Page De Garde Etudes De Cas Turkie Mersin
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SILVA MEDITERRANEA Projet «Forêts méditerranéennes et développement durable » CASE STUDY ASSESSMENT OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC STRUCTURE AND FORESTRY ACTIVITIES IN FOREST VILLAGES IN MERSIN PROVINCE FROM THE POINT OF MEDITERRANEAN FORESTRY Villages : Olukkoyagi, Inköy, Ardiçli, Kesli, Emirler, Eminlik & Kusçular Melekber SULUSOGLU November 2004 SILVA MEDITERRANEA PLAN BLEU/ FAO PROJECT CONTRIBUTION OF FOREST RESOURCES TO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT A CASE STUDY CONDUCTED IN TURKEY, MERSIN (Villages: Olukkoyagi, Inköy, Ardiçli, Kesli, Emirler, Eminlik and Kusçular ) By Dr.Melekber SÜLÜSOGLU Dr.Ahmet SENYAZ Dr.Ersin YILMAZ CASE STUDY IN TURKEY SUMMARY A case study has been conducted in 7 forest villages of Mersin Province, Tarsus town in Turkey in order to determine contribution of Mediterranean forestry to sustainable development, in particular, livelihoods of forest villagers under the auspices of FAO and Blue Plan. With this study, forest resources and their impacts on forest villagers located in Mediterranean Region were investigated. To this end, opinion of local people, forestry staff and other stakeholders who have interest in forest resource management have been collected by using a participatory method. At the end of the survey sample scenarios for sustainable forestry practices have been formulated for the Region. In addition, attention of local authorities, ministries and related institutions have been drawn in order to build partnership and promote dialogue among them. FRENCH SUMMARY (Villages forestiers de Mersin) Résumé de l’étude : L’étude de cas a été conduite, sous les auspices de la FAO et le plan bleu, dans 7 villages forestiers de la province de Mersin, ville de Tarse en Turquie. L’objectif de l’étude est de déterminer la contribution de la forêt méditerranéenne au développement durable, en particulier, la vie des populations des villages forestiers. L’étude a concerné les ressources forestières et leurs impacts sur les villages forestiers situés dans la région méditerranéenne. À cette fin, l'opinion des populations locales, du personnel forestier et des autres partenaires concernés par la gestion des ressource forestières a été recueillie en en utilisant une méthode participative. Ainsi, des exemples de scénarios de pratiques de gestion forestière durable ont été formulées pour la région. En outre, l’étude a permis d’attirer l’attention des autorités locales, des ministères et des institutions concernés en vue de l’établissement d’un partenariat et favoriser le dialogue entre les différents protagonistes. 2005, 55 pages Key words: Mediterranean Region, forest resources, sustainable management, protection natural resources i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This case study is the result of strong collaboration and contribution of people from FAO , Plan Blue and Ministry of Environment and Forestry in Turkey. Special thanks to Mersin Regional Directorate of Forest, South-East Forestry Research Institute and Provincial Directorate of Environment and Forestry in Mersin for their active participation and supports. Appreciation is also extended to Mr. Jean De Montgolfier and Mr. Luc Dassonville, who are consultant and coordinator of Silva-Mediterranea/Plan Blue Regional Project, for their guidance and support. And thanks go to inhabitants of Olukkoyagi, Inköy, Ardiçli, Kesli, Emirler, Eminlik and Kusçular villages. Also, special thanks to all participants for their contribution in all stages of the studies. ii CONTENTS Summary Acknowledgements List of tables List of figures 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Purpose of the Survey 1.2. General Features of the Survey Area 1.2.1. Geographical situation 1.2.2. Background 1.2.3. Ecological features 1.2.3.1. Climate 1.2.3.2. Soil structure 1.2.3.4. Vegetation 1.2.4. Settlements 1.2.5. Ownership and management of forests 2. METHOD OF SURVEY 2.1. Preparatory Meeting and Field Trip 2.2. Participatory Activities with Villagers and Interested Groups 2.3. Compiling Statistical Data 2.4. Organizing a Workshop in Mersin and Building the Scenarios 2.5. Awareness Raising Trip 3. FINDINGS OF THE SURVEY 3.1. Survey Results in the Villages 3.1.1. General information about the villages 3.1.1.1. Olukkoyagi village 3.1.1.2. Inköy village 3.1.1.3. Ardiçli village 3.1.1.4. Kesli village 3.1.1.5. Kusçular village 3.1.1.6. Eminlik Village 3.1.1.7. Emirler Village 3.1.2. Results drawn by mapping and H form 3.1.2.1. Positive opinions of the villagers on natural resources, forests resources and activities iii 3.1.2.2. Negative opinions and scores of the villagers on natural resources, forests resources and activities 3.1.2.3. Recommendations and scores of the villagers for improvement of region, natural resources, forests resources and activities 3.2. Results from Negotiations with Line Agencies