o n a

l w a t e r s

h e d s

T o u r i s m , A

g r i c u l

t u r e

2.3. Socio-Economic Characteristics of thesite

Based on a 2009 census, Foas population is25,581, 62% of which are men and 38% are women(TUIK 2009). The wide difference in the genderdistribution (especially in the 20-29 ages range)can be explained through the presence of the mili-tary units in Foa (Aykom 2008). The towns pop-ulation doubles during the high tourism season inthe summer.

The literacy rate for Foa is nearly 95%, ranking12th among Turkeys 872 districts (Aykom 2008).Foa has ten primary schools and three highschools; 50% the population has graduated fromprimary school and 30% from high school.

Among zmirs 30 districts, Foa ranks 23rd interms of employment levels, with 2,631 people inemployment in 2008 (IZKA 2009). The main in-come sources in Foa District as a whole are tour-ism, shing, agriculture & animal husbandry,forestry and agriculture based small industries(Aykom 2008). In the sub-districts and villagestied to Foa (outside of the SEPA), the economyis largely agrarian. In the town center, however,64.5% of the workforce is employed in the servicesector resulting in Foa being ranked as 18th out of872 districts in Turkey in terms of employment inthe service sector (ibid). This is due to Foas mili-tary base and a large number of soldiers and stateemployees being concentrated in the town centeralong with small businesses catering for tourism.

About 500 companies operate in Foa, the major-ity of which are hotels and restaurants, followedby construction rms and wholesale businesses(ibid). Foa contributes to about 3% of the prov-inces total export ratio with exclusively light met-al industry (ibid).

Agriculture is the another important sector inFoa district after tourism and services. Eventhough no agricultural areas fall strictly withinthe borders of the SEPA, the Eastern part of Foasettlement is surrounded by olive elds. In thesub-districts and villages of Foa, the economydepends on agriculture and a wide variety offruits, vegetables and citrus plantations are cul-tivated (IZKA 2009). Agricultural land use is as



follows: 50% arable lands, 31% olive groves, 10%horticultural lands (Aykom 2008). About 65% ofthis agricultural landscape is irrigated as Foa issituated in the Northern edge of the Gediz plain(Foa District Agricultural Directorate 2010).

Foa retains much of its traditional character, andits population still depends on shing and farm-ing as their main sources of income. Furthermore,animal husbandry is practiced in the district andthere is a successful milk products cooperative thatproduces the locally savored Foa yogurt. Foawine utilizes the grapes of the region. According

to the 2002 census, women are more engaged inthese rural economic activities than men (about4,500 women as opposed to 3,100 men) (Aykom2008).

With the development of secondary homes, Foahas seen an increase in retirement homes, whichare populated for part of the year (Gm & z-peke 2009). Accordingly, surveys conducted byAykom (2008) classi ed retirement pensions asthe highest revenue source in Foa SEPA (43.3%),followed by salaried positions (26.7%), shing(8.5%) among others.



QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENTOF ECOSYSTEM

SERVICES

3.1. Marine Ecosystem Services TypologyA typology of marine and coastal ecosystem ser-vices has been developed for this study followingthe ecosystem service approach (ESA), which isbased on the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment(2005) classi cation of ecosystem services into thefollowing four categories:

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

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

Cultural services may be associated with both

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

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

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

provide.It is important to note that economic valuation isfocussed on the nal bene ts or outcomes re-alised by society from the services marine ecosys-tems provide, not the services and functions thatcontribute to those outcomes. This is to avoid dou-ble counting. The bene ts generated by support-ing services, while fundamental to the provision of nal bene ts, are not valued independently as theyare intermediate bene ts which contribute to the4



provision of a range of nal bene ts. Their value iscaptured in the valuation of the nal outcomes as-sociated with the services they support. Support-ing services include soil formation and retention,primary production and habitat provision4.

