Towards “Payment for Ecosystem Services” in Turkey Dr. Sedat Kalem WWF-Turkey Conservation Director

PES: linking nature with economy Treat nature as ecosystem Human and all sectors are part of this ecosystem Ecosystem approach connects human and nature We need Nature for Water (irrigation, industry, tourism, urban etc.) The services of ecosystems should be recognized We need paragidm shift: “Nature for Water” Economy could be linked with environment via PES! “We damaged nature for economy (consumption), we need to restore it back with (tools of) economy”

Turkey: a snapshot of nature, water, and socio-economy

Biodiversity plants / endemic / 122 IBAs 450+ birds /165 IBAs; 17 marine turtle nesting beaches... Water Available m3/person/year: “water poor” state approaching Water “footprint” per person: TUR: m3 > World: m3 Half of the wetlands ( ha) lost in the last 40 years Water use: irrigation (72%) + house (18%) + industry (10%) Climate change: more felt in the Med Main issues: illegal consumption, over use, contamination Socio-Economy 17th largest economy in the world: GNI 800 billion US$ (2008) The share of the agriculture sector decreasing... So... Turkey: a snapshot of nature, water, and socio-economy

Evaluation of the PES potential Irrigation related problems: irrigated land: 5 million ha loss of surface and groundwater loss of wetlands salinization The CATAK Project ( ): Seyfe, Eregli, Sultansazligi, Kovada Aims: Protection of soil and water quality Sustainability of renewable natural resources Raising public awareness at local level Outcomes: Site-based approach is good, but integration of land use and agri- policies at wider level essential

WWF-TR and the Konya case WWF-Turkey is involved in irrigation-environment-water issues thru; Wetland-River Basin Management Projects: intro of the IRBM approach Nearly decars of pilot implementation of drip irrigation “Complementary Financing for Env in the Context of EU Accession – National Level Analysis” Current Situation: Tuz Lake & Eregli Sazligi Problems: overuse of water + salinization (problem) Cost-guarantee for sugar beet (advantage) Options Shifting to drip irrigation Changing crop pattern > expected results: less use of water, energy, pesticide, less pressure on wetlands... The cost of shift from traditional irrigation: Drip irrigation: Euro/ha Drip irrigation + crop change: Euro/ha This amount of money should be covered by PES

Conclusions from the Konya case Crop pattern should be controlled, geographically appropriate; env-friendly The local irrigation unions & marketing cooperatives should be strengtened. Water comsumption should be main criteria Registration of farmers and database system is crucial Incentives should support environmental aspects The current agri- legislation provides opportunity for env friendly practices Water pricing should be revised for all sectors: “users and polluters pay” Integrating community and market is essential + capacity building Promote organic farming where biodiversity is substantially damaged State can pay PES as a supporting mechanism Consumers could share this “opportunity cost” to sustain farming in the reg. Private sector (using thirsty crops) could be a key actor in impl. PES.

MESSAGES for PES 1.PES is a new concept and it needs to be well understood through awareness raising. 2.PES procedures should be integrated in River Basin Planning and National Land-Water Use Planning. 3.The IWRM (Integrated Water Resource Management) process should include all related sectors in the PES. 4.The finance of PES should be integrated into incentives, taxes and/or market prices. 5.The PES process should include local and regional scale pilot activities with specific crops, irrigation systems.