/--/\ -7 j (7- 7d; Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY rveport No. 11294-TU STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT TURKEY EASTERN ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT FEBRUARY 9, 1993 Agriculture Operations Division Country Dapartment I Europe and Central Asia Region This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization. CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS AT APPRAISAL Currency Unit = Turkish Lira (TL) USSI = TL 7,000 (AppraisaL: June 1992) US$1 = TL 8,200 (November 1992) WEIGHTS AND MEASURES Imperial Units Metric Units 1 foot (ft) = 30.5 centimetres (cm) 1 square foot (ftMI 0.093 square metres (mW) 1 cubic foot MftI) = 0.028 Cubic metres (C) 1 mile (mi) = 1.609 kilometres (km) 1 acre (ac) = 0.405 hectare (ha) 1 square mite (sq mi) = 259 ha 1 pound (lb) = 0.454 kilograms (kg) I Long ton (1 ton) - 1,016 kg (1.016 metric ton) I ft'/sec (cusec) = 0.028 m/sec ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS USED AGM Department of Reforestation and Erosion Control (MOF) APKKB Research, Planning and Coordination Board (MOF) DSI General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works FCPCPS Farmer Centered Problem Census Problem Solving FTE Farmer Training and Extension Department of PDA GEF Global Environment Fund GET Global Environment Trust GIS Geographical Information System GOT Government of Turkey ICARDA International Centre for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas KHGN General Directorate of RuraL Services MARA Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs MC Microcatchment HIS Management Information System MOE Ministry of Enviromnent M-OF Ministry of Forestry 0GM General Directorate of Forestry ORKOY Forest Village Development Fund PCSU Project Coordination and Support Unit PDA Provincial Directorate of Agriculture PPF Project Preparation Facility PUB Project lplementation Unit SMS Subject Matter Specialist TAGEM General Directorate for Agricultural Research TCZB Agricultural Bank of Turkey TEDGEM General Directorate of Organization and Support TKV Turkish Development Foundation TMO Turkish Grain Marketing Board TUGEM General Directorate of Production and Development TYAUP II Second Agricultural Extension and Applied Research Project VGT Village Group Technician GLOSSARY Kaymakam County Governor Nezra Village Sub-unit Muhtar Village Leader Stere I om of stacked wood Voli Province Governor GOVERNMENT OF TURKEY FISCAL YEAR 1 January - 31 December FOR 0MCU USEONLY STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~gu ASTERN ANATOLIA WATERSHED RAILITATION PROJECT Table of Contents Page No. LOAN AND PROJECT SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-iii I. PROJECT AND SECTOR BACKGROUND . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 A. Introduction .1 B. Agricultural Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 C. Bank Group Lending for Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 II. PROJECT AREA AND RATIONALE 6. . .. a.. .6 A. Definition of Area .............. . . 6 B. Physical Characteristics ................. 7 C. Social Characteristics . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . 9 D. Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 B. The Institutional Setting. . . . . . . . . . 10 F. Project Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . .3 . 13 III. THE PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 A. Objectives . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 13 B. Summary Description . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 14 C. Detailed Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Dn Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 S. Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 F. Procurement . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 22 G. Disbursements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 H. Accounts and Audits . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 I. Project Supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 IV. ORGANIZATION AND I ANGMNAGE lNT. ...... .....28 A. Institutional Arrangements . . . . ....... . . . .28 S. Micro-catchment Planning . 3 . # . . . . . . . . 30 C. Monitoring and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 V. PROJECT BENEFITS AND JUSTIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 A. Production and Marketing . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . .32 B. Farm Income and Cost Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 C. Economic Analysis and Risks . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . 35 D. Environmental Impact . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . 37 B. Impact on Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 VI. AGREEMENTS REACHED AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization i Table of Contents (cont'd) 1A Agriculture 13 Rainfed Terracing and Small-Scale Irrigation 2 Rangelands 3 Treatments on Forest Lands 4 Guidelines for Micro-catchment Planning S Treatment Menu and Cost Sharing 6 Organization Chart 7 Monitoring MIS and Evaluation 8 Project Cost Estimates and Disbursement Profile 9 Economic Analysis 10 Sociological Characteristics 11 Training and Technical Assistance 12 Adaptive Research 13 Documents Available in Project File 14 Micro-catchment Plans for First Year Project Xmplementation 15 Implementation Program 1993 IRD No. 24166 - i - STAFF APPRAISAL REPR EASTERN ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT TURKEY LOAN AND PROJECT SUMMARY Borrowers Republic of Turkey Beneficiaries Ministry of Forestry (MOF) Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA) Ministry of Environment (MOE) GET co-financed Amount: US$77 million equivalent loan US$5.1 million equivalent GET grant (cofinanced) Termss Seventeen years, with a five-year grace period, at the Bank's standard variable interest rate. GET funds would be on a grant basis. ProJect Obiectivess The project addresses important problems of rural poverty and natural resource degradation. It would help restore sustainable range, forest and farming activities in three provinces in the upper Euphrates watershed, reducing soil degradation, erosion, and sedimentation in reservoirs as well as increasing productivity and incomes in this impoverished region of Turkey. By using a participatory approach it would strengthen farmers' planning and implementing capacity, and improve the responsiveness of rural services agencies to farmers' needs. A subproject for jI-situ gene conservation supported by a Global Environment Trust grant would establish, manage and monitor sites for Ji-situ conservation of the wild relatives of globally significant herbaceous and woody species indigenous to Turkey. Proiect Descriotions The project would support development of a partici- pato3ry approach to watershed rehabilitation in 54 micro-catchments in Malatya, Elazig and Adiyaman provinces over a seven-year period. Treatments would be integrated across a micro-catchment, and selected and implemented with the participation of the local population. Treatments would include improved range management and enrichment, reforestation and oak coppice rehabilitation, improved crop husbandry and fodder production. Supporting treatments would include small scale irrigation, fruit tree cultivation and apiculture. - ii - The project would also strengthen provincial field services and planning and coordination cayacity and would provide for some applied research. The A&- situ gene conservation subproject would support surveys and inventories, selection and management of jr-situ gene conservation areas, data management, in-Alta gene conservation strategies, institutional support, monitoring and training. aenefits and Risks: The benefits focus on poverty reduction and sustainable resource management. The project would increase vegetative cover and control soil degradation. It would increase output of fodder, fuelwood and other wood products, horticultural and food crops. It would increase the incomes of poorer farmers living in remote hilly areas in Easter& Turkey. By supporting a participatory planning approach it should make rural service agencies more responsive to farmers' priorities. Its success could prove a model for participatory natural resource management and watershed rehabilitation in Turkey and elsewhere. The ERR is estimated at 17%. The GET subproject would protect Ji-situ the biodiversity of wild relatives of globally significant herbaceous and woody species. Nevertheless, the project has technical and institutional risks. Technologies are mostly well confirmed but where this is not the case, treatments are reduced to a pilot scale or phased. The project requires coordination between provincial institutions which do not have much experience of working together. However, these institutions have been closely involved in the project preparation and are well-versed with and committed to an integrated, participatory approach. Government has budgetary constraints; project size has been adjusted so that local budgetary commitments can be met. The project is robust, to delays, cost increases and benefit decreases. - iii - Costs. Financn. Disursemnt Sumert Estimated Project Coits: X Foreign % Total Loco fgryiun Igtqj Exchane Be" Cost Connont .......- (USS million) ------- Strengthening Agency Capacity 2.4 3.5 5.9 59 7 Watershed Rehabilitation 40.5 18.2 58.7 31 67 Supporting Activities 14.7 8.1 22.8 36 26 Applied Research .-7 0.1 0.8 17 1 Baseline Costs 58.3 22 Du 34 100 Physical Contingencies 5.8 2.8 8.6 32 10 Price Contingencies 9.7 3.3 13.0 25 1 Total Project Costs 73.8 36.0 109.8 33 125 GET subproject* 1.9 3.8 5.7 67 119 Grand Total ZMJ7 39.8 115. * Includes contingencies. Finamcing PtanFoeg Floreign Total Exchange Source LofForeimn Cid Costs _ osts ------- (US$ million) -------- (% of Project) Goverinent 32.5 0.3 32.8 30 1 IBRO 35 6 M.A0 70 99 Sibtotal 73.8 35.9 109.8 100 100 GET Grant 1.3 3.8 5.1 89 100 Govt. Contribution 0. Q0 0. 1 subtotal 1.9 3.8 5.7 100 00 Grand Total _ 39.8 115. Estimated Comletion Date: Watershed Project - March 31, 2000 GEt J.D-gj Subproject - September 30, 1996 Estimated IBRD and GET Disbursements: IBR0 Fiscal Year 93 294 9S 525 6 1 29 2000 ----------------------------- .USS million) --------------------- Watershed Prolect Arnual 0.75 11.7 13.5 11.1 13.6 14.3 9.4 2.6 Cumulative 0.75 12.5 26.0 37.1 50.7 65.0 74.4 77.0 In-Situ Suborolect Annual 0.2 3.1 1.0 0.6 0.2 Cumulative 0.2 3.3 4.3 4.9 5.1 Economic Rate of Return: 17X for Uatershed Rehabilitation Project. Not applicable for In-Situ Gene Conservation Subproject SAP: IBRD No. 24166 Turkey Eastern Anatolia Watershed Rehabilitation Project STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT EASTEN ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT I. PROJECT AND SECTOR BACKGROUND A. Introduction 1.01 The Government of Turkey is attaching increasing priority to sustainable environmental management, and in particular to natural resource conservation. Soil degradation from erosion is one of the most serious problems affecting long-term sustainability of agriculture; erosion affects 57 million hectares in Turkey, or over 70% of the land area of the country. The Government has requested the World Bank to assis> in financing a project to restore productivity through better soil and moisture conservation farming practices in the Upper Watershed of the Euphrates River, in the three provinces of Elazig, Malatya, and Adiyaman in Eastern Anatolia. 1.02 Soil degradation was recognized as a serious problem in the 1983 World Bank sector Report "Agricultural Development Alternatives for Growth with Exports" and confirmed in the draft report on Agricultural Resource Conservation in Turkey (June 1992). This project was first identified by the Turkish government in May 1990 and examined in a joint PAO/World Bank identification mission which visited Turkey in April 1991. The project was prepared by Consultants together with GOT from September 1991 to February 1992. It was preappraised by the World Bank in January 1992 and appraised in June 1992. Post-appraisal took place in November 1992. B. Agricultural Sector 1.03 Turkey has an area of 780,000 km2, including 78,000 km2 of lakes. According to the latest agricultural census (1991) it has about 21 million ha of cultivated land, 3.6 million ha of which are irrigated. Field crops account for about 14.4 N ha, fallow land for 3.6 M ha, orchards and permanent crops 2.3 m ha and vegetables for 0.6 M ha. Significantly, Turkey with a population of 56 million is not only largely self-sufficient in food but has considerable net agricultural exports. Agricultural GDP growth averaged 3.3% annually over the 1985-90 period, contributing 17-18% of GDP. In addition, clothing and textiles represented 37% of exports and other industries based on agricultural raw materials about 16% of exports. About 4 million households in Turkey are engaged in agriculture. Crops contribute about 56% of agricultural GDP, animal products 32%, forestry 7% and fisheries 4%. 1.04 The country consists primarily of undulating plateaux rising eastward from 800 m to 2,000 m, bordered by high mountains with fertile plains next to the coast and in inland valleys. Much of the land is hilly, over one third having slopes of more than 20%. Climate is characterized, except along the coastal areas, by cold winters and hot dry summers. Much of the precipitation, averaging from 350 to 600 mm (more along the coasts), falls in winter and spring. This combination of climate and precipitation shortens the growing season except along the coasts and increases the vulnerability of - 2 - soils to erosion, particularly if they are fallow or overgrazed, with sparse vegetative cover. 1.05 The distribution of land-use, excluding lakes, urban land, national parks and military reserves is indicated below in Table 1. Table Is LAND USE IN TURREY Cultivated Land Area {M ha) Field crops: Wheat 7.3 Barley 2.6 Rice 0.04 Sugarbeet 0.37 Sunflower 0.44 Oats 0.16 Chickpea 0.69 Lentil 0.48 others 2.35 of which cotton 0.59 Of which tobacco 0.24 Subtotal 14.43 Orchards & rermanent crops 2.34 Vegetables 0.59 Fallow 3.63 Cultivated land subtotal 20.99 Land suitable for farming but not in use 2.16 Permanent range and meadow 12.37 Forest land 19.23 Area unsuitable for farming 11.34 Total 66.09 Total Area of Turkey 78.00 Source: 1991 Census (preliminary results subject to change). 1.06 Cultivated land is dominated by cereal production, which accounts for nearly 50% of cultivated area. Forest land accounts for 25% of the land area; however, over half of this is seriously degraded and unproductive for forest purposes. Rangeland accounts for a further 16%. Range area has been reduced by half since 1950 as low fertility, often steeply sloping land has been brought into cultivation, while cropped area has increased by 60%. Farmland is largely privately owned. Average farm size is 6.5 hal however 62% of farms are under 5 ha. Fragmentation through inheritance is an issue; the proportion of farms with 6 or more parcels increased from 31% to 41% between the 1970 and :;980 censuses. Fragmentation increases the difficulties of using soil and moisture conserving cultivation techniques across a sub-watershed. 1.07 In addition to cereals Turkey grows a wide range of crops; particularly important are chickpeas and lentils for which Turkey ii a significant exporter; area planted to legumes has increased significantly as the result of a successful fallow-reduction project introduced by the Turkish government in the early 19809. Fruit trees are also important and Turkey exports large quantities of apricots, hazelnuts and raisins. In the west and south horticulture and citrus are of importance, while cotton and tobacco make an important contribution to industrial exports and meet local market demands. Turkey, where three major phytogeographical regions converge, is unusually rich in its range and variety of plants. More than 3,000 species are known to be endemic, including wild relatives and landraces of the major crop species that feed the world (wkeat, barley, lentils, chickpeas, pasture plants and horticultural and forest plants). Plant breeders from all over the world use these strains to develop enhanced varieties that are more productive and are resistant to cold, drought, salinity and disease. 1.08 Livestoc% is a major resource in Turkey, accounting for 32% of agricultural GDP, and comprising 16 million cattle and buffalo, 45 million sheep, 11 million goats, 1.4 million equines and 64 million poultry. Mixed farming is the predominant farming system, with 86% of farms producing both livestock and crops. Animals feed on range and pasture grasses in the summer, and crop residues, conserved forages and purchased concentrate in the winter. The winter diet is often deficient, and animals are frequently put out to graze on communally owned rangeland too early in the spring for vegetation to be well established. Rotational grazing is rarely practiced, further reducing range p:oductivity. Increased fodder production on agricultural land would reduce pressure on fragile rangelands. In the center and east vegetative cover averages only 10-20% compared with the 40% that is necessary to control erosion effectively and the 80-90% that could be achieved with proper Aanagement; yields, currently 100 to 500 kilos of dry matter per hectare could be tripled. Turkey has many indigenous legumes and grasses and the production potential of the rangelands is good from a genetic standpoint. overgrazing, however, is weakening the genetic resource base. 1.09 Forest land accounts for 25% of land area. Forests vary from productive, well managed coniferous and mixed deciduous/coniferous forests along the Black Sea and Mediterranean coasts to the degraded oak coppice forest, used and overexploited for fuelwood and fodder, that is characteristic of Eastern and South-Eastern Anatolia. Poor management of rangelands has incraosed grazing pressure on forest lands and also lowered their productive potential. Approximately 40% of forest land is classified as productive and 60% as unproduct've. Annual production of fuelwood is estimated at 28 million m3, and fuelwood accounts for about 20% of household energy consumption. Approximately 8 million people live in villages in and around forest areas. They have access to forest products at reduced prices and are employed in forest management programs. While in some areas relations between foresters and the local community have been good, in others there have been tensions. - 4 - Nevertheless forestry staff, of all the government rural support services, have the most contacts with forest village populations and tsns most experience In working to conserve soils in difficult upland areas. 1.10 Development obiectives. GOT's agricultural sector development objectives are to: (a) modernize production techniques to raise productivity, yields, farmers' incomes and reduce dependence on the weather; (b) maintain the food requirements of the population; and (c) promote agricultural exports. 1.11 Strategies. Government introduced many key economic reforms in the early 1980s whose aims were to encourage private sector and market forces for increased efficiency and growth. In agriculture, although these reforms were more limited, input trade and distribution was gradually liberalized, regulatory restrictions were reduced and the privat sector played an increasing role in crop marketing. Overall throughout the 1980s there was a policy bias against agriculture compared with industry, though the degree of "policy bias was limited. In 1992, however, the sector has been more favored through price support and input subsidy policies. GOT plans to reexamine these over the next years. in general, both the research and extension subsectors suffered from declining government budgetary support, especially in the late 1980s. This lack of support has been reflected in disappointing progress in yields, further exacerbated by crop husbandry techniques which do not emphasize soil and water conservation. Bank's tricMltural Strategy 1.12 Agricultural lending has aimed at increasing output productivity and exports, and supporting the necessary policy and institutional reforms in the sector. This has included: (a) Supporting institutional strengthening and particularly technical support services of research and extension, improving irrigation agencies' implementation capabilities especially at on-farm level and reforming government enterprises involved in agricultural marketing and input supply; (b) rationalizing the public sector investment program especiallv in irrigation; (c) expanding credit supply, especially for medium and small farms, together with increasing the efficiency of credit institutions and improving financial sector policies to encourage greater private investment in the sector; (d) reducing subsidies and price supports to prompt increased use of market forces, interest rate reform and increased private sector involvement in agricultural marketing; (e) increased focus on environmental concerns, to ensure that in the long run Turkey preserves the resource base for sustainable agriculture; and - 5 - (f) increasing gupport for improving agricultural productivity in the poorer Eastern provinces, which have been relatively neglected until recently. C. Bank Grout Lending for Argiculture 1.13 As of December 1991 the Bank group had supported 26 agricultural projects in Turkey; however, 20 are closed and only 6 are under implementation. Lending to the sector has declined through the 1980.. The ongoing projects include an irrigation/drainage project, a credit project, an agroindustries project and two extension projects with applied research components. An Agricultural Research Project was approved in May 1992. This project includes provision for support to Research Institutions in Eastern Turkey, whose work programs focus on support to farming systems in cold, drought-prone areas with soils vulnerable to erosion. 8ome of the provinces receiving support under the Extension projects are also in Eastern Turkey. Earlier Bank projects included support for Rural Development Projects, and two such projects are currently ongoing with IFAD support. The Bank also supported a Forestry Project in the 1970s. However, this would be the first watershed management project, integrating activities on range, forest and agricultural land to improve productivity by focussing on activities which conserve soil and moisture and reduce erosion, and ensure the long-term sustainability of farming in the watershed. 1.14 Experience with project implementation has been mixed. The main difficulties have included procurement delays and inadequate local funding. Government is well aware of these difficulties and is no longer wil:ing to agree to new projects unless counterpart funding will be available The Ministry of Forestry (MOP), which would be the coordinating agency for the proposed project, hae in general suffered less than the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA) from budgetary shortfalls since many of its expenditures are financed from internally generated funds. It has also retained a strong central management which has facilitated the making of decisions and allocation of priorities. 1.15 Recent reviews of projects in Turkey include those of the Second Agricultural Credit Project, the Erzurum Rural Development Project, and the Northern Forestry Project. The Erzurum Rural Development Project Completion Report (PCR) concludes that even in less developed areas in Turkey farmers respond readily to an appropriate development package. It also highlights the need for participation of beneficiaries in project preparation. The Northern Forestry Project PCR emphasizes the importance of realistic project preparation, and the need for technologies to have been tested in Turkey before they are introduced on a large scale. 1.16 Watershed Rehabilitation projects are relatively new in the Bank, and few have yet been completed. PPARs on two early ones, however, suggest the following. For the Philippines Watershed Management and Erosion Control Project (Loan 1890-PH, August 1980), the PCR (September 1991) emphasized the need for a thorough understanding of prevailing legislation, simplification of organizational arrangements, a reasonable time frame for project implementation and the importance of securing the support of local communities in project planning and implementation. For the India Kandi Watershed and Area Development Project (Loan 18!"i-IN, September 1980) the PPAR (December 1991) emphasized the value of addressing man-induced environmental degradation in upper watersheds, and the broader value of the project as providing the starting point for other watershed management projects in India. 1.17 Government initially requested Bank assistance with financing a project focussing on reforestation, improved range management and environmentally sustainable farming in 17 provinces in Eastern Turkey. It was realized that a project with such a wide geographical area would be difficult to implement, and project size was reduced to the 10 provinces of the upper watershed of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, where erosion problems appeared to be particularly severe. Furthermore, because of poor endowment of natural resources, compounded by a harsh climate, income levels in these areas are relatively lower. Project area was further reduced, to the three provinces of Elazig, Malatya and Adiyaman in the middle catchment of the upper watershed, principally for logistical reasons, and partly because provincial government officials in these provinces were most ready to work with local communities. II. PROJECT AREA AND RATIONALE A. Definition of Area 2.01 The project concerns the rehabilitation of ten highly degraded subcatchments in the middle basin of the Euphrates river. These subcatchments cover an area of about 1.5 N ha within the provinces of Elazig, Malatya and Adiyaman and can be broken down into 214 microcatchments (MCs). They have been selected to exclude plains areas which experience minor problems of degradation. On the basis of an analysis of the implementing capacity of concerned agencies 54 of these NCs covering an area of about 400,000 ha will be treated during the seven year project period. The provincial forestry department would in consultation with other agencies be responsible for selection and MCs with a larger proportion of range and forest land would be given priority. The criteria for selection of MCs will inr.lude judgements about (i) the severity of problems in terms of vegetative degradation and soil erosion including the imbalance between the supply and demand for fodder and wood; (ii) the prospects for achieving an adequate return to the treatments offered under the project; and (iii) the extent to which the problems are recognized by the MC population and there is a willingness to explore solutions. Eighteen NCs have been tentatively identified while the remaining 36 will be selected during the course of project implementation. The definition of the project area is summarized in table 2.1 below (see also Annex 1A, Table 1B). Table 2.1s DEFINITION OF PROJECT AREA PrOyte -C amo Ar.. A -sr;e Avera Niat - ea Etiri.fluNa# - 0 1 ,4..-00 ... ,.' .. " .. ' *: ..... <~~T (part 4x 10,00 . B. Phslcal Characteristics 2.02 The climate in the project area is semi-arid and harsh. Precipitation averages between 350 to 600 mm and much of it falls in the form of snow. Summers (June-September) are very hot and dry. The geology of the area is extremely complex and soils are variable with a high proportion of erodible materials (fine-grained sediments, acid igneous rock, and unconsolidated parent material or 40ft rock). The topography is characterized by steep slopes interspersed by valleys of varying width. The 0egetativ0 ooverage on forest and range lands is poor and 35PA of the project area (middle Basin) is severely and 441 strongly eroded (both shoot and gully erosion). The mean annual soil clmt in the project area is estimated at a very high 40- 50 tons per hectare. Erosion is particularly high during the snow melt and intense rainfall in the spring. 2.03 Out of the cultivated area in the three provinces about 17.S5b is irrigated, 7.5e i( devoted to orchards (mainly apricot) and the reoainong 7the ia under rainfed cereal productions about one third of thig area io fallowed under the prevailing cropping system. The main cereal crop is wheat which is reported to yield 1.5 to 2 tons per ha under rainfed conditions and double that under irrigation. Yields have not changed rignificantly during the lant ten years. other crops include barley, tobacco, pulses and vegetables. Fodder production is rarely integrated into the cropping system. The pleins which to a large extent are excluded from the project area, support more intensive cropping and have a higher proportion of irrigation. The mid- slopes, which lie between the plains and the ridges and have slopes between 8% and 30%, are of major concern to the project. Crop production there is less stable and mainly rainfed, although there is some irrigation in combination with terracing. Orchards comprise a larger proportion of cultivated area than on the plains. Even shallow soils and steep slopes have, wherever possible, been brought under cultivation. Some mountain villages also practice subsistence cereal production on the highland plateaux under marginal conditions. Major problems identified by project area farmers include the short growing season, lack of fodder and fuelwood, moisture stress and low productivity in dryland farming systems. Inadequate drinking water supplies, caused in part by the drying of springs due to excessive runoff, are also identified as a problem. 2.04 Rangelands constitute, as noted above, 40% of the project area and have yields varying from 100-500 kg dry matter per hectare. The opportunities of conversion of range land to cultivated land have been more than fully exploited. Land used for feeding of livestock is commonly classified into three types: - highland range (yayla) i.e. rangelands with summer houses on the high plateaux which are used for communal grazing by transhumant herds during the summer months; - rangelands (mera) i.e. upland areas which are used for communal grazing; - meadowlands (cayir) i.e. highly productive spring watered grasslands which are used for hay production. They occupy a very small proportion of the land area (only about 3,000 ha in the three provinces). The range- and meadowlands belong to the government ,Treasury) but villages are reported to have exclusive usufruct rights (see also Annex 2 para 5). The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs is responsible for overall range management; this will be formalized in a Rangeland Law shortly to be considered by Parliament. 2.05 Livestock production in the three provinces is based on some 1.4 M sheep, 0.45 M goats and 0.45 M cattle. The long winter necessitates stall feeding for 5-6 months using scarce crop by-products, hay from meadows and better rangelands, oak leaves from lopping of oak forest and purchased concentrate. The number of livestock units has not increased significantly in the last 20 years, but the productive range area has diminished. The objectives of livestock keeping have changed with draught power diminishing in importance. Due to the increasing shortage of labor, there is the beginning of a trend away from large flocks of small ruminants, requiring much labor for shepherding and milking, towards stall feeding and milking of improved dairy cattle. The scarcity of winter fodder, which means keeping livestock outside for as long as possible in the fall and releasing them early in the spring, - 9 - together with general over stocking has had disastrous effects on vegetative coverage and species composition. The range lands are thus rapidly deteriorating and are by now a major source of erosion. The decreasing productivity of the range is fortunately recognized by farmers and, together with the scarcity of winter fodder and labor shortages for shepherding, seen as major problems in livestock production. 2.06 Forest land belongs to the government and is administered by the Ministry of Forestry but is used on a controlled basis by villages for fuel and fodder. Degraded rangeland may also be allocated to the Forestry administration for rehabilitation, and this sometimes causes friction with the villagers. However, by and large boundaries are respected and villagers do not encroach onto land managed by MO0 for rehabilitation purposes unless allowed to do so. Although the project area reportedly contained dense oak forests some 30 to 50 years ago, exploitation before nationalization of these lands and increasing pressure on natural resources have resulted in most of the forest area (88%) now being classified as bush, rather similar in appearance to the rangelands. Protection until recently has focused on the small proportion of remaining forests and particularly on the areas which have been rehabilitated or planted. Thin, often infertile soils and low and badly distributed rainfall cause slow woody biomass growth averaging 1-2 cubic meters per hectare per year. C. Social Characteristics 2.07 Although socioeconomic data comparing the project area with the rest of Turkey are not available, aggregated data indicate that the project provinces are substantially poorer than Turkey as a whole, while incomes in the rural mountainous areas of the project area are below the average for the project provinces. Rural incomes in Turkey are lower than urban incomes, and those in Eastern and South-Eastern Anatolia are lower than those elsewhere in the country. According to the Household Income and Consumption Survey of 1987, per capita incomes in Eastern and South-Eastern Anatolia were 67% of the Turkish average, while rural per capita income was 60% of urban. Food absorbed 46% of household expenditure in rural Eastern and South-Eastern Turkey (a money value was given to home produce) compared with 32% for Turkey as a whole. Other significant indicators include fertility, 5 in the east compared with 4 for all Turkey, and infant mortality which in 1985 averaged 66/1,000 for Turkey, compared with 95/1,000 in Elazig and Adiyaman project provinces (including urban and rural areas). Female literacy averaged 50% for the project provinces (again including urban and rural areas) compared with 62% for Turkey. 2.08 The average village in the three provinces has a population of about 600 people and embraces an area of roughly 2000 hectares. Settlement is rather scattered and the village frequently contains a core and a number of smaller settlement units. On average there are three units per village. The microcatchment would normally cover an area with about 4 to 6 villages. The village is administered by an elected headman (Muhtar) who executes the laws and decisions of Government and by the Council of Elders which is an advisory body containing elected as well as appointed members (teacher, religious leader). Cultivated land is privately owned; a survey in Eastern Anatolia - 10 - indicated considerable fragmentation as the average farm contained about 6 parcels of land. In the project area, farm size is smaller than the national average and some 13% of villagers have no cultivated land. The same survey concluded that almost all households keep some cattle, sheep and/or goats. Livestock is the main economic activity in some of the villages where livestock producers tend to leave in May for the highland pastures and return to the home village in October. 2.09 The rural population in the three provinces, 816,000 in the 1990 census, constitutes about half of the total. The population of the project area is estimated at about 230,000. Annual growth of rural population between 1985 and 1990, according to the 1990 census, was 1.49% in Adiyaman but negative in Elazig (-0.80%) and Malatya (-1.10%), compared with a national average of 2.3% per annum and a national rural average of 0.67% per annum. There is thus a clear trend of movement towards urban centers. Patterns of population movement include dual residences, summers in the village - winters in the city, releasing young male members to work in Istanbul while other family member pursue farming, or seasonal agricultural wage labor by part or the entire family. Agriculture and livestock are in some cases increasingly becoming secondary sources of livelihood (less so in Adiyaman) and many households in Elazig and Malatya have substantial non-farm earnings. There is a strong cultural attachment to land and the home region and few families appear willing to dispose of the land and move away permanently. Women play an important role in agricultural production. Women are responsible for the care of livestock in addition to their domestic responsibilities and child rearing. With the male work force increasingly engaged in non-farm employment the women have to take over most of the agricultural work and/or reduce the farm operations. D. Infrastructure 2.10 The project area has a well developed road network which permits access during most of the year. While snow temporarily may block high elevation passes principal routes are reopened within a matter of days. Tertiary roads may occasionally be cut by erosion. Electricity and telephone service is available in most project area villages. Electricity is used principally for lighting; the preferred cooking fuel is gas while fuelwood is used for heating. Markets and marketing organizations operate freely throughout the project area and marketing should thus not be a constraint in project implementation with the possible exception of fresh milk. There are two main sources of credit, the Agricultural Bank of Turkey (TCZB) and the Agricultural Credit Cooperatives (TRK). The Forest Village Development Fund (ORKOY) also provides credit to forest villages. E. The Tnstitutional Setting 2.11 Administratively the state is represented at the provincial level by a Governor (Vali) reporting to the Ministry of Interior. The elected village leader (Muhtar) reports to the Governor through the Kaymakan (county governor) at the county level. Almost all Ministries are represented at the provincial level by provincial directors. The organizations relevant to the project are the Provincial Forestry Directorates reporting to the relevant directorate in - 11 - the Ministry of Forestry (MOF), the Provincial Rural services Directorates reporting to the General Directorate of Rural Services (1HGM) in MARA, and the Provincial Agricultural Departments (PDA) reporting directly to the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA). Provincial work programs for Rural Services (i.e. roads, water supply and small-scale irrigation) and Forestry are prepared provincially and approved at national level by the relevant General Directorate. For agriculture they are prepared by the Provincial Agricultural Directorates, and approved directly by the Ministry. Thus, no single General Directorate in Ankara is responsible for agricultural activities at provincial level. The responsibility for natural resource preservation is fragmented although a Ministry of Envirornment (MOE) has recently been established at the national level. Key ministries are well established and functioning. An agricultural extension system has existed for many years in Turkey at provincial, county and village levels, while the Provincial Directorates of Forestry also have staff at county and village level. The Ministry of Forestry also has a Forest Village Development Fund (ORXOY), which finances various income generating activities in villages in forest areas. The present staffing of the Ministries of Forestry, and Agriculture and Rural Affairs in the three project provinces is given in Table 2.2 below. The administrations are for the most part well staffed, and the project is expected to be implemented with existing staff resources. As regards In-pitU gene conservation, research has a long tradition in Turkey, with a research establishment of over 8,000. MARA has experience in ex-_Jt gene conservation while MOF has experience in land management. The project would build on the complementary strengths of the two agencies. - 12 - Table 2.2x PROJEZLCT ROVINCES: STAFFING OF KEY MINISTRIES F~~ ZMO ?AY OA i_O _ E _ *. _ E E . . 212 esp$jan the 103frihrsarh*tbihetthr 8n rga wihsubtomtlall x1fi aglnanmedwaaeetad *rdc$iy DRPlyARTNENaact wtint poec re * h For-st~~~ Rasear¢ w#6let at3 107i (and tho Aprl4o 444ac Insitue o Malatya. Ersuru*x*** R660na Ro75ro (62)t lies in 9 the hih outan on wh.l th serhloiu tDyrai arolue n aluf si an atrreers)et tutd nth owpaiszoe 2.3 AogoglBatltigl h he poicsteScn 2.12ec whehsptethe lang T991kish rsarc demostrablihmnt ther exeisenoe progm whic Esystematiclly Rnexaie reangpeland Foagd meaow manageeint andeenedi teproductity Thea,tof onl aesearchscapacit vTheinitetpryojec aoreastheanual FoestcuResearc w Uastitut atg Blfi andl thnervpricot, resarch Institueof andpwater reseabictai) are sitatednthelow plahinsth prone.tae.Ti - 13 - program reached a peak of 19,000 ha in 1987 but has in recent years stagnated at an annual treatment of 11,000 ha. The General Directorate of Rural Services (KHGM) within NARA has substantial experience in the three provinces with small-scale irrigation schemes in hilly areas fed with water from springs and streams, and with structural soil conservation. Rural service agencies have not in the past, however, integrated their activities in a particular geographical area. F. Prolect Rationale Rationale for Bank Lending 2.14 The project would conform to the Bank lending strategy for Turkey, which includes increased focus on environmental issues, and increased assistance to the poorer provinces of Eastern Turkey. By improving sustainability of forestry, livestock and agriculture, the project would contribute to increased productivity and higher rural incomes in these areas. It would also strengthen coordination between the agencies responsible for providing rural services. Because of the focus on poverty and natural resource protection, GOT is fully committed to the project. Concerned provincial agencies have been closely involved in the preparation process, at central and provincial levels, and no other significant external funding source is available. institutions are able to expand activities but financial resources and equipment are limited. The In Situ Gene Conservation subproject supports, for the first time, the conservation in their natural environment of the wild relatives of globally significant food and forest species. This innovative biodiversity activity could become a model for JR-situ conservation elsewhere. 1In. THE_OJECT A. Qbiectives 3.01 The project addresses important problems of rural poverty and natural resource degradation. The project catchments embrace valleys, rolling hills and rugged mountains. Close to 80% of the area is strongly to severely eroded, vegetation is badly degraded, soils are shallow in many places, runoff and soil loss are very high. The project would help to restore sustainable range, forest and farming activities in the upper watersheds of the three project provinces, reducing soil degradation, erosion and sedimentation in reservoirs as well as increasing productivity and incomes in this impoverished region of Turkey. These objectives would be pursued by efforts (i) to improve productivity of range and forest land; (ii) to promote the production of fuelwood, cultivated fodder, and more sustainable use of marginal farm lands; (iii) to facilitate the adoption of treatments for range and forest land by funding selected supporting activities designed to yield quick benefits; and (iv) to ensure increased responsibility and involvement of local communities in the planning and management of their resources. A key underlying objective of the project is environmental rehabilitation of degraded land. The _n-Situ Gene conservation subproject would initially focus on sites in Western, South- - 14 - Eastern and Central-Southern Anatolia. Its objective would be the conservation in their natural habitat of the genetic resources of globally significant species indigenous to Turkey. 3.02 Watershed development is a continuous process in which the main rehabilitation phase is followed by a maintenance and management phase to ensure that improvements are sustained and growth in productivity keeps pace with population and the needs for income and employment. The main features of the proposed approach include: (a) Interactive microcatchment (MC) planning (see Annex 4) using a "Farmer-Centered, Problem-Census, Problem-Solving" (FC-PCPS) approach, involving discussion of farmers' perceptions of problems, a menu of treatment options (Annex 5) as a basis for agreement on possible solutions, and a flexible design to incorporate lessons of experience, results of adaptive research and demonstrations. Plans for each village in the microcatchment would be the building blocks of the microcatchment plans and annual budget requests. (b) Coordination of provincial departmental efforts within the framework of the MC plans to ensure that the treatments of cultivated land, rangelands and forestlands reinforce each other in restoration of sustainable land-use and alleviation of constraints e.g. fodder and fuelwood shortages. (c) Strengthening the village capacity to organize management of communal rangelands and to form a partnership with the Ministry of Forestry for protection and resource sharing for forest lands. (d) Emphasizing soil fertility management and vegetative means of soil and moisture conservation rather than expensive terracing and drainage line treatments. (e) Emphasizing stallfeeding, forage production and conservation, and upgrading of livestock to diminish pressures on range. 