Health is also not explicitly listed as an ecosys-tem service as health bene ts are considered to beprovided by a range of services such as sh, oodprotection bene ts and a clean environment forrecreation. The health cost associated with a dete-rioration in these services may be used to measurethe bene ts provided by the marine ecosystem.Biodiversity is also considered to be cross cutting,the nal bene ts of which could be associated witha range of services. An exception is biodiversitynon-use which is listed a separate service.

Table 2 provides a typology of marine ecosystemservices and a qualitative assessment of the ma-rine ecosystem services provided at Foa SEPA.Each ecosystem services has been rated as follows:** means that the service is important, * meansthat the service is provided, - means the serviceis not relevant at the site, and ? means that thereisnt enough information to determine whetherthe services is present or not, so its provision isuncertain. Table 2 also identi es the sectors thatare supported by (or bene ts from) the provisionof each ecosystem service and the sectors that canin uence the quality and quality of that service.

The typology presented in Table 2 does not includemarine sub-habitat types, which can include hardbeds, rocks, muds, sands, gravels, seagrass mead-ows and caves. The extent of services providedwill depend on the speci c sub habitat type. Theavailable data at Foa SEPA did not warrant thislevel of detail, with the exception of the posido-nia meadows (seagrasses) which form a key inputinto the economic valuation. In support of thisapproach Austen et al, 2010 states that In the caseof the marine environment the spatial data is lessessential, as most marine environments delivermost marine ecosystem services, albeit to differ-ing amounts.

4 Many organisms provide living habitat through their normal growth, for example, reef forming invertebrates and meadow forming sea grassbeds. These natural marine habitats can provide an essential breeding and nursery space for plants and animals, which can be particularly im-portant for the continued recruitment of commercial and/or subsistence species. Such habitat can provide a refuge for plants and animals includ-ing surfaces for feeding and hiding places from predators. Living habitat plays a critical role in species interactions and regulation of populationdynamics, and is a pre-requisite for the provision of many goods and services. (Beaumont et al 2007)

3.2 Provisioning services

3.2.1 Food

The main food product provided by Foa SEPA is sh, which not only contributes to the local sub-sistence but also has an important economic valueboth regionally and nationally.

3.2.2 Raw materials

These products relate to the extraction of marineorganisms for all purposes other than human con-sumption. Marine raw materials include seaweedfor industry and fertilizer, shmeal for aquacul-ture and farming, pharmaceuticals and ornamen-tal goods such as shells. The provision of geneticresources, natural medicines and ornamental

products at the site is unknown.

3.2.3 Transport

Outside of shing, the waterways in Foa SEPAare used by sea vehicles especially for recreationpurposes. Yatching, tours and daily boat trips areparticularly active during the summer months.Around 680 nonregistered and 102 private boatsof 4-20 meters, 26 commercial boats and 500 pri-vate yachts are estimated to exist in Foa accord-ing to the Port Authority (Sualt Aratrmalar Danmanlk 2008). Furthermore, between 50-100unlicensed small boats (less than 5.5m) are told toexist in Foa.

3.3 Regulating services

3.3.1 Regulation of GHGs

A key service provided by marine ecosystems istheir capacity to sequester carbon dioxide. TheOcean is estimated to hold about one third of allanthropogenic CO2 emissions and has two inter-connected CO2 absorption circuits: the biologicalpump and its physico-chemical counterpart. Atthe global level, the latter has been responsible formost of the capture of CO2 of human origin, while



Table 2. Qualitative assessment of marine ecosystem services and benefits at Foa SEPAESType

Service Benefit / outcome Marine Area

Sectorssupported byecosystemservice

Sectors impacting/ influencingthe provision ofecosystem service

P r o v i s i o n i n g

S e r v i c e s

Food Commercial and subsistence fish and wildlife ** Households,Fishery, Tourism

Households, Fishery, Agriculture, Industry

Rawmaterials

Industrial purposes - seaweed - Households,Industry(constructionmaterials)

