Economic Analysis of Fethiye Gocek Special Environmental Protection Area

8/13/2019 Economic Analysis of Fethiye Gocek Special Environmental Protection Area

1/60


2/60


3/60

T.C.EVRE VE EHRCLKBAKANLII

T.C.EVREVE EH RC L KBAKANLII Empowered lives.Resilient nations.

Ec onom ic Ana lys is of Fe thiye -Gc e kSpe c ia l Environm e nta l Prote c tion Are a

Strengthening the System ofMarine and Coastal Protected Areas of Turkey Project

2013

Prepared by:Camille Bann & Esra Baak

1


4/60ii Economic Analysis of Fethiye-Gcek Special Environmental Protection Area

2013 Ministry of Environment and UrbanizationGeneral Directorate for Protection of Natural Assets (GDPNA)

Mustafa Kemal Mah. Eskiehir Devlet Yolu (Dumlupnar Bulvar) 9. km (Tepe prime Yan) ankaya/ANKARA Tel: +90 312 222 12 34 Fax: +90 312 222 26 61

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

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Birlik Mahallesi 415. Cadde No. 11 06610 ankaya/Ankara Tel: +90 312 454 1100 Fax: +90 312 496 1463

http://www.tr.undp.org Empowered Lives. Resilient Nations.

This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit pur-poses without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source ismade. GDPNA or UNDP would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication

as a source. No use of this publication may be made for resale of for any other commercial purpose what-soever without permission in writing from GDPNA or UNDP.

For bibliographic purposes this text may be referred as: Camille Bann & Esra Baak (2013). Economic Analysisof Fethiye-Gcek Special Environmental Protection Area.Project PIMS 3697: The Strengthening the System of Ma-rine and Coastal Protected Areas of Turkey. Technical Report Series 11: 56 pp.

This publication is prepared within the framework of large scale Strengthening the System of Marine andCoastal Protected Areas of Turkey Project which is funded by the Global Environment Fund (GEF) and

executed by the General Directorate for Protection of Natural Assets of the Turkish Ministry of Environ-ment and Urbanization and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), in partnership withthe General Directorate of Fisheries & Aquaculture of the Turkish Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Live-stock and the General Directorate for Nature Conservation and National Parks (GDNCNP) of the TurkishMinistry of Forestry and Water Affairs.

Technical Report Series: 11

Editing & Layout Design Corrections: Glhan Badur zden, Gner Ergn & Harun GlsoyCover and Layout Design:Evren alayan

Cover Photos: 1. Paragliding from Babada, Harun Glsoy2. Kelebekler Valley, GDPNA Archive

3. Fethiye, GDPNA Archive

Photos: 1-12. GDPNA Archive

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


5/60iiiStrengthening the System of Marine and Coastal Protected Areas of Turkey

Foreword

T urkey is a country surrounded by the sea onthree sides. Turkeys nature and climatic con-ditions adorn it with a significant biodiversity in itscoastal areas. However, there are also problems that

touch 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 coast-

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

These coastal and marine areas are one of the mostprecious assets we have and we must protect them.In order to alleviate these pressures and overcomethese challenges, relevant structures and infrastruc-tures for effective implementation and surveillance

to ensure that these areas are sustainably managed,preserved and protected without being deteriorat-ed and with a balanced approach between use andprotection. In this regard, all related agencies andinstitutions have to go under a capacity buildingprocess to meet the demands of the required struc-tures and infrastructures; cooperation and coor-dination between all parties have to be improvedand an effective and efficiently operating workprogram and a model for financial resources haveto be developed.

In its responsibility area covering a coastline thatextends over some 8,592 km, General Directoratefor Protection of Natural Assets carries out researchactivities for the protection and study of threat-ened and endangered species and habitats that areduly specified in the national legislation as well asin international conventions that Turkey is a party;carries out research activities on the biodiversity ofmarine and coastal environments; determines themarine surface vessel capacity of important bays

and harbors; establishes procedures and principlesfor use of protection and use of such areas; carriesout other integral coastal management activities andstrives to minimize risks that threaten such assets.

Protection of marine and coastal resources being aglobal priority, Marine Protected Areas are fast de-

veloping and expanding as a concept. Turkey is noexception to this rule where considerable aware-ness raising efforts are being carried out.

Through the large scale GEF Project entitledStrengthening Turkeys Marine and Coastal Pro-tected Areas covering the term between 2009-2013and with the UNDP as the implementing partner,the General Directorate has taken a very first stepfor devising a long term solution for the protectionof marine biodiversity in Turkish coastal waters;for the restructuring of marine and coastal protect-

ed areas database and to guarantee effectivenessand sustainability of ecological service functions.

A series of technical reports that are prepared as apart of the project on economic analysis, socio-econ-omy of fisheries in coastal areas, together with otherefforts on the identification of marine sensitive ar-eas, integration of economic principles to planningprocesses, ensuring financial sustainability, mitiga-tion of pollutants from marine vessels and determi-nation of alternative livelihood resources are expect-ed to yield the following project outcomes:

- Responsible institutions have the capacities andinternal structure needed for prioritizing the es-tablishment of new MCPAs and for more effec-tively managing existing MCPAs.

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

- Inter-agency coordination mechanisms in placeto regulate and manage economic activities

within multiple use areas of the MCPAs.Documents covering the three main outcomes ofthe Project so far mentioned are submitted to yourperusal.

Osman YMAYAGeneral Director


6/60iv Economic Analysis of Fethiye-Gcek Special Environmental Protection Area

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Layout of report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22. Background on site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Ecological Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Socio-economic characteristics of site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3. Qualitative Assessment of Ecosystem Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Marine Ecosystem Services Typology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Provisioning services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.1.1. Food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 3.1.2. Raw materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Regulating services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.1.3. Regulation of GHGs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.1.4. Micro-climate stabilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

3.1.5. Disturbance Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

3.1.6. Waste remediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Cultural Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3.1.7. Spiritual, religious and cultural heritage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

3.1.8. Education and research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3.1.9. Recreation and Tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

3.1.10. Landscape and amenity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

3.1.11. Biodiversity non-use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3.1.12. Option value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

4. Valuation of Ecosystem Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Provisioning Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

4.1.1. Fish. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

4.1.2. Valuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Regulating services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

4.1.3. Carbon sequestration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

4.1.4. Protection against coastal erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

4.1.5. Waste treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Cultural Services - Tourism and recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

4.1.6. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

4.1.7. The value of tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Summary of Valuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28


7/60vStrengthening the System of Marine and Coastal Protected Areas of Turkey

5. Opportunities to increase revenue flows from Fethiye-Gcek SEPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Finance mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

5.1.1. Fiscal instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Market-based charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

5.1.2. Tourism related revenues and charges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

5.1.3. User fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 5.1.4. Marine Carbon Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

5.1.5. Payments for Ecosystem Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

5.1.6. Biodiversity offsets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

6. Conclusions and Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Annex 1 Interviews duringfi

eld visit (24-27 March 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39Annex 2 Gcek Gulf & Gcek-Dalaman Bays Conservation and Use Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Lis t of Ta bles

Table 1. Overview of Pressures in Fethiye-Gcek SEPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Table 2. Fethiye Gcek SEPA Regional Population in 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Table 3. Qualitative assessment of marine ecosystem services and benefits at Fethiye-Gcek SEPA . . 12

Table 4. Global averages and standard deviations of the carbon sequestration rates and global rangesfor the carbon pools by habitat type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Table 5. Potential carbon sequestration value of Posidonia meadows at Fethiye-Gcek SEPA. . . . . . 19

Table 6. Public and Private Marinas and landing docks in Fethiye-Gcek SEPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Table 7. Rent incomes of Fethiye-Gcek SEPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Table 8. Valuation of marine related recreational activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Table 9. Summary of valuation results for Fethiye-Gcek SEPA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Table 10. Typology of potential financing mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

List of Figure s

Figure 1. Boundaries of Fethiye-Gcek SEPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Figure 2. Display of fish at Fethiyes central fish market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Figure 3. Expansion of Posidonia oceanica in Fethiye-Gcek SEPA shown in % of density . . . . . . . 18


8/60vi Economic Analysis of Fethiye-Gcek Special Environmental Protection Area

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank all interviewed parties (see Annex 1), the General Directorate for Protection ofNatural Assets (GDPNA) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) project team for thedata and information they have provided.

Exc hange ra tes

1 TL = $ 0.528

1 TL= 0.4

1 = $ 1.30

AcronymsDS General Directorate State Hydroulic Works

EC European Commission

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

ESA Ecosystem Service Approach

EU The European Union

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

GEF Global Environment FacilityGDPNA General Directorate for Protection of Natural Assets

GDNCNP General Directorate for Nature Conservation and Natural Parks

GDP Gross Domestic Product

MEDPOL the marine pollution assessment and control component of Mediterranean Action Plan

MELSA Mula Provincial Government Company

MoEU Ministry of Environment and Urbanisation

MoFWA Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs

MCPA Marine and Coastal Protected Area

PA Protected Area

REDD Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation

SEPA Special Environmental Protection Area

TDAV Turkish Marine Research Foundation

TURMEPA Turkish Marine Environment Protection Association

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

UNDP United Nations Development Programme


9/60viiStrengthening the System of Marine and Coastal Protected Areas of Turkey

grebilmek iin, blgedeki deniz ve kyalanlarndayrtlm tm almalarkapsayan bir literatrtaramasda yaplmtr.