3.03 Large parts of Turkey face problems of natural resource degradation similar to those in the project area. The project is thus expected to provide a useful model for future efforts not only in the upper reaches of the Firat (Euphrates) basin but also elsewhere in Turkey. The replicability and cost effectiveness of the approach will thus be a major objective. B. Summary Description 3.04 The means for project implementation would be through an interactive planning process, whereby local implementing agencies work together with villagers to prepare and implement a plan across a microcatchment, defining interventions for improved range management, reforestation and improved soil and moisture cultivation methods. These measures would bring a mix of short- term and long-term benefits, and would lead to a sustained increase in fuelwood, fodder and agricultural production. Since villagers will select from a menu of interventions, the proportion of project costs devoted to each - 15 - activity cannot be determined in advance with any accuracy. The appraisal mission has prepared a "best estimate", for the purpose of costs and benefit calculations, based on field work during project preparation. Six microcatchment plans, sufficient for the first year 's implementation, have been prepared (see Annex 14), and the implementation plan for 1993 is summarized in Annex 15. Activities would be initiated in two microcatchments in each province in the first year, three in each province in years two and three, four in years four and five, and two in year six. Microcatchments treated in a particular year would be grouped within a subwatershed, in order to facilitate the logistics of project implementation. The microcatchment planning process is summarized in paras 4.08-4.10, and described in more detail in Annex 4. The main components of the project would include: (a) Rehabilitation of an estimated 54 microcatchments through a series of treatments on cultivated, range and forest lands with the participation of the local population. These include fallow reduction, increased fodder production, soil and moisture conserving farming techniques, improved range management and range enrichment, oak coppice rehabilitation and afforestation; (b) Supporting activities with short and medium-term income benefi..s to the local population, including small-scale irrigation, horticulture and apiculture; (c) Support to project planning and management; (d) Adaptive research and pilot work to supplement and improve the menu of treatment opticns; and (e) For the GEF subproject activities include survey and inventory, management of selected sites, monitoring and data management, institutional strengthening and preparation of a national plan for gene conservation. C. Detailed Features (a) Watershed Rehabilitation (US$58.7 million) 3.05 The volume of treatments has been estimated from the size of the project area, land uses (see Table 2.1 and Annex Tables 1A and 1B), the physical characteristics of the project area and the general experience of adoption of such treatments. As mentioned above, activities need to be integrated across a watershed and among land uses in order to bring about sustained improvements, and the right balance of short-term and long-term benefits. 3.06 Improvements in Farming Practices IUSS3.4 million). The project would promote technical packages which increase sustainable productivity, increase integration of livestock and cropping systems and control erosion. Activities include: - 16 - (a) promotion of food and forage legumes (chickpeas, lentils, vetch) on existing fallow land to enhance soil fertility and expand food production and the availability of forage; (b) introduction of conservation tillage using sweep tined cultivators along the contour on slopes exceeding 4%; (c) strengthening the present efforts to promote early planting, use of high yielding cold tolerant cultivars, fertilizers and the use of minimum tillage; and (d) encouraging conversion of marginal land to perennial fodder banks (planting of sainfoin). 3.07 The project would finance on a grant basis the seed and fertilizer package for the first year for farmers who adopt the recommended treatments, and would undertake demonstrations of improved tillage practices. For fodder banks the project would also include the costs of preparing the seedbed and broadcast the seed for the first year. Project costs include seed (vetch, alfalfa, sainfoin, chickpeas, lentils, HYV wheat) fertilizers (DAP, ammonium nitrate) and seedbed preparation. Activities are described in more deta-l in Annex 1A. 3.08 Rangelands (USS4.5 million). The objective would be to increase sustainable productivity by promoting improved management systems over the bulk of the rangeland and rangeland enrichment over a limited land area of higher potential that would respond to such treatment. Activities include: (a) improved management by farmers of communal rangeland, including encouragement of rotational grazing, with a later start and an earlier end to the grazing season, to allow recovery of vegetation. Range management plans would be prepared with full participation by villagers, and extension staff and farmers would be trained in improved participatory range management techniques; (b) enrichment seeding and fertilization of degraded rangeland capable of increased production, initially on a pilot basis, through improved soil nutrition combined with grazing management; and (c) enrichment through fertilization of range and meadowland with adequate seed population to increase hay production, initially on a pilot basis, again combined with grazing management. Project costs include training, seed and seed pelleting, fertilizer, soil ripping where appropriate to increase moisture retention, and labor. Activities are described in more detail in Annex 2. 3.09 Forest land (US$36.8 million). Although forest land belongs to Government it is frequently used by villagers. Sustainable rehabilitation will require close cooperation between villages and MOP staff to determine the best combinations of treatments according to village preferences and site conditions. Emphasis will be placed on cost-effective measures which produce - 17 - early increases in production while maintaining at least 40% vegetative cover over soils. Proposed treatments includes (a) oak coppice rehabilitation which would comprisG folling existing degraded oak stands prior to encouraging coppaiing, together with enrichment sowing of acorns in open areasl (b) fuelwood coppice plantations which involve oak planting and acorn seeding sites which are manually prepared and/or mechanically ripped to encourage moisture conservationj (c) soil conservation afforestation which would comprise earth terracing by mechanical means where necessary, planting trees along ripped and fertilized terraces, planting acorns between the bulldozed earth terraces, and broadcast seeding of the entire area with a mixture of forage seed, grass seed and fertilizers. Gullies would be revegetated, and small check dams constructed where necessary; (d) establiuhment of conifer plantations by planting on mechanically or manually prepared slopes; (e) rangeland rehabilitation by broadcast seeding with a mixture of forage seed, grass seed and fertilizers, and gully rehabilitation with checkdams and tree planting; and (f) riverbank protection through planting of poplars. 3.10 Project costs would include planting material (including acorns, seedling trees e.g., robinia, fruit trees, nut trees, conifers etc., and forage seed), survey, labor and machinery costs, fertilizer and initial maintenance costs. Activities re described in move detail in Annex 3. Strengthening Field Services (USS14.0 millon) 3.11 The project would provide technical assistance and training to strengthen the provincial Forestry, Agriculture and Rural Services directorates to enable them to carry out the above activities. Training would be mostly in-country, but would also comprise short overseas courses. For the Provincial Agricultural Departments the project would finance agricultural equipment, vehicles and office equipment. For XGHG the project would finance survey equipment, tractors, caravans, 4WD vehicles and office equipment. Most of the work undertaken by hUGX would be executed by contractors. For the provincial Forestry Departments the project would finance nurseries, labor, 4WD vehicles, bulldozers, caravans, tractors and related implements, and office equipment (US$10.2 million). (b) Income Supporting Activities (USS22.8 million) 3 12 The above activities, which bring a mix of short-term and long-term benefits, would be complemented by supporting activities bringing short-term increases in income. These would normally constitute about 2s% of the total - 18 - cost of rehabilitation activities in any one microcatchment. They would include: (i) Beek2eling. This activity has Important externalities in terms of conservation of vegetative cover and resource rehabilitation. Furthermore it has a long tradition in the project area. The provision of modern apiculture kits is linked to individuals adopting rehabilitation treatments such as perennial fodder banks, fallow reduction measures etc. The project would provide apiculture kits consisting of beehives and swarms and a set of equipment to farmers in each microcatchment through the forest village credit program of ORKOY (Forest Village Development Fund) (see Annex IA Attachment 1). (ii) Horticulture in gullies and along boundaries. High value fruit and nut, robinia, willow and poplar trees would be planted in gullies and along boundaries for participating households, the cost of the seedlings being met through the project. (iii) UDarading of livestock. The project would strengthen existing services to upgrade the existing livestock, through natural and artificial insemination, including provision of reliable supplies of lolstein and Brown Swiss semen for crossing with local Anatolian cows. Breeding bulls would be made available. (iv) Drvland terracing. The project would finance construction of small intervalled earth bench terraces on selected sloping dryland farming areas, to reduce erosion and increase water infiltration. The terraces would be mechanically prepared to promote moisture retention and roct growth and planted to tree crops, with grapes, sainfoin and votch, cereal and legumes grown between the terraces (see Annex 1B). (v) Small-scale irrication. The project would f'nance small irrigation schemes through diversion of springs and streams, construction of small water ponds and tertiary channels (Annex 1B). Higher value crops particularly tree crops would be grown on the irrigated lands. (c) Planninf and Management (USS5.9 million) 3.13 The project would provide training, technical assistance and logistical support to the provincial authorities and to a small Project Coordination and Support Unit (PCSU) which has been established in the Ministry of Forestry in Ankara. An estimated 97 manmonths of international and 39 manmonths of local technical assistance would be required, to assist in project implementation, in watershed management, range management, local participation, monitoring and evaluation/MIS and adaptive research and to carry out specialized studies related to M&E. A total of 108 manmonths of short-term overseas training/study tours, 30,000 mandays of farmer training and 950 manmonths of on-the-job in-country training is envisaged. G6T agreed at neaotiationg to sign the first principal Technical Assistance Contract for assistance in project implementation by 1st October 1993 (para 6.02(h)). A - 19 - separate local Ta contract to assess p3ssibilities of adapting the project to othor provinces is envisaged in years four and five. Short-term in country training would be funded, as would office equipment and vehicles. A geographical information (GIs) system and related technical assistance and training to assist provincial staff in mapping and watershed planning would be financed beginning in year 3. (d) Anlied Research (USSO.8 million) 3.14 A flexible aprroach would be followed for adaptive research, with new topics added as appropriate. The following programs are ongoing or planned and would be supported in the project area (see Annex 12 for details). 3.15 Ministry of Forestry. Research would examine: (a) the effects of bench terracing and ripping related to success and cost-effectiveness of afforestation, erosion control and soil and moisture conservation; (b) the effects and cost-effectiveness of fertilizers on the s_rvival and growth of oak seedings; (c) comparisons of survival and growth of seedlings after different preparation techniques; and (d) community management of selected rehabilitated forest areas. 3.16 Ministrv of Agriculture and Rural Affairs. Research activities would include: (a) run off trials to estimate soil loss from cultivated land and range lands of varying slopes; (b) testing and demonstration of various cold tolerant species and varieties of forage and food legumes for the fallow reduction and rangeland enrichment programs; (c) equipment and methods for sustainable seedbed preparation on slopes in excess of 4%; (d) Pilot aerial seeding and fertilization program for 5,000 ha of degraded rangelands; and (e) pilot assignment certificates for communal rangelands. (e) In-Situ Gene Conservation Sub_roiect Activities (USS4.8 million) 3.17 Activities comprises (i) Genetic resources survey of selected sites, and designation if gene management zones; (ii) Genetic resource inventory, preparation and implementation of management plans for gene management zones; (iii) Data management, (iv) Preparation of a national plan for in-situ conservation of wild crop relatives, woody species and landraces; and (v) Institutional collaboration and strengthening. - 20 - Table 3.1: PROJECT COST SUMMARY watershed Rehabiltatfon ProJect Eastern Aratolia TLOOO U$0 , _ _ ...... ......... ..... ... --.--- ... --.----......-........... X Foreign Local Foreign Total Local Forelign Total Exhae .. .. _...... ....... _...... _.......................... ................. .......... ...................... A . Strengthnsg Ageney Cey 1. Plaming and Hamneemat 2096525 30712500 51674823 Z383 3491 5874 59 B . Watershed Rehabilitation 1 Cropland Soil Noist. Cons 6283 1694937 79781 714 193 907 2. Croptand Faltow Reductlon 14124296 7596885 21721181 1606 864 2469 35 3. Range4eadcutand Enrichat 7834881 6880538 1471S419 891 782 1673 47 4. Ra tlawd RehabjTedp/Tupn 17496977 721939 24768916 1989 827 2816 29 S. Fuetlvod Copples Pltntn. 74566468 3171248 77737716 8476 360 8837 4 6. Oak Copp1ce Rehabltitat'n 7884705 8541439 87126144 8933 97 ,904 10 7. Soil Cons. Afforestation 62031730 15719417 77771146 7054 1787 8840 20 8. Conifer Plantations 35792659 2829971 3862260 4069 322 4390 7 9. Rangeland Rehab.; MPO 33412227 9099371 42511S98 3798 1034 4832 21 10. River Bank Ptlanting 254154 0 254154 29 0 29 0 11. Strength. Fiold service 2581114 97039784 122850928 2934 11031 1396S 79 ......... ..........................__.. ___................. ...................... . ... ................................_ ._.... Str-Total 356213194 159845530 516058724 40492 18170 58662 31 C . Supporting Activities 1. Smaltl Scae Irrigatifn 85494840 54930712 140425552 9718 6244 15963 39 2. Rainfed Terraces 10682488 8558525 19241014 1214 973 2187 44 3. ApicuLture 26030084 6507555 32537639 2959 740 3699 20 4. Norticulture 7264164 1286493 8550657 826 146 972 15 ........................................ ...................................................... ....... ............. _.. _ . ._. SutrTotal 129471576 7128326 200754862 14717 8103 22820 36 o) .Applied Researh 1. Forestry Research 22248 1557S3 1T7960 3 18 20 88 2. Range & Agric Research 5829758 103M6 6866795 663 118 711 15 ____.....___ ...................................... ....... ............ _.............................. ........ ..... ........_ Sub-Total 582006 119769 7044m 66 16 801 17 .......__...................... ..................... ......................__. .... .................... Total BASELINE COSTS 512499101 263034084 77553185 5827 29900 88157 34 Physical Contingenies 51011 2478557 75511868 5801 2m 8584 32 Price Contingencies 1525384821 600762992 2126147813 9736 3313 13049 25 Totat PROJECTS COSTS 208891723 888275633 2977192866 794 35996 10970 3 ........... ................ ,,....___..__.......................................... In Situ Conseration of GenCetic Diversity tLOOO tJSS000 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,_............__._.......... ..-.---- ............... X Foreign Local Foreign Total Locat Foreign Total Exchange ................................. ................................................ ...................................... __..... .._,_ A. Inventory/Survey 1. Irventory and Survey 3927954 12411953 16339907 44r 1411 1857 76 2. Geropla M _aagemt 23253 2493208 4818592 264 283 548 52 ..__....__. .. _.......... _................ ........................... ............ Sib-Totsl 6 14905161 21158499 711 1694 2405 70 B . DOesignation of Oun 1512122 0 1512822 172 0 172 0 C . Mot. Ptan for In Situ Con 2085989 2207779 4293768 238 250 488 51 0 . Institutionat Strenghth. 1952360 7124277 9076638 22 809 1032 78 E . Data Managemet 1982377 4775598 6757975 226 543 768 71 ,_.......... ................. ..................................._ .... .......... total 8ASELINE COSTS 13786886 29012815 42799701 1569 3296 4865 6 Plrnfcat Contfrdencies 137 2901282 4279970 1 330 487 68 Price Contfneencies 2042069 30163561 S058s929 120 201 321 63 Totat PROECTS COSTS 35585943 62077657 97663600 1846 3827 563 67 u.u.nuu_ UiU mn - 21 - D. Cost Estimtes 3.18 Project costs are summarized in Table 3.1 and are estimated at US$88.2 million excluding physical and price contingencies. Costs include a PPF (Project Preparation Facility) of U8S750,000 which is being used for preparation of microcatchment plans for the first year's implementation. It must be emphasized that actual costs will depend on village preferences and priorities; there will be an expansion of some treatments and a contraction of others. Present costs are based on overall estimates of the most likely balance between activities and the outcome of the preparation of the first six microcatclument plans to be implemented in the first year. A breakdown of project cost and price contingency assumptions and detailed project costs is presented in Annex 8. Total project costs including physical and price contingencies are estimated at US$109.8 million. Taxes and duties are estimated at 14% of project costs and foreign exchange at 33% of project costs. A separate project cost summary has been produced for the A-8itu Gene Conservation Subproject (see also Table 3.1). Base costs are estimated at US$4.8 million and costs including price and physical contingencies at US$5.7 million. Foreign exchange costs are estimated at 67% of total costs. Total project costs, including the GET subproject are estimated at US$115.5 million including all contingencies. E. FinancinA 3.19 The proposed IBRD loan of US$77 million would finance 70% of total project costs and be made available to GOT on standard terms and conditions. GOT would thus finance US$32.9 million equivalent including taxes and duties. Assurances would be sought at negotiations that GOT would make adequate budgetary provisions to sustain ths project (para 6.02(b)). The GET grant would finance US$5.1 million, or 89% of total project costs. GOT would in addition to its contribution of US$0.6 million contribute existing staff, research capacity and use of laboratories. - 22 - Table 3.23 FINANCING PLAN (US$ ILLION) World Bank Goverrment GTotal A. Civil works 34.2 23.1 57.3 B. Goods 30.1 4.0 34.1 C. Apiculture kit 2.4 2.4 4.8 D. Training and technical assistance 6.0 0 6.0 B. Project preparation 0.8 0 0.8 F. Incremental operating costs 3.4 --.4 6.9 Subtotal 77.0 32.8 109.8 G. In-Situ Gene Conservation Subproject 0.6 5.1 5.7 TOTAL 2u 33.4 5 . 1LA. F. Procurement 3.20 Procurement arrangements are summarized in Table 3.3. As is usual with watershed rehabilitation projects in other countries, the project has only a small element of procurement of goods through ICS, and a large element of civil works by LCB or force account, and direct purchase or purchase through local shopping of materials such as seed. It is also more difficult than in many projects to quantify precisely the civil works to be undertaken or materials to be procured, since these will be determined on an annual basis as part of the participatory microcatchment planning process. A further feature of this project is the very large number of small contracts to be expected over the life of the project, for civil works and purchase of materials and certain goods. Goods manufactured in Turkey and procured through ICB may be granted a margin of preference equivalent to the amount of the customs duties or to lS of the cost of the item, whichever is lower. - 23 - Table 3.3s PROCUREMENT ARRANGEMENTS Procurement -------- Total Cost Procurement Element ICB LCB Other (US$M) Civil Works 22.5 34.8/I 57.3 (13.4) (20.8) (34.2) Plant and Equipment 8.3 O.9/£ 9.2 (7.3) (0.8) (8.1) Apiculture Kits 4.8 4.8 (2.4) (2.4) Materials 19.9/' 19.9 (17.5) (17.5) Vehicles 5.0 5.0 (4.4) (4.4) Technical Assistance 6.0/1 6.0 and Training (6.0) (6.0) PPF 0.8 0.8 (0.8) (0.8) Incremental Operating 6.9' 6.9 Costs /I (3.4) (3.4) Sub-total 13i. 27.3 69.2 109.8 (11.7) (15.9) (49.3) (77.0)/" GEF Subproject 1.9 3.7 5.7 (1.7) (3.4) (5.1) Grand Total 15.2 27.3 72.9 115.5 (13.4) (15.9) (52.7) (82.1) /a Bank financing would be limited to operations and maintenance of vehicles procured under the project. /l Force account. /c Local shopping US$20.2 M; international shopping US$0.6 M. /A IBRD guidelines for consultants. /o GOT procedures. /I£ Rounded. Note: Details of procurement by disbursement category for the GET subproject are indicated in Schedule B of the MOD. Figures in parentheses indicate amounts financed by IBRD and GET. - 24 - 3.21 Civil works may be broken down into two principal categories. The firat category consists of small-scale irrigation and land terracing totalling US$22.5 million, which will be undertaken using LCB procedures, under the supervision of the KHGM. (All figures refer to the Eastern Anatolia Watershed Rehabilitation Project). It is estimated that over the project life there will be a total of about S4 LCD contract3, each averaging US$400,000 in value. Given the cost of these contracts, and their widely scattered nature in hilly terrain, the contracts would be very unlikely to appeal to international bidders, although they would be allowed to participate. Turkish LCB procedures are generally consistent with the need for economy and efficiency in project execution, and procurement w*ould follow a format agreed under earlier projects regarding use of LCB procedures. The first contracts for each province in the fist year would be subject to the Bank's prior review. In cases where no qualified bidder applies for the contract, the KOXM would undertake the work on force account. It has ample experience with such work, with qualified staff, and an accounting and recording system for expenditures which is subject to auditing. 3.22 The second principal category for civil works comprises reforestation activities which would be undertaken by force account (total valve approximately US$34 million) by the provincial staff of the MO0. It is estimated that these would be scattered over about 250 sites through the seven -ear project period, on high, steeply sloping terrain in remote mountainous ireas requiring specialized knowledge both for earth moving and for planting activities. Attempts to use LCE have failed in the past. Local labor is available and would be hired for the manual element of the work. OF has ample experience with carrying out such work, and maintains monitorable standards of output. It has a commercial accounting and expenditure recording system which is subject to auditing. Finally, about US$300,000 would be for nurseries; they would also be widely scattered through the project area, and would be built through force account also. 3.23 Plant and equipment totals US$9.2 million. About US$7.5 million would be for the purchase of earth-moving equipment, tractors and related implements and would be subject to ICB. Approximately 6 contracts would be required for this. A simple GIS system (estimated value US$0.35 million) would also be procured through ICB, as would about US$0.45 million for office computers, printers, etc. The remainder of the plant and equipment (totalling approximately US$0.8 million) comprises office equipment and laboratory equipmnt. These items would be grouped as logical into contractss contracts under US$100,000 would be procured through local shopping involving at least three price quotations, and above US$100,000 through international shopping. It is unlikely that any contract would be above US$150,000 for the above items; however, any contracts above US$200,000 would be subject to ICB. Also subject to ICB would be about US$5 million for the purchase of vehicles, mostly 4 wheel drive twin cab pickups, but including trucks, caravans and mobile repair vehicles. About 6 contracts would also be required for this. US$4.8 million would be for beehives and related equipment (veils, smokers, knives, swarms etc). The quantities required would be determined annually at provincial level, and procured through LCB in about 6 contracts (they are not appropriate for ICB procurement). - 25 - 3.24 Materials comprise fertilizer, seed, seedlings and small quantities of other materials (sacking, pesticides etc). Quantities to be procured would be determined annually by province through the microcatchment planning process. It must be emphasized that the figures given below are estimates only. Fertilizer is produced locally in Turkey, and also imported. It is sold through the state input supply agency and private outlets. Quantities to be procured (principally DAP and NPK) would be determined annually at provincial level (in 21 separate packages through the project period, with each package averaging US$250,000 in value), and the fertilizer would be purchased through local shopping. 3.25 Most seed vetch, sainfoin, alfalfa (about US$5.5 million through the project period) would be procured through local shopping, the amounts determined annually by the provincial implementation units. It is important to be flexible regarding seed procurement, since timely availability is essential, and the most reliable source of supply varies from year to ear. Acorn seeds and grass and certain forage seed (US$3.3 million) would be purchased directly from individuals who have collected it locally; this method has the advantage of ensuring a supply which is adapted to local agro- ecological conditions. Fruit and forest tree seedlings (total approximately US$4.7 million, again determined annually through the project period) would mostly be directly purchased from Agricultural and Forest State nurseries whose prices are reasonable. Attempts to purchase seedlings from private producers have so far failed to provide disease-free seedlings in reliable quantities. The remainder of materials comprise sacking, bags, fencing and office materials, to be purchased annually through local shopping. 3.26 Consultants to provide technical assistance (total US$2.7 million) would be recruited according to IBRD guidelines for use of consultants, and all contracts would be subject to prior review by the Bank. The TA would comprise three main contracts, for TA in watershed rehabilitation (about US$1.8 million), for TA in GIS (about US$300,000 including local training in GIS application), and for management of overseas training (management contract about US$300,OCO). Local consultants are expected to participate either alone or in joint ventures in the majority of TA assignments. The remainder of TA (US$300,000) would be for small contracts for TA to be recruited from time to time for specialized studies or tasks. Training comprises international training (US$1.9 million) and local training (US$1.4 million). The detailed local annual training programs (see Annex 11) would be determineid with the assistance of TA provided for under the main contract, and carried out by line agency staff. All arrangements for training would be subject to IBRD approval. Project items in the category incremental operating costs (US$6.9 million) i.e. fuel and repairs for vehicles and earth-moving equipment purchased under the project, would be procured using the normal GOT procedures. 3.27 GOT agreed at negotiations to follow the procurement procedures outlined above in paras 3.16 to 3.24. All procurement would be handled by the NOF on behalf of the other implementing agencies, except for the civil works for dryland terracing and small scale irrigation, which would be handled by GDRS. MOF has substantial experience in procurement, including the recruitment of consultants and is expected to be able to handle the workload - 26 - in a timely fashion. The situation will be reviewed, however, and any need for revision in the proposed arrangements will be assessed at the proposed project implementation review at the end of year 2 (para 4.15). All contracts for goods and equipment above US$75,000 equivalent would be subject to prior Bank review. Other contracts would be subject to selective ex-post review. It is expected that these review arrangements cover about 80% of total procurement. G. Disbursements 3.28 The proceeds of the loan are expected to be disbursed over seven years (Annex 8). The pattern of disbursements corresponds to the historical profile of agricultural projects in Turkey. Project completion is expected by March 31, 2000 and Loan closing by September 30, 2000. The proceeds of the GEF grant would be disbursed over four years. Subproject completion is expected by March 31, 1997 and grant closing by September 30, 1997. 3.29 IBRD would disburse loan funds at the following rates for these items:,/ Cateoorv Civil Works 60% of expenditures (US$31.1 million) Goods 100% of foreign expenditures (US$30.1 million) 100% of local expenditures (ex-factory cost) and 90% of local expenditures for other items procured locally Apiculture Kits 50% of expenditures (US$2.4 million) Technical Assistance and Training 100% of expenditures (US$6.0 million) Incremental Operating Cost 50% of expenditures (US$3.4 milliL.n) PPF 100% of expenditures (US$0.75 million) Unallocated (US$3.25 million) 3.30 Disbursements would be made against statements of expenditures for incremental operating costs, civil works undertaken by MOP, goods procured through direct purchases or prudent shopping, and training locally and abroad. V GET grant disbursement arrangements are discussed In the In-Situ Conservation of Genetic Diversity Technical Annex. - 27 - Implementing agencies would retain supporting documentation for these items for review by IBRD and external auditors. Up to US$3 million of retroactive financing would be possible, for expenditures incurred after November 1, 1992, provided the appropriate procurement procedures are followed. 3.31 To facilitate project implementation GOT would establish a Special Account with the Central Bank and would initially deposit US$4 M of loan funds. Withdrawal of funds would be or the basis of SOEs as discussed in para 3.22. This account would be opened in accordance with arrangements for existing Bank projects, and would be used for most disbursements except those in excess of US$1 million (para 6.02 (d)). B. Accounts and Audits 3.32 The Project Coordination and Support Unit (PCSU) of the Directorate of Reforestation and Bro3ion Control of the Ministry of Forestry would prepare reports on expenditures under the project on completion of each semiannual period, i.e. by December 31 and June 30 of each year. Separate accounts would be maintained for the In-gJ& gene conservation subproject by the General Directorate for Agricultural Research (TAGEN) and would also be produced semiannually. In addition, an annual audit would be carried out by the Treasury inspectors (with knowledge of English), including specific reference to, and comments on, SOEs and supporting documents and disbursements from the special account, and submitted to the Bank within nine months of the end of each fiscal year. Assurances were obtained from GOT at neaotiations that implementing agencies would follow these auditing practices (para 6.02 (g)). I. Proiect Supervision 3.33 Two Bank supervision missions per year during seven years of project implementation would be required. A "project launch" mission would be fielded shortly after Board approval and an implementation review would be held within two years of effectiveness (see also para 4.15). Flexibility in implementation would be stressed to adjust to changing circumstances and permit effective responses to participatory planning. During supervision the Bank would agree with the authorities on lessons learnt from that experience, on future modifications, and on the form and content of the next MC plans to be implemented. A key element in supervision missions would be staff continuity; missions would be expected to include natural resource management expertise and, periodically, participatory range management, irrigation and crops/soils expertise. Turkish expertise on missions will be important. The implementation review would include a monitoring/evaluation specialist. Each mission would spend adequate time in the project area to gain a realistic view of field problems and achievements. Supervision would require about 20 staff weeks per year in the first two years, 25 in the third and 16 per year in the fourth and fifth, decreasing to 10 per year in the last two years. Approximately 10 additional staff weeks per year would be required for supervision of the GET In-SJit Gene Conservation Subproject. - 28 - IV. ORGANIZATION AND ANAflNU A. nstItuti=1nal kU*ngmnts 4.01 The project uses the strength of existing institutions. The Ministry of Forestry would be responsible for coordinating project implementation. Provincial Level 4.02 The Assistant Provincial Directors for Forestry (MOF), for Extension (Provincial Agricultural Directorate (PDA)) and for Irrigation and Soil Conservation (KHGH) would form a team (Provincial Project Implementation unit) for each province, take major responsibility for project implementation and assign staff for that purpose. The team would be responsible for the identification of priority MCs, coordination of fieldwork, joint interactive planning of selected treatment options in the light of experience and the results of adaptive research. The Assistant Provincial Director of Forestry would be assigned the task of liaison with the PCSU and with colleagues in the other departments. One of the staff in his office would be trained and take the lead in MC planning. A capacity to malntain and operate a data base for future planning would also be established in his office and training provided to the responsible officer. The Provincial Directorates of Forestry would also have overall responsibility for selection of microcatchments, for coordination of work, and for determination of the content of the microcatchment plans. One of the officers servlg with each Assistant Director of Extension (PDA) would be trained to assume the responsibility for agricultural adaptive research and to coordinate with the agricultural research institutes at Diyarbakir and Ersurum. A second would be nominated as a microcatchment er.ineer, with fulltime responsibility for the agricultural elements of the project. One of the officers from Elazig Forest Research Institute would be trained to assume responsibility for project related forest applied research in the provinces. The Provincial directors of the departments would constitute a Steering Committee which would be chaired by the Provincial Forestry Director. Microcatchment Level 4.03 Provincial implementation units would appoint MC planning teams. The composition of the MC planning group would vary according to the characteristics of the particular microcatchment. It would include the relevant county level agricultural and forestry staff, the Village Group Technician (VGT) of the agricultural extension service, and the provincial staff assigned to the project. The MC planning team in each province would be responsible for the initial interaction with the MC villages and the resulting indicative plan, and for the continuous contacts which are necessary to monitor progress in implementation; the group would define annual work programs and budget requirements. There are sufficient forest and extension staff at the local level but no staff are expected to be permanently located in the MCs. The PDAS have undertaken to allocate one agricultural engineer with specific responsibllity for each microcatchment. The limited experience - 29 - of range improvement and management would be addressed through technical assistance and intensive training. Central Level 4.04 The PCSU within the Planning Department of the Directorate of Afforestation and Erosion Control in Ankara would have the main responsibility to assist the provincial authorities to build up a capacity for coordinated watershed development, to review and approve indicative MC plans, to monitor progress, to serve as secretariat to the National Steering Committee (see below) and to provide certain logistical services such as arrangement of training and study tours, procurement of goods and technical assistance, and aggregation of accounts, reports and withdrawal applications. The unit would comprise a team of full-time, seconded specialists and would work closely with the responsible officers within General Directorates of Rural Services and of Production and Development of MARA. Five senior staff have been nominated: a watershed management specialist, an assistant watershed management specialist with special responsibility for coordinating training and technical assistance, a procurement specialist, a MIS/monitoring and evaluation specialist with knowledge of computers, and an accountant in charge of accounts and withdrawal applications. MARA's General Directorate of Rural Services (KH6M) and General Directorate of Production and Development (TUGEM) would also each nominate one staff member with responsibility for the project. All of the staff were nominated before negotiations, and GOT has aareed to the orcanizational arranoements outlined in these Paragraphs (para 6.02(a)). An Organization Chart is provided in Annex 6. Technical assistance would be employed to support GOT with project planning and field services as described in para 3.10 and Annex 11. 4.05 The MOP would be guided by a six member National Steering Committee chaired by the Planning and Coordination Department of the MOP and consisting of representatives of the Directorates for Afforestation and Erosion Control (AGM), for Forestry and for Village Development (ORROY) of the Ministry of Forestry; of TUGEM and KBGM of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs; and of the Directorate of Foreign Economic Relations within the Undersecretariat of Treasury and Foreign Trade. 4.06 Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) would be encouraged to participate in project implementation. Because several NGOs have considerable experience with community development, they could help in at least four ways: (i) by extending informal advice to staff from the line agencies upon request; (ii) by conducting training courses for line agency staff, under contract, to teach methods of participatory assessment of village preferences; (iii) by designing and implementing, under contract, systems for monitoring and evaluation of baseline status and project progress; and (iv) by participating in the development of village income-generating businesses where appropriate. No NGOs are currently active in the project area, and under present arrangements villagers work directly with line agencies; there are no funds specifically allocated for NGO assistance in the current project budget; however, project staff have agreed to explore possible NGO activities during implementation. The Swiss-funded Community Forestry Pilot Project within the MOF works with the Turkish Development Foundation (TKV): TKV and the Community - 30 - Forestry Project work jointly in some villages, and in others TKV is engaged on contract to carry out Rapid Rural Appraisals and similar tasks. NGO involvement would be a subject of the Project Implementation Review, and in the light experience gained through the Swiss Community Forestry Project, the possibilities of contracting with an NGO for certain activities would be reexamined. 4.07 The organizational arrangements for the GET In-Si_J Gene Conservation subproject are summarized below. The principal implementing agencies would be the Research and Environment Department within the Research, Planning and Coordination Board (APKKB) of MOF, and the Breeding and Agronomy Research Department within the General Directorate of Agricultural Research (TAGEM) of MARA. These agencies would coordinate the field work (survey, inventory, selection and management of gene management zones) of the relevant forestry and agriculture research institutes based in Izmir, Menemen, Ankara and Diyarbakir. The Ministry of Environment (Department of Protection of Nature, Directorate of Protection of Environment) would be responsible for production of extension material, publicity and coordination of the national plan for .n-_itu gene conservation. A project implementation committee and a steering committee are being established to coordinate activities between agencies. Overall responsibility would be with TAGEM. B. Microcatcbment Planninf 4.08 Microcatchment planning is the key element to interaction with the local population and coordination of departmental efforts (Annex 4). The building blocks of the NC-plan are the village plans. Where necessary the MC boundaries would be adjusted to avoid dividing a village between two MCs. After the selection of the MC, which includes confirmation of local interest, the first step in the planning process entails the marshalling of existing information (data and maps). Turkey is fortunate in having a very good basis for such planning but on some points it may be necessary to verify, update and or supplement available information through further surveying. 4.09 Active village participation is an innovative and essential feature of this project. Using a "farmer centered - problem census, problem solving" (FC-PCPS) approach, the MC planning process involves the following steps: (i) village discussion of problems and constraints and presentation of the menu of treatments funded under the project, including cost sharing arrangements (Annex 5); (ii) village discussion of solutions and priorities (selections from the menu); (iii) preparation of draft village plans; (iv) village discussion of draft plans; and (v) finalization of an indicative MC plan aggregating the village plans. The FC-PCPS process implies active village participation involvement not only in approval but also in the formulation and implementation of these plans. It also entails a joint effort by the concerned departments to allow an integrated view of the role of forest, range and farm lands in meeting village needs of fodder and wood, as well as income and employment, within realistic cost constraints. The FC-PCPS process is expected to ensure that the interventions respond to the perceived local needs and priorities and that a genuine commitment to and responsibility for the success of the project is generated. The scope for organizing improved village management of rangelands and participation in the protection and - 31 - management of forest lands would be key topics for discussion. Training of villagers in MC planning and in different treatment options would be provided and study tours arranged to adjacent areas where alternative treatments or organizational arrangements have been tried. 4.10 The outcome of this interaction would be agreements on an "Indicative MC Plan" summarizing and aggregating the analysis of available data, the results of the FC-PCPS process, the type, volume and phasing of different treatments selected from the menu and the extent of cost and benefit sharing for each investment (Annex S). The budget for each microcatchment plan will obviously vary according to population and site characteristics, but is expected to average US$1.5 million. Plans would be reviewed by the provincial steering committee and submitted through the PCSU to the National Steering Committee. After approval detailed implementation plans would be agreed with the participating community members and groups and commitments would be recorded in writing. The first six microcatchment plans, sufficient for the first year's project implementation, have been prepared (Annex 14) and an outline implementation plan for 1993 has also been prepared (Annex 15). At necotiations. the Government agreed to review annually and approve with the World Bank the form and content of the microcatchment plans to be implemented the following aeason (para 6.02 (f)). C. Monitoring and Evaluation 4.11 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) would be undertaken using existing resources, augmented by some project funds. Project finance would cover purchase of equipment, contracting external support and studies. The proposed M&E system is designed to reflect staffing and financial constraints and ensure close consultation between provincial and central project management. A primary objective would be to generate management information to guide project implementation and ongoing planning, and to provide the basis for an accurate evaluation of progress during implementation (see Annex 7 and attached progress chart). 4.12 Monitorino oroiect imolementation. A calendar of key events would be maintained to document issues arising and actions of central and regional management. Topics would include: progress on institution building and strengthening, staff (including performance of TA) training, procurement, regional planning and objectives, budget preparation and disbursement, microcatchment planning and implementation, cost and expenditure monitoring and cost sharing activities. A Central Unit has been established in the MOF to coordinate the M&E activities and this unit would discuss requirements with provincial management. Information would be collated at provincial level, to be used primarily as a management tool, and submitted to the Central Unit, quarterly, following an agreed format. The submissions would be consolidated into an annual report which would also include a short section on the implications of findings for on going policy and planning. Government aoreed at necotiations to review annually the microcatchment planning guidelines, and to adapt them as appropriate in the light of experience (para 6.02 (f)). 4.13 Treatment adootion rates and measurement of project benefits. Certain treatments benefit all villagers, certain others groups of villagers, - 32 - and others individuals. Basic technical and socioeconomic data against which project impact would be measured would be collected concerning the community in the microcatchment. Existing data on selected catchments which do not ultimately benefit from the project would also be collected, for purposes of comparison. An in-depth study of the community in selected microcatchments would be commissioned to a university or consultants, as an aid to project planners. Adoption rates and constraints would be measured at community and individual level and would include impact on forest and rangeland vegetative cover, species composition, improved yields and cash benefits, shifts towards stall feeding, improved land use and range management. A more detailed impact study would also be commissioned, as a guide to management. Analysis of results of adaptive research would be undertaken by the regional research institutions at Elazig (forestry), Diyarbakir (agriculture) and Sanliurfa (ODRS). These would also guide any modifications to the treatment menu. 4.14 Organization. The PCSU in the MOP would take responsibility for coordinating the M&E activities in each Province to ensure that compatible information is collected. The PCSU would also be responsible for contracting technical assistance and institutions to implement studies. Project management at provincial level would be responsible for the collection and compilation of data in the microcatchments. Staff in the Ministry of Agriculture provincial Projects and Statistics sections would play a key role in compiling data for the monitoring and evaluation exercise. 