Households,Industry

Natural medicines obtained from marine dependentspecies

? Households Households, Fishery, Agriculture, Industry

Genetic resources - variety in gene pool in marineflora and fauna

? Agriculture Fishing, Tourism,agriculture

Ornamental resources e.g., shells used as jewellery, handicrafts

- Industry Industry,Fishing, Tourism

Source ofenergy (fueletc)

Energy provision e.g., tidal power - Energy,Households

Transport Commercial use of waterways * Industry, Tourism

R e g u l a

t i n g

S e r v i c e s

Regulation ofGHGs

Carbon sequestration ** Potentially all Potentially all

Micro-climatestabilization

Influence on temperature, precipitation, wind,humidity etc

* Potentially all Potentially all

Disturbanceregulation

Flood and storm protection * Tourism, Industry,Households/

Urban Settlement,agriculture

Potentially all

Erosion control * Tourism Potentially all

Wasteassimilation

Detoxification of pollutionWater purification


C u l

t u r a

l S e r v i c e s

Spiritual,religious,culturalheritage

Archaeological ruins (historical not recreationalvalue). Use of marine environment in books, film,painting, folklore, national symbols, architecture,advertising

** Tourism,Households

Potentially all

Educational A natural field laboratory for understanding marineprocesses

** Households Potentially all

Recreationandecotourism

Recreational fishing, birdwatching, hiking, diving,sailing, canoeing, Holiday destination (aestheticviews), archaeological ruins (historical notrecreational value)

** Tourism Potentially all

Landscapeand amenity

Property price premiums * Tourism Potentially all

Biodiversitynon-use

Enhanced wellbeing associated for example withbequest or altruistic motivations


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



ecosystems contributes to the sustainability of thisecosystem service. The MediterraneanPosidonia accumulates in its subsurface large quantities oforganic material derived from its roots, rhizomesand leaf sheaths embedded in often sandy sedi-ments (Lo Iaconoet al 2008). These organic de-

posits can reach up to several meters as they ac-cumulate over thousands of years forming whatis known as matte, whose high content in organiccarbon plays a crucial role in the global carboncycle (ibid).Posidonia oceanica is considered to beone of the most extensive coastal reservoirs of CO2 because of the preservation of this matte alongthe Mediterranean coasts over time (Duarteet al 2005). This in-situ accumulation of large quanti-ties of biogenic materials over millennia is an im-portant ecological phenomenon and occurs only

in few ecosystems such as peats, coral reefs andmangroves besides seagrass meadows (Mateoetal 1997).

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

The extent ofPosidonia communities in Foa is es-timated to be 6,691km2 (personal communication,Y.Sava and G.Kabolu 2011).

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

the biological pump is consider still be working asit did before the dawn of the industrial age (Nelle-mann et al, 2009). The sequestration of CO2 emittedby human activities by the physico-chemical pump(through a process of solubility), shows little depen-dence on ecosystem quality. However, it leads to

the gradual acidi

cation of the oceans, which willhave a considerable effect on marine ecosystemsand the living resources produced, particularly inthe Mediterranean (CIESM 2008; Gambaianiet al 2009). This issue, about which little is yet known, isthe subject of many initiatives currently underway(Orr 2009) and a European research programme in-cluding the socio-economic consequences is set tobe launched in the near future.

At the local level, the ow of carbon from the sur-face towards the sediment depends on biologicalprocesses, which in turn depend on ecosystemquality (and does not lead to the acidi cation ofthe environment).

About 35-50% of the carbon production of thecoastal ocean is estimated to be a result of thephotosynthesis by marine macrophytes includingseagrasses (Duarte and Cebrian 1996). These ma-rine plants have a global average biomass of about180 g C m-2an average net production of about 400g C m-2yr-1, ranking amongst the most productiveecosystemsin thebiosphere (The Encyclopedia ofEarth 2011).