Bu alma iin, Ekosistem Hizmetleri Yaklam(Ecosystem Service Approach ESA) ve Milen-yum Ekosistem Deerlendirmesinin tedarik, d-zenleme, kltrel ve destek hizmetleri snflandr-masna (2005) dayanarak, deniz ve kyekosistemlerihizmetlerine ynelik bir tipoloji gelitirilmitir. Eko-sistem Hizmetleri Yaklam, denizel ortamlardakiekosistemlerin ve bunlarn barndrdbiyolojik e-itliliin bireysel ve sosyal refaha katkda bulundu-unu aka onaylamaktadr. Yaklam, bu katknnbalk gibi dorudan tketilen rnlerin teminininok daha tesine gittiini, denizel ekosistemlerin

karbon tutma gibi kritik dzenleme fonksiyonlarolduunu da aklamaktadr. Dolaysyla, Ekosis-tem Hizmetleri Yaklam karar alma srelerindeekosistemlerinin bir btn olarak ele alnmasnsa-lamve ekosistemin verdii hizmetlere deer biil-mesinin nn amtr.

Temel Bulgular

Fethiye-Gcek Blgesi, bir ok sakin koyu olan, g-venli yelken ve yatlk imkanlarsalayan, ulusla-

raras apta tan

nan olaanst bir deniz alan

dr.Fethiye-Gcek KBnin ekonomisi byk lde

denizel ortama baldr. Blgenin biyolojik eitlili-i, bir ok ekosistem hizmetine taban oluturmakta,bunlar ok sayda faydalanc ve yerel topluluunekonomik refahn destekleyerek Trkiyenin gay-risafimilli haslasna katkda bulunmaktadr. al-mada Fethiye-Gcek KBsinin bir yllk ekono-mik deeri yaklak 210 milyon ABD dolarolarakhesaplanmtr.

Bu, alann balang aamasndaki deerini yan-

stmaktad

r ve daha detayl

al

malarla gelitiril-melidir. Tespit edilen deer; tedarik hizmetlerinibalk, dzenleme hizmetlerini karbon tutma, eroz-yon kontrol ve su artm, kltrel hizmetleri tu-rizm ve rekreasyon olarak kapsamaktadr. Bunlarbrt deerlerdir (yani masraflar dlmemitir)ve karbon tutmayla ilikilendirilmi faydalar gibibaz potansiyel deerler henz elde edilememitir(yakalanmamaktadr). Buna ramen, bu deerlerolmasgerekenin altnda deerler olarak dnle-bilir. Mesela turizm iin tahmini deerler kullanl-mtr ve bazpotansiyel nemli hizmetler hesaplara

Yne tic i ze ti

Fethiye-Gcek zel evre Koruma Blgesi (KB)Mula li snrlariinde, yaklak 816 km lik ala-n kapsar. Kysal uzunluu 235 km, deniz alan345 km olan alan 1988 ylnda zel evre Koru-

ma Blgesi ilan edilmitir (Derinsu, 2009). Korumaalanna adnveren iki belde byklk, geliim se-viyesi ve gelecee ynelik planlama asndan bir-birinden farkldr. Fethiye lesi 3,060 km2'lik alankaplayan, gelimi bir kent ve turizm blgesidir.Fethiye krfezinin yolcu gemilerini arlayacakekilde gelimesini ngren planlar, blgede doakorumadan ziyade byk lekli turizmin tevikedildiini gstermektedir. te yandan, Gcek yatturizmine odakl, uluslar arasst gelir gurubunada turizm hizmeti veren kk bir yerleimdir.

Bu almann amac Fethiye-Gcek KBsininekonomik analizini gerekletirerek:

Alann temin ettii denizel hizmet ve rnleryelpazesi hakknda farkndalk yaratmak,

Kilit ekosistem hizmetlerinin devamn tehditeden basklara ve bunlarn ekonomik sonular-na iaret ederek alann srdrebilir ynetiminekatkda bulunmak,

Denizel hizmetlerin ekonomik deerini ortayakoyarak ve potansiyel gelir getirici faaliyet ve

mekanizmalar

n alt

n

izerek alan iin haz

rla-nacak olan Planna bilgi tabansalamaktr.Trkiyenin Deniz ve Ky Koruma Alanlar Siste-minin Glendirilmesi Projesi hedeflerinden Denizve KyKoruma Alanlar iin finansal planlama veynetim sistemleri gelitirilmesi ve uygulanmasileetkin iplanlamas, yeterli gelir retimi ve etkin y-netim maliyetinin salanmas kapsamnda hazrla-nan alma, Fethiye-Gcek KBsi iin alternatifgelir kaynaklarseeneklerinin tespit edilmesi ve biriplannn gelitirilmesini amalamaktadr. Rapor-da alandaki ekosistem hizmetlerinin ve deerlerinintespit edilmesine odaklanlm, potansiyel finansalmekanizmalar hakknda sadece genel bir ereve i-zilmitir.

Fethiye-Gcek KBsinin ekonomik analizi, alanhakknda mevcut veri ve literatr taramasna veMart 2012de kilit paydalarla yaplan grme-lerden elde edilen verilere dayanmaktadr. Ayrca,muhtemel yarar transfer deerlerini temin edebil-mek, alan iin belirlenen deerleri karlatrmakve deerleme yaklamlarna dair farkl anlaylar


10/60viii Economic Analysis of Fethiye-Gcek Special Environmental Protection Area

dahil edilememitir. Alanda potansiyel olarak va-rolduu dnlen fakat bilimsel bilgi ve veri nok-sanlndan incelenemeyen ekosistem hizmetleribulunmaktadr. Doal ilalar gibi hammaddeler,genetik kaynaklar ve dekoratif rnler; denizel orta-mn mikro-iklim dzenlemesinde ve sel, frtnadankorumadaki rol; alann eitim, peyzaj ve miras de-erleri gibi henz zerinde allmamhizmetlerisayabiliriz. Peyzaj deeri asndan, Gcek ve Fethi-yede fiyatzaman iinde artan, deniz manzaralbirok konut projesi bulunmaktadr. Ancak bu almakapsamnda emlak deerleri aratrlmamtr.

Alana dair toplam deerin yaklak %95ini turizmve rekreasyon tekil etmektedir. Bu ekosistem hiz-metine dair deerin tespit edilmesinde yarar trans-feri yntemi kullanld gz nne alndnda,alandaki yllk 199 milyon ABD dolar turizm de-eri iyiletirilebilir. Alann spesifik turizm harca-malarve ziyareti saylarna (hem geceleyen, hemde gnbirlik) ihtiya duyulmaktadr. Dzenlemehizmetleri ylda 8,7 milyon ABD dolarolarak tes-pit edilmitir. Ancak bu hizmetlerin alandan teminedildiine dair bilimsel almalar bulunmadiindeerlemede yarar transferi yntemi uygulanmtr.

Denizel ekosistem hizmetleri, istihdam ve yerelgeim kaynaolarak da nemlidir. KB ekono-misi (tarmla beraber) servis sektrne dayanmak-tadr. Resmi istatistikler bulunmamakla birlikte,Fethiyede yaklak 10.000 kiinin dorudan turizmalannda (oteller, ajanslar ve lokantalar) alttahmin edilmektedir. Gcek ise tamamen turizmedayanmaktadr.

Tm ekonomik, kltrel ve ekolojik nemine ra-men Fethiye-Gcek KBsinin ekosistem hiz-metleri deniz kirlilii, altyap ve konut projelerive yasad balklk gibi eitli tehditlerle karkaryadr. Mavi Kart sistemi bata olmak zere,alandaki yat ve teknelerin sebep olduu kirliliinbertaraf edilmesi iin evre ve ehircilik Bakanl,TVKGM ve dier kamu kurululartarafndan bazgiriimler balatlmtr. Ancak bu pilot sistemindaha etkin izleme ve yaptrmlarla, farkndalk ya-ratarak ve uluslararasteknelerde de uygulanarakgelitirilmesi gerekmektedir.

neriler

alma sonularna gre aadaki neriler geliti-rilmitir. Bu neriler hem ileride yrtlecek eko-sistem hizmetleri deerleme almalarnhem de

ncelikli ynetim konularnvurgulamaktadr. KBdeki balklk faaliyetleri allmamtr.

Her ne kadar balklk blgedeki temel geimkaynaklarndan birisini oluturmasa da, alandayrtlen yasadzpkn ve trol balklteh-likesi nedeniyle balk stoklaracilen deerlendi-rilmelidir.

