Document of
The World Bank
Report No:
GEF PROJECT DOCUMENT
ON A
PROPOSED IBRD LOAN
IN THE AMOUNT OF US$ 20.0 MILLION
AND A GRANT FROM THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY
IN THE AMOUNT OF US$ 7.0 MILLION
TO THE
REPUBLIC OF TURKEY
FOR THE
ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT
Europe and Central Asia Region
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS
(Exchange Rate Effective January 21, 2004)
Currency Unit = Turkish Lira (TL)
TL 1 = US$0.00000074
US$1 = TL 1,351,000
FISCAL YEAR
January 1 -- December 31
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AGM
General Directorate for Afforestation and Erosion Control of MEF (Agaçlandirma ve
Erozyon Kontrolu Genel Müdürlügü)
APK
Research Planning and Coordination Board of MEF (Arastirma Planlama ve
Koordinasyon Kurulu)
ARIP
Agricultural Reform Implementation Project
AWRP
Anatolia Watershed Rehabilitation Project
BCPCPS
Beneficiary-Centered Problem Census Problem Solving Method
CAS
Country Assistance Strategy
CFAA
Country Financial Accountability Assessment
CSOs
Civil Society Organizations
CYGM
General Directorate for Environmental Management of MEF (Cevre Yönetimi Genel
Müdürlügü)
DHKD
Society for the Protection of Nature (Dogal Hayati Koruma Dernegi)
EAWP
Eastern Anatolia Watershed Rehabilitation Project
ECA
Europe and Central Asia Region
EMP
Environmental Management Plan
ERR
Economic Rate of Return
EU
European Union
FMR
Financial Monitoring Reports
FMSU
Financial Management Sub-Unit of the OU
GEF
Global Environment Facility
IPM
Integrated Pest Management
KHGM
General Directorate for Rural Services of MARA (Köy Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlügü)
KKGM
General Directorate for Protection and Control of MARA (Koruma ve Kontrol Genel
Müdürlügü)
M&E
Monitoring and Evaluation
MARA
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (Tarim ve Köy Isleri Bakanligi)
MC
Micro-catchments
MCIT
Micro-catchment Implementation Team (Mikrohavza Uygulama Ekibi)
MEF
Ministry of Environment and Forestry (Cevre ve Orman Bakanligi)
MESU
Monitoring and Evaluation Sub-Unit of the OU
MRMA
Microcatchment Resource Management Associations
NPV
Net Present Value
NTFPs
Non-Timber Forest Products
OGM
General Directorate for Forestry of MEF (Orman Genel Müdürlügü)
ORKÖY
General Directorate of Forest and Village Relations of MEF (Orman ve Köy Iliskileri
Genel Müdürlügü)
OU
Operations Unit (Islem Birimi)
PAD
Project Appraisal Document
PAS
Procurement Accredited Staff
PDA
Provincial Directorate of Agriculture (Tarim Il Müdürlügü)
PDEF
Provincial Directorate of Environment and Forestry (Cevre ve Orman Il Müdürlügü)
PDRS
Provincial Directorate of Rural Services (Köy Hizmetleri Il Müdürlügü)
PIP
Project Implementation Plan
PMG
Project Management Group (Proje Yonetim Grubu)
PMR
Project Management Report
PMT
Provincial Management Team (Il Yonetim Ekibi)
PMU
Project Management Unit (Proje Yonetim Birimi)
PSU
Procurement Sub-Unit of the OU
QAG
Quality Assurance Group
REA
Regional Environmental Assessment
SA
Social Assessment
SEE
State Economic Enterprises
SPO
State Planning Organization (Devlet Planlama Teskilati)
TCs
Treasury Controllers
TEMA
Foundation for Combating Soil Erosion for Reforestation and the Protection of Natural
Habitats
TORs
Terms of Reference
TÜGEM
General Directorate of Agricultural Production and Development of MARA (Tarimsal
Üretim ve Gelistirme Genel Müdürlügü)
Vice President:
Shigeo Katsu
Country Director:
Andrew N. Vorkink
Sector Manager:
Marjory Anne Bromhead
Task Team Leader:
Peter A. Dewees
TURKEY
ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT
CONTENTS
A. Project Development Objective
Page
1. Project development objective
3
2. Global objective
3
3. Key performance indicators
3
B. Strategic Context
1. Sector-related Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) goal supported by the project
3
2. Main sector issues and Government strategy
4
3. Sector issues to be addressed by the project and strategic choices
8
C. Project Description Summary
1. Project components
9
2. Key policy and institutional reforms supported by the project
12
3. Benefits and target population
13
4. Institutional and implementation arrangements
13
D. Project Rationale
1. Project alternatives considered and reasons for rejection
15
2. Major related projects financed by the Bank and/or other development agencies
17
3. Lessons learned and reflected in the project design
17
4. Indications of borrower and recipient commitment and ownership
18
5. Value added of Bank and Global support in this project
19
E. Summary Project Analysis
1. Economic
19
2. Financial
20
3. Technical
20
4. Institutional
21
5. Environmental
22
6. Social
23
7. Safeguard Policies
25
F. Sustainability and Risks
1. Sustainability
27
2. Critical risks
28
3. Possible controversial aspects
29
G. Main Conditions
1. Effectiveness Condition
29
2. Other
29
H. Readiness for Implementation
30
I. Compliance with Bank Policies
30
Annexes
Annex 1: Project Design Summary
31
Annex 2: Detailed Project Description
36
Annex 3: Estimated Project Costs
42
Annex 4: Cost Benefit Analysis Summary
43
Annex 5: Financial Summary
47
Annex 6: (A) Procurement Arrangements
48
(B) Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangements
59
Annex 7: Project Processing Schedule 64
Annex 8: Documents in the Project File
66
Annex 9: Statement of Loans and Credits
67
Annex 10: Country at a Glance
70
Annex 11: GEF Incremental Cost Analysis
72
Annex 12: GEF Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP) Review 79
Annex 13: Environmental Management Framework
83
Annex 14: Summary of Social Assessment
90
Annex 15: Procurement of Goods, Works and Services from Government-owned Enterprises 97
Annex 16: Identification and Selection Criteria for Microcatchments 102
MAP(S)
Project Watersheds (IBRD 32583)
Sample Microcatchment Management Plan for Forestry Activities (IBRD 32584)
TURKEY
ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT
GEF Project Document
Europe and Central Asia Region
ECSSD
Date: March 13, 2004
Team Leader: Peter A. Dewees
Sector Manager: Marjory-Anne Bromhead
Sector(s): General agriculture, fishing and forestry sector
Country Director: Andrew N. Vorkink
(100%)
Project ID: P070950
Theme(s): Other environment and natural resources
Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Loan (SIL)
management (P), Other rural development (P), Pollution
management and environmental health (S), Water resource
management (S)
Global Supplemental ID: P075094
Team Leader: Peter A. Dewees
Sector Manager/Director: Marjory-Anne Bromhead
Sector(s): General agriculture, fishing and forestry sector
Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Loan (SIL)
(80%), General public administration sector (20%)
Focal Area: I - International waters
Theme(s): Pollution management and environmental health
Supplement Fully Blended? Yes
(P) , Environmental policies and institutions (S)
Project Financing Data
[X] Loan [ ] Credit [X] Grant [ ] Guarantee [ ] Other:
For Loans/Credits/Others:
Loan Currency: United States Dollar
Amount (US$m): 20.0
Borrower Rationale for Choice of Loan Terms Available on File:
Yes
Proposed Terms (IBRD): Variable-Spread Loan (VSL)
Grace period (years): 4
Years to maturity: 17
Commitment fee: 0.75 % of the undisbursed amount
Front end fee (FEF) on Bank loan: 1.00%
Payment for FEF: Capitalize from Loan Proceeds
Financing Plan (US$m): Source
Local
Foreign
Total
BORROWER/RECIPIENT
8.60
0.05
8.65
IBRD
18.38
1.62
20.00
LOCAL COMMUNITIES
8.51
0.95
9.46
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY
5.67
1.33
7.00
Total:
41.16
3.95
45.11
Borrower/Recipient: REPUBLIC OF TURKEY
Responsible agency: MEF AND MARA
Undersecretariat of Treasury
Address: Inonu Bulvari, Emek, 06530 Ankara
Contact Person: Ms. Aysen Kulakoglu, Head, World Bank Projects
Tel: 90-312-213 02 97 Fax: 90-312-212 87 37 Email:
Other Agency(ies):
General Directorate of Afforestation and Erosion Control (AGM), Ministry of Environment and Forestry
Address: Gazi Tesisleri No. 11, Sogutozu, Ankara
Tel: 90-312-212 55 96 Fax: 90-312-212 55 32 Email:
General Directorate of Forest and Village Relations (ORKÖY), Ministry of Environment and Forestry
Address: Gazi Tesisleri No. 11, Sogutozu, Ankara
Tel: 90-312-212-5536 Fax: 90-312-212-5562 Email:
General Directorate of Forests (OGM), Ministry of Environment and Forestry
Address: Gazi Tesisleri No. 11, Sogutozu, Ankara
Tel: 90-312-212-6300 Fax: 90-312-212-5532
General Directorate for Environmental Management (CYGM), Ministry of Environment and Forestry
Address: Eskisehir Yolu 8 km, Lodumlu, Ankara
Tel: 90-312-287-9963 Fax: 90-312-285-5875
General Directorate of Agricultural Production and Development (TÜGEM), Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs
Address: Milli Mudafaa Caddesi No 20., Kizilay, Ankara
Tel: 90-312-418 5982 Fax: 90-312-417 0026
General Directorate of Control and Protection (KKGM), Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs
Address: Akay Caddessi No. 3, Bakanliklar, Ankara
Tel: 90-312-418-2023 Fax: 90-312-418-2023
General Directorate of Rural Services (KHGM), Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs
Address: Eskisehir Yolu 9 km., Lodumlu, Ankara
Tel: 90-312-287 80 92 Fax: 90-312-287 8091
P070950 Estimated Disbursements ( Bank FY/US$m):
FY
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Annual
0.75
2.50
2.70
3.00
3.10
3.20
3.20
1.55
Cumulative
0.75
3.25
5.95
8.95
12.05
15.25
18.45
20.00
P075094 (GEF) Estimated Disbursements ( Bank FY/US$m):
FY
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Annual
0.65
1.32
1.45
1.53
1.18
0.55
0.21
0.11
Cumulative
0.65
1.97
3.42
4.95
6.13
6.68
6.89
7.00
Project implementation period: 7 years
Expected effectiveness date: 09/01/2004 Expected closing date: 06/30/2012
OPCS PAD Form: Rev. March, 2000
- 2 -
A. Project Development Objective
1. Project development objective: (see Annex 1)
The project's overall development objective is to support sustainable natural resource management
practices in 28 microcatchments in Anatolia and Turkey's Black Sea Region and thereby raise incomes of
communities affected by resource degradation. In support of this objective, the project will:
l
encourage local communities to take responsibility for planning and implementing an integrated
approach to sustainable natural resource management in selected microcatchments;
l
introduce communities to more environmentally-friendly farming and forestry production practices to
raise land productivity, to reduce pressures on marginal lands, and to improve household income;
l
help reduce nutrient discharge from agricultural sources into the Black Sea;
l
strengthen the policy formulation and regulatory capacity towards meeting European Union (EU)
standards for agricultural nutrient pollution control;
l
improve the overall framework for river basin planning and management in the context of EU directives
on water;
l
strengthen institutional capacity to promote sustainable natural resource management and to raise
public awareness about resource degradation issues.
2. Global objective: (see Annex 1)
The key global environment objective is to introduce farming practices which will reduce the discharge of
agricultural nutrients into surface and ground water in watersheds draining into the Black Sea in four
provinces. The Project will help introduce improved manure and nutrient management practices as well as
organic farming which, over the long run, will help reduce the discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus into
the surface and ground waters of Turkey and the Black Sea. Project activities in this area are directly linked
to the Strategic Action Plan for the Protection and Rehabilitation of the Black Sea, formulated with the
assistance of the GEF. The nutrient reduction component is being prepared under the umbrella of the Black
Sea/Danube Strategic Partnership-Nutrient Reduction Investment Fund under which riparian countries are
eligible for Global Environment Facility (GEF) grants for projects that help to control or mitigate nutrient
discharge into the Black Sea.
3. Key performance indicators: (see Annex 1)
l
Increased quality and quantity of forest cover, in the project area;
l
Increase vegetation cover in the rangelands in the project villages compared to non-project villages by
20 percent at the mid-term and 50 percent at year 7, over the baseline;
l
Increased public awareness of causes, effects and mitigating measures of natural resource degradation
as measured by baseline, mid-term, and end of project surveys;
l
Adoption of environmental friendly agricultural practices by microcatchment farmers;
l
Increased income in project villages compared to non-project villages;
l
Reduced nutrient load in selected water receiving bodies in microcatchment areas.
B. Strategic Context
1. Sector-related Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) goal supported by the project: (see Annex 1)
Document number: R2003-0181 Date of latest CAS discussion: 11/6/2003
The objective of the CAS is to help Turkey continue to implement fundamental reforms to reduce economic
vulnerability, to achieve high and stable growth, and to continue the process of addressing long-neglected
- 3 -
social and environmental problems. The CAS aims to assist in reducing the risk of the reemergence of
economic crises, and the natural disasters which sometimes precipitate these, and to help Turkey achieve its
objective of getting ready for EU membership. The planned assistance program for FY04-06 supports
poverty reduction. In particular, it aims at: making the economy more resilient to crises (including natural
disasters) that disproportionately affect the most vulnerable; contributing to sustainable economic growth
that is critical to pull many of the poor out of poverty; promoting human development to create
opportunities for the poor by making access to health and education more equitable and making the social
protection system more efficient; improving the delivery of and access to services in disadvantaged areas;
and increasing empowerment through enhanced local participation and civil society involvement.
Specifically, the CAS focuses on four themes: sound macroeconomics and governance; equitable human
and social development; creating an attractive business climate; strong environmental management and
disaster prevention.
The Anatolia Watershed Rehabilitation Project is included in the Country Assistance Strategy (FY04 to
FY06) discussed by the Board in November 2003. It is consistent with two of the four themes articulated in
the CAS, specifically focusing on equitable human and social development and strong environmental
management and disaster prevention. In this latter respect particularly, reversing the trend of long-term
environmental degradation is identified as a priority, including support for further progress to meeting EU
environmental regulations, and introducing sound practices for water, soil, and forestry management.
1a. Global Operational strategy/Program objective addressed by the project:
The Project's strategic objectives are directly tied to the objectives of the Strategic Action Plan for the
Black Sea, supported by GEF. The Project's objective of reducing the discharge of agricultural nutrients
into ground and surface waters is consistent with GEF Operational Program on Waterbodies (Operational
Program 8). The Project provides an opportunity for GEF to be a catalyst for actions that integrate
improved land and water resource management practices. GEF support will reduce the costs and barriers to
farmers in adopting improved agricultural practices. It will also help develop mechanisms to move from
demonstration level activities to operational projects that reduce non-point source pollution from
agriculture to the Black Sea.
The Project is consistent with several additional GEF Operational Programs, including Operational
Program 3 on Forest Ecosystems, Operational Program 12 on Integrated Ecosystem Management, and
Operational Program 9 Integrated Land and Water Multiple Focal Area. Rehabilitation and improved
management of degraded watersheds, in combination with improved nutrient and manure management will
also reduce threats to biodiversity and promote increased carbon sequestration.
2. Main sector issues and Government strategy:
Main Sector Issues
The main issues affecting the rural sector in Turkey fall into several areas, but generally reflect weaknesses
in the overall incentives framework for agricultural production and problems related to the serious
degradation of natural resources.
Sectoral Policies and the Incentives Framework: Turkey's agricultural sector has significant potential,
but this has gone largely unrealized. Over the last 20 years, agriculture grew at only about one-third the
rate of overall GNP. As a result, agriculture's contribution to national production shrank from 36 percent
to 14 percent, although the sector still accounts for 45 percent of employment. A key problem with the
policy environment has been the structure of agricultural support which has traditionally been channeled
- 4 -
through a complex maze of input and credit subsidies, output price supports, high border protection, export
controls, deficiency payments, price controls, market interventions to protect consumers, and others. This
fiscally expensive and economically inefficient system is driven by short-term political concerns rather than
long-term strategy. Price distortions have led to unsound agricultural practices, including overemphasis on
the use of agrochemicals with serious effects on soil and water quality. The Government is now addressing
these issues in the framework of an overall structural reform program supported by the IBRD Agricultural
Reform Implementation Project (ARIP).
Although the poverty incidence is not significantly different between urban and rural areas, a large fraction
(over 40 percent) of the poor are engaged in agriculture. There is marked inter-regional variation in the
poverty incidence. Regions with a higher poverty incidence generally derive a larger share of their income
from agriculture and have significantly lower agricultural productivity than better off regions. Productivity
differences across rural areas are a reflection of differences in resource endowments, the status of the
natural resource base, and access to public infrastructure.
It is especially striking that the incidence of poverty is closely associated with altitude. Even in wealthier
regions, the incidence of poverty is significantly higher at higher elevation areas, compared with the
lowlands, due to the precarious state of the natural resource base and limited opportunities for income
diversification. The consequent dependence on forests to provide rural goods and services for the rural
poor is much greater than in other areas. Average household income in higher altitude forest areas is
anywhere from 40 to 60 percent of the average household income in other rural areas. Between 1975 and
1990, largely in response to rural poverty and to risk mitigation, the population of about 95 percent of
forest villages in Turkey declined due to out-migration. The most important cause of out-migration was
poverty, experienced both in terms of wealth and income and also in terms of inadequate infrastructure and
social services. In mountain villages, land for agriculture and pasture (a crucial determinant of income) is
severely limited. On average, households in forest areas have access to 2.5 ha of land, which compares with
the average for all rural households in Turkey of 6.4 ha. The proximity of the forest does provide some
benefits: 57 percent of villagers are completely dependent on wood for heating, and about half of these are
dependent on wood for cooking as well. The scarcity of good farming land in mountains and other forested
areas has meant that communities are often dependent on mixed land uses, including grazing. Indeed,
livestock management is a much more important livelihood strategy in these areas than most other farming
options.
Degradation of Natural Resource Base: Deforestation to meet increasing timber, fuel and fodder
demands, together with overgrazing of rangeland, farming of steep slopes, and the lack of effective soil
conservation practices on agricultural land have resulted in widespread degradation of land and water
resources. Only 6.6 percent of the Land in Turkey does not suffer from erosion with 7.2 percent slightly,
20.1 percent moderately, 36.4 percent severely and 22.3 percent very severely eroded. Land degradation
has significantly reduced the carrying capacity of rangeland and the fertility of agricultural land in the
upper catchment areas and thus negatively affected farming households' ability to derive a livelihood in the
upland regions, with resulting higher poverty rates in these areas. Reduced vegetative cover has led to
marked reductions in soil moisture content thus subjecting agricultural lands to significantly higher
vulnerability to drought. Land degradation has also led to unstable and increasingly torrential river flows
with increased incidence of flooding and growing sedimentation problems. Landslides have also become a
growing problem.
