Yenilikçi finansman aracı olarak ekosistem hizmetleri için ödemeler: Fırsat mı, tehdit mi?

Öz

Orman kaynaklarının topluma sağladığı biyolojik çeşitliliği barındırma, estetik hizmetler, su ve toprak koruma, yaban hayatını barındırma gibi ekosistem hizmetlerinin üretimi için geleneksel anlamda pazar teşviki bulunmamaktadır. Son on yılda dünyada ekosistemlerin yönetiminde en popüler kavramlardan biri, ekosistem hizmetlerinin devamlılığını güvence altına almak için yenilikçi finansman araçlarını içeren, İngilizce kısaltması PES (payment for ecosystem services) olarak bilinen ekosistem hizmetleri için ödemelerdir. Ekosistem hizmetleri için ödeme programlarının habitat kullanma hakları, koruma irtifakları ve imtiyazları, korunan alanları kiralama, ticari karbon, biyolojik çeşitlilik, havza koruma kredileri gibi çeşitli türleri bulunmaktadır. Bazıları ekosistem hizmetleri için ödeme programlarını orman ekosistemlerinin korunması için kurtarıcı olarak görürken karşıt görüştekilere göre ise ekosistem hizmetleri için ödeme programları kamu mallarının ticarileştirilerek tüketilmesi için bir araç olarak yeni pazarlar yaratma yollarından biridir. Bu makalede dünya ve Türkiye ölçeğinde ekosistem hizmetleri için ödeme programlarının orman ekosistemlerinin sürdürülebilir yönetimi açısından fırsat ve tehdit oluşturduğu koşullar irdelenmiş, kullanım olanakları değerlendirilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ekosistem hizmetleri için ödemeler,orman ekosistem hizmetleri,kamu malları,ticarileştirme,finansman

Payments for ecosystem services as innovative financial instruments: An opportunity or a threat?

Öz

There is no traditional market incentive for the production of forest ecosystem services such as biodiversity conservation, aesthetic services, water and soil conservation, wildlife preservation, etc. One of the most popular concepts in the ecosystem management over the last decade has been payments for ecosystem services (PES) which include innovative financing instruments to ensure the sustainability of ecosystem services. There are various types of PES such as habitat use rights, protection easements and concessions, leases for protected areas, commercial carbon, biodiversity, watershed protection credits. Some believe that PES programs can support conservation of forest ecosystems as a savior while others, on the contrary, think that PES programs are the means to create new markets for commercialization and exploitation of public goods. In this paper, opportunities and threats to sustainable management of forest ecosystems that have been created by PES programs were examined. Finally, the possibilities of PES programs in Turkey were evaluated.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Payments for ecosystem services,forest ecosystem services,public goods,commercialization,financing

Kaynakça

1. AGF, 2012. Study on Forest Fınancıng, Advisory Group on Finance Collaborative Partnership on Forests. http://www.un.org/esa/forests/index.html (Erişim tarihi: 15 June 2012).
2. Arriagada, R., Perrings, C., 2009. Making Payments for Ecosystem Services Work. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
3. Börner, J., Baylis, K., Corbera, E., Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Honey-Roses, J., Persson, U. M., Wunder, S., 2017. The effectiveness of payments for environmental services. World Development 96 (2017): 359-374.
4. Clements, T., John, A., Nielsen, K., Dara, A., Setha, T. T., Milner-Gulland, E. J., 2010. Payments for biodiversity conservation in the context ofweak institutions: Comparison of three programs from Cambodia. Ecological Economics 69 (6), 1283–1291.
5. Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K. E., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R. V., Parueloi J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P., van den Belt, M., 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260.
6. Derissen, S., Latacz – Lohmann, U., 2013. What are PES? A review of definitions and an extension. Ecosystem Services 6: 12–15.
7. FAO, 2018. Ecosystem Services & Biodiversity. http://www.fao.org/ecosystem-services-biodiversi-ty/en/ (Erişim tarihi: 10.08.2018).
8. Farley, J., Costanza, R., 2010. Payments for system services: from local to global. Ecological Economics 69, 2060-2068.