4.15 An Implementation Review, managed by the PCSU, would be carried out within two years from the date of project effectiveness (i.e. by July 31, 1995). The review would focus on: the experieace with the participatory approach to MC planning; the institutional framework; initial results of the applied research program; the potential for more widespread introduction of low coat and cost sharing treatments; the responsiveness and potential for amendment to the treatment menu to reflect the stated needs at village level; institutional, financial and socioeconomic project constraints; the scope for NGO involvement and for enlarging the project in terms of provinces or microcatchments. Assurances were obtained at negotiations that the Ministry of Forestry would organize the Review with full participation of MARA and that recommendations would be communicated to the Bank and carried out as agreed with the Bank (para 6.02(e)). V. PRG 1! BENEFITS AND JUSTIFICATION A. Production and Marketing 5.01 As mentioned in para 3.04, the scope and type of interventions and hence incremental annual production at the end of the project period cannot be determined with any accuracy; the balance between interventions will be determined annually through the microcatchment planning exercise. Difficulties in making estimates are compounded by widely varying agroecological conditions between microcatchments. Nevertheless, an estimate of likely incremental production was made in order to calculate benefits. It must be emphasized, however, that the figures given below are highly tentative - 33 - ,mee also paras 5.02 and 5.13). On current assumptions, production increases are estimated as followas (a) 57,000 ha of replanted or rehabilitated forest on average producing annually: first 10 yrs 50,000 i/year; next 5 yrs 38,000 m3; next 5 yrs 99,000 i3; years 20-30 155,000 m3; and 210,000 m%/year thereafter; (b) 117,000 tons (dry matter) of livestock fodder; (c) 42,000 tons fruit (apricot, almonds, grapes, mixed fruit); (d) 650,000 kg honey; (e) 36,000 tons wheat; (f) 2,700 cows benefiting from Al or improved bulls. 5.02 Secondary benefits of the rehabilitated or newly established forest areas and range areas (erosion control, water retention etc.) are not directly quantified in the ERR. They would manifest themselves in the form of improved agricultural output in the lower catchment areas, and in decreased reservoir sedimentation downstream of the project area. 5 03 Extraction and marketing systems for timber vary. MOP frequotltly operates a system whereby the village adjoining the forest may extract a certain amount of wood; the NO? may also license commercial timber cutters and the product then is marketed either locally or to fuel merchants from the urban centers To achieve harmonious development with the participation of the villagers, the project would encourage self policing. The wood produced is largely firewood but fencing poles and commercial timber are produced from the conifers. Commercial timber is expected to achieve a price equivalent to US$100/m3 whilst other timber products, mainly fuelwood, would achieve US$30- 50/m3. 5.04 The incremental output of fodder from the project would lead to increased production of meat and dairy products. Discussion at village level indicates that there is, at present, little price differentiation between natural fodders despite considerable variation in their nutritional (protein) value. This is expected to change as the 'new' crops, sainfoin, vetch and alfalfa, become more widespread and their value is recognized. For the economic analysis, fodder is valued at a constant US$70 per ton of dry matter, the current market price, a realistic basis for future prices where the demand for animal protein in the diet would be expected to increase. 5.05 At present the rural marketing of livestock and dairy products depends largely on traditional outlets which do not provide for sophisticated means of transport and cold storage. Nevertheless, processing as yoghurt or cheese prolongs the shelf life of dairy products and sales of livestock 'on the hoof', mean that existing outlets, private and cooperative, would readily cope with increased production resulting from the project. Prices would not be adversely affected. - 34 - 5.06 The projected annual incremental output of fruit (42,000 tons) is a project benefit. It is, however, difficult to predict with any certainty the expected composition of this output. Over half (55%) is expected to be fresh apricots valued conservatively at US$500 per ton. Almonds are valued at US$1,200 per ton; other fruit production has been valued at US$500 and grapes at US$250 per ton, net of labor hired for harvesting. The increase in dried apricot production would contribute less than 5% of total regional production, much of which is currently exported. Incremental production due to the project would not significantly affect local or world prices and would be readily assimilated into the local marketing and processing systems. 5.07 The local domestic market would readily absorb the incremental production of wheat. The price (US$110) in the economic analysis is the import parity price as reported by the Grain Market Organization TMO. This price allows for local transport (US$11), handling (US$2) and insurance (US$1) per ton for imports through the port of Iskenderum. This price is approximately 60% of the intervention price that has been paid by TMO to farmers in the region over the last two years. 5.08 The incremental 650 tons of honey produced annually will find a ready national market, since imports are currently required to satisfy local demand. Existing producers are skilled in the extraction of honey and wax but, when sold on the comb, honey commands a premium. The price used for the economic analysis is US$4.9 per kilogram of honey on the comb which includes the value of the wax. 5.09 The In-Situ Gene Conservation subproject would protect the biodiversity in-situ of globally significant herbaceous and woody species. It has the potential for significant global benefit through protection of disease and climate resistant strains of key crops. It would also build up the institutional capacity for comprehensive genetic resource management, integrating in-situ and ex-situ programs. B. Farm Income and Cost Sharing 5.10 Ignoring the considerable benefits which would accrue in the longer term from forestry rehabilitation, the net annual incremental income per village in the microcatchment is estimated at US$70,000 from fodder, cereal and horticultural crop production increases. Estimated average annual incremental income would be US$S25 equivalent per family in each of the participating villages in the microcatchment. Analysis of the expected pattern of distribution of this income would be speculative only but it seems likely that most groups would gain. Overall, the project would increase incomes in a seriously impoverished region of Turkey. 5.11 Cost sharing arrangements for watershed rehabilitation and income generating activities are shown in Annex 5. The cost of demonstrations, pilot work and adaptive research would be fully borne by Government. Forest lands belong to Government and Government would be fully responsible for both establishment and O&M costs but would also derive a substantial share of the benefits from such investments. The project would provide for increased village involvement in the management and protection of forest lands against a - 35 - larger share of the benefits. Range lands are also Government land but villages have clearly recognized usufructuary rights. For both range and cultivated land present cost sharing arrangements and the fact that part of the benefits occur outside the intervention area in the form of reduced runoff and sediment load result in Government shouldering the establishment (investment) cost of watershed rehabilitation treatments. Under the project, the individual and community share of the rehabilitation efforts would include some labor for establishment but would be mainly contributed in the form of operation and maintenance of the facilities and improvements created. In the case of income generating activities, the government and beneficiaries would share the investment cost equally while the beneficiary would be responsible for operation and maintenance. C. Economic Analysis and Risks 5.12 In a project of this nature, estimated economic rates of return are best viewed as rough orders of magnitude. Lack of precision reflects in part the difficulty in predicting the extent and scope of ameliorative interventions. Communities in the microcatchments would be consulted and would themselves choose from the "menu" of rehabilitation options; the choices available may also evolve during the project period. The economic rate of return (ERR) is estimated at 17% (see Annex 9) based on the most likely mix of treatments. Each microcatchment would have a mix of treatments yielding short-term and long-term benefits. Calculation of separate ERRs for each activity was not considered useful since benefits from particular interventions are frequently complementary to other interventions. 5.13 The analysis is considered conservative since it does not take into account other benefits due to reduced runoff or resource conservation, e.g. the likely increase in the economic life of the dams in the project area through reduced sedimentation. Furthermore and perhaps more importantly, the analysis does not take into account likely falls in productivity due to declining soil fertility in the "without" project situation. Finally, costs might well decrease rather than increase as lower cost solutions are adopted more widely. 5.14 An analysis of switching values indicates that total benefits would have to decrease by 41% or costs would have to increase by 68% before the rate of return is unacceptable, given an opportunity cost of capital of 10%. 5.15 A number of sensitivity tests were carried out to assess the "robustness" of the project to various risks. The table illustrates that the rate of return is not overly sensitive to changes in likely costs or benefits, nor is it seriously affected by delays. Only when costs are up by 20% and beaefits are lagged by one or two years, does the ERR drop significantly, to 13% and 12% respectively. - 36 - Benefits Costs gm t Central case Central case 17 Constant Up 20% 15 Up 20% Constant 20 Lagged 1 year Constant 1S Lagged 1 year Up 20% 13 Lagged 2 years Up 20% 12 Lagged 1 year Down 10% 17 Risks 5S16 The project is not without technical and institutional risks. Like all watershed rehabilitation efforts, it requires the integration of conservation and development, coordination of interventions in crop, livestock and forestry production and revisions in the way land is managed. It involves three institutions and requires a mode of operation where village perceptions of problems and priorities constitute the starting point. Some of the risk elements and how they have been addressed are discussed below: (a) The intervention technologies, while used successfully elsewhere, have not always been proven in the project area. Where this is the case, treatments are reduced to pilot scale or tested in adaptive research trials. The interventions for improved range management are perhaps the most "risky"; they require full participation by villagers, and agricultural extension agents do not have much experience working in high range. The problem has been addressed by (i) provision of technical assistance and training; (ii) focussing on low cost participatory approaches to range managemnt initially; and (iii) allowing for a review of progress within two years and modifying the approach if necessary, possibly contracting with an NGO with experience in community organization at that time; (b) The provincial line agencies have little experience of working together. Nicrocatchment treatments are expected to reinforce each other and if some are not executed or are unduly delayed, this may jeopardize other work and the total effort. The MC planning and budgeting process provides the framework for the involvement of different line agencies. Close coordination of the work has been promoted by substantial involvement by all agencies in project preparation and the planning of six microcatchments for the first year's program. The record during preparation is encouraging. The project organization provides for liaison comm4ttees at the national and the provincial levels, and an implementing team drawn from different agencies in each of the provinces. These teams are already functioning. This arrangement will be monitored continuously if necessary. - 37 - (C) The difficult working conditions in the project area, in combination with budgetary constraints, have resulted in low staff morale and frequent rotations. The provision of adequate resources and a meaningful work program under the project will improve the situation. This will be further reinforced by efforts to publicize the project as a major new initiative addressed at the problem of resource degradation in Turkey. The project may thus be seen to spearhead a future national program and provide valuable experiences and career prospects; and (d) Experience 'rom other projects also points to implementation difficulties caused by inadequate budget allocations. This has been countered by careful Government review of resources that cani be made available for this project, and by adequate Bank financing. 5.17 The GET Il-Situ Gene Conservation subproject is not subject to economic analysis. It would be of long-term, possibly very significant, benefit to the global community by conserving In-&ttu the genetic diversity of crops and forest species whose qualities may provide essential elements to high-yielding varieties. 5.18 In summary, reasonable efforts have been made to mitigate these risks. Given the seriousness of problems being addressed and the potential for positive spinoffs which might be applied elsewhere, the assumption of the risks is warranted. D. Environmental Imuact 5.19 The environmental impact of the project would be substantially positive and the project has been given a *C" classification. Restoration of sustainable natural resources is a principle objective. It will restore natural vegetative cover and reduce runoff and soil loss. The reforestation components will focus on indigenous species, in particular the native oak. The GRF iji-situ gene conservation subproject will promote preservation of wild relatives of forest and crop species in their natural habitats, and strains with drought and disease resistant qualities. 5.20 Considerations relating to possible environmental side effects includes (a) In cultivated land; the aim of treatments would be: (i) improving soil fertility by replacing fallow with forage legumes and pulses; (ii) changing use of marginal lands; and (iii) increasing productivity through aoil and moisture conservation, agronomic practices and minor irrigation. Some increased use of fertilizers may be expected but is most unlikely to reach wasteful or environmentally damaging levels. Some terracing would be undertaken to increaee moisture retention but with careful design no negative impact is expected. (b) Range and forest lands; the treatment objectives are: (i) enhanced vegetative coverage for in situ soil and moisture conservation; (i) - 38 - improved management; and (iii) increased productivity. Chemical fertilizers would be used in the vegetative rehabilitation efforts but application would be mainly of a one shot nature and quantities would be small and rapidly absorbed. The forest rehabilitation would mainly focus on coppicing of rootstocks within the natural oak forest and seeding of acorns in more denuded areas. Some terracing in selected areas would be necessary to increase moisture retention but efforts to minimize earth movement and the possible negative effects would be minimized. E. Impact on Women 5.21 Women traditionally are responsible for livestock, domestic chores (including fetching water and fuelwood) and child care but now, in the absence of many of the men, also play a major role in crop cultivation. The afforestation and range improvement programs would in the long term reduce the burden on women by providing larger quantities of fuel and fodder closer at hand. Increased reliance on stall fed dairy production and reduced participation in seasonal migration to tend dairy sheep and goats at highland pastures is a positive development. The extent to which project activities make it possible to earn a living locally and thus diminish male migration to the cities would have a positive effect on the quality of family life and relieve some of the drudgery of female labor. The participatory planning approach has been designed to give the women an important role in the selection of treatments. 5.22 Tha project should directly benefit women in the villages within a framework wherebyt (i) every effort is made to reduce the time and labor which women are forced to expend (and waste) on inefficient household and agriculture tasks; and (ii) women are given a valid role through the participatory planning process in selection of treatments, which will reliably reflect what they themselves feel they would be able to handle. The project will not design and implement activities specifically for women at this would further complicate project implementation, and might impose on gender relationships which are culturally sensitive. The nature of the involvement of the women depends on the attitudes prevailing in each village. Experience to date indicates that in some, joint sessions are held; in others, separate sessions are held for women. In some cases, women lead the discussions. All provincial staff will receive training on involvement of women in the FC-PCPS process. Women agricultural extension agents have participated in the FC-PCPS sessions during preparation, and will continue to participate under project implementation. VI. AGREEMENTS REACHED AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.01 GOT met the principal condition of negotiations agreed after appraisal, preparation of slx microcatcbment plans, sufficient for the first year's project implementatLon. Their form and content was reviewed and found satisfactory during a Bank post-appraisal mission in November 1992 (para 4.04). - 39 - 6.02 At negotiations GOT: (a) agreed on the arrangements for project organization and management, and provided evidence that the necessary staff had been nominated (the National Steering Committee, PCSU and provincial project implementation units have already been established) (paras 4.02 to 4.04); (b) provided evidence that sufficient budget allocations to meet GOT contribution to the project have been made in the FY93 budget, and agreed annually to make adequate budgetary provisions to implement the project (para 3.19); (c) agreed on the procurement arrangements outlined in paras 3.18 to 3.26; (d) agreed to open a Special Account as outlined in para 3.311 (e) agreed to arrange an Implementation Review by July 31, 1995 as outlined in para 4.15l (f) agreed to review annually and agree with the World Bank the form and content of the microcatchment plans to be implemented the following season (para 4.10) and adapt the microcatchment planning guidelines in the light of experience gained in project implementation and analyzed through the monitoring proceas (para 4.12); (g) agreed to follow the reporting, accounting and auditing procedures outlined in para 3.32; and (h) agreed to sign the technical assistance contract outlined in para 3.13 by October 1, 1993. 6.03 With the above agreements and conditions, the project would be suitable for a Bank loan of US$77 million equivalent at the standard variable rate, for a period of 17 years, including five years of grace. The Borrower would be the Government of Turkey. - 40 - Page 1 of 11 STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT TURKE- EASTERN ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT AGRICULTURE BACKGROUND CROP PRODUCTION CHARACTERISTICS 1. Land Tenure and Distribution. The most common type of tenure in the project area is small landownership. Landholdings are highly fragmented, with average farm size in the area at about 3 ha divided in some 6 parcels. The majority of the farms are owner operated. 2. Land Use and Production Systems. Data provided by the 1991 Agricultural Census indicate that although there are significant differences among the project provinces, the principal land use is rangeland. It is followed by agricultural use (Table la and lb). In the last decade, fallow has been significantly reduced in the project provinces. Currently, in the provinces of Adiyaman, Elazig and Malatya, 10, 30X and 331 of field crop areas are left for fallow, respectively. The largest area allocated for orchards and perennial crops is in Malatya. Vegetable production is the most common in Adiyaman. Table la Current land use in the project provinces. 1991 Mlyim Zlasla t Fblatya Total I of Z of X of (ha) total (ha) total (ha) total area area area Field crop area 188,187 30.6 108,348 13.7 139,520 13.3 436,055 Fallow 21,445 3.5 48,748 5.9 70,229 6.7 138,422 Orchards + pereidal crops 32,911 5.3 18,818 2.4 61,553 5.9 113,282 Vesetables 10,172 1.7 5,382 0.7 5,842 0.6 21,397 Permanent meadow + rangeland 78,512 12.8 360,315 45.5 289,016 27.5 727,843 Unused land C') 9,108 1.5 48,146 6.0 61,024 5.8 118,278 Von-cropland C") 130,753 21.3 77,506 9.8 262,089 25.0 470,348 Forestland (forest + bushland) 142,919 23.3 127,383 18.0 159,504 15.2 429,806 TOTAL ARIA 814,008 100.0 792,646 100.0 1,048,775 100.0 2,455,431 () rb frsmbW . be Ih min S am $=MP our. E Saw, i - I992 MWmimy tAma. d 1991 Apkdmd Cm= - 41 - ANlEX 1.A Page 2 of 11 Table lb Batimted land use iu total projoct area (3 provinces. 54 MEs) C") Land Use Adiyaman 1azi Falatya Total (18 Has) (18 WCs) (18 KCs) (54 MCs) Field crops 28,620 17,100 23,580 69,300 Fallow 5,400 7,380 11,880 24,660 Orchards + perennial crops 8,370 2,970 10,440 21,780 Vegetable 2,610 900 9,900 13,410 Permanent meadow + range 19,890 56,970 48,870 125,730 Unused land (M) 2,340 7,650 10,350 20,340 Non-cropland (**) 33,120 12,240 44,370 89,730 Forest + bushland 36,270 20,160 27,000 83,430 jTAL 136,620 125,370 186,390 448,380-- (M) sn&b fS .eiag*mt um. bi IUR _ed do fo m m axdr emipi. _bi sbuip 4_ ) (***) d i ofN igl oMam d)A a iind n "Note: hw4, find mia,dnfl I 1 54 MW.WWaakm, Ia 3dun banid at an nmbay f hk in 54 pmugiM admatdnwimn in tto p am _ 3. Rainfed agriculture is the dominant form of farming. According to 1991 statistics, around 80% of the total field crop area is rainfed (dryland) in the project provinces. Under these conditions, crop rotation depends on the ecological characteristics of the area as well as the socio-economic conditions of the farmers. Usually wheat and barley are rotated with lentil or chickpea or fallow. In some NCs continuous wheat and barley production is also practiced. In the project area, 73% of the dryland field crop area is allocated to small grains (wheat and barley), 11% to food legumes (lentil and chickpea), 16% to other crops (mainly tobacco in Adiyaman, melon, bitter vetch, common vetch etc.). Although livestock production is important, farming systems rarely include fodder production. 4. Under rainfed conditions, crop management practices and input use are generally poor, particularly on mid-slopes and highland plateaux. Under existing rotation systems seedbed preparation, seeding time, crop varieties and fertilizer application are the major components of the crop management package that need special attention and improvement. Average yields of wheat, barley, chickpea and lentil are 2.0, 2.0, 1.1 and 1.0 t/ha in Adiyaman, 1.5, 1.8, 0.7 and 0.7 t/ha in Elazig and 1.4, 1.5, 0.9 and 0.8 t/ha in Malatya, respectively. In MCs, the yields are much below these provincial averages. 5. Irrigated agriculture is carried out to a limited extent only. According to 1991 statistics irrigated areas as a percent of total field crop are 12.7%, 26.3% and 26.8% in Adiyaman, Elazig and Malatya, respectively. In some areas of the MCs where perennial streams and springs exist small scale irrigation is possible. In the lowlands, wheat and barley are rotated with sugarbeet, bean, sunflower, cotton and maize. Other irrigated crops are orchards particularly - 42 - ANNEX 1. Page 3 of 11 apricots, vegetables, and alfalfa. In addition, much lower lying irrigated land is also used for poplar or willow production. In MCs, the most important irrigated crops are alfalfa, fruit trees, some vegetables, beans and maize. 6. Due to inefficient crop management techniques, the full potential of irrigated agriculture has not been realized. Irrigated wheat, bean and sugarbeet yields are around 2.5 and 4.0 t/ha in Adiyaman, Elazig and Malatya. There is a strong need for effective extension to improve the irrigation techniques and agronomic practices. 7. InRut sources and availability. Certified cereal and forage seeds are provided by General Directorate of Agricultural Enterprises (TIGEM). In mountainous areas, farmers produce their own seed from local varieties but without seed treatment. Seeds for other crops are usually provided from the local markets. In recent years, private companies have started to market imported vegetable seeds but only on a small scale. Fruit seedlings are provided by various agencies of the Ministry of Agriculture and by the local market. However, seedlings in the local market are not disease free and species and varieties are not labeled. 8. Commercial fertilizers are marketed by the State Agricultural Supply Office (TZDK), Agricultural Sales Cooperatives (TKK) and private companies. Since manure is considered as a valuable fuel source, its use as fertilizer is limited. However, in Adiyaman, it is used for pistachio trees. 9. Pesticide application is uncommon amongst the MC farmers except for apricot and vineyard production. Chemicals are provided from TDZK, TKK and private commercial companies. 10. In MCs where the topography is very rough, horse and oxen are widely use instead of tractors. Farm machinery is limited to moldboard ploughs, field cultivators and disc-harrows. Seed drills are very rare. The topography of the MC and the field sizes do not permit the use of harvesting machines. In some areas, where fields are not stony and rocky, grass-mower type of implements, generally scythes and sickle are used to harvesting wheat and barley. Therefore, harvesting costs are very high. 11. For livestock production concentrated feed is provided principally from state-owned feed factories. However, subsistence farmers of MCs can not afford to buy concentrates in sufficient quantities. Razmol is available at the local flour mills and straw is produced by the households or purchased from the local market. 12. Constraints. There are climatic, edaphic (soil), topographic and socio-economic constraints that limit the production in the project area. In Elazig and Malatya uneven distribution of limited precipitation (av. 404 mm) within the year and among the years, cold winters usually without snow cover, freezing soil temperatures, and short growing seasons are the major limiting factors in production. In Adiyaman, the long and severe drought period which starts in June and continues through October presents serious limitations for production. Other factors responsible for low productivity are the widespread soil degradation and rough topography. -43- ANEX 1. Page 4 of 11 13. Marketing. In the area, the major marketing bottleneck is in fresh milk production because of the long distance to large markets. Therefore, milk is processed to cheese and yogurt which have a ready market. EXISTING INSTITUTIONAL ORGANIZATION AND PROGRAMS 14. At the central level four General Directorates of Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA) are responsible for the project activities: * Production and Development (TUGEM - Department of Crop Production Development and Department of Feasibility Studies and Projects); * Organization and Support (TEDGEM - Department of Extension); o Rural Services (KHGM - Division of Soil/Water Conservation and Regional Research Institutes); and o Agricultural Research (TAGEM- Research Institutes). 15. At the provincial level, with its seven supporting sections, the Provincial Directorate of Agriculture (PDA) provides services to the farmers. Training and operation of the extension service is carried out by the Farmer Training and Extension Section (FTE). Adiyaman and Malatya which are being serviced by the Second Agricultural Extension and Applied Research Project (TYUAP II) are organizing to work with the T&V system. In Elazig extension activities are carried out through the existing structures. 16. At the county level, the PDA is represented by County Directorate of Agriculture with several technical staff. In Adiyaman and Malatya, some counties have an Extension Supervisor and a County Extension Group. 17. At the village level, extension activities are carried out by Village Group Technicians (VGT) in TYUAP II provinces; however, due to the lack of infrastructure in the villages and/or lack of incentives, in many cases VGTs are currently based in provincial and county offices and operate through daily visits to the villages. In Elazig, outside the TYUAP area, extension services to the villages are also carried out from the County Directorates through daily visits. 18. There are a large number of agricultural staff (123, 315 and 175 in Adiyaman, Malatya and Elazig, respectively) at the provincial/county level. Generally, the extension staff appeared to be underemployed and there is considerable scope to streamline and decentralize the provincial and even county structures. Although TYUAP II provinces recently obtained new and sufficient vehicles, transportation continues to be a problem in Elazig. It may to be noted that, in spite of all difficulties and inadequacies FTE Sections are dynamic and enthusiastic. 19. Activities regarding rural infrastructure, small scale irrigation, on- farm development, soil and water conservation are conducted by the Provincial Directorate of Rural Services. KHGM also has two Regional Directorates (in Elazig and Malatya) which cover the project provinces. - 44 - ANNE 1.A Page 5 of 11 20. Activities regarding agricultural research are carried out by TAGEM and KHGM. Project provinces have linkages with the following research institutes: Eastern Anatolia Regional Agricultural Research Institute (Erzurum), Apricot Research Institute (Malatya), Southeastern Anatolia Regional Agricultural Research Institute (Diyarkabir), Plant Protection Research Institute (Diyarkabir), and KHGM Regional Research Institutes (Erzurum and Sanliurfa). Overlapping responsibilities and lack of coordination among research institutes create confusion in addressing problems that are critical to land husbandry. The institutes generally lack experienced staff, transport, research eqaipment and machinery. However, they will benefit from the Agricultural Research Project Loan No. 3472-TU. 21. The project provinces are included in several programs/projects carried out by various General Directorates of MARA. These include: Crop Production Development, Crop Protection and Control and Livestock Development. Some programs cover only some of the project provinces: Fallow Reduction (Adiyaman), Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia Meadow, Pasture and Forage Crops and Livestock Development (Adiyaman, Elazig). Adiyaman and Malatya are under TYUAP II. THE PRQJICI AGRICULTURAL COMPONENTS 22. Agricultural components form part of a menu of project interventions from which communities, working with local PDA staff would develop and implement rehabilitation and development plans for their MC. To achieve agricultural objectives, the project would partly fund interventions, supporting activities, demonstrations, adaptive research and technical assistance. Agricultural components to be implemented in the MCs would: o promote technical packages which increase sustainable production and maintain the agricultural resource base; * increase integration of livestock and cropping systems on dryland farms to bring about a better balance between supply and demand for fodder and control erosion; * provide village communities with income generating activities to improve rural incomes and provide alternatives to grazing and farming on marginal lands. Supporting activities would be used to facilitate the adoption of treatments on range and forest lands. 23. Since the scope of treatments will depend on the prevailing agro- ecological conditions and the wishes and willingness of the participating farmers, at this stage, the area of a particular treatment can only be tentatively indicated. Table 2 indicates the tentative scope and phasing of agricultural components (treatments and supporting activities). - 45 - AMEX 1. Page 6 of 11 Table 2 Estimated scope and phasing of agricultural components (ha) Components Unit 1993 1994 1995 19D6 1997 1998 1999 Total Treatments Fallow reduction and forage production ha 2791 4187 4187 5582 5582 3631 25960 Agronomic package ha 1667 2500 2500 3333 1667 0 0 11667 Supporting Activities I I Rainfed horticulture + conservation ha 125 187 187 250 250 125 1124 Rainfed terrace agriculture ha 499 749 749 998 998 499 4492 Irrigated horticulture + conservation ha 234 351 351 468 468 468 234 2574 Pistachio grafting & establishment he 333 500 500 667 667 333 3000 Gully horticulture ha 190 208 390 680 964 814 3246 Trees along field boundaries km 64 97 97 129 129 64 580 Irrigated forage ha 0 878 1316 1316 1755 1755 878 7898 Bee Keeping J/ kit 0 180 270 270 360 360 180 1620 No. of MIs that will be treated annually over 6 years are 6, 9. 9, 12. 12, and 6 respectively. I/ consists of 20 hives, 20 swarms and a set of equipment. TREATMENTS 24. All treatments will depend on the effectiveness of extension activities. Development of a strong demonstration program will also accelerate the adoption process. a) Fallow reduction and forage production. Annual and perennial forage production under rainfed conditions would be promoted by the project to protect the soil with a vegetative cover, reduce grain cultivation on marginal lands, bring about a better balance between supply and demand for fodder and make more productive use of land. These will include the following: e Promotion of annual (Hungarian vetch and common vetch) and perennial (sainfoin) forage crops into the fallow - wheat/barley rotation under rainfed conditions; * Promotion of annual or perennial forage crops into the system where continuous wheat (barley) production is a common practice in dryland farming; and e Production of perennial forage (as a grass - legume mixture and a pure stand of sainfoin) on marginal wheat land. - 46 - ANNEX LA Page 7 of 11 Rehabilitation activities would lead to range and forest land being temporarily unavailable for grazing which in turn would result in feed shortages (feed supply is already well below present requirements). Forage crop production on agricultural land will not only compensate for this loss but will provide sufficient feed for improved livestock production as well. It is estimated that feed loss (as dry matter) due to closure of moderately degraded rangeland of about 100 ha could be compensated by producing Hungarian vetch on 8 ha of dgricultural land. In addition to forage legumes, the hay from food legumes (chickpea and lentil) would be used for animal fodder. The project will finance on a grant basis the seed and fertilizer for the first year that farmers adopt the new package. It is assumed that over the project life feed and food legumes will be produced on approximately 26,000 ha of land at a cost of US$95 per ha. b) Agronomic Packages. Under the project, small grain production will be reduced and other crops will be introduced and/or increased. However, subsistence wheat farmers of the MC population may be reluctant to convert wheat area to forage crops or horticultural crops since wheat is grown for subsistence. This difficulty could be overcome by reducing the number of parcels that are allocated to wheat and by increasing the yield in the selected parcels, through agronomic packages adopted to local conditions. It is estimated that farmers will adopt improved packages on approximately 12,000 ha of existing wheat and barley fields at a cost of US$78 per ha. The important components of the crop management package are as follows: * Timely and appropriate soil tillage (tillage along the contours) and seedbed preparation that allows moisture and soil conservation, early seeding and uniform emergence; * Early fall seeding that permits emergence and vigorous growth before the onset of cold weather; o Economic seeding rates that permit uniform stands; * Economic fertilization; and * Use of cold tolerant high yielding varieties. Measures such as timing of operations which do not need additional inputs should be emphasized at the beginning. This would avoid or at least reduce the fear of risk in the adoption process. It is important that high yielding varieties be recommended only after modifying the local crop management package. Otherwise, the adoption process will be affected negatively and 8. SUPPORTING ACTIVITIES 25. Supporting activities would be used to facilitate the adoption of activities on range and forest lands. Supporting activities must therefore be contingent on village agreement to adopt improved range management practices and forest treatments. Project costs are given in Annex 5 and 8. - 47 - A_NN A Pape 8 of 11 a) Rainfed horticulture + conservation. Under the project, KHGM will construct 5,616 ha of rainfed terraces on steeper agricultural land (Annex 1B). The land would then be cultivated on the contour leading to increased moisture conservation and erosion control. Local farmers are keen to adopt this practice. It is estimated that vineyard and almond orchards would be established on 1,124 ha at an average total cost of US$373/ha including a farmer contribution in the form of labor of 47% but excluding the terracing costs. Total terracing costs amount to US$410/ha. It is further assumed that the remaining 4,500 ha of rainfed terraces farmers would prefer to produce field crops. In the establishment year, planting material and fertilizers would be provided by the project, while other inputs and labor would be provided by the farmers. In the succeeding years, farmers would carry out the production with their own resources. b) Irrigated horticulture + conservation. In areas where irrigation is possible and conservation practices are needed, KHGM would construct irrigated terraces (Annex 1B). Based on the keen interest expressed by the farmers, it is assumed that apricots, applss, plums and some vegetables would be produced on approximately 2,600 ha at an average total cost of US$460/ha (62X farmer contribution) for crop establishment. This establishment cost is to be added to the total terrace ane irrigation construction costs of $1,622 per ha. It is estimated that on an area of about 1,250 ha of irrigated orchards alfalfa production underneath fruit trees would be adopted. c) Pistachio grafting and establishment. In Adiyaman, there is great demand from farmers for pistachio grafting. Wild pistachio trees would be grafted in an area of around 2,000 ha and pistachio seedlings will be planted on another 1,000 ha where wild trees are sparse. The grafting and binding material and seedlings would be financed by the project while labor would be provided by farmers. Total costs amount to some US$50/ha of which 20% consist of farmer contricution in the form of labor. d) Gully horticulture. Horticulture production would also be carried out on gullies that are formed at the outlets of the terraces. For rehabilitation purposes, almond, pear and walnut trees would be planted in gullies and vines on slopes. 't is estimated that gully rehabilitation could be carried out on 3,2,3 ha of land depending on the demand by the farmers at a total cost of US$400/ha, 40 percent of which the farmers would provide in the form of labor. e) Trees along field boundaries. It is expected that in each MC, fruit trees, Robinia, willow and poplars could be planted along the field boundaries of 5% of the total number of parcels for participating households. It is estimated that approximately 580 km of field boundaries could be treated within the project life at a total cost of US$300/km (66% farmer contribution). Costs of seedlings would be met through the project and labor would be provided by the farmers. - 48 - 1. Page 9 of 11 f) Irrigated forage. It is asoumed that around 7,900 ha of irrigated terraces will be used to produce alfalfa at a total production cost of USS206/ha (76% farmer contribution). Approximately 5,000 ha of this could be sole cropping and 2,900 ha double cropping (beneath fruit trees). g) Beekee2ing. This activity has a long tradition in the project area. The provision of modern apiculture kits is linked to individuals adopting rehabilitation treatments such as perennial fodder banks, fallow reduction measures etc. The project would provide 30 apicu.-.ture kits to each micro- catchment consisting of 20 beehives and swarms and a met of equipment at a total cost of US$2,260 per kit. In view of the importance of establishing a strong link between the adoption of long-term natural resource rehabilitation and short-term income generation, the project would provide 50% of the investment cost on a grant basis, provided the village demonstrated adoption of long-term measures. Credit would be available for the remaining 50% through ORKOY (Forest Village Development Fund) at an interest rate of 12% p.a. ORKOY would also be responsible for the logistics of this activity, while the PDA through the VGT would be responsible for selection of eligible individuals and extension activities (see Attachment 1 to this Annex). DEMONSTRATIONS 27. The need for demonstrations will be established during the FC-PCPS process in accordance with the requests and the knowledge level of the village communities. Defined problem areas wbere the participants lack experience can be answered by designing on-farm demonstrations. Demonstrations would be carried out by provincial agricultural extension and forestry staff working on the MC plans (see Annex 12). 28. There is considerable information on crop production developed by the national research institutes. some of this information that is applicable to the project area could be transferred to the farmers through the following types of simply designed but effective demonstrations: o Conservation village o Fertilization e Agronomic packages (HYV + crop management practices) o Irrigated forage * Pulses in context of fallow reduction o Forage in context of fallow reduction e Perennial forage production Annual results will be obtained with each type of these demonstrations with the exception of perennial crops and fallow reduction demonstrations. There is provision for inputs and support services for 3 ha of demonstrations per MC. The number and size of each demonstration will vary. ADAPTIVE RESEARCH 29. During FC-PCPS process the need for adaptive research trials will be established. Demonstrations are effective tools to answer the problem areas -49- ANNEX 1A Page 10 of 11 where the farmers lack experience. However, if problems arise during the implementation stage that cannot be answered by MC or provincial extension staff, adaptive research trials would be conducted. These trials would be designed based on the previous experience of the research institutes, would have a short duration and kept simple in order to answer the problem on hand. 30. Adaptive research would be carried out by the Adaptive Research Specialist (ARS), one for each province, nominated from existing provincial staff, who will act as the link between villages and the research institutes mentioned below. Logistical support would be provided to staff from these research institutes to enable them to travel to the project area in order to conduct these trials with the Adaptive Research Specialist. The following subjects have been identified for adaptive research programs (see also Annex 12): e Sustainable seedbed preparation on slopes ranging between 4X and 151 by the Southeastern Anatolia Regional Agricultural Research Institute (Diyarbakir) and Regional Institutes of KHGM (Sanliurfa); Annual and perennial forage crop (sainfoin, Hungarian vetch, common vetch, etc.) by the Eastern (Erzurum) and the Southeastern Anatolia Revional Agricultural Institutes; e Use of herbicides as an improved management tool for minimum tillage with field crops by the Southeastern Anatolia Regional Agricultural Research Institute and Diyarbakir Plant Protection Research Institute; and * Runoff and erosion measuring plots to calculate soil loss from representative dryland farming soils, with slops exceeding 91 by the Regional Research Institute of KHGM (Sanliurfa). PRODUCTION IMPACT 31. Yield benefits. The expected yield benefits are summarized in Table 3. It should be noted that "without project yields" are lower than the provincial averages due to various reasons such as poor crop management practices and poor access to inputs, unsuitable soil and topography in the MCs. - 50 - ANNEX .A Page 11 of 11 Table 3 With and Without Project Yields Yields (t/ha) Crop without project with project (estimated) Wheat 1.1 2.6 Wheat straw 1.6 2.75 Barley 1.0 2.5 Lentil 0.7 1.1 Chickpea 0.9 1.0 Comnon vetch 2.5 3.0 Almond n. applic. 4.5 Grape n. appllc. 4.0 Apricot (irrigated) n. applic. 12.0 Alfalfa (irrigated) n. applic. 4.0 PROJECT STAFFING REQUIREMENT 32. The agricultural components of the project would be implemented by the existing MARA staff. Some reallocation and training of staff is needed (see Annex 11). The Director of the FTE Division would be the responsible officer within the PDA. In each province, there would be two staff allocated fulltime to the project (Micro-catchment Agricultural Engineer and Adaptive Research Specialist) with new responsibilities as follows below. 