Agriculture based pollution of ground and surface water: In many areas of the country, particularly in
low lands and fertile plains, extension workers and farmers heavily emphasize the use of external inputs
like pesticides, inorganic fertilizers and animal feed. At the same time farmers are not sufficiently familiar
- 5 -
with these technologies and their risks. Relevant Government bodies are ill equipped to legislate and
implement the necessary controls to prevent the over-use of chemicals. As a result, existing regulatory
restrictions are weak and there are indications that excessive application of agricultural chemicals has led
to considerable contamination of soil and ground water, including the contamination of drinking water in
rural communities. Excessive input use has also led to high levels of nutrient loads in ground water and
rivers draining into the Black Sea, causing eutrophication.
The Black Sea Region Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (1996) identified Turkey's rivers which empty
into the Black Seas as a key sources of phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N) pollution. It estimated that
Turkey's annual discharge of nitrogen contributed about 20 percent, and its discharge of phosphates 12
percent, of total N and P respectively produced in the non-Danube Black Sea Basin. Three of the largest
rivers emptying into the Black Sea originate in Central Anatolia. While one of them (Sakarya) embraces
industrial as well as agricultural areas, the main source of pollution in the other two (Yesilirmak and
Kizilirmak) is agriculture. The main sources of river pollution from agriculture non-point sources are: (i)
poor agricultural practices, including inappropriate and over-application of fertilizers and pesticides, (ii)
soil erosion, (iii) poor drainage and, (iv) inappropriate handling of animal manure waste.
Limited Institutional Capacity to Promote Sustainable Natural Resource Management: The current
system to protect and manage Turkey's natural resources suffers from an over reliance on centralized
management, a lack of coordination among key agencies involved in rural development, limited public
awareness and participation, insufficient use of economic instruments for natural resource management
and, limited research on the linkages between natural resource management and communities'
socio-economic development.
Inadequate Policy and Regulatory Capacity for meeting EU Standards: Turkey's status as an EU
candidate country calls for important changes in the country's environmental policy and regulatory
framework, specifically taking account of the EU Directives on Water Resource Use, Nitrates, and
Environmental Impact Assessment. Turkey must adopt a detailed, directive-specific program to transpose
the national legislative and regulatory framework in a manner consistent with the EU environmental acquis,
and to develop a plan to finance supporting investments. In the medium term Turkey will need to implement
the environmental acquis through the development and enforcement of environmental and sectoral
legislation. A number of directives (for example, the Nitrates Directive) will be particularly difficult to
implement for Turkey, given the current status of infrastructure and available financial resources. The
Water Framework Directive has important implications for integrated river basin planning and
management.
Government Strategy
Sectoral Policy: In 1999, the Government launched an ambitious economic reform program to create the
basis for stable economic growth and to set the stage for the country's entry into the EU. The sectoral
reform program encompasses three main initiatives designed to reduce the heavy burden on the budget and
consumers, while promoting agricultural growth. These include: i) introduction of a unified national
program of direct income support; ii) phasing out the system of subsidies for fertilizer, credit and price
support and linking support prices to market prices; and iii) privatization of most State Economic
Enterprises (SEEs) in agriculture to reduce state involvement in the marketing and processing of
agricultural products. The overall program of agricultural policy reforms will increase Turkey's
competitiveness while protecting natural resources and the poor. The Bank is supporting the Government's
agriculture sector reform strategy with the IBRD-financed Agricultural Reform Implementation Project
(ARIP), approved in July 2001. Government has also undertaken significant efforts to improve the rural
- 6 -
population's access to physical and social infrastructure through substantial investments in both.
Natural Resource Management: The need to embrace natural resource management as an integral part of
a sustainable rural development strategy was clearly identified in Government's National Environmental
Action Plan. The NEAP spelled out the need to introduce improved agricultural practices to reduce soil
degradation and ground and water pollution from agriculture. The Government has initiated efforts to
rehabilitate degraded areas and to promote environmentally friendly agricultural practices. However,
widespread adoption of these practices has remained limited due to lack of funds for expansion and
promotion, lack of coordination among various Government agencies involved in the rural sector and an
approach that traditionally relies too much on central command and control rather than on participation by
affected communities. Under the recently completed World Bank supported Eastern Anatolia Watershed
Management Project (EAWP) the Government introduced a more holistic and participatory approach to
natural resource management on a watershed basis in eleven provinces, with positive effects on the status
of natural resources as well as household incomes. Among other things, the EAWP received a 'best
practice' rating from the Bank's Quality Assurance Group (QAG). Under the EAWP, the Ministry of
Forestry, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA) and the General Directorate of Rural
Services (Köy Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlügü or KHGM) began to coordinate and integrate their activities at
the microcatchment (MC) level . The approach resulted in a series of quite positive outcomes, increasing
rural incomes and reducing natural resource degradation in MCs. In order to build on some of the lessons
learned, and to use Bank and GEF-financed interventions as a means for introducing further innovation in
rural land management, Government has decided to introduce MC planning and management initiatives in
several other areas, and has agreed to integrate these activities with agricultural pollution control measures
in lower parts of MCs as well as to bring about better river basin-wide planning. The Government has
requested financial support from IBRD and GEF for this effort.
A recent institutional reorganization has been undertaken to improve the effectiveness of some of the key
institutions with environmental management responsibility, and to more closely align the institutional
framework with EU environmental directives. KHGM, which had previously been in a separate State
Ministry, has been incorporated into the Ministry of Agricultural and Rural Affairs. The Ministry of
Environment and the Ministry of Forestry have also been merged, to create the Ministry of Environment
and Forestry (MEF). These changes should further facilitate implementation of a holistic approach to
rural development and natural resource management. In conjunction with these changes, and as part of the
overall program of public sector reform, Provincial Directorates for agriculture, forestry, and the
environment are also currently being restructured.
The Forestry Sector Review (2001) jointly prepared by the Bank and Government identified several vital
challenges facing the forestry sector. These include issues related to poverty, land tenure, the need to
establish multipurpose, participatory forest management planning, and to control soil erosion in degraded
areas. The Ministry of Environment and Forestry has started to prepare a National Forestry Program, in a
participatory manner, that includes a review of the existing status of the sector, short and long term
forestry policy and strategies, and which outlines implementation strategies and an action plan. Preparation
of the program is funded by FAO. To date the agreed policy recommendation includes preparation of
watershed-based forest resource management plans, participation of local communities in resource
management decisions and interventions, and benefit sharing and collaboration with other sectors and
stakeholders.
- 7 -
3. Sector issues to be addressed by the project and strategic choices:
Building on the successful approaches to community based and integrated approach to natural resource
management, the proposed project aims at addressing the following sectoral issues:
l
Land Degradation in Upper Watershed Areas: The project will work with communities to develop
and implement an integrated natural resource management plan in the upper part of selected
microcatchments. Communities will choose from a menu of technical options to rehabilitate and to
more sustainably use degraded forest, range, and agricultural lands. The project will provide
opportunities to help raise income of participating communities in return for adopting and
implementing rehabilitation measures.
l
Agriculture Based Water Pollution and Nutrient Flow into the Black Sea: The project will help
introduce environmentally friendly agricultural practices aimed at reducing ground and surface water
pollution and nutrient discharge into the Black Sea. It will provide training to extension staff and
farmers on appropriate nutrient management strategies, organic farming, integrated pest management
and improved manure handling.
l
Inadequate Policy and Regulatory Capacity Towards Meeting EU Standards: The project will
support the implementation of the EU Nitrates Directive through staff training and through the
provision of equipment to monitor nitrate levels at selected locations in the four participating Black Sea
Provinces. It will also support the preparation and implementation of a Code of Good Agricultural
Practices, in line with EU environmental standards, and will strengthen the institutional capacity in
support of organic farming. The project will provide a framework for integrated river basin planning
in the Yesilirmak and Kizilirmak basin, consistent with guidance provided in the EU Water Framework
Directive.
l
Limited Awareness of Natural Resource Degradation Issues and Mitigating Measures: Awareness
of the consequences of natural resource degradation and agriculture based pollution and of mitigating
measures is limited. The project will help develop and implement a strategy to raise awareness of the
causes and effects of unsustainable agricultural practices and of effective approaches to improved
natural resource management.
l
Limited Institutional Capacity to Promote Integrated Natural Resource Management: The project
will provide concerned agency staff at the national and local level with training in the new approach to
natural resource management and effective implementation of environmentally improved agricultural
practices. This will include allowing local staff to learn first hand from their colleagues, who have
already gained experience with integrated natural resource management. The project will also help
build capacity needed to meet Turkey's obligations under the Convention on the Protection of the Black
Sea Against Pollution and several additional international protocols aimed to reduce pollution in the
Black Sea. It will also help develop the capacity of private smallholder and commercial farmers to use
environment-friendly agricultural practices and resource management.
Strategic Choices: Three strategic choices were made with respect to this project. The first decision, made
during preparation of the CAS, was to limit activities supported by the project specifically to natural
resource management interventions, complementing sectoral policy reforms which are being addressed by
ARIP. The second decision was to focus on watersheds in which EAWP had already successfully
operated, but to expand activities into new microcatchments in these watersheds. This decision was
motivated by the need to consolidate the achievements of EAWP, and in particular, further to strengthen the
- 8 -
institutional capacity for integrated natural resource management built under this project at the field level.
Thirdly, the decision was taken to broaden the activities supported by EAWP to include agricultural
pollution control and waste management to provide scope for greater innovation and to test out
farmer-based approaches to nutrient management within the framework of MC planning.
C. Project Description Summary
1. Project components (see Annex 2 for a detailed description and Annex 3 for a detailed cost breakdown):
Project Approach: The proposed project will build and expand on a community-based approach to natural
resource management. Under this approach, natural resource degradation is seen as a multi-sectoral
problem, requiring microcatchment specific solutions. MC development thus involves the integration of
forestry, soil and water conservation; crop- and livestock production; and limited off-farm income
generation in a mutually reinforcing manner. A team of provincial rural services, agriculture and forestry
staff will work with villagers to help MC communities identify and rank their principal resource
management and development problems. Project staff will present MC communities with a menu of
conservation and income generating activities appropriate to the specific MC conditions, with some of them
being conditional on the adoption of others, so as to encourage adoption of conservations measures which
may include short term costs to communities or specific groups. Implementing agencies will simply identify
and demonstrate to concerned communities what can be undertaken to stem or reverse resource
degradation, but they will not implement such measures on a massive scale. Instead they will create the
conditions to encourage land users themselves to adopt more productive and protective land management
systems. The project will introduce the innovation of piloting the management of agricultural waste to limit
nutrient runoff, through integration with watershed micro-catchment activities.
Project Area and Land Use: The project will be implemented in 6 provinces (Samsun, Tokat, Sivas,
Kayseri, Corum, and Amasya provinces) covering: i) two main ecological regions, namely the Black Sea
and Continental ecological regions; and ii) three of Turkey's 26 major river basins, the Kizilirmak and
Yesilirmak basins (which drain into the Black Sea) and the Seyhan basin (which drains into the
Mediterranean Sea). The project will rehabilitate 28 MCs in 5 of the 6 provinces (Tokat, Sivas, Kayseri,
Corum, and Amasya provinces), and will reduce agricultural based nutrient discharge into the Black Sea,
through GEF supported activities, in four of the provinces (Samsun, Tokat, Corum and Amasya). Each of
the 28 MCs to be rehabilitated by the project will cover between 5,000 and 15,000 hectares and the total
area under development will be in the order of 202,000 hectares, out of which about 30,000 ha will be the
physical implementation area. Detailed information on each MC will be gathered and analyzed during the
MC planning process.
Of the 8 million ha of land in the project provinces about 45 percent is agricultural land, 19 percent is
gazetted forest (comprising both forest and brush land) and 29 percent is rangeland. Although there are
significant differences among provinces, the principal land use in the project MCs is rangeland. Rangeland
conditions vary from moderately productive but overgrazed to severely degraded and eroded. Agriculture is
generally limited to small scale, often subsistence production, including in the Black Sea provinces. Due to
limited land availability, crops are often planted on fragile slopes. The type of crop rotation is determined
by ecological characteristics of the production area as well as socio-economic conditions of farmers.
Generally, wheat and barley are rotated with fallow, rarely with pulses. Due to land constraints, continuous
cereal production which leads to significant soil degradation is also common in many MCs. Only about one
quarter of agricultural land is irrigated, although small scale irrigation is possible in MCs with perennial
streams and springs. In lower irrigated parts of MCs, cereals are rotated with sugarbeet, oil crops, beans,
maize or horticultural crops.
- 9 -
Rural Population: With the exception of MCs in the lower watersheds in the four Black Sea Provinces,
MCs to be included in the project are primarily located in rural mountainous areas. The rural population in
these watersheds is around 2 million. Many of the 400 or so villages in the project area are classified as
"forest villages" with limited access to proper agricultural and range land. Most households in the project
area rely on crop and livestock production as their main source of income, with forest villagers
supplementing their income with forestry based work. As a result of the significantly degraded natural
resource base and limited access to infrastructure, household incomes in the MC area are significantly
below the average rural household income in Turkey. Many households in the project area remain largely in
the subsistence economy. A survey in four project provinces showed that (excluding subsistence
consumption) average household cash income ranged from between US$ 100 to $750 per year in
mountainous areas, while average household income in rural areas in the Black Sea provinces varied
between US$ 100 per year in mountainous MCs and $ 1300 per year in the more commercialized farming
areas of Corum. Due to low incomes and a degraded natural resource base, there is significant
outmigration.
A.
Overall Project Description
The project will have five components. Costs are indicative and include physical and price contingencies,
as well as counterpart and beneficiary contributions.
Component 1: Rehabilitation of Degraded Natural Resources (US$ 23.5 million). This component will
provide support for the planning and implementation of a menu of activities to be implemented by village
communities under the direction of the MEF and MARA, in partnership with communities. The
component's primary objective is to protect degraded areas from further degradation, erosion and pollution.
Rehabilitation interventions are focused around four sub-components as outlined below and will be
implemented in 28 micro-catchments and in 6 provinces. The activities include a specific program for
piloting actions on reducing nutrient discharge to the water bodies that will be implemented in the lower
parts of watersheds of four participating Black Sea provinces using GEF funds.
The main sub-components are as follows:
i)
Rehabilitation of forest land including soil conservation by afforestation, protection and
improvement of poor & degraded soils, gallery plantation, rehabilitation of oak coppices and of
degraded high forests, participatory replanting and inventory of non-wood forest products. All
implemented by MEF (AGM & OGM).
ii)
Rangeland Rehabilitation, including improved management of forest rangelands under MEF and
rehabilitation activities on rangeland outside the forest land by MARA.
iii)
Rehabilitation of Agricultural Land, including: fallow reduction, appropriate use of marginal
agricultural land, wild tree grafting, river bank protection, and construction and production on
agricultural terraces. Implemented by MARA (KHGM and TÜGEM).
iv)
Environment-friendly agricultural practices, including demonstrations of improved crop
production practices, organic farming and Integrated Pest Management by MARA and nutrient
reduction activities implemented by MARA/MEF.
With regard to the environment-friendly practices, implementation of selected activities to reduce nutrient
- 10 -
discharge into the water bodies in the lower watersheds of participating Black Sea provinces will be
financed by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) grant, by Government and by beneficiaries.
Component 2: Income Raising Activities (US$ 17.57 million). Under this component target communities
would be offered a menu of activities designed to raise household incomes in return for participation in
conservation activities supported under Component 1. Income generating activities are designed to provide
participating communities with the incentives to undertake conservation efforts even if they incur short or
medium term costs (e.g. short term closure of range lands, closure of forest land) or if benefits can only be
reaped in the long run (afforestation). The menu offered will vary in accordance with
agro-ecological and socio-economic conditions in each village, as well as with farmers' resources and
needs. The approach will be flexible so as to be able to respond to the needs of the villagers and flexibility
will be maintained during project implementation. The main income generating activities which will be
financed by the project include small scale irrigation including creation of small irrigated perimeters and
farm ponds, implemented by MARA (KHGM); investments in livestock improvement, greenhouses and
small-scale freshwater fisheries implemented by MEF (ORKOY); and farm and crop enterprise
diversification (including rainfed and irrigated horticulture, irrigated forage crops, vegetable production,
planting trees on field boundaries, agricultural processing and beekeeping) implemented by MARA
(TÜGEM).
Component 3: Strengthening Policy and Regulatory Capacity Towards Meeting EU Standards
(US$0.28 million). This component will provide support for implementing the following three
sub-components which emphasize participatory approaches to sustainable natural resource management,
corresponding to locally expressed priorities:
i)
Support for the Application of the EU Nitrates Directive through the monitoring of nitrate levels
at selected sites in the four Black Sea provinces, as first step in implementing the nitrates directive.
ii)
Development and Promotion of a Code of Good Agricultural Practices based on on-farm trials,
demonstrations and training. The preparation and ultimate application of this code is a mandatory
part of the nitrates directive program.
iii)
Institutional Support for Organic Farming: The project would provide technical assistance to
strengthen the institutional capacity in support of producing and marketing organically produced
farm products.
Component 4: Awareness Raising, Capacity Building and Replication Strategy (US$ 1.06 million):
This component, implemented jointly by MEF and MARA) will have the following sub-components:
i)
Public Awareness in Micro-catchment Development: This will raise awareness amongst target
beneficiaries and other stakeholders about the program approach and terms of participation in
Micro-catchment development. The goal will be to increase transparency in program
implementation and empower beneficiaries to demand program services.
ii)
Public Awareness, Capacity Building and Replication Strategy: With regard to the four Black Sea
provinces, the component would provide capacity building and public awareness activities at the
local, national and regional level, for the training of beneficiaries and participating institutions as
well as for the future replication of similar activities in Turkey and other Black Sea riparian
countries.
- 11 -
Component 5: Project Management and Support Services (US$ 2.5 million): This component will have
the following sub-components:
i)
Project Administration: This sub-component will support the technical assistance, financial
services, logistical and operational requirements necessary to ensure the appropriate and efficient
administration of project activities and resources by central and provincial project management
units.
ii)
Support Services: This sub-component will fund extension, technical assistance and some study
tours for project managers, technical project staff and farmers.
iii)
Monitoring & Evaluation System: The project would provide for the upgrading of the present
Monitoring and Evaluation system.
iv)
Fund for applied research and technology dissemination: This sub-component will finance
short-term, small scale applied research on soil, water, crop, natural resource management,
agricultural pollution, livestock and forestry focusing on MC environment.
Indicative
Bank
% of
GEF
% of
Component
Costs
% of
financing
Bank
financing
GEF
(US$M)
Total
(US$M)
financing
(US$M)
financing
Component 1: Rehabilitation of Degraded Natural
23.50
52.1
10.15
50.8
6.13
87.6
Resources
Component 2: Income Raising
17.57
38.9
7.95
39.8
0.00
0.0
Component 3: Strengthening Capacity for Meeting
0.28
0.6
0.00
0.0
0.18
2.6
EU Environmental Standards
Component 4: Awareness Raising, Capacity
1.06
2.3
0.51
2.6
0.38
5.4
building and Replication Strategy
Component 5: Project management and Support
2.50
5.5
1.19
6.0
0.31
4.4
Services
Total Project Costs
44.91
99.6
19.80
99.0
7.00
100.0
Front-end fee
0.20
0.4
0.20
1.0
0.00
0.0
Total Financing Required
45.11
100.0
20.00
100.0
7.00
100.0
As indicated in the table, the GEF Grant will be financing: (a) promotion of environmentally friendly
agricultural practices under rehabilitation of degraded natural resources component; (b) strengthening
policy an regulatory capacity component; (c) public awareness and replication activities; and (d) relevant
project management and support services.