In the Mediterranean the matte (sheaths and rhi-zomes) produced by the Posidonia meadows storea carbon ow on a sustainable basis (several cen-turies), which has been estimated at 1.2 milliontonnes of carbon per year (Pergent 1997). Thusthe preservation or restoration of these coastal



Box 1. Seagrass meadows (Posidonia oceanica)Posidonia oceanicaare a type of land-based flowing plant, which returned to the marine environment some 120 to 100 mil-lion years ago. They form vast underwater meadows (also known as beds) at a depth of between 0 and 50 metres in theopen seas and in the brackish and saltwater coastal lagoons. Po sidonia oceanica is endemic to the Mediterranean and a highly productive system supporting high levels of biomass (Lo Iaconoet al 2008). Despite being endemic its distribution isrestricted due to anthropogenic disturbances; their total surface area witnhin the Meditterranean is about 38,000km2 (Man-gos et al 2010).Posidonia seagrass communities provide a wide range of Ecosystem Services :

The Posidonia meadows are the leading Mediterranean ecosystem in terms of biodiversity provision, supporting a quarter of its recorded marine species over an area estimated to cover almost 1.5% of the seabed.

They serve as a spawning grounds and nurseries for many commercial species and the source of major primary production,and thereby supporting the shing industry.

They protect beaches against erosion (by reducing hydrodynamism and by trapping sediment in the matte). The deadleaves of Posidonia oceanica found on shores act as a natural barrier reducing the energy of the waves and minimizingerosion. They also play an important role in beachanddunesystems.

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

They trap and absorb man-made CO 2. According to a recent report seagrasses are the most effective species in terms of long-term carbon storage (Laffoley and Grimsditch, 2009).

They produce oxygen and are known as the lungs of the sea with +/- 14 lt O 2/m/day capacity on average

The cycle nutrients through their plant growth.

They operate as coastal water lters. Subsurface rhizomes and roots stabilize the plant while erect rhizomes and leavesreduce silt accumulation.

Source : Based on Mangos et al 2010

3.3.2 Micro-climate stabilizationOceans play a role in regulating the atmosphereand modulating weather. While it is thought thatthis ecosystem services is provided by Foa SEPA,there are no scienti c studies de ning this serviceat the site.

3.3.3 Disturbance Regulation

Flood and storm protection . Marine ora and

fauna can help defend coastal regions by damp-ening and preventing the impact of tidal surges,storms and oods. This disturbance alleviationservice is provided by a diverse range of species,such as salt marshes, mangrove forests and seagrass beds, which bind and stabilise sedimentsand create natural sea defences (Huxley, 1992; Da-vison and Hughes, 1998 as reported in Beaumontet al 2007). These natural sea defence systems pro-tect infrastructure and investments in vulnerablecoastal areas, and would need to be replaced by

man-made alternatives if damaged or lost. Thisservice is important in Turkey given the concen-tration of socio-economic activities on Turkeyscoasts; 27 of Turkeys provinces border the sea and30 million people live by the coast (UNDP, 2010).It is also considered important in Foa SEPA, giv-en the communities that live along the coastlineand the importance of tourism infrastructure.

Coastal erosion is a natural phenomenon widelyobserved in the Mediterranean, particularly in

coastal zones with soft substrate. According tothe European Environment Agency (EEA, 2006)20% of European coasts are threatened by erosion(i.e. around 20 000 km).

The Mediterraneans Posidonia meadows provideprotection against erosion through three mainfunctions. Firstly, its foliage, which limits hydro-dynamics by 10 to 75% under the leaf cover (Gaciaet al.,1999). Secondly, the banquettes formed byits dead leaves and rhizomes on beaches - that can



reach a height of between 1 and 2 metres - buildsa structure that protects the coastline against ero-sion (Guala et al., 2006, Boudouresqueet al., 2006).Thirdly, the Posidonia matte traps sediment(Dauby et al., 1995, Gacia and Duarte, 2001), thuscontributing to their stability. Jeudy de Grissac,

1984 estimated that the degradation of a one me-ters thickness of Posidonia duff could lead to thecoastline retreating by twenty meters.