33. Micro-catchment Agricultural Engineer (MAE). This would be a existing staff member of PDA who would be retrained to take responsibility for coordinating and supervising the activities in the MCs. FDA will in addition nominate one agricultural engineer for each micro-catchment (MCs; Micro-catchment Specialist); this person is likely to be based at the closest county agricultural office, or possibly at provincial headquarters if these are easily accessible to the microcatchment. 34. Adaptive Research SRecialist (ARS). An existing staff member of PDA would be retrained to facilitate the establishment and management of adaptive research and demonstrations. The ARS would act as the technical link between provincial field staff and research institutions relevant to each adaptive research topic. This person would facilitate research in agricultural, irrigation, soil conservation and forestry related topics. - 51 - ANNEX 1A Attachment Page 1 of 2 STAFF APPRAXSAL REPORT EASTERN ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT SUPPORTING ACTIVITIES, APICULTURE 1. Apiculture has a long tradition in the project area and interest in beekeeping is keen. The project will provide apiculture kits and finance 80% of the investment cost (50% IBRD, 30% ORROY) to individuals in villages adopting resource management activities in the microcatchments. Farmers would finance the remaining 20% (see para 2 below). The objective of this income generating activity is to ensure the lasting adoption of longer maturing treatments with respect to improved farming practices and rangeland and forest land rehabilitation. In particular, apiculture will allow villages to capture benefits in the short run from (a) the conversion of marginal cultivated lands to perennial fodder banks, (b) the introduction of food and fodder legumes in the context of fallow reduction, (c) the temporary cessation of grazing of degraded range, and (d) the implementation of soil conservation afforestation. 2. The project will provide some 30 apiculture kits consisting of 20 beehives, 20 swarms and a set of equipment (including drugs and sugar for the first year) at a unit cost of US$2,256 to each microcatchment or some 1,620 kits to the 54 microcatchments at an overall cost of US$3.65 million. The PDA through the VGT and ORKOY will jointly implement this component at village level. The VGT will be responsible for (a) the selection of beneficiary farmers which will be conditional on the adoption of rehabilitation measures by the beneficiary; and (b) the provision of extension services. ORKOY will be responsible for providing the apiculture kits to the villages and for establishing credit and payment procedures. Farmers will receive the apiculture kits directly from ORKOY who will procure in bulk on the basis of LCB. The farmer will receive a credit worth 80% of the purchase value of the equipment on present (1992) ORKOY terms. These consist of a 20% downpayment and an 80% credit at 12% p.a. with one year grace period during which capitalized interest; repayment takes place over the three consecutive years during which 25% of the initial credit amount (including capitalized interest) is repaid in the first year, 35% in the second and 40% in the third year. 3. This credit element is justified by the importance of establishing a strong link between the adoption of long-term natural resource rehabilitation and short term income generation. Targeting of apiculture support is an essential element of the rationale and will be ensured by the following. First, the provision of apiculture kits will take place in the second year and onwards of the development of a given microcatchment in order to allow for demonstration on improved agricultural practices and range and forest land treatments as well as for extension in beekeeping. Secondly, in view of -52- A-= 1, A Attachment PFge 2 of 2 ensuring adoption the final decision to provide a village within a microcatchment with beekeeping kits will be with the PUB based upon the meeting of minimum adoption rates. Lastly, after the PUB has taken a pooLtive decision, the VGT will be responsible for allocating apiculture kits to individuals that can demonstrate effective adoption of treatments. 4. ORKOY is the recently established Forest Village Development Fund under the MOF which provides subsidized credit for a number of activities, including the purchase of beehives, stoves, sheep and cattle. ORIOU normally operates in forest villages (i.e. villages located in areas declared as forests). Though the majority of villages in the microcatchment do not qualify as forest villages, ORKOY has declared to extend its services to all villages within the project area starting in 1993, and is presently making the administrative arrangements in this respect. Close coordination will be required between ORKOY and the PUB in order to avoid activities to be premoted which run against the aim of the project, in particular the provision of cattle, sheep and goat where overgrazing is a major concern. Possible conflicts arising in this respect which cannot be settled at the provincial level would be referred to the PCSU at central level. The arrangements related to apiculture, in particular the effectiveness of the link betweea adoption of resource management activities and recipient of apiculture klte and the institution involved, will be evaluated during the Project implementation Review. - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -3 - 53 - ANNEX 1.B Page 1 of 2 STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT EASTERN ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT RAINFED TERRACING AND SMALL-SCALE IRRIGATION 1. Rainfed terraces with subsequent plantation of orchards are a means of erosion control using physical and biological measures (see Attachment 1 to this Annex) which offer the possibility of considerable income generation in :.the medium term. Small-scale irrigation permits an increase in the productivity of agricultural land and income from farming and thus reduces pressure to utilize marginal lands. Both activities will be instrumental in linking long-term resource management with shorter term income generation. KHGM (General Directorate of Rural Services) of MARA will be responsible for planning and implementing these activities (including check dams) in the micro-catchments of the project area. KHGM, which is in charge of construction of public irrigation works involving water source with less than 500 l/s outflow (DSI for above 500 l/s), has considerable experience in the design and construction of small-scale irrigation infrastructure either on a contract or a force account basis. 2. The scope of rainfed terracing and small-scale irrigation within a micro-catchment will be determined within the framework of the participatory planning process (FC-PCPS) involving villagers and the concerned institutions (see Annex 4). Subsequently, provincial KHGM will a) update existing and provide supplementary surveys (e.g. soil and cadastral maps); and b) design and cost the individual works. Designs will then be approved at central KHGM. Tenders will be issued and contracts awarded by central KHGM on a micro- catchment basis. As civil works are scattered in remote areas, there may be insufficient response from contractors and works would then be carried out on force account. In both cases, provincial KHGM staff will supervise the works. 3. During project implementation the participatory planning process will run parallel to the survey and design work as well as to supervision of works under construction in the different micro-catchments. KHGM has allocated 3 staff members in each of the provinces to the project; more staff would be made available if necessary. Sufficient staff are available at central KHGM to appraise designs and carry out the bidding process. 4. Works to be carried out under KHGM consist of: (a) Terracing of rainfed agricultural land as well as establishment of gradoni terraces (6-8 m wide, small sloping bench terraces) and pocket terraces. These terraces would be constructed on sloping dryland areas (some 5,620 ha) at an average total cost of US$410/ha (including 5 farmer contribution in the form of labor) and would reduce soil erosion and increase water infiltration. In the case of pocket terraces, farmers would contribute by providing the stone material and constructing the walls; - 54 - ANNEX-1.B Page 2 of 2 (b) Construction of some 270 tanks and small basins at a unit cost of US$4,000; (d) Installation of tertiary (approx. 432 km at a cost of US$7,000/km) and diversion canals (some 162 km at a cost of US$2,000); (e) Establishment of 10,530 ha of irrigation terraces at a total cost of US$1,622/ha which includes a 13% farmer contribution in the form of labor; and (f) Construction of some 5,600 check dams using farmer labor and stones cleared from surrounding land. The areas indicated are tentative. The final scope of terracing, irrigation and check structures will be determined in the context of the participatory planning process. 5. In accordance with GOT practice, government will finance the investment costs of these schemes. Operation and maintenance will be the responsibility of the village communities. New constructions will be subject to villagers having maintained existing irrigation infrastructure in an operating condition. KHGM will inform the village communities of this responsibility. 6. Rainfed terraces will reduce soil erosion and water runoff and increase water infiltration and moisture conservation. In addition, terracing will lead to contour ploughing. Almords and other tree crops would be grown on the terraces. The irrigated area would be used to grow apricots and other fruit trees, alfalfa and other fodder crops as well as wheat and vegetables. These irrigated areas are expected substantially to contribute to farmers' income and the additional fodder produced from irrigation would encourage stall feeding and help to relieve the pressure from rangelands. 7. A key element is close coordination between institutions, in partizular between KHGM and PDA with regard to extension and demonstration (e.g. irrigated fodder production, establishment of fodder banks) and the procurement of seedlings. In addition, the link between long term resource management carried out by the village community and the provision of income generating infrastructure will be stressed by KHGM and PUB. 8. Environmental imipact. Soil erosion is by far the most important environmental problem found in the sub-catchments of the project area. The physical and biological conservation measures described above (rainfed and irrigated terraces including plantations) are specifically designed to counteract this problem. These measures will supplement other project activities such as reforestation and rangeland management which will lead to the rehabilitation of the selected micro-catchments. Soil salinity and waterlogging are not likely Lo be problems in the areas to be irrigated within the project. - 55 - ANNEX 1.B Attachment Page 1 of 3 SOIL EROSION IN THE PROJECT AREA 1. The project area is made up of that part of the catchment of the Euphrates River which lies in the three provinces of Adiyaman, Elazig and Malatya. Altogether the project covers an area of approximately 2.4 million ha. 2. The catchment covers a complex landscape which varies from rolling plains to steep mountains. Much of the area is geologically unstable and most of the natural vegetation has been removed by overgrazing and deforestation. These factors combined with harsh climatic conditions have led to extensive soil erosion. 3. Little soil loss data are available but estimates by the Directorate of Rural Services (KHGM) show that most of the project area is strongly or severely eroded. KHGM consider moderate rates of erosion to be from 1 to 10 tons per ha, strong erosion to be from 15 to 50 tons per ha, and severe erosion to be from 35 to 100 tons per ha. Table 1 SUB-BASIN SEDIMENT YIELDS Sub-basin Mean sediment yield (T/km2/a) Upper (Keban Reservoir) 3,948 Middle (Karakaya Reservoir) 5,222 Middle (Ataturk Reservoir) 4,390 4. Mean annual soil loss in the project area averages about 40 tons per ha. Although this is high, large catchments offer opportunities for sediments to settle and be trapped. Because of this, not all the eroded material is being transported into the downstream dams. For example, it is estimated that as much as 88X of the eroded material from the catchment of the large Murat river, in the upper Euphrates, is retained within the sub-basin -- only 12X will reach the Keban Reservoir. On smaller streams, the opportunity for sediment storage is less and more sediment will remain in flux. 5. The Keban, Karakaya and Ataturk are very big dams with very large catchment areas and a recent study has indicated that they will all take over 1,000 years to silt up even if the present high rate of erosion is allowed to continue. As the project is not expected to deal with more than about 400,000 ha, or 17X of the total catchment area, it will not have a great impact on the rate of siltation or life expectancy of the larger dams. However, excessive runoff and erosion are seriously reducing the productivity of the forest, range and agricultural lands of the project area and the general environmental conditions are deteriorating. Unless land rehabilitation and conservation - 56 - ANNEX 1B Attachment Page 2 of 3 measures are introduced, the agricultural productivity of the area will continue to decline, and farm incomes in this poor region will decrease. Land Rehabilitation and Conservation 6. Two important factors were considered in planning the rehabilitation and conservation measures. First, rehabilitation and conservation measures can only be effectively introduced and maintained if they are accepted and wanted by the local communities. This means that the measures must not only aim at reducing erosion and runoff, but must also lead to increased yields and incomes. Secondly, soil conservation research is now conclusively showing that the most effective way of controlling erosion is by protecting the soil with a vegetative cover. A ground cover of 40% or more can reduce erosion to acceptable levels. 7. Consequently, the rehabilitation and conservation works of the project will concentrate on measures aimed at increasing and maintaining vegetative cover over the soil.. This will be done through reforestation, and promoting rangeland rehabilitation and management and better crop husbandry practices. All the proposed measures are expected both to control erosion and to increase agricultural production. 8. Because of the severely eroded conditions of much of the project area, the steep slopes and difficult climatic conditions, some physical erosion control measure will have to be used but these will be kept to a minimum. Physical erosion control measures to be used will consist of the following: i. Forestry land Widely spaced, bulldozed, bench terraces would be selectively constructed on steep, highly degraded areas which are to be reforested. The terraces will then be ripped to allow moisture penetration. In selected places gradoni terraces will be built by hand. Technical details are given in the Forestry Annex 3. ii. Rangeland Rangeland would be rehabilitated by fertilizing or by fertilization and seeding. About 25%, will be contour ripped or contour furrowed. The rip lines and furrow will reduce runoff and erosion and at the same time create conditions conducive to the reestablishing of vegetation (Annex 2). iii. Arable land Small terraces would be built on the steeper agricultural land to reduce erosion and increase the infiltration of water into the soil. The construction of the terraces would also lead to the land being cultivated on the contour - a practice which by itself will help to - 57 - ANNEX 1. Attachment Page 3 of 3 conserve moisture and reduce erosion. The terraces would be spaced according to the degree of slope. After construction, the terraces would be ripped to promote root growth and planted to almonds and other tree crops. The inter-terrace area would be used to grow grapes, alfalfa, cereals and legume crops. This terracing would be done mechanically as this is four to five times cheaper than manual construction. Much of the agricultural land is dissected by gullies. It is planned that these gullies will be reclaimed where it is economically viable to do so. Reclamation works would consist of building small check dams which would catch silt, conserve moisture and help in reestablishing vegetation. The gullies would then be planted to fruit trees, poplars or Robinia pseudoacacia. - 58 - ANNEX 2 Page 1 of 6 STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT TURKEY EASTERN ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT RANGELANDS BACKGROUND 1. More than 50% of the Euphrates Basin is rangeland. Although extensive livestock production is potentially the most economically and ecologically sustainable way of using this rangeland, most of it is now badly degraded and eroded as a result of overgrazing. Technical solutions to rehabilitate rangelands exist and have been demonstrated on a small scale. The large-scale rehabilitation and improved management of these lands will depend on the development of economically and socially acceptable technical packages and the active participation and support of the rangeland managers - the villagers of the Euphrates Basin. THE RANGELANDS 2. An important opportunity to raise production, control erosion and generally improve environmental conditions for the project area lies in the rehabilitation of rangeland. As can be seen from Table 1, about 30% of the total area is currently productive range; however, a further 430,000 ha in the project provinces is forest land, much of which is degraded range, and of the 470,000 ha classified as noncropland, much is also degraded range (see Table 1A of Annex 1A). Table 1 RANGELAND IN THE EUPHRATES BASIN ('000 ha) Land Use | AdiyamanT Elazig I Malatya Total Ag. Land 252 179 278 Estimated Productive Range 79 360 289 % Productive Range/Total 13% 45% 27% Area Total Area 614 793 1,049 (Soure: ProvinciAl Dirctorates of Agriculture and SIS 1991) 3. Grazing land in Turkey is generally classified into three types: rangelands (mer a), meadowlands (cayir) and highland grazing (yayla). Rangeland (mer'a) conditions vary from moderately productive, but overgrazed, to severely - 59 - ANNEX-2 Page 2 of 6 degraded and significantly eroded, depending largely on the type of material from which the soils are derived. Annual dry matter production per ha is estimated to vary from 500 kg from rangeland lying on igneous derived materials, 300 kg on sedimentary material and 150 kg or less on skeletal soils. These rangelands support a wide variety of resilient plant species which have the ability to re- establish themselves quickly. Upland (yayla) rangelands are only grazed in the summer months. They also support a wide range of plant species and have been shown to respond well to good management and fertilizers. 4. Covering a relatively small area, the spring fed meadowlands (cayir) are important as they are relatively productive - typically producing 2 tonnes or more of dry matter/ha per year - cut for hay. Besides this hay, crop residues and the lopped branches of oaks are dried and used for winter feed. TENURE CONDITIONS 5. Only rangeland lying within the proclaimed forestry areas is considered to be the responsibility of the Ministry of Forestry (MOF). Other rangeland belongs to the State ('Treasury Land"). The Ottoman Land Law assigns usufruct rights to villages and groups that have historically used the rangelands; however, this Law is now technically abolished. The Land Reform Law of 1973 provides for the State the power to confirm usufruct rights through the granting of assignment certificates for particular rangelands, but it is not yet being applied in Eastern Turkey. It also provides wide powers to the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA) to develop detailed, annual grazing plans. Degraded Treasury land can also be allocated to the MOF for rehabilitation. A new rangeland law is at present being considered by parliament under which the MARA would become legally responsible for the rangelands. LIVESTOCK 6. Livestock husbandry is important in eastern Turkey accounting for more than 40% of the regional agricultural GDP. However, conditions are difficult. Extreme winter conditions necessitate housing animals for up to six months of the year and degraded rangelands, combined with reduced winter forage supplies, means that many animals are poorly fed for much of the year. Red and Black Anatolian cattle are well adapted to the harsh conditions but have low productivity and poor genetic potential. This problem is recognized by the MARA which has been introducing exotic breeds over the last ten years; these breeds must be well nourished and cared for, however, to realize their genetic potential. 7. The number of livestock units in the project area has not changed significantly in the last 30 yoars but the composition has changed, principally as a result of agricultural mechanization and migration of family labour. As tractors have become widely used, most oxen have been replaced by cows and sheep, particularly in the lowlands. Goat numbers have dropped as they have been replaced by more profitable sheep. Cows have replaced small ruminants in households with labour (shepherding) constraints. The changing social and economic conditions have not only affected the livestock composition but also the way in which it is managed - this is changing from a mostly transhumant to sedentary system. This state of change provides opportunities to introduce improvements, particularly for the better integration of livestock, cropping systems and stall feeding to reduce pressure on the rangelands. - 60 - tNE 2 Page 3 of 6 POSSIBILITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT 8. A number of measures have been successfully identified and demonstrated which increase livestock production, improving rangeland cor.ditions and control of soil erosion in this area. These include the use of fertilizers, reseeding of badly degraded range, controlled grazing, stall feeding, the cultivation of fodder crops and trees and the introduction of improved animal breeds. Some of these measures, such as community rangeland management programmes, have been voluntarily introduced by some villagers without outside help. The technology and interest therefore exist to bring about the desired changes. The challenge is to implement what is required on a large enough scale to have an impact. Preparatory work indicates that most village communities see rangeland degradation as a high priority problem and are willing to work with the MARA and MOF to find a solution. A participatory approach has been developed (see Annex 4) through which NARA and MOF staff together with village communities to plan and implement integrated catchment rehabilitation and development. THE PROJECT 9. The central theme to all rangeland components is village participation. FCPCPS techniques will be used to help villagers to identify, prioritize and solve their own problems. It is assumed that the project will help to rehabilitate and improve a total of 109,000 ha of rangeland. The proposed schedule for this work is given in Table 2 and costs are shown in Annex 5. The project will: (a) Develop and use a participatory approach to rangeland management planning and implementation in 54 selected micro-catchments in the project area. (b) Strengthen the institutional capacity to work with farmers in the project area by improving rangeland extension capabilities; training adaptive research assistants; providing equipment and vehicles for rangeland work; training provincial staff, village group technicians, farmers, pastoralists and shepherds in integrated catchment development and range management techniques. This will include herd size management as well as range management, in order to keep herd size optimal as range improves. (c) Increase sustaiasble productivity on rangelands by promoting technical packages and management practices which include: Development and implementation of rangeland management plans on approximately 59,000 ha at a total cost of US$10 per ha focusing on range management groups and using delayed start and early end to the grazing season, rotational grazing and temporary cessation of grazing on selected severely degraded land; - 61 - ANNEX-2 Page 4 of 6 * Fertilizing rangelands and meadowlands plus improved management of 30,500 ha at a total cost of US$73 (25% farmer contribution) per ha to increase hay production and to improve the quality of the hay; o Enrichment seeding and fertilization of severely degraded rangeland of about 20,000 ha at a total cost of US$132 per ha; o Pilot trials of aerial fertilization approximately on 5,000 ha at a cost US$63 per ha and aerial seeding + fertilization of about 2,000 ha at a cost of US$123 per ha. (d) Increase the integration of livestock and cropping systems in the project area. This will be achieved through production of annual and perennial forage crops on agricultural land. (e) Develop supporting activities to facilitate the adoption of treatments of range and forest lands which are discussed in more detail in Annex LA. Table 2 ESTIMATED VOLUMES OF RANGELAND REHABILITATION ACTIVITIES ! Itervention Unit 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 | Total t RN it ha 0 6500 9775 9775 13050 13050 6500 58650 RM + fertiliser ha 3389 5083 5083 6778 6778 3389 0 30500 RM+seeding + fertltiser ha 2222 3333 3333 4445 4445 2222 0 20000 Total ha 5611 14916 18191 20998 24273 18661 6500 109150l 1/ Range Managemnt Alone 10. The need for enrichment and fertilization of only part of the rangeland reflects the resilience of much of the rangeland in the project area and its ability to regenerate quickly without inputs other than good grazing management. DEMONSTRATIONS 11. In order to accelerate the adoption of range rehabilitation treatments simple demonstrations will be carried out on the rangelands by the Adaptive Research Specialist (ARS). The demonstrations, as shown in Table 3, will be funded by the project and labor will be provided by the farmers. Demonstrations are summarized below: o Rangeland grazing management o Rangeland fertilization * Rangeland seeding and fertilizat'on There is provision for inputs and support services for 3 ha of demonstrations per MC. The number and size of each demonstration will vary. - 62 - ANNEX_2 Page 5 of 6 ADAPTIVE RESEARCH 13. Adaptive research work will be carried out by the ARS (see para 30 of Annex 1A). The following subjects have been identified: * Assessment of seeding and fertilization treatments under grazing conditions on rangeland and meadowland by Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia Regional Agricultural Research Institutes; o Determination of the impact of different fertilizer regimes on livestock productivity and soil management by Eastern and Southeastern Regional Agricultural Research Institutes; and * Measurement of runoff and erosion on ungrazed range, fertilizer and seed enriched range and perennial forage production field by Regional Research Institutes of KHGM. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 14. The range management component of the project is expected to have a very important and positive social and environmental impact on the project area. The main environmental impact will be the effect on runoff and soil erosion. Modern research indicates that the most effective way of reducing erosion and excessive run-off is to increase ground cover. Erosion rates usually drop to acceptable levels once a minimum of 40X ground cover has been achieved. This degree of cover should be obtained on at least 109,000 ha if the plans outlined above are put into practice. The proposed range management activities will also increase the wildlife habitat and help to conserve the important botanical biodiversity of the region. BENEFITS 15. Besides the considerable environmental benefits mentioned above, the project is expected to result in a considerable increase in available fodder, improved livestock production and greater possibilities for productive local employment. Expected increases in range and meadow production are shown in Table 3. Table 3 RANGE AND MEADOW YIELDS WITH AND WITHOUT PROJECT Yield without Yield with project project (kg/ha) (kg/ha) High quality range 300 700 Median range 180 380 Poor range 100 250 Meadowland 2,000 5,000 - 63 - Page 6 of 6 16. Benefits will depend upon the rate at which farmers adopt the technical packages advocated by the project but, based on the projections given in the Rangeland Component report, the meadows will produce an incremental 1,500 tonnes of dry hay per year by the end of the project. Also, the rehabilitated and improved rangeland will produce an additional 26,000 tonnes of dry matter per year by the end of the project. RISKS 17. With the exception of aerial seeding and fertilization, no untested technology will be introduced under this component. The widespread acceptance and implementation of the rangeland components will depend on the FCPCPS participatory approach being effectively applied by extension staff. The availability of extension staff, training and facilities will, in turn, depend largely upon the effectiveness and commitment of provincial management, and upon the availability of inputs, particularly forage seeds to farmers when required. - 64 - AMEX 3 Page 1 of 17 STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT TURKEY EASTERN ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT TREATMENTS ON FOREST LANDS 1. INTRODUCTION The objective of the project's forestry interventions is to rehabilitate degraded gazetted forestry lands in order to improve soil productivity, soil water storage and resistance to erosion, sustained production of woody and non-woody forest outputs. 2. BACKGROUND 2.1 General characteristics of forests The three provinces in which the project will operate contain 430,000 ha of gazetted forest land (15.2% of total land in the provinces) much of which is regarded as unproductive forest, mostly oak species (Quercus infectoria, Q. brantii, Q. libani). The oak forests respond strongly to cutting at ground level and subsequent coppice growth and management. Within living memory large areas of forest have been removed for fuelwood, timber and forage, and soils have been severely degraded. Geological conditions, soils and topography are extremely heterogeneous, and any management interventions must be closely matched with actual site conditions. 2.2 Tenure and encroachment Proclaimed forestry land contains productive and unproductive forests, and also rangeland indistinguishable from adjacent Treasury rangeland. There has also been supervised management and utilization of forests under arrangements for concessional supplies of fuelwood, timber and forage to villagers. Cadastral boundaries of proclaimed forest lands are not always clearly defined on maps or recognised on the ground. 2.3 Management objectives and systems Current management systems aim to (i) supply some rural populations with domestic wood on a subsidised concessional basis; (ii) allow grazing on rangelands and within forests on proclaimed forestry lands; and (iii) rehabilitate forestry lands (see Table A3.1). The peaks of activities up to 1989 depended upon funds from a Revolving Fund which are no longer available for most of this work, and most rehabilitation and reafforestation now has to be funded from very limited regular forestry budgets. - 65 - ANNEX 3 Page 2 of 17 2.4 Outputs of woody and non-wood forest products Proclaimed forestry lands in the project area produce, or are capable of producing, the following products: timber (poles, sawlogs, peeler logs) from broadleaved and coniferous species, fuelwood, tree foliage fodder, fodder from grasses and shrubs, bee fodder for honey production, edible and marketable nuts (pistachios, walnuts, almonds) and fruits (apricots, grapes, plums, pears) and mulberry leaves for silkworms. Among the very wide range of non- wood forest products produced in Turkey, the project area may also be able to produce, with careful management, small quantities of some edible herbs (thyme, sage, oregano) and perhaps bulbs of ornamental species. 2.5 Past development activities The project area has had regular forestry development programs (see Table A3.1) and in addition several foreign-aided projects (for example a WFP Afforestation, Erosion Control and Range Improvement Project) in related areas have produced or will produce results directly or indirectly applicable to the project area. 2.6 Constraints Proclaimed forestlands in the project area suffer from extreme constraints on biological productivity: generally low precipitation, poor eroded soils over some 80X of the area, poor soil water retention rates, extreme cold and heavy snow cover in a long winter, high summer temperatures with little rain, and steep slopes with shallow rocky soils. These conditions produce very low growth rates, probably averaging 1 m3/ha/an of wood volume and less than 300 kgDM/ha/an of rangeland fodder. Forestry interventions must aim to improve soil organic matter contents and soil water retention, and to achieve and maintain vegetative cover at 40X or more. 3. MODELS FOR PARTICIPATORY MANAGEMENT 3.1 Farmer Centred Problem Census Problem Solving (FCPCPS) Forestry interventions will be employed as, when, where and how the iterative processes of FCPCPS indicate so that the optimum rehabilitation of each microcatchment (MC) occurs within the mandate of the Ministry of Forestry and in ways socially-acceptable to the villagers. 3.2 Planning and design Following selection of a MC for project activities, forestry interventions will be planned and designed based on an updated inventory of MC geology, soils, slopes, existing forests and erosion status. Alternative types of treatments from the "menu' of possible interventions will be costed according to available resources, and benefits assessed so that optimum outcomes can be achieved. - 66 - ANNEX_3 Page 3 of 17 3.3 Site matching and activity specifications It will be important to match the selected interventions (and consequent on- site activities) with existing site conditions. In particular, interventions requiring mechanical land treatments such as terracing and ripping should only be employed when appropriate combinations of hydrologic soil group, land erodibility type, slope and soil depth are found. These are outlined in Tables A3.2 and A3.3, and are subject to change based on further field research and observations. 4. PROJECT INTERVENTIONS 4.1 Proposed interventions There are six types of interventions, most with several sub-treatments, briefly described below (Table A3.4': (a) Soil Conservation Afforestation which would comprise mechanical terracing, planting acorns on prepared gradoni terraces between the bulldozed terraces, and broadcast seeding of the entire area w4th a mixture of forage seed, grass seed and fertilizers. Gullies would be revegetated, and small check dams constructed; (b) establishment of conifer plantations by planting on ripped or manually prepared slopes; (c) rangeland rehabilitation by broadcast seeding with a mixture of forage seed, grass seed and fertilizers, and gully rehabilitation with multipurpose tree planting (robinia, willow, poplars, fruit and nut trees) and check dams when needed; (d) oak coppice rehabilitation, comprising cutting of degraded oak stands to encourage coppicing, and acorn sowing in open areas; (e) fuelwood coppice plantations which involve oak planting and acorn seeding on mechanically ripped and manually prepared sites; (f) riverbank protection along unstable banks between low and high flood levels by planting poplars and willows. These activities would be undertaken by the Forestry Department, employing local laborers. The local population, in accordance with current practices, enter rehabilitated areas to cut and carry fodder, and to participate in thinning operations. 4.2 Costs Estimated costs of these interventions with their constituent treatments are tabulated below and in Annex 5 and 8. Labour costs (ranging from TL45,000 to TL90,000 per day) comprise a high proportion of treatment costs. The labour- intensive Oak Coppice Rehabilitation is costed at TL40,000 per day. - 67 - ANNEX 3 Page 4 of 17 4.3 Outputs and impacts Numerous quantifiable and non-quantifiable outputs can be expected from the forestry interventions. The former include fuelwood (from boles and branches), tree fodder, grass and forage species fodder, poles, sawlogs, peeler logs, and honey, nuts and fruits. Paid labour contracts inject cash into village economies, and income-generating activities (bees, silkworms, fruit products, livestock production) will have beneficial early economic effects. Non-quantifiable impacts include better land management capabilities, improved cooperative planning between OB and villagers, and gr3atly improved environmental conditions expressed as better soils, soil erosion and soil moisture conditions. Estimated outputs are tabulated below (Table A3.5), and in summary these estimates show that over 60 to 75 years about 600,000 t of fodder, 7.5 million m3 of fuelwood, 1.0 million m3 of branchwood, 220,000 t of leaves and twigs, 0.8 million m3 of sawlogs, 275,000 m3 of poles and 680,000 m3 of peeler logs will be produced. 4.4 Nurseries The project will supply equipment, watering systems and civil works to develop 6 new nurseries under Forestry management, to produce plant materials for the various interventions. Village nursery development will not be directly supported, because it is too difficult to assure villagers of long-term production contracts for high-quality seedlings of desired species for broadscale planting. However, small village nurseries for fruit tree seedllngs, if desired by villagers, will be supported with advice and limited supplies. 5 RESEARCH Although considerable forest research capability exists in Turkey, activities in the project area will be strengthened by providing some equipment. Current review topics include oak coppice operations, acorn storage, windbreak species composition trial and provenance trials. Numerous topics require adaptive and focussed field research including, in particular: (i) the cost-effectiveness and effects of mechanical site preparation on growth of trees and forage species; (ii) costs and benefits of fertilizers; and (iii) effects of site preparation techniques on erosion control, and soil and water conservation. The project would provide logistical support principally for data analysis. Provincial forestry authorities will also assign improved forest areas on a pilot basis to local communities to manage, adapting from the experience of the Swiss-funded Community Forestry Project. Precise arrangements will vary according to agreements reached with particular communities. Programs will be reviewed at the NTR, and the activity expanded if appropriate. 6. INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHENING 6.1 Organisation, staffing and operational funding The forestry components of the project do not require incremental staff and will not support any additional staff members, but it is expected that the organisational framework in which the whole project will operate will improve -68- ANNEX 3 Page 5 of 17 staff allocations and work methods, improve inter-agency cooperation and concentrate development cooperatively onto limited areas - the microcatchments - such that agency-villager relationships are made more productive. As the project lead agency, the Ministry of Forestry, and its constituent Directorates, is highly experienced in all the field operations required for the proposed forestry interventions (see Table A3.1), and is staffed and organised for the proposed tasks of project management, inter-agency and field liaison, nursery development, field implementation of treatments, and monitoring. 6.2 Existing forestry programs and responsibilities These have been greatly inhibited by the loss of most funds previously allocated from the Forestry Revolving Fund. Now that forestry programs have to be largely funded from regular budgets, which are severely restricted, planned (without-project) programs would be much constrained. The experience exists, however, to carry out programs on a substantial scale. 6.3 Nursery civil works and plant materials production As discussed above, 6 new dispersed nurseries will be developed with strengthened equipment and facilities. Research on plant materials production will be undertaken, and nursery offices/stores, sheds and housing will be provided. 6.4 Training Training will include 64 pm of study tours in Turkey, 86 pm of international short-term training, and on-the-job training for technicians (bulldozer operations and nursery persons). 6.6 Vehicles Field services will be strengthened by the provision of 21 small vehicles (mostly 4WD) for field liaison and field operations in microcatchments (distributed about one-third to each province), six 3-5 tonne tipper trucks for transport of nursery soil, fencing supplies and other field materials (2 each province), six 10 tonne trucks for bulldozer transport (2 each province) and 6 mobile repair vehicles for bulldozer field maintenance (2 each province). 6.7 Field equipment The project has budgetted for items of forestry field equipment, particularly including: ten 160-180hp bulldozers (about 3 each province, or 1-2 per current MC doing terracing and ripping under SCA treatments); nine 120-140hp bulldozers (3-4 per province, or 1 per current MC doing ripping under other treatments); 6 caravans for on-site supervision; 6 farm tractors (1 per nursery) and other items of farm equipment for each of the 6 nurseries (tipping trailers, ploughs, disc harrows, bed formers, seeders, root cutters). - 69 - ANNEX 3 Page 6 of 17 7. BENEFITS, JUSTIFICATION AND RISKS 7.1 Benefits The forestry component particularly targets degraded lands in the microcatchments. Benefits will ultimately include reduced soil erosion, improved land management procedures, better soils and soil water retention, and tangible outputs including fuelwood, timber, fodder, livestock, honey, fruits and nuts. An important benefit would be the development of better cooperation and trust between forestry authorities and villagers - which will in due course act as a model for future operations in areas outside the project's immediate zone of influence. 7.2 Justification The forestry interventions can be amply justified by the expected benefits in (i) land management and planning, (ii) rehabilitation of currently-degraded lands, (iii) increased outputs of numerous woody and non-wood forest products, (iv) increased trust between villagers and Ministry of Forestry, and between Ministry of Forestry and other GOT agencies, and (v) improved social and economic conditions in villages. 7.3 Risks The normal risks inherent in any forestry project - such as failures, or lower than expected production rates, due to fires, diseases, poor management, weeds and so on - will be minimised due to the widely dispersed nature of operations. The major risks are institutional and organisational - within agencies, between agencies and between villagers and agencies - such that cooperative procedures for planning, implementation and maintenance might not be effectively and sustainably developed. In particular, villagers must become more self-reliant and must fulfil their sides of any actual or implied contractual relationship with MoF. These socially-related risks will be minimised with full and effective use of the FCPCPS methodology, and subsequent development of sound village-based initiatives for operations and maintenance. 8. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 8.1 Ecological impacts The project will not promote or utilise large quantities of substances harmful or toxic to ecosystems. Provided forestry interventions are carefully planned and matched to site conditions, soil erosion and hydrological conditions will not be degraded and should be improved over wide areas. To the extent that management of the forestry interventions succeeds in maintaining sustainable vegetation cover and soil organic matter contents, the environmental impacts will be wholly positive. Wildlife and biodiversity will be improved, and exotic grasses and other species will not be used. - 70 - ANNEX 3 Page 7 of 17 8.2 Social impacts These should also be generally positive and beneficial to the extent that village incomes are sustainably improved, income-generating activities are created and maintained, women's burdens are minimised and stable village demographic structures are realised. 9. AREAS TO BE ADDRESSED DURING IMPLEMENTATION 9.1 Areas for interventions The FC-PCPS procedures to be followed will ultimately define the exact locations and extents of areas for the various treatments which comprise the "menu" of interventions. The areas predicated above (Table A3.4) are indicative only and will be refined as the project continues. As work proceeds MC by MC, suitable areas for inteventions will become better understood, which will allow extrapolation with some confidence to the remaining MCs. 9.2 Wage levels and other treatment costs The labour content of most forestry interventions is high, and the selected wage rates have a severe impact on project costs. Provincial forestry staff will use contracted labors for forestry activities whenever possible, since wage rates for contracted labor, paid through the Revolving Fund Budget, are lower than for labor employed under the General Budget. 9.3 Maintenance of planted areas Costings for most of the forestry interventions include large sums for maintenance of seedlings for several years after planting. The necessity for, and cost-effectiveness of, expenditure on these activities will be re-examined during implementation. 9.4 Mechanical land treatments Costings for most of the forestry interventions also include large sums for terracing and ripping. Careful matching of treatments to site conditions will minimise the areas required to be mechanically treated. The proposed field research on the cost-effectiveness of these mechanical treatments should evaluate them and elucidate their environmental impacts. -71 - ANNEX 3 Page 8 of 17 TABLE A3.1: FORESTRY ACTIVITIES COMPLETED AND SCHEDULED (without project scenario - '000 ha) [Acivity |-iPre*87 1987 1988 1989 | 1990 1S912 L 1 Soil conservation 2.74 2.73 4.54 8.23 4.62 1.83 1.40 26.09 Range improvement 1.03 1.35 1.95 0.85 1.10 0.70 6.98 l Energy coppice 5.50 7.10 7.10 7.39 4.80 6.05 6.15 17.00 I Energy coppioe renovadion 1.40 1.00 0.80 0.50 0.41 0.41 4.52 Plantation 3.02 9.55 3.60 5.90 4.87 4.05 3.93 34.92 TOTAL 8.52 1 19.08114.741 18.37 11.02 [ 11.61 | 11.19 94.53 Developed from replies to questionnaires by provincial authorities. - 72 - Page 9 of 17 TABLE A3.2: SELECTION CRITERIA: MECHANICAL LAND PREPARATION Hydrologic Slope Land erodibility type soil group (percent) I 1I Ill A >30 Agroforestry Agroforestry Virtually no tree crops tree crops dass A soils <30 Agricultural Range field crops rehabilitation B >30 Agroforesty Agroforestry Virtually no tree crops tree crops class B soils <30 Agricultural Range field crops rehabilitation C >30 Virtually no Forestry terrace Rangeland class C sois (SCA) or range rehabilitation rehabilitation <30 Virtualy no Forestry ripping Rangeland dass C soils rehabilitation D >30 Virtually no Range Protection and class D soils rehabilitation rangeland rehabilitation <30 VituWly no Forestry dpping as above class D soils Hydrologic Soil Groups vary In permeabilify and rate of water infitraton. They range from highly permeable In Group A to vituly Impermeable In Group D. - 73 - A EX 3 Page 10 of 17 TABLE A3.3: SITE SELECTION CRITERIA Forestry Activity Land Hydrologic Slope Soil Other Erodibility Soil Group (percent) Depth (cm) Constraints _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ T yp e _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ Soil conservation aforestaffon 2 C 30 to 70 (1) >35 Environmental 30 to 70 (2) Economic Great Soil I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __________ _ G roup Conifer plantations Mechanical preparation 2 C,D <30 >35 Environmental Manual preparation 2 C 30 to 70 (1) Economic 30 to 64 (2) great soil ___________ ~~~~~group Oak coppice rehabilitation _ Rangeland rehabilitation Broadcast sowing . >30 >5 Fuelvood coppice plantions Mechanical preparation 2 C35 Environmental Manual preparation 2 C 30-70 EconomIc River bank protection . - Hydrauric (1) Elazig and Malatya Provinces. (2) Adiyaman Province - 74 - ANNEX 3 Page 11 of 17 Table A3.4: ESTIMATED PROJECT BASE COSTS OF INTERVENTIONS Intervention cost Area Base Costs tl Cost/ha " Table (ha) (US$) (000) (US$) Soil Conservation Afforestation 121 10,000 8,840 884 Conifer Plantations 123 4,800 4,390 896 Oak Copppice Rehabilitation 124 17,800 9,904 556 Rangelarid Rehabiliaon 125 17,800 4,832 271 Gulley Rehabilitation 125 240 95 396 Fuelwood Coppice Plantatons 126 11,800 8,838 749 Riverbank Protection 132 140 29 205 TOTALS 62,680 36,928 I/ Project costs excluding farmer contribution. - 75 - Page 12 of 17 TABLE A3.5: ESTIMATED OUTPUTS INTERVENTION TYPE OF OUTPUT AREA NO. OF OUTPUT AMOUNT UNIT/VALUE (ha) YEARS OR (USS) ACTUAL _______________________________ ________ YEARS SCA " FODDER _ (loss of 300kgDM/halyr) " 10000 5 ( 15 m kg) _ ______________ increm. of 200kgDM/ha/yr 10000 55 110 m kg | _____________ ____________________________ ____=___-_ 95 m kg 0.07/kg FUELWOOD (terraces, gullies) 1 m3 at yr 10 10000 yr 10 10000 n3 26 m3 at yr 20 10000 yr 20 260000 n3 1 m3 at yr 30 10000 yr 30 10000 m3 40 m3 at yr 40 10000 yr 40 400000 m3 40 m3 at yr 60 10000 yr 60 400000 m3 __________ 1080000 38/m3 BRANCHWOOD ______________ 0.25 m3 at yr 10 10000 yr 10 2500 m3 6 m3 at yr 20 10000 yr 20 60000 m3 0.5 m3 at yr 30 10000 yr 30 5000 m3 10 m3 at yr 40 10000 yr 40 100000 m3 ____________ 10 m3 at yr 60 10000 yr 60 100000 m3 267500 m3 24/m3 __________ LEAVES, TWIGS 0.8 t/DM at yr 20 10000 yr 20 8000 t 1.28 t/DM at yr 40 10000 yr 40 12800 t 1.28 t/DM at yr 60 10000 yr 60 12800 t 33600 t 8/ton ___ FUELWOOD (Oaks) _ 0.5 m3 at yr 5 4000 yr 5 2000 m3 _ 5 m3 at yr 10 4000 yr 10 20000 m3 50 m3 atyr2 4000 yr 20 200000 m3 / Soil Conservation Afforestation -76- ANNEX3 Page 13 of 17 INTERVENTION TYPE OF OUTPUT AREA NO. OF OUTPUT AMOUNT UNIT/VALUE (ha) YEARS OR (US$) ACTUAL _________________________________ YEARS _ _____ _ °0.5 n3 at yr2S 4000 25 2000 m3 5 m3 at yr 30 4000 yr W 20000 n3 50 n3 at yr 40 4000 yr 40 200000 m3 0.5 m3 at yr 45 4000 yr 45 2000 m3 5 m3 at yr 50 4000 yr 20000 m3 ____ _ 50 n3 st yr 60 40Ca yr 60 0 200000 m3 666000 m3 431/3 . BRANCHUOOD (Oaks) 3 m3 at yr 20 4000 yr 20 12000 M3 0.5 .3 at yr 30 4000 yr 30 2000 .3 6 63 at yr 40 4000 yr 40 24000 m3 0.5 m3 at yr 5o 4000 yr 50 2000 n3 8 n3 at yr 60 4000 60 32000 m3 72000 m3 24/m3 LEAVES, TWOIS (Oaks) 1.0 t/DN at yr 20 4000 yr 20 4000 t 0.25 t/DN at yr 30 4000 yr 30 1000 t 2.0 Ot/DN at yr 40 4000 yr 40 8000 t 0.25 t/DM at yr 50 4000 yr 50 1000 t 2.0 t/Dn at yr 60 4000 yr 60 8000 t 22000 t 8/ton CONa FODDER (Loss of 200kg/hl/yr) 4900 75 (-94.5 m kb) 0.07 kg SAULOGS _ . __________ 20 .3 at yr 4S 4900 yr 4S 98000 m3 18 m3 at yr 55 4900 yr55 88200 m3 120 n3 at yr 75 4900 yrl 75 588000m3 774200 m3 187/m3 PEELER LOGS _ _ _ _ _ _ 90 3 at yr 55 4900 yr5S 4410003 m 48 m. at yr 75 4900 yr 7 235200 m3 'A/ frnunifer PlAnt*tf in - 77 A JNNEXK 3 Page 14 of 17 INTERVENTION TYPE OF OUTPUT AREA NO. OF OUTPUT AllOUNT UNIT/VALUE (ha) YEARS OR (USS) ACTUAL _____ ____ ____ ____ _____ ____ _____ ____ ____YEARS 676200 m3 1161m3 POLES 9 m3 at yr 35 4900 yr 35 44100 m3 10 m3 at yr 45 4900 r 45 49000 m3 4 m3 at yr 55 _. 00_ yr 55 19600 m3 24 m3 at yr 75 49'1 yr 75 117600 m3 230300 m3 151/m3 . FUELWOOD = 13 m3 at yr 34 4900 35 63700 n3 20 m3 at yr 45 4900 yr 45 98000 m3 _________ 13 .3 at yr 55 4900 yr S5 63700 m3 48 m3 at yr 75 4900 yr 75 235200 m3 = .__________ 460600 m3 46/m3 OCR F fODDER _ (loss of 200kgDM/ha/yr) 17800 2 (-7.1 m kg) incren. of 200kgDM/ha/yr 17800 58 206 m kg 198.9 m kg 0.07/kg FUELWOOD (w/o project, total over 10 17800 (by yr 10) (-534000 n3) year a 30 m3/ha, then 0) Cw/project, asswe standing stock - 20 m3/ha cut in yr 1 17800 yr 1 356000 m3 0.5 m3 at yr 5 17800 yr 5 8900 m3 5 m3 at yr 10 17800 yr 10 89000 M3 50 m3 at yr 20 17800 yr 20 890000 m3 0.5 n3 et yr 25 17800 yr 25 8900 m3 _ m3 at yr30 17800 yr 30 89000 m3 50 m3 at yr 40 17800 yr 40 890000 m3 _ 0.5 3 at yr 45 17800 yr 45 8900 .3 I_ 5 m3 at yr 50 17800 yr 50 89000 .3 j/ Oak Coppice Rehabilitation -78- ANNEX 3 Page 15 of 17 INTERVENTION TYPE OF OUTPUT AREA NO. OF OUTPUT AMOUNT UNIT/VALUE 1 (ha) YEARS OR (USS) ACTUAL YEARS 50 m3 at yr 60 17800 yr 60 890000 __ 3319700 m3 50/m3 BRANCHWOOD || (w/o project, total output 17800 (by yr 10) (-178000 m3) over 10 yrs. * 10 m3/ha, then 0) _ tu/project, assume standing ______ ______ stock a 1__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 5 Mn/ha, cut in yr 1 17800 yr 1 89000 m3 3 m3 at yr 20 17800 yrZ0 53400 m3 0.5 3atyr 30 17800 r 30 8900 .3 6 m. at yr 40 17800 yr 40 106800 .3 0.5 3 at yr 50 17800 yr 50 8900 m3 8 m8 at yr 60 17800 yr 60 142400 m3 409400 m3 35/c3 LEAVES. TWIGS _ Cw/o project, total output 17800 (by yr 10) (-17800 t) over 10 yrs. = It DM/ha, then 0) (w/project, assume standing ______ ______ stock a 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0.25 t DM, cut in yr 1 17800 yr 1 4450 t 1.0 t at yr 20 17800 yr 20 17800 t 0.25 t at yr 30 17800 yr 30 4450 t 2.0 t at yr 40 17800 yr 40 35600 t 0.25 t at yr 50 17800 yr 50 4450 t 2_0 t at yr 60 17800 60 35600 t 102350 t 8/m3 RANGE LAND FODDER RENASILITAT. II (toss of 200kgDM/ha/yr) 17800 5 (-17.8 m kg) increm. of 200kgDN/ha/yr 17800 55 195.8 m kg 178 m kg 0.07/kg - 79 -ANIIEX 3 Page 16 of 17 INTERVENTION TYPE OF OUTPUT AREA NO. OF OUTPUT AMOUNT UNIT/VALUE (ha) YEARS OR (USS) ACTUAL YEARS _ _ FUELUWCD From gully rehabilitation, assume all branchwovd 3 m3 at yr 20 240 yr 20 720 m3 3 m3 at yr 40 240 yr 40 720 m3 3 m3 at yr 60 240 yr 60 720 m3 2160 m3 38/1m5 FCP " FODDER (toss of 200kgDM/ hafyr) 11800 2 (-4.7 m kg) incren. of 200kgDM/ha/yr 11800 58 136.9 m kg ____________ _132.2 m kg 0.07/kg FUELWOOD 0.5 m3 at yr 5 11800 5900 m3 5 m3 at yr 10 11800 yr 10 59000 m3 50 m3 at yr 20 11800 yr 20 590000 m3 0.5 a3 at yr 25 11800 yr 25 5900 m3 m5 3 at yr 30 11800 yr 30 59000 m3 40 n3 at yr 40 11800 yr 40 590000 m3 0.5 m3 at yr 45 11800 yr 45 5900 m3 5 m3 at yr 50 11800 Yr 50 59000 m3 50 m3 at yr 60 11800 yr 60 590000 m3 1964700 m3 50/13 BRANCHWOOD - 3 m3 at yr 20 11800 yr 20 35400 m3 _ 0.5 .3 at yr 30 11800 yr 30 5900 Mn _____ __ 6 m3 at yr 40 11800 ° _ 70800 m3 0.5 m3 at yr 50 11800 yr 50 5900 m3 ______ __ 8 m3 at yr 60 11800 yr 60 94400 m3 ______________ ______________________________ ___________ 212400 m3 35/m3 _ LEAVES, TWIGS __ 1.0 t Dh cut in yr 20 11800 yr 20 11800 t F/ uelwood Coppice Plantation - 80- AME 3 Page 17 of 17 INTERVENTION TYPE OF OUTPUT AREA NO. OF OUTPUT AN"UNT UNIT/VALUE (ha) YEARS OR (USS) ACTUAL _______________ ~~~~~~ ~~YEARS _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____________ 0.25 t at yr 30 11800 yr 30 2950 t 2.0 t at yr 40 11800 yr 40 23600 t 0.25 t at yr 50 11800 yr 50 2950 t 2.0 t at yr 60 11800 yr 60 23600 t 64900 t 8/ton RIVER BANK POPLAR PROTECTION Sawlogs and poles, assume 150 ml at yr 15 120 yr 16 18000 _ _ 100 nt at yr 25 120 yr25 12000 m3 150 m3 at yr 40 120 yr 40 18000 .3 100 M. at yr 50 120 yr 50 12000 3 150 m3 at yr65 120 18000 m3 100 m3 at yr 75 120 yr 75 12000 m3 90000 m3 35/mA WILLOW AND OTHER SPECIES Assume all is fuelwood in small sizes __ _ ___ 60 6. at yr 10 20 yr 10 1200 _ _ 60 m3 atyr 20 20 yr 20 1200 m3 60 m3 at yr 30 20 yr 30 1200 m3 60 3n at yr 40 20 yr 40 1200 .3 60 mm3 at yr 50 20 yr50 1200 .3 60 m at yr60 20 yr 60 1200 on_ 90 m3 at yr 75 20 yr75 1200 m3 = _ 9000 m3 35/m3 - 81 - ANBZ 4 Page 1 of 9 £M[FAPPRAISAL REMOR EASTERN ANATOLIA VATERSHED REHABILITATO PROJECT GUIDELINES FOR NICRO-CATCEXENT PLANNING A. Project Area 1. Ten sub-catchments in the middle part of the Firat basin, covering an area of approximately 1.5 m ha have been identified to be in urgent need of treatment. Close to 80X of the area is strongly to severely eroded, vegetation is badly degraded, soils are shallow in many places and soil loss is very high. The main cause of this degradation is overexploitation of range and forest resources by, until recently, a rapidly expanding rural population. Of t1.e ten sub-catchments, three are located in Adiyaman province (Goksu, Kahta, Ziyaret), three in Elazig (Baskil, Kusova, Uluova) and four in nalatya province (Kuru Cayi, Malatya, Siro Cayi, Thoma Cayi). The project would, during a seven year period, plan and initiate works in 54 (about 251) of the 214 micro-catchments which constitute these 10 sub-catchments. The 54 micro-catchments are estimated to embrace an area of approximately 400,000 ha. S. Objectives 2. The main objective of the project would be the attainment of sustainable systems of resource use in the upper catchments (i.e. bringing about a better balance between supply and demand for fodder and wood, controlling erosion, and enhancing income and employment) through: (a) improved productivity of range and forest land (treasury land); (b) promoting cultivation of fodder and wood and conversion of marginal farm lands to fodder banks to enhance production and conserve soil and moisture; (c) selected supporting activities designed to increase income and facilitate the adoption of treatments of range and forest lands; (d) increased responsibility and involvement for local communities in planning and management of their resources. 3. Although the rationale for the project is the need to halt degradation of natural resources, the realization of tangible and immediate benefits for the farm families in the project area is of vital importance for - 82 - ANNEX A Page 2 of 9 adoption of treatments and for subsequent protection and maintenance of investments. 4. As project resources only suffice to treat a fraction of the identified needs in the project area (para 1) and degradation of natural resources is a major problem also in other parts of Turkey, the replicability i.e. the cost effectiveness of the treatments will be a major concern. Priority should be given to degraded lands which will give an adequate return to investments. Where there is a choice between more or less expensive but still viable treatments, a judgement about the return per dollar spent should guide the choice. 5. Treating degradation frequently involves changing the ways people manage the land resource. The communal use of rangelands offers a particular challenge. Micro-catchment development must be seen as a process of gradual improvement. People may not accept improved management on the total range area, and even if they do it may be advisable to test the capacity and the commitment of the village on part of the area. The interaction with people thus often dictates phasing of activities and looking at the development efforts an the start of a more continuous process. One of the principal tasks of the technical experts in watershed management and participatory planning to be recruited will be to guide the MC planning and implementation process and provide on-site training to staff. C. Selection of Micro-catchments 6. The Provincial Forestry Department would (in consultation with other agencies) be responsible for the selection of MCs and those with a larger proportion of range and forest land would be given priority. The criteria for selection of MCs include judgements about: o the severity of problems in terms of vegetative degradation and soil erosion including the imbalance between the supply and demand for fodder and wood; o the prospects for achieving an adequate return to the treatments offered under the project; and o the extent to which the problems are recognizea by the MC population and there is a willingness to explore solutions. 7. The selection process thus involves assembling and analyzing available information about population, livestock and land use etc, observing conditions in the area, and an initial presentation of project objectives and interaction about problems of natural resource degradation in MC villages. This assessment of potential interests would have to be based on discussions with the Muhtar, Council of Elders and individuals in each MC village. 8. The project envisages initiating work in total, over a six year period, in 18 MCs in each province. To facilitate implementation, it would be - 83 - AMMl 4 Page 3 of 9 advisable to concentrate the selection of the three MCs in any given year in one sub-catcbment (see para 1). D. The Treatment Menu 9. The interventions (treatments) that can be funded under the project are summarized in Annex 5. This menu is a basic tool in the MC planning process and the provincial planning team will determine on technical, economic and institutional grounds which treatments are applicable to the situation in a particular MC. These remaining treatments would need to be explained to the MC population in the course of the problem solving discussions (see below). More detailed descriptions of each treatment are included in Annexes 1-3. The provincial MC Planning Team cannot by itself add to or change these treatments but can make suggestions to the Project Coordination Unit. The menu would be revised annually in the right of experience with project implementation. 10. The cost sharing arrangements between the government and the beneficiaries during the establishment (investment) phase are also indicated for each treatment in Annex 5 and will be explained to the villagers in the course of selecting priority treatments during the problem solving discussions. The subsequent recurring costs of operation, maintenance and management are generally the responsibility of the farmers concerned. 11. The benefits of the different treatments generally accrue to the person(s) adopting the intervention in question. In the case of the forest treatments, they are, however, shared with the government in the way described in Annex 5, Attachment 1. The aim should be to establish a partnership between the forestry department and the village in question, in which such benefits are matched by village contributions, for example to protection or thinning etc. 12. The adoption of supporting treatments such as irrigation development (ponds, terraces) and rainfed terraces in combination with orchards, grapevines, almond, pistachio, beekeeping and agro forestry must be dependent on village agreement to range management practices and forest treatments (the village should, however, be free to choose among these forest treatments). At most, one third of the total MC cost should be devoted to such supporting treatments. E. The Preparation of Indicative MC Plan 13. The officers responsible for project implementation in the three provincial departments (Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Services) will each appoint one or more members to the MC Planning Team. The member from the Provincial Forestry Department would be the team leader. Their staff in turn would nominate staff to form a MC group for each particular microcatchment. Subject matter specialists as required and local field staff (Agricultural and Forest Engineer) where available, should form the group. The PDAS have undertaken to nominate one agricultural engineer for each microcatchment. In view of the joint objectives and links between different types of treatments, it is of crucial importance to ensure that the planning becomes a joint effort (as opposed to three parallel efforts). Following selection of the MC, the following - 84 - ANEXL 4 Page 4 of 9 steps in the preparation of the Indicative MC Plan may be distinguished and will be discussed below. A rough indication of time required is given. (a) Assemble relevant data 2 weeks (b) Village discussion of problems and constraints 1 week (c) Rapid Resource Appraisal 1 week (d) Village discussion of solutions and priorities 1 week (e) Preparation of draft village plans 1 week (f) Discussion of draft village plans 1 week (g) Finalization of indicative MC plan 1 week (h) Approval of indicative MC plan 14. Present operational procedures obviously include discussion with villagers. These discussions frequently take the form of obtaining village consent to plans drawn up by respective departments. This project, however, aims at not only involvement in approval of plans but active village participation in the formulation and implementation of these plans. Such participation would ensure that the interventions respond to the perceived local needs and priorities and that a genuine commitment to and responsibility for the success of the project is generated. The method used to achieve such participation is the Farmer Centered - Problem Census Problem Solving (FC-PCPS) approach described below. The village is the management unit for rangelands and for resource sharing arrangements with respect to forest lands. The building blocks of the Indicative MC Plan are the village plans formulated through close interaction over problems and solutions (chosen from the treatment menu) in each of the MC villages. The MC boundaries may have to be adjusted to avoid dividing a village and thereby complicating data collection and interaction. Highland pasture areas (yayla) outside the MC cannot be included in the treatment proposals but need to be considered when calculating fodder supply. The time required to prepare the Indicative MC Plan will, to a large extent, depend on the number of villages embraced by the MC but an average estimate of 8 weeks is given above. 15. Assemble relevant data. In preparation for village discussion, the planning group would mobilize available information and survey conditions in the MC villages. An indication of the required information and analysis is provided in Attachment 1. 16. Problem census meetings. Armed with the relevant data and analysis a problem census meeting would be arranged in each MC village in consultation with the Muhtar. Problem census meetings involve all villagers with livestock, land or other agricultural activities. Men and women participants record their individual problems and form small groups to discuss and prioritize these problems. Each small group then reports its prioritized list of problems to the village group in a plenary session which determines and prioritizes a list of problems for the village as a whole. No problem is excluded at this stage. The process is structured and non threatening. Importantly, it initiates the relation between village participants and the provincial planning team by listening to villagers. Once the village group has identified and prioritized problems, the treatment menu suitably adjusted to MC conditions (para 9) is presented to them and the objectives of the project explained. The linkage - 35 - ANNEX 4 Page 5 of 9 between project activities and priority problems are explored and appointments made for problem solving discussions. 17. RaRid resource appraisal. Problem solving activities are initiated with a field assessment of village resources. The appraisal is an attempt to observe resource problems and discuss solutions in the field through a combined effort by the provincial planning team and village participants. Using copies of a 1:25000 topographical map important landscape features are recorded and areas which do not respond to treatment (e.g. areas with unstable geology), which do not need treatment (areas with sustainable production systems) and areas which have already been treated are identified. In remaining areas the main land use features (forest, range and farm land) are noted and problems of degradation and erosion are observed and discussed (livestock trends, fodder and fuelwood shortages, cultivation practices). Having identified target areas it will be important to clarify the users/owners of these areas (e.g. users of range and forest land, owners of marginal crop land, farmers who could benefit from conservation practices). Field appraisal offers an opportunity to explore solutions with such target groups and to explain to participants the linkages between priority problems and possible project treatments. Problems of declining water supply may for example be remedied by efforts to improve vegetation and infiltration. Marginal land may be released from crop production if the owner can enhance productivity elsewhere. Range degradation may be reversed if the stall feeding season can be prolonged through project activities to enhance cultivated forage production. The target areas and groups would be recorded on field maps as a basis for further discussion of solutions. 18. Village discussions of solutions and treatment priorities. On the basis of the outcome of the problem census and the rapid resource appraisal and having given the village a chance to consider the treatment menu the next step in the interaction would be: (a) Discussion of fodder situation (objectives - subsistence or sale - and trends in livestock keeping; constraints in the form of scarcity of labor and fodder; investments in livestock if fodder constraints were removed; sources of winter fodder and opportunities to enhance availability; range management); (b) Discussion of fuel wood situation (different sources of energy; quantities used; sale of wood; decreasing inventory); (c) Agreement on range and forest areas needing treatment; excluding areas which are beyond repair and those that appear to be in relatively good shape or which have already been treated; (d) Selection of treatment options for selected range and forest areas with due consideration to the needs for fodder and wood; (e) Discussion of management practices for the selected range and forest areas, the benefit sharing arrangements for forest treatments and phasing of interventions; - 86 - ANNEX 4 Page 6 of 9 (f) Discussion of treatments to promote fodder and wood production on farm land (irrigation, fallow reduction and agro forestry); (g) Discussion of treatments to transfer marginal farm land to perennial forage production; (h) Discussion of supporting activities (beekeeping, horticulture in combination with irrigation and rainfed terraces) and how they can be used to facilitate for target groups (range and forest land users, owners of marginal land, etc.) to accept key treatments; (i) Agreement on a program of demonstrations and pilot work. 19. It should be made clear to the villagers that they will need to choose among treatments to meet their priorities. The resources available under the project for the 54 MCs amount for an average MC of 7,000 ha to US$1.5 million. If more is spent in a particular area, it means either that less will be spent in another MC or that the total project area will be reduced. The latter option would be unfortunate in view of the widespread nature of the degradation problems and the need to find cost effective and replicable solutions (para 4). Viewing watershed development as a continuous process, there is considerable scope to make a good start within this indicative cost frame by varying the area treated, the phasing and selection of treatments. The supporting treatments (irrigation, rainfed terraces, horticulture, beekeeping, trees on field boundaries, etc.) would be linked to the adoption of treatments of the range and forest lands and would be subject to a ceiling of 33X of total treatment cost (para 12). 20. Preparation of draft village plan. Guided by the problem solving discussions (paras 18-19), the MC planning team would prepare the village treatment plan showing the recipients, volumes, phasing and location (map) of different treatments. The phasing of the works may be spread over at most a five year period. Applying the unit costs indicated in the treatment menu the total and average per hectare cost can be calculated (cost would be updated on a annual basis) and the responsibilities of the three implementing agencies determined. The responsibilities of the village and its individual members in terms of management practices and cost sharing should be indicated. A check should be made to ensure that the average cost of supporting treatments per village household does not deviate too much from one village or MC to another. 21. Discussion of draft village glan. The draft will be presented to and reviewed in the village as the frame for the collaboration during the following five years (detailed work plans would be prepared each year in the light of progress and experience - see below). Amendments would be made where necessary and the village should be asked to indicate its agreement by the signatures of the Muhtar and the Council of Elders (range and forest land) and the individual recipients of treatments. 22. Finalization of Indicative MC Plan. An outline of this report is provided in Attachment 2. The report would summarize the results of the - 87 - ANNEX 4 Page 7 of 9 interactive planning process described in the preceding paragraphs and would thus contain sections provided the general characteristics of the MC, the results of the problems census discussions, the rapid resource appraisal and the problem solving discussions as well as a summary of the agreed treatments. The report would provide an aggregation of the village plans and would give the framework within which the three departments would operate. It would also given an indication of the size and phasing of the work of each agency. 23. Approval of Indicative MC Plan. The MC planning team would submit the Indicative Plan via the Provincial Steering Committee to the Project Coordination and Support Unit (PCSU) in Ankara, which would be responsible for quality control (responsiveness to guidelines, completeness and depth of analysis, adequacy of proposed treatments and cost implications) and for approval of the Plan. The approved plan would be submitted to the members of the National Steering Committee for information. F. Preparation of Annual Work Plans and Budgets 24. The Indicative MC Plan would be elaborated to provide the work program and budget for the first year of implementation. In subsequent years, it would be necessary to review progress made and experience gained as well as possible results from pilot work and demonstrations and the provincial MC planning team would need to interact and agree with the MC villages on the appropriate modifications to the original Indicative Plan. The activities would need to be planned in detail and village workplans and budget requirements would be aggregated for the MC and broken down by Agency. These annual plans and budgets would be reviewed by the Provincial Steering Committee and forwarded to the Project Coordination Unit in Ankara. The provincial budget requirements for each agency would be the sum of the MCs under active implementation and would need to be checked against the availability of funds. This may resudlt in a need for further village consultations and modifications of the MC annual work programs and budgets or alternatively in reallocation of funds between agencies if the National Steering Committee so decides. The Provincial budget request is forwarded by each agency through normal channels. The annual budget process would need to begin in June and requests submitted in August. G. Implementation 25. The Indicative MC Plan and subsequent annual work programs and budgets would define the role of each agency which would proceed with procurement of necessary equipment and materials (generally through PCSU), assignment of staff, mobilization of machinery services, arrangements for training of staff and villagers (with help from PCSU), and interaction on detailed implementation schedules and the organization of the village contribution to the treatments in question. The agencies are being strengthened under the project to fulfill their planning and implementation tasks. - 88 - ANNX4 Page 8 of 9 H. Nonitoring and Reporting 26. Leading on from initial FC-PCPS, which will have generated a substantial volume of basic data concerning the MC and the village, a continuous process of monitoring and management information systems will be established. Regular meetings with the village leaders will monitor the progress towards physical and participatory objectives determined during the planning process. A database will be assembled, geared towards measuring progress and assisting future planning. To assist further in the monitoring project impact, selected villagers participating in the project would be asked to maintain their own records through a new system of auto recording introduced by the Provincial Directorate of Agriculture (PDA) with the help of short term TA. Records would include: e yields, agronomic practices and weather observations; * livestock management practices; o water yields from springs; and Results should be regularly reported by the PDA to the monitoring unit in the Provincial Forestry Directorate. Quarterly summaries would be submitted to the PCSU Ankara, as part of the management information systems. An annual report would be prepared by October each year to assist future planning and implementation. 27. Each provincial agency would monitor physical works and investment costs in each MC against the Indicative MC Plan and against subsequent modifications of this plan introduced during the annual budgeting process. A report providing and commenting upon this information would be submitted quarterly to the provincial monitoring unit with the village-level observations. 28. Each agency would provide a simple quarterly summary of demonstrations, pilot work and adaptive research in the province to the provincial monitoring unit. By November each year they would produce an annual report and suggest possible amendments to the treatment menu and project implementation procedures. 29. The monitoring unit in Provincial Forestry Directorate would maintain the database of information assembled in connection with the original planning as well as information generated subsequently (e.g. through observation, dialogue and the auto recording effort). The monitoring unit would aggregate the information received from the implementing agencies and produce an annual progress report to be submitted to the Project Coordination Services Unit in Ankara through the Provincial Steering Committee by December each year. 30. The PCSU would aggregate the reports from the three provinces and produce a annual progress report for the project as a whole by January each year to be submitted to the National Steering Committee and subsequently to the World Bank. - 89 - ANNEK 4 Page 9 of 9 31. The Regional Research Institutes of Elazig (Forestry), Diyarbakir and Erzerum (Agriculture) and Sanliurfa (Rural Services) would be contracted, if necessary, to monitor the adoption of treatments (technical execution of treatments, the yields, vegetative composition and density in rangelands with and without the different treatments, input use, the effectiveness of protection and management of forest and rangelands, external factors influencing the outcome (e.g. weather, fire, disease, etc.)) for one MC in each of the three provivses. Results should be reported by October each year to the provincial monitoring unit and incorporated in the annual report. - 90 - ANNEX 4 Attachment 1 DATA FOR MC PLANNTNG A. GENERAL INFORMATION Topographic map 1:25 000 Soil erosion hazard map 1:1 000 000 (KHGM) Geological map 1:500 000 (KHGM) Soil map 1:100 000 (KHGM) Land use capability map 1:100 000 (KHGM) Climatic data (PDA) Agricultural calendar (PDA) Rainfall erosivity map and tables (KHGM) B. VILLAGE INFORMATION Map indicating MC and village boundaries Population data and trends (employment outside the MC) Livestock data and trends Land use (forest, range and farm lands ) - area and map Crop production (rainfed, irrigated ) - area and yields Characteristics of forest lands - vegetation and yields Characteristics of range lands - vegetation and yields Highland pastures outside MC - area and yields Irrigation, Sources - wells, springs/ponds etc. - potential for further development Livestock production and marketing Erosion problems (areas threatened, cultivation of marginal lands etc.) Assessment of fuelwood demand and supply Assessment of winter fodder demand and supply Assessment of grazing demand and supply - 91 - ANNEX 4 Attachment 2 MC INDICATIVE PLAN - OUTLINE 1. Introduction 2. Basis for selection 3. MC characteristics 3.1 Physical resources 3.2 Land use and crop production 3.3 Human resources 3.4 Livestock resources 3.5 Summary table 4. Project Framework (treatment menu adapted to MC conditions) S. Problem census 6. Rapid resource appraisal 7. Problem analysis and solutions 7.1 Analysis of key problems in utilization of natural resources 7.2 Linkages between priority problems and project framework 7.3 Selection of treatments 7.4 Linkages between key treatment and supporting activities 7.5 Management of range and forest land 8. Indicative plan for villages and MC as a whole 9. Summary of forest activities 10. Summary of agricultural activities 11. Summary of village affairs activities - 92 - Page 1 of 1 TREATENST MENU AND COST SHARING Treatment Cost Unit Investment Unit Cost Volume Elpacted Table Total Project Farmer Investmeat Cost Cost Shareu Balance for I 8 ~ ~~ ~~~ 8 2 Average MC 8 000 1. Forest Land (MoF) 825 (551) Soil Cons/Affo 121t ha 884 884 0 10000 Conifer Plant. 123 ha 896 896 0 4900 Oak Coppice 124 ha 556 556 0 17800 Range Rehab. 125 h ha 271 271 0 17800 Fuelwood Coppi. 126 ba 74g 749 0 11800 Riverbank Prot. 132 ha 410 205 50 70 2. Range Land (TEDGEKSTUGE) 120 (81) Range Management 128 ha 10 10 0 58650 R.M.+fertiliza. 127 ha 73 55 25 30500 R.M.+fert.+seed 128 ha 132 111 16 20000 Pilot aer. fert 160 ha 63 63 0 5000 P.aer.fert+seed 160 ha 123 123 0 2000 Demonstrations 162 ha 300w 200 33 162 3. Arable Land (TEDGEM/TITNM) 75 (52) Agronomic pack. 129 ha 100 78 20 11667 Fal.Red.+For.pr. 130 ha 120 95 20 25960 Demonstrations 162 ha 300S 200 33 540 4. Supporting Activities 105 (71) (TEDGXM/TUGEM)4' Rainf.hort+cons 149 ha 373 179 52 1124 Irrig.hort+cona 149 ba 460 51 89 2574 Gully horticult 144 ba 397 240 40 3246 Trees field bou. 151 km 297 101 66 580 Irri8. forage 149 ha 206 50 76 7898 Pist.graft+est. 151 ha 50 40 20 3000 Beekeepine" 142 unit 2256 1128 SO 1620 5. Supporting Activities 375 (251) (KEHGM)4 Small irrig. 131 ha 1622 1407 13 10530 Rainfed terrac. 133 ha 410 390 5 S616 Total 1500 (1001) 1/ Farmer contribution to investment usually includes management of range land the cost of which we have been unable to estimate, labor and in the ease of horticulture cultivation and fertiliser. The responsibility for subsequent follow-up including operation and manutenance rest wlth the farmers except for forest treatmet for which farmers only contribute same protection. ?/ Includes gully revegetation in forest lands. 3/ The cost of demonstrations only include material and farmer contribution of labor. The extension incremental recurring costs of approx. a further $200 per demonstration is included In cost table 112. 4/ The sum of supporting activities TEDGIWTUGI and KM16 sbould not exceed 33X of the total investment cost for the MC. A check should also be made to ensure that the average cost of supporting treatments per viUlage household does not deviate too mich from one village or MC to another. V/ A unit includes 20 hives. Credit from Ork8y or sce other source may be available to cover 75X ($846) of the farmer contribution. - 93 - ANNEX 5 Attachment Page 1 of 1 BENEFIT SHARING IN FORESTRY TREATMENTS 1. Soil Conservation Afforestation Fodder: After 5 years open to cut and carry management or grazing (depending on circumstances). 1001 to people. Fuelwood: First thinning (year 10) - 1001 to people Subsequently: People receive 501 of harvest at 25X of market price. Branchwood: 1001 to people. Leaves/Twigs: 100% to people. 2. Conifer Plantation Sawlogs: People receive 20X of output at 401 of market price Peeler logs: People receive 20% of output at 401 of market price Poles: 1001 Government Fuelwood: 1001 Government 3. Oak Coppice Rehabilitation 50-70% Fodder: After 2 years - cut and carry management After 7 years - grazing 1001 people Fuelwood: First thinning (year 10) - 1001 people Otherwise: People receive 501 of output at 251 of market price. Branchwood: 1001 people Leaves/Twigs: 1001 people 4. Range Rehabilitation Fodder: After 5 years cut and carry management or grazing depending on circumstances - 1001 people 5. Riverbank Protection Mod_. 1: Main stream - Government provides free seedlings only - people get 701 of the benefits. Model 2: Small stream - Government pays total cost - people get 501 of benefits. -94- Figure 1 EASTERN ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PRojECT ORGANIZATION CHART National Level M1inistry of Forestry Ministry of Agriculture APKKB APK I l -- National Steering I/ -- OM ORKOY Committee KHGN TU i TEDEN AN Planning Project Coord. 2/ ............ Provincial Prov ncial Unit (Ankara) Off lal Off cial Provincial Level Provincial Director .......... Provincial 3. ........ Provincial ...... Provincial Steering Committee Director Director Forestry F tryM r AgriculIure Responsible Officers 4/ ....... Responsible ....... Responsible Provincial Of icers 4/ Off cers Implement on Unit. Local Level Subject matter Forest specialists are Engineers Village 6royp Techniciansi MC Villagers! 1/ Budget Reallocations. Annual Progress Report, Review Sample of HC Indicative Plans. 2/ Review and approval of the MC Plans/Budget reallocations. Training. Procurement. Monitoring. Preparation of Annual Progress Report 3/ Review of Indicative NC Plans. Annual MC Workplans and Budget. Annual Provincial Progress Reports. Key meetings would be chaired by the Oeputy Director. 4/ Preparation of Indicative MC Plans; Anuual MC Work Plans and Budgets. - 95 - ANltEX 6 Figure 2 MINISTRY OF FORESTRY MMR OF INSPECTION tNOERtSERTY DEPUTY UNDERSECRETARY (2) ADVISORY AND AUDITING UNITS AUXILIMAY UNITS RESEARCH PLANNING AND COORDINATION COUNCIL DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL LEGAL CONSULTANCY OFFICE |DEPT. OF ADNINIST. AD FINANCIAL AFFAIRS CONSULTANTS OF THE MINISTRY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLICATION SECRETARIATE OF CIVIL DEFENCE NAIN SERVICE UNITS AFFILIATED UNITS GENERAL DIRECTORATE OF FORESTRY |EN. DIRECTORATE OF FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRY -GENERAL DIRECTORATE OF AFORESTRATION AND |EROSION CONTROL I - SEN. DIR. OF NATIONAL PARKS AND SANE GEN. DIR. OF FOREST AND VILLAGE RELATIONSHIPS -96 - ANNEX 7 Page 1 of 3 STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT EASTERN ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT NONITORING MIS AND EVALUATION 1. Arrangements for the monitoring and evaluation component would be coordinated by the Project Coordination Support Unit (PCSU) which has been set up in the Ministry of Forestry based in Ankara. PCSU will rely on provincial staff to fulfill the monitoring, MIS and evaluation program, supported by contracting external bodies (e.g. TKV) to undertake special studies as required. 2. The objectives of the exercise would be, firstly to act as a Management Information System (MIS), secondly to document the project in such a way that, should it be replicated in some form in the future, information will be available to improve the planning process; thirdly, it would monitor and attempt to explain the response (adoption rates) of the villages and participants in the project micro catchments; finally, the impact of the project would be measured in terms of the improvements in resource management, yields and income changes resulting from the adoption of the various treatments on offer. At the same time data would be collected for treatments to establish whether they should continue to be included (or modified) in the menu on offer (e.g. pistachio grafting, beehives, woodlots). At all stages, the results of applied research programs also would be closely monitored to see whether the menu should be modified. Detailed data as out migration and other socio-economic indicators such as work patterns, education, health and nutrition would be examined through a series of ad-hoc surveys contracted to outside bodies. The measurement of secondary benecits in terms of run off, soil loss, stream flows and sediment discharge is btyond the scope of the project at this stage. Actions by the Project Coordination and Support Unit (MOF) 3. Technical assistance would be recruited at an early stage to provide support to the unit: a total of 12 man-months short term input is envisaged over the life of the project. The Project Coordinator would be supported in the work of M&E by existing staff who would be trained in the use of computers for database operation and MIS procedures. A general framework would be drawn up at the PCSU for discussion at provincial leve'. to determine the most appropriate systems to be adopted along with the range of data to be collected. Emphasis would be given to the coordination of data collection between the various agencies aqd provinces involved in project implementation and individual responsibilities carefully specified. A program of activities would be drawn up together with review and reporting procedures. This program would include regular field visits by the Project Coordinator to provide support and direction to the provincial staff. The Central Unit would be respC.ilsible for the collation of information supplied by the Provincial Implementation Units (PUBS) and for the presentation of an annual report with commentary. The PCSU would be responsible for contracting outside institutes or consultants to implement specific requirements of the M&E Program. Specifically, studies would likely be required ANNEX 7 97 Page 2 of 3 prior to the Project Implementation Review and thereafter for ad hoe surveys into specific issues. Towards the eand of the project surveys may be necessary in anticipation of a further project phase. Actions by the Provincial Imnlementation Units (PUBS) 4. The basis forc monitoring by the PUB would be the outline annual work program and budget for each micro catchment against which progress would be measured and appropriate revisions made for future plans. (a) PUBS would maintain a data bank of information assembled in connection with all micro catchment planning - both those included and those opting out of the project. The data collected would include characteristics of the community as a whole plus data on individuals compiled through auto-recording procedures discussed below; (b) PUBS would monitor the progress: institutional development (staffing levels and trairing), MC planning, physical works, invesitment expenditure per MC and per treatment (inputs and outputs). Simple reports (Activity Monitoring Schedules) would be compiled quarterly to provide management information both to provincial and central management; (c) PUBS would identify additional data required to improve project planning and implementation and agree with the PCSU how best to plug these gaps. Surveys would be arranged to cover such aspects as attitudes and aspirations, technical constraints, prices and marketing and other issues found to be important for smooth project planning, implementation and impact analysis. These surveys would be contracted to local consultants or institutes who would report to the PUB and PCSU; (d) PUBS would provide an annual summary of demonstrations, pilot work and adaptive research in the Province and suggest possible amendments to their treatment menu and procedures for implementation; (e) PUBS would p_oduce a short annual progress report according to a format agreed with the Central Unit to be submitted to the PCSU on which would be based the next year's program. The Projects and Statistics Ulnit at each PDA would be responsible for gathering field data to contribute to the MIS. Methodology and content would be coordinated by the PCSU in consultation with the PUBs with advice from the short- term TA. Actions by the beneficiaries 5. To complement the participatory approach to planning in the MCs, the beneficiaries would be requested to maintain simple records of their activities - auto-recording. This system would be piloted with the help of the short term TA and thereafter introduced throughout the project. Support would be given to the ANNEX 7 Page 3 of 3 - 98 - selected villagers participating in the scheme, in the early stages, by the staff from the provincial Projects and Statistics Units of the Ministry of Agriculture who would collect regularly, verify and analyze the data. Records to be maintained would include: (a) agronomic practices, yields, weather observations (b) livestock management and production (c) labor utilization (on and off farm) (d) other income generating activities The continuous auto recording of data would be amplified by periodic surveys of a sample of beneficiaries to collect additional information as requested by management e.g. impact of the project on women, use of veterinary services, use of hired equipment and labor, technical knowledge versus practice. SuDport by the Regional Research Institutes 6. The Regional Research Institutes would, as part of their adaptive research tasks, monitor the adoption of treatments and factors constrtining adoption of the technical packages. They would respond to a detailed work program set out for them by the project. Comparative data would be collected to assess the impact at field level of the various treatments, catering for the with and without project situation (i.e. data collection from non-participating MCs). Of particular interest would be the social and economic data which affect the response of the community and individuals to the project. Details would be collected to help verify and complement the auto recorded data. The Forestry Institute would have special responsibility for the examination of the effectiveness of forestry treatments in terms of rehabilitation, protection and resource reclamation. Methods used would include the study of vegetation using aerial photographs and ground truthing. Data to be collected would include species counts, growth rates, -egetative regeneration and yields, forest and range management (self policing/cost sharing), and other external factors affecting the outcome of the project. Plans would specify reporting requirements and in particular those for the MTR and PCR. 7. Pricing and marketing data. Little is documented of the pricing and marketing mechanisms of farm level for both inputs and outputs. There is an efficient mix of private sector middlemen, cooperatives and direct trading activity and a better understanding of this sector could assist project planning. Management may decide that more information in this area would promote better decision making at village level. Certainly, accurate price data is needed for the evaluation of project impact. M&E activities by the Projects and Statistics Unit would therefore include the recording of prices at the various stages of the marketing chain for the various outputs. This data would be augmented by studies to collect more detailed information as determined by project management. Money has been budgeted under the project to undertake these studies. - 99 - Page 1 of 30 STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT TURKEY ASTERN ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT PROJECT COST ESTIMATES AND DISBURSEMENT PRQLE A. Summary Tables Table 1 Estimated Disbursement Schedule 2 Price Contingency and Exchange Rate Assumptions 3 Project Components by Year (including contingencies) 4 Summary Accounts by Year (including contingencies) 5 Financing Plan by Disbursement Category 6 Financing Plan by Project Component 7 Financing Plan by Implementing Institution and Year B. Detailed Cost Tables 101 Project Coordinetion and Support 111 Strengthening Field Sarvices (MOF) 112 Strengthening Field Services (TEDGEM/TUGEM) 113 Strengthening Field Services (KHGM) 121 Soil Conservation Afforestation (MOF) 123 Conifer Plantations (MOF) 124 Oak Coppice Rehabilitation (MOF) 125 Range Rehabilitation (MOF) 126 Fuelwood Coppice Plantation (MOF) 127 Range Management & Fertilisation (TEDGEM/TUGEM) 128 Rangeland Seed and Fertilizer (TEDGEM/TUGEM) 129 Improved Agronomic Packages (TEDGEM/TUGEM) 130 Fallow Reduction by Legumes & Forage (TEDGEM/TUGEM) 131 Small Scale Irrigation (KHGH) 132 River Bank Protection (MOF) 133 Rainfed Terraces and Check Structures (KHGM) 142 Apiculture (ORKOY) 144 Gully Horticulture (TEDGEM/TUGEM) 149 Support Activities Budgeted for TEDGEM/TUGEM 151 Trees on Field Boundaries (TEDGEM/TUGEM) 160 Pilot Aerial Seeding & Fertilizing of Rangelands 161 Applied Research - Forestry Research Institute 162 Demonstrations, Adaptive Research - Rangeland & Agriculture -100 - ANNEX 8 Page 2 of 30 Table 1 ESTIMATED DISBURSEMENT SCHEDULE (US$ MILLIONS) A. EASTERN ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHAbILITATION PROJECT IBRD Cumulative % of Loan IBRD FY & Quarter Dlsbursements Disbursements Disbursed FY93 -4 0.75 0.75 1% FY94 -1 2.4 3.1 A - °h -2 3.1 6.2 8% -3 3.1 9.4 12% -4 3.1 12.5 16% FYPS -1 3.4 15.8 21% -2 3.4 19.2 25% -3 3.4 22.6 29% -4 3.4 25.9 34% F 8s -1 2.8 28.7 37% -2 2.8 31.5 41% -3 2.8 34.3 45% -4 2.8 37.1 48% FY97 -1 3.4 40.5 53% -2 3.4 43.9 57% -3 3.4 47.3 61% -4 3.4 50.7 66% FY98 -1 3.6 54.2 70% -2 3.6 57.8 75% -3 3.6 61.4 80%6 -4 3.6 64.9 84%h FY99 -1 2.4 67.3 87% -2 2.4 69.6 90%h -3 2.4 72.0 94% -4 2.4 74.3 97% FY2000 -1 0.7 75.1 98°h -2 0.6 75.7 98% -3 0.6 76.3 99% -4 0.6 77.0 100% B. IN-SITU GENE CONSERVATION PROJECT GET DISBURSEMENTS FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 Annual 0.2 3.1 1.0 0.6 0.2 Cummulative 0.2 3.3 4.3 4.9 5.1 % of Grant Disbursed 4% 65% 85% 96% 100% Note: Detailed Cost tables and a detailed disbursement profile of the In-Situ Conservation Subproject are provided in the Technical Annex. - 101 - Page 3 of 30 Tablo 2 Watorshed Rehabilitatio E=oect PricLCntinOency aud Xchan Rate Local 66% 41% 24% 18% 13% 1% 11% Foreign 3.8% 1.9% 2.7% 3.4% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% Turkey Watershed Rehabilitation Project Eastern Anatolia Projects Components by Year Totals Inctuding Contingencies USSo00 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total A. Strengthn'g Agency Capcty 1. Planning and Management 1640 1164 1149 1124 707 764 412 6961 B. Watershed Rehabilitation 1. Cropiwnd Soil Moist. Com 115 178 184 255 264 137 0 1134 2. Cropland Fallow Reduction 302 470 485 669 693 462 0 3081 3. Range-Meadowland Enrichmt 78 135 249 353 421 485 480 2201 4. Rangeland Rehab,Tedm/Tugm 225 428 483 690 793 623 369 3610 5. Fuelwood Coppice Plantn. 860 1590 1796 2336 2557 1654 412 11205 6. Oak Coppice Rehabilitat'n 943 1724 1960 2547 2804 1887 718 12583 7. Soil Cons. Afforestation 990 1660 1790 2352 2515 1580 232 11119 8. Conifer Plantations 430 760 851 1161 1290 846 234 5572 9. Rangelnd Rehab., MOF 523 861 950 1277 1369 891 223 6093 10. River Bank Planting 5 5 8 8 5 6 0 36 11. Strength. Field Services 7134 4948 1342 1026 942 614 511 16516 .............. ....................... .................................................... _. . . ..... _.___....... ..... Sub-Total 11607 12757 10097 12674 13653 9184 3178 73150 C. Supporting Activities 1. Smalt Scale Irrigation 1929 3068 3207 4388 4596 2543 151 19882 2. Rainfed Terraces 276 428 442 609 631 327 0 2714 3. Apiculture 0 484 752 779 1078 1119 601 4814 4. HorticuLture 59 89 156 237 344 317 53 1254 ................................... ........................................................................... ... ...... ,...................... ..... _. Sub-Total 2263 4070 4557 6013 6649 4306 805 28663 D. Applied Research 1. Forestry Research 18 1 2 1 0 0 0 23 2. Range & Agric Research 14 200 210 104 229 188 47 992 ....,............. ... ....... ............. ......................... ................. ..................................... __......... Sub-Total 32 201 212 105 229 188 47 1016 . ........................................................ .......... -------------------------------------................................... ..... ............... . .. ........ Total PROJECTS COSTS 15543 18193 16015 19916 21239 14461 4442 109790 ---------I.............. ................. .......... ----- .. _._,.,__. Values Scaled by 1000.0 14/12/1992 10:24 H- (D tz iD X '-3 w0 0 Turkey Watershed Rehabilitation Project Eastern Anatolia Summary Accounts by Year Totals IncLuding Contingencies usSOOO .. ... .... .. .. _. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Totat 2=-=2=25S2SS2=2===22=S2-===S=-===C========2SD=== =-5S==… -----n-.2S=22====* 2 1. INVESTMENT COSTS . .... . . . . . . . A. Civil Works 2852 4456 4468 6053 6309 3351 81 27570 B. Plant, Equipment 4824 3906 1123 1184 1197 1190 601 14025 C. Materials 1872 3299 3628 4722 5105 3262 406 22294 0. Vehicles 2025 899 441 468 524 363 259 4979 E. Training 631 699 727 515 400 254 19 3244 F. Technical Assistant 368 675 545 422 283 267 179 2739 0. Labour 2005 3681 4233 5548 6144 4292 1393 27296 H. Project Prepara. Facility 750 0 0 0 0 0 0 750 .ii. ....... ............. ....; .. .. .. ...... ...... ... .... . ...................... Total INVESTMENT COSTS 15327 17615 15164 18911 19962 12980 2938 102897 11. RECJRRENT COSTS ................... A. IncrementaL Staff Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. Other Increm. Oper. Costs 216 578 851 1004 1277 1462 1504 6893 1 . _........... . .......................................... .. ............... _.............. Total RECURRENT COSTS 216 578 851 1004 1277 1462 1504 6893 o TotaL PROJECT COSTS 15543 18193 16015 19916 21239 14441 4442 109790 .__ .........______........... _..__........................_.___.......... -- ------ --------------------- Values Scaled by 1000.0 14/12/1992 10:23 0-A0 m X 0 OD 0 CD Turkey Watershed Rehabilitation Project Eastern AnatolSa Fitmncin Plan by Disbursement Category The Wortd Bank Governsent Total Local ................. --..- -------.------------ For. (ExcI. Duties AMount Z Amount X Amount X Exch. Taxes) & Tax. A. Civit Works 34173 60 23065 40 57237 52 12452 34028 10758 B. Goods 30152 88 3961 12 34113 31 14844 16342 2927 C. Training & Tech. Assist. 5983 100 0 0 5963 5 4099 1769 115 D. Project Prepara. 750 100 0 0 750 1 617 132 0 E. Other Inereu Opew. 3446 50 3446 50 6893 6 3031 3370 492 F. Apiculture development 2407 50 2407 50 4814 4 953 3259 602 Total Disbursement 76910 70 32879 30 109790 100 35996 58901 14893 ........... ...................... ...................... ................................................ _. Values Scaled by 1000.0 29J/1993 11:16 Note: During ngotiatiors it wa agreed that (a) totat World Bank financing woutd be increased to US$77 million, and Cb) a disburement category uunaltocated woutd be established mounting to USS3.25 mittion; the tatter mount is obtained Ci) by reducing the aortd Bsank disbursements under "civil works" by USS3.16 million, and (if) by adding USS90,000 fncrease in total loan Mount. It 0 0 Turkey Vatershed Rehabilitation Project Eastern Anatotia Financing Plan by Project Component USSOOO The world Bank Government Total Local ............................................. For. (Exct. Duties Amount X Amount X Amount X Exch. Taxes) & Tax. A. Planning and Management 6118 88 843 12 6961 6 3998 2612 351 B. Cropland Soil Moist. 1012 89 121 11 1134 1 236 796 102 C. Cropland Fatlow 2696 87 385 13 3081 3 1060 1636 385 D. Range-Meadowland 1498 68 703 32 2201 2 1030 1152 19 E. Rangeland 2990 83 620 17 3610 3 1061 2306 243 F. Fueltwood Coppice Plantn. 6310 56 4895 44 11205 10 444 7809 2953 0. Oak Coppice 7305 58 5279 42 12583 11 1210 9365 2008 R. Soit Cons. Afforestation 7254 65 3865 35 11119 10 2191 7915 1013 1. Conifer Plantations 3318 60 2254 40 5572 5 396 3808 1368 J. Rangeland Rehab., MOF 4712 77 1381 23 6093 6 1270 4152 671 K. River Bank Planting 21 58 15 42 36 0 0 26 10 L. Strength. Field Services 13474 82 3042 18 16516 15 12949 1896 1671 M. Small Scale Irrigation 14102 71 5779 29 19882 18 7655 9413 2813 N. Rainfed Terraces 1930 71 784 29 2714 2 1192 1183 339 0. Apiculture 2407 50 2407 50 4814 4 953 3259 602 I P. Horticulture 1035 83 219 17 1254 1 185 850 219 0. Forestry Research 20 88 3 12 23 0 20 0 3 o R. Range & Agric Research 708 71 284 29 992 1 146 723 123 U' ....................... ; ...............................................I Total Disbursement 76910 70 32879 30 109790 100 35996 58901 14893 ==Y= == M=C== =Y=5==Y=== ==Y=== Values Scaled by 1000.0 29/1/1993 11:16 oo o CO ~"0 M-J wA) 0 I II fit gi t£ 'itU t Ii a i:N 8 ~; II i g_8_ if I- -- -- -- -- | XHNIiV 901 i' Xsg Ii X | Ii z ' I it IE g it i i X gl I2i n hi I i I1 I I bti I S S I fi i Z I2 fi g gei o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ___________ ~~X~~NNV ~ g 90T- Q Turkey Uatershed RehabitItation Project Eastern Anatolia Table 101. Project Coordfnation and Support rtv TA, Equipment, Vehiclqs, GtS, PPF, Konitoring and Evaluation Detailed Cost Table TLOOO Quantfty oane Costs in USS$00 Unit 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1. NITmNET COSTS ................ A. PCSU:On job Train.Courses farmer Trainfno Trainee days 3000 3000 6000 6000 6000 6000 0 30000 30 30 61 61 61 61 0 In-service Trainfng Trafnee days 3760 3900 4110 4210 3720 3720 440 23860 114 118 125 128 113 113 13 Sub-Total 144 149 185 188 174 174 13 S. Technical Aslistance ISf R h. Dev. Sp. person m ths 4 9 9 2 2 0 2 28 51 114 114 25 25 0 25 Econ,NIS,N&E Int.Recrt Sp persen m ths 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 12 56 56 19 19 19 19 37 RangeN anagement Special. person m ths 3 6 6 2 0 0 0 17 56 112 112 37 0 0 0 PCPS, Partfc. Dept Spec. persont ths 3 2 2 1 0 0 0 8 56 37 37 19 0 0 0 irngNapower DesDt Spec. personm'ths 3 2 2 2 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Locally Recruited Spec. persn m*ths 5 7 7 7 7 4 2 39 15 21 21 21 21 12 6 lnternationl Consuttants personm ths 2 2 2 2 4 3 3 18 37 37 37 37 75 56 56 Adaptive Research Specia. petsonw ths 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 5 37 37 19 0 0 0 0 Sub-total 309 416 360 159 140 UT 125 C. Computers plus Training - D'top 386. NBR= 4,11D 80 no. 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 L'top:386. H Rom 4 NO 80 no. 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 rNs,Wfis48dDT*p * 1§B c4 set 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 17 26 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total 4 56 0 0 0 0 0 0. PCSU Plant and Equlpment library Incl'greferences sua 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 15 20 10 0 0 0 Sundry Office/drawg etc sn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 20 10 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total 25 35 S0 10 0 0 0 E. PCSU bosed Vehicles 4 kD S9 no. 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 109 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 UD TC IU no. 3, 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 60 40 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total 169 40 0 .0 0 0 0 F. GI5 Training personm ths 0 0 30 30 30 30 0 120 0 0 9 9 9 9 0 Tech. Assistant/Foreign person m'ths 0 3 3 2 2 0 0 10 0 49 49 32 32 0 0 Tech. AssistantVLocal personm ths 0 2 12 6 6 6 0 32 0 6 36 18 18 18 0 Equipment 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 91 212 0 0 0 Sub-Total 0 55 185 272 60 27 0 C. PPF t Training 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 217 0 0 0 0 0 0 P) Technical Assustant 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 181 0 0 0 0 0 o e Equipment & Unallocated I 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 327 0 0 0 0 0 o t 10 I 0 Sub-Totat 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 1. NIS Nanitoring B Evaltut. Researd'Iuurveycontracte 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 101 0 101 0 101 0 Operationsfuast.per de- - - -3- 10 tO 10 10 10 10 10 Sus$fTotal 10 I11 10 Total IUSI N S COT S 1431 662 71 41 3 399 148 ti. laREOT cmSTS A. Pe d7 PCSU "n. WSWed O.Spec no. I 1 1 1 1 I 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PCSU As.Nn. Trainin Sp no. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Prowepmntlelallet no. 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eoon./NiS plSepoctlalst no. 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Accounant no. 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sbw-Total 0 0 0 B. eration & Naintenac Ptnt and Eipmwt - - a S S S S 5 5 5 Vehictes 81SX Init.cost/a SUB - - - - 0 39 47 47 47 47 47 Consrables tan - - - - 0 22 40 40 40 40 40 Bus ire for Trasining mu 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 20 40 40 40 40 0 Per Oles an 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 81 81 40 40 40 40 &r-Total 106 168 213 173 173 1n 13 Total 3EItEIT COSTM 106 168 213 173 173 in 133 manm=nm n aana 3mg. a== Uaug.m mna. Total 1537 1030 984 914 556 572 281 n, Includts PCU,Ae*rA office. ¢ Reearchbsforstrywu2M.hsub;hort;ratnd,drylmnd ris.: rrig.agric. 43 Lis an per Year to Pw f*or prowinal fual,per dlsue & opertioen costs 44* two coputers for PewU wi;n per prowince yr2. Price lcd printer. 42 Permmsl sonded fro IMF oxistliog staf. O Paper.ribbon dfscas rElaigs trael -Volue calnted ri.0 0/1/1993 1lA 'IP cr10 o F0 Turkey Uatershed Rehabititation Project Eastern Anatotlia Tabte M1. Kinistry of Forestry Strengthening Field Services Detalted Cost Table tLOOO Quantity Base Costs fn US6000 init 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 196 1999 Totat 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Totat ..Z,...................................... .... ...... ............................................. ........ ..............._ 1. INVESTMENT COm ................ A. Study Tours (Turkey) V teo Pasture person htho 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Soil Cons/Aff perseon ths S 5 5 5 5 5 0 30 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 9 Ranseland Rehab personm ths S S 5 5 5 5 0 30 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 9 Sub-Total 3 3 4 3 3 3 0 19 S. Overseas Traininr Study tours person m'ths 12 12 12 12 12 0 0 60 .121 121 121 121 121 0 0 607 Short Term Fellowship peraonm ths 6 18 18 6 0 0 0 48 49 146 146 49 0 0 0 388 _NAe ntof Oiseas Trng 2Per nnun 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 5 42 42 42 42 42 0 0 212 . ......~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~....... ...... ....... ....... .......... ....... .......... ....... ............................ ... SubrTotal 212 310 310 212 164 0 0 1208 C. Infrastructure Nursery Office/Store .2 50 75 0 0 0 0 0 125 15 23 0 0 0 0 0 38 NurserySheds .2 200 100 0 0 0 0 0 300 12 6 0 0 0 0 0 18 i Nursery Housing l00r2 no. 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 103 103 0 0 0 0 0 206 Research O/S Offfce/Store .2 0 80 80 0 0 0 0 160 0 24 24 0 0 0 0 49 Sub-Totat 130 156 24 0 0 0 0 311 0. Plant and Equipment BulIdoters 160-180 HP no. S 5 0 0 0 0 0 10 1507 1507 0 0 0 0 0 3014 Sultdoters 120-140 HP no. 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 9 900 720 0 0 0 0 0 1621 Tractor 4WO 100-120 HP no. 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 607 0 0 0 0 0 0 607 Caravans no. 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 Rippers RN 3 Tfne (CBdz) no. 8 8 3 0 0 0 0 19 32 32 12 0 0 0 0 77 TippIng Trafler Hydroullc no. 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 36 Plow 3 disc RN no. 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Harrows disc no. 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 Root Cutters TD no. 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Seedbed formers To no. 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Seeders tractor drawer no. 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Nursery water system no. 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 Research/Survey/Draw. Eq. sun - - - - - 33 6 11 6 0 0 0 56 Computers,software & Trng no. 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 Later & Oot NatrixPrinter no. 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 9 0 0 0 0 0 12 Photo copy no. 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 9 Sase Radio Units no. 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 IC0Q Mobile Radios no. 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 7J Oesk Top Caputer Trng no. 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 Misc. Office Eg. no. 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 15is Sub-Total 3409 2314 40 6 0 0 0 569 -h 0 E. Vehicles 4sD TC PU no. 9 0 3 0 0 0 0 12 180 0 60 0 0 0 0 240 Saalt 4WD PU no. 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 21D SW no. 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 Tfpper Truck 3-5 Ton no. 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 152 152 0 0 0 0 0 303 Truck iO Ton no. 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 303 303 0 0 0 0 0 607 Mobile repair vehfcle no. 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 303 0 0 0 0 0 0 303 ....... ......... ....... .......... ....... .......... ....... .............. ................................ Sb-Total 1103 455 60 0 0 0 0 1618 Total INVESTMENT COSTS 4858 3238 438 221 167 3 0 8925 11. RECURRENT COSTS ........ .......... ... A. Veh. Oper. S of Inv. su - - - - 0 184 272 282 282 282 282 1585 B. Office Supply sum - - - - 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 106 Total RECUWRRENT COSTS 15 199 287 297 297 297 297 1691 5====1S9 __=5=S === = 5=a===Z= 8== = S5====== 58S==* = Total 4873 3437 726 518 464 300 297 10617 F- <1> Dozer costs include 20% spares & angle blase 0 2, Management fee for handling overseas training at 13X total costs. - Values scaled by 1000.0 14/12/1992 13:26 00 '0 0P CO. 0 Turkey Vatershed Rehabititation Project Eastern Anatotia Table 112. TEDOE/tUGI: Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Affatrs straenthening feltd Services Detalled Cost Table neooo ouaneity sase Costs in USSOCO Unit 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 ............................................................ ............ ....................................................................................... 1. INhESTHEXt COSTS ...;............. A. Aoric. Plant Epip.& Hat. Swep Tined Cultivator no. 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 714 0 0 0 0 0 Sweep Footed rillt no. 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 28 0 0 0 0 0 tOO HP Tractor no. 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 121 0 0 0 0 0 Tractor traoler no. 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 12 0 0 0 0 0 Nolediggr no. 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 9 1 1 1 0 0 0 Extension - Elatg set 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 24 0 0 0 0 0 Village gain auges no. 18 27 27 36 36 18 0 162 0 0 0 0 0 0 Deonstration Equlpment 491 no. 6 9 9 12 12 6 .0 S4 24 36 36 49 49 24 Sub-Total 225 38 38 49 49 24 S. Agric. Overeas S/Tours personm ths 4 4 0 4 0 0 0 12 40 40 0 40 0 0 C. Rangeland Plant Nat. & Eq Rear ounted Fert. Spread no. 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 15 15 0 0 0 0 Ran8eland Sod Seedwr no. 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 18 42 42 42 0 0 0 F and Cranked Seeders ro. 100 16 16 17 17 17 0 183 7 I 1 I I 1 I Sub-Total 64 58 44 1 1 1 I D. Range Overseas S/Tours personm ths 8 8 8 0 0 0 0 23 76 76 76 0 0 0 E. Desk TopoPrIntwr+Trng no. 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 41 0 0 0 0 0 F. Vehicles Elazg Demonstratlon PU no. 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 60 0 0 0 0 0 Ptwaning Team S no. 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6S 0 0 0 0 0 Adaptive ResearciDemo PU no. 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 120 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total 246 0 0 0 0 0 G. Equlpmnt for gnetic lp 43 no. 0 6 9 12 12 6 0 45 0 30 46 61 61 30 total tNESTNENT COSTS 692 243 203 151 111 56 It. RECURRENT COSTS A. Incrementt Extension cost 44 unit 16663 26242 27752 36067 35829 20304 1532 164389 51 80 84 109 109 d2 B. Incrtt demonstration cost *5 unit 60 108 117 147 156 96 18 702 6 11 12 1S 16 10 C. Adaptive Research '6 Per Aunr * - - - - - 12 12 12 12 12 12 Totat RECURRENT COSTS 69 103 10 136 137 63 M _ _ = 9 Total 761 345 311 288 247 139 41) Demonetratfon equipments Noisture _wters, scales, measurfn tapes etc 3b Equipment for Al or Butt centre.lnproved animals:Buits,Rams Unit costMSk IX 44 $ per ha. rense and agricultural treatments:fuet,per diem,office supply ol00 45 $100 per ha of demonstrations for fuel,per,diem, & other overheads. 46 Costs of research staff:travet,per diems analyses,supplies,workshops etc 0 * Vatues scaled by 1000.0 14/11 tY92 13:46 Turkey Uatershed Rehabititation Project Eastern Anatolla Table 113. KHGM Strengthening Field Services Detailed Cost Table LOOO Quantity Base Costs In US$000 Unit 1993 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total ................................................ .............................................................................................................. I. INVESTMENT COSTS ................ A. Plant Equlp. & Materials Tractor (100 UP) no. 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 121 121 0 0 0 0 0 243 Caravan no. 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 49 49 0 0 0 0 0 97 Survey Equipment sum 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 162 162 0 0 0 0 0 324 Laboratory Equipment suM 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 35 35 0 0 0 0 0 70 Desk top Computer/trng no. 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 Lap Top Computer/trng no. 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 Dot matrix Printer(wide) no. 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Sub-Total 400 367 0 0 0 0 0 767 B. Overseas Studies person moths 8 4 4 0 0 0 0 16 121 61 61 0 0 0 0 243 C. Veh. 4ID PU no. 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 120 ...... ... . .. ...... ......... ...... ......... ...... ........ ............ ..... ............ Total I M STMENT COSTS 641 428 61 0 0 0 0 1130 II. RECURRENT COSTS ............... A. Veh. Oper. Costs 15 1 sum - - - - - 0 18 a 18 18 18 18 108 8. Offfce Supply -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totat RECURRENT COSTS 0 18 18 18 18 18 18 108 o mu u= Wl== S03U 3 U== U 3UU3= non= Total 641 446 79 18 18 18 18 1238 *c1 Vehicle runming cot a IS1 purchase cost Values scaled by 1000.0 14/12V1992 13:25 IZ0P 0 KmC 0 Turkey Vaterwd tehabilitation ProJect Eatern Anatolia Table 121. 8oll Cornetlon Affortotion, HOF. Terrac'getree edig pantgoacorn fodder s,] & fert brdest Dotailed Cost Table TL0ON Quentfty so Costs In 06000 Unit t993 194 199f 1996 199T 19968 999 Total 1993 1996 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total 1. IMSTET COsTS .......f r......... A. Planting ateriat 4> Seedting Trees r ha h 1100 0 10 2200 220 1100 0 10000 48 74 74 96 96 468 0 435 seedlIng res Yr2 h 0 1100 1700 170 22Q0 2200 1100 10000 0 16 24 24 31 31 16 142 Acos Include Replts ha 1100 1700 1700 2200 2200 1700, 10600 10 1S 5 20 20 15 0 97 tly leedins Trem Vrl he 23 23 23 23 23 23 0 138 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 20 Gutly sedlir Tres lr2 ha 0 23 23 23 23 23 23 138 0 1 1 1 1 I I 5 Sub-Total 61 109 118 144 151 99 16 698 U. Site Pre aratin 03, Nahcing Irnuts lO1 1700 1700 2200 2200 1100 0 10000 224 346 346 447 47 224 0 203 Nsl Labour 1100 1700 1700 2200 2200 1100 0 10000 223 344 344 "S ,,4S 223 0 2023 Sub-Total 446 690 690 692 692 446 0 4056 C. fdcr Spesls Seed Yr14 Q ha 1100 700 1700 2200 2200 1100 0 10000* 41 64 64 82 82 41 0 374 0. Fertil.uAP yl (100 kg/ha) ha 1100 1700 1700 2200 220 1100 0 10000 71 110 110 142 142 71 0 67 E. Cat fertilts OAP S0gtree ha 23 23 23 23 23 23 0 138 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 9 f. Mandtools & ags ha 1100 1700 1700 2200 2200 1100 0 10000 6 9 9 11 11 6 0 S1 6. Labour terraces and Gully Planting Irn ha 1100 1700 1700 2200 2200 1100 0 10000 71 110 110 142 142 71 0 647 Survey ha 1100 1700 1700 2200 2200 1100 0 1o0 o 3 5 S 7 7 3 0 30 F Mafntenane terraes Yr2 ha 0 1100 1700 1700 2200 2200 1100 10000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Replant terrces Tr2 ha 0 1100 1700 1700 2200 2200 1100 10000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Soain A4erns Yrt ha 1100 1700 1700 2200 2200 1100 0 10000 43 67 67 87 87 43 0 395 Replating Yr2 ha 0 1100 1700 1700 2200 2200 1100 10000 0 11 17 17 22 22 11 101 Maintenance Tr2 ha 0 1100 1700 1700 2200 2200 1100 1o00 0 U 22 22 29 29 14 132 ully Ceck dem/ha ha 23 23 23 23 23 23 0 138 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 11 Gully Plantitng Yra ha 23 23 23 23 23 23 0 138 1 1 I 1 1 1 0 9 Gully Reptantngirasint y2 ha 0 23 23 23 23 23 23 138 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Gully Halntenance Yr2 ba 0 23 23 23 23 23 23 138 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 Gully R. Oeek DMs ha 23 23 23 23 23 23 0 138 11 11 11 11 11 11 0 68 Podder 8 walng Tnt ha 4000 6200 7000 6000 6100 9000 0 42300 SS 85 96 109 111 123 0 578 ... ...... .i .-... i... .... ....... .... ........ ...... ............ ........ ........ Sub-Total 187 300 3 401 414 308 27 1977 U. Transport Transport tYr ha 1100 1700 1700 2200 2200 1100 0 10000 17 26 26 33 33 17 0 152 Tranrspot Yr2 ha 0 1100 1700 1700 2200 2200 1100 10000 0 11 17 17 22 22 11 101 Sub-Total 17 37 4 S1 56 39 11 253 t. Fenoing ha 1100 1700 1700 2200 2200 1100 0 10000 22 34 34 45 45 22 0 202 J. 6uarding Full Cost ha 1100 2800 4000 5000 6100 5500 3300 27800 18 45 65 81 99 89 53 4SO Half cost ha 0 0 0 1100 2800 4500 670015100 0 0 0 9 23 36 54 122 ........ .......... ...... ......; ......; ..... Sub-Total 18 45 65 90 121 125 108 s57 total tNVESTMENT COSTS 1 1408 1466 i859 1916 1159 162 8840 total 871 1408 1466 1859 1916 1159 162 8840 0 0* Machine costs exclude capital depreciation of S22.90/hr u 2> Sanfoin(TL3000/kg),grass(TL40Ooo/kg)*vetch(TL6oo/kg)seedjixa $37.0/ha ° '3> InPut quantities can be found in the Forestry Working papers. - Values scaled by 1000.0 14/12/1992 13:25 Turkey Watershed Rebabilitation Project Eastern Anatolia Table 123. Conifer Plantations, MOF. Detalted Cost Table TLOOO Quantity ease costs in US$000 Unit 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total 1993 199t 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total 1. INVESTMENT COSTS ,......... . A. Site Preparation <2; By Machine c1> ha 550 800 800 1100 1100 550 0 4900 34 so 50 69 69 34 0 307 By Hand ha 550 800 800 1100 1100 550 0 4900 116 168 168 231 231 116 0 1031 Seedling Cost Yri ha 550 800 800 1100 1100 550 0 4900 67 97 97 134 134 67 0 595 Seedling Cost Yr2 ha 0 550 800 800 1100 1100 550 4900 0 17 24 24 33 33 17 149 Fertilizer NP ha 550 800 800 1100 1100 550 0 4900 15 22 22 30 30 15 0 134 Nandtools & Sags ha 550 800 800 1100 1100 550 0 4900 3 4 4 6 6 3 0 25 Transport Yri ha 550 800 800 1100 1100 550 0 4900 8 12 12 17 17 8 0 74 Transport Yr2 ha 0 550 800 800 1100 1100 550 4900 0 6 8 8 11 11 6 50 Access Roads/Tracks ha 550 800 800 1100 1100 550 0 4900 . 24 35 35 48 48 24 0 213 Guarding ha 550 1350 2150 3250 4350 4900 4900 21450 9 22 35 53 70 79 79 347 Fencing ha 550 800 800 1100 1100 550 0 4900 11 16 16 22 22 11 0 99 Sub-Total 287 449 472 64i 671 402 102 3024 B. Labour Survey ha 550 800 800 110O 1100 550 0 4900 2 2 2 3 3 2 0 15 4s Planting Yrl ha 550 800 800 1100 1100 550 0 4900 89 130 130 179 179 89 0 797 Planting Yr2 ha 0 550 800 800 1100 1100 550 4900 0 18 26 26 36 36 18 159 Maintenance Yr2 ha 0 550 800 800 1100 1100 550 4900 0 45 65 65 89 89 45 397 Sub-Totat 91 195 223 273 307 216 62 1367 Total ItVESTMENT COSTS 378 644 695 914 978 618 164 4390 r==uM= V===== =2===3 ===== a==== ==g= === *== Total 378 644 695 914 978 618 164 4390 01 Unit cost assAmes 70% area (30X slope) Is mechanically prepared '2> Input quantities can be found in the Forestry Working Papers. - Values scaled by 1000.0 14/12/1992 13:25 00 W 0O Turkey Watershed RehabfiLtatfon ProJect Eastern Anatolia Table 124. Oak Coppice Rehabilitation, MOF. Aged/degraded oak stands rehab'd'bare areas sown with acorns Detailed Cost Table TLOOO Quantity Base Costs in US$000 Unit 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total ...........__ ............,_...................................... ........................ ..................................... .................................. __...... _ 1. INVESTMENT COSTS ... .. ..................._ A. Oak,current 50-70% cover <1> Acorns Yr1 ha 2000 3000 3000 3900 3900 2000 0 17800 83 124 124 '62 162 83 0 738 Acorns Yr2 ha 0 2000 3000 3000 3900 3900 2000 17800 0 22 33 33 43 43 22 198 Handtools & Bags ha 2000 3000 3000 3900 3900 2000 0 17800 10 15 15 20 20 10 0 90 Rehabilitation Cutting ha 2000 3000 3000 3900 3900 2000 0 17800 326 489 489 635 635 326 0 2899 Sowing Acorns Yrl ha 2000 3000 3000 3900 3900 2000 0 17800 129 194 194 252 252 129 0 1152 Maintenance Yr2 ha 0 2000 3000 3000 3900 3900 2000 17800 0 81 121 121 158 158 81 720 Labour Replants Yr2 ha 0 2000 3000 3000 3900 3900 2000 17800 0 40 61 61 79 79 40 360 Transport Yrl ha 2000 3000 3000 3900 3900 2000 2000 19800 121 182 182 237 237 121 121 1202 Transport Yr2 ha 0 2000 3000 3000 3900 3900 2000 17800 0 40 61 61 79 79 40 360 Access Roads/Tracks ha 2000 3000 3000 3900 3900 2000 0 17800 87 130 130 170 170 87 0 774 fencing ha 2000 3000 3000 3900 3900 2000 0 17800 40 61 61 79 79 40 0 364 a Guarding Full Cost (5yrs) ha 2000 5000 8000 9900 10800 9800 5900 51400 32 81 129 160 175 159 95 832 Guarding Half Cost ha 0 0 0 2000 5000 8000 11900 26900 0 0 0 16 40 65 96 218 F Sub-Totat 829 1461 1601 2007 2129 1379 497 9904 1 Total INVESTMENT COSTS 829 1461 1601 2007 2129 1379 497 9904 =Y=== ====------ ----- ---- ==w=-= ===, a=== O==# Total 829 1461 1601 2007 2129 1379 497 9904 '1 Input quantities/ha can be found in Forestry Working Papers. - Values scated by 1000.0 14/12/1992 13:25 ICa 0 h Turkey watershed Rehabilitation Project Eastern Anatolia Table 125. Rangeland Rehabilitation, NOF Detalled Cost Tabte TLOOO Ouantity Bs Costs In USSO00 Unit 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total ........ ............... ... .. . ..... _... _....._, __...... _. ._... ... ,.. ............................... 1. INVESTMET COSTS ................ ................ A. Fedder Sp. Seed Vetch (25 kg/ha.) ha 2000 3000 3000 3900 3900 2000 0 17800 42 64 64 83 83 42 0 378 Sanfoin (50kg/ha.) ha 2000 3000 3000 3900 3900 2000 0 17800 36 55 55 71 71 36 0 324 Grass (1Okg/ha a $5/kg) ha 2000 3000 3000 3900 390C 2000 0 17800 101 152 152 197 197 101 0 900 FertilizeOAP YrI tOOkg/haha 2000 3000 3000 3900 3900 2000 0 17800 93 140 140 181 181 93 0 828 Handtoots & Sags ha 2000 3000 3000 3900 3900 2000 0 17800 10 15 15 20 20 10 0 90 Labour Seedling/Fert. Irlha 2000 3000 3000 3900 3900 2000 0 17800 20 30 30 39 39 20 0 180 Transport Yr1 ha 2000 3000 3000 3900 3900 2000 0 17800 30 46 46 59 59 30 0 270 Transport Yr2 ha 0 2000 3000 3000 3900 3900 2000 17800 0 20 30 30 39 39 20 180 Access - Tracks Yrl ha 2000 3000 3000 3900 3900 2000 0 17800 59 88 88 114 114 59 0 522 Fenming ha 2000 3000 3000 3900 3900 3000 0 18800 40 61 61 79 79 61 0 380 Guarding Full Cost ha 2000 5000 8000 9900 10800 9800 5900 51400 18 46 73 90 98 89 54 46B Guarding Nalf Cost ha 0 0 2000 5000 8000 11900 15800 42700 0 0 10 25 40 60 80 216 Suk-Totat 451 715 763 990 1022 642 154 4737 B. Gully Revegetation Gully Seedlings Yrl ha 27 40 40 53 53 27 0 240 4 6 6 8 8 4 0 35 Gully Seedlings Yr2 ha 0 7 10 1O 13 13 7 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Gutly Planting Yrt ha 27 40 40 53 53 27 0 240 2 3 3 3 3 2 0 16 Fertiizer DAP ha 27 40 40 53 53 27 0 240 1 2 2 2 2 1 0 11 Gully Maint./Replant Yr2 ha 0 27 40 40 53 53 27 240 0 1 2 2 3 3 1 12 Labour Check Das ha 27 40 40 53 53 27 0 240 2 3 3 4 4 2 0 20 Sub-Totat 9 15 16 20 21 12 2 95 Total INVESTMENT COSTS 460 730 7Z9 1010 1043 654 155 4832 anU == 3 == = 3CZ *=OCU n- -, Total 460 30 779 1010 1043 654 155 4832 - Values scaled by 1000.0 14/12/1992 13:25 I-tb Q 0 Turkey Uatershed Rehabilitation Project Eastern Anatolia Table 126. fueltood Coppice Plantation Detalted Cost Table TLOOO Quantity Base Costs in US$O0O Unit 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total 1M93 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total ...... ............................................................. ............. ........................... ........................................................ 1. INVUSTNENT COSTS ............. .............. . A. Site Preparation 01: By hachine ha 1300 2000 2000 2600 2600 1300 0 11800 82 125 125 t63 163 82 0 740 By Hand ha 1300 2000 2000 2600 2600 1300 0 11800 274 421 421 547 547 274 0 2483 Survey ha 1300 2000 2000 2600 2600 1300 0 11800 4 6 6 8 8 4 0 36 Planting Yrt ha 1300 2000 2000 2600 2600 1300 0 11800 170 261 261 339 339 170 0 1540 Replanting Yr2 ha 0 1300 2000 2000 2600 2600 1300 11800 0 63 97 97 126 126 63 573 Seedling Cost ti; ha 1300 2000 2000 2600 2600 1300 0 11800 79 121 121 158 158 79 0 716 Acrns Costs Yrl ha 1300 2000 2000 2600 2600 1300 011800 18 28 28 37 37 18 0 167 Seedlino Costs Vr2 ha 0 1300 2000 2000 2600 2600 1300 11800 0 18 28 28 37 37 18 167 Acorns Costs Yr2 ha 0 1300 2000 2000 2600 2600 1300 11800 0 4 6 6 8 8 4 36 Nafntenance fr2 ha 0 1300 2000 2000 2600 2600 1300 11800 0 63 97 97 126 126 63 S73 Handtootsg Sags ha 1300 2000 2000 2600 2600 1300 0 11800 7 10 10 13 13 7 0 60 Transport Yr1 ha 1300 2000 2000 2600 2600 1300 0 11800 20 30 30 39 39 20 0 179 1 Transport Yr2 ha 0 1300 2000 2000 2600 2600 1300 11800 0 13 20 20 26 26 13 119 Fencing ha 1300 2000 2000 2600 2601 1300 0 11800 26 40 40 53 53 26 0 239 H Guarding fult Cost ha 1300 3300 5300 6600 7200 6500 3900 34100 21 53 86 107 117 105 63 552 -4 Ouarding Half Cost ha 0 0 0 1300 3300 5300 7900 17800 0 0 0 11 27 43 64 144 Access Roads/Tracks ha 1300 2000 2000 2600 2600 1300 0 11800 57 87 87 113 113 57 0 513 Sukb-Total 756 1346 1466 1836 t937 1207 289 8837 Total INVESTMENT COSTS 756 1346 1466 1836 1937 1207 289 B837 Totat 756 1346 1466 1836 1937 1207 289 8837 41D input quantfties/ha. for atl forestry Interventions see Working Papers. - Valtue scated by 1000.0 14/1211992 13:25 0I o0 0 t1F w~ 0 Turkey Watershed Rehabilitation Project Eastern Anatolia table 127. Range Management & Fertifisation(Treasury Land).TEDGEW/TUGEM Fertilizer is broadcast (existing seed population adequate). Oetailed Cost Table TLOOO Quantity Base Costs in US$OO0 Unit 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Totat ..._.................................._.............................. ..... .......... ,...----------...------...----_.--....--------_-----..---_...-------...------..... 1. INVESTMENT COSTS ..... ....... _..... A. Fertilizer DAP R'ld 100kg/ha ha 2223 3333 3333 4444 4444 2223 0 20000 52 78 78 103 103 52 0 465 TSP R'ld 100kg/ha ha 600 1200 1900 1900 2500 1900 0 10000 9 18 29 29 38 29 0 152 OAP M'ld 250 kg/ha ha 15 30 47 48 62 48 0 250 1 2 3 3 3 3 0 14 TSP H ld tSO kg/ha ha 15 30 47 48 62 48 0 250 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 6 Sub-Total 62 98 110 136 146 84 0 637 8. Tractor/Fertilizer ha 2823 4533 5233 6344 6944 4123 0 30000. 1 2 2 3 3 2 0 12 C. Labour (farmer contribut) c2P Rangeland .S pd/ha ha 2820 4530 5230 6340 6940 5230 0 31090 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Meadow land 6 pd/ha ha 30 60 95 95 125 95 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D. Ripping ha 450 900 1425 1425 1875 1425 0 7500 6 11 18 18 23 18 0 93 Total INVESTMENT COSTS 69 t11 130 156 172 104 0 741 11. RECURRENT COSTS ............... A. Fertilizer DAP RIld Yr3 100 kg/ha ha 0 0 2820 4530 5230 6340 6940 25860 0 0 66 105 122 148 161 602 DAP Rld Tr6 tOO kg/ha ha 0 0 0 0 0 2820 4530 7350 0 0 0 0 0 66 105 171 DAP M'ld 250 kg/ha ha 0 15 45 92 140 202 250 744 0 1 3 5 8 11 14 41 TSP M'ld t50 kg/ha ha 5 15 45 92 140 202 250 749 0 0 1 2 3 5 6 17 Sub-TotaL 0 1 69 113 133 229 287 831 S. Tractor/Fertilizer ha 0 2823 7356 12589 18933 25877 30000 97578 0 1 3 5 8 10 12 39 C. Labour(farmer contribut) c3> Rangetand 0.75 pd ha 0 2823 7356 12589 18933 25877 30000 97578 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Meadow Land 6 pd ha 0 30 90 185 280 405 500 1490 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D. Transport lld ha 0 30 90 185 280 405 500 1490 0 1 4 7 11 16 20 60 Total RECURRENT COSTS 0 4 76 125 152 256 319 931 ------ ------ ------ -.== -.=. ... ..~ .== Total 69 115 206 281 324 360 319 1673CQ 41e Rec costs(Except labor) paid by project because new technical concept. - X Detailed Cost Table TLOOO Quantity Base Costs In USS000 Unit 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total ... .. _.... ...... ........ ............... ... .... ...... ........ .. ... ----------------- ------------------------ 1. INVESTMENT COSTS ................ A. Fertilizer 2? DAP 100 kg/ha ha 2223 3333 3333 4444 4b44 2223 0 20000 52 78 78 103 103 52 0 465 TSP 100 kg/ha ha 2223 3333 3333 4444 4444 2223 0 20000 34 51 51 67 67 34 0 303 Sub-Totat 85 128 128 171 171 85 0 769 S. Range Management Alone 3> ha 0 6500 9775 9775 13050 13050 6500 58650 0 66 99 99 132 132 66 593 C. Tractor/Fertilizer ha 2223 3333 3333 4444 4444 2223 0 20000 1 1 1 2 2 1 0 8 0. Farmer contrf:LaborSt2/ha ha 2223 3333 3333 4444 4444 2223 0 20000. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. Seed Altfalf 10 kg/ha ha 2223 3333 3333 4444 4444 2223 0 20000 26 39 39 51 51 26 0 231 Sanfoln 50 kg/ha ha 2223 3333 3333 4444 4444 2223 020000 32 48 48 64 64 32 0 289 Seed Pelleting ha 2223 3333 3333 4444 4444 2223 0 20000 45 67 67 90 90 45 0 405 Sub-Total 103 154 154 206 206 103 a 925 F F. Ripping <1> ha 556 833 833 1111 1111 556 0 5000 9 13 13 18 18 9 0 81 Total INVESTMENT COSTS 198 363 396 495 528 330 66 2376 It. RECURRENT COSTS A. Fertilizer DAP Tr3 100 kg/ha ha 0 0 0 2223 3333 3333 4444 13333 0 0 0 52 78 78 103 310 DAP Yr6 tOO kgha ha 0 0 0 0 0 2223 3333 5556 0 0 0 0 0 52 78 129 Sub-Total 0 0 0 52 78 129 181 434 S. Farmer lab contr:$8.33/ha ha 2223 3333 3333 4444 4444 2223 0 20000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total RECURRENT COSTS 0 0 0 52 78 129 181 U39 Total 198 363 396 547 606 459 247 2816 <1> Ripping only on a quarter total area. t23 tnput costs incurred because It Is treasury land <3> Cost of deuarcatlon, occasional fencing, assigmsent certificates etc. 4> RANGE MANAGEMENT ALONE:SEPARATE TREATMENT,LOW COST. VILLAGE SUPPORT - Values scaled by 1000.0 14/12/1992 13:25 0 C0 Turkey Watershed Rehabilftation Project Eastern Anatolia Table 129. Improved ageranomic peakages (TEDGEM/TUGEN) tIproved Varieties S Management Detailed Cost Table TLOOO Chuantfty .XBase Costs in US$000 unit 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total ................................................................ ................................................................................................,__ I. INVESTHEMT COSTS ................ A. tIproved Irputs/Practice Iiproved Cultivars ha 1296 1944 1944 2593 2593 1297 0 11667 47 1 71 94 9447 0 425 fertitizer DAP ha 1296 1944 1944 2593 2593 1297 0 11667 28 42 42 57 57 28 0 255 Fertilizer ammn. nitrate ha 1296 1944 1944 2593 2593 1297 0 11667 25 38 38 50 50 25 0 227 Farmer Labour 41> ha 1296 1944 1944 2593 2593 1297 0 11667 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5ub-Totat 101 151 151 202 202 101 0 907 Total INVESTENXT COSTS 101 151 151 202 202 101 0 907 Total 101 151 151 202 202 101 0 907 ,1> Farmer provides labor free; receives inputs from project as Incentive. - Values scaled by 1000.0 14/12/1992 13:24 0 IPU 2: oo0 0 Turkey Vatershed RehabiLitation Project Eastern Anatolia Table 130. Fallow Reduction (CEDG0M/TUMEN) by legumes & forage prodn. Detailed Cost Table TLOOO auantity 8ase Costs in 115,OO0 Unit 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total t. INVESTMENT COSTS ........ ............. ... A. Incremental Inputs Seedw 1> ha 1680 2520 2520 3360 3360 2520 0 15960 86 128 128 171 171 128 0 814 Fertilizer <2' ha 1680 2520 2520 3360 3360 2520 0 15960 65 97 97 129 129 97 0 613 Farmer Labour d32 ha 1680 2520 2520 3360 3360 2520 0 15960 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total 150 225 225 300 300 225 0 1427 S. Perennial Forage Bank Seed ha 1111 1667 1667 2222 2222 1111 0 10000 39 59 59 79 79 39 0 354 Sowing 4>4 ha 1l11 1667 1667 2222 2222 1111 0 10000 51 76 76 101 101 51 0 455 Fertiliser DAP ha 1111 1667 1667 2222 2222 1111 0 10000 26 39 39 52 52 26 0 233 Sub-Total 116 174 174 232 232 116 0 1042 Total INVESTMENT COSTS 2 3 399 532 532 341 0 2469 Total 266 399 399 532 532 341 0 2469 >' Seed requirement: 130 kg/ha x 2500 TLA '2' Fertilizer : 80 kg/ha DAP x 1540 TL (unsubsidised) <31 Farmers provide labor (525/ha) but get inputs free from project tst yr. (4* Sowing: Seedbed prepn. & broadcasting (2 sweeps aTL15000) - Values scaled by 1000.0 14/12/1992 13:24 0 ICD o 1X 0 Turkey Watershed RehabiIItation Project Easterm Anatolia Table 131. Small Scale Irrigation Detailed Cost Table TLOOO Cuantity Base Costs In US5000 Unit 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Totat t. INVESTMENT COSTS ........ ........... A. Low IerIjatfon Terraces 01> Construction ha 1170 1755 1755 2340 2340 1170 0 10530 966 ;449 1449 1932 1932 966 0 8692 Stane Clearg:farmer contr ha 54 81 81 108 108 54 0 486 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total 966 1449 1449 1932 1932 966 0 8692 S. MInor Irrigation DOverson CharnelssUknPAC Km 18 27 27 36 36 18 0 162 36 55 55 73 73 36 0 328 Small hater Basins no. 30 45 45 60 60 30 0 270 121 182 182 243 243 121 0 1092 Tertimry Canals(8kWN0C) Km 48 72 72 96 96 48 0 432 340 510 S10 680 680 340 0 3059 Sub-Total 498 747 747 95 995 498 0 4479 F C. Tractor & Equfpment Yr1 42 ha 1170 1755 1755 2340 2340 1170 0 10530 47 71 71 95 95 47 0 426 r D. Tractor a Equipment YrZ ha 0 878 1316 1316 1755 1755 878 7898 0 18 27 27 36 36 18 160 ' E. Labour (for construction) <3 ha 1170 1755 1755 2340 2340 1170 0 10530 11 178 178 237 237 118 0 1065 1 Total INVESTMENT COSTS 1629 2461 2470 3285 3294 1665 18 14822 Total 1629 2461 2470 3285 3294 1665 18 U1422 01> Construction is $816/ha. Stone clearing ($215/ha) done by farmer free 2> Alfalfa-Establish. rostt paid for by project see Table 149 c33 TedgesVtuge. activities costed In table 149 44> See Table 149 for TEDGEM/TUGEN financed establishment costs. for yr 1. 4S Project bears recurrent COsts to year 2 Values scaled by 1000.0 14/12Vt992 t3s24 Is 00a 0 Turkey Watershed Rehabilitation Project Eastern Anatolia Table 132. River Sank Protection Total 140 ha; 70ha village labour, 70 ha MOF Detalted Cost Table TLOOO Quantity Base Costs in USSOOO Unit 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total 1. INVESTMENT COSTS ................ A. 70 a by POf (Materisl) ha 10 10 15 15 10 10 0 70 1 1 2 2 1 1 0 7 B. VillagersfNaterial ha 10 10 15 15 10 10 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. Labour 0:# ha 10 10 15 15 10 10 0 70 3 3 5 5 3 3 0 22 ..... ...... ..... ....... ..... ....... ..... ......... ....................... Total INVESTMENT COSTS 4 4 6 6 4 4 0 29 3== ==== a-=-=-= ==-==- --== 3--- =13==3e Total 4 4 6 6 4 4 0 29 41> Farner contributs labour half the area(70ha) free,worth another $308/ha * Values scaled by 1000.0 14/12/1992 13:24 K) 0 0 Turkey Watershed Rehabititation Project Eastern AnatoLia Table 133. Rainfed Terraces and Check Structures KNGM Detalled Cost Table TLOOO Ouantity Base Costs in US$000 ------- ---- ===3--=3 33= = = 3 = 3 == Unit 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total 1993 1994 1995 1996 199t 1998 1999 Total 1. *INESTMENT COSTS ................ A. Construct Rainfed Terrace <1 ha 624 936 936 1248 1248 624 0 5616 218 327 327 436 436 218 0 1960 S. Cherk Structures Plant fnd Equipment no. 624 936 936 1248 1248 624 0 5616 25 38 38 50 50 25 0 227 Labour (farmer contribut) c1lno. 624 936 936 1248 1248 624 0 5616 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total 25 38 38 50 50 25 0 227 Total INMESTMENT COSTS 24 365 365 486 486 243 0 2187 Total 243 365 365 486 486 243 0 2187 41) Planting materials provided for 20X of the area by project.See Table 149 b2 Farmer contribution ($20/ha) labor. - Values scaled by 1000.0 14/12/1992 13:24 0 I.OD 0 I o1 Q Turkey Watershed Rehabilftation Project Eastemn Anatotia Table 142. ORKOY: Apfculture TedgeiWTugem Detailed Cost Table TLOOO 9uanttty Sase costs In USS000 Unit 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Totol 1. IMNESTMENT COSTS ................ A. Bee fives 41* no. 0 180 270 270 360 360 180 1620 0 133 200 200 267 267 133 1200 . S. ar=s '2' no. 0 180 270 270 360 360 180 1620 0 200 300 300 400 400 200 1799 C. Equipaent Sots 4& no. 0 180 270 270 360 360 180 1620 0 78 117 117 155 155 78 700 Total I N STNEIT COSTS 0 411 616 616 822 822 411 3699 mu== ssss =mm === ssm m um Um C= Total 0 411 616 616 822 822 411 3699 ,1U There are 20 beehives per kit. (2' Twenty swarms per kit Oil Ore set of equipment per kit. $427, Includes sugar & drugs for first yr. - Values scaled by 1000.0 14/12/1992 13:24 0 0 Turkey Watershed Rehabititation Project Eastern Anatolia Table 144. Gully Horticulture TEDGEM/TUGEM Fruit trees and vines in gullies and on slopes. Detailed Cost Table TLOOO Quantity Base Costs in USS000 Unit 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 98 1999 Total 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total 1. INVESTMENT COSTS A. Fruit Trees in Gullies Seedlings 1> ha 140 108 240 480 864 814 0 2646 25 19 42 85 153 144 0 468 Seedlings Replants 2> ha 0 140 108 240 480 864 0 1832 0 5 4 8 17 31 0 65 Labour (farmer contribut) 3,ha 140 108 240 480 864 814 0 2646 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-Total 25 24 46 93 170 175 0 533 S. Grapevines Planting SXfarmer contrib 5>ha 50 100 150 200 100 0 0 600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Deep Ploughing + Cultivat 7>ha 50 100 150 200 100 0 0 600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Replant Materials ha 0 50 100 150 200 100 0 600 0 4 8 11 15 8 0 4 Fertiliser 7> ha 100 300 600 500 300 0 0 1800 6 19 38 32 19 0 0 115 Grafting plus mterial ha 0 0 50 100 150 200 100 600 0 0 7 14 21 28 14 85 I Sub-Total 6 23 53 57 56 36 14 245 4 Total INVESTMENT COSTS 31 47 9' 151 225 211 14 7 Total 31 47 99 151 225 211 14 778 '1> Assumes 140 seedlings/ha total cost $175. <2> 20% replanting requirement Y2 <3> 20 mandays labor planting <4> Replanting 4 mandays (251) 5> Planting: include marking (50000 TL/ha) holes (60000) rootstock (800000) <6> Fertiliser: manure+ commercial fertiliser (200000) including labour T7 Deep ploughing & cultivation is a farmer contribution worth $75/ha. - Values scaled by 1000.0 14/12/1992 13:24 OD (b~ 0 0 Turkey Watershed Rehabilitatorn Project Eastern Anatolia Table 149. Support Activities Budgetted for Table 133&131 TedgerTugem O), (l)Rainfed Hortic+consv.(2)Irrig.Hort+consv.(3)lrrig.Forage Detailed Cost Table 7L000 Quantity Base Costs in US$000 Unit 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total .................. ..................................... _ .................................. ............ ................._ INVUSTMENT COSTS ................ A. Rainfed Morticulture+Cons <21 Iicrocatchmt 125 187 187 250 250 125 0 1124 22 33 33 45 45 22 0 201 B. Table 131: Seedlings no. 234 351 351 468 468 468 234 2574 42 63 63 84 84 84 42 461 C. Table 131 Irrig Alfalfa ha 0 878 1316 1316 1755 1755 878 7898 0 45 67 67 90 90 45 404 0. Transport to village Microcatchmt 6 15 24 36 48 54 0 183 2 6 10 15 19 22 0 74 tal INVESTMENT COSTS 67 147 173 210 238 218 87 1140 m==s == m== ==== em=u =:U=:= := =uu :=~ Total 67 147 173 210 238 218 87 1140 I> Costs include both Small Scale Irrig and Rainfed terrace activities b Plantfng materIals Values scaled by 1000.0 14/12V1992 13:24 X) 0 Turkey Watershed Rehabilitation Project Eastern Anatolia Table 151. Trees on Field Boundaries (TEDGEH/TUGEM) (1)Fruit Trees (2)Pistachio Grafting & Estabtishment Detailed Cost Table TLOOO Quantity Base Costs in US$000 Unit 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total ................... ..............................................................................--------------------_--------.....-------------_..----.........---............... 1. INVESTNENT COSTS ................ A. Fruit trees on boundaries <1, Seedlings Km 80 80 80 90 90 80 80 580 7 7 7 8 8 7 7 50 SeedLings Replants Km 0 80 80 80 90 90 90 510 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 9 Sub-Total 7 8 8 9 9 8 8 59 S. Pistachio Grafting & Est. <2b Planting amterial ha 333 500 500 667 667 333 333 3333 13 20 20 27 27 13 13 135 Total INVESTHENT COSTS 20 28 28 36 36 22 22 194 U #m== =:: U =:3 = - Total 20 28 28 36 36 22 22 194 1> Fruit trees planted 12m intervals=85 trees/km. Farmer cont.labour$195/km <2> Farmer contribution $110/ha - Values scaled by 1000.0 14/12/1992 13:24 Co 0 0 o Turkey Uatershed Rehabilitation ProJect Eastern Anatolla Table 160. Pilot Aerial Seeding I Fertilialrg of Rangelands (1) Fertilisation; C2) Seeding and fertltteatlon Detaited Cost Tabte TL000 Quantity Base Costs in USO$O0 unit 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 199 9 1999 Total 1. t*IESTIEOT CWTS A. Aerial FertIlis&tlon only Flylsn Costs ha 0 2000 2000 1000 0 0 0 5000 0 20 20 10 0 0 0 S1 DAP fertiliset (OOcke/he)bs 0 1000 1000 0 0 0 0 2000 0 20 20 0 0 0 0 40 TSP fertiliser (looks/l)ha 0 1000 1000 1000 0 0 0 3000 0 13 13 13 0 0 0 39 Labour h 0 2000 2000 1000 0 0 0 S000 0 10 10 5 0 0 0 26 Sub-Total 0 6t 64 28 0 0 0 156 S. Aerial fertilisation*eeed Flying costs ha 0 1000 1000 0 0 0 0 2000 . 0 10 10 0 0 0 0 20 Alfaltf seed (1Ok/b) ha 0 1000 1000 0 0 0 0 2000 0 10 10 0 0 0 0 20 Sanfoin seed (50kg/ha) ha 0 1000 1000 0 0 0 0 2000 0 14 14 0 0 0 0 28 Seed pelleting wlth fert.ha 0 1000 1000 0 0 0 0 2000 0 20 20 0 0 0 0 40 Labour ha 0 1000 1000 0 0 0 0 2000 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 10 Sub-Total 060 60 0 0 0 0120 Total INWESTMENT COSTS 0 124 124 28 0 0 0 276 II. RECURRENT COSTS ............... A. Aerlal Fertitfsatlon only Ftying cost ha 0 0 0 0 2000 2000 1000 5000 0 0 0 0 20 20 10 51 DAP fertiltseC (lOOkg/ha)ha 0 0 0 0 1000 1000 0 2000 0 0 0 0 21 21 0 41 TSP fertilser (IOOkg/ha)ha 0 0 0 0 1000 1000 1000 3000 0 0 0 0 13 13 13 40 Labour ha 0 0 0 0 2000 2000 1005000 0 0 0 0 10 10 5 26 Sub-Total 0 0 0 0 65 65 29 158 B. Aerial fertilisatfon+seed Flylng cost ha 0 0 0 0 1000 1000 0 2000 0 0 0 0 10 10 0 20 Alfalfa ha 0 0 0 0 1000 1000 0 2000 0 0 0 0 12 12 0 23 Sanfoin ha 0 0 0 0 1000 1000 0 2000 0 0 0 0 15 15 0 30 Seed Pelteting ha 0 0 0 0 1000 1000 0 2000 0 0 0 0 20 20 0 40 Labour Person Days 0 0 0 0 1000 1000 0 2000 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 10 Sub-Total 0 0 0 0 62 62 0 i25 Total RECURRENT COSTS 0 0 0 0 127 127 29 283 El Total 0 124 124 28 127 127 29 558 - Values scaled by 1000.0 14/1211992 13:24 Wa Turkey Watershed RehabilStation Project Eastern Anatotfa Table 161. Applied Research Forestry Research Institute Capital purchase support Detailed Cost Table TLOO0 Quantity Base Costs in USS000 Unit 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1996 1999 Total 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total 1. INVESTMENT COSTS ................ A. Plant and Equipment unit - - - - - - - 6 1 2 1 0 0 0 10 B. Computing PC Desk Top,DN Printer Inctudes Software and training as part of package. Dot Matrix printer. - Values scaled by 1000.0 14/12/1992 13:24 0 0 t Doo 0t 0 Turkey Watershed Rehabilitation Project Eastern AnatolIa Tab(e 162. Demonstrations, Adaptive Research - RangeLand & Agriculture Materials per demonstration <1> Detailed Cost Table TLOOO Quantity Base Costs in USSOO ====2 5===--S==_==y=-====:_====l===-f-=-=== =-====s ======- Y Y==== = _*==t Unit 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total ~~~~~~~. .. . ..... _.. .... _..... . .. . . . . . . .. . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1. INVESTMENT COSTS A. Rangeland Demonstration <2 ha 18 27 27 36 36 18 0 162 4 5 S 7 7 4 0 33 B. Agrlc. Demonstrations <2> Early <3i ha 42 63 63 84 42 0 0 294 8 13 13 17 8 0 0 59 Subsequent c4 ha 0 18 27 27 36 36 18 162 0 4 5 5 7 7 4 33 Sub-Total 8 16 18 2 16 7 4 92 C. Adaptive Research 4S> Rangeland <6> unit 0 3 3 3 3 0 0 12 0 6 6 6 6 0 0 24 Agriculture:forage/pulses <7>unit 0 9 9 9 9 0 0 36 0 18 18 18 18 0 0 73 Sub-Total 0 24 24 24 24 0 0 97 Totat INVESTMENT COSTS 12 46 48 54 47 11 4 222 -=--== ====-===== ===== n=== - Total 12 46 48 54 47 11 4 222 <1> $200/haseed+fert accdg.to site;Farmer labor($100/ha);FTE cost in Tab 112 <2> Management practices,fertilisation,seeding, to continue for 3-4 years. '3' Conservn tiltage,peren forage,fattow redn pulses/forage,agron pkgs,irrig <40 Contin;ed adap res & solns to location specific probs. To be determined. Cost % 100 materials per experiment;research specialists costs Table 112 <6P Range treatments for diffnt eco conditions:fert,seed,management,species. 7 Forage and pulse crop agronomy,ti((age practices,herbicides,wanagement. Values scaled by 1000.0 14/12/1992 13:24 I tD p 0 0 - 132 - ANNEt 9 Page I of 8 STAPF APPRAISAL REPORT EASTERN ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT ECONOMIC ANALYSIS A. Economic Rate of Return 1. Economic rates of return in projects of this nature, where the take- up of improved technologies is very difficult to predict, are best interpreted as an order of magnitude. On the basis of assumptions considered plausible, the project has an economic rate of return of 17X. This is from an incremental project expenditure of US$97 million excluding price contingencies but including physical contingencies. Excluded from the analysis, however, are the direct and associated costs and benefits of training (US$2.7 million), research (US$0.8 million). Further excluded are the Technical Assistance direct costs (US$2.4 million) and half the costs incurred under the Project Preparation Facility (half US$750,000) which were spent on TA and training. If no exclusions are made the ERR drops less than one percentage. The analysis is also conservative - it assumes there is no fall in yield without the project, despite significant evidence to the contrary. B. Cost Exclusions 2. Exclusions may be justified as follows. Training Costs: The PCSU and field services of the ministries associated with the project will contribute a major role in the training and development of provincial staff where at present there is a reported annual staff turnover of some 30X. The turnover is in part due to Government policy of regular relocation and in part due to resignations because of the difficulties of working in the region. Technical Assistance: The local and foreign Technical Assistance recruited for the PPF and to the project have an important role in on-the-job training which, along with the provisions for additional formal training and study tours, will help to create a cadre of staff prepared to continue and consolidate activities beyond the investment and establishment phase of the project. In addition, a considerable reservoir of expertise will be created on which to draw for future development in the region and elsewhere. 3. Research: The costs of applied research have been omitted (US$801,000 of which some 75X is for the aerial seeding experiment) because it is difficult to quantify the benefits which will accrue, yet they are assumed to be positive. Applied research is an essential element, however, of the project concept of continuing to identify solutions to the agricultural problems of the micro catchment. The costs of demonstrations have been included because they contribute directly to identifiable project benefits. - 133 - ANNEX 9 Page 2 of 8 4. Yields: These are assumed to remain constant in the without project situation though a decline would likely occur on much of the more marginal land which will be rehabilitated under the project. The exception to this assumption is where in the absence of the project, the oak coppices are projected to last only ten years. C. Economic and Financial Considerations 5. The economic rate of return calculation excludes price contingencies and is worked using the base costs plus physical contingencies less taxes and the exclusions stated above. The opportunity cost of the capital applied to the project is assumed to be 10X. 6. Labor. The project development activities will increase localized demand for labor and thus formal employment of daily wage labor by the project has been priced to reflect recent (July 1992) increases in the statutory wage rates which now range between US$9.50-US$12.00 or US$4.50-US$6.00 per day net of taxes. At the same time it is assumed that farmers benefitting from project interventions will provide labor free of charge as part of the investment and establishment costs though this is costed in the economic analysis. This means that a quarter of total project costs go to the payment of hired labor. To calculate the ERR, farm labor has been priced according to its estimated marginal value (US$2.50 per day) with variation to reflect the seasonal fluctuation which peaks (US$5.00 per day) during harvest. 7. Pricing. The Turkish Lira is freely convertible and there are no major trade restrictions on agricultural goods to deflect market prices widely from border economic values. Where fiscal measures are applied to imports (e.g. vehicles and equipment) or goods (VAT) the economic analysis has deducted such transfers from the costs. Wheat producers benefit from a floor price in Turkey which is approximately 50 higher than the import parity price of (US$110) as estimated by TMO. Fertilizer is produced locally at a cost competitive with import parity and for the ERR it has been priced accordingly (US$198 per ton for DAP and US$132 per ton for TSP); the consumer benefits from some 47X subsidy on the factory gate price. The valuation of fuelwood is at the current market prices; it is freely traded and achieves a price per cubic meter of US$20-US$60 depending on type/quality. Other timber outputs have been valued at market prices: sawlogs US$87/m3; peeler logs US$116/m3; poles US$151/m3. Fodder currently achieves a price equivalent to $70/tonne DM regardless of the quality, but as the project progresses and improved fodder species are introduced, it is likely that differentials will emerge. However, for the purposes of the economic analysis a uniform price of $70/tonne is assumed. 8. Cost Reduction and Cost Sharing. Cost reduction and cost sharing are achieved where the participants at village level provide labor free of charge; substantial project cost savings have been achieved where it has been agreed that the farmer should provide his labor at no charge. In some cases though, largely where labor is part of construction activities, savings are precluded by government regulations or the strength of the local labor unions, which stipulate the payment rates and labor component for various activities. There is scope for - 134 - ANNEX 9 Page 3 of 8 negotiation and any resultant reduction in unit costs would allow the savings to be spent elsewhere and hence permit a wider coverage by the project and hence achieve greater benefits. This approach also coincides with the project philosophy of greater participation by the beneficiaries. For example, where at present the MOF has a policy of paying forest guarding costs indefinitely, it has been agreed that these costs will be phased out over a seven year period to be replaced by "self-policing" which is effectively zero cost to the project. 9. Where the project expects to introduce technology new to the villagers, such as improved range management, the project will bear all costs during the investment establishment phase, effectively treating the activities as large scale demonstrations. Earlier direct participation and cost sharing by the villagers would reduce overall costs, releasing the cash for alternative use. Management should constantly review treatments in terms of the allocation of project funds and encourage the early handover of responsibilities where appropriate in order to save costs and promote cost sharing. D. Technology and Adoption Rates 10. The technology packages (menu of treatments) on offer by the project are, by and large, proven to be technically sound and environmentally sustainable either in Turkey or in an environment similar to that of the project area. Demonstrations of improved promotion and management techniques will be mounted in each microcatchment selected for project activities. The underlying principle of the project is one of active participation by the villagers who then decide which treatments they wish to adopt. 11. During the process of consultation they will be offered a "menu" of possibilities which will comprise various treatments some of which will be conditional on, and must be adopted in, association with another. This is to encourage the adoption of and participation in both long-term and short-term measures: long-term benefits (forestry, range, conservation activities) with less immediate appeal, along with the high yielding treatments with short or medium term benefits (irrigated crops, fallow reduction, fruit trees, etc.). To encourage adoption of the treatments which have only long term benefit (forests) or short term disbenefit (range management with no initial access to range under treatment) the project will finance the initial investment ar.d establishment phase of these supporting activities. Despite these incentives the overall rate of project development may be slower than anticipated because of the need to integrate treatments. (The Sensitivity Analysis below indicates that a slower uptake of activities does not adversely affect the rate of return to any great extent.) 12. Flexibility. Flexibility in implementation is a key requirement for project success. The interactive approach of the project depends on the ability of the villagers firstly to identify problems to which the project can supply a solution and then to respond positively to the options. Because of this approach there is some uncertainty over the adoption patterns which will ensue. It is quite possible that some problems will be identified for which solutions have not been anticipated but which could be facilitated by the project. The economic - 135 - ANNEX 9 Page 4 of 8 analysis is therefore indicative of the returns which can be anticipated and but cannot pretend to represent a blueprint solution. What is assumed is that solutions to new problems will have at least the same or better rate of return to those already anticipated. 13. During project implementation phase it is imperative that project management keep close contact with developments and that it maintain the flexibility needed to respond to the needs of the villagers. A project Monitoring and Evaluation facility has been provided for to assist in this aim (see Annex 7). Only by being responsive will the project be able to maintain the momentum needed to encourage the full participation of the villages and hence to achieve the flow of benefits envisaged in this analysis. 14. The willingness of villagers to participate in some areas may be affected by the land tenure and usufruct rights to the land in question. In some districts cadastral surveys have been carried out and cultivable areas belonging to the village are clearly established. Elsewhere formal clarification may be sought before treatments are accepted. The intensity and effectiveness of participation by villagers will depend to an important extent on commitment and ability of local project staff to establish trust and confidence with the farmers. 15. Inter-Agency CooDeration. The integrated approach to the problem solving of the villages will require the close cooperation of the various agencies involved in the project, both at field level and centrally. The projections used in the economic analysis assume that this collaboration will help ensure the coordinated development of the treatments envisaged. The failure to achieve close cooperation would jeopardize the orderly and combined implementation of the treatments selected and thus threaten the rate of return of the project. E. Proiect Benefits from Forestry 16. On completion of the investment and establishment phase, the project will have effected a range of activities: forestry, livestock, wheat, fruit, and honey production. On plausible assumptions, forestry interventions would take place over 57,000 hectares with an expected value of output broken dowm as follows: Period Total Value Area (years) (US$million) (hectares_ SCA (incl. fodder) 60 231 17,800 Conifers 75 178 9,800 Oak Coppice 60 189 17,800 Fuelwood Coppice 60 134 11.800 (incl. fodder) Total 732 57,200 - 136 - ANNEXm9 Page 5 of 8 This represents a little over 1,000 hectares per microcatchment of rehabilitated or .eplanted forest resource. Over half the area contributes directly to improved fodder production for livestock and this accounts for almost lOX of the value of output. The details of output of woody biomass are provided in the attachment to Annex 3. 17. In the early years of the project there is a considerable output of wood due to the clearfelling operations undertaken as part of the oak coppice rehabilitation. Following the project period, thinning activities on newly established stands could maintain annual incremental output of about 38,300 cubic meters over the next five years. Harvested output then rises over the next five years (average 9931m3/year) before steadily increasing further to an average of 155,000 cubic meters over the next 25 years, finally achieving over 210,000 cubic meters per year from year forty five. In practice, the changes in annual output will vary more gradually than indicated by the theoretical yield projections. The more gradual changes will be dictated by differing maturity dates and also by demand. Detailed estimates of the yeilds and contribution of the different treatments are given in Annex 3. In order to achieve the outputs indicated it is important that the stands are allowed to mature and that extraction is carefully controlled. F. Project Benefits from Crops and Livestock 18. The project would affect livestock activities largely through the greatly improved production of fodder but in addition some 2,700 cows are expected to receive artificial insemination or benefit from bull barns during the life of the project. Increased fodder production is anticipated at almost 117,000 tons of Dry Matter per year valued at US$70 per ton achieved as follows: - 137 - ANE 9 Page 6 of 8 Tons Value DM (US$'000/year) SCA (see above) 3,560 (249) Fuelwood coppice fodder output (see above) 2,360 (165) Range rehabilitation 5,430 380 Range and meadow improvement 13,500 945 Range seeding and fertilization 6,000 420 Wheat straw 3,560 249 Sainfoin 35,000 2,450 Vetch 21,550 1,508 Alfalfa 26.030 1.822 TOTAL 116,990 5,952 Production of almost 117,000 tons per year is achieved through better management and improved technology. The annual value of this production (excluding that from SCA and the Fuelwood Coppice areas counted above under forestry output) is almost US$6 million. In total it is sufficient for some 58,000 head of cattle or their equivalent in sheep/goats. The improved output will greatly relieve the pressure on the range areas which at present suffer from severe overgrazing and erosion. 20. Wheat production increases by over 30,000 tons per year as a result of the project despite a reduction in the overall area planted to wheat. The net increase in production of wheat is the result of improved cultivars and generally better technology. The reduced area planted to wheat is the result of taking the sloping lands, marginal to wheat production, and converting them to fodder production which is less susceptible to erosion. 21. Fruit production is expected to increase by some 42,000 tons as a result of the project. Over half of this is expected to be apricots grown under irrigation provided by the project. The full breakdown is as follows: - 138 - Page 7 of 8 Tons Pricg Value (US$) ($'000) Apricots 22,930 500 11,465 Mixed Fruit 11,740 S00 5,870 Almonds 4,930 1,200 5,916 Grapes 2.400 250 600 TOTAL 42,000 23,851 22. Honey production, a technology already well-known in the project areas, is expected to be very attractive to farmers provided they can get access to hives and swarms of bees. Increased production is expected to be in the order of 648,000 kg per year by the end of the project which is estimated to have an average value of US$5.20 per kilo (to include wax and honey). Detailed cost and output assumptions for the treatments are provided in the Working Papers for the Economic Analysis. - 139 - ANN 9 Page 8 of 8 G. Sensitivity Analysis 24. The ERR of 18X per cent is robust as is shown by the following table: Internal Rates of Returns of Net Streams BTOTAL UP 10% UP 20% UP 50X DOWN 10% DOWN 20X 50% CTOTAL 17.3 18.8 20.3 24.4 15.7 14.0 7.8 UP 10X 15.8 17.3 18.9 22.4 14.7 13.1 6.7 UP 20% 14.6 16.0 17.3 21.0 13.0 11.5 5.7 UP 50% 11.5 12.8 14.0 17.3 10.1 8.7 3.1 DOWN 10% 19.0 20.7 22.2 26.4 17.3 15.5 9.2 DOWN 20% 21.0 22.7 24.3 28.9 19.2 17.3 10.7 DOWN 50% 30.0 32.5 34.6 40.5 28.0 25.6 17.3 BTOTAL LAG 1 LAG 2 LAX j CTOTAL 17.3 15.2 13.6 12.3 UP 10% 15.9 14.0 12.5 11.3 UP 20% 14.6 13.3 11.9 10.9 UP 50% 11.5 10.7 9.6 8.8 DOWN 10% 19.0 16.6 14.8 13.3 DOWN 20% 21.0 18.2 16.2 14.6 DOWN 50% 30.0 25.5 22.3 19.8 LAG 1 - 17.3 15.2 13.6 LAG 2 - - 17.3 15.2 LAG 3 - - - 17.3 25. The ERR of 17% obtains over a plausible mix of interventions, with widely-varying returns. The inclusion of low return treatments is essential to the multi-faceted approach to the problem of rehabilitation of the micro catchments. Their secondary benefits, such as less runoff and erosion, have not been quantified, but these arise in the form of improved long term production from the treatments adopted as part of the overall package in the lower areas of the micro catchment. Similarly, there are developments taking place elsewhere in Turkey such as the introduction of community forests which, if successful, could be introduced during the project. - 140 - Page 1 of 4 V=ff@ ARrl ISAL tPt OEM AXTOMLJQ SOCI1OGaICAL CCTEI8TI-SYtC A. D9mgggaph 1. A major proportion (about 502) of the population In the project area provinces remains rural. The percentage Is highest in Adiyaman (57X) and lowest in Elazig (45X). In Malatya and Elazig rural population, however, decreased by about 1X annually between 1985 and 1990, while there was 1.5 annual increase In Adiyaman. Although project area specific data on incomes are not available, rural per capita incomes in Eastern Turkey are estimated at about 402 of the average for Turkey, and infant mortality rates of 95/1000 are 50X higher than the average for Turkey. There are no concrete data to verify mobility patterns; hovever, it is apparent that seasonal out-migration is a frequent form of labor movement. The general pattern in Elazig and Nalatya is one of supporting younger male members of the household to get established In non-agricultural activities outside the village while seasonal migration In Adiyaman takes the form of agricultural labor. Often entire families are contracted to work on adjacent irrigation schemes. The main reason for migration is the difficulty in securing an adequate livelihood from farming rather than the attractiveness of urban living. It is quite apparent that the majority of migrants would prefer to remain if opportunity would arise. Indeed It Is very rare that an entire family disposes of its land and moves away permanently. Rural literacy rates in the three provinces amount to about 602 but are considerably lower for women. Tribal and kinship affiliations are strong and language presents a barrier for communication with the external community particularly In the case of women. B. VillaMe structure 2. The smallest administrative unit In Turkey is defined as a village. A more descriptive term, however, especially In Eastern Turkey is a "muhtarlik" (office of headman). A Nuhtarlik contains a core village and a number of smaller settlement units. On average, there are some 3 units per muhtarlik in the project area provinces and the average population varies from 400 (Elazig) to 800 (Adiyaman). A survey of 20 villages revealed variatlons from 200 to 1,750 people per muhtarlik. The average size of a family is estiated at 6 persons giving the average muhtarlik size of about 100 families In the project area. 3. The muhtarlik lacks autonomous authority rendering it dependent on central government for most rural services. The Nuhtar (Headman) is an elected position. The muhtar is the representative of the central government and in that - 141 - ANNEX 10 Page 2 of 4 capacity is responsible for security, keeping military and population records, collecting taxes, and notifying authorities about health problems. The central administration through the provincial and county governors has direct control over the actions of the headman. The muhtar is, however, also in spite of potential conflicts expected to represent the village and defend its interests. The mubtar is a significant linkage point for development efforts. The actual leadership role of the headman is, however, curtailed not only by government controls over his actions but also by the internal power structure of the village. In the project area, the influence of tribal chiefs, landlords acid sheikhs may exceed that of the muhtar. The village also has an elected council of elders which includes two non-elected members vis. the teacher and the imam (religious leader). The council can play an important role and has authority to delegate duties to members, to specify contributions in labor and money and to penalize those who do not abide by its regulations. The council, like the muhtar is accountable to the provincial and county governors. There are three sources of village income, salme, imece and grants. Salme is a form of income tax collected by the muhtar. The ceiling for collection is set very low and with inflation it is now impossible to meet village needs. Imece is a contribution of unpaid labor for specified activities. The council of elders is responsible for organizing imece and although presently an unpopular practice, it has a certain potential for participatory development. The village also retains 15X of state taxes collected from the village and may have certain other income such as rents of communal property, gifts, etc. C. Land tenure 4. Crop land is privately owned and average farm size is estimated at 6.5 ha, although 62X of farms are under 5 ha in size. In the micro catchments average farm size is estimated at approximately 3 ha. In the plains and particularly in Adiyaman, there is a considerable concentration of land ownership and consequently also significant landlessness among the rural population. There is no reliable information about land distribution for the parts of the provinces which will be embraced by the project (mostly excluding the plains) but smaller surveys indicate that ownership is less skewed, landlessness thus less prevalent and that the main problem is an increasing fragmentation of holdings though inheritance. Tractor cultivation has become almost universal and has had the unfortunate side effect of increasing erosion, as it is mostly undertaken along rather than across the slope. Rangelands are state owned (treasury land) to which the village has usufruct rights. Such land can legally not become private property or be used beyond its designated purpose. Where cultivable such rangeland has, however, in practice frequently been ploughed and converted into cropland. Although each village appears to have exclusive user rights to its rangeland, there is very little management of this resource which over time with increasing population and livestock pressure has become severely degraded. The village may also have access to an area of highland pasture (Yayla) which is used during the summer with the help of permanent dwellings or temporary camps. A yayla may be shared by more than one village. - 142 - AuN= 10 Page 3 of 4 D. Role of women 5. Apart from child rearing and their traditional domestic tasks, women are play a major role in agriculture. This is more pronounced in the smallholder households and when the husband has outside employment. By and large, the sexual division of labor is not rigid but women tend to do more of the labor intensive and traditional types of activities, while the activities of men are more market oriented and concern external relations. Mechanized agricultural activities are male responsibilities. The feeding and milking of livestock are female chores, but women also make significant contributions to crop production. Male migration mostly implies more work for the women as only sporadic and low paid employment is available. The income from outside employment is only rarely sufficient to cater for family needs. Past development efforts have frequently resulted in increased female workload, but women tend to be concerned about water supply and health facilities and in village job opportunities for their men. E. Livestock nroduction 6. Most households keep cattle, sheep and goats mainly for subsistence purposes. A few, often landless households, have a more limited range of livestock. The livestock population has decreased as a result of insufficient productive pasture land. Many would like to expand their livestock keeping but are constrained by the non-availability of pasture and labor and the cost of purchased feed. While milk is an important element in the diet, livestock reared for meat are considered principally as a marketable commodity, especially sheep. So long as range management advice includes information about appropriate herd size and carrying capacity, range improvements should not be threatened by excessive increase in livestock numbers. F. Some devel2oment conclusions 7. The following key conclusions for the development work have been suggested: (a) Settlement is scattered and villages are not very homogeneous (varying tribal affiliation, kinship lines, poverty status) necessitating a broad participation by different groups in the planning of the development effort and in sharing the benefits. The involvement of women is crucial. (b) Agriculture and livestock are becoming secondary sources of livelihood for some rural households. Although there has in some places been a reduction in the livestock population, this trend has not yet resulted in any substantial relief in the pressure on natural resources since almost all families continue to cultivate their farms and productivity has remained stagnant. Over time it is likely to result in some permanent transfer to other occupations, change of family residence and consequently in increasing farm size and improved prospects for the remaining farming population as well - 143 - ARM I Page 4 of 4 as for environmental sustainability. It will be important to avoid discouraging the transition that is now under way, while assisting those that expect to remain in agriculture to raise the productivity. (c) The lack of autonomous authority of the village administration has created a dependency on central government services and handouts. This is an obstacle in promoting village responsibility for improved management of rangelands and for developing a partnership in the management of forest lands. Genuine village participation in planning the development efforts and in sharing the costs and benefits will require sustained efforts. ANNEX 11 - 144 - Page 1 of 15 STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT TURKEY EASTERN ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 1. There is limited experience within Turkey of "Integrated Watershed Development" involving collaboration between different Ministries and Departments in planning and implementing a coordinated effort of natural resources rehabilitation. A key feature of successful watershed development is the close involvement of the people who use the resources in question. Unless the program responds to their priorities and requirements and brings quick and substantial benefits, the improvements are unlikely to be sustained. This kind of "participatory" or "interactive" planning is also to a large extent new to Turkey. Little attention has in the past been given to the rehabilitation and improvement of communally used rangelands. The treatment of such lands will be of major importance in the watershed development efforts. The training and technical assistance component of the project is designed to overcome these gaps in the domestic experience and to upgrade the technical skill of the staff in the three provinces who will be involved in project execution. A complicating factor is the present quick turnover of staff. It will be important to counter this by emphasizing the innovative, path-breaking nature of the project, participation in which may open up new career opportunities when the approach is replicated in other parts of Turkey. Some turnover will, however, be unavoidable and will need to be considered in the design of the training program. A. Training 2. Throughout implementation the micro catchment planning process will introduce project objectives, the participatory mode of operation, the technical treatment options and their estimated effects on production, the local responsibilities for management of range and forest lands and the cost sharing arrangements to the concerned villagers. This can be done through study trips to adjacent micro catchments (at later stages of the project), through visits to sites where different treatments have been implemented, and through more formal training sessions in local schools and other facilities. During implementation, it would be desirable to reinforce the management aspects by discussing, for example, the shepherds' grazing practices and how they can be modified. The project area may be estimated to embrace some 40,000 families. The aim would be to expose 25% of these families to a three- day training. 30,000 training days at an average cost of US$10 would be required. The training would include senior members of the village, in particular the teacher, imam, muhtar and village elders, who would also receive initial training in a separate session. Provincial staff would work together from KHGM, MOF and PDA to serve as teachers and the project would - 145 - Page 2 of 15 rent buses for the study trips. The training would in summary cover the following topics: e project objectives and participatory MC planning; * study trips to adjacent MCs and treatment sites; * rangeland treatments; o forest land treatments; o supporting treatments; * village responsibilities in the management of range and forest lands. Detailed training programs would be worked out with the help of a training specialist, recruited as short-term technical assistance. 3. Existing facilities (including schools and universities) would be utilized for training. The training would be undertaken by specialists at the provincial level. Ankara based specialists and the technical assistance provided under the project would prepare the provincial staff for these tasks and conduct some of the training. A manpower development and training o.ficer at the PCSU would be responsible for the planning and monitoring of the program, assisted initially by short-term technical assistance. The average cost per training day is estimated at US$30. The proposed courses amount to about 24,000 training days as specified below: (a) inception course for project staff (3 days x 100 staff; repeated each of the following six years for 20 new employees) - 660 training days; (b) information day for non project staff (1 day x 3 provinces x 20 officials x 6 years) - 360 training days; (c) annual workshop for project staff (2 days x 3 provinces x 100 staff x 6 years) - 3,600 training days (at the Forestry training institute in Elazig which has accommodation for 50 people; remaining staff would be accommodated at government resthouses elsewhere in the city); (d) technical training in forest, range and supporting treatments (5 days x 100 staff; repeated each of the following five years for 30 new staff) - 1,250 training days; (e) special training: (i) design and analysis of demonstrations (5 days x 10 staff x 3 occasions) - 150 training days (at Diyarbakir or Erzurum agricultural research institutes); (ii) monitoring and evaluation (10 days x 10 staff x 6 occasions) - 600 training days; - 146 - Page 3 of 15 (iii) computer operators (9 days x 50 staff x 10 occasions) - 4,500 training days (contracted to private training companies to support supplier training purchased with the equipment and software); (iv) nursery management (10 days x 25 staff x 4 occasions) 1,000 training days (Elazig or Eskisehir school for nursery men); (v) tractor operations (7 days x 25 staff x 4 occasions) - 700 training days; (the course would take place at the Forest Training Center in Kahmaranmaras) (vi) bulldozer operators (part of training provided by supplier; twice 5 days x 50 staff x 3 occasions) - 1,500 training days (the course would take place at the Forest Training Center in Antalya); (vii) there is provision equivalent to 5,000 training days to be allocated as the need arises. (f) Language training (80 days x 50 employees) - 4,000 training days (in Ankara and the three provinces through private courses). 4. The two main objectives in establishing a definitive program of overseas studies would be to arrange study trips to and short term training in (a) watershed development approaches including participatory planning and common property resource management (Thailand, India, Pakistan, Philippines, Australia, etc.), (b) range management (Australia, New Zealand and Western USA), and (c) some outside experience of coppice rehabilitation, silvipasture and of involving local villages in the protection and management of forest land would be worthwhile (e.g. South Korea, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden) Finally, (d) study tours would also include exposure to different methods of soil conservation (Italy, Australia, New Zealand, France, Morocco, Tunisia). Forage production and agroforestry on farm land could also be of interest. Some 60 person months of study tours and 48 person months of short-term fellowships have been budgeted. In addition, 64 months of study tours within Turkey to review natural resource management programs are envisaged. (Note: This training excludes GIS related training). Overseas training would be administered by a specialist contractor, through a separate technical assistance contract. B. Recruitment of Technical Assistance 5. In order to help develop a cadre of planners and implementators of watershed rehabilitation, the project envisages Technical Assistance (TA). The job descriptions for the various long term and short term TA specialists required are in Sections D through I. A key role of the team to be recruited will be to train and work very closely with national government staff (see training above). TA is identified as being both national and international ANMODL1 - 147 - Page 4 of 15 and recruitment would be carried out accordingly. Terms of reference for specific experts follow after para 11. 6. TA recruitment would be under one major contract, including Turkish specialist TA, with additional local contracts for research, monitoring and social surveys separately. The advantages of letting a single contract are that with one consultancy company in charge, the Government would be assured of coordinated technical and administrative support for the entire TA team. For the two best companies, at least the Watershed Rehabilitation Specialists, who will be the effective team leader for the TA, would be interviewed in Turkey. (The visit would be financed by the company bidding; any additional candidates interviewed would be funded by the project.) 7. The Government would initiate an annual procedure of Technical Assistance evaluation. The evaluation is a two way process that would also allow staff to identify specific achievements as well as areas of difficulty. Such evaluation would form part of the annual planning process whereby individuals would set themselves professional goals which would then be reviewed at year end. The annual staff evaluation would be discussed and acted upon with the consultancy company providing the TA. 8. The exception to using the single company approach to TA recruitment might be the Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist who theoretically should be independent of the main project implementation and TA team. However, the need to work closely together for successful project implementation, indicates that to appoint an independent individual would cause friction. It is recommended the tender process invite bids for all positions but that the Government reserve the right to appoint an independent MIS/K&E specialist should an acceptable candidate be identified. - 148- Page 5 of 15 C. Timetable 9. The recruitment of the TA would take approximately five months. Activity Activity Total time weeks (weeks) elapsed 1. Create and notify Committee for TA selection 1 1 2. Preparation of bid documents, TOR, LOI and 3 4 ratification by Government and Bank, selection of shortlist 3. Invitation to 4-6 shortlisted companies 6 10 4. Opening and Evaluation of bids 3 13 5. Interviews for shortlisted TL candidates 1 14 6. "No objection" procedure with the Bank 1 15 7. Contract negotiation and signature 1 16 8. Arrival of first TA in the field 5 21 10. The recruitment of the TA would take some 21 weeks as shown above and although some improvements can be made, it is unlikely to take less time if the full procedures are observed. Indeed, it would be prudent to allow an additional four weeks for unforeseen slippage to allow for delays. 11. The technical assistance would report to the Project Coordination Unit (PCSU) in Ankara and would provide on the job training to counterpart staff within that unit and in the provinces, when TA would be based. The TA would also help to locate and design local and international training courses for project staff. In all, 97 months of international technical assistance (unit cost US$18,500 per month for short-term, US$12,500 per month for long term) and 39 months of domestic consultancy services (unit cost US$3,000 per month) are provided for as specified below: (the breakdown between foreign and local consultants is an estimation only: actual consultants' proposals may differ substantially from this). Terms of reference are specified in sections D through I. In addition, a lump sum of US$384,000 is provided for specialized studies to be determined during the project period (e.g. impact analysis prior to the project implementation review, plus supporting ad hoc surveys in year 4, and project preparation for a second phase in year 6). - 149 - Page 6 of 1S = = = ~~~Y I A R 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 TOTAL Watershed Rehabilitation 4 9 9 2 2 0 2 28 Specialist Monitoring/MIS/Economist 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 12 Training Expert (int.) 3 2 2 2 0 0 0 9 Range Management 3 6 6 2 2 1 1 21 Participatory Planning Specialist 3 2 2 1 0 0 0 8 Adaptive Research Consultancies 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 5 Short-term Consultancies (int.) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 14 Short-term Consultancies (dom.) 5 7 7 7 7 4 2 39 TOTAL 25 33 30 17 14 8 9 136 Note: excludes T.A. associated with GIS, see Section I. D. Watershed Rehabilitation SRecialist Duties 12. The Watershed Development and Rehabilitation Specialist would work closely with Project counterparts, participating line agencies, and trainees to develop management plans for priority micro-catchments. In so doing, the incumbent would provide on-the-job training in watershed development and rehabilitation, as well as help establish the format and trend of watershed planning during the initial years of project implementation. ScoRe of Work 13. Working closely with counterparts, participating line agency staff, and trainees, the specialist would assist Project staff to formulate work plans to guide watershed planning and implementation in the project area. 14. The incumbent would assist participating line agencies and staff to assemble baseline data including maps, aerial photos, satellite imagery, statistical output data, land-use data, climatic data, streamflow and sediment ANNEXX 11 - 150 - Page 7 of 15 discharge data, etc. In collaboration with participating agencies, the specialist will actively work in the micro-catchments listed for implementation. The specialist will assist participating staff in the methodologies and principles of watershed rehabilitation and development planning. These plans will follow the guidelines and concepts presented in Annex 5. 