2. Key policy and institutional reforms supported by the project:
The key institutional reforms supported by this project include (i) participatory watershed management; (ii)
improved inter-agency collaboration at central and field level to facilitate effective natural resource
management; (iii) direct engagement of communities in implementation of MC plans, including full
responsibility for operation and maintenance of project supported investments; (iv) increased responsibility
of local level implementing agencies in planning and implementation of resource management activities and,
(v) increased policy and regulatory capacity to meet international obligations to reduce polluting discharge
into the Black Sea and move towards EU standards on agricultural pollution control.
- 12 -
3. Benefits and target population:
Beneficiaries
Benefits
Farmers and rural households living in
l Improved longer term access to wood and non-wood forestry
degraded micro-watersheds
products
l Increased availability of water for animal and human
consumption
l Sustainable increases in crop yields
l Higher fodder production on rangelands
l Improved livestock yields
l Higher and more stable household incomes leading to reduced
poverty
l Improved well water quality
l Reduced flooding due to smoother streamflows
l Reduced siltation and sedimentation
Communities living downstream of
l Improved well water quality
degraded areas
l Improved downstream water quality
l Reduced cost of water treatment for human consumption
l Reduced siltation and sedimentation loads
l Reduced flooding due to smoother streamflows
Non-farming households in watersheds
l Improved water quality
emptying into Black Sea and in Black Sea
l Safer food products
riparian countries
l Reduced nutrient discharge to main rivers and Black Sea
Commercial beef fattening and dairy
l Ability to meet environmental regulations with regard to
producers in peri-urban areas of Black
discharge into water
Sea region
l Improved water quality
l Income from sale of manure
Agro-processors and commercial farmers
l Ability to meet EU requirements on nitrate and good agricultural
practice
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs
l Ability to meet EU requirements on nitrate monitoring and code
(MARA) and Ministry of Environment and
of good agricultural practice
Forestry (MEF)
Staff of MARA and MEF
l Higher job satisfaction
l Improved technical skills w.r.t sustainable resource management
and environmental friendly agricultural production techniques
4. Institutional and implementation arrangements:
The project would be implemented over a seven year period under the same institutional arrangements as
the recently completed EAWP.
Project Management: The responsibility for overall project management and coordination will lie with the
Ministry of Environment and Forestry's General Directorate for Afforestation and Erosion Control
(MEF/AGM). Overall project management and supervision will be assured by a Project Management
Group (PMG) and line agency specific Project Management Units. The Project Management Group
comprises representatives of each participating line agency with MEF/AGM acting as the project
coordinating agency. The Project Management Group will be supported by an Operations Unit in charge of
day to day project management and coordination. The OU will be established at MEF/AGM and have
- 13 -
sub-units for financial management, procurement and monitoring and evaluation. Funds will be made
available to hire a social scientist and a communications specialist, as needed, to assist in the preparation of
specific studies. At the local level each Province will establish a Provincial Project Management Team
comprised of representatives from field units of the project agencies. The Operations Unit will be headed by
AGM and be responsible for project coordination and supervision of local level implementation.
Implementation Arrangements: The project will be implemented by field staff of the relevant General
Directorates of the MEF and MARA (see Annex 2). For each microcatchment, a Microcatchment
Implementation Team (MCIT) will be established with staff from relevant provincial agencies. This team
will be responsibility for the elaboration and implementation of the MC development plan in collaboration
with beneficiary communities and in close consultation with local government units (provincial Governor,
municipality) and local NGOs. These implementation arrangements are similar to those adopted under
EAWP and there thus is considerable experience with this approach, both at the local and the central level.
Overall implementation responsibility for GEF-related activities will rest jointly with MARA's General
Directorate for Protection and Control (KKGM) and the MEF's General Directorate of Environmental
Management. The PMG's Operation's Unit will also be responsible for handling the administration of
GEF-financed activities.
Procurement Arrangements: All procurement under the project will be carried out under the supervision
of the OU's procurement sub-unit which will have four staff, including at least two professional
procurement specialist (employed as consultants to the unit). Tendering for small works and small amounts
of locally available goods will be carried out by the field units of the implementing agencies, subject to
close supervision and approval by the OU's procurement sub-unit. All other procurement will be carried
out by the OU's procurement unit, with implementing agencies providing necessary technical
specifications, bills of quantities and terms of reference. Bids will be evaluated by a Bid Evaluation
Committee comprising technical specialists of the relevant line agency and representatives of the OU's
procurement sub-unit and approved by the PMG. Not later than April 30, 2005, the OU will hire two
independent, professional procurement specialists as consultants to the OU with qualifications, experience
and for a term acceptable to the Bank.
Financial Management: Overall responsibility for financial management of the project rests with the OU
in the MEF. Following the project financial management assessment carried out by the Bank, an action
plan was agreed upon with the MEF, and implemented, to bring its financial management capacity up to
standards satisfactory to the Bank. As part of this action plan the OU's financial management sub-unit has
been fully staffed with specialists satisfactory to the Bank and a computerized project financial
management system has been set up. A Financial Management Manual satisfactory to the Bank has been
prepared.
Financial Monitoring Reports: The formats of the Financial Monitoring Reports (FMRs) have been agreed
and included in the project Financial Management Manual and the PIP. The OU will prepare quarterly
FMRs for submission to the PMG and the Bank.
Audit Arrangements: Annual financial statements for the project will be audited by the Treasury
Controllers in accordance with International Standards on Auditing and under TORs agreed upon with the
Bank.
Disbursement Arrangements: The Government will open two Special Accounts in US$ at the Central
Bank, one for proceeds from the IBRD loan and one for proceeds from the GEF grant. All payments will be
executed centrally by the OU's financial management sub-unit with the authorization of the PMG
- 14 -
Coordinator and the Financial Manager of the OU. Payments exceeding 20 percent of the authorized
Special Accounts allocation will be made directly from the loan account. Disbursements will be made
against Statements of Expenditures for: (i) works under contracts costing less than US$3,000,000
equivalent each, but excluding the contracts which are subject to prior review; (ii) goods, under contracts
costing less than US$300,000 equivalent each, but excluding the contracts which are subject to prior
review; (iii) services of consulting firms under contracts costing less than US$ 100,000 equivalent each;
(iv) services of individual consultants under contracts costing less than US$ 50,000 equivalent each; (v)
training (subject to provision of an agreed training plan) and (vi) incremental operating costs. Full
documentation in support of SOEs would be retained by the PMU for at least one year after the Bank has
received the audit report for the fiscal year in which the last withdrawal from the Loan Account was made.
This information will be made available for review during supervision by Bank staff and for annual audits
which will be required to specifically comment on the propriety of SOE disbursements and the quality of
the associated record-keeping.
Monitoring and Evaluation: Overall project Monitoring and Evaluation will be the responsibility of the
Project Management Group which will be supported in this task by the Operation Unit's M&E staff.
Building on the M&E system of the EAWP, the M&E unit will develop and implement an M&E system
which will include both routine monitoring and evaluation and special-purpose M&E focused on impact
assessment. The M&E system will include targeted annual performance objectives and monitoring
indicators using the Key Performance Indicators in Annex 1 as a basis. A baseline survey against which
project performance targets can be measured will be carried out in each MC during the detailed MC
development planning phase. The M&E unit will produce quarterly reports for submisson to the Project
Management Group covering progress in physical implementation, use of funds and project impact.
Reports will be produced in a format agreed with the Bank. Quarterly reports will be consolidated into
semi-annual progress reports to be submitted to the Bank. The latter will also include implementation and
work plans for the six months following the reporting period. The development of beneficiary-based
Participatory Monitoring will be developed during the course of project implementation, working with
Microcatchment Resource Management Associations. Reporting formats for M&E System have been
agreed and finalized.
D. Project Rationale
1. Project alternatives considered and reasons for rejection:
Three alternatives to the proposed intervention were considered and rejected:
No follow-up watershed rehabilitation project: The question of whether the achievements of EAWP were
sufficient to allow for sustainable natural resource management in Turkey without a follow-up project was
considered and rejected on the following grounds: First, while EAWP successfully developed and tested a
new approach to natural resource management, its achievements (in line with project objectives) remained
limited in terms of physical coverage and number of local implementing agency staff involved. Financial
constraints and the time and resources required to mobilize and train additional staff to replicate EAWP's
approach on a larger scale would make it unlikely that this would occur without further support by a
project. Second, natural resource rehabilitation and management is a long term endeavor and many of the
processes initiated under EAWP need to be taken a step further. Examples include range land management
through "participatory grazing management", participatory and equitable use of wood and non-wood forest
resources from rehabilitated forest lands and boundary tree plantations and, the need to expand the
awareness of environmentally friendly agricultural practices. Third and most importantly, it was felt that
because natural resource degradation is such a dominant feature in many of Turkey's watersheds, the
- 15 -
economic and social costs of not addressing this problem in an effective manner were too high.
Country-wide coverage: Given widespread unmet demand for inclusion into the EAWP and the need to
address natural resource degradation issues in a large part of the country, the question of whether the
proposed follow-up project should aim at replicating and expanding on EAWP's approach at a national
scale or should limit its interventions to a set of strategically important watersheds with serious resource
degradation issues was considered. It was decided to limit the project area to three river basins, including
three provinces which were already covered by EAWP and four adjacent provinces which contribute
significantly to Black Sea pollution. This decision was motivated by the perceived need further to solidify
the institutional capacity for integrated natural resource management at the field level and the ability to
build on the momentum gained through EAWP in terms of awareness and interest in participatory natural
resource management by communities in neighboring MCs, as well as to explore the scope for innovating
by tackling the problem of agricultural waste pollution. The expansion of the project on a national scale
would have taxed the institutional capacity for replication, given the number of agencies involved and the
need for intensive supervision and monitoring by the Project Management Group.
Stand alone project for agricultural pollution control: Consideration was given to having a separate GEF
financed project focusing on reducing agriculture induced nutrient discharge into the Black Sea. This option
was discarded on grounds that environmentally friendly agricultural practices should be an integral part of
sustainable natural resource management and thus be integrated with other natural resource management
activities on a watershed basis. Furthermore, effective participation of all relevant stakeholders requires
cooperation among all key agencies engaged in natural resource management and rural development which
is best achieved through the participatory resource management approach already developed under EAWP.
- 16 -
2. Major related projects financed by the Bank and/or other development agencies (completed,
ongoing and planned).
Latest Supervision
Sector Issue
Project
(PSR) Ratings
(Bank-financed projects only)
Implementation
Development
Bank-financed
Progress (IP)
Objective (DO)
Sectoral Policy Reform
Agricultural Reform
S
S
Implementation Project
Natural Resource Degradation
Eastern Anatolia Watershed
S
S
Rehabilitation Project
Sectoral inefficiency, low productivity, Agricultural Research Project
S
S
resource degradation
Institutional Development
Commodities Market
S
S
Development Project
Privatization of Irrigation
S
S
Project
Other development agencies
Biodiversity conservation
GEF financed Biodiversity and
Natural Resource Management
Project
Environmental legislation and EU
EU financed: Analysis of
accession
Environmental Legislation
Approximation Advice for
Turkish Environmental
Legislation
IP/DO Ratings: HS (Highly Satisfactory), S (Satisfactory), U (Unsatisfactory), HU (Highly Unsatisfactory)
3. Lessons learned and reflected in the project design:
International experience:
Participatory natural resource management using a sub-watershed approach has worked well in several
other countries. Like the first EAWP in Turkey, the Loewss Plateau Natural Resource Management Project
in China was followed by a second project and received an "outstanding" rating from the Quality Assurance
Group (QAG). Similar approaches have also been successfully used in Brazil (Land Development 1 and 2
in Southern Brazil) and in other regions. EU countries also follow similar principles, with incentives
provided to farmers to adopt sustainable farming practices.
- 17 -
Key lessons learned from agricultural and environmental projects in the region include the need to:
l
actively involve concerned communities in the identification of problems and proposed solutions for
natural resource degradation;
l
effectively communicate project rationale, objectives and benefits to all stakeholders;
l
establish a direct link between objectives of environment friendly agricultural practices, rehabilitation
efforts and tangible benefits for key stakeholders;
l
aggressively disseminate information about benefits of improved environmental management to assure
widespread adoption of new technologies;
l
make long-term commitments to address agriculture and environmental issues through phased
programs of interventions and broad-based participation.
Country specific lessons:
The project builds on some of the country-specific lessons gained in the EAWP. The ICR for EAWP
identified the following issues, which have been accounted for in the design of this operation:
l
establish strict guidelines to assure that the project's focus remains on rehabilitation of MCs with site
specific solutions;
l
ask village beneficiaries to contribute at least 10 percent of the cost for all MARA activities and inform
farmers about this requirement up-front so that they can take this into consideration when deciding
whether or not to participate in the project;
l
inform villagers up-front that they will be responsible for the operation and maintenance of small
irrigation schemes and rehabilitated rangelands following initial project financed investments. Develop
and test guidelines should for the creation of village/beneficiary associations to take this responsibility;
l
clear selection criteria are needed for small scale irrigation investments to assure that they are made
selectively and cost effectively.
l
development of MC plans requires up to one year to allow implementing agency staff to adequately
diagnose the causes of natural resource degradation, decide on technically sound rehabilitation
measures and properly interact with the target groups. Implementation of MC plans requires 3 years to
assure sustainability of interventions;
l
the project should not initiate work in more than two MCs per province per year to assure a
manageable work load for field staff during the peak fourth year;
l
the participatory nature and complexity of the project call for a project duration of at least seven years;
4. Indications of borrower and recipient commitment and ownership:
This project was prepared within the scope of the Country Assistance Strategy, as agreed between the
Government of Turkey and the World Bank. In order to be ensure consistency with the overall public
expenditure program, the loan amount was reduced based on Government's request. It is strongly supported
by all line agencies charged with implementation, motivated by the positive results on the ground of earlier
interventions. The Government's commitment to the proposed project was further reflected in their
organizing inter-agency workshop to clearly identify the key lessons learned from EAWP with the objective
to integrate those into the design of the follow-up project. Based on these lessons, Government agencies
undertook project preparation of the loan portion themselves.
The Government has demonstrated its commitment to reduce the discharge of pollutants into the Black Sea
by ratifying several key international conventions and protocols to this effect, including the Convention on
the Protection of Black Sea Against Pollution. In the fall of 2000, the Government requested Bank support
to help it meet its international obligations to reduce pollutant discharge into the Black Sea. The
- 18 -
government has also indicated its commitment to approximating Turkish environmental legislation towards
the EU acquis by requesting EU funding for advice on Turkish environmental legislation.
5. Value added of Bank and Global support in this project:
Experience in Turkey and elsewhere has shown that effective natural resource rehabilitation and
management calls for a long-term commitment through phased programs of interventions and broad-based
participation. The Bank's value-added lies in its ability to make a long term commitment to help Turkey
address natural resource degradation issues in a more systematic and sustainable manner. The Bank's
strategy for natural resource management emphasizes the importance of an integrated approach to
watershed management and the proposed project implements this approach. The Bank's ability to draw on
experience with similar projects in other countries provides an important backing and strengthens the
credibility of the initiatives undertaken by field staff in Turkey. This operation will further strengthen the
local capacity for more sustainable natural resource management and will provide support to gradually
expand the approach successfully tested under earlier interventions on a larger scale.
The principal value added of GEF support for the project comes from providing additional funds to help
reduce barriers to farmers' adopting more environmental friendly agricultural practices and thus to allow
the Government to scale up a program which has so far largely been limited to localized pilot activities.
GEF funding will allow the Government to accelerate its program of demonstrating environmental friendly
agricultural practices on a wider range of farms and to engage in a much needed public awareness program
on agricultural pollution. Agricultural pollution and conversion of flood plains areas into agricultural
polders is a problem with major transboundary effects in many ECA countries, particularly those in the
Black Sea region. Some level of financial support from the public sector and the international community
are necessary, as program to control agricultural pollution have significant externalities, affect
transboundary pollution and involve an element of public good.
E. Summary Project Analysis (Detailed assessments are in the project file, see Annex 8)
1. Economic (see Annex 4):
Cost benefit
NPV=US$15.3 million; ERR = 18.6 % (see Annex 4)
Cost effectiveness
Incremental Cost
Other (specify)
Economic benefits of the project fall into two main categories: (i) benefits from a restored natural resource
base and, (ii) increased household income from intensification and diversification of farming systems. The
quantification of economic benefits from an improved natural resource base in the 28 project MCs includes
a valuation of three distinct benefits: (i) savings in erosion induced soil loss; (ii) yield increases due to
improved agricultural land and (iii) reduced flood control costs. Other benefits, such as reduced siltation in
dams, improved quality of drinking water due to reduced sedimentation content of the water, increased soil
moisture content and reduced carbon sequestration have not been quantified due to lack of credible data.
The quantification of incremental benefits from improved farming techniques and diversification has been
based on farm budgets for various project supported activities and the application of net benefit streams for
these activities to the activity target area in the 28 MCs, taking into consideration the expected phasing of
project activities.
As many resource management and protection activities are expected to have a long term impact and may
incur net costs during the initial project years, the ERR and the NPV were calculated over a period of 25
years, with an annual discount rate of 12 percent applied to the NPV calculation. Sensitivity analysis
- 19 -
suggests that a 20 percent increase in project costs combined with a 20 percent reduction in project benefits
still results in a ERR of 14.4 percent and an NPV of US$ 5.7 million. Similarly, a 2 year delay in project
benefits would result in an ERR of 18.3 percent and an NPV of US$ 13.7 million.If the impact of project
activities on erosion were not to materialize the ERR would drop to 18.1 percent and the NPV to US$ 13.7
million. Excluding the irrigation component reduces the ERR to 12.3 percent and the NPV to - US$ 0.4
million, pointing to the critical importance of irrigation investments.
The incremental cost analysis for the GEF-funded component is presented in additional Annex 11 to this
PAD. In the baseline scenario prevailing agricultural practices are only partially corrected through ongoing
Government, NGO and bilaterally supported efforts of limited reach and the proposed AWRP without GEF
support. The cost of activities in the baseline scenario is estimated at US$ 37.92 million. Available
resources would not be sufficient to develop environmentally friendly farming practices in the lower part of
the key watersheds that empty into the Black Sea, nor to strengthen Turkey's capacity to meet EU
standards and raise public awareness about the need for agricultural pollution control, nor to support
adaptive research aimed at reducing agricultural pollution while maintaining or increasing yields. The
incremental cost of activities to be supported by GEF related activities amount to US$7.0 million, which
will be sought from GEF.
2. Financial (see Annex 4 and Annex 5):
NPV=US$ million; FRR = % (see Annex 4)
Fiscal Impact:
The scope and cost of the project was reduced in light of Turkey's tight fiscal situation. Assurance has
been sought from Government that the necessary Government counterpart contribution is consistent with
the available fiscal envelope of the two implementing Ministries. Total Government financing during the
project implementation period is estimated to be US$ 8.65 million (around 19 percent of project costs).
