0412-A2
Mustafa F. Türker, Atakan Öztürk, Idris Durusoy and Mehmet Pak 1
Today, there are about 19 020 forest villages and 7 145 000 villagers in Turkey. This is nearly half of total rural population. They get the smallest portion of national income, US$200 per capita per year. In addition, the rate of unemployment in the forest villages is about 60%, above the national average. Also, as the small forest villages are located in the mountainous areas, it is very difficult and expensive to provide public services and to invest in these areas.
There are four approaches regarding the development of forest villages in the national and regional development plans and the current laws. The first one is to develop the forest villages in their own places, the second one is to transfer the forest villages where it is not possible to develop them in their own places, the third one is the central village approach and the last one is the village-city project. All these approaches are concerned with the improvement of the negative socio-economic conditions faced by forest villagers.
In this paper, socio-economic, cultural and demographic characteristics of forest villagers that lead to the destruction of forest resources will be reviewed. Then, the four approaches to the development of Turkish forest villages will be examined with theory and application.
Turkish forests cover 26.6 % of entire land area. About 99.9 % of these areas is owned and managed by the State. Some problems occur in sustainable managing the forest resources such as faulty applications, organization and management, the structure of forestry and particularly forest villages and villagers that are directly or indirectly related to forests.
Today, 7 145 339 people are dwelling in 19 020 forest villages in or near the forests. This population compromises about 15% of the total population and half of the rural population (SPO 2001). Social, economical, geographical and cultural situation of these villagers force them to make clear cutting for agricultural and settlement purposes, starting forest fires, illegal cutting and grazing. These activities have resulted in significant forest degradation.
These villagers committed 5,132 clear cutting, leading loss of the 19,037 and 15,921 illegal cutting, leading loss of 68,549 m3 wood material- offenses in 1997 (SPO 2001). However it is estimated that real level of the illicit offences and so the scope of the forest degradation is much higher than the records.
Both quality and quantity of the forests have decreased due to the socio-economic conditions of the forest villagers. Thus, Turkish forests have failed to produce timber and timber based products, hydrological, erosion control, climate mitigation, scientific, nature conservation and recreation functions.
This paper firstly describes the social, economical, geographical, and cultural characteristics of the forest villages and villagers in Turkey. Then, it clarifies the four present development approaches for the forest villages. Also it evaluates existing situations of forest villagers and development approaches for them together and gives recommendations about effective development of these villages to pursue sustainable forest management.
The history of the Turkish forest villages goes back to the Ottoman Empires. These villages are a part of Turkish cultural life patterns. In 1870, first code of practice for forestry which is called as Forestry Regulation includes arrangements and rights for the forest villagers. Even though there is out-migration from forest villages, there are a great number of forest villages. Furthermore, this migration form villages to the big cities resulted in distorted urbanization.
Forest village is described as "settlement areas which has forest land". But there are two different kinds of forest villages; in-forests and forest-neighboring. In-forest villages are the villages surrounded wholly by the forests. Forest-neighboring villages are the villages of which one, two or three side surrounded by the forests. Forest villages are the people permanently dwelling in these villages (Özdönmez et al. 1996).
2,5 million people live in 7,282 in-forest villages and 4,6 million people in 11,738 forest-neighboring villages. The total number of households in these villages is about 2 million. Population of the forest villages have declined at two last decade from 10,1 million to 7,1, largely due to out-migration (Table 1) (SPO 2001).
As a result of the high rates of out-migration skewed toward young people, the elderly now make up 14 percent of the total forest village population. Since most migrants are men, there is a disproportionately high female population in forest villages. As more men work outside the village, women take over timber harvesting and other traditional male activities (WB 2001).
Table 1. Forest villages and population
Year |
In-forests villages |
Forest-neighboring villages |
Total | |||
Number |
Population |
Number |
Population |
Number |
Population | |
1985 |
7 506 |
3 489 893 |
10 058 |
6 311 215 |
17 564 |
10 161 108 |
1990 |
7 488 |
3 644 868 |
10 542 |
5 472 608 |
17 490 |
9 117 476 |
1997 |
7 282 |
2 515 333 |
11 738 |
4 630 006 |
19 020 |
7 145 339 |
Average household size is 3,7 people and population per village is 376 people in the forest villages. The rate of people in active population, aging 15-64, is 50%. Invisible unemployment rate is about 60% and over the national average (SPO 2001).
