0414-A5
Ýdris DURUSOY 1
Turkey forest and forestry system has some different aspects from Europe and America forestry such as ownership, social, economic and legislative frameworks. Although there may some problematic issues such as social and economic structure of sector, it can be said there is sufficiency in many areas even if minimal for forest certification. It is necessary to make developments to reach a certifiable degree on some issues. But, availability of pre-conditions of certification is not sufficient especially market conditions. However, forest certification can play driving role to promote sustainable forest management in Turkish forestry. Initiatives related to forest certification practices should be started particularly for non-market benefits.
The last decade witnessed new developments in forest management. As a result of concern over the depletion of the forests, especially tropics, governments, environmental groups, wood product industry, and customers have become more aware that the market and the consumer behaviors can be used to promote sustainable forest management. Besides, there has been a significant increase in the efforts to develop processes, methods, and programs to set standards and evaluate forest management in light of those standards.
Forest certification emerged in this process as a market-based response, supported by environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs), to address consumer concerns related to deforestation and quality of forest management.
Forest certification is a process which results in a written certificate being issued by an independent third party, attesting to the location and management status of a forest which is producing timber (Baharuddin and Simula 1994). Certification has been supported for various reasons. Yet, there are two main objectives (Bass 1995; Cabarle et al. 1995): to improve forest management and enhance multiple values from forests and to link informed consumer with the products produced in an environmental and socially responsible manner.
National situation of the forestry can give an idea about the sustainability of forest management, although certification is applicable to the management unit level. So, this paper evaluates forest certification for Turkish forests and the forestry sector regarding the main characteristics related to certification.
Turkish forests cover 26,6% of land area-20 763 248 ha. Productive high and productive coppice forests' share is about 48,3% - 10 027 568 ha. Degraded high forests and coppices covers remaining areas -51,7%. Average volume per ha is 153 m 3 in productive high forest, while it is 45 m 3 in productive coppice (SPO 2001).
Management plans for 1999 arranged to harvest 11,9 million m 3 from productive high forests and 7,8 million ster from productive coppices. However average production of last 6 years was 9 mil m 3 at high forest and 2,7 mil m 3 at coppice forests. These volumes were lesser than the total harvesting volumes in the management plans.
State owns 99,9% of forests in Turkey. The Ministry of Forestry (MOF) is responsible for conservation, improvement, planning, management and utilization of all forests in Turkey. General Directorate of Forestry (GDF) carries many of these activities. There are three central forestry agencies as well; General Directorates of National Parks, And Game and Wildlife, Afforestation and Erosion Control, and Forests and Rural Affairs (ORKOY).
There are certain problems in the institutional framework. GDF and the other three agencies are organized separately. This cause redundant expenses and coordination troubles for the sector. Furthermore, there is a serious perception problem in the sector. Sector's institutions and staff consider forestry as a narrow extended activity. Thus, some activities referring to the using of forests resources particularly ecological values are not regarded in the forestry. Likewise, forestry regarded mainly in the biological context and economical and social effects of forestry are seen insignificant (Geray 1993).
The Constitution and the forest law (No: 6831) constitute the main legal framework for the forestry. The sustainability of forests and the interactions between forests and the public are addressed in the Constitution and a number of other Turkish laws. Constitution gives the direction as "measures for the development of the people living in or around the forests, for the conservation of the forests and their integrity, and for the enhancement of the public-State relations in terms of protection and utilizing of the forest will be taken". Constitutional bases exist for the sustainable forest management (SFM). However, Constitution and forest law may also obstruct the sustainable management of the forests such as 2/B, an application of removing some areas from legal forest status. Furthermore, among the reasons for diminishing of forest in the period of 1950-1997, legal arrangements have placed first (Çaðlar 1998).