The Government's average annual contribution thus amounts to around US$ 1.2 million per year over the
life of the project, divided across 2 Ministries and 7 implementing agencies. Although this is not a
substantial share of the implementing agencies' overall budget and the Government has confirmed that this
project is of high priority, there is a risk that the Government will not be able to make counterpart funds
available on a timely basis, if the country's fiscal situation further deteriorates. Beyond project
implementation, the fiscal impact of the project is expected to be minimal, as the main recurrent expense
derives from the management and operation of irrigation investments which will be entirely born by project
beneficiaries.
3. Technical:
The majority of technologies to be promoted under the project have already been tested and validated in
particular areas of Turkey under other projects such as the recently completed EAWP. The promotion of
proposed technologies is backed up by operational manuals of the Ministry of Environment and Forestry
and the General Directorate of Rural Services which were prepared on the basis of results of successfully
completed adaptive research and experience gained under internationally and nationally financed projects.
During project preparation a number of tools were used to identify priorities, these include : (i) the
Beneficiary Centered-Problem Census-Problem Solving (BCPCPS) method used in the villages of 12
indicative MCs, ii) a detailed baseline survey of 12 indicative MCs, iii) farm surveys conducted with
livestock owners and crop producers in the 4 GEF provinces, iii) a detailed baseline survey in support of
the social assessment carried out in 5 selected MCs, and iv) collection of baseline information in another 6
- 20 -
selected MCs for the Regional Environment Assessment. Cost estimates for the proposed interventions are
based on actual unit costs of similar interventions carried out under the EAWP and an estimate of target
areas for the combination of proposed interventions based on initial MC plans developed for 12 MCs.
While the unit costs are thus accurate, overall cost estimates are a first best approximation, as actual costs
will depend on the mix of activities adopted by communities in each one of the 28 MCs. Specific
investment identification and cost estimates for the GEF-financed agricultural pollution sub-components
were based on technical designs and data prepared by consultants in collaboration with implementing
agency staff and agreements reached with the local beneficiaries.
4. Institutional:
4.1 Executing agencies:
The institutional capacity for project implementation at the field and national level is adequate in all
implementing agencies. The project builds on the institutional capacity established under the recently
completed EAWP, in particular the close cooperation in the field between staff of the agencies of the two
implementing Ministries and the four key agencies, namely, TÜGEM, ORKÖY, AGM, and KHGM and
expands on these strengths by involving CYGM and KKGM. The project will further strengthen the
interagency collaboration and technical expertise needed to successfully develop and implement
participatory MC based natural resource management plans.
4.2 Project management:
Overall project management and oversight will be the task of the inter-agency Project Management Group
under the MEF. For day to day project management, the PMG will be assisted by an Operations Unit (OU)
which will be staffed by financial management, procurement, and M&E specialists with qualifications
satisfactory to the Bank. Funds will be provided to hire a communications specialist and a social scientist,
as required, for specific studies.
4.3 Procurement issues:
As the project focuses on community participation and MC specific investments, procurement of small
works and small quantities of locally available goods will need to be carried out by the implementing
agencies. These offices have limited experience with Bank procurement procedures and will thus need to be
closely supervised by the OU's procurement sub-unit. To assure adherence to Bank procurement
guidelines, it was agreed that field office staff will only proceed with procurement decisions upon receiving
approval by the OU's procurement sub-unit. All field offices will use standard Bank procurement
documents which will be translated into Turkish for this purpose. The experience of the EAWP showed
that procurement of larger contracts by individual implementing agencies was not an effective way to
assure timely procurement in line with Bank procurement guidelines. Therefore, the procurement function
will be centralized and carried out by specialized staff of the OU's procurement sub-unit, with line agencies
providing technical specifications and participating in bid evaluation through their representation in the Bid
Evaluation Committee.
4.4 Financial management issues:
The financial management assessment concluded that the existing FM capacity in the MEF was not
adequate for meeting the Bank's minimum requirements. To address these deficiencies, a financial
management action plan was prepared and agreed upon with MEF. The action plan to improve the OU's
- 21 -
financial management capacity and the project's financial management system have been implemented.
5. Environmental:
Environmental Category: B (Partial Assessment)
5.1 Summarize the steps undertaken for environmental assessment and EMP preparation (including
consultation and disclosure) and the significant issues and their treatment emerging from this analysis.
The project is expected to have overall very positive environmental impacts. It will contribute to reduced
erosion, increased vegetative and forest cover, improved land management, and will reduce the discharge of
polluting nutrients into waterways. Broader positive environmental impacts include the institutional
measures to support application of the EU Nitrates Directive and public awareness building in this regard.
A Regional Environmental Assessment was commissioned by Government, to provide the analytical
framework to better address environmental concerns in the design, implementation, and monitoring of
project interventions. The Regional Environmental Assessment confirmed that the project is not expected to
result in any significant environmental risks or negative environmental impacts. A range of potential, minor
negative impacts are, however, possible. These have been identified, and mitigation measures have been
incorporated into the project's design. They include:
l
potential impacts resulting from poorly designed soil erosion control measures such as terracing;
l
potential impacts resulting from the rehabilitation or construction of access roads;
l
potential impacts on forest villages which may find traditional access to forests restricted;
l
potential impacts associated with the possible use of pesticides in the production of tree seedlings for
afforestation and microcatchment rehabilitation; and
l
concerns about dam safety, resulting from the construction of numerous small farm ponds and
irrigation tanks.
The Regional Environmental Assessment was reviewed in draft, and revised based on the comments from
the client and the Bank. The final Regional Environmental Assessment was translated into Turkish, and
was made widely available in Turkey. A consultation on the revised draft was held on February 20, 2003
and involved project agencies and NGOs.
5.2 What are the main features of the EMP and are they adequate?
The EMP describes mitigation steps which have been incorporated into the project's design. These include:
l
design standards for the construction of various erosion control measures have been reviewed to ensure
that they represent prevailing 'best practice,'
l
prevailing national standards for forest roads construction have been reviewed for their adequacy in
addressing potential environmental problems, and these will be adopted as a contractual obligation of
roads subcontractors;
l
With respect to forestry activities, communities and individuals with interests in the use and
management of forest resources will be identified and consulted during the participatory preparation of
microcatchment plans. The project will not limit communities' traditional use of forested areas.
l
The extent of planned pesticide use was examined, which is very minor. Measures have been
incorporated into the project to limit their use, consistent with principles of Integrated Pest
Management.
l
Standards for the construction of small dams and farm ponds were reviewed to ensure that dam safety
measures have been adequately incorporated into their design by qualified engineers.
l
The impact of water abstraction on the Black Sea, as a result of the project was reviewed and is
- 22 -
expected to be negligible, and a waiver to the requirement to notify riparians was sought and received.
5.3 For Category A and B projects, timeline and status of EA:
Date of receipt of final draft: 01/15/2003
The Regional Environmental Assessment was received and disclosed before the project was Appraised.
5.4 How have stakeholders been consulted at the stage of (a) environmental screening and (b) draft EA
report on the environmental impacts and proposed environment management plan? Describe mechanisms
of consultation that were used and which groups were consulted?
The Terms of Reference for the Regional Environmental Assessment were prepared based on experience
gained from consultation processes undertaken in the EAWP, and reported on in the ICR. The draft
Regional Environmental Assessment was discussed extensively with MEF and with the project agencies
and NGOs before the project was Appraised. Public consultations on the Regional Environmental
Assessment were carried out in a national workshop, held in February 2003.
5.5 What mechanisms have been established to monitor and evaluate the impact of the project on the
environment? Do the indicators reflect the objectives and results of the EMP?
The project's Monitoring and Evaluation system has incorporated environmental performance indicators,
which are to be based on special studies outlined in the EMP.
6. Social:
6.1 Summarize key social issues relevant to the project objectives, and specify the project's social
development outcomes.
The project area is located in areas of high poverty. The majority of the population depend on a
combination of cropping, livestock and non-farm activity as the primary livelihood strategy. Land
degradation in the upper catchments due to deforestation, overgrazing and unsustainable agricultural
practices over time have had a negative impact on local livelihood strategies and contributed to the
incidence of poverty. Because of its high visibility, overgrazing by goats has been singled out as a cause of
land degradation and large livestock owners have come increasingly coming under pressure from the rest of
the community agriculturalists to reduce their herds and switch to other economic activities. The project
will help alleviate some of this tension by providing incentives to livestock owners to switch away from
livestock or to adopt more sustainable management practices. In addition, the project implementation plan
and other relevant material outlines conflict resolution measures inherent in the BCPCPS process to ensure
that potential conflict situations are resolved up-front and that livestock owners will participate effectively
in the development of MC plans. In some areas, local communities have protested against the reinstatement
of pasture leases to nomadic shepherds from provinces outside the project area due to the damage inflicted
by the seasonal movement of these animals on their agricultural lands. The project will ensure that nomadic
shepherds are not deprived of their legal access to pasture grounds. In the southeastern part of the project
area, significant portions of land that fall officially under the jurisdiction of the MEF are either occupied by
human settlements or are being cultivated under usufructary and other tenure claims. There are concerns
among local communities that the project will strengthen the Ministry's claim over these lands. In MCs
where such contested land claims occur, the project will work together with local communities to transfer
long term management responsibility to community members and strengthen the role of local communities
in protecting the forest lands. Conflict resolution remains at the heart of the BCPCPS process.
Social Development Outcomes: The project is expected to result in increased equity, community
- 23 -
empowerment and social inclusion. Labor intensive project interventions such as tree planting and
construction will provide poor villagers with income-earning opportunities, while improved agricultural and
forestry productivity and diversification of income sources will enhance the livelihood strategies of poor
villagers. The project's emphasis on participation in the conservation of natural resources is at the core of
successful resource management and essential for improved livelihood strategies. Project interventions at
the MC level will be demand driven primarily through the inclusion of all concerned in the development of
MC plans.
6.2 Participatory Approach: How are key stakeholders participating in the project?
Project preparation activities involved all key stakeholders: national, regional and local government
authorities; NGOs; local communities including land-owning farmers, landless farmers, and livestock
owners. The project's approach to sustainable natural resource management on a MC basis rests on the
active participation of MC communities. As part of the BCPCPS process, a team of provincial rural
services, agriculture and forestry staff will work with villagers to help MC communities identify and rank
their principal development problems and then identify and rank proposed solutions which can be
implemented under the umbrella of the project. Project implementation staff's contribution to these
consultations is limited to facilitation. The resulting MC development plan spells out proposed activities
and participation requirements of all involved. Each project agency works together with a group of
volunteers from the MC villages to determine the scale and site of interventions regarding forestry,
agricultural, and irrigation development activities included in the MC plan. The plan must be supported by
all involved and is posted in the village for review/objection by all. To assure full participation and
ownership of MC plans by concerned communities, one full year is allocated to MC plan development, with
MC implementation occurring during the following three years. During the problem and solution
identification process, particular efforts are made to encourage women's participation, so as to assure that
gender issues are mainstreamed into MC development planning and implementation. Provincial
implementing agency staff will receive training on community mobilization and other participatory
techniques.
6.3 How does the project involve consultations or collaboration with NGOs or other civil society
organizations?
Civil society organizations have shown interest in the project and were consulted during preparation. These
include the Turkish Foundation for Combating Soil Erosion, for Reforestation, and for the Protection of
Natural Habitats (TEMA). The Association for Livestock Producers was also consulted. CSOs and NGOs
are expected to play a role during project implementation in monitoring, training, and awareness raising.
6.4 What institutional arrangements have been provided to ensure the project achieves its social
development outcomes?
The project will create at the local level MC Resource Management Associations (MRMA) that will
mobilize the community to participate in project implementation and to take up responsibility for
post-project operation and maintenance. The development of participatory monitoring strategies will rely on
the involvement of these Associations. At the field level, for each province, a Provincial Project
Management Team (PMT) consisting of the participating line agencies will be formed to ensure
coordination between agencies and effective delivery of goods and services to the project beneficiaries. For
each microcatchment, a Microcatchment Implementation Team (MCIT) will be established.
6.5 How will the project monitor performance in terms of social development outcomes?
- 24 -
The project will use the findings of the Social Assessment to design and implement a comprehensive
baseline survey which will form the basis for measuring changes in perception, welfare, and incomes
associated with the project interventions. A participatory monitoring and evaluation program will be
developed to keep track of the project's overall social development outcomes. An independent M&E
program will be initiated to keep track of the safeguards issues.
7. Safeguard Policies:
7.1 Are any of the following safeguard policies triggered by the project?
Policy
Triggered
Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01, BP 4.01, GP 4.01)
Yes
No
Natural Habitats (OP 4.04, BP 4.04, GP 4.04)
Yes
No
Forestry (OP 4.36, GP 4.36)
Yes
No
Pest Management (OP 4.09)
Yes
No
Cultural Property (OPN 11.03)
Yes
No
Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20)
Yes
No
Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12)
Yes
No
Safety of Dams (OP 4.37, BP 4.37)
Yes
No
Projects in International Waters (OP 7.50, BP 7.50, GP 7.50)
Yes
No
Projects in Disputed Areas (OP 7.60, BP 7.60, GP 7.60)*
Yes
No
7.2 Describe provisions made by the project to ensure compliance with applicable safeguard policies.
Environmental Assessment (Operational Policy 4.01): A Regional Environmental Assessment (REA) to
address the potential environmental impacts of the project was prepared and reviewed by the Bank prior to
appraisal. The REA includes a review of national laws and regulations relevant to the project. The project
comprises a series of sub-projects, which are to be defined during project implementation as a result of the
participatory microcatchment planning process. The REA describes a methodology for screening MC plans
for environmental impacts, and for proposing and introducing mitigating steps, which will be handled as
part of the regular criteria-based MC selection process. When microcatchment plans are prepared,
particular mitigating steps may be triggered. The project will support the establishment of capacity within
the implementing agencies to ensure that subprojects are assessed for their potential impacts, and
environmental management plans are prepared and implemented in compliance with the national
requirements as well as Bank policy on environmental assessment (OP 4.01). The REA describes the
procedures and arrangements between the implementing agency, the environmental authority and the
borrower entities for subproject environmental screening, assessment, consultations and disclosure. Generic
EMPs for investments in different subsectors (farm ponds, feeder roads etc.) are provided as examples.
EMP recommendations are incorporated into the Project Implementation Plan and describe screening
standards, mechanisms, examples, and procedures related to Safeguards issues.
Pest Management (Operational Policy 4.09): The only sub-component which may involve the use (but not
the purchase with IBRD or GEF funds) of abiotic pesticides is the component which results in the
production of tree seedlings. The project will not be directly financing the purchase of pesticides, but the
agents contracted for nursery production may use pesticides in conjunction with tree seedling production.
The Regional EA reviewed current practice in the use of pesticides for tree seedling production in Turkey.
The REA describes 'best practice' pesticide handling in tree seedling production, and recommends that these
practices are incorporated into the contracts of sub-contracted agents. Farmers in microcatchments will be
encouraged to reduce the use of pesticides and to adopt Integrated Pest Management approaches.
- 25 -
Forestry (Operational Policy 4.36): The project fully complies with OP 4.36 on Forests as it aim to
"reduce deforestation, enhance the economic contribution of forested areas, promote afforestation, reduce
poverty and encourage economic development". It supports an integrated and participatory approach to
MC natural resource management, particularly through activities aimed at rehabilitating degraded forest
lands and income generation activities geared towards compensating communities for short term costs
associated with afforestation.
Dam Safety (Operational Policy 4.37): Under the income generation component, the project will finance
small scale irrigation, including construction of concrete ponds, diversion weirs and small dams. Highest
priority will be given to irrigation ponds at strategic places throughout the MC areas as this will allow to
reach the largest number of beneficiaries. Construction of dams will only occur in MCs with extreme water
shortage. Based on the experience with EAWP, these dams are expected to be less than 15 m high. The
implementing agency for this component, KHGM, has a long experience with the design, construction and
maintenance of over 600 small dams throughout the country. During project preparation and appraisal, it
was determined that KHGM has the relevant knowledge and experience to design, construct and maintain
small dams and that it has proper design standards to guarantee the safety of small dams. Generic dam
safety measures are being designed by qualified engineers. Operation and routine maintenance of irrigation
infrastructure will be the responsibility of beneficiary communities under the supervision and guidance of
KHGM. Under the project KHGM will provide relevant local communities with training on dam
surveillance, operation and management to assure that they can effectively carry out their responsibilities.
Although it is unlikely that the project will include construction of dams higher than 15 meters, a panel of
independent experts, consisting of a dam engineer and a hydrologist with qualifications satisfactory to the
Bank, has been designated who would be called upon to carry out an independent review of the
investigation, design, and construction of the dam and the start of operations, as spelled out in OP 4.37.
Independent experts shall ensure compliance with the large dams reporting requirements. No private land
will be acquired for the construction of dams and resettlement is therefore not an issue.
Involuntary Resettlement (Operational Policy 4.12): This OP does not apply to the project because all
dams to be built under the project will be very small and be constructed on public land located in the
mountainous upper part of watersheds. No private land will be acquired for dam construction and the dam
location will be selected such that the reservoirs will only flood rocky, barren land. No grazing or other
public land from which communities might derive a livelihood will be affected. The loan agreement will
include a covenant to this effect.
Projects in International Waterways (Operational Policy 7.50): This OP does not apply because the MCs
in which the project will provide for small scale irrigation are located in the upper mountainous areas of the
three major watersheds and water for irrigation purposes will be taken from springs or small streams in the
MCs. The springs from which water will be diverted into small concrete ponds are not directly linked to the
national rivers in the project provinces that flow into the Black Sea or Mediterranean Sea. Furthermore,
many of the springs which will be used for diversion are in fact already used by farmers and the project will
improve the storage and water use efficiency in these areas. The small streams are third or fourth level
tributaries of these national rivers. About 15 diversion schemes, irrigating about 20 ha each, will be
constructed along these small streams in each of the three national river catchments. The project's emphasis
on extension will result in reduced agriculture-based pollution of ground and surface water.
- 26 -
F. Sustainability and Risks
1. Sustainability:
This project is a follow-up project to the recently completed EAWP and has been prepared at the explicit
request of the Government. Preparation was carried out by agencies of the two implementing Ministries
(MARA and MEF) with limited support from consultants. This direct engagement of all implementing
agencies at the central and at the field level has significantly contributed to project ownership and
commitment. To further cement the cooperation of implementing agencies at the local level, the Ministry of
Environment and Forestry submitted a law to Parliament (which was subsequently passed) which
encourages collaboration between MARA, MEF, and local communities for all watershed-based activities
(Statute 6831, Article 58). In May 2003, the new Government merged the Ministries of Environment and
Forestry, creating the Ministry of Environment and Forestry. KHGM, which used to be under a State
Ministry, was transfered to MARA. These actions not only reduced the number of implementing agencies
for the project, but increased the chances of success by making the collaboration much easier. The project's
community-based participatory approach leads to the preparation of MC plans which are locally developed
and implemented (with the support of implementing agencies) rather than by implementing agencies
themselves, is expected to create a sound basis for project sustainability at the MC level. Communities will
be fully responsible for operation and maintenance of investments provided for by the project, and they
have to agree to do so as a condition of the project proceeding at a particular site. Therefore the
Government will not incur substantial additional costs at specific sites upon project completion.