9. Ferraro, P. J., 2017. Are payments for ecosystem services benefiting the ecosystems and people? In: Kareiva, P., Marvier, M., & Silliman B. (Eds.), Effective Conservation Science: Data not Dogma, Oxford University Press, pp.159-166.
10. Forest Trends, The Katoomba Group, UNEP, 2008. Payments for Ecosystem Services Getting Started: A Primer. UNON Publishing Services Section, Nairobi.
11. Geray, U., 2005. Ormanlar ve su politikası. Haftanın Yazısı, Çekül Vakfı. http://-www.cekulvakfi.org.tr, (Erişim tarihi: 15.05.2005).
12. Gong, Y. Bull, G., Baylis, K., 2010. Participation in the world's first clean development mechanism forest project: the role of property rights, social capital and contractual rules. Ecological Economics 69 (6), 1292–1302.
13. Grieg-Gran, M., Porras, I.,, Wunder, S., 2005. How can market mechanisms for forest environmental services help the poor? Preliminary lessons from Latin America. World Development 33(9):1511-1527.
14. Hua, F., Wang, X., Zheng, X., Fisher, B., Wang, L., Zhu, J., Tang, Y., Yu, D. W., Wilcove, D. S., 2016. Opportunities for biodiversity gains under the world’s largest reforestation program. Nature Communications 7:12717.
15. Kaya, G., 2002. Pazarı Olmayan Ürünler Çerçevesinde Orman Kaynaklarının Değerinin Belirlenmesi. Basılmamış Doktora Tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
16. Kaya, G., 2006. Tıbbi bitki rezervi olarak orman kaynaklarının gelecek değerinin belirlenmesinde kullanılan P&P modelinin irdelenmesi. Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi (1): 1-10.
17. Kaya, G., Özyürek, E., 2015. Kent ormanı anlayışıyla ODTÜ Ormanı manzarası için ekonomik değerin tahmin edilmesi. Ormancılık Araştırma Dergisi 2015/1, A, 1:2, 15-28.
18. Kosoy, N., Corbera, E., 2010. Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecological Economics 69, 1228-1236.
19. Kosoy, N., Martinez-Tuna, M., Muradian, R., Martinez-Alier, J., 2007. Payments for environmental services in watersheds: insights from a comparative study of three cases in Central America. Ecological Economics 61, 446–455.
20. Madsen, B., Carroll, N., Kandy, D., Bennett, G., 2011. Update: State of Biodiversity Markets. Washington, DC: Forest Trends. http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/reports/2011_update_sbdm (Erişim tarihi: 10.09.2018).
21. Mantau, U., 1996. Alternative ways of correcting market failure product structures-a key to marketability. Proceedings of International Symposium on the Non-Market Benefits of Forests, June 24-28, 1996, Edinburgh.
22. MEA, 2005 Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis Report. Island Press, Washington, DC.
23. Merlo, M., Briales, E. R., 2000. Public goods and externalities linked to Mediterranean forests: economic nature and policy. Land Use Policy (17): 197-208.
24. Merlo, M., Milocco, E., Panting, R., Virgilietti, P., 2000. Transformation of environmental recreational goods and services provided by forestry ınto recreational environmental products. Forest Policy and Economics (1): 127-138.
25. Muradian, R., Arsel, M., Pellegrini, L., Adaman, F., Aguilar, B., Agarwal, B., Corbera, E., Ezzine… de Blas, D., Farley, J., Froger, G., Garcia‐Frapolli, E., Gómez‐Baggethun, E., Gowdy, J., Kosoy, N., Le Coq, J.F., Leroy, P., May, P., Méral, P., Mibielli, P., Norgaard, R., Ozkaynak, B., Pascual, U., Pengue, W., Perez, M., Pesche, D., Pirard, R., Ramos‐Martin, J., Rival, L., Saenz, F., Hecken, G., Vatn, A., Vira, B., Urama, K., 2013. Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win–win solutions. Conservation Letters 6 (4), 274–279.
26. Muradian, R., Corbera, E., Pascual, U., Kosoy, N., May, P. H., 2010. Reconciling theory and practice: an alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 69 (6): 1202–1208.
27. Myers, N., 1996. Environmental services of biodiversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 93, 2764–2769.
28. Ok, K. Kaya, G., Güneş, Y., Koçer, S., Kayacan, B., Eker, Ö., Çağdaş, B., Koşdemir, Z., Yılmaz, E., Bakır, B., Turhan, Ü., 2013. Birleşmiş Milletler Orman Forumu 10. Oturumu İçin Ormancılığın Finansmanı Raporu, Teknik Rapor, ss.42.
29. Ok, K., 2012. PES Doğrusu, Fuarhabercisi.net, 20.05.2012 tarihli köşe yazısı.
30. Ok, K., Izlar, B., Siry, J., 2014. Sustainable Finance for Sustainable Forestry: Is Cooperation Possible among Nations? Formath, Vol. 14.
31. Redford, K., Adams, W., 2009. Payment for ecosystem services and the challenge of saving nature. Conservation Biology 23(4): 785–787.
32. Salzman, J., Bennett, G., Carroll, N., Goldstein, A., Jenkins, M., 2018. The global status and trends of Payments for Ecosystem Services. Nature Sustainability Vol. 1, pp. 136–144.
33. Scherr, S. J., Bennett, M. T., Loughney, M., Canby, K., 2006. Developing future ecosystem service payments in China: lessons learned from international experience. Beijing: CCIED, Forest Trends.
34. Stanton, T., Echavarria, T. M., Hamilton, K., Ott, C., 2010. State of Watershed Payments: An Emerging Marketplace. Ecosystem Marketplace, http://www.foresttrends.org/documents/files/doc2438.pdf (Erişim tarihi: 13.09.2018).
35. Tacconi, L., 2012. Redefining payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 73, 29–36.
36. UNECE, 2011. Payments for Forest - related Ecosystem Services: What role for a Green Economy? —Background Paper for the UNECE Workshop, July 2011, Geneva, 46 p.
37. UNECE, 2014. The Value of Forests. Payments for Ecosystem Services in a Green Economy. Geneva Timber and Forest Study Paper 34 (ECE/TIM/SP/34), Geneva: United Nations.
38. Vatn, A., 2010. An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 69 (6), 1245–1252.
39. Wunder, S., 2005. Payments for Environmental Services: Some nuts and bolts. Bogor: CIFOR Occasional Paper, No. 42.
40. Wunder, S., 2015. Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 117: 34–243.