Balklk deerlemesi, srdrebilir av oran-nn (miktar) net faydaya (gelirler eksi maliyet-ler) arplmasna dayandrlmaldr. Dolaysylasrdrebilir av orannn tespit edilebilmesi iin

alandaki balk stoklarnn dzenli bilimsel ara-trmalarla incelenmesi gerekmektedir.

Tablo . Fethiye-Gcek KBsi deerleme sonularzeti

Hizmet Deer/ yl ABD$ Deerleme yntemi Not

Balk 380.000 Piyasa deerleri Bu deer srdrebilir av oranna gre hesaplanmamtr (alan iinbilinmiyor). Sadece Fethiye lesinde kaydtutulan balklk deerinikapsamaktadr ve retim seviyesini yanstmamaktadr. Dorudanlokantalara ve bireysel mterilere satlan balk deerlerini ve rekreasyonelbalklk faaliyetlerini iermemektedir; ayrca avn eksik beyan edildiidnlmektedir. Brt deerlerdir, maliyetler dlmemitir.

Karbon Tutma 944.384 Piyasa deerleri

(ka

n

lan harcamayaklam)

Orman karbon piyasasna benzer ekilde Mavi Karbon Kredi piyasasnn

geliecei varsay

lm

t

r. Dolay

s

yla bu deer henz llememektedir(yakalanmamaktadr). Karbon piyasa deeri 11,2 $/ t CO2 edeeri olarakalnmtr.

Erozyon kontrol 460.200 Yarar transferi Her kymetresi iin 160.000 avro, Fethiye-Gcek KBsindeki 27 kmlikPosidonia ayrlarna ve alann %12sinin risk altnda olduuna dayanarak.(Mangos ve arkadalar, 2010).

Atksu doalfiltrasyonu (artm)

8.320.000 Yarar transferi Mangos ve arkadalarna (2010) dayanarak, Trkiye kylariin hesaplanan229 milyon avroluk artm hizmeti Fethiye-Gcek KBsindeki kyeridiuzunluuna gre (235 km) taksim edilmitir.

Turizm /Rekreasyon

177.784.517(harcama)21,707,084(rekreasyon)

Piyasa deerleri Blgeye gelen ziyareti saylarna dair tahmini (ylda 2.207.940 geceleyenziyareti), ortalama turizm harcamalarna (Bann ve Baak 2011a ve2011bye gre dier KBlerde yrtlen almalar) ve alanda yrtlenyllk denizel rekreasyon faaliyetleri gelirlerine dayanarak.

TOPLAM 209.996.185


11/60ixStrengthening the System of Marine and Coastal Protected Areas of Turkey

Turizm, blgenin deniz koruma alanstatsnve blgenin tarihi ve mimari mirasnbtnleyi-ci bir ekilde gelimeli ve ynetilmelidir. Spesifikneriler yle sralanabilir:* Alandaki turizm geliiminin snrlarnbelirle-

mek iin alann denizel ve karasal turizm ta-ma kapasitesi aratrlmaldr.

* Deniz turizminin ekonomik etkilerini incele-yen kapsaml bir almayla denizel turizm-den faydalanan birok sektr ve ekonomidekiarpan etkisi incelenmelidir.

* Yksek turizm deerinden tr, alana spe-sifik turizm harcamalar ve deme istekliliiaratrmasda nerilmektedir.

* Blgede kitle turizmi yerine yksek gelir d-zeyine hitap eden bir turizm anlay tevikedilmelidir; baka bir deyile, gelirlerin art-rlmasnda kapasiteden ziyade kalite gelitiril-

melidir.* Alann ekolojik nemi, koruma stats hak-

knda (denizden ve karadan gelen) ziyaretilerve ikmet edenlere ynelik daha iyi bilgilen-dirme ve iaretlendirme yaplmasnerilmek-tedir.

* Turizm gelirlerini srekli klmak iin kirliliin(zellikle de atk sulara balkirliliin) kontroledilmesi ve izlenmesi gerekmektedir. Bu dafarkl kurumlar arasnda koordinasyona da-yaldr. Fethiye-Gcek KBsinde yrtlen

Mavi Kart sistemi dier blgelerde de uygu-lanmasgereken iyi bir balangtr.

* Turizmin yln tm aylarna yayabilecek eitlifaaliyetlerle gelitirilmesi gerekmektedir. T-DAV tarafndan yrtlen bir alma zellik-le ldeniz etrafnda ekoturizm faaliyetlerineynelik potansitel olduunu gstermektedir(TDAV, 2012). Gcekte sadece 4 ay boyuncayat turizmi yaplmakta ve kn blgede yaa-

yanlar iin ok snrlgelir kaynaklarbulun-maktadr. Yelkencilik tm yla yaylacak ekil-de tevik edilebilir ve yama parat, doayryleri gibi frsatlar gelitirilebilir.

Ekonomik deerleme ve zellikle dzenlemehizmetleri iyi bir bilimsel temele dayanmaldr.Alana zel dzenleme hizmetlerine odaklbilim-sel almalar (karbon tutma, erozyon kontrol,sel ve frtnadan koruma, atksu artm, vb.), buhizmetleri daha iyi anlamak ve deerlemeye ktutmak asndan gerekmektedir.

Ekosistem kaynakl

faydalar

n deerindeki de-iimi ve bunlar arasndaki dengeleri gzlem-lemek amacyla Fethiye-Gcek KBsindedeerleme almalar dzenli aralklarla yr-tlmelidir. Tercihen, deerleme almalar, se-naryo analizleri iermeli ve bylece farklyne-tim seeneklerine ve alann srdrlebilirliineyn vermelidir.


12/60x Economic Analysis of Fethiye-Gcek Special Environmental Protection Area

Exec utive sum m a ry

Fethiye-Gcek SEPA is located in Mula Prov-ince, and covers approximately 816 km of which345 km is the marine zone and has a coastline of235 km (Derinsu, 2009). The site was granted its

marine and coastal conservation status in June1988. The two towns are quite different in size, lev-el of development and future aspirations. Fethiyecovers an area of around 3,060 km2and is a welldeveloped town and tourism destination. Its plansto develop Fethiye bay for cruise ships indicates awish to promote mass tourism in the area, ratherthan to focus on conservation. Gcek on the otherhand can be characterised as a small town, offer-ing an upmarket, boutique tourism experience cen-tered on yacht tourism.

The objective of this study was to undertake an eco-nomic analysis of Fethiye-Gcek SEPA in order to:

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

Contribute to the sustainable management of thesite by highlighting pressures threatening the vi-ability of key ecosystem services and the econo-mic implications of this;

Inform the business plan to be developed for thesite by demonstrating the economic value of ma-

rine services and highlighting potential revenuegenerating activities and mechanisms.

It should be noted that other components of the GD-PNA-GEF-UNDP project under which this studysits are focused on the identification of feasible in-come generating options, and the development ofa business plan for Fethiye-Gcek SEPA. Thereforethis report is focused on the identification and val-uation of ecosystem services and only provides ahigh level discussion of potential financing mech-anisms

The economic assessment of Fethiye-Gcek SEPAis based on a review of the available data and lit-erature on the site, interviews with key stakehold-ers and data gathered through a site visit in March2012. A literature review of economic valuationstudies of marine and coastal areas from the regionwas also undertaken to provide potential transfervalues, benchmarks against which to assess valuesderived for the site and insights on valuation ap-proaches.

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

(2005) classification of ecosystem services intoprovisioning, regulating, cultural and supportingservices. The ESA explicitly recognizes that eco-systems such as marine environments and the bio-logical diversity contained within them contributeto individual and social wellbeing. Importantly itrecognizes that this contribution extends beyondthe provision of goods such as fish to the naturalregulating functions of marine ecosystems such ascarbon sequestration. The ESA therefore providesa framework for considering whole ecosystems in

decision making and for valuing the services theyprovide.

Key Findings

The Fethiye-Gcek region is an exceptional marinearea having numerous calm bays for safe sailingand yachting opportunities, which are internation-ally recognised. To a large extent the economy ofFethiye-Gceks SEPA is dependent on the marineenvironment. Fethiye-Gcek SEPAs biodiversi-

ty supports a range of ecosystems services thatcontribute to the economic welfare of a range ofbeneficiaries and support local communities andTurkeys GDP. The total annual value of Fethi-ye-Gcek SEPA is estimated to be around $210million per year.

This represents an initial valuation of the site, whichneeds to be refined through further study. This val-ue incorporates provisioning services - fish, regu-lating services carbon sequestration, erosion pro-tection and waste treatment, and cultural services

tourism and recreation. It is considered to be anunderestimate in that conservative estimates havebeen used for example for tourism and a numberof potentially important services are excluded. Eco-systems services thought to be present (or poten-tially present) at the site which cannot be estimateddue to a lack of scientific information and/or dataare: raw materials such as natural medicines, ge-netic resources and ornamental resources, whichhave yet to be studied at the site; the role the marineenvironment plays in micro-climate regulation; the


13/60xiStrengthening the System of Marine and Coastal Protected Areas of Turkey

role of the marine environment in flood and stormprotection; the sites heritage value and educationalvalue; and, the sites landscape and amenity value.In terms of amenity value, there are a number ofnew high-end developments in Gcek and Fethiyewith a sea view, which are assumed to generate apremium. However, this has not been investigatedin this study.