The Project will create conditions for more sustainable land use through increased productivity of
non-marginal land, reduced variability in production (through terraces and small scale irrigation) and
household income (through income diversification), and improved vegetative covers rendering the land more
resistant to drought and erosion. The training and institutional strengthening in support of sustainable
natural resource management to be provided to implementing agencies at the central and field level and to
local communities under the project are expected to significantly contribute to project sustainability.
In the medium term, the critical challenge for Government will be to take the lessons learned through the
AWRP and to mainstream these types of activities into the budget process.
1a. Replicability:
Replicability is a fundamental feature of project implementation, as the approach to developing MC
management plans is replicated over the life of the project, and indeed, builds on lessons of replicability
learned in EAWP.
- 27 -
2. Critical Risks (reflecting the failure of critical assumptions found in the fourth column of Annex 1):
Risk
Risk Rating
Risk Mitigation Measure
From Outputs to Objective
Project agencies do not maintain
N
The MC planning and budgeting process
cooperation and collaboration
provides a framework for collaboration by all
implementing agencies;
All implementing agencies were closely involved
in project preparation;
The project builds on the successful
inter-agency collaboration established during
EAWP;
Implementing arrangements provide for
inter-agency supervisory committees at national
and local levels;
Target communities do not participate in
M
The MC planning and budgeting process
planning and implementation
provides a framework for collaboration by all
implementing agencies;
All implementing agencies were closely involved
in project preparation;
The project builds on the successful
inter-agency collaboration established during
EAWP;
Implementing arrangements provide for
inter-agency supervisory committees at national
and local levels;
A key criteria for MC selection is confirmed
interest and participation by communities;
MC plans are only be developed with full
participation by communities;
Participation in rehabilitation efforts with only
long term benefits and/or short term benefits is
supported by income generation activities;
The project's flexible approach will allow to
tailor interventions to the interests and needs of
each community
From Components to Outputs
Lack or untimely release of counterpart
M
Project and loan size were downscaled in
funds
agreement with SPO to secure availability of
counterpart funds;
High staff turn-over
M
Project teams at the national and local level will
be established after appraisal, however, staff
turnover has been anticipated by preparation of
and provision of training in project
methodologies throughout the project period.;
- 28 -
Inputs will not be available on time
N
Input needs are identified at end of MC planning
year, allowing for sufficient time for
procurement. Procurement of inputs will mostly
occur at local level;
Government reorganization.
S
Government reorganizations occur in many
Decentralization is on-going.
projects. Training has been provided for. The
project life is 7 years, which allows for
implementation delays due to reorganizations.
Overall Risk Rating
M
Risk Rating - H (High Risk), S (Substantial Risk), M (Modest Risk), N(Negligible or Low Risk)
3. Possible Controversial Aspects:
There are no controversial aspects.
G. Main Conditions
1. Effectiveness Condition
For the Loan: All conditions precedent to the effectiveness of the GEF Grant Agreement or the right of the
Borrower to make withdrawals thereunder, except only to the effectiveness of the Loan Agreement have
been fulfilled.
For the GEF Trust Fund Grant: All conditions precedent to the effectiveness of the Loan Agreement or the
right of the Borrower to make withdrawals thereunder, except only to the effectiveness of the GEF Trust
Fund Grant Agreement have been fulfilled.
2. Other [classify according to covenant types used in the Legal Agreements.]
l
Not later than April 30, 2005, the OU will hire two independent, professional procurement specialists
as consultants to the OU with qualifications, experience and for a term acceptable to the Bank
l
The infrastructure facilities under the Project shall be constructed only on public land where no means
of livelihood of any communities shall be affected.
l
All measures necessary for the carrying out of the Environmental Management Plan shall be taken in a
timely manner, ensuring that adequate information on the implementation of the said measures is
suitably included in the progress reports.
l
The PMG, OU, Provincial Project Management Teams and Micro-catchment Implementation Teams
are maintained throughout Project implementation in a manner satisfactory to the Bank.
l
The Project Implementation Plan (PIP) shall be maintained throughout the Project and the PIP shall not
be amended, repealed or waived without the prior approval of the Bank.
l
A mid-term review of the Project shall be carried out by November 30, 2008.
H. Readiness for Implementation
1. a) The engineering design documents for the first year's activities are complete and ready for the start
of project implementation.
1. b) Not applicable.
2. The procurement documents for the first year's activities are complete and ready for the start of
- 29 -
project implementation.
3. The Project Implementation Plan has been appraised and found to be realistic and of satisfactory
quality.
4. The following items are lacking and are discussed under loan conditions (Section G):
I. Compliance with Bank Policies
1. This project complies with all applicable Bank policies.
2. The following exceptions to Bank policies are recommended for approval. The project complies with
all other applicable Bank policies.
Peter A. Dewees
Marjory-Anne Bromhead
Andrew N. Vorkink
Team Leader
Sector Manager
Country Director
- 30 -
Annex 1: Project Design Summary
TURKEY: ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT
\
Key Performance
Data Collection Strategy
Hierarchy of Objectives
Indicators
Critical Assumptions
Sector-related CAS Goal:
Sector Indicators:
Sector/ country reports:
(from Goal to Bank Mission)
Provide support for equitable Reduced poverty in degraded
l ESW (occasional);
Turkey maintains its
human and social
watershed catchments
l Government reports and
commitment to collaborate
development
studies
with international institutions
in its efforts to reduce poverty,
improve income disparities
while managing its natural
resource base in an efficient
and environmentally friendly
manner
Provide support for strong
Progress is made in adopting
environmental management
EU environmental standards,
and disaster prevention
and introducing sound
practices for water, soil, and
forest management
GEF Operational Program:
Outcome / Impact
Indicators:
The project's objective of
· Improvement in water
· Adoption of
· Turkey maintains its
reducing nutrient discharge to quality and in water receiving nutrient-friendly farming
commitment to GEF and the
the water bodies feeding into bodies in project areas
practices by project farmers
international community in
the Black Sea are consistent
adopting measures to reduce
with GEF OP No. 8, Water
· Adoption and
· Water quality monitoring at pollution in the Black Sea
body based Operational
implementation of legislation selected sites
Program, and will help restore on EU Nitrate Directive
balance to Black Sea
ecosystems.
- 31 -
Key Performance
Data Collection Strategy
Hierarchy of Objectives
Indicators
Critical Assumptions
Project Development
Outcome / Impact
Project reports:
(from Objective to Goal)
Objective:
Indicators:
The Project's Overall
l Increase in vegetative
Baseline, mid-term and final Successful implementation of
Development Objective is to
cover in project MCs
sample surveys of stakeholder this and other related projects,
introduce sustainable natural
above baseline by 20% by practices in targeted
as required
resource management
the mid term and by 50% microcatchments
practices in 28 degraded
by closing
micro-catchments and thereby l Increase in soil fertility
raise incomes of communities
on sloping lands as
affected by resource
measured by humous
degradation.
content in project MCs
from 10% above the
baseline by the midterm
and by 20% by closing
l Increase in household
incomes in participating
MC communities by 10%
above baseline at
midterm and by 40% at
closing
l Increased public
awareness of causes,
effects and mitigating
measures of natural
resource degradation as
measured by awareness
surveys
The Global Environmental
l Adoption of
Baseline and project-end
Objective is to introduce
environment-friendly
assessment of impact of
farming practices which will
practices (e.g. crop
environmental friendly
reduce the discharge of
rotation, crop nutrient
technologies adopted
nutrient and other agricultural
management with soil
pollutants into surface and
testing, use of organic
groundwater in watersheds
matter) by 30% of
draining into the Black Sea.
farmers in 4 Black Sea
Provinces
l Adoption of improved
manure handling and
storage facilities by
55%-60% of farmers in
areas where such
practices are piloted
- 32 -
Key Performance
Data Collection Strategy
Hierarchy of Objectives
Indicators
Critical Assumptions
Output from each
Output Indicators:
Project reports:
(from Outputs to Objective)
Component:
1. Rehabilitation of
28 MC plans developed and
Annual Project reports;
Favorable actions by
Degraded Natural
fully implemented
participating institutions
Resources:
22,700 ha of forestry land
M&E reports;
regarding adoption of the
Productivity of forest,
rehabilitated
improved policy framework.
rangeland and agricultural
4,150 ha of rangeland
GIS surveys;
land in 28 MC improved.
rehabilitated
Farmers show commitment to
7,000 ha of agricultural land Household surveys;
using newly introduced
rehabilitated
environment-friendly
Agricultural statistics;
agronomic practices
EU expert reports
Development and testing of
Packages of practices
package of investments and
successfully tested, and
practices for reducing nutrient adopted by at least 65 % of
discharge into water-bodies.
farmers in pilot areas
2. Income Generation:
3,900 ha of irrigated land
Project progress reports
Farmers actively participate in
Qualifying farmers provided
developed
income
with training and materials to
generation/diversification
engage in activities to raise
495 ha of terraced agriculture
activities and extension staff
and/or diversify farm income
are adequately equipped to
At least 60 % of farmers in
introduce them
MCs provided with training
in new agriculture based
income geneneration /
diversification activities.
168 dairy cattle units
improved
169 dairy sheep units
improved
10 fishponds constructed
80 greenhouses developed
3. Strengthening Policy and Water quality monitoring
Water quality monitoring
Regulatory Capacity:
program developed and
reports
Policy documents and
implemented
regulatory provisions drafted.
Code for good agricultural
practices completed
Relevant regulatory
documents
TA and training in support of
organic farming and
marketing of organic products Project progress reports
was provided as planned.
- 33 -
4. Public Awareness,
Capacity Building &
Replication Strategy:
Responsibility of local
Public awareness campaign
Awareness strategies and
community enhanced through for project implemented
documentation
shared resource planning
activities
Public awareness campaign
for reduction of agriculture
based pollution implemented
Increased awareness of threats Replication strategy for
to pollution of national and
nutrient discharge reduction Replication strategy report
trans-boundary water bodies
developed.
from animal waste and
agricultural chemicals.
Farmers provided with
increased access to marketing
and technical information.
5. Project management and
support services
Effective project management Effective M&E system
Project progress reports
system
established. Timely
monitoring and reporting as
planned.
Increased technical and
Research result reports
community development
Staff trained as planned
capacity of implementing
agency staff
Applied research projects
completed
Project Components /
Inputs: (budget for each
Project reports:
(from Components to
Sub-components:
component)
Outputs)
1. Rehabilitation of
$ 23.5 million
Supervision reports;
· Counter-part funds are
Degraded Natural Resources
available in a timely manner
Quarterly and Annual project
a. Forest Land
reports;
· Farmers actively participate
b. Rangeland
in planning and
c. Agricultural Land
Financial management reports implementation
d. Environment-friendly
Agricultural Practices
· Project agencies maintain
active cooperation and
collaboration
2. Income Generating
$ 17.57 million
- 34 -
Activities
a. Small-scale Irrigation
b. Agricultural Terraces
c. Forest Activities
d. Crop & Farm Enterprise
Diversification
e. Livestock improvement
f. Greenhouse development
g. Fish pond construction
3. Strengthening Policy and US$ 0.28 million
Regulatory Capacity:
a. Nitrates directive
b. Code for Good Ag.
Practices
c. Institutional support for
organic farming
4. Awareness raising,
US$ 1.06 million
Capacity Building &
Replication Strategy
a. Public awareness raising
and replication strategy
b. Capacity building
5. Project management,
US$ 2.50 million
monitoring, and support
services
a. Project administration
b. Support services
- 35 -
Annex 2: Detailed Project Description
TURKEY: ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT
Estimated Project Component costs are Indicative Project Costs, and include IBRD, GEF,
Government, and Local community inputs.
By Component:
Project Component 1 - US$23.50 million
Rehabilitation of Degraded Natural Resources
This component consists of a menu of rehabilitative measures to be implemented by village communities
under the direction of the Ministry of Environment and Forestry and the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Affairs. The component's primary objective is to protect degraded areas from further degradation, erosion
and pollution. Activities are focused around four sub-components as outlined below and will be
implemented in 28 microcatchments in 6 provinces. The activities include a specific program for piloting
actions on reducing nutrient discharge to the water bodies that will be implemented in the lower parts of
watersheds of four participating Black Sea provinces using GEF funds
1a: Regeneration of Forestry Land: The objective of the sub-component is to put in place measures to
conserve soils and vegetation in watershed catchments, and to introduce mechanical and biological
approaches toward catchment conservation, management, and rehabilitation in forestry land. Physical
measures will involve the establishment of terraces which will in turn be stabilized by tree planting. Where
appropriate, natural regeneration will be encouraged. Riverbanks will be protected by the establishment of
gallery plantations. Extensive natural stands of oak will be rehabilitated by enrichment plantings and
enhanced coppice management. Silvicultural treatments will be introduced to improve the quality of
degraded high forests. To gain a better understanding of the potential contribution of non-timber forest
products (NTFPs) to local economic development, the sub-component will also finance an inventory of
locally important NTFPs with a view towards developing and introducing locally-derived management
plans.
1b: Rangeland Rehabilitation. This sub-component will provide resources to rehabilitate and improve the
carrying capacity of degraded range-lands. This will include the adoption of sustainable rangeland planning
and management principles, including limiting the number of animals admitted to a particular grazing area
and fencing off areas which need protection. The project would provide for fencing to control grazing
access; sward enrichment (seeding and fertilizing); removal of stones and unpalatable plants from
rangelands; construction of shelters; water points and salt licks and, land rehabilitation.
1c: Rehabilitation of Agricultural Land. This sub-component will focus on three main areas, including
fallow reduction, improved use of marginal land and, river bank protection. The fallow reduction program
aims at introducing edible and feed legumes to increase moisture retention and soil fertility, while
decreasing erosion and improving land productivity. The project will raise farmers' awareness of the
damaging effects of growing annual crops on steeply sloped marginal land and promote the adoption of
more suitable production techniques for such land, such as contour tilling and replacement of food crops
with perennial crops and bushy plants with market potential. River bank rehabilitation will seek to halt
river bank erosion which result in flooding and destruction of adjacent agricultural lands. The main activity
will be river bank strengthening with rocks and gabions. Terracing will be introduced on privately owned
arable land where continued agricultural production would result in erosion and where it is difficult to
capture soil moisture.
- 36 -
1d: Environmentally Friendly Agricultural Practices. Under this sub-component, MARA would promote
the adoption of improved practices including organic farming, crop production practices, appropriate
fertilization and Integrated Pest Management, through advice and demonstrations in the 28
microcatchments. In the lower parts of watersheds of the four participating Black Sea provinces,
MARA/MEF would promote the following practices, geared to reducing nutrient discharge:(i) manure
management; (ii) nutrient management; (iii) organic farming; and (iv) water/soil quality monitoring
program to measure the impact of these practices on nutrient discharge. In the area of manure management,
the project would initially support the piloting of improved community-level and on-farm livestock manure
storage facilities, improved manure collection and application to agricultural land. For poultry units, the
project would primarily provide technical assistance to help enforce compliance with existing legislation
and to develop a more efficient system for manure collection and utilization. Following an impact
evaluation of these pilots, project activities would be extended on a wider scale as of the third project year.
In the area of nutrient management, the project provide farmers with technical advice on nutrient
management on the basis of laboratory tested soil samples. In the area of organic farming, the project
would support production testing, promotion and marketing advice for organic produce. In the area of
integrated pest management the project would provide farmers with IPM recommendations for various
crops tailored to their specific production area and the establishment of computerized early pest warning
systems.
The project would finance the following investments under Component 1: civil works associated with
implementing catchment rehabilitation activities outlined in micro catchment management plans (e.g.
terraces, riverbank strengthening works) and manure storage facilities; equipment (e.g. manure handling
equipment, laboratory equipment, computers and software) in support of manure and nutrient management,
organic farming, water and soil quality monitoring ; agricultural inputs and fencing in support of forest,
range and agricultural land rehabilitation, training and technical assistance and operating costs associated
with GEF supported activities to reduce nutrient discharge into the Black Sea.
Project Component 2 - US$17.57 million
Income Generation
Under this component target communities would be offered a menu of activities designed to raise household
incomes for those who participate in resource conservation activities supported under Component 1.
Income generating activities are designed to provide participating communities with incentives to undertake
conservation efforts even if they incur short of medium term costs (e.g. short term closure of range lands;
permanent closure of protected forest lands) or if benefits can only be reaped in the long run (afforestation).
The menu offered to communities will vary in accordance with agro-ecological and socio-economic
conditions of each village, as well as with farmers' resources and needs. The component includes the
following sub-components:
2a: Small Scale Irrigation. Small-scale irrigation (which was the most popular activity under EAWP, and
is expected to continue to be so) involves development of one or more water sources, a conveyance system
to the irrigation area and a distribution system to the boundaries of the farmers plots. With the objective of
raising family incomes through production of high value crops, the project will provide for the construction
of small scale irrigation facilities including:
l
Diversion constructions (weirs) providing controlled diversion from the rivers and varying according to
the river bed and resource conditions;
l
Concrete irrigation channels where field conditions permit, providing conveyance without pressure with
minimum loss of water;
l
Piped water conveyance structures in rough ground where open channel construction is not possible or
- 37 -
where water is conveyed from source under pressure;
l
Farm reservoirs comprising small dams between 7.00 15.00 m in height and storing winter and spring
flows from the watershed.
l
Farm ponds where the water flow rates is less than 20 l/s.
Works will include exploitation of as yet unexploited water sources as well as improvement of existing
small scale irrigation schemes. During the MC planning phase a thorough investigation of all potential
water sources in a given MC will be carried out. First priority will be given to the development of irrigation
ponds located at strategic places through the microcatchment areas, so that a larger segment of the village
population can benefit. Streams will have second priority. Only in extreme water short catchment areas
without springs and only seasonal streams, will the development of small dams be taken into consideration.
It is estimated that the total command area in the 28 project MCs will be about 3,000. Where suitable
small-scale freshwater fisheries may be developed in selected MCs.
2b: Agricultural Production on Terraces. The project would establish terraces on farmland where
continued practicing of agriculture would result in erosion and where capturing of soil moisture is
problematic. Technical advice and where necessary seeds for demonstrations will be provided for planting
alternative irrigated and rainfed crops (e.g. fodder crops, fruits and vegetables) on terraced land.
2c: Forestry Based Income Diversification: This Sub-component seeks to help forest communities make
better use of forest resources while conserving the resource base and would include participatory tree
planting and grafting of wild trees in forest land.
2d: Farm Enterprise Diversification: This sub-component seeks to help farmers diversify and raise their
agriculture based income through the introduction of high-value non traditional niche and forage crops,
grafting of wild trees, tree planting on field boundaries, apiculture and small scale agro-processing. The
project would provide for demonstrations, technical support and marketing advise to help farmers shift to
the production of non-traditional high value niche crops such as lavender, thyme, raspberry, rosehip,
orchid, triticale, organic products, pharmaceutical plants or seedlings for ornamental plants. Grafting of
wild fruit and nut trees aims to improve the quality and quantity of fruits and would be supported through
the provision of grafting materials, technical organization of and grafting by experienced grafters and
farmer training. Greenhouse horticulture may be supported. Apiculture allows to raise farmer incomes
without putting additional pressure on the land and is in particular demand by particularly landless farmers
and goat keepers. To increase the durability and value added of crops, farmers would be introduced to
simple agro-processing methods which meet food safety and quality standards necessary to sell processed
products in urban markets. In an effort to reduce household dependence on the natural resource base,
improved breeds of cattle and sheep may be provided.