Forestry sector's sources of revenue are the basic capital of the sector, general budget and treasury contribution. Basic capital includes sales of forest products, entrance fees for national parks, nature parks and protected areas and allocation, and usage of forest land for other purposes than forestry. Basic forestry revenues covered 90% of the forestry expenditures in 1995. This figure was 70% in 1996, 69% in 1998, and 57% in 1999 (SPO 2001).
GDF have been forced to sale timber products at lower prices than the estimated sale price even than the cost price at last decade. Besides, GDF's sale revenues declined 37% form 1987 to 1997. Reasons were the drop in timber prices due to abolishing of duties on imported wood, lower prices of the imported timbers, decreasing of the roundwood share in the timber production, and declining of auction sales 10%.
These developments have had great effect on financial viability of the sector. GDF has failed to meet expenses from it is basic revenues due to lessening of the revenues, economic load of the public nature services and some transferring to the other agencies.
One of the most problematic issues of Turkish forestry is the poverty in rural and forest areas. About 7 million people dwell in 18 688 forest villages. This population is 50% of the total rural population in Turkey (Konukçu 2001). Living standards of these people are much lower than national even rural average. These people depend heavily on forest resources and degrade in some ways such as clear-cutting for settlement and agricultural purposes, illegal cutting, and livestock grazing etc (Türker and Ayaz 1997). State forestry agencies provide forest villages woods at low prices. Yet, there is significant fuelwood usage in these villages. The primary goal of ORKÖY, one of main services agency of MOF, is supporting social and economic development of forest villages. This agency has supported some programs to contribute villager income. However, these efforts did not produce any essential developments in living standards of these villages. Also forest degradation in these villages is continuing.
State ownership is reflected in forest planning. Laws give responsibility of forest planning to the State. Regulation named as "preparation, application, controlling and revising of the forest management plans" provide main framework for the forestry planning. This regulation requires the preparing of forest management plans consider sustainability, economics, productivity, multiple-use, protection and aesthetic purposes in planning process. Nevertheless, forest management purposes at all enterprises excluding protection forests, is maximum timber production. Therefore, forest inventory is also timber production oriented. Inventories focus primarily on determining of the area, volume and increment of planning unit. Although forestry planning is rooted and based on laws and regulations, there are some deficiencies such as insufficient data on habitats causing management faultiness, not employing of cut forecast model, absence of planning choices and economic analyses, not using geographical information systems, digitalized and mapped forest values, not determining the flexible rotation period regarding management objectives etc (Baºkent et al. 2002).
Turkey has exported average 1,922 m 3 roundwood per year. Industrial and fuelwood export revenues is very little, while import levels and expenses are high. Industrial wood import has increased since 1985 and primarily between 1990 and 1993. Due to abolishing of duties, import level peaked in 1993 and has decreased since 1994. Now, average industrial wood import is 1,2-1,3 mil m 3 per year. But, foreign trade of non-wood forest products has different characteristics. The share of non-wood products in forest products export was 98% in 1990-1998 (SPO 2001).
While the existing certification programs differ in their requirements on "sustainable production", this issue is one of the key components of certification. Certification simply requires the harvesting rate not exceed levels that make possible sustainable production. There is a sustainable production level for the industrial wood in Turkey, regarding the increment, cut and harvesting amounts. However this situation does not comply with fuelwood production. Conversely, illegal fuelwood consumption was 101% of GDF's fuelwood production in 1999 (SPO, 2001). This figure clarifies the scope of the unsustainable production. But MOF now considers illicit fuelwood usage in estimating sustainable harvesting level (WB, 2001). Certification, thus, may cause to decrease of production levels in Turkey to some degree.
Certification also requires maintenance of biological diversity, soil and water resources, and global values of forests. Comprising high biological diversity, Turkish forests have invaluable importance at national, regional and global level. This is another factor which may cause to expand the area set aside for national parks and protected areas and decrease in the forest areas that are managed principally for timber production. Monitoring of ecological values is particularly important to conserve related values in Turkish forests.