3.3.4 Waste remediation

A signi cant amount of human waste, both or-ganic and inorganic, is deposited in the marineenvironment. This waste would required ad-ditional treatment if it were to be taken up byterrestrial systems, and therefore would entail

increase treatment costs. Marine living organ-isms store, bury and transform many waste ma-terials through assimilation and chemical de andre-composition (Beaumont et al, 2007). The ca-pacity of marine ecosystems to absorb, detoxify,process and sequester waste shows a wide varia-tion. Some toxic pollutants, such as heavy metals,cannot be converted into harmless substances,whereas some organic waste can even encourageecosystem development through its biomass andbene t ecosystems. Marine ecosystems provide

an ecosystem service for the quantity of waste be-low the threshold at which it becomes harmful tothem (Mangoset al 2010).

While this service is thought to be provided byFoa SEPA, there are no site speci c studies de n-ing or quantifying this service for the site.

3.4 Cultural Services

3.4.1 Spiritual, religious and cultural heritage

The marine environment may be linked to the cul-tural identity of a community, or associated withreligion, folklore, painting, cultural and spiritualtraditions. Communities that live by and are de-pendent on the sea for their livelihood often attachspecial importance to marine ecosystems that playa signi cant role in the economic or cultural de -nition of the community (Beaumontet al 2007). Alocal legend, known as Karata Legend (see Box 2)precisely highlights these links.

Box 2. Karata: A Local LegendThis local legend develops around two fishermen, Pa-nayot (a Greek) and Hseyin (a Turk) who befriend eachother during a tempest near the Orak Island as one helpsthe other get to the harbour safely. After some months ofmeeting each other, both mens wives are told to expect ababy. Eventually when they are born, Panayots son takesthe name Talasa and Hseyins daughter Deniz (bothnames meaning sea in respective language). As years go by, a romantic tie develops between thesetwo. When their fathers are out fishing, they meet secretlyin the area currently known as Kprba where a riverflows and where there is a dark rock (karata in Turk-ish). Eventually they reveal to their parents their love andget engaged. Talasa does not see his future in fishing anddecides to go to Izmir to make a living. Deniz starts wait-ing for his return. Years go by but Talasa does not return.Deniz sits on the dark rock every day and day dreams buteventually she falls sick from despair, passes away andleaves her soul in Foa.Panayot and Hseyin rearranged the place where thedark rock was and it was their wish that whoever happensto come to Foa and step on this rock, their passion andtie for Foa becomes very strong. Since then, it is told thatwhoever comes to Foa and happens to step on the darkrock (its place being a mystery) their heart would settle inFoa and even if they leave, they wish to come back toFoa. From that day on, this love story and legend havebeen told over and over again in Foa.

Source : Foa Local History Research Center

Furthermore, the cultural heritage of Foa is prom-inent, the town being one of the most importantIonian settlements, named Phocaea ( rst Ionianevidence dating back to IX. Century B.C.). Duringthat period, Ioania led in philosophy, architectureand sculpture. Phocaea in turn was a town of ex-pert seamen who explored the Mediterranean andthe Black Sea and conquered towns as far as Mar-seilles in France and Ampuria in current Spain.Phocaea therefore also became an important cen-tre of commerce with the rst gold-silver Ionian

coin produced there. After the Persian invasion,the town has seen Seleucian, Pergamon, Roman,early Christian civilizations, aka Bey seignioryand Ottoman Empire successively.5 Archeologicaldigs are ongoing in Foa center trying to revealthe Athena Temple.

5 Cultural information from Foa Municipality - http://www.foca.bel.tr/index.php?bolum=foca&alt=tarih



3.4.2 Education and research

Marine living organisms provide stimulus for edu-cation and research. Beaumontet al (2007) cites anumber of uses of marine information including:the study of microbes in marine sediments to devel-op economical electricity in remote places; the inhi-bition of cancerous tumour cells; the use of Aprodite sp. spines in the eld of photonic engineering, withpotential implications for communication technol-ogies and medical applications; the developmentof tougher, wear resistant ceramics for biomedicaland structural engineering applications by study-ing the bivalve shell. In addition, marine biodiver-sity can provide a long term environmental recordof environmental resilience and stress.