Under project Component 2, the project will finance civil works for irrigation and agricultural terraces;
simple agro-processing equipment, farmer training in technical aspects of income raising activities,
marketing advice and operating costs associated with implementing agency staffs' operational travel.
Project Component 3 - US$ 0.28 million
Strengthening Policy and Regulatory Capacity
This Component aims at strengthening the policy and regulatory capacity towards meeting EU standards in
the area of agricultural pollution. It will consist of the following three sub-components:
3a: Support for Implementation of the EU Nitrates Directive. The project would support the monitoring
of nitrate levels at selected sites in the four Black Sea provinces as a first step in implementing the EU
- 38 -
Nitrates Directive. The objective would be to monitor areas of intensive agriculture in the watersheds of the
Kizilirmak and Yesilirmak Rivers and identify "vulnerable zones".
3b: Development and Promotion of a Code of Good Agricultural Practices. The project would provide
technical assistance for the preparation of a Code of Good Agricultural Practices in line with EU
requirements. The preparation and ultimate application of such a code is a mandatory part of the EU
Nitrates Directive program.
3c: Institutional Support for Organic Farming. The project would provide technical assistance to
support production and marketing of organically produced products.
Under Component 3 the project would finance technical assistance and training in support of these
activities, as well as equipment and operating costs to monitor water and soil quality.
Project Component 4 - US$1.06 million
Public Awareness, Capacity Building and Replication Strategy
Under Component 4 the project would finance public relations campaigns and informational materials,
training, and technical assistance as well as computer and other equipment for the rural tele-centers. This
component will have the following three sub-components:
4a: Public Awareness in MC Development: This sub-component is intended to help raise awareness
amongst target beneficiaries and other stakeholders about the program approach and terms of participation
in MC development. The goal will be to increase transparency in program implementation and to
empower beneficiaries to demand program services. With regard to the four Black Sea provinces, the
sub-component would provide for public awareness activities at the provinical and national levels, as well
as for future replication of similar activities in Turkey and Black Sea riparian countries.
Project Component 5 - US$2.50 million
Project Management and Support Services
Through 4 sub-components, Component 5 would finance technical assistance, training, office equipment
and incremental operating costs associated with project management:
5a: Project Administration. This sub-component will provide resources for logistical, operational, and
support services, as well as financial services necessary to ensure the efficient administration of project
activities and resources by central and provincial project management units.
5b: Support Services: This sub-component will fund extension, technical assistance and local and regional
visits for project managers, technical project staff and farmers, surveys, and technical designs for
monitoring and evaluation.
5c: Monitoring and Evaluation: The project provides for upgrading the existing M&E system.
5d: Fund for Applied Research and Technology Dissemination: The project would finance short-term,
small-scale applied research. This would include soil, water, crop, natural resources management,
agricultural pollution, livestock and forestry applied research.
Implementation Arrangements
Project activities will be implemented by the relevant General Directorates of the Ministry of Environment
- 39 -
and Forestry, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs as follows:
NAME OF AGENCY
RELATED UNITS
PROJECT COMPONENT
Central
Ministry of Environment GD of Afforestation and Erosion control l overall planning and
and Forestry (MEF)
(AGM)
coordination/budgeting
l soil conservation by
afforestation
l protection and improvement
of poor and degraded soil
l gallery plantations
l rehabilitation of rangelands in
the forest area
l participatory afforestation
GD of Forestry (OGM)
l rehabilitation of oak and
degraded forest
l inventory of non-wood forest
products
GD of Forest and Village Relations
l livestock improvement
(ORKÖY)
l freshwater fisheries
development
l greenhouse development
GD of Environmental Management
l Construction standards for
(CYGM)
manure handling facilities
l stream water quality
monitoring
l public awareness and
replication strategy for
nutrient discharge reduction
Ministry of Agriculture and GD of Development and Agricultural
l range land rehabilitation
Rural Affairs (MARA)
Production (TÜGEM)
outside the forest area
l agricultural land
rehabilitation
l agricultural based income
raising activities
l demonstrations
GD of Protection and Control (KKGM) l manure management,
l nutrient management,
l organic farming
l water & soil quality
monitoring
l nitrate level monitoring
l code of good ag. practice
l public awareness campaign
l demonstrations
GD of Rural Services (KHGM)
l protection and rehabilitation
of agricultural land
l small scale irrigation and
irrigation facilities, including
farm ponds
l riverbank and creek
rehabilitation
l wet and dry terracing
- 40 -
NAME OF AGENCY
RELATED UNITS
PROJECT COMPONENT
Provincial Ministry of Environment At the time of Appraisal, a
l Overall planning and
and Forestry (MEF)
reorganization of regional and
coordination/budgeting
provincial directorates was underway
l soil conservation by
with the aim of more fully
afforestation
decentralizing implementation
l protection and
responsibilities.
improvement of degraded
soil
l gallery plantations
l rehabilitation of range
lands in the forest area
l participatory afforestation
l inventory of non-wood
forest products
l wild tree grafting
l rehabilitation oak and
degraded forests
l nutrient management
l stream water quality
monitoring
l public awareness and
replication strategy for
nutrient discharge
reduction
l livestock improvement
l freshwater fisheries
development
l greenhouse development
Ministry of Agriculture
At the time of Appraisal, a
l rehabilitation of
and Rural Affairs
reorganization of regional and
rangelands outside of
(MARA)
provincial directorates was underway
forest areas
with the aim of more fully
l rehabilitation of agr.
decentralizing implementation
land
responsibilities.
l ag. based income
raising activities
l manure management,
l nutrient management,
l organic farming
l MC water & soil
quality monitoring
l nitrate level monitoring
l code of good ag.
practice
l public awareness
campaign
l demonstrations
l small scale irrigation
l riverbank rehab.
l terracing
- 41 -
Annex 3: Estimated Project Costs
TURKEY: ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT
Local
Foreign
Total
Project Cost By Component
US $million
US $million
US $million
Component 1: Rehabilitation of Degraded Natural Resources
18.55
1.73
20.28
Component 2: Income Generating Activities
13.80
1.04
14.84
Component 3: Strengthening Policy and Regulatory Capacity
0.18
0.07
0.25
torwards Meeting EU Standards
Component 4: Awareness Raising, Capacity Building, and
0.78
0.23
1.01
Replication Strategy
Component 5: Project Management and Support Services
2.16
0.29
2.45
Total Baseline Cost
35.47
3.36
38.83
Physical Contingencies
3.10
0.20
3.30
Price Contingencies
2.58
0.20
2.78
1
Total Project Costs
41.15
3.76
44.91
Front-end fee
0.20
0.20
Total Financing Required
41.15
3.96
45.11
1 Identifiable taxes and duties are 3.58 (US$m) and the total project cost, net of taxes, is 34.53 (US$m). Therefore, the project cost sharing ratio is 57.92% of
total project cost net of taxes.
- 42 -
Annex 4: Cost Benefit Analysis Summary
TURKEY: ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT
Summary of Benefits and Costs:
The analysis takes a holistic view of the project impacts and interventions. While some interventions may
have higher or lower internal rates of return (IRR) when considered in isolation, they complement each
other and will yield full benefits within the context of integrated microcatchment MC rehabilitation.
Accordingly, the present cost benefit analysis has been carried out in four stages: (i) estimation of net
financial benefits of project activities aiming at natural resource rehabilitation and erosion control,
intensification and diversification of farming systems, and employment generation; (ii) construction of
representative MC models (financial); (iii) economic analysis at the project level (28 MCs); and (iv)
sensitivity analysis to test the robustness of the results. This analysis indicates that the proposed
combination of interventions should be attractive from the financial point of view to target communities in
MCs at various altitudes, but that the financial performance of MC development plans largely depends on
the balance between rehabilitative and income generating interventions. Details of this last analysis are not
presented in this annex, but are available in the project files.
Net Financial Benefits of Project Activities
Natural Resource Rehabilitation and Erosion Control
The benefits of rehabilitation and conservations measures have been measured in two steps: (i) income
streams from rehabilitative investments (e.g. additional wood production) and, (ii) benefits from reduced
erosion as measured by reduced soil loss, higher agricultural yields and reduced flood damage.
Direct Income from Rehabilitative Investments: Among the protective project interventions, only
participatory planting, range land management and range land rehabilitation are expected to yield tangible
benefits to the communities, with the benefits in most cases only accruing after 5-10 years. Given their
costs to participating communities, it is essential that these protective activities be complemented by income
generating activities which will allow MC communities, in particular those persons who will lose from
protective interventions, to derive and increase their household income from alternative sources. Table 1
below summarizes financial benefits of rehabilitative measures. It must be noted, however, that while the
main benefits of these rehabilitative measures can not be captured by measuring direct incremental income
generated from these investments, the main benefit of these investments is the rehabilitation and restoration
of the resource base in the MC area. This is a pre-condition for the generation of benefits of essentially all
other project benefits and furthermore has significant additional environmental benefits some of which are
difficult to quantify, while others will be quantified in the next section.
Table 1: Summary of Benefits from Forestry and Range Land Rehabilitation
First year in which
Year in which full benefits
Incremental benefits/ha at full
positive net benefits
are reaped
maturity
IRR
occur
(TL mil/ha)
25 yrs
Participatory planting
5
20
5,231
Range land management
5
6
19
-0.2%
Range land rehabilitation
6
8
19
-2.9%
Benefits from Erosion Control: The main expected benefits from erosion control activities are (i)
reduction in surface erosion induced soil loss; (ii) progressive restoration of higher quality vegetative cover
with sustained higher productivity of treated areas (both in rangeland and forest areas) as well downstream
agricultural areas; (iii) reduced flood risk in the MCs and downstream and reduced impact of remaining
floods on villages and agricultural areas; (iv) reduced sedimentation in canals and dam reservoirs; (v)
- 43 -
increased infiltration of rain water and thus water content of forestry and agricultural land leading to
greater availability of water for animal and human consumption and higher soil moisture; (vi) improved
environmental conditions due to increased vegetative cover leading to better conditions for wildlife, carbon
sequestration and more humid local microclimates; (vii) reduced cost of water treatment for human
consumption downstream as a result of reduced water turbidity.
Methodological difficulties and absence of data, prevent the quantification of all benefits. The present
cost-benefit analysis includes a quantification of the benefits from reduced soil loss, progressive
improvement of soil quality and thus agricultural yields and of reduced flood control costs. The
quantification of benefits from reduced siltation of dams was not included, as the project area only affects
less than 1 percent of the catchment area of concerned dams.
A conservative estimate is that about 1.5 million tons of sediments are lost to erosion annually in the 28
project MCs1. Results elsewhere in Turkey showed that erosion decreases from 16,000 tons per km2 of
fallow (nude soils) to 1,360 tons on pastures and to negligible values on forest land. Therefore afforestation
activities could reduce erosion by up to 100 percent. Under the project, the combination of forestry and
rangeland management and improvement activities has been assumed to reduce erosion by 80 percent.
However, this will be slow to materialize and this result is assumed to materialize progressively after 5
years and to reach full potential after 10 years. Then, an estimated 1.5 million tons of soil which would
have been eroded without project will be "saved" from erosion. To quantify the value of this reduction in
soil loss, soil losses in tons were translated into soil losses in area, with one 1 ton of soil loss translating
into 3m2 of lost soil3. The cost of this loss was valued at the average net return of land subject to erosion in
the project area, which is about US$ 68/ha per year. As a consequence, one ton of sediment lost,
corresponding to a permanent loss of 3 m2, would lead to an annual productivity loss of US$ 0.021. A loss
of 1.5 million tons of sediments corresponds to an annual loss of about US$ 31,000. However, the loss of
soil being permanent, these productivity losses would cumulate over time and reach US$ 310,000 per year
after 10 years. Under the project, erosion would progressively be reduced by 80 percent and it is estimated
that in PY 20, annual savings would reach 400 billion TL, or US$ 300,000 per year.
Effects on yields: Both farmers and technical services recognize that erosion is negatively affecting
agricultural yields in the project area. However, no reliable data exists for Turkey which would allow to
document this impact. In the absence of specific data related to the project area or Turkey, the following
very conservative assumption has been applied: productivity would decrease by 1 percent every year
without project as a result of continuing erosion; these losses would progressively be reduced and yields
would stabilize after 5 years as a result of erosion control activities. This very conservative assumption
would lead to an annual saving of about 380 billionTL (US$ 280 thousand) after 10 years.
Flood Control. Damage caused by floods averages about US$ 1.12 million per year in the three major
watersheds concerned by the project. Reduced erosion has a great impact on the frequency and scope of
floods by sharply reducing the peaks of water flow both through increased infiltration and slowing down
the flow where vegetation cover is restored. However, at an average area of 40km2, the 28 MCs covered by
the project account for only about 2.4 percent of the area of these watersheds. Therefore the reduction of
erosion resulting from project implementation has been assumed to progressively reach 50 percent of 2.4
percent of these damages which can be attributed to the 28 MCs forming the project area. After 10 years,
annual savings would reach about US$ 30,000.
Benefits of Agricultural Intensification and Diversification
- 44 -
Crop Budgets: Crop budgets were developed for each of the main income generation activities to be
promoted under the project. The following assumptions underlie these budgets: (i) budgets were prepared in
TL and farm gate prices were used; (ii) for perennial crops, a projection over 20 years was done, with full
production assumed to gradually occur between year 3 and year 10, depending on the crop; (iii) family
labor was considered as a financial cost, hired labor (assumed to represent 10 percent in the case of annual
crops and 30 percent for perennial crops) was valued at TL 6 million per labor day. Net annual benefits per
hectare were calculated for annual crops and average annual incomes (over 20 years) and financial rates of
return (FRR) for the perennial crops. Detailed results of these crop budgets are available in the Financial
and Economic Analysis Project Preparation Report in the project files.
Fallow Reduction: An activity model for fallow reduction shows that the average net annual income per ha
from agriculture would more than double from a very low 213 million TL to 461 million TL . It is
estimated that the incremental availability of fodder for animal feeding could reach a total of 4,585 tons at
full development, if fallow reduction is implemented on 1,834 ha, leading to incremental annual benefits of
TL 334 billion as of year seven.
Small Scale Irrigation: The project would provide for the development of about 3,940 ha of newly
irrigated land which would allow to convert from the current extensive production of cereals to a more
intensive cultivation of higher value crops. Cost-benefit models for two typical irrigation schemes were
prepared (irrigation pond covering 5 ha or irrigated land, irrigation dam covering 30 ha). Financial rates of
return (calculated over 20 years) are estimated at 30 percent and 27 percent for irrigation pond and
irrigation dam respectively. From the farmers' viewpoint, the investment is even more profitable as they
would have to bare only a small share of the investment cost estimated at 20 percent. The financial rates of
return from their viewpoint are estimated at respectively 92 percent and 81 percent. Further details are
available in the project file.
Impact On Animal Husbandry: The project will provide grant financing for dairy cow and sheep keeping
activities by inhabitants of project MCs who agree to arrangements for improved range management, to
compensate them for their losses from reduced goat flock sizes. The support will include the provision of
two improved cows in calf or of 30 sheep and one ram, and support towards the construction or
improvement of a 5-animal stall or sheep pens. Experience suggests that former goat keepers prefer to first
switch to sheep keeping rather than shifting to cow keeping which may require more skills. Nevertheless
the project will make sure that the number of sheep introduced through this activity will not lead to
overgrazing. Furthermore, in line with the spirit of coordinated MC planning, the project will require that
the farmers it supports will also be engaged in fodder crop production supported by TÜGEM to ensure that
their livestock does not pose a threat to rangeland. Support is envisaged for 168 dairy cow units (i.e. 2
improved cows per unit) and 169 dairy sheep units (i.e. 30 sheep and 1 ram per unit). The average support
per investment will be about USD 7,850 for dairy sheep and USD 10,800 for dairy cows. ORKÖY
envisages about 50% in-cash or in-kind (or some combination thereof )co-funding from beneficiaries.
Summary of Benefits and Costs:
For purposes of the project's overall cost benefit analysis the entire project area (28 MCs) has been
considered and treated as a giant MC in which all project activities are implemented over a 7 year period.
The phasing of physical activities was multiplied by net economic returns per unit as calculated in the
economic activity models and crop budgets. The costs of all other activities for which no benefits were
estimated were included in the calculations. Financial prices were replaced by economic values in the crop
budgets and activity models. Another major difference between financial and economic models is that the
latter attribute a value to the economic cost of family labour -- not the case in the financial models.
- 45 -
The economic rate of return (ERR) was calculated over a 25 years period (as most of the activities are
expected to have a long term impact) . The ERR including all project benefits is 18.6 percent and the net
present value (NPV) calculated with an annual discount rate of 12 percent is 20.7 trillion TL, or US$ 15.3
million. Benefits from irrigation activities make up a large part of the IRR and NPV. In Project Year 20,
they account for about 60 percent of the entire economic benefits, while benefits from agricultural activities
account for about 18 percent and benefits from erosion reduction for about 22 percent.
Main Assumptions:
1.
This estimate is based on an observed annual average sedimentation of 453 tons/km2 in the rivers
of the three major watersheds to which the participating 28 MCs belong and the assumption that
the project MCs contribute to these sediments in proportion to their area (average area of 40 km2
per MC). This is a conservative estimate, as erosion is above average in the selected MCs and the
observed sediments are averages over 30 years which do not take into account recent increases in
erosion levels.
2.
Status Report: "Erosion in Turkey" prepared in Feb 1998 in the context of a Forestry Sector
Review jointly undertaken by the MoF and the WB2.
3.
Estimates are based on average soil depth of 20cm and average soil density of 1 m3=1.665tons, see
Financial and Economic Analysis Project Preparation Report (in project files) for details.
Sensitivity analysis / Switching values of critical items:
The sensitivity analysis is summarized in Table 2 and shows that the economic performance is solid with
respect to possible variation in the benefits and costs materialized.
Table 2.
ERR
NPV (US$ million)
Base Case
18.6%
15.3
Costs increased by 20%
16.7%
12.0
Benefits decreased by 20%
16.3%
7.6
Cost +20% and Benefits 20%
14.4%
5.7
Benefits delayed by 2 years
18.3%
13.7
The sensitivity of the net project benefits to the materialization of two key project benefits was also tested.
First, an estimation of economic benefits if the impact from conservation activities on erosion would not
materialize. The results indicate that the project would still be economically feasible even in the absence of
erosion reduction benefits. Second, to show the importance of irrigation development in the economic
viability of the project, the irrigation sub-component was subtracted from the analysis. Without irrigation
benefits, the project would just barely be economically viable. Results are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3.