Certification necessitate institutional framework support the conservation and sustainable management of forests. Existing institutional framework of the Turkish forestry sector has some deficiencies such as centralization in determining of goals, not considering of local conditions and demands, no need to transparency and participation, and coordination problems. All these issues need substantial changes to meet the requirements of the certification. Nowadays, one project related to reorganization of the GDF is being conducted.
Today, public participation in planning, policy making and the management activities is essential. With the increasing environmental awareness, forestry sector's interest groups are constantly expanding to include NGOs and local peoples. So, local demands and structure of the forests should be reflected in goal determining processes.
Certification requires a legal framework that clarifies property rights, provides for appropriate land tenure arrangements, recognizes customary and traditional rights of local people, and provides means of resolving property disputes (FSC 2002).
Certification calls for respecting the existing laws. Yet, legal framework and subjective arrangements based on the laws are among the limitations for the SFM. Forest law has changed for many times for political purposes.
Also, property problems are continuing in all country, particularly in the North-East Region. Legal framework needs reorganizing in Turkish Forestry considering the documentation and legally establishing of the long-term tenure and use rights to the land and forest resources.
Financial situation of the forest enterprise is a key factor to pursue SFM. One of three main components of the SFM is the economic sustainability. Turkish forestry sector's financial situation is a serious bottleneck for the SFM.
Forest management operations should encourage the efficient use of the forest's multiple products and services to ensure economic viability to be certifiable. Also, forest management and marketing operations should encourage the optimal use and local processing of the forest's diversity of products (FSC). While forests produce significant environmental benefits, these values haven't been considered in the financial evaluations. Nevertheless, the value of wood and some non-wood products is 50% of the total economic value of Turkish forests (Türker et al. 2001).
All SFM criteria and indicators process emphasize the economic and social development of the local people, public relations with various stakeholders and training of public. Social framework is probably most problematic issue for the SFM in Turkey. In fact, there are various attempts to contribute the development of the forest villages. Also, institutional and legal bases exist for this purpose. Yet, these factors haven't resulted in sufficient contribution to the villagers. Forest degradation particularly because of the fuelwood consumption is an important issue.
Forest management should enhance the social and economic situation of local communities. Certification can play role in application of participatory forest management. Certification has supported for the public communication tool in many countries. This function of certification is particularly important for the Turkish forestry.
Preparation, implementation and revising of a forest management plan is essential for the SFM and eventually for the certification. Turkish forest management has been conducted through management plans. However, the long term objectives of management and the means of achieving them are not clearly stated.
There is a certain need to incorporate social and economic issues and public demands in planning process. Also, environmental issues should be addressed in planning.
Certification of forest management performance can be an instrument for defining procedures for developing and agreeing location-specific goals and principles of forest management, as well as for verifying that these are implemented in practice (Bass and Simula 1999). Also, certification can play important role in internalizing the social and environmental externalities such as biodiversity conservation and carbon storage in Turkish forestry.
Certification can provide effectiveness to the planning and auditing in forest management. Because, certification requires auditing of operations in the field as well as documents related to the management. This is particularly important for the Turkish forestry as a public sector. Certification would important in Turkish forestry, for involving the local people, NGOs and the other interests groups in the management and policy process and providing effective protection and increased benefits to local communities.
Turkey forest and forestry system has some different aspects from Europe and America forestry such as ownership, social, economic and legislative. Especially Turkey differs form these countries in view of dominant state ownership. Today, both private and public forests have undertaken certification assessments. Public forests constitutes 43,4% of FSC certified forests. Public ownership has some beneficial characteristics regarding the SFM. State can direct the management of the forests to SFM by National Development Plans and The Forestry Main Plans. Public ownership would be a motive to sustain global values of forest resources in Turkish forestry.
There are some problematic issues for the SFM and certification in Turkish forestry. Nevertheless there is a sufficiency in many areas considering the certification standards even if minimal. There is a need to little modifications for many standards to be met. However, radical changes are needed in certain issues such as economical, legal and social structure of the sector.