Foa SEPA can be considered as an important ma-rine and terrestrial eld laboratory as well. Ac-cording to the Turkish Council of Higher Educa-tion, since the beginning of 1990s, over 33 Masterand Doctorate level research studies have beenconducted in the area6.

3.4.3 Recreation and Tourism

Marine ecosystems provide the basis for a widerange of tourism and recreational activities, re-sulting in signi cant employment opportunitiesfor local communities and contributions to GDP.Tourism is an important activity in Foa and

6 A list of research activities can be found in Appendix 1 of Sualt Ara t rmalar Dan manl k 2008.

closely linked to the marine environment. A rangeof marine related recreational activities are offeredincluding boat tours, sailing and windsur ng.

3.4.4 Landscape and amenity

Landscape and amenity services provided bymarine ecosystems attract tourists and generallymake the area an attractive place to visit and live.This bene t can be captured through propertyprice premiums in the area.

3.4.5 Biodiversity non-use

Biodiversity non-use relates to the bene ts peoplederive from marine organisms unrelated to theiruse. Such bene ts can be motivated by bequestvalues (the value placed on ensuring the availabil-ity of marine ecosystems for future generations),and existence value (a bene t derived from sim-ply knowing that the marine ecosystem biodiver-sity exists).

3.4.6 Option value

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



VALUATION OF

ECOSYSTEMSERVICES

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

This section presents, where possible, monetaryestimates for the ecosystem services identi ed inTable 2 as being present at Foa SEPA. The mon-etary estimates have been derived using marketpricing or value transfer valuation approaches.Market price approaches include the use of mar-ket prices to value traded ecosystem services andalso the so called cost based approaches. The useof market prices for marine ecosystem servicesthat are traded re ect a lower bound estimate ofits value, as they do not capture the consumer sur-plus7 element of value. They are therefore onlyproxies of welfare value. However, such estimatesare still very informative and relatively straightforward to derive. Cost based approaches takethe cost of replacing a service or averting a dam-aging impact on a marine resource as a proxy forthe value of the bene ts provided by the marineenvironment. They suffer from the same compli-cations as market prices and risk the under-valua-tion of non-market goods

Value transfer (also called bene ts transfer) in-volves the application of values from an existingstudy (often called the study site) to a new study(often referred to as the policy site) where con-ditions are similar and a similar policy context isbeing investigated. Value transfer is a practicalmeans of demonstrating the monetary value ofmarine bene ts. It is cheap and quick relative toprimary research, but there are a number of fac-tors which in uence the reliability of the trans-fer exercise. The quality of the original study isobviously a key consideration for value transferapplications. In order to minimize errors / un-certainty, the primary research study should bebased on adequate data and a theoretically soundapproach. The degree of similarity between thestudy site and the policy site is also a major factor.Value transfer will be more reliable if the policy

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

5



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

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

As well as providingwelfare measures an attempthas been made to illustrate the importance ofthese ecosystem services in terms of the jobs they

create and their contribution to local livelihoods.The marine ecosystem services valued are sh,carbon sequestration, protection against coastalerosion, waste treatment and tourism and recre-ation. Where relevant background informationhas also been provided on these services such asphysical (quantitative) data, management struc-ture, pressures and opportunities for develop-ment. For the regulating services (carbon seques-tration, protection against coastal erosion, waste

treatment) a review of relevant valuation evidencefor the region is also presented.