The cultural services of tourism and recreation ac-count for around 95% of the total value. Given thatthe value-transfer method has been used for deter-mining the tourism value at the site, the estimate fortourism of $ 199 million per year clearly could be re-fined. Site specific evidence of tourist expendituresand willingness to pay is required, along with a bet-ter understanding of the number of visitors (bothovernight and day visitors). Regulating services are

valued at $ 8,780,200 per year. However, valuationof these services is based on value transfer estimatesas scientific studies on the provision of these servic-es at the site are unavailable.

Marine ecosystems are also important in terms ofemployment and local livelihoods. The economyof the SEPA is based on the service sector (alongwith agriculture). While no official statistics exist,around 10,000 people are estimated to be directlyinvolved in the tourism sector (hotels, agencies andrestaurants) in Fethiye alone. Gcek is totally de-

pendent on tourism.

Despite their economic, cultural and economic im-portance the quality and quantity of Fethiye-GcekSEPAs ecosystem services are threatened by arange of pressures including marine pollution, in-frastructure and housing development and illegalfishing activities. Some mitigation efforts have beeninitiated by the MoEU, GDPNA and relevant publicauthorities to manage pollution generated by boatsand yachts in the region, notably the Blue Card sys-tem. However, this pilot system needs improvingthrough better monitoring and enforcement, aware-ness raising and application to international boats

Recommendations

The key recommendations of this study are pro-vided below. These recommendations highlightpriorities in terms of the future economic valuation

of the sites ecosystem services as well as prioritymanagement issues.

The fisheries of the SEPA have not been studied.Even though fishing is not a key means of employ-ment and source of livelihood in the region, a stockassessment is urgently needed especially in light ofthe illegal speargun and trawler fishing activitiesconducted at the site.

The valuation should be based on a sustainable har-vest rate (quantity) multiplied by revenues minus

costs. Scientifi

c studies offi

sh stocks are thereforerequired to determine sustainable harvesting rates.

Table . Summary of valuation results for Fethiye-Gcek SEPA

Service Value/ year ($) Valuation approach Comment

Fish 380,000 Market prices This is not based on a sustainable harvest rate, which is unknown.Only includes fish registered in Fethiye district and does not reflect theproduction levels. It is likely to exclude fish sold directly to restaurantsand individual customers and recreational fishing and may also be basedon an under-reporting of fish catch.This is a gross value costs have not been deducted

Carbonsequestration

944,384 Market prices(avoided costapproach)

Assumes development of market in blue carbon credits analogous to theforest carbon market. This value is therefore not currently captured.Based on market price of carbon of $ 11.2 / tCO

2eq

Erosionprotection

460,200 Benefits transfer Mangos et al. (2010). Based on 160,000 Euro per meter of coastline, 27km of Posidonia beds in Fethiye-Gcek and 12% of the area at risk.

Waste treatment 8,320,000 Benefi ts transfer Based on Mangos et al. (2010) estimate for Turkey of 229 million Eurosapportioned to the study site based on length of its coastline (235 km).

Tourism /Recreation

177,784,517(expenditure)21,707,084 (recreation)

Market prices Based on a conservative estimate of tourist numbers (2,207,940 overnightvisitors per year) and average tourism expenditures (based on otherTurkish MCPAs in Bann & Baak 2011a & 2011b) and the annual revenueestimates of the marine recreational activities conducted in the area

TOTAL 209,996,185


14/60xii Economic Analysis of Fethiye-Gcek Special Environmental Protection Area

Tourism needs to be developed and managed in away that complements that areas status as a ma-rine protected area as well as the regions histor-ical and architectural heritage. Recommendationsinclude:

A study of the sites tourism carrying capacity to

understand the limits to tourism development inthe area.

A comprehensive study of the economic impactof marine tourism to understand the many sectorsthat benefit from marine tourism and the multipliereffects to the economy. A site specific expenditurestudy and/or willingness pay study is also recom-mended given the high tourism value.

Upmarket rather than mass tourism should bepromoted, that is revenues should be increasedthrough improving quality rather than capacity.

Better signage and information for visitors (arriv-ing by land and sea) and residents on the ecologicalimportance of the area and its protection status

Control and monitoring of pollution (especiallysewage waters) is a challenge that requires collabo-ration between authorities if tourism revenues areto be sustained. In Fethiye-Gcek SEPA the BlueChip Card system is a good start, which should beupscaled to other areas.

Diversification of the tourism experience. There isa need to develop a wider range of activities thatfacilitates tourism throughout the year. A study byTDAV indicated that there is great potential foreco-tourism activities especially around ldeniz(TDAV, 2012). In Gcek there are only 4 monthsof real yacht tourism and during the winter it isvery quiet with very limited income generatingopportunities for inhabitants. Sailing could be pro-moted throughout the year and opportunities forparagliding and hiking explored and developed.

Economic valuation is underpinned by good scien-tific evidence. This is often particularly importantfor regulating services. Site specific scientific stud-ies of the provision of regulating services (i.e. car-bon sequestration, erosion control, flood and stormprotection and waste assimilation) are required to

better understand these services and inform thevaluation.

Valuation studies should be carried out in Fethiye-Gcek SEPA at regular intervals in order to observechanges in the value of benefits derived from therange of ecosystem services and the trade-offs thatoccur between these. Ideally valuation studiesshould look at different scenarios and thereby helpchoose between different management options forthe area and cast light on the sites sustainability.


15/601Strengthening the System of Marine and Coastal Protected Areas of Turkey

This study is an activity under the General Di-rectorate for Protection of Natural Assets -GlobalEnvironment Facility - United Nations Develop-ment Programme (GDPNA-GEF-UNDP) projectStrengthening the Protected Area Network ofTurkey: Catalyzing Sustainability of Marine andCoastal Protected Areas.

The proposed long-term solution for marine biodi-versity conservation in Turkeys territorial sea is areconfigured Marine and Coastal Protected Area(MCPA) network designed to protect biodiversitywhile optimizing its ecological service functions. Thesuccess of this long-term solution is seen to rest onthree main pillars: (i) the existence of key agenciescapable of identifying and managing sensitive andbiologically significant MCPAs; (ii) the application ofeconomic analysis to inform the planning and man-

agement of MCPAs and the integration of sustain-able financing mechanisms; and (iii) inter-sectoralco-operation that builds on the relevant strengths ofvarious management agencies and branches of Gov-ernment and civil society to solve marine biodiversi-ty conservation challenges. This study relates to thedevelopment of the second pillar.

Objective

The objective of this study was to undertake aneconomic analysis of Fethiye-Gcek Special Envi-ronmental Protection Area (SEPA) in order to:

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

Contribute to the sustainable management of thesite by highlighting pressures threatening the vi-ability of key ecosystem services and the econo-mic implications of this;

Inform the business plan to be developed for thesite by demonstrating the economic value of ma-rine services and highlighting potential revenuegenerating activities and mechanisms.

It should be noted that other components of theGDPNA-GEF-UNDP project under which thisstudy sits are focused on the identification of fea-sible income generating options and the develop-ment of a business plan for Fethiye-Gcek SEPA.Therefore this report is focused on the identifi-cation and evaluation of ecosystem services andonly provides a high level discussion of potentialfinancing mechanisms.

2

Introduction


16/602 Economic Analysis of Fethiye-Gcek Special Environmental Protection Area

Approach

The economic assessment of Fethiye-Gcek SEPAis based on a review of the available data and liter-ature on the site, interviews with key stakeholdersand data gathered through a site visit 24-27 March2012. A list of people consulted is provided in An-

nex 1. A literature review of economic valuationstudies of marine and coastal areas from the regionwas also undertaken to provide potential transfervalues, benchmarks against which to assess valuesderived for the site and insights on valuation ap-proaches. The study should be viewed as an ini-tial high level economic analysis of the area, whichidentifies key ecosystem services provided by thesite and prioritizes areas for future research and re-finement of the economic estimates presented.

The economic assesment presented in this report

is based on three key research studies conductedin Fethiye-Gcek SEPA - a study of the sites ma-rine biodiversity carried out by Derinsu (2009), astudy of the carrying capacity of the Gcek Bayby the Middle East Technical University (ODT,2007) and an assesment of the socio-economic, his-torical and cultural values of the site by OptimarConsultancy (2010). These research studies laid the

foundations for establishing the Use and Conser-vation Principles determined for Gcek Gulf andGcek-Dalaman Bays (presented in Annex 2).

An Ecosystem Service Valuation Framework wasdeveloped for the economic assessment, whichprovides a comprehensive list of marine and coast-

al services provided at the site (see Section 3). Thisframework provides the basis for understandingthe range of benefits provided by the marine eco-system and the pressures that they face.

Layout of report

The rest of this report is set out as follows: Section 2provides an overview of the site and the pressuresthat it faces plus available information on the so-cio-economic characteristics of the area; Section 3

presents the marine ecosystem services typologyand a qualitative assessment of the services provid-ed by the site; Section 4 presents the valuation ofindividual ecosystem services where the requiredbio-physical and monetary data is available; Sec-tion 5 discusses potential financing mechanisms:and, Section 6 concludes. Annex 1 lists the peopleinterviewed during field visits in March 2012.



Fethiye-Gcek SEPA is located in Mula Province,approximately 120 km southeast of Mula citycenter. It is situated at the foot of Mendos Mountain,in the east coast of the inlet (Optimar, 2010) at theintersection of Aegean and Mediterranean seas. Thesite was granted its marine and coastal conservationstatus by the Decree of Cabinet of Ministers number88/13019 in June 1988 (ibid). It covers approximate-ly 816 km of which 345 km is the marine zone andhas a coastline of 235 km (Derinsu, 2009).

Fethiye-Gcek SEPA comprises Fethiye town and6 sub-districts and 6 villages. Fethiye town, whichis in the West of Teke Peninsula, is surrounded byKyceiz Town in the northwest, Denizli and Bur-dur in the North and Antalya in the East (Keskin etal., 2011).

The geological structure of the region is marl and

limestone extensions at approximately 2 km dis-tance from the sea, and sedimentary lowlands be-tween the hills and the sea (DSI, 2003 in Ko, 2012).The South coast of the area is covered with steepmountains that rise abruptly from the sea. Themass filling the Een Basin and subsidence extend-ing to the land after Fethiye Bay and also coveringFethiye town is known as Babada and stretchesalong the coastline covered with forests (Optimar,2010). There are bays and inlets along the coastlineof the SEPA, including Gcek Bay and ldenizLagoon (Blue Lagoon) in Belceiz Village, whichare important marine tourism centers. The twelveislands located in the Northwestern section of theSEPA consists of the following islands - valye,Tersane, Kzl, Katranc, Delikli, Kzlan, HacHalil,Yassca and Domuz islands (ibid).

The region has a typical Mediterranean climatewith hot summers and mild and rainy winters. An-nual average precipitation in the region is between1,250 and 1,500 mm. Most of the precipitation oc-curs during winter and spring months. Averagesummer, winter, and sea water temperatures are30C, 12C, 17C, respectively (DSI, 2010 in Ko,2012). Due to the geographical position of the area(mountains extending vertically from the sea), theinteriors receive more rainfall than the coasts andhumidity is lower than other coastal zones.

Fethiye Bay is connected to open sea by a mouthof 15 km and the marine depth at the entrance tothe gulf reaches 800 m (Derinsu, 2009). As such,the central part of the gulf is exposed to southernlywinds while Gcek and Fethiye bays, as well as the

3

Ba c k ground on s ite



islands that are an extension of the KapdaPen-insula, are relatively well protetected from strongwinds and currents and serve as natural ports.

The sites cultural heritage is significant; historical

ruins include the ancient Telmessus Theatre andthe Algerian Mosque belonging to Ottoman Period(Keskin et al., 2011).

Ecological Overview

The flora of the SEPA consists of shrubs, olivegroves, oak groves and citrus trees on the coastand coniferous trees in the higher elevations - BlackPine (Pinus nigra), Red Pine (Pinus bruita) and Ce-dar (Cedrus sp.)(Optimar, 2010). Moreover, Orien-

tal Sweetgum (Liquidambar orientalis) is one of theendemic species growing in streams and deltas.Dominant vegetation in the region consists of oaks,wild olives, wild pears, sandal, P. latifolia, Pista-chio terebinthus, carob, laurel, Chasteberry, SweetBroom, China Berry, Arceuthos drupacea, willow,acacia, sumac, Caryophyllaceae. Oriental plane,poplar and alder (ibid). Important herbs of the re-gion are catkins, thistles, efek, reed canary grass,Common couch grass, purple nut sedge, lambs

quarters, wild oat, pennyroyal, sage, Orchis corio-phora, Atractylis gummifera, and burdock.

As part of a recent marine and coastal biodiversi-ty study of the site, nearly 600 dives at depths of

0-55 m were undertaken at 83 spots within Fethi-ye-Gcek SEPA. This study identified 1,545 marinespecies belonging to 24 taxonomic groups (Derinsu,2009). Among these, 44 were recorded for the firsttime in Turkey including Vanderhorstia mertensiwhich is an exotic species for the Mediterranean.The majority of the recorded species (1,225 species)were found in the 5-55 m depth range and the dom-inating taxonomic group was Polychaeta (with 347species), followed by Mollusca (288 species) andCrustacea (264 species).

Fethiye-Gcek SEPA hosts 40 species of conserva-tion concern in the Mediterranean listed by the Bernand the Barcelona Conventions as well as Interna-tional Union for Conservation of Natures (IUCN)Red List. These include 7 Mollusca species, 6 Por-ifera species, 6 Crustacea species, reptiles such asLoggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta)and Nile soft-shelled turtle (Trionyx triunguis), and mammals suchas Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus)and Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus).

Figure 1. Boundaries of Fethiye-Gcek SEPA (Source: Derinsu 2009)



development and development aspirations. Fethi-ye covers an area of around 3,060 km2and is a welldeveloped district center and tourism destination,catering for the mass tourism market. Fethiye is oneof the biggest settlements among Mula Provincesdistricts (see section 2.3). Gcek, on the other hand,can be characterised as a small town, offering an up-market, boutique tourism experience centered onyacht tourism.

One of the main pressures facing the SEPA is in-tensive yacht tourism, especially in the Gcek sec-tion. The current use of the bays in Gcek is farbeyond the carrying capacity determined for thearea (ODT, 2007 - see Table 1). As a result ma-rine pollution and anchoring activities are harmingthe marine vegetation and biodiversity despite thelaunch of some government initiatives restrictingthe use of the Gcek Bays (see Annex 2). Aware-ness of the environmental impacts of yacht tourismis reported to be low.

Similarly in Fethiye, marine biodiversity and thenatural ecosystem of the bay are damaged and theirlong term sustainability is at risk. In order to deter-mine the effects of additional pontoons planned forthe marina located in the western part of the Fethi-ye Bay, an oceanographic study was undertaken in2006 (Okuet a.,l 2007). The study consisted of hy-drographic measurements and observation of biodi-versity by divers specialized in marine biology; 15scuba and 3 skin dives were undertaken. The studyfound a thin and relatively less saline surface lay-er rich in nutrient and organic material. This layercontained high organic materials indicating terres-trial input due to faecal coliform, demonstrating theanthropogenic impact on the area. At the bottom,although there is no difference in the physical char-acteristics of water, visibility is low due to the weakcurrent velocity which causes a high accumulationof suspended material in the water column. Anchor-ing activities have also damaged the deep flora and

fauna distribution in this section of the SEPA (ibid).For the past 10 years Fethiye has had a wastewatertreatement plant in operation and there is a systemin place, managed by the MoEU, to collect waste wa-ter from the boats (Box 3).

In Fethiye solid waste pollution from marina ac-tivity, fisheries and houses has affected speciesdistribution. Solid waste pollution is especiallycaused by the upkeep and repair activity observedin the region near the slipway. Samples in summermonths clearly identify the effects of yacht tourism

Out of the 5 sea turtle species represented in theMediterranean basin, 3 species (Caretta caretta, Che-lonia mydas, Dermochelys coriacea) are identified inthe waters of Turkey. Fethiye Beach is one of thenesting and reproduction areas for Caretta caret-ta, which is protected under Bern Convention andCITES (Keskin et al., 2011).

The algae species in the region are dominated byCystoseira spinosa, a species of conservation con-cern, found on rocky bottoms between 35-40 m andwhose habitats are affected by the intensely usedbays of the SEPA (Derinsu, 2009).

Furthermore, Okuet al. (2007) undertook a studyof marine biodiversity in the western part of innerFethiye bay, close to the town center. A total of 118species belonging to 10 taxonomic groups were de-tected in the study area, 26% of which were fish spe-

cies, generally distributed around and beneath thepontoons. The second important group was Mol-lusca (17%). In general macrobenthic life was de-tected at the upper 4 m, while Gobius species wereobserved on the silt sediment. The species composi-tion indicates characteristics of an environment richin organic material. The most abundant species aremainly filter feeders - Tunicata (Phallusia mamillata,P. nigra, Clavelina lepadiformis, C. nana, and Microcos-mus sabatieri), Cirripedia species (Balanus spp., andVeruca stroemit), Porifera (Haliclona mediterraneaandChondrilla nucula), Polychaeta (Hermodice caruncula-ta, and Sabella spallanzanii), Terebellidae (sp.), Bry-ozoa (sp) andMytilus galloprovincialis.

The distribution ofM. galloprovincialisis particular-ly interesting, since this Black Sea species distribu-tion is known to be limited to zmir Bay. This find-ing is good biological evidence of organic pollutionin the area, together with enhanced freshwater in-put to the ecosystem. In addition, determination oftwo lessepsian species from Brachyura (Thallamita

poissonii, Charybdis helleri)points out alterations innatural faunal characteristics. The detrital feedingregime of both species is futher indication of or-ganic pollution in the study area, as is the fact thatEnteromorpha sp.,which tolerates pollution, domi-nates the flora of the region.

Pressures

This section presents an overview of the pressuresfacing the SEPA (summarized in Table 1). It shouldbe noted that the two key areas of the SEPA Fethi-ye and Gcek are quite different in size, level of



on the bay. On the other hand samples in the rainyseason indicate no significant anthropogenic im-pact (Okuet al., 2007). Likewise, in Gcek-Dala-man Bays, a positive correlation has been observedbetween the amount of solid waste and the numberof boats visiting the bays (Derinsu, 2009). Gemil-er Island Bay, Hamam Bay, Yassca Islands andGcek Harbour are the main zones where solidwaste tends to accumulate (ibid).

Sedimentation is another important issue affectingthe SEPAs ecological integrity. In Fethiye inner port,fresh water comes from the irrigation canals whichalso transports sediment characterized by silt andmud. Rocks, gravel and sands are observed only inseveral narrow sections (Okuet al., 2007). The Mu-nicipality is trying to manage the siltation of FethiyeBay (personnal communication Recai eker).

Fethiye Gulf is 9 km2

. The water depth in the Gulfvaries - in the eastern part of the Gulf, the depthsare quite shallow; however, in the middle parts thedepth rises to 20 m. The Gulf is the natural dischargepoint of Susambeleni, zml, Eldirek, Ksebkpliki, and Murt streams. Ko (2012) evaluates theenvironmental effects of sediment transported anddeposited at Fethiye Gulf and suggests future meas-ures in the plain and upper basins to minimize pos-sible sediment accumulation. The study determinesthat approximately 3.62 million m3of sediment hasbeen transported to the gulf, narrowing the Gulfarea by up to 7 ha. The weight of transported sedi-ment to the gulf is between 2.75 and 2.80 g cm3. Dis-solved oxygen values in the gulf were measured atbetween 8.0 and 9.0 mg/lt (Okuet al., 2007).

Sources of materials polluting the Gulf identifiedby examining samples taken from stations and byobservations in the region are: (a) fine and largegrained sediment transported during floods due toerosion caused by inadequate vegetation in upperbasins;(b) trash material and construction wastematerial, dumped in canals and streams by localpeople that are then transported to the Gulf duringfloods; and, (c) public and private ferrochromousfacilities1. Ko (2012) concludes that sedimenttransportation does not occur in discharge canals

1 These facilitites have not been able to deposit their fine grained sediment load and this load is therefore carried to the Gulf by canals and streams.The amount of suspended very fine grained material in the water from the discharge canals varies between 1.0 and 16.0 mg/lt. The amount ofsuspended solids in the samples taken from open discharge canals belonging to ferrochromous facilities varies between 25.0 and 65.0 mg/lt. Thisindicates that the principal element, except for flood, that causes the Gulf to be filled up with sediment is chrome washing plants. Discharge canalsused by ferrochromous facilities to drain their chrome ore washing waters have low flow rates and high concentrations of Cr, Pb, and Hg metalshave been found in these canals. ATSDR (1995) and USEPA (1993) state that the contaminated sediments pose both ecological and human healthrisk throughout the United States, and that roughly 10% of the sediments from the nations lakes, river, and bays are contaminated with toxicchemicals that can adversely affect aquatic organisms or impair the health of humans or wildlife, who consume contaminated fish or shellfish.

during the dry season due to the insufficient trans-portation power of the flow in stream beds; it isonly possible with flood discharges. All the canalsare located in settlement area limits and thus do-mestic waste is transported to the Gulf. In addi-tion, inorganic fine grained material is transportedby open discharge canals of ferrochromous plants.The high heavy metal contents existing in streamsand discharge canals threaten the Gulf.

Development pressures are evident especially in theFethiye section of the SEPA. In 2010, there was a 64%increase in building permits within Fethiye districtsurban zone (Fethiye Chamber of Commerce and In-dustry 2011). Furthermore, in Fethiye two additionaldevelopment projects are planned the Municipal-ity Yacht harbour and a pier for cruise boats. Theseprojects are awaiting their EIA and the MoEU hasreportedly requested a carrying capacity assesmentfor Fethiye bay (personal communication FethiyeChamber of Commerce and Industry). Currently thebay is not deep enough to receive cruise ships, how-ever many commentators believe that this would bea very positive development for the town as Fethiyebay would then serve as the only stopover point forcruise liners between Antalya and Izmir and there-fore would be well utilised. Controlling sedimenta-tion is important to maintain the depth of the bay.Fethiye is already a developed town, and plans toopen up the area to cruise ships indicates a wish to

promote mass tourism in the area, rather than to fo-cus on conservation.

Many of the beaches used by sea turtles are inten-sively used and very built up. Usage of these beach-es is controlled and monitorted at specific times,however there are concerns regarding the impactof current levels of development and managementon the turtles reproduction processes (see Box 1).



Box 1. Management of Fethiyes Specially Protected nesting beach

Fethiye is one of the most important loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) nesting sites in Turkey. Fethiye has three beachsections: al(2.5 km), Yanklar (4.5 km) and Akgl (1 km). However, unplanned construction and developments to ac-commodate tourism are threatening nesting population, resulting in a serious decline in nesting (Trkozan, 2000; Trkozan,2003; Oru et al., 2003; Ilgaz et al., 2007). In spite of the drop in nesting (there were 191 nests in 1995 falling to 58 in 2004)the average number of nests for 12 consecutive years still makes this beach one of the most important nesting sites in Turkey(8.8% of the nests laid annually) In its Recommendation No. 66 (1998) on the conservation status of some nesting beaches

for marine turtles in Turkey, the Bern Convention Standing Committee asked the Turkish government to secure the remain-ing un-built beach plots against development in Fethiye. GDPNA organised meetings in Fethiye with stakeholders in 2010,to find out about the problems in the area. GDPNA also developed an Action Plan for the area to try to resolve problems andto apply beach usage principles in 2011.

As well as sea turtle protection and monitoring project has been incessantly carried out by the GDPNA at the beach since1989.

4

5



Table 1. Overview of Pressures in Fethiye-Gcek SEPA

Pressure Description Context / Policy Driver Sector Responsible

Intensive use of turtlenesting beaches

The turtle nesting zones on albeach can be harmedby lights and intensive use (see Box 1).

Tourism

Intensive use of marinebays by boats and yachts

Fethiye-Gcek SEPA is one of the most popular yachtingareas in Turkey and is served by a number of public andprivate marinas and docks.In the ODT study (conducted between August andmid-October), it was determined that Gcek Bays alonereceived over 25,000 boats with an average of 314 boats/day.

Anchoring activities (and marine pollution) harm themarine vegetation including the Mediterranean endemicPosidonia oceanica seagrass communities. If thenegative effects of the anchors are not mitigated, itis foreseen that the Posidonia oceanica, Cymodocea

nodosaandZostera marinacommunities will completelydisappear from some of the popular bays in the SEPAsuch as Byk Samanlk, Hamam, Bedri Rahmi bays.

- The carrying capacity ofGcek Bay is assessed tobe 1,111 boats/yachts at anytime. The Coast Guard isresponsible for implementingthis quota.- The carrying capacity forother parts of the SEPA isunknown.- A marine management planhas not yet been developedfor the SEPA

Marine tourism

Solid and waste waterpollution caused byyachts

Yachts in Gcek Bays piers and marinas are estimatedto release 28m3of wastewater and produce up to 382 kgof solid waste a day. In addition yachts navigating or

anchored in Gcek/Dalaman Bays are estimated torelease 360m3of waste water - excluding bilge waterleaks and produce around 4,000 kg solid waste daily(ODT. 2007). Waste water leakages from the boatsleads to the deterioration of the water column andsediment quality which in turn affects sensitive marinespecies. In areas where water is stagnant and tourismactivities are intensive, visibility is reported to reduce toabout 30 cm.

- Poor compliance with wastedisposal rules by commercialand private boats/yachts

-Inadequate implementation/monitoring of existingregulations and process suchas the Blue Card system andinsufficient patrolling of thebays.

Marine tourism

Marine pollution due tohuman activities

Analysis of suspended solids at chosen stations of theSEPA ranged from 16.8 to 29.6 mg/L, which is below theTurkish threshold of 30 mg/L, but higher than previousanalyses from the Northeastern Mediterranean (Derinsu,2009). Furthermore, the absorption capacity of heavymetals in Fethiye Bay seems close to saturation. This isdue to Fethiye towns intensive terrestrial inputs to thesea. Surface water quality assessments also reveal highcoliforms and fecal streptococcus in Yanklar Beach andFethiye Bay.

- Insufficient water treatmentinfrastructure for houses andother buildings.- Inefficient monitoring ofactivities impacting the SEPAsand functioning system offines.

Housingdevelopments,terrestrial and marinetourism

Exotic species A total of 93 exotic marine species belonging to 11taxonomic groups have been identified within the SEPA.They mainly consists of exotic fish species (23 spp)followed by Crustacea (20 spp.), Polychaeta (17 spp.)and Mollusca (18 spp.) Magnoliophyta is representedwith one exotic species, Halophila stipulacea. Theinvasive puffer fish causes damage to fishing gear in theregion.

Commercial boating

Coastal developmentsand pressures

Activities related to tourism and agriculture placeadditional pressure on the SEPAs coastal ecosystems.In particularly there is pressure on surface and ground

water sources between Fethiye and Gcek whichimpacts marine productivity. A 64% increase in buildingpermits has been noted within Fethiye district urban zonein 2010.

- Excessive and uncontrolledhousing and tourismdevelopments

- Lack of an effective marinemanagement scheme

Tourism andagriculture

Acoustic pollution The extensive use of the bays in Fethiye-Gcek SEPA byboats (both for navigation and nautical sports) results innoise pollution. These acoustic impacts tend to stressthe marine creatures and influence their reproduction,migration, feeding and navigation functions.

Lack of monitoring Marine tourism

Depletion of fish stocks Official figures do not exist; however, fish population inthe SEPA are threatened by illegal spear gun huntingand trawling activities. Yachts and boats also carry outunregistered fishing in the bays of the SEPA.

Lack of monitoring Fishing

Source: ODT, 2007; Derinsu, 2009; Fethiye Chamber of Commerce and Industry, 2011 and field interviews



Socio-economic characteristics of site

Fethiye-Gcek SEPA consists of a district center(Fethiye), five towns (ldeniz, Karaulha, am-ky, iftlik and Gcek) and six villages (Gkeo-vack, nlice, Karg, Yanklar, Kayaky and Keiler)(Optimar, 2010). Based on the 2009 census, the rele-

vant districts and villages that fall within the Fethi-ye-Gcek SEPA have a total population of 102,109people of which 51% are men (Keskin et al., 2011.Table 2 presents regional population data for 2009.

Table 2. Fethiye Gcek SEPA Regional Population in2009

Settlement TOTAL Male Female

Fethiye Center 72,003 36,225 35,778

amky 3,940 2,027 1,913

iftlik 2,620 1,358 1,262

Gcek 4,039 2,118 1,921

Karaulha 12,794 6,452 6,342

ldeniz 4,532 2,383 2,149

Gkeovack 380 191 189

nlice 830 431 399

Karg 1,501 726 775

Kayaky 680 351 329

Keiler 193 99 94

Yanklar 1,791 891 900

TOTAL 105,303 53,252 52,051

Source: Optimar, 2010

With a population surpassing 100,000 in the sum-mer, Fethiye district center is one of the biggest of theMula Province (Optimar, 2010). In fact, 23% of thetotal population of Mula lives in Fethiye. Accord-ing to the 2009 Population Census, the district pop-ulation increased by 39% in 2009 compared to 37%in 2008. On the other hand village populations de-creased by 60% compared to 62% in 2008 (ibid). Oth-er important settlements in the SEPA are ldenizwith a population of 4,531 and Gcek with a popu-

lation of 4,039. Based on more recent data sources,the population of Fethiye town is now estimated tobe around 80,000, with a population of more than188,000 including the surrounding villages (FethiyeChamber of Commerce & Industry, 2011). The pop-ulation of Gcek is 5,000, increasing to 7,000-8,000 inthe summer (personal communication Recep atr).The literacy rate is 96% for the district (comparedwith 94% in Turkey overall) with 7% of the residentshave graduated from university (Fethiye Chamberof Commerce & Industry, 2011).

According to the same study, agriculture is prom-inent in Fethiye with 55% of the population in-volved in agriculture (around 20,500 people). Mostof the agriculturally fertile areas in Mula are sit-uated in Fethiye town, which is surrounded withgood quality land which can be conveniently irri-gated. The agricultural area covers 64,522 hectaresand consists of 34,157 hectares of farm-land, 6,800hectares of open vegetable area, 2,498 hectares ofgreenhouse cultivation area, 4,333 hectares of or-chards, 6,123 hectares of fallow area, 10,010 hec-tares of olive trees and 1.1 hectares of ornamen-tal plants. Wheat is the most important crop with88,125 tons produced on 235,000 decares in 2010(Fethiye Chamber of Commerce & Industry 2011).In the same year, 80 tons of organic goods wereproduced in the district.

According to the Mula Directorate of Agricul-ture, tomato, cucumber, eggplant and melon arethe most produced greenhouse vegetables. In 2009,250,000 tons of tomatoes were produced in green-houses. The export of tomatoes had an importantshare (97%) in total exports of fresh vegetables andfruits in 2009 (ibid) generating about 115 millioneuros in 2008 in Mula (Mula Directorate of Ag-riculture, 2010). Cultivation of vegetables brings intotal gross domestic income of 352,200,000 TL.

In the 1930s Gcek was dependent on chrome min-ing. Mining created an important source of reve-nue for the town and allowed it to develop fasterthan other areas in the region. For example, it wasone of the first districts to have a high school andthe majority of its inhabitants over 65 are universi-ty graduates. From the 1980s, following the declinein mining opportunities, yacht tourism was devel-oped, promoted by ex President of the RepublicTurgut zal, whose frequent visits to the area at-tracted a lot of publicity for the town. The town hasretained its attraction for celebrities. Today, every-one in Gcek is dependent on tourism in one way

or the other (personal communication Recep atr).The socio-economic profile of Gcek town is re-ported to be higher than its neighboring settle-ments with a growing shift from agriculture andanimal husbandry practices towards the servicesector (ODT, 2007). In line with the increase in de-mand for yachting and tourism accomodation, thenumber of restaurants and shops have developedto support the (yacht) tourism sector. An upscalereal estate market has also gained importance inthe town (ibid).



Marine Ecosystem Services Typology

A typology of marine and coastal ecosystem servic-es has been developed for this study following theecosystem service approach (ESA), which is basedon the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005)classification of ecosystem services into the follow-

ing four categories: Provisioning services relate to the tangible

products, such as fish and pharmaceuticals,provided by marine ecosystems;

Regulating services refer to the marineenvironments natural processes such as wasteassimilation and carbon sequestration thatcontribute to social wellbeing;

Cultural services may be associated with bothuse and non-use values and relate to the non-material benefits obtained from ecosystems, for

example, through tourism and educational useof the marine environments; and, Supporting services are necessary for the produ-

ction of all other ecosystem services (e.g. soil for-mation or nutrient cycling). They differ from theother services in that their impacts on people areeither indirect (via provisioning, regulating orcultural services) or occur over a very long time.

The ESA explicitly recognizes that ecosystems suchas marine environments and the biological diversi-ty contained within them contribute to individual

and social wellbeing. Importantly it recognizes thatthis contribution extends beyond the provision ofgoods such as fish 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.

It is important to note that economic valuation isfocussed on the final benefits or outcomes real-ised by society from the services marine ecosys-tems provide, not the services and functions that

contribute to those outcomes. This is to avoid dou-ble counting. The benefits generated by supportingservices, while fundamental to the provision of fi-nal benefits, are not valued independently as theyare intermediate benefits which contribute to theprovision of a range of final benefits. Their value iscaptured in the valuation of the final outcomes as-sociated with the services they support. Supporting

6

Qualitative

Ass es sm ent ofEc osystem Se rvic es



services include soil formation and retention, pri-mary production and habitat provision2.

Health is also not explicitly listed as an ecosystemservice as health benefits are considered to be pro-vided by a range of services such as fish, flood pro-tection benefits and a clean environment for recrea-

tion. The health cost associated with a deteriorationin these services may be used to measure the ben-efits provided by the marine ecosystem. Biodiver-sity is also considered to be cross cutting, the finalbenefits of which could be associated with a rangeof services. An exception is biodiversity non-usewhich is listed as a separate service.

Table 3 provides a typology of marine ecosystemservices and a qualitative assessment of the ma-rine ecosystem services provided at Fethiye-GcekSEPA. Each ecosystem services has been rated as

follows: ** means that the service is important, *means that the service is provided, - means theservice is not relevant at the site, and ? means thatthere isnt enough information to determine wheth-er the services is present or not, so its provision isuncertain. Table 3 also identifies the sectors thatare supported by (or benefits from) the provisionof each ecosystem service and the sectors that caninfluence the quality and quantity of that service.

The typology presented in Table 3 does not includemarine sub-habitat types, which can include hard

beds, rocks, muds, sands, gravels, seagrass meadowsand caves. The extent of services provided will de-pend on the specific sub-habitat type. The availabledata at Fethiye-Gcek SEPA did not warrant this lev-el of detail, with the exception of the Posidonia mead-ows (seagrasses) which form an important input intothe economic valuation. In support of this approachAusten et al., 2010 states that in the case of the ma-rine environment the spatial data are less essential,as most marine environments deliver most marineecosystem services, albeit to differing amounts.

Provisioning services

3.1.1. Food

The main food products provided by Fethiye-GcekSEPA is fish and other related sea products.

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

3.1.2. Raw materials

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

goods such as shells. The provision of genetic re-sources, natural medicines and ornamental prod-ucts at the site is unknown.