Forests have become global resources. Turkey has followed International developments related to SFM. MOF has joined actively Pan-European and Near-East processes and given commitments about the pursuing of the SFM. Having unique biodiversity values, Turkish forests should be managed according to the SFM criteria and indicators and eventually the certification.
At first, certification has been designated to ensure market benefits for managers and/or owners that follow SFM. But, few companies got the market benefits. Certification have supported primarily for the non-market benefits. In Turkish forestry initiatives related to certification should be started for non-market benefits.
Forest certification can catalyze changes in legislative, institutional and social frameworks and may offer opportunities to increase recognition of the SFM in Turkish forestry. Certification also can have a knock on effect in the updating of national policies and regulations in Turkey (Durusoy 2002).
Certification of forest management performance can be an instrument for defining procedures for developing and agreeing location-specific goals and principles of forest management, as well as for verifying that these are implemented in practice (Bass and Simula 1999). Also, certification can play important role in internalizing the social and environmental externalities such as biodiversity conservation and carbon storage in Turkish forestry.
Certification can provide effectiveness to the planning and auditing in forest management. Because, certification requires auditing of operations in the field as well as documents related to the management. This is particularly important for the Turkish forestry as a public sector. Certification would important in Turkish forestry, for involving the local people, NGOs and the other interests groups in the management and policy process and providing effective protection and increased benefits to local communities.
Baharuddin, H.G. and Simula, M., 1994, Certification Schemes for all Timber and Timber Products, Report for the International Tropical Timber Organization, Yokohama, Japan.
Bass, S., 1998, Introducing Forest Certification - A Report Prepared by the forest Certification Advisory Group for DG VIII of the European Commission; European Discussion Paper 1; IIED, London, UK.
Bass S. and Simula M., 8-9 November, 1999, Independent Certification/Verification of Forest Management; Background Paper For The World Bank/WWF Alliance Workshop, Washington, D.C.
Baskent E.Z., Köse, S., Yolasigmaz H.A., Çakir G. and Keles S., 18-19 April 2002, Evaluation and Redesign of Planning Process, Proceeding of Symposium on New Concepts and Objectives in Forest Management, (23-37), Istanbul.
Çaðlar, Y., 1998, Sustainability and the Turkish Forestry, Environment Foundation of Turkey Publication No: 126, (61-75), Ankara.
Durusoy, I, 2002, Certification and Analysis of Necessity, Applicability and Possible Problems and Opportunities to Application Process in Turkish Forestry, MSc Dissertation in Department of Forestry Engineering, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey.
FSC, 2002, FSC Principles and Criteria, Forest Stewardship Council, Oaxaca, Mexico.
Geray 1993, Problems Related to Improvement of Forest Management in Turkey, Journal of Ýstanbul University Forestry Faculty, Series: A, Volume:43, No: 2 (11-30), Ýstanbul.
Konukçu, M. (2001) Forests and Turkish Forestry, State Planning Organization Publication No: 2630, Ankara, 238 p.
SPO, (State Planning Organization) 2001, VIII. Five Year Development Plan, Forestry Special Experts Commission Report, Publication No: 2531, Ankara, Turkey.
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., Pak M. and Öztürk A., 2001, Total Economic Value and Evaluation of the Outputs Supplied by the Forest Resources, Proceeding of I. National Forestry Congress, Numbers 1, Ankara. 171-182
WB, World Bank 2001, Turkey Forestry Sector Review, Report No.22458-TU, 64 p.
1 Research Assistant, Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Forestry, Forest Engineering
Department, Division of Forest Economics, 61080-TRABZON/TURKEY,
E-Mail: [email protected]
2 Prof. Dr., Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Forestry, Forest Engineering
Department, Division of Forest Economics, 61080-TRABZON/TURKEY,
E-Mail: [email protected]
3 Prof. Dr., Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Forestry, Forest Engineering
Department, Division of Forest Management, 61080-TRABZON/TURKEY,
E-Mail: [email protected]