4.1. Provisioning Services4.1.1. Fish 4.1.1.1. Background

Foa is one of the largest shing harbors in theTurkish Aegean (Veryeriet al 2001) and the dis-trict is estimated to provide 20% of the Aegeanregions sh supply (IZKA 2009). This is due tothe rich variety of sh species found in Foa, theproximity of the shing grounds and the harbour(nal 1995). However, there are no reliable as-sessments of sh stocks in the region (Sualt Aratrmalar Danmanlk 2008). Since 1993,purse seine or trawl shing activities and netshave not been permitted within 2 nautic miles ofthe coastline between Aslan Point to Deve Boynuwhich spreads to 9 miles2 (Aykom 2008; Kra andGlsoy 2008).

Foa region shows the typical characteristics ofMediterranean sheries with multi-species andmulti-gear shing such as trawling, gillnetting,long lining, lift netting, pursue seining (nal2004). With the implementation of coastal andmarine conservation regulations, shing with trata

and r p boats (a smaller size, traditional coastaltrawlers operating between 0-10 meter depths) hasbeen banned in Foa and the shing activities havemostly shifted to open sea trawlers (Aykom 2008).

Based on interviews during site visits in March2011 an estimated 77 traditional shing boat own-ers (local residents) make their living exclusivelyfrom shing activities. Usually these small boatsrange between 5-8 meters in length and use sta-tionary nets, long-lines, lines and baskets (Sualt Aratrmalar Danmanlk 2008). The dominantNorthern winds in Foa often impede the activi-ties of the small boats, who are only able to spendapproximately one third of the year at sea.

The small scale shermen are organized under theFoa Fisheries Cooperative established in 1992,which has about 150 members. In order to be amember of the cooperative a sherman needs tobe from Foa and to pay the annual membershipfee of 100 TL per person. Members bene t fromuse of the landing and mooring facilities at the co-operatives harbor, which is rented from the gov-ernment for a 10 year period. Like the majority of shery cooperatives in Turkey, the cooperative inFoa operates a small local market and is orientedtoward being a service-maximizer to its members(nal et al 2009). The Foa Fisheries Cooperativeis an active member in the Fishery CooperativeUnion of the Aegean Region, thus taking part inthe sheries management of the region.

Larger scale shing also takes places with 18trawlers and 2 purse-seiners active in the des-ignated zone, 2 nautic miles from the coastline.These larger boats can sh for seven months ofthe year; in accordance with the Turkish regu-lation on commercial shing. The purse-seinersare registered in the Black Sea region; however,they winter in the Aegean region. In terms of in-come contributed to the local and national econ-omy, trawl shery is the most important shingmethod in Foa (nal 2004). Therefore, trawlersdominate the shing eet and employ around



Box 3. Parakete Fishing

Parakete or paragat (the word originating from Greek) isa traditional fishing method which involves the use of amulti-hooked fishing line that can extend up to 1.5 km.Different species require different parakete types and ac-cordingly the number of hooks varies between 100 400.The line can reach a depth of 50-60 meters and the maintargeted species are Gilthead seabream, white bream,corals, pagry and dentex. These fishes are generally solddirectly to the restaurants in Foa. Parakete fishing is usually undertaken in rocky bottomsand in seagrass meadows in the early morning; the line islet out around 4am and brought in at sunrise. Fresh squidis used as bait. The average income of a small boat ownerwho utilizes this fishing technique is around 400-450 TL/month.One method of feeding for Mediterranean monk seals isthrough the capture of fish and other marine species thatare caught in nets and paragat lines. Monk seals there-fore damage fishing gear and the competition for fishcauses a conflict between humans and the seals (Gl-soy 2008).

Source: Personal communication with zer Kona, a fishermanin Foa.

4.1.1.2. Valuation

Reliable quantitative data on sh catch and stocksin Foa remains a challenge due to the lack ofsystematic record keeping and data collection atboth the cooperative and government level. Thevaluation presented here draws on a number ofsources including studies of Foas overall shery(Aykom 2008), the economic viability of trawlers(nal 2004) and of the sh cooperative (nal &Franquesa 2010).

According to 2001 data, the total amount of shcatch in Foa amounted to 156.6 tons (A