ERR
NPV (US$ million)
Base Case
18.6%
15.3
Erosion Control Benefits not Materializing
18.1%
13.7
No Irrigation Sub-component
12.3%
0.4
- 46 -
Annex 5: Financial Summary
TURKEY: ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT
Years Ending
December 31
IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Total Financing
Required
Project Costs
Investment Costs
2.7
6.9
8.0
8.1
6.6
4.1
1.8
Recurrent Costs
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.4
Total Project Costs
3.1
7.5
8.8
9.1
7.8
5.5
3.2
Front-end fee
0.2
Total Financing
3.3
7.5
8.8
9.1
7.8
5.5
3.2
Financing
IBRD/IDA
1.0
3.6
4.0
4.1
3.6
2.5
1.1
Government
0.8
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.1
0.7
Central
0.6
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.5
1.0
0.5
Provincial
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
Co-financiers
Local Communities
0.2
0.9
1.4
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.2
Global Environment
1.3
1.3
1.6
1.5
0.9
0.3
0.2
Facility
Total Project Financing
3.3
7.5
8.8
9.1
7.8
5.5
3.2
Main assumptions:
- 47 -
Annex 6(A): Procurement Arrangements
TURKEY: ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT
Procurement
Procurement of goods, works and technical services financed by the World Bank and GEF will be done in
accordance with the World Bank Guidelines: Procurement under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits (issued in
January 1995, Revised January and August 1996, September 1997 and January 1999).
Consulting services and technical assistance financed by the World Bank and GEF will be done in
accordance with the World Bank Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants by the World Bank
Borrowers (issued in January 1997, revised September 1997, January 1999 and May 2002).
The Bank's Standard Bidding Documents and Request for Proposals will be used. Works, goods and
services which are not financed by the Bank would be procured in accordance with the arrangements agreed
between the financier and the Government. A General Procurement Notice will be published in the
Development Business of the United Nations after the Loan negotiations completed.
II. Implementation:
There will be two Ministries responsible for the implementation of this project, which are namely:
1.
Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MEF)
l
General Directorate of Afforestation and Erosion Control (AGM)
l
General Directorate of Forestry (OGM)
l
General Directorate of Environmental Management (CYGM)
l
General Directorate of Forestry and Village Relations (ORKOY)
2.
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA)
l
General Directorate of Agricultural Production and Development (TUGEM)
l
General Directorate of Protection and Control (KKGM)
l
General Directorate of Rural Services (KHGM)
Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MEF) will be the coordinating agency for the proposed project and
play key role in the implementation of the project.
Project Management Group (PMG) will be responsible for overall project management. A Project
Coordinator will head the PMG and membership will comprise representatives of all Ministries/central
agencies (implementing agencies) listed above having project activities. The PMG will be responsible for: i)
overall project coordination; ii) review and approval of microcatchments plans; and iii) annual budget
proposals for all project activities. An Operations Unit (OU) will serve the PMG. Within each
implementing agency, a Project Management Unit (PMU) at the central level will oversee project activities.
At the provincial level, Provincial Project Management Team made up of line agencies will be responsible
for managing project implementation. The OU will be located at the premises of MEF-AGM and will have
3 sub-units to the satisfaction of the Bank: i) Financial Management; ii) Procurement; and iii) Monitoring
and Evaluation.
Procurement Sub-Unit (PSU): will have four procurement specialists (including one primarily for handling
- 48 -
GEF expenditures) and will be responsible from coordinating all procurement activities of the project, one
of them being the leader of the procurement team.
Financial Management Sub-Unit (FMSU): will have a financial manager, an accountant and a
disbursement officer and will be responsible from all project financial management activities.
Monitoring and Evaluation Sub-Unit (MESU): will have two M&E specialists, employed for at least four
months a year (one of whom will focus on GEF activities), and a secretary/interpreter.
All procurement activities within the scope of Project will be under the responsibility of OU-PSU, where at
least two professional (individual consultant/one of them will primarly work for GEF) procurement
specialists will be employed. It was agreed that procurement related decisions that will be taken at the
related implementing agency will be discussed at the Project Management Group (PMG) and implemented
by the Bidding Committees which will comprise of experienced technical staff from related implementing
agency as well as procurement staff from OU. If needed, update(s) in the procurement plan will be
proposed by the implementing agencies, and after the approval of the PMG/OU the updated procurement
plans will be send to the Bank's clearance. Any revision in the procurement plans shall not be valid without
Bank's prior concurrence and no-objection (please see paragraph IV below). Procurement activities that
will be managed at the provincial level will be closely supervised by relevant central agency and OU, and
the field offices will take no procurement action, unless the decision is approved by OU.
The implementing agencies listed above will be primarily responsible in preparation of the procurement
documents such as advertisements, scope of works, terms of references, technical specifications, delivery
sites, drawings, bill of quantities etc..In order to apply the Bank procurement procedures and rules
properly, Implementing Agencies will obtain the participation of the PSU procurement experts when they
prepare the bidding documents. The PSU procurement experts will also help the implementing agencies
during the evaluation stage of the expression of interests and bids/proposals, establishing short lists,
contract negotiations (consultants services only) and contract preparations in terms of Bank's procurement
procedures.
All the Bank financed procurement activities will be performed under the management of the OU-PSU, and
without the clearance of the OU-PSU on the procurement activities no procurement will be performed. The
procurement documents which are subject to prior review of the Bank will be send to the Bank through
OU-PSU (please see paragraph IV below).
The contracts will be signed by the relevant Implementing Agencies after all clearances from the OU-PSU
and the Bank are obtained. The cop(ies)y of the contracts will be send to the OU-PSU for their records and
payment purposes. The contracts will be executed by the relevant Implementing Agencies. The contract
payments will be done by OU against evidences and invoices submitted by the Implementing Agencies.
MEF and MARA have field units in all of the 81 provinces. The project area includes 6 provinces in the
Central Anatolia and Black Sea Regions of Turkey and the field units of these ministries will be responsible
for tendering small construction works and procuring small size of locally available goods. However, they
have a limited experience and no training in the Bank's procurement procedures. Whenever required, the
provincial project staff will be trained by OU-PSU specialists regarding the procurement activities.
All bidding documents for the procurement of Bank financed goods, works and services shall be prepared
by the implementing agencies with the participation of OU-PSU experts. At the provincial level the
responsible team of the line agencies will prepare the small size procurement documents under the
- 49 -
supervision of central management of the relevant agencies and PSU. All the procurement documents will
be cleared by OU-PSU before any action.
A Project Launch Workshop shall be held after the effective date of the Loan/Trust Fund Agreement to
reaffirm the PSU's and implementation units' understanding of the procurement procedures under the
Anatolia Watershed Rehabilitation Project.
III. Procurement Arrangements:
The following procurement methods will be applicable for the procurement of goods, works and services.
(a) Procurement of Goods:
The goods to be financed by the Bank include the following: agricultural seeds; fruit tree seedlings; seeds
for forest trees; forest tree seedlings; greenhouses; fishponds; dairying; breeding;fertilizer; bees; beehives
and kits laboratory; field, office, survey equipment and machinery.
International Competitive Bidding (ICB): These contracts will be procured through ICB in accordance
with the Bank's Procurement Guidelines.
National Competitive Bidding (NCB): The contracts for the procurement of locally available goods
estimated to cost less than US$300,000 per contract will be procured through NCB in accordance with the
Bank's Procurement Guidelines.
International Shopping (IS): The contracts for the procurement of readily available off-shelf goods
estimated to cost less than US$ 100,000 per contract will be procured through IS on the basis of at least
three quotations obtained from suppliers from two eligible source countries in accordance with the Bank's
Procurement Guidelines.
National Shopping (NS): The contracts for the procurement of locally available off-shelf goods estimated
to cost less than US$ 50,000 per contract will be procured through NS on the basis of at least three
quotations obtained from domestic suppliers in accordance with the Bank's Procurement Guidelines.
Direct Contracting (DC): The procurement of goods, which (i) would be an extension of an existing
contract, (ii) must be purchased from the original supplier to be compatible with the existing equipment,
(iii) are of a proprietary nature, (iv) must be procured from a particular supplier as a condition of a
performance guarantee, (v) must be purchased from the only available source, with the Bank's prior
agreement, will be done through DC in accordance with the Bank's Procurement Guidelines.
(b) Procurement of Works and Technical Services:
The works to be financed by the Bank include the following;
l
afforestation services for soil conservation,
l
protection and improvement services for degraded soils,
l
plantation and rehabilitation services for forestry areas,
l
construction of small scale irrigation works,
l
riverbed rehabilitation,
l
construction of agricultural terraces,
l
construction of central and farm stores for manure management,
- 50 -
l
construction of green houses,
l
construction of fishponds.
International Competitive Bidding (ICB): These contracts will be procured through ICB in accordance
with the Bank's Procurement Guidelines.
National Competitive Bidding (NCB): The contracts for the procurement of technical services and
construction works estimated to cost less than US$ 3 million per contract will be procured through NCB in
accordance with the procedures acceptable to the Bank and also in accordance with the Bank's
Procurement Guidelines.
Minor Works (MW): The contracts for the procurement of small scale rehabilitation, plantation and
construction works estimated to cost less than US$ 100,000 per contract will be procured through MW
based on at least three quotations obtained from qualified domestic contractors in response to written
requests.
(c) Procurement of Consulting Services:
The consulting services to be financed by the Bank include the following: monitoring and evaluation,
agricultural marketing, soil and water pollution monitoring, livestock waste management, simple
agro-processing, code of good agricultural practices, organic agriculture, public awareness, communication
specialist.
Quality and Cost Based Selection (QCBS): The consulting services to be contracted to consulting firms
will be procured on the basis of QCBS procedure in accordance with the Bank's Consultants Guidelines.
Selection Based on Consultants' Qualifications (CQ): The consulting services to be contracted to
consulting firms estimated to cost less than US$ 100,000 will be procured on the basis of CQ procedure in
accordance with the Bank's Consultants Guidelines.
Individual Consultants (IC): The consulting services for strengthening project management and
implementation to be contracted to individual consultants will be procured on the basis of Individual
Consultants in accordance with the Bank's Consultants Guidelines. For the individual consultants to be
hired for more than six months duration, the positions will be advertised for expressions of interest in
international and/or national media depending on the expertise required and selection will be based on
comparison of qualifications of those expressing interest.
Single Source Selection (SS): The consulting services, which (i) would be a natural continuation of
previous work carried out by the firm, (ii) must be selected rapidly due to an emergency need, (iii) has an
exceptional nature where only one firm is qualified or has experience of exceptional worth for the
assignment, (iv) is estimated to cost less than US$ 100,000, with the Bank's prior agreement, will be done
procured through SS in accordance with the Bank's Consultants Guidelines.
(d) Procurement from Government Owned Enterprises:
It is recognized that the agricultural inputs such as forestry seedlings, fruit bearing forest seedlings, fruit
tree seedlings, forest tree seeds, agricultural seeds, bee hives etc. to be provided under the project have
unique characteristics (such as sensitivity to local soil conditions, topography, climate) which would render
competitive bidding as goods through ICB or even NCB procedures impractical. Nevertheless, it is
- 51 -
recognized that at least some of this type of material may be available from private sources on the localized
marketplace and in some instances could be purchased through local competitive bidding when suitable
items meet the quality standards (including disease free condition) specified. It is only when suitable
agricultural inputs are not available on the open market or suitable sources on the open market have been
exhausted, that purchases from Government Owned Enterprises (GOEs) would be allowed. Furthermore,
when more than one GOE source is available, the project authorities should insure that the purchases would
be made from GOE that would be the most economical while still satisfying the quality aspects of the
project. In categorical terms, the procurement of these agricultural inputs would follow the following steps:
When the suitable agricultural input is available from private sources on localized marketplace; it will be
procured:
(i) through national shopping procedures for contracts less than US$50,000 equivalent,
(ii) through local competitive bidding procedures satisfactory to the Bank for all other contracts.
When the suitable agricultural input is only available from GOEs, it will be procured:
(i) from the most economical source when more than one GOE source with suitable agricultural input is
available,
(ii) by direct contracting with a GOE when it is the only source of suitable agricultural input.
As result, the Bank (OPCPR) agrees, on an exceptional basis, with the procurement of above listed
agricultural inputs and services from government owned enterprises under the scope of the project, if and
when they can not be procured from private sources in local market. The subject agencies are the
Government agencies and they are not eligible according to paragraph 1.8 (c) of the Bank's Procurement
Guidelines. More specifically, they are not legally and financially autonomous; they do not operate under
commercial law; they are the dependent agencies of the Borrower or the Sub-Borrower i.e. implementing
Ministries. However, because of specific nature of the project and when there is no private sector
alternatives for these agricultural inputs and services, the direct procurement from government owned
enterprises will be considered. Therefore, the implementing agencies shall procure some agricultural inputs
and services (e.g. digitized maps) from government owned enterprises under the scope of this project
through the above-explained methodology. The details of these procurements are explained under Annex 14
to this Project Appraisal Document.
(e) Training and Study Tour Expenditures:
The PMG shall prepare detailed training programs for every six months in consultation with the
implementing agencies. The Training Programs shall contain time schedules for workshops, seminars,
study tours and travels etc. including detailed information on the content, itinerary, location, number of
beneficiaries, cost estimates for each activity etc. These training programs shall be submitted to the Bank
for review and clearance before implementation. After the Bank's clearance, the program shall be
implemented in accordance with the agreed procedures without requiring the Bank's clearance of each
component of the training program. The status of the training program will be included as part of progress
reports and will be updated and/or modified as may be mutually agreed between the related Ministries and
the Bank.
The training services expenditures consist of subsistence and travel (local and/or international) costs
incurred by trainees, training fees, provision of training materials and handouts, trainers' fees etc. These
expenditures will be directly reimbursed subject to the presentation by the PMG of Statement of
Expenditures.
- 52 -
(f) Operating Costs of OU (Recurrent Costs):
The incremental operating costs associated with the project include OU, PMG and PMU staff salaries,
bank charges and to maintain Special Account. All incremental operating costs will be financed by the
Government.
The other operating costs including operating and maintenance cost of office equipment, stationary and cost
of advertisement for procurements under the project shall be financed through Loan proceeds.
IV. Procurement Review By The Bank:
The PSU shall use the latest versions of the Bank's Standard Bidding Documents (SBD) for the
procurements financed by the Bank.
Scheduling of Procurement. Procurement of goods, works and services for the project will be carried out
in accordance with the agreed procurement plan, which will be updated as necessary and included in the
progress reports for Bank review and approval. The Bank will review the procurement arrangements
proposed by the Borrower, including contract packaging, applicable procedures, and the scheduling of the
procurement processes, for its conformity with Bank Procurement and Consultant Guidelines, the proposed
implementation program and disbursement schedule.
(a) Prior Review: The following procurement action and documentation would be subject to Prior Review
by the Bank.
Goods, Works and Technical Services: Prior review of Bidding Document (including, Invitation to Bid,
Instructions to Bidders and Bid Data Sheet, General and Special Conditions of Contract, Bid Forms,
Schedule of Requirements, Technical Specifications, Bill of Quantities), Bid Evaluation Reports;
Recommendations of Contract award.
Consultant Services: Prior review of procurement documents and actions which will include:
QCBS: Prior review of (1) short listing criteria for consulting assignments; (2) Consultants Short Lists; (3)
complete Request for Proposal (RFP) package (including Invitation, Information to Consultants and Data
Sheet, General and Special Conditions of Contract, Technical Proposal standard forms, Financial Proposal
standard forms, and Form of Contract); (4) Terms of Reference, including description of services,
consultants' reporting requirements, and required qualifications of consultants' key personnel; (5)
Technical and Financial Evaluation Reports (including official minutes) and Recommendations for contract
award; and (6) Negotiated Draft Contract.
Individual Consultant (IND) contracts of US$ 50,000 and above: Prior review of : (1) Consultants
Short Lists; (2) Draft Contract Agreement; (3) Terms of Reference, including description of services and
consultants' reporting requirements; and (4) Agreed Draft Contract.
IND contracts of below US$ 50,000: Prior review of: (1) criteria for short listing consultants; and (2)
Terms of Reference will be conducted.
The Bank's prior review of procurement action would cover the following;
i. All ICB contracts for goods and works
- 53 -
ii. First three NCB contracts for goods and works
iii. First three Minor Works contracts
iv. First three IS and NS contracts
v. All contracts awarded under Direct Contracting Procedures
vi. All contracts awarded to Government Owned Enterprises
vii. All contracts with consulting firms estimated to US$ 100,000 or more each
viii. All contracts with individual consultants estimated to US$ 50,000 or more each
ix. All contracts awarded under Single Source Selection
x. The Terms of Reference for all consultant contracts with consulting firms and individuals
A complete set of procurement documentation, as specified above, for contracts which require prior review,
shall be submitted to the Bank before taking any action for review and clearance by the Bank's
Procurement Specialist and the relevant technical staff.
(b) Post Review: The procurement documents for all other contracts shall be subject to the Bank's post
review on a random basis, one in five contracts. Post review of the procurement documents will normally
be undertaken during the Bank supervision mission or as the Bank may request to review any particular
contracts at any time. In such cases, the PMG shall provide the Bank for its review the relevant
documentation including bidding documents issued to the bidders, letter of invitation to quote, minutes of
bid opening, bid evaluation reports, copies of bid proposals, signed contracts etc. The periodic post reviews
shall be conducted by the Bank's Procurement Specialist. The outcome of the post review will be
communicated by the Bank to the PMG at the earliest time.
V. Procurement Monitoring and Reporting:
The PSU will keep a complete and up-to-date record of all procurement documentation and relevant
correspondence in its files, which will be reviewed by the Bank staff during supervision missions. The
Procurement Plan for the project shall be prepared/consolidated by the PSU and furnished to the Bank for
its review and approval in accordance with the provisions of the Bank's Procurement Guidelines. The
Procurement Plan, which indicates the procurement arrangements, contract packaging, applicable
procurement method, scheduling of procurement process, estimated cost etc. will be updated annually by
the PSU. All procurements shall be undertaken in accordance with the Procurement Plan.
Monitoring reports on procurement progress will be submitted as part of progress reports on program
implementation. The report shall include all information related with the completed, on-going and planned
contracts.
VI. Action Plan To Build Up The Agency's Capacity:
Tasks Completed: The procurement file containing the up to date procurement documents such as
guidelines, templates of procurement notices, standard bidding documents for the procurement of works
and goods under ICB, NCB, MW and IS/NS methods, Standard Request for Proposal document for the
consultants services, standard consultants contracts for large and small assignments and for time based and
lumps-sum payments, evaluation report formats have been prepared in hard copy and in electronic versions
on diskettes and provided to the implementing agencies staff during the preparation of the capacity
assessment. Although they are familiar with the Bank's documents, the latest versions of the documents
shall be used in the new project. The OU has arranged for translating the related procurement documents,
into Turkish such as National Competitive Bidding, Minor Works, National Shopping and will provide the
translations to the Implementing Agencies and their provincial directorates.
- 54 -
April 2004-May 2004: OU shall appoint at least 2 persons who will be working full-time for the
procurement activities under the scope of the project. The qualifications of the procurement staff shall be
reviewed by and agreed with the Bank. Since the project activities require close coordination among various
agencies together with provincial/regional directorates, these 2 persons shall work very closely with the
other agencies too. Each implementing agency shall also appoint at least 1 person for the procurement
activities under the scope of the project. The assigned persons will participate the training course which
will be arranged by the Bank for the Borrower's staff in April 2004.