Average altitude of the Turkey is 1132 m. Most villages settled on high altitudes and inaccessible areas. Agricultural land possibilities are limited and the lands are very mountainous and high steep. Irrigational water is available in11% of the total agriculture areas in the forest villages. Thus nearly whole agricultural activities have been done without irrigation (SPO 2001). Villagers who don't have enough land to earn their living make clear cutting for agricultural land. However these lands are loosing soils rapidly by erosion and so the productivity.
Settlement in these villages is very separated including 15-20 streets. Transportation is impossible in winter (SPO 2001). Thus, these people haven't benefited from public services such as health and education. This situation, added to the scarce revenue, clarify the reasons of the rural poverty.
Forest villagers also benefit by grazing their livestock in pastures in forests, although grazing in forests is illegal. Grazing their animals in the forest pastures allows villagers to save money that would otherwise be spent on animal feed.
Most village households, even those which own no land, own one or two cows and a few sheep or goats. The communal grazing systems are highly exploitative and do not allow the rangeland pastures to restoration (Muthoo 2001). Thus, heavy grazing can cause serious damage, particularly for forest regeneration. Degradation is also increased especially on steep slopes susceptible to soil erosion.
Also, because of the absence of the controlled grazing systems, meadows and rangelands planning for the animal feed, and the unproductive animal races, the productivity in livestock is also low.
Forest village households rely mostly on farming, livestock raising and working forestry activities. These revenues generally include expenditure components such as labor, machinery and seed. Thus, household budget in these villages often has deficit (Türker and Ayaz 1998).
Forest villages are poorer than the other Turkish villages. The most important indicators of their poverty levels are far below than the national average. Average land ownership in forest villages is significantly lower than the national average of 64 decares per household (Kudat et al. 1999).
At an annual US$ 200, the per capita income of these villages is much below than the natural average. And forest villages have received the lowest proportion of the government investment budget for infrastructure in all the national 5-year development plans (Muthoo 2001).
Total 270,000 workers -182,000 in harvesting, 63,000 in transporting and 15,000 stacking activities- employed total 24,300,000 day in 1999. In the same year, 6,000 workers employed for 1,230,000 day in afforestation activities. 8% of the workers employed in the forestry activities are permanent worker, remaining are the seasonal workers (SPO 2001).
Separate settlement and the hard climate conditions are effecting the education negatively. If there are enough students, they educated in their villages. If not, student is transferred to the bigger villages or to the close city centrums.
Children of all ages are educated together in multigrade classes. Because teacher training for multigrade education is inadequate, the quality of the education that children received is low (Kudat et al. 1999).
Because of the importance of the rural poverty in the forest villages, one of the four central agencies of the Ministry of Forestry is the General Directorate for the Forest and Village Relationships (ORKOY). The main objective of the ORKOY is protection, improvement, and maintenance of the forests and social and economical development of the forest villagers (Türker 2000).
Law No 6831 makes Ministry of Forestry responsible for the development of the forest villages. Law No 2924 for Supporting Development of Forest Villagers deals with resettlement and development support to the forest village communities that do not have adequate living conditions and development possibilities at their present locations. Regulation on the Development Fund for Forest Villages establishes a fund mainly for the development of the forest villages.
Having considerable population, forest villages are the rural settlements which have the greatest socio-economic problems. This is mainly due to the negative effects of the geographical positions and the expenses and difficulties of the providing public services to these villages (Erari 1987).
Eight Five Year Development Plan, the main macroeconomic plan providing long term strategies for all sectors, stresses the need for improvement of well-being of forest villages. Related strategy includes following statement; "Social and agricultural forestry activities, consisting of raising oaks, acacia and pines and other species providing multi faceted benefits and the production of medical, aromatic and decoration plants shall be improved with the aim of improving the prosperity of the forest villagers."
There are four approaches regarding the development of forest villages in the national and regional development plans and the current laws. First one is to develop the forest villages in their locations, second one is to transfer the forest villages that can not be developed in their locations, third one is central village approach and last one is village-city project. A similar characteristic of all approaches is to be concerning the improvement of negative socio-economic conditions faced by forest villagers.
Law No. 6831, Article 13, stipulates that priority given to these villages in the development support provided from the fund established according to Article 3 of this law. This approach focuses on the development of the forest villages in their own places by various means.
Law No. 6831, Article 13 regulates the resettlement of the forest villages that can not be developed in their locations. Law no. 6831, Article 2, defines the areas of land to be removed from legal classification as forests. Forest villages that can not be developed in their locations would firstly be transferred to these areas.
This approach has proposed in III. Five-Year Development Plan in 1970. Objectives of the central villages are meeting the villages' requirements with least expenditure and equally among the villages, accelerating the integration process of the rural people to the national market, and enhancement of the more appropriate settlement. Furthermore, these villages function as a station of the various public services and provide coordination among the public agencies supplying public services to the villages (Erari 1987).
The most recent approach is the village-city approach. While central villages and village-city are similar, the latter differs from first by more emphasizing economic scope of the development (Erari 1987). Village-city project focuses on rural development, increasing the cooperation among the villages, maximal benefit and minimal expense in supplying public services to these villages, and providing regional employment (Anonymous 2002).
Development approach for forest villages in their location includes mainly supports for the forest villages in social, economical, cultural, infrastructure issues etc. The government has responded to the problem of in a variety of ways. The field programs of ORKOY include provisions of subsidized credit for a range of income generating activities (bee-keeping, livestock development, greenhouses, mushroom producing, fish farming etc.), unrequited credit transferring to the village legal personalities, credits for the cooperatives and some wood -saving programs (efficient stoves, house isolation etc) (MOF 2001).
However, ORKOY have failed to achieve these tasks. Reasons can be summarized as follows: insufficient financial possibilities, inconsistent organizational structure, interruptions in implementation of the development plans, insufficient credits projected in these plans, abundance of the villages to give credits, employing political criteria rather than the scientific to choose villages to be given credits, littleness of the credits to provide scale size, credit auditing problems, deficiencies of villagers experiences and entrepreneur mentality (Türker 1999).
It is stated that ORKOY has accomplished only problem of roofing with wood in forest villages. ORKOY has given credits for this purpose to 116,974 households (MOF, 2001). In addition to the activities of ORKOY, policies and practices by forestry agencies are intended to benefit forest villagers through preferential employment in forestry practices, and through provision of fuel wood and roundwood at subsidized prices (WB 2001).
Natural disasters have affected the 20% of the villages (SPO 2001). Providing investments and infrastructures to these villages is very expensive and impossible in some villages. Also, topographical characteristics make impossible to raise livestock and make agriculture. Thus, villages assumed not to be developed in their locations were planned to be transferred in order to avoid damages to the forests and forest soil.
While this approach has been implemented about 50 years, it was successful in few villages. Reasons for the failure are the high expenses of transferring, conflicts to the customs and life patterns of the villages, insufficiency of the land for settlement and agriculture in resettlement areas, causing of the approach to increase the invisible unemployment in the agriculture sector (SPO 2001).
While lands removed from legal classification as forests by Article 2 were planned to be used for resettlement of the forest villages, these lands haven't been used for this purpose (SPO 2001). This approach hasn't been implemented successfully, although various laws and funds support resettlement.
The last two approaches are newer than the above. Central village and village-city approaches are also aim to develop forest villagers in their locations. These two approaches have same aspects in most issues. Both approaches intend arrangement of the rural settlements.
These approaches have possibilities to lessen the settlement in or near the forests, to make efficient and balanced distribution of the services and investments, to create new employment options, and to improve living standards (Erari 1987).
These approaches piloted in Ordu -Mesudiye- province in 9 villages. Also, projects in four other provinces -Van, Muş, Siirt and Düzce- have started to be implemented. There has been observed positive effects of the project on these areas. World Bank has credited 300 million US$ to implementation of the village city projects (Anonymous 2002).