in the Region 3.2.1. Mersin and Tarsus Municipality 3.2.2. District Directorate of Tarsus (Local governor) 3.2.3. Mersin Regional Directorate of Forestry and Mersin provincial Directorate of Forestry 3.2.4. Problems in agriculture and activities of Mersin Provincial Directorate of Agriculture 3.2.5. Activities Tarsus Provincial Directorate of National Education 3.2.6. Activities on Mother-Child Healthy in Tarsus 3.2.7. Activities of Religion Department Tarsus (Mufti) 3.2.8. Activities by Directorate of Rural Services 3.2.9. Activities by Poultry firm 3.2.10. Activities of NGO’s 3.3. Economic Structure and Main Income Sources in Region 3.3.1. Status of forestry sector and its contribution to regional economy 3.3.1.1. Forest resources in Mediterranean Region and its importance to Turkish Forestry 3.3.1.2. Forest resources in Mersin 3.3.1.4. Forestry activities in Region 3.3.1.5. Important non-wood Forest Products 3.3.1.6. Factors which threats the natural structure and forests in the region 3.3.1.7. Contribution to regional Economy of Forest resources 3.3.1.8. Relations between villagers and forestry departments 3.3.2. Vegetative production and economical importance for region 3.3.2.1. Crop production 3.3.2.2. Horticultural plants 3.3.2.3. Agricultural equipment and machinery in the region 3.3.2.4. Main problems faced with in vegetative production 3.3.3. Livestock and animal products in the region 3.3.3.1. Cattle, sheep and goat breeding 3.3.3.2. Poultry (Broiler) 3.3.3.3. Beekeeping activities 3.3.3.4. Main problems in livestock production 3.3.3.5. Nomadic animal raising 3.3.4. Credit possibilities in the region iv 3.3.5. Marketing of agricultural products 3.4. Social Structure in the Region 3.4.1. Social relations in the settlements 3.4.2. Social problems in the villages of the research area 3.4.3. The ability to organize of the people in the region and the cooperative structure 3.5. Demographic Structure 3.6. Public Services in the Region 3.6.1. Education system 3.6.2. Transportation and Communication services 3.6.3. Electricity, sewerage system and water waste treatment 3.6.4. Health services 3.6.5. Other services 3.7. Results of Workshop and building the scenarios 3.8. Results of Awareness Raising Trip 3.8.1. Bilinçlendirme gezisi yapilan köylerdeki gelisme süreci 3.8.2. Bilinçlendirme gezisinin çalisma bölgesindeki köylüler üzerinde etkileri 4. CONSEQUENCES AND SUGGESTIONS REFERENCE ANNEX v LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1. General information on the villages Table 1.2. Long term climatic data Table 2.1. Participatory activities carried out in the villages Table 3.1. Dissemination of opinions resource use in region and activities of forest department Table 3.2. Income sources and importance to villagers Table 3.3. Ranking resource uses in the Region* (Participatory studies) Table 3.4. Distribution of forested area by the region in Turkey (ha) Table 3.5. Forest Resource in Mediterranean Regional Directorates (ha) Table 3.6. Change in forest resources in Tarsus Forest District for 10 years (ha) Table 3.7. Situation of forested areas in survey region Table 3.8. The activities of Inköy micro catchments project (2000-2003) Table 3.9. Private afforestation in Mersin Table 3.10. Relations of villagers with forest resources Table 3.11. Distribution of Agricultural activities in the villages Table 3.12. Distribution of land size by number of households. Table 3.13. Agricultural Land use in the region Table 3.14. Field crops (da) Table 3.15. Distribution of fruit plantation areas (da) Table 3.16. Agricultural Equipments and Machinery in the region Table 3.17. Animal breeding for milk production Table 3.18. In the region feeding and care condition of the animals and fodder production Table 3.19. Poultry production in the villages. Table 3.20. Beekeeping in the region Table 3.21. Problems in livestock production and scores Table 3.22. ORKÖY credits in the region Table 3.23. Influential People and level of their influence Table 3.24. Demographic structure in the region Table 3.25. Education condition in the region Table 3.26. Courses requested by villagers Table 3.27. Transportation and communication Table 3.28. Other services vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1. Local Surveys with Olukkoyagi,Inköy and Ardiçli villagers Figure 3.2. Local surveys with Emirler, Eminlik, Kesli and Kusçular villagers Figure 3.3.Studies with Ministry of Environment and Forestry Departments Figure 3.4.Study with Mersin Provincial Directorate of Agriculture Figure 3.5. Study with Tarsus Provincial Directorate of National Education Figure 3.6.Study with Tarsus Mother-Child Health Service Figure 3.7. Study with Mufti Figure 3.8. Studies with Poultry Firms Figure 3.9. General view from region and aforestation area Figure 3.10. The bridge has been closed result of the erosion and aforestation areas for combating with erosion Figure 3.11. Grazing activities in forest area (Emirler village) Figure 3.12.