At least two experienced procurement consultants shall be recruited before the Loan/Grant effectiveness
(January 2005). These positions will be advertised after the Loan/Grant signing (November 2004) to get
these consultants in place immediately after the loan effectiveness date. The procurement consultants shall
have at least 3 years experience with Bank financed projects and shall work very closely with the staff of
OU and all implementing agencies mainly for the preparation of bidding documents primarily for large
procurements. The TOR and CV of the procurement consultants shall be reviewed and approved by the
Bank before signing the contract.
January 2005: The former PAS has already organized two-days procurement familiarization seminar in
early 2002, for project related staff from related departments of the implementing Ministries who would be
potentially involved in different aspects such as technical, financial, legal aspects of the project. This
seminar served as both introduction of Bank's procurement procedures and updating their previous
knowledge. Another similar seminar shall be scheduled during the Project Launch Workshop to be held in
January 2005 after the Loan effectiveness date for the whole project staff again.
Within one year after the Loan Effectiveness: None of the staff has any formal training on the Bank's
procurement except that they gained experience while working in the Bank financed projects. At least 2
staff of OU shall attend procurement training offered by ILO Turin in the early stages of the project.
In the lifetime of the project:
l
In order to overcome the problems at the bid evaluation stage; qualified and experienced technical staff
of implementing agencies, especially those who have some knowledge of the Bank's procurement and
evaluation procedures should be appointed as evaluation committee members. At the beginning of each
procurement, just after the finalization of the bidding documents, evaluation committee members
should be appointed and they should start reviewing and being familiar with the bidding document and
evaluation methodology stipulated in the bidding document. Then, before the receipt of bids,
procurement staff should meet with the evaluation committee members to explain the Bank's evaluation
methodology.
l
The Ministries' internal approval procedures should be reconsidered to avoid long delays and if
possible, delegation of approval authority up to certain monetary values should be taken into
consideration.
l
The OU should start using electronic filing and electronic communication as early as possible to
improve its capacity.
l
Each Bank Supervision Mission shall include the procurement specialist assigned to this project to
assist the OU staff for updating the procurement plan and resolving pending procurement issues to
overcome delays.
- 55 -
Procurement methods (Table A)
Turkey - Anatolia Watershed Rehabilitation Project-Loan Financed Components
Table A: Project Costs by Procurement Arrangements (US$ million equivalent)
Procurement Method
Expenditure Category
ICB
NCB
Other
NBF
Total Cost
A. Works
-
5.00
13.30
18.30
(3.50)
(9.31)
(12.81)
B. Goods
-
-
6.30
6.30
(5.47)
(5.47)
C. Consulting Services
-
-
0.72
-
0.72
(0.56)
(0.56)
D. Training
-
-
0.21
-
0.21
(0.16)
(0.16)
D. Incremental Operating Costs
-
-
1.60
1.60
(0.80)
(0.80)
E. Front End Fee
-
-
0.20
-
0.20
(0.20)
(0.20)
TOTAL
5.00
22.33
0.00
27.33
(3.50)
(16.50)
0.00
(20.00)
Turkey - Anatolia Watershed Rehabilitation Project - GEF Financed Components
Table A: Project Costs by Procurement Arrangements (US$ million equivalent)
Procurement Method
Expenditure Category
ICB
NCB
Other
NBF
Total Cost
A. Works
-
3.54
1.85
-
5.39
(2.06)
(1.70)
(3.76)
B. Goods
-
-
1.58
-
1.58
(1.35)
(1.35)
C. Consulting Services
-
-
1.53
-
1.53
(1.20)
(1.20)
D. Training
-
-
0.33
-
0.33
(0.28)
(0.28)
E. Incremental Operating Costs
-
-
0.82
-
0.82
(0.41)
(0.41)
E. Front End Fee
-
-
-
-
-
TOTAL
-
3.54
6.11
-
9.65
(2.06)
(4.94)
(7.00)
- 56 -
Table B: Thresholds for Procurement Methods and Prior Review-Loan
Contracts Subject
Contract Value Threshold
Procurement
Expenditure Category
to Prior Review
(US$ thousands)
Method
(US$ million)
> or equal 100 NCB 0.50
1. Works
<100
MW
0.20
2. Goods
<50
NS
0.15
<100
CQ
0.21
3. Consultants'
Services
<50
IND
0.72
4.Training
Subject to provision of approved training plan
Table B: Thresholds for Procurement Methods and Prior Review- GEF
Contracts Subject
Contract Value Threshold
Procurement
Expenditure Category
to Prior Review
(US$ thousands)
Method
(US$ million)
> or equal 100 NCB 0.90
1. Works
<100
MW
0.25
2. Goods
<50
NS
0.12
> or equal 100
QCBS
1.00
3. Consultants'
<100
CQ
0.10
Services
<50
IND
0.25
4.Training
Subject to provision of approved training plan
NCB: National Competitive Bidding
MW : Minor Works
NS : National Shopping
QCBS: Quality and Cost Based Selection
CQ : Selection Based on Consultants' Qualifications
IND : Individual Consultants
- 57 -
Overall Procurement Risk Assessment :High
Frequency of procurement supervision mission proposed: One every 6 months (includes special
procurement supervision for post-review/audits)
Overall Procurement Risk Assessment
Section 1:
Capacity of the Implementing Agency in Procurement and Technical
Assistance requirements
The capacity of the implementing agency to conduct procurement has been assessed. The
overall procurement assessment is high-risk. The following action plan is recommended as a
result of this assessment: (1) The procurement file containing all the up-to-date Bank
procurement documents such as guidelines, SBDs, RFP, etc. is to be provided to the Project
Management Group both in hard copy and electronically. This had been completed by
Appraisal.; (2). The PAS shall organize two-days procurement training during the project launch
workshop for PMG staff and the other staff who may be involved in the review of procurement-
related documents, to familiarize themselves with the Bank's procurement procedures; (3) The
PMG shall hire two experienced procurement specialists before April 30, 2005.
Country Procurement Assessment Report or
Are the bidding documents for the procurement
Country Procurement Strategy Paper status:
actions of the first year ready by negotiations
The CPAR was finalized in June 2001
Yes
No X
Section 2:
Training, Information and Development on Procurement
Estimated
Estimated
Indicate if
Domestic Preference
Domestic Preference
date of
date of
there is
for Goods
for Works, if
Project
publication of
procurement
Yes X No
applicable
Launch
General
subject to
Yes
No X
Workshop
Procurement
mandatory
January
Notice
SPN in
2005
November
Development
2005
Business
Yes X No
Explain briefly the Procurement Monitoring System: Procurement implementation progress will be
monitored through progress reports and supervision missions. Each supervision mission will
include the project procurement specialist for updating the procurement plan and for conducting
post-review.
Co-financing: None
Section 3:
Procurement Staffing
Indicate name of Procurement Staff or Bank's staff part of Task Team responsible for the
procurement in the Project: Salih K. Kalyoncu (ECSPS)
Explain briefly the expected role of the Field Office in procurement: There are two procurement
specialists in the Country Office. One of them will be responsible for this project and the other will
provide back-up service in the absence of assigned staff.
- 58 -
Annex 6(B): Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangements
TURKEY: ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT
Financial Management
1. Summary of the Financial Management Assessment
Financial Management
1. Summary of the Financial Management Assessment
Financial Management Assessment: An assessment of the financial management arrangements for the
project was undertaken in October 2003, and updated in January and March 2004. These assessments
concluded that current financial management arrangements for the project are not satisfactory. Therefore,
an action plan was agreed upon with the Ministry of Environment and Forestry to bring project financial
management capacity up to Bank required standards as a condition of Board Presentation. This action plan
was completed in a timely manner.
Country Issues: A Country Financial Accountability Assessment for Turkey was carried out in 2001. The
CFAA report identified major weaknesses in the Turkish financial accountability, in both the public and the
private sector. In view of this the CFAA concludes that to ensure Bank funds are used for the purposes
intended ring fenced financial management arrangements are more appropriate for the implementation of
Bank financed investment projects rather than relying upon government systems.
Audits of most Bank-financed projects in Turkey are carried out by the Treasury Controllers (TCs). The
regular work of the TCs focuses primarily on compliance auditing, and their financial statement audit skills
are limited. This has led to problems with the quality of their reports submitted to the World Bank.
However during last year various bank-financed programs are carried out to enhance the capacity of the
TCs, including training with private sector audit firms and a two months training program held by the
Scottish Institute of Chartered Accountants. The quality of the audit reports submitted for the 2001 year
end audits of the projects have improved a lot compared to the previous years. Of more fundamental
concern as specified in the CFAA is the independence of the TCs, given their subordination to the
Treasury, which is responsible for the implementation of Bank financed projects. There are no mitigating
measures within this project for this as this is considered a macro level issue to be addressed through
reforms in the government auditing.
Strengths and Weaknesses: The significant strengths that provide the basis of reliance on the project
financial management system include (a) centralization of all payments and their accounting at the OU; (b)
requirement of a fully functioning financial management unit at the OU before Board Approval, staffed by
personnel with CVs satisfactory to the Bank (c) preparation of a financial management manual for the
project satisfactory to the Bank before Board Approval. The significant weakness in the project financial
management system is due to the organizational changes at the ministries involved.
Implementing Entity: The OU Financial Management Sub-Unit (FMSU) will be responsible for all project
financial management activities. All payments will be centralized at the OU. Relevant line agencies will
prepare the technical specifications or Terms of References (TORs) for the goods, works, services required
and will be responsible for the procurement process with help from the procurement sub unit of the OU.
The acceptance and overseeing the related item procured and obtaining the approval of the Ministry of
Finance Budget and Payment offices will also be the responsibility of the relevant implementing agency.
The OU/FMSU will make the payment from the special accounts (there will be two special accounts) based
on the payment order of the related implementing entity. The OU will document the format and the contents
of the information required from each line agency to make payments in the project financial management
- 59 -
manual.
Funds Flow: There will be two special accounts for the project one for disbursements from the World
Bank loan and one for the disbursements from GEF. Both of these special accounts will be in US Dollars
and will be at the Central Bank of Turkey. All payments to the contractors, suppliers and consultants will
be made from these special accounts with the authorization of the Head of PMG and the Financial Manager
of the OU/FMSU. Payments will be made directly from the loan account for amounts over 20% of the
authorized special account allocation.
The World Bank and the GEF financed portions of the project will be in the annual budgets of each
implementing entity and the responsibility for ensuring that the counterpart funds are allocated in the
annual budget belongs to each implementing entity. In the preparation of the following year's budget, the
implementing entity staff will work together with the FMSU to determine the amount of project funds
required to complete the planned activities in that particular year. Then the implementing entities will make
sure that this amount is included in the entity's budget when they apply to the State Planning Organization
(SPO) and the Ministry of Finance. The payments for the counterpart funds will be made directly by the
Ministry of Finance's payment office at the implementing entity. The OU/FMSU will get a copy of the
payment document relating to the counterpart funds so that they are included and documented in the overall
project accounting. The payments for the IBRD/GEF funds will be made by the FMSU from the special
accounts. The implementing entities will be responsible for receiving approval from the Ministry of Finance
payment and budget offices to facilitate this payment.
There will also be contributions from the local communities in the project. Local community contributions
(individual beneficiaries, cooperatives, municipalities) will be in kind value of labor and existing equipment
used on the project and land donations. At the time of appraisal, the level and type of participation
arrangements are under way. The monetary values of these contributions together with their recording
arrangements will be considered after the arrangements are finalized and will be documented in the project
financial management manual.
Staffing: The OU under the direct responsibility of the PMG will work as a specialized organizational unit
of MEF and will act as a "service provider" to the implementing entities. The OU will have three sub-units;
(i) procurement sub-unit, (ii) financial management sub-unit and (iii) M&E sub-unit. The financial
management sub-unit will be staffed by a financial manager, an accountant and a disbursement officer with
qualifications satisfactory to the Bank. Full staffing of the OU was a condition of Board presentation.
Accounting Policies and Procedures: The project accounting will be maintained separately within the
OU. The project accounting will be on a cash basis. The MOF is in the process of purchasing a
computerized accounting system according to technical specifications agreed upon with the Bank. A
functioning accounting system, that allows for proper recording of project financial transactions, including
the allocation of expenditures in accordance with respective components, disbursement categories and
sources of funds was established as a condition of Board Presentation. Accounting procedures have been
set out in the financial management manual for the project. The financial management manual covers (a)
the financial and accounting policies and procedures for the project (b) organization of the financial
management (FMSU staff responsibilities) (c) the financial management information system (d)
disbursements (e) budgeting and financial forecasting (f) project reporting and (g) project planning
procedures to be finalized.
Reporting and Monitoring: The OU will maintain records and will ensure appropriate accounting for the
funds provided. Financial statements for the project will be prepared by the OU. The Financial Monitoring
- 60 -
Reports (FMR) will be prepared quarterly and will be submitted to the Bank no later than 45 days after the
end of the quarterly period. The format and the contents of the FMR have been agreed upon with the Bank.
The financial management manual of the project will include a section on the FMR. The FMR will include
financial reports, output monitoring reports and procurement reports.
Information Systems: The OU has purchased a computerized financial management system which will
produce the project financial reports. The technical specifications for the system were agreed upon with the
Bank. Software has been installed and staff have been trained.
Supervision Plan: During project implementation, the Bank will supervise the project's financial
management arrangements in two main ways: (i) review the project's quarterly financial management
reports as well as the project's annual audited financial statements and auditor's management letter; and (ii)
during the Bank's supervision missions, review the project's financial management and disbursement
arrangements (including a review of a sample of SOEs and movements on the Special Accounts) to ensure
compliance with the Bank's minimum requirements. As required, a Bank-accredited Financial Management
Specialist will assist in the supervision process.
2. Audit Arrangements
Internal Audit.
There is no internal control department which carries regular audits of the departments within
Ministry of Environement and Forestry and therefore no reliance will be placed on internal audit.
External Audit.
Annual project financial statements for the project will be audited by the Treasury Controllers in
accordance with International Standards on Auditing (ISA) and under TOR that will be cleared by
the Bank before negotiations.
3. Disbursement Arrangements
Use of statements of expenditures (SOEs):
Disbursements will be made against Statements of Expenditures for: (i) works under contracts costing less
than US$3,000,000 equivalent each, but excluding the contracts which are subject to prior review; (ii)
goods, under contracts costing less than US$300,000 equivalent each, but excluding the contracts which
are subject to prior review; (iii) services of consulting firms under contracts costing less than US$ 100,000
equivalent each; (iv) services of individual consultants under contracts costing less than US$ 50,000
equivalent each; (v) training and (vi) incremental operating costs. Full documentation in support of SOEs
would be retained by the PMU for at least one year after the Bank has received the audit report for the
fiscal year in which the last withdrawal from the Loan Account was made. This information will be made
available for review during supervision by Bank staff and for annual audits which will be required to
specifically comment on the propriety of SOE disbursements and the quality of the associated
record-keeping.
Special Account:
The GoT will open and maintain two Special Accounts in US dollars at the Central Bank of Turkey. The
Special Account will be used following procedures to be agreed with the Bank, and will have an authorized
allocation of US$2,000,000 for the IBRD loan and US$700,000 for the GEF grant. The Project
Coordinator and the Financial Manager will be authorized to sign the withdrawal applications, with two
signatures required. At the start of the project, the initial deposit will be limited to US$1,000,000 for the
IBRD loan and to US$350,000 for the GEF, and the remaining portions of the authorized allocations will
- 61 -
be requested only after cumulative disbursements from the loan reach a level of US$4,000,000 and
$1,200,000 from the grant. The minimum application size for payments directly from the Loan Account for
issuance of Special Commitments is 20 percent of the Special Account authorized allocation.
Applications for replenishment of the Special Account will be submitted to the Bank on a monthly basis, or
when the balance of the Special Account is equal to about half of the initial deposit or the authorized
allocation, whichever comes first, and will include a reconciled bank statement as well as other appropriate
supporting documents.
- 62 -
Allocation of loan/grant proceeds (Table C)
Table C: Allocation of Loan/Grant Proceeds
Expenditure Category
Amount in US$million
Financing Percentage
Civil Works
11.30
70% of all expenditures
Goods
5.10
100% of foreign expenditures;
100% of local expectirures (ex-factory
costs) and
85% of local expenditures for other items
procured locally
Consultant Services
0.60
78%
Training
0.20
100%
Incremental Operating Costs
0.80
50%
Unallocated
1.80
Total Project Costs with Bank
19.80
Financing
Front-end fee
0.20
100%
Total
20.00
Table C: Allocation of GEF Proceeds
Expenditure Category
Amount in US$
Financing Percentage
Civil Works
3.4
70 %
Goods
1.3
100% of foreign expenditures;
100% of local expectirures
(ex-factory costs) and
85% of local expenditures for
other items procured locally
Consultant Services
0.8
78 %
Training
0.4
100 %
Incremental Operating Costs
0.6
50 %
Unallocated
0.5
Total
7.0
- 63 -
Annex 7: Project Processing Schedule
TURKEY: ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT
Project Schedule
Planned
Actual
Time taken to prepare the project (months)
12
26
First Bank mission (identification)
09/15/2000
Appraisal mission departure
06/20/2003
06/20/2003
Negotiations
11/05/2003
04/11/2004
Planned Date of Effectiveness
02/15/2005
Prepared by:
The Anatolia Watershed Rehabilitation Project was prepared by the Government of Turkey. The Project
Preparation Team was led by Ismail Kucukkaya and Hanifi Avci (AGM).
Project Preparation Team:
Ministry of
Environment
and Forestry:
Mevlut Dogan, Mevlut Duzgun, Suade Arancli, Selim Karaca, Sibel
Erzincanli, Erkan Ispirli
AGM:
I.Kucukkaya, Hanifi Avci, Yilmaz Altas, Hanifi Akbiyik, Erdogan Ozevren,
Banu Karabiyik, Ismail Belen, Tuncay Oztekin, Mahmut Simsek, Halit
Babalik, Ersen Tipi, M. Sacma, Ridvan Atman
ORKOY:
Huseyn Karaosmanoglu, Davut Odabasi, Muhammet Bayburtlu, Dr. Gulzade
Kahveci, Dr. Askin Kirac
OGM:
U. Tufekcioglu, Atilla Kurmus, Bahattin Ors, Ali Temerit, Nejat Turan
KHGM:
Sait Yildirim, Yakup Saglam, Ceyhun Alogu, Mustafa Algan, Suleyman
Demir, Ali Caglar Gelikcan, Tenfik Fikret Alkaranli, Davut Ozgur, Kubilay
Yilmaz, Celal Yenginol, Yurdanur Surmeli, Kani Bilgic, Suleyman Kaldirim,
Nevzat Erdogan, Yuksel Turkyilmaz
TUGEM:
Ahmat Savas Intisah, Sule Ozevren, Birsen Capanoglu, Refi Ratip Ozlu,
Ismail Cozoglu, Eyup Koksal, Mahmut Cevik, Eyup Yuksel, Mehmet Ozgun,
Sule Ozevren, Orhan Yazganarikan, Birsen Capanoglu, Ismail Cozoglu
KKGM:
Dr. O. Faruk Mutlu, Abdulmecit Yesil, Hasim Toksoy, Omer Tiktik, Ali
Kasaci, Yalcