Hunting licence (Turkey)
Description
Brief description of the instrument and its modus operandi
this instrument is projected to organize hunting in the country. To organize controlling of hunting, to control hunters, to know how many people joint to shoot and how many products shooted.
Which problem the instrument is supposed to solve?
1. Poaching is one of the most serious problem threating animal populations. 2. A detrimental effect on biodiversity both within and outside protected areas as wildlife populations decline, species are depleted locally, and the functionality of ecosystems is disturbed
Purpose or main objective / overall goal of the instrument?
Preventing of illegal hunting, controlling of hunters and preventing of informal source loss
Side objectives/goals of the instrument?
- Making a serious contribution to the national economy with hunting tourism, *Halting or decreasing the immigration from rural areas to urban areas, // *improving villagers relationships,
Innovation content or potential of the instrument?
There is no a direct innovation content of this instrument
Which laws and regulations support the implement of this instrument?
The rescript of NWFP no:4915, Land Hunting Law, hunting license
The initiator/promoter of the instrument?
Government agency: General Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Parks
Which organizations are involved in the operationalization of the instrument?
General Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Parks with the help of research organizations such as Faculties of forestry and research institutions http://www.ogm.gov.tr/lang/en/SitePages/OGM/OGMDefault.aspx avcılık federasyonu milli eğiti
How the monitoring is ensured?
regular forest guards’ surveillance rounds, harvest permits’ register, database of hunters, permit payment receipt…
How the compliance is ensured?
fines amount changes based on species, products are confiscated and hunting can be forbidden for hunters who poach
How is the overall performance of the instrument?
number of participants is getting increase; area included in the instrument; additional net benefits accrued to landowners and villagers and goverment. There is no spesific quantitatives.
References
Huss J., Kahveci O., 2009. Türkiye’de Doğaya Yakın Yapraklı Orman İşletmeciliği. Freiburg-Ankara, OGEM-VAK, // Akıllı S., Katırcıoğlu Y. Z., Maden S., 2011. Kestane Tohumlarının Fungal Florası Üzerinde Çalışmalar. 14–17 Haziran // Türkiye IV. Tohumculuk Kongresi. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi. Cilt 1, sayfa 271–276. Samsun. // Akıllı S., Ulubaş-Serçe Ç., Katırcıoğlu Y. Z., Maden S., 2012. Involvement of Phytophthora spp. in chestnut decline // in the Black Sea region of Turkey. Forest Pathology. Volume 42, Issue 5, pages 377-386. DOI: 10,1111/j. 1439-0329.2012.00770.x. // Karagöz M., Gençsoylu İ., 2004. Aydın li Kestane Yetistirme Alanlarında Zararlı ve Yararlı Türler ve Ekonomik Önemleri. // Samsun..
Brief description of the context for the emergence of the instrument
population in dengeraous-
Have any of the items mentioned above changed since the instrument entered into force?
No
Is there any qualitative or quantitative study of the impacts of the instrument?
No
| Instrument | |
| Year | 2003 |
|---|---|
| Affected actors | Landowner/land manager, Picker/harvester/hunter |
| Products | Game |
| Countries | Turkey |
| Regions (NUTS 2) | Bursa Subregion |
| Geographical scope | National |