15. He would play a key role in helping project staff assemble the skills they require to implement the project. While many of these skills are technical, they also involve helping participating staff gain proficiency in village-level, participatory group communications. The technical skills the specialist would help staff planners acquire would initially focus on traditional survey methods such as pacing, compass, and transit; but would introduce the practical application of computerized resource information systems being developed by the PCSU. Oualifications and other ExDerience 16. The incumbent would hold a degree in either watershed management, agricultural science, or forestry. He would possess at least 10 years of experience in soil and water resource planning, some of which should have been gained in sociological and agro-ecological environments similar to those in the project area. In addition he would be versed in each of the following technical skills: (a) Computer literate in wordprocessing and use of standard spreadsheets; (b) Soil sampling, soil survey, land use capability, and soil classification; (c) Soil loss and run-off estimation procedures including for non- agricultural lands; (d) Runoff estimation procedures; (e) Participatory land use planning procedures; (f) Soil and water conservation; (g) Small-scale irrigation design; (h) Mapping skills, aerial photo interpretation, and the practical aspects of GIS and GPS. 17. In addition, the incumbent should be capable of working on steep slopes under difficult conditions. ANNEX 11 - 151 - Page 8 of 15 Place of Duty 18. Elazig, Malatya and Adiyaman provinces in eastern Turkey. Duration of Contract 19. Twenty eight months over the period of the project: 4 months in year 1, 9 months in years 2 and 3, followed by 2 months in years 4 and 5. He will provide a final 2 months in year 7. E. Rangeland Management Sgecialist Duties 20. The Rangeland Management Specialist would work with provincial project staff to help them develop a better understanding of rangeland productivity assessment, rangeland rehabilitation and rangeland management in the project area. He or she would focus on means of assessing rangeland productivity at different times of the year, and management strategies to maintain or increase rangeland productivity. He or she would help prepare rehabilitation plans, help design adaptive research trials for rangeland sites and develop techniques for range productivity assessment and self-monitoring. Scope of Work 21. The Rangeland Management Specialist would work with provincial extension and forestry staff and farmers to strengthen their capabilities in rangeland management-. This would include developing strategies to facilitate formation of village rangeland management groups. He or she would work with project staff to develop management strategies to maintain or increase rangeland productivity and facilitate their inclusion in rangeland management plans developed and implemented with village groups. 22. The Specialist would work with project staff to develop means of assessing rangeland productivity at different times of the year. Once developed, these would be linked to management strategies for sustainable rangeland grazing. These strategies would be extended to village groups to help with the formation and implementation of rangeland development plans. The Rangeland Management Specialist would train provincial staff to develop and help implement village rangeland rehabilitation plans and design adaptive research trials for rangeland sites. 23. The Specialist would work with pastoralists and project staff to develop techniques for range productivity assessment and self-monitoring. Auto-recording formats would be determined with pastoralists and the organization and management of data collection and analysis would be developed with the Project Coordination and Unit. ANNES 11 - 152 - Page 9 of 15 Oualifications and Experience 24. The Rangeland Management Specialist would be an international consultant with qualifications in rangeland science and more than 10 years practical experience in the management and sustainable use of shrub rangelands in Turkey or regions with similar agro-ecological conditions. He or she should be used to working in the field with extension agents and pastoralists and should be able to adapt ideas and technologies quickly to the conditions of the project area. He or she should also be able to demonstrate the ability to develop an understanding of the needs of pastoral communities participating in the project. The Rangeland Management Specialist would be experienced in the use of auto-recording or self-monitoring techniques for collecting rangeland management information with pastoral communities. He or she should have practical experience in the rehabilitation and management of rangelands using extensive techniques. The Specialist will speak and write fluent English. Place of Duty and Duration of Contract 25. The Rangeland Management Specialist would work with provincial PUBs throughout the project area. The duration of the contract would be 3 months in year 1, 6 months in years 2 and 3, 2 months in years 4 and 5, and 1 month each in years 5 and 6. Assignments would be during the spring and summer months. F. Economist/lMS/Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist Duties 26. The specialist would be required to work closely with project management to develop practical Management Information Systems and to devise a program for monitoring and evaluation acceptable to Government and the Bank. As required, from time to time, the specialist would assist management in the analysis of specific components of the project and help with the forward planning of project activities. Scope of Work 27. The specialist would work closely with project counterparts, in particular the Central Unit established in the MOF and other participating line agencies. Training counterparts would form an important component of his/her work. The specialist would work closely with the teams preparing the micro catcbment development plans and would advise on the economic viability of proposals. He/she would devise systems and sources for the collection and analysis of technical and financial parameters for he treatments on offer to the villagers in the MCs as well as data on potential treatments. The database so created would be continuously updated so that the MC development plans can be accurately reviewed as low cost, technically viable and with an acceptable rate of return. - 153 - Page 10 of 15 28. The tools and approach to the participatory approach to MC planning (discussion, presentation, the menu of treatments, mutually exclusive options, explanatory variables etc.) would be constantly under review and the MIS specialist would assist management to devise ever more transparent means of explanation of the options. The constantly evolving approach would streamline the planning process and help identify bottlenecks, At the same time the specialist would help devise systems for monitoring activities in the MCs to assist management in the smooth planning and implementation, with modifications, as appropriate. 29. The specialist would develop a micro catchment model which would be gradually refined to reflect the technical, economic and climatic differences between the regions within the project. The models would be used to: (a) measure the pre-project situation for each village; (b) measure the project impact on each village in the MC; (c) prepare an aggregate model of project activities and impact for each treatment, in each province and for the project as a whole; (d) allocate project resources, and determine cash flow requirements, both annually (project budget) and implications for expenditures up to and beyond the life of the project; (e) develop key socio-economic indicators of project impact (qualitative and quantitative): regional, provincial, sub-catchment, micro catchment, and individual level. 30. The M&E program would be devised to coincide with the planning cycle so that information on past activities could be assimilated into the next planning cycle. In this way, the methodology of both collecting and using the data would be progressively to updated and refined as an effective management information system with wide application. The specialist would also help develop the data base in such a way as to facilitate the planning of activities beyond the present project. 31. The specialist would work closely with and train national staff to fulfill the activities outlined above. Particular emphasis would be given to the need to involve multi-disciplinary skills in the planning process and formal procedures would be established to bring together the expertise of the project as represented by technical assistance and other senior project staff. Emphasis would be given to crating close links between the participating line agencies to improve coordination in planning and to stimulate efficient decision making. While work will be carried out mainly at regional level, the specialist will help strengthen the capacity of the Central Unit so that it will play a greater direct role in future planning activities. The specialist would review annually his/her assignment with project management and senior officials of the participating line agencies. - 154 - Page 11 of 15 Oualifications and exSerience 32. The Economist/MIS/Monitoring and Evaluation specialist would hold a degree in agricultural economics and relevant experience extending over at least ten years. He/she would demonstrate and ability to work with multi- disciplinary teams and competence to set up successful operational procedures. The appointment will involve much reciprocal training and learning for which an aptitude should be demonstrated. Technical skills would include: (a) computer literacy with experience in setting up large database systems, using spreadsheets and word processing; (b) ability with Bank software: PCCOSTAB, COSTBEN and FARMOD; (c) micro project planning and economic and financial feasibility analysis; (d) ability build quantitative models with specific application to management information systems and forward planning; (e) skills in preparing annual budget requirements; (f) knowledge of farm survey systems and the scope for data capture from rural populations. Experience of working in eastern Turkey would be an advantage. Place of duty 33. The Economist/MIS/Monitoring and evaluation specialist would work directly for the PCSU with extensive fieldwork throughout the project area. He/she would work very closely with the Central Unit based in MOF Ankara. Duration of contract 34. Twelve person months over the project period are budgeted in the project costings. Input would be provided at intervals with three months per year in the first two years, one month per year for four years and two months in year seven. G. Participatorv Development SRecialist Duties 35. The Psrticipatory Development Specialist would work with the provincial project staff to implement initial Farmer Center Problem Census and Problem Solving (FC-PCPS) field work and other socio-economic studies required for preparing micro-catchment plans to be implemented in the first three years of the project. He or she would also develop a cadre of Community Development Specialists (CDS), from existing provincial staff, to work as the - 155 -~ ~ ~~~NE 11Z.U - 155 - Page 12 of 15 project CDS with each provincial Project Implementation Unit (PUB). This person would adapt FCPCPS techniques to the project area and carry-out FCPCPS training courses. Scope of Work 36. The Participatory Development Specialist would work with provincial PUBs to facilitate the conduct of problem census meetings during planning of village and micro-catchment plans. Similarly, the Specialist would conduct problem solving activities in collaboration with technical staff working on the project from MoF, PDA, and KHGM. 37. Whilst conducting FCPCPS work and facilitating micro-catchment planning, the Specialist would train selected staff from project institutions in participatory development and FCPCPS techniques. In particular, he or she would develop the skills of one existing staff member in each provincial PUB to become the provincial community development specialist (CDS) working in each project province. 38. Whilst conducting community development work in the field and contributing to the preparation of micro-catchment plans, the Specialist would adapt problem census and problem solving techniques to increase their appropriateness to the objectives of the project and the needs of participating communities. He would develop a procedure normal for participating watershed planning and implementation. Qualifications and Experience 39. The Participatory Development Specialist would have international and Turkish experience and agricultural or rural development qualifications and experience in participatory development in rural development projects. He or she will have experience in implementation of participatory watershed development projects. He or she will have practical experience in the adaptation and use of FC-PCPS techniques for watershed development projects, and the participation of community groups in natural resource management. The Participatory Development Specialist would speak and write fluent English with, at least, good working Turkish. Place of Duty and Duration of Contract 40. The Participatory Development Specialist would be based in the project area and would work throughout the project area in field and office locations as required by the provinces. The assignment would be for 8 months, 3 in year 1, 2 in years 2 and 3 and a final 1 month in year 4. - 156 - Page 13 of 15 H. Adagtive Research Specialist Duties 41. The Adaptive Research Specialist would work with provincial project staff to establish adaptive research programs and develop a cadre of Adaptive Research Specialist (ARS), from existing PDA staff, to work with each provincial PUB. This person would design adaptive research techniques, suitable for the project area. ScoRe of Work 42. The Adaptive Research Specialist would work with provincial PUBs and Directorates of Agriculture to facilitate the conduct of adaptive research in priority sub-catchments. He or she would develop strong linkages between regional research institutions relevant to the project and project institutions at provincial, county and village levels. Key institutions would include: Eastern Anatolian Regional Agricultural Research Institute in Erzurum; Southeastern Anatolian Regional Agricultural Research Institute in Diyarbakir; Field Crops Research Institute in Ankara; Rural Affairs Regional Research Institute in Sanliurfa; and Rural Affairs Regional Research Institute in Erzurum, and Forestry Regional Research Institutes in Elazig. 43. Whilst undertaking initial adaptive research work and facilitating micro-catchment planning, the Specialist would train three PDA staff in adaptive research techniques and develop networks between these staff and research scientists in relevant research institutions. 44. The Adaptive Research Specialist would work to develop detailed curricula for adaptive research and participatory technology development courses. He or she would present these courses during the first project year. Subsequent courses would increasingly be presented by the provincial ARSs trained by the Specialist. Oualifications and ExDerifncm 45. The Adaptive Research Specialist would have agricultural qualifications and post graduate training in crop production. He or she will have more than 10 years field experience in the planning and implementation of adaptive research in the field - at least some of which should have been gained in eastern Turkey. The Adaptive Research Specialist would speak and write fluent English and a working knowledge, at least, of Turkish would be an advantage. Place of Duty and Duration of Contract 46. The Adaptive Research Specialist would be based in the project area. The assignment would be for 2 months in years 1 and 2, and 1 month in year 3. ANN 11 - 157 - Page 14 of 15 I. Thematic MapRer/GIS/GPS Specialist 47. Financial provision in year 3 of the project has been made for provision of a simple CIS system, hardware, software, training and technical assistance. The precise form the GIS would take has not yet been finalized. 48. A total of 10 person-months of international and 32 person-months of Turkish technical assistance has been envisaged in the GIS component, together with on-the-job training. The initial contract of the GIS specialist would be for 3 months. During this time, he would determine detailed needs for further technical assistance, assess the skills of provincial staff and design and adapt appropriate technologies and training programs. His/her assignment would be likely to be lengthened by a further seven months spread over the following three years. 49. The specialist would work initially in Ankara to design, establish and implement a computer-based database for use in physical planning and project management at the MC, provincial and project levels. The database would include a simple GIS, probably (IDRISI) with the ability to create and interpret thematic maps and to use Global Positioning System (GPS) inputs from fieldwork. The specialist would conduct in-house training at several levels, and would prepare all relevant training materials. The specialist would commission three similar systems (one in each project province) and continue training activities. An important task at this stage would be to ensure that coordination procedures between the provinces and Ankara were functional. 50. The specialist would have a university postgraduate degree in the design and/or use of computer-based information systems used in processing spatially-related data. He or she would have extensive recent practical experience in relevant fields and complete fluency in English. J. Training Specialist 51. The Training Specialist would work with the Project Coordination and Support Unit in the Ministry of Forestry and with the three provincial Project Implementation Units to identify the specific training needs of provincial and county level staff from the provincial Departments of Agriculture, Forestry and Village Affairs. The Specialist would prepare a plan for in country training, detail outlines of the different courses and determine the resource requirements for execution of the plan. ScoRe of Work 52. The Training Specialist would: (a) plan farmer training (SAR Annex 11, para 2); (b) review or together with responsible officers develop job descriptions for staff in the three agencies concerned with the planning, implementation and monitoring of the project; - 158 - Page 1' of 15 (c) review staff experience and capacity for carrying out these assignments; (d) plan in country staff training to improve capacity to execute the tasks assigned in respective job description (see also SAR Annex 11, para 3); due to high staff turnover repeater courses will be required; (e) plan the organization, resource requirements (including teachers) and venues for the training efforts; and (f) guide the efforts to develop training material. Qualification and Experience 53. The Training Specialist would be an international consultant with a degree in agriculture or forestry and post graduate qualifications in adult education. The Specialist should have at least five years experience in preparing and implementing adult training programs associated with development projects and should be fluent in English. Place of Duty and Duration of Contract 54. The Specialist would work in field and office location in Adiyaman, Elazig and Malatya for three months in the first year, and two months in each of years two, three and four (total 9). ANNEX-12 - 159 - Page 1 of 4 STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT TURKEY EASTERN ANATOLIA WATERSHED kEHABILITATION PROJECT ADAPTIVE RESEARCH 1. On-farm adaptive research and demonstrations would be conducted in the project micro-catchments. Adaptive research in each province would be facilitated by an Adaptive Research Specialist. This person, selected from existing PDA staff, would work with the Watershed Management Specialist (WMS) and staff from each provincial institution implementing project components to establish demonstrations and to carry out on-farm adaptation trials in selected micro-catchments. The ARS would act as the link between villages, the Provincial Implementing Unit (PUB), the Regional Agricultural Research Institutes in Erzurum and Diyarbakir, the Rural Affairs Research Station in $anliurfa and the Forestry Research Station at Elazig. Regional research institutes as well as relevant universities have expressed support anid have confirmed their willingness to work with the ARS to service the adaptive research needs of this project. A. Agriculture Demonstrations and Applied Research 2. The project would finance the following demonstrations for which indicative areas are given below. Mi) Demonstration, on a total of 5 dekars in each of the 54 project micro-catchments, of conservation tlllage practices on the contour using sweep tined cultivators instead of mouldboard ploughs. Sites would be selected in each village with arable land having slopes in excess of 4 per cent. (ii) Demonstration on a total of 5 dekars in each of the 54 project micro-catchments on the effects of sowing time of wheat, chickpeas, lentils, Hungarian Vetch, and sainfoin on productivity and soil management. Autumn sowing would be promoted in all micro-catchments but in extreme areas, spring sowing of some pulses and forage legumes would also be demonstrated. (iii) Demonstration on 5 dekars in each of the 54 project micro-catchments of the yield effect of difPerent rates and application times of fertilizer. (iv) Demonstration on 5 dekars in each of the 54 project micro-catchments of HYV wheat. These demonstrations would promote the replacement of traditional wheat varieties with high yielding varieties grown with recommended husbandry. Demonstrations would be designed to convince both farmers and VGT of the impressive potential for increasing - 160 - ANNEX 12 Page 2 of 4 cereal productivity in the project area and to take wheat production away from the more marginal erosion prone areas. (v) Demonstration of irrigated vegetable and fruit production on a total of 5 dekars in each project micro-catchment where irrigation is developed. Irrigated production demonstrations would focus on efficient water application, soil-crop-water relationships and production of high value horticultural crops. (vi) Demonstration of fallow reduction techniques using conservation tillage and production of chickpeas and lentils on a total of 5 dekars in each project micro-catchment. This component would complement TUYAP II in Adiyaman and Malatya. Adaptive Research 3. Adaptive research programs not included in the Agricultural Research Project would be implemented in one or more of the 10 sub-catchments for dryland agriculture. A budget of $6,000 has been allocated per province for adaptive research each year to identify appropriate packages for: (i) sustainable seedbed preparation on slopes between 4 and 15 per cent slope to be implemented on project micro-catchments in Adiyaman, Elazig and Malatya; (ii) sainfoin (Elazig and Malatya), alfalfa (Elazig, Malatya and Adiyaman) and Hungarian vetch (Elazig, Malatya and Adiyaman) agronomy on marginal cereal lands on project micro-catchments; (iii) the use of herbicides as an improved management tool for minimum tillage with field crops; and (v) runoff and erosion measuring plots to calculate soil loss. B. Rangelands 4. The project would fund the following demonstrations and adaptive research: Demonstrations (i) Demonstration on a total of 10 dekars in each project micro- catchment on rangeland to encourage adoption of the general prescription of 5 kg N/da and 7 kg P205/da using diammonium phosphate (DAP at 25kg/da on 5 dekar) and triple super phosphate (TSP at 15 kg/da on 5 dekar). (ii) Demonstration on a total of 10 dekars in each project micro- catchment on enrichment seeding using a mix of sainfoin (Onobrychla viciifolia of 30 kg/ha), alfalfa cv Kayseri (Hedicago sativa at 10 kg/ha), Andropogon cr1istatum (at 10 kg/ha), and Bromus inermis (at 10 kg/ha). ANNEX 12 - 161 - Page 3 of 4 (iii) 10 dekar demonstrations in each project micro-catchment of grazing management. (iv) Demonstrations on perennial forage bank development and management oni marginal cereal land and appropriate rangeland sites. Species would be sainfoin (Onobrychls vlclifolia) sown in a mix at 50 kg/ha and alfalfa (fedlcago sativa), cv Kayseri, sown in a mix of 10 kg/ha, with appropriate grasses, principally Agropyrin cr1statum sown in a mix at 10 kg/ha and Bromus Intermis sown in a mix at 10 kg/ha. 150 kg/ha diammonium phosphate fertilizer would be applied at establishment. Other legumes such as annual medics (especially Medicago rigldula and M. minima) could be tested in Elazig and Malatya. Adaptive Research 5. (i) Adaptive research programs in each province to assess fertilizer and seeding treatments under grazing conditions on mer'a and yayla. Research is needed in Eastern and SE Anatolia to define fertilizer and seeding response for both mer'a and yayla under grazing conditions. The importance of phosphatic fertilizers in encouraging and maintaining legume content of rangelands is particularly important. Range species composition would also be assessed. (ii) The impact of increased fodder on livestock productivity and soil management will be the focus of fertilizer work. Least cost packages of maintenance fertilization after rehabilitation need to be developed, especially for marginal range. Research design would be developed based on experience derived from the Erzurum Pilot and Range Development and Forage Project. It would complement the forage legume adaptive research. (iii) Adaptive research would be carried out with runoff and erosion measuring plots to calculate soil loss from representative rangeland soil and slopes in each province. This would be led by the KHCM regional research institutes in Erzurum and Sanliurfa. Plots would be established on 3 land erodibility types in each province and include replicated treatments representing ungrazed range, fertilizer enriched range. (iv) Pilot aerial seeding and fertilization of 5,000 ha of severely degraded range using appropriate range grass and legume species pelleted with DAP fertilizer (250 kg/ha), relevant rhizobial inoculants and a yellow dye to facilitate monitoring. Seed would be pelletized prior to aerial sowing. Pellet size would be designed to protect the seed from seed collecting range ants and rodents. The seed mix would be sown in October-November and include Onobrychis satlva, (sown in a mix at 40kg/ha), and Medicago satlva cv Kayseri (sown in a mix at 15 kg/ha). These could be mixed with appropriate grasses, principally Agropyron cristatum (sown in a mix at 10kg/ha) and Bromus Inermls (sown in a mix at 10kg/ha). - 162 - ANNE 2 Page 4 of 4 Suitable trial sites exist in G6ksu, Hekimhan, Kahta, Kusuova, Pitarge, and Tohma sub-catchments. C. Forest Land 6. An active and relevant program of adaptive research will advance the progress and success of forestry in the region. While the necessary institutional structure exists, it requires strengthening and focus. Project sponsored research would include the following topics and be implemented in each of the three provinces: * Quantification of the impacts associated with Soil Conservation and Afforestation (SCA) bench terraces and ripping on the water balance and soil loss; e Comparative survival and growth of trees under mechanically treated and untreated conditions on similar sites. This would include a comparison of direct seeding and container grown trees. * Quantification of comparative growth and survival of fertilized and non- fertilized trees including those established by direct sowing. • Pilot management of rehabilitated forest area by local communities, adapting from the model developed under the Swiss Funded Community Forest Project. - 163 - ANNE 13 Page 1 of 1 STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT TzUr EASTERN ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE IN PROJECT FILE 1. Prevaration Report February 1992 Vol. 1 Main Report Vol. 2 Technical Appendices on Agriculture Rangeland Forestry Soil Conservation Reservoir Sedimentation Hill Slope Hydrology Sociology Megra Deresi Micro-Catchment Plan 2. Detailed Proiect Co_tl October 1992 3. Detailed Economic Rate of Return Calculations October 1992 4. PAO Report on GIS Reauirements for the S.E. Turkey Watershed Rehabilitation Project TCP/TUR/2251 June 1992 5. Draft Final Nicro-Catchment Plans November 1992 on the following 6 micro-catchmentas 1. Piran/Temte (Elazig) 2. Sahsuvar (Elazig) 3. Kamincayi (Malatya) 4. Hancayi (Malatya) 5. Sogutlubahce (Adiyaman) 6. Beskoz (Adiyaman) - 164 - Page 1 of 7 STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT TURKEY EASTERN ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT MICRO-CATCHMENT PLANS FOR FIRST YEAR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION Introduction 1. Following appraisal and agreement on guidelines for MC planning (Annex 4) in July of 1992 each province organized a planning team with members from the three implementing agencies. The objective was to prepare 2 MCs in each province to train staff in the new participatory and integrated approach to planning, to allow the project a good start in 1993 and to check the cost estimates and the balance between different types of treatment. The experience was also expected to result in further refinement of the MC planning guidelines (now inserted in Annex 4). A small consultant team assisted the three provinces in this task. The provincial teams are themselves engaged in the preparation of a third MC in each province which may also be implemented 1993. Selection of MCs 2. The selection reflects the priority given to upland areas, and MCs or part of MCs with stable production systems and unstable geology which do not respond to treatment have been excluded. The selected MCs are concentrated in one sub-catchment in each province to facilitate implementation. General Characteristics 3. Available data on the number of households, land use, crop production and livestock population are summarized in Table 14.1 below. The number of households in the 6 MCs (30 villages) amount to 2734 or on average 455 per MC and 91 per participating village. It should be emphasized, however, that there are wide differences between microcatchmet.ts. 4. The average area per MC amounts to 6,913 ha which if extrapolated to the 54 MCs would give a total project area of about 373,000 ha, slightly less than the 400,000 estimated in the SAR. The average farm size (arable land per household) is close to 4 ha and the range area (within the MC) per household is about 3.5 ha. The land use characteristics are summarized below. The 6 MCs have a larger proportion of forest land than the 54 MCs selected for land use clarification purposes and summarized in Annex Table 16 of Annex LA. - 165 - ~~~~~ANNEX 14 - 165 - Page 2 of 7 Average Land Use in Selected MC 6 MCs Z UL Forest land 39 Range land 24 Arable land 26 Unproductive land 11 1/ Source: calculated from 6 MC plans (see Annex 13); Table 14.1 About 16X of arable land is irrigated and 34Z is devoted to horticulture in the six NCs which have been planned so far. Table 14.1: General Characteritices (ha) . = - = =~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Piran/T. Sahauvar Kamincayl Hancayi Sogutl. Beakoz Total 6 MC Households 540 420 121 412 533 744 2770 No. of villages 5 4 3 4 5 10 31 Household/village 108 105 40 103 107 74 89 Land Use Forest land 3405 1662 1722 1961 3962 3516 16248(391) Range land 1850 2000 1159 1314 785 2670 9778(24Z) Arable land 1750 911 289 1121 1672 4804 10747(26X) - Rainfed 1120 360 146 692 1010 2070 5398 - Irrigated 491 255 87 245 198 392 1666 - Horticult. 109 296 56 169 666 2342 3638 - Meadow 30 0 0 1S 0 0 45 Unproductive 35 100 95 244 1989 2245 4708(11S) Total 7040 4673 3265 4640 8628 13235 41481(99) CroD Production Wheat 317 270 123 569 810 1177 3266(30X) Barley 182 51 39 165 225 270 932(9%) Maize 0 0 8 15 26 0 49(0.52) Pulses 40 16 30 60 205 82 433(4.0X) Forage incl. meadow 43 4 17 26 12 8 110(1.0) Tobacco 0 0 11 51 0 0 62(0.52) Vegetables 45 31 10 64 10 114 274(3.0X) Sugar Beet 0 0 0 2 0 0 2(02) Fruit trees 82 96 21 83 636 2387 3305 (312) Grapes 27 109 30 86 34 587 873(8X) Fallow/ 1014 336 0 0 240 565 2155(20S) Area doublecropped 0 0 0 0 -326 -406 -732(-72) Total 1750 913 289 1121 1872 4784 10729(1002) Livestock Cattle - Impr. 340 580 0 0 0 460 1380 - local 805 215 739 912 925 625 4221 Sheep 1190 6550 2800 4650 2150 4210 21550 Goats 136 340 1200 1250 1800 1000 5726 Total 2471 7685 4739 6812 4875 6295 32877 - 166 - ANNEX 14 Page 3 of 7 5. Out of arable land 30% is devoted to wheat production and 9% to barley. Fruit trees cover 31% of the area and grapes 8%. About 20% of the land is unused or fallowed. Very little forage is grown (1%) and 7% of the area is double cropped. 6. There are on average 2 cattle and 10 sheep and goats per MC household. 25% of the cattle are improved. Sheep and goats are owned by a few families who as the main users of range and forest land should form the major target group for project interventions and who need to be clearly identified. There are slightly fewer than 3 sheep and goats per ha of range within the MC but many villages have outside grazing areas. The Problem Census 7. After assembling available data, sessions were held in the MC villages to get a priority ranking of the types of problems encountered by the population and to launch the dialogue envisaged through the participatory approach. At this stage one village in each of four MCs opted for remaining outside the project apparently because of concerns about the forestry treatments. 708 persons participated in the problem sessions in the remaining villages of whom 39% were women. If one assumes that all men and half of the women represented separate families the attendance was roughly 20% of the households in the 6 MCs. Given that interaction took place at harvest time, and the project was not yet a "reality", this rate is reasonable. The participation ratio in future planning work will increase as results on the ground become known. The project has also made provisions for farmers' training, including visits by farmers to other microcatchments. Several hundred farmers have made written commitments, even at this early stage, to change agronomic practices and to improve management of rangelands. 8. Among the problems (Table 14.2) within the project mandate, lack of irrigation, steep land, lack of income and employment opportunities, low range production, poor returns in livestock production, fodder shortages (particularly winter) had a high profile. The absence of wood shortages from the list is explained by the fact that because of a draw down of the forest inventory wood may still be relatively freely available. The priority problems outside the project mandate mainly referred to include poor road connections, lack of drinking water and poor Government services. - 167 - ANNEX 14 Page 4 of 7 Table 14.2: Problem Census (Priority Ranking) Piran/T Sahsuvar Kamincayi Hancayi Sogutl. Beskoz Problems outside project mandate Poor road 3 3 3 5 5 3 Drinking water 7 6 6 2 2 1 Poor govt serv 8 9 4 7 Poor return poultry 7 Health/Educ. 9 Agr. credit 10 Livestock health 12 Problems within project mandate Irrigation 1 2 1 1 1 2 Steep land 2 2 3 11 11 Income 4 4 7 3 5 Local work opportunities 5 1 7 13 12 Range prod. 6 5 4 6 6 Poor return to livestock 9 9 8 7 4 Low agric. yields 8 9 Winter livestock feed. 4 Soil erosion 5 8 8 Forest degradation 8 Poor extension 6 10 9 9. It is important to realize that the census is the starting point for the dialogue and that at subsequent stages it will be necessary to check both the problem inventory and particularly to promote more depth in the analysis of crucial aspects such as livestock trends, fodder and wood shortages. RaRid Rural ARpraisal 10. Existing information about soils and land use was mapped and relatively homogeneous so called "development suitability domains" were identified as a basis for the problem solving discussions. During this phase the areas which do not need treatment (sustainable land use), those that do not respond to treatment, and the areas which have already been treated were identified and marked on the map. A village input into this part of the process is crucial in subsequent planning. Problem Solving 11. At this stage the extent to which the priority problems indicated by the village could be addressed by selections from the treatment menu offered by the project was established. The result of this process in terms of the area which is proposed to be treated is given in Table 14.3. In relation to the total area of the six MCs 41% of forest land, 27% of the range land and 26X of arable lands are proposed for treatment. 11% of arable land are also proposed to be developed by KHGM for irrigation or improved conservation. 12. Extrapolating from the 6 MCs of the total of 54 MCs to be covered by the project would give somewhat lower treatment volumes than those assumed in the SAR for rangelands and for arable land. This may be expected at an early stage of the project when people have insufficient information about project - 168 - ANNEX 14 Page 5 of 7 objectives. Furthermore, the selected MCs have a relatively high proportion of forest land. The unit costs of different treatments were verified and are indicated in Annex 5. ERRs were calculated for the six microcatchments and vary from 12X to 17X, with an average of 14.51. The slightly lower ERR than the SAR estimate is justified by the fact that, for their first micro- catchment, the local population are relatively cautious about committing themselves to changes in land use. Table 14.3: Treated Areas (ha) SAR Piran/T. Sahsuvar Xamincayi Hancayl Sogutl. Beakoz Total Projection 6 MC Min. of Forestrv ha (X) ha tX) Soil Cons/Aff. 10000(16) 592 506 325 738 255 2416(37) Conifer 4900(8) 50 100 150(2) Oak Coppice 17800(29) 50 405 72 686 1213(18) Fuelwood Coppice 11800(19) 200 210 434 100 944(14) Range Rehab. 17800(29) 585 648 368 276 1877(28) Riverbank 140(-) 10 I0-) Total 62440(100) 6610(100) 411 of forrest area KHGM Rainfed terr. 5616(35) 250 160 35 108 157 33 743(64) Irrig. terr. 10530(65) 185 38 145 60 6 414(36) Ponds (units) 270(-) 7 6 5 6 15 13 52 Total 16146 1157(100) 1lX of arable Min. of AMr. land Range M. 58650(46) -(0) RM + fort. 30500(24) 210 105 315(12) RM4+fert+seed 20000(16) 100 1S0 100 40 240 180 810(31) Closure 10165(6) 100 100(4) Aerial fort/seed 7000(6) 890 520 1410(54) Total 126265(100) 2635(100) 275 of range Fallow red. 25960(54) 202 65 26 125 151 200 1769(27) Agr. Package 11667(24) 246 79 32 152 185 245 939(32) Rainf 1124(2) 20 41 22 72 148 95 398(14) Irrig. 2574(5) 21 31 40 124 4 3 223(8) Bound 580(1) 4 3 20 23 10 60(2) Gully 3246(t) Pistachio 3000(6) 500 12 512(18) Total 48151(100) 2901(100) 26X arable 1. BeekeepingCunits) 1620 S0 92 40 37 38 40 337 - 169 - ANNEX 14 Page 6 of 7 Table 14.4: Treatment Costs (USSOOO) SAR Piran/T Sahauvar KamiU- Eancayl Sogutl. leakox Total Est. Base Costa cayi 6 NC Total 54 MC Min. of Forestry Soil Cons/Aft. 8840 621 525 342 774 267 _ Conifer 4390 70 94 - - _ _ Oak Coppice 9904 28 - 227 - 40 383 Fuelw. Coppice 8837 258 269 - 562 129 - Range Rehab. 4832 93 110 59 44 - Riverbank 30 4 _ - - - - Subtotal 36833 1074 998 628 1380 436 383 4899 44091 KRGM Rainfed terra. 2187 113 72 16 49 70 15 Irrigation 14822 134 315 135 277 272 235 Checkdams 20 40 16 6 16 24 Subtotal 17009 267 427 167 332 358 274 1825 16425 Min. of Aar. Range Seed/fort. 2816 46 74 62 29 61 46 Range Fert. 1673 _ _ - - - - Fallow Red. 2469 9 3 1 6 7 9 Agronomic Pack 907 22 7 3 14 17 22 Horticulture 1140 8 11 26 44 59 20 A.I. 728 - 3 - - 8 2 Pistachio 194 - - - - - 1 Dem. Range 57 3 3 3 3 3 3 Dem. Agr 165 9 9 7 9 8 8 Aerial Seed 558 - - 18 10 _ - Apiculture 3699 180 184 80 60 76 80 Subtotal 13908 277 294 200 175 239 191 1376 12384 Total 67748 1618 1719 995 1887 1033 848 8100 72900 Average Cost/MC Area 400000 7040 4543 3265 4640 8628 13235 41548 373932 Cost per ha $169 230 374 305 407 120 64 195 Conclusions 13. The six MC Indicative Plans represent a commendable effort by the three provincial planning teams. During the detailed planning of the 1993 work program one should give increased attention to: - ways and means of broadening the local participation; - the identification of priority target groups (particularly the range and forest land users); - the analysis of fodder and wood situation and livestock trends; - 170 - ANNEX 14 Page 7 of 7 the promotion of further interaction on forestry resource sharing, range management and cost sharing; and the level of supporting treatments per household. The present plans represent a very good first attempt and an adequate basis for proceeding with the implementation in 1993. - 171 - AM=K 15 Page 1 of 1 STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT TURREY EASTERN ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM 1993 The project is expected to become effective in the middle of 1993. In view of the expectations created through the participatory planning process and to capitalize on the established momentum it is however essential to get underway before then and thereby utilize the 1993 growing season and thus to initiate activities in the spring of 1993. Retroactive financing would be available assuming procurement procedures acceptable to the Bank have been followed. Successful launching of the project will require careful planning of tasks to be performed, assignment of staff, training of staff and farmers, procurement of necessary goods and equipment and adequate budgetary allocations. These aspects have been reviewed and an implementation schedule for the start up period has been established by each agency as indicated below. Attachment 1: Provincial Departments of Agriculture. Implementation Program 1993. Attachment 2: Forestry Treatments: Timing of Works. Attachment 3: KHGN Working Plan for 1993 Attachment 4: Project Coordination and Support Unit: Working Program for 1993 - 172 - ANNEX 15 Attachment 1 Page 1 of 1 Provincial Denartment of Axrioulture Implementation 8ehedule (Elasia. Adivaman & Malatva) 1992 Res- Dee Jan. Feb. Mbr. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept Oct Nov pons Planning 94 Data Coll./Pc - - - FSE Indication Planl 93 94 =Tr Work Plan 03 93 94 FTE Budget Preparation .Approval Procurement Vehicle ~s |Equipment _ _ _ Fertilier_ PCSU Seed PCSU Seedlings P=SU Traininst Study trips Workshop Techn…- Staff Farmers Implementation Agr. Demons.- - - - - - - - - Range Demons. . - - _ FTE Range Treatm. - - _ _ _ FTE Fallow Red. - _ - - _FTE - ASr. Prodt. - - - - _FTE Trees Bound _ - - - - _ =_ | ortic. Rainf. - - _ - - - | Hortc. rri8. - - - - __ Pistachio _ _ - -FTE Monitoring - - - - - - - - - - 173 - ANNEX 15 Attachment 2 Page 1 of 1 FCRESIRY TREATMENTS: TIMING OF WORXS _____________________ Jun. Feb. mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Soil Conservation Aff. Site Preparation - - _ _ _ _ _ Fencing Seedsowinrg Planting Fertilizing = = Conifer Plantation 1 _, Site Preparation _ I Planting - Fertiing = = - Enerav Forestry I = _ _ Rehabilitation Cut I. . = Broadleaf Plantations Site Preparation - - - _ - - - - Fencing………- Road Seedsowing Planting ItSes -= - = - 1-- =: 1=-! Gaelerv Plantation Planting |Seedsowing | I Planting Oak Com,ice Rehabilitat | f | _ __Rebabilitation Cut - [ - [ - - f- ||Fencing _ _ | | Road I___ - = ___= i Fuelwood Conifer Plantat | f [ - -Site Preparation I L - | - | Planting I _ - I - - = - NMQ1 Workine Plan for 1993 Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 92 93 Selection of 1994 Mr (2 With PUB) FCPCF8: Problem Identification (1 with PUB) FCPCF8: Problem Solving (1 with PUB) Final Heeting with Villages (1 with PUB) Final IC plans (1 wLth POB) SuCveying of 1994 FCs (1) au plamentary Surveys for 1993 M5s (1) _ Detailed Designs (1) _ suuury Project Plan (1) _. Approval of DesLins/Project Plns (2) - * Project IaNpaontation Manual (2 with PCSU) Draft Tender Dobmants (2) Finalize Tender Doctsasnts (2) invitation to Bid (2) Bid Evaluation (2) Submisdion/AppravaL of Bid to/by ND (2) Submission/Approval of Bid to/by, oFPinance (2) Signins of Contracts CanatruotLon of Works (Contractor/lKO_) Supervision of Works (2) Monitor Linkages. Adoption Rates (2) Discuss Linkages, Adoption Rates wLth Vilages (2) ,~~~~~~~~ . = . _ . =* = _ _ = _ =_ (1) Provinclal INEH * 1993 IC. (2) Contral tSG ** 1994 MCc. EUB Provincial Kuplenenting Unit (D 0) ' o (D XL th~ - 175 - ANNEX 15 Attachment 4 Page 1 of 1 lCSU: Workins Prosram for 1993 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Completion of PPF - Tech. Assist. for Implement. Manual, etc. - - - - - - Study Tours = & - Procurement of Vehicle & Equipment - - Ecuia.tent Procurement - Te:bnical Specs. _ - - Invitation - Evaluation/Contract Materials Procurement - Determination of Quantities - - Package Civil Works Contracts - Detailed Design/Specs. - Invitation…- - Evaluation/Contract Technical Assistance - Finalize TOR - Shortlist - Invitation - Evaluation/Contract Training - Establish. of initial training program - Initial in-country - training8… - Establishment of year 1 Trainging program MonitorinstEvaluationAIS - Provincial Plan - Field Visits - Database- - - - - - - - - Manaxement of Prov. Fros - Initiate MC Plan for 94 - Supervise MC Plan implementation -=_ =_ - = -. _ _ _ MAP SECTION 18 D 2416A TURKEY Ys i 17 -O EASTERN ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT T UIO c ELA21C PROJECTPROVINCES 1&omko;.',," &-m S IVAS PROJECT MICROCATCHMENTS TO BE REHABIUTATED IN 1993: A"oiro 1. PIRAM / TEMTE 2.SAHSUVAR 3. fkNCAYI 4- INCAYI 5. SESKOZ 'OTLOBAHCE KIIIN , RESERVOIPS: 21 EMSTING OR NEAR COMPLETION El 4, PLANNED RIVERS MAIN ROAD$ 0 COUNTY CAPITALS I'M 0 PROVINCE CAPITALS PROVINCE BOUNDARIES ELEVATION$ IN MMRS: EM-2000 DiaE MO oy.Ify"" K I R INTERNATIONALSOUNDARIES 0 20 60 VJLOMErERS 1. t1=1 V =1 zt Kahloo d. b-d d- 1,d MLVILK"" MEF kOMANIA 46- RUSSLAN 0 "!!.TON KILGAR11 *A6 PROJECT 4M PROV es SAN L I U RFA TURKEY 7A M=EP. Vtmnmhir )s, T. To W& DEC&IBER 1992