Although there are legislative and organizational bases for the development of the forest villages, these people are still living in the poorest living standards. The land and livestock holdings of villagers and household incomes are substantially below the national average, levels of education are low, and out-migration is high. Thus, this population has affected forest resources and sustainable forest management negatively.
Local natural capital has potential to sustain the village life provided that these resources are used wisely and effectively. Thus, such alternatives for the improvement of forest villages as production of non-wood forest products, social forestry applications, agroforestry etc. can both help sustain the village life and prevent out-migration and distorted urbanization.
On the other hand, forestry sector should not be only sector responsible for the improvement of the living standards of the forest villagers. Livestock, agriculture, tourism and education are also relevant sectors to the forest villages. Therefore integrated multi-sector rural development activities should be started in forest villages.
Funds allocated to ORKOY show a decreasing trend, and forest-related credit programs can not survive without adequate funding. Therefore, a change in the credit approach, supported by an increase in the available funds, is necessary for ORKOY to contribute more effectively to the improvement of forest villagers' lives (Kudat et al. 1999).
ORKOY could more strategically catalyze sustainable -forest friendly- economic development in various ways, for example: providing advisory services to villagers on opportunities such as participation in standing sales being promoted by GDF; developing small industry, eco-tourism, hunting tourism and management; processing and marketing of non-wood forest products; use of water resources; etc. (WB 2001).
Public awareness of forest ecosystems and non-timber values of forests is very low. So, there is a need to increase the public awareness. However, this would not helpful to stop forest degradation in highly forest based communities without supplying alternatives for the livelihood such as fuel briquette (Türker and Ayaz 1997).
There has been increase in adoption that public participation in planning and determining forestry policies at last decade especially since the UN Conference on Environment and Development. The biggest stakeholders of forestry sector in Turkey are forest villagers. So, public participation may offer a tool for enhancement of both sustainable forest management and livelihood of villagers in Turkey.
Anonymous, 2002. Election Announcement Report of Democratic Left Party, Ankara.
Erari, F., 1987. Socio-Economic Framework and the Development of the Forest Villages, Social Sciences Institute of University of the Uludağ, PhD Thesis, Bursa, Turkey, 189 p.
Kudat, A., Özbilgin, B.B., Küleyin N., Yalçın, I., and Ayhan O., November 1999. Social Assessment for the Turkey Forest Sector Review, World Bank Social Development Papers, Paper No: 34, Washington D.C., 137 p.
MOF, Ministry of Forestry, 2001. General Directorate for Forests and Villages Relationships, Action Report of 1999 and 2000, Ankara, Turkey, 42 p.
Muthoo, M.K., 2001. Forests and Forestry in Turkey, Ministry of Forestry, Second Edition, Ankara, Turkey, 120 p.
Özdönmez, M., İstanbullu, T., Akesen, A. and Ekizoğlu, A., 1996. Forest Policy, Istanvul University Press No:3968, İstanbul, 417 p.
SPO, (State Planning Organization) 2001. VIII. Five Year Development Plan (2001-2005)- Forestry Special Experts Commission Report, State Planning Organization Publication No: 2531,Ankara, Turkey, 539 p.
Türker, M:F. and Ayaz H., 1997. Energy forestry and fuel Briquette As an Alternative to Illegal Fuelwood Consumption-An Obstacle to Sustainable Forestry, XI. World Forestry Congress, Antalya, Turkey.
Türker M.F. and Ayaz, H., 1998. Socio-Economic Structure of Forest Villages and Forest Degradation, Proceeding of the III. Ecology Summer Course, Environmental Education: Methods and Special Issues, (65-187), İzmir, Turkey.
Türker, M.F., 1999. Report for the Forest-Public Relations Working Group of VIII. Five Year Development Plan, Forestry Special Experts Commission Report, Ankara, Turkey, 11p.
WB, World Bank 2001. Turkey Forestry Sector Review, Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Unit, Europe and Central Asia Region, Report No.22458-TU, 64 p.
1 Professor, Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Forestry, Department of Forest Engineering, Division of Forest Economics, 61080 - Trabzon, Turkey. [email protected]