Regulating services

3.1.3. Regulation of GHGs

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

2

emissions and has two inter-connected CO2 absorption circuits: the biologicalpump and its physico-chemical counterpart. Atthe global level, the latter has been responsible formost of the capture of CO2of human origin, whilethe biological pump is consider still be working asit did before the dawn of the industrial age (Nelle-mann et al., 2009). The sequestration of CO2emittedby human activities by the physico-chemical pump(through a process of solubility), shows little de-pendence on ecosystem quality. However, it leadsto the gradual acidification of the oceans, which will

have a considerable effect on marine ecosystemsand the living resources produced, particularly inthe Mediterranean (CIESM, 2008; Gambaiani et al.,2009). This issue, about which little is yet known, isthe subject of many initiatives currently underway(Orr., 2009) and a European research programmeincluding the socio-economic consequences is setto be launched in the near future.

At the local level, the flow of carbon from the sur-face towards the sediment depends on biologicalprocesses, which in turn depend on ecosystemquality (and does not lead to the acidification of theenvironment).



Table 3. Qualitative assessment of marine ecosystem services and benefits at Fethiye-Gcek SEPA

ES Type Service Benefit / outcome Significance Sectors supportedby ecosystemservice

Sectors impacting /influencing the provisionof ecosystem service

ProvisioningServices

Food Commercial and subsistence fish andwildlife

** Households,Fishery, Tourism

Households, Fishery,Agriculture, Industry

Fibre/materials Fibre and construction products, e.g.,reeds, and aggregates

? Households,Industry(constructionmaterials)

Households, Industry

Water Public water supply, water for industrialand agricultural usage

* Agriculture,Industry, Tourism

Agriculture, Industry,Tourism

Natural medicines Natural medicines * Household Households, Fishery,Agriculture, Industry

Biochemicals Biochemicals and genetics ? Agriculture

Ornamentalresources

Ornamental resources ? Industry

Source of energy

(fuel etc)

Energy provision e.g., hydropower - Energy

Transport Commercial use of waterways * Industry

RegulatingServices

Regulation ofGHGs

Carbon sequestration * Potentially all Potentially all

Micro-climatestabilization

Air quality * Potentially all

Water regulation(storage andretention)

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

Waste processing Detoxification of water and sediment /waste

*

Nutrient retention Improved water quality * Fisheries,Agriculture

CulturalServices

Spiritual, religious,cultural heritage

Archaeological ruins (historical notrecreational value). Use of marineenvironment in books, film, painting,folklore, national symbols, architecture,advertising

** Tourism,Households

Educational A natural field laboratory forunderstanding marine and coastalprocesses

* Households Potentially all

Recreation andecotourism

Recreational fishing, birdwatching,hiking, canoeing, Holiday destination(aesthetic views, hot springs),

archaeological ruins (historical notrecreational value)

** Tourism Potentially all

Landscape andamenity

Property price premiums due to views ** Tourism Potentially all

Biodiversity non-use

Enhanced wellbeing associated forexample with bequest or altruisticmotivations

* Potentially all Potentially all

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



About 35-50% of the carbon production of the coast-al ocean is estimated to be a result of the photosyn-thesis by marine macrophytes including seagrasses(Duarte & Cebrian, 1996). These marine plants havea global average biomass of about 180 g/cm2 andan average net production of about 400 g/cm2/yr,ranking amongst the most productive ecosystemsin the biosphere (The Encyclopaedia of Earth, 2011).

In the Mediterranean the matte (sheaths and rhi-zomes) produced by the Posidonia meadows storea carbon flow, which has been estimated at 1.2 mil-lion tonnes of carbon per year (Pergent, 1997). Thusthe preservation or restoration of these coastal eco-systems contributes to the sustainability of thisecosystem service. The Mediterranean Posidoniaaccumulates in its subsurface large quantities of or-ganic material derived from its roots, rhizomes andleaf sheaths embedded in often sandy sediments(Lo Iacono et al., 2008). These organic depositscan reach up to several meters as they accumulateover thousands of years forming what is known asmatte, whose high content in organic carbon playsa crucial role in the global carbon cycle (ibid). Posi-donia oceanica is considered to be one of the mostextensive coastal reservoirs of CO2because of thepreservation of this matte along the Mediterraneancoasts over time (Duarte et al.; 2005). This in-situaccumulation of large quantities of biogenic ma-terials over millennia is an important ecological

phenomenon and occurs only in few ecosystemssuch as peats, coral reefs and mangroves besidesseagrass meadows (Mateo et al., 1997).

Despite their global importance, there is growingevidence that seagrasses are experiencing an un-precedented level of damage and deterioration(Orth et al., 2006). It is estimated that seagrassmeadows are being lost due to anthropogenic eco-system impacts at a rate of up to two football fieldsper hour, roughly similar to tropical rainforest con-version (Unsworth & Unsworth 2010). Posidonia

can provide a range of regulating services, in addi-tion to carbon sequestration, as discussed in Box 2.

Along with Cystoseira spinosa communities, Po-sidonia oceanica meadows at the Fethiye-GcekSEPA show a wide distribution (observed at 34diving stations out of 83) and have a relativelycomplex biotope structure (Derinsu, 2009). Thefaunistic analysis from 13 Posidonia samplingsdemonstrate a high biodiversity presence with 212species belonging to 8 systematic groups, dominat-ed by Polychaeta (ibid). Posidonia shoots within

the Fethiye-Gcek SEPA show a variation of 10-625 per square meter (ibid). In closed bays of theSEPA with less oxygenation such as Hamam andByk Samanlk Bays, the Posidonia leaves wereobserved to be covered by mucilage and in otherbays with heavy boating traffic, the meadows weresubject to damage due to anchoring activities (ibid).

Box 2. Seagrass meadows (Posidonia oceanica)

Posidonia oceanicaare a type of land-based flowing plant,which returned to the marine environment some 120 to100 million years ago. They form vast underwater mead-ows (also known as beds) at a depth of between 0 and 50metres in the open seas and in the brackish and saltwa-ter coastal lagoons. Posidonia oceanicais endemic to theMediterranean and a highly productive system supportinghigh levels of biomass (Lo Iacono et al., 2008). Despitebeing endemic its distribution is restricted due to anthro-pogenic disturbances; their total surface area witnhin theMeditterranean is about 38,000 km2(Mangos et al., 2010).

Posidonia seagrass communities provide a wide range ofEcosystem Services:

The Posidonia meadows are the leading Mediterraneanecosystem in terms of biodiversity provision, supportinga quarter of its recorded marine species over an area es-timated to cover almost 1.5% of the seabed.

They serve as spawning grounds and nurseries for manycommercial species and the source of major primaryproduction, thereby supporting the fishing industry.

They protect beaches against erosion (by reducing hy-drodynamism and by trapping sediment in the matte).The dead leaves of Posidonia oceanicafound on shores

act as a natural barrier reducing the energy of the wavesand minimizing erosion. They also play an important rolein beach and dune systems.

They encourage water transparency, thereby supportingtourism and providing an effective tool for monitoring thequality of coastal waters.

They trap and absorb man-made CO2. According to a

recent report seagrasses are the most effective speciesin terms of long-term carbon storage (Laffoley & Grims-ditch, 2009).

They produce oxygen and are known as the lungs of thesea with +/- 14 lt O

2/m/day capacity on average

The cycle nutrients through their plant growth.

They operate as coastal water filters. Subsurface rhi-zomes and roots stabilize the plant while erect rhizomesand leaves reduce silt accumulation.

Source: Based on Mangos et al., 2010

3.1.4. Micro-climate stabilization

Oceans play a role in regulating the atmosphere andmodulating weather. While it is thought that thisecosystem services is provided by both the marineand wetland ecosystems of Fethiye-Gcek SEPA,there are no scientific studies defining this service.



treatment if it were to be taken up by terrestrialsystems, and therefore would entail increase treat-ment costs. Marine living organisms store, buryand transform many waste materials through as-similation and chemical de and re-composition(Beaumont et al., 2007). The capacity of marine eco-systems to absorb, detoxify, process and sequesterwaste shows a wide variation. Some toxic pollut-ants, such as heavy metals, cannot be convertedinto harmless substances, whereas some organicwaste can even encourage ecosystem developmentthrough its biomass and benefit ecosystems. Ma-rine ecosystems provide an ecosystem service forthe quantity of waste below the threshold at whichit becomes harmful to them (Mangos et al., 2010).

While this service is thought to be provided byFethiye-Gcek SEPA, there are no site specific stud-

ies defi

ning or quantifying this service for the area.

Cultural Services

3.1.7. 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 play

a significant role in the economic or cultural defini-tion of the community (Beaumont et al., 2007).

Communities living in Fethiye-Gcek SEPA de-pend on marine resources directly (i.e. fishing) orindirectly (marine tourism and related busineses)for

Economic Analysis of Fethiye Gocek Special Environmental Protection Area

Documents

Transcript of Economic Analysis of Fethiye Gocek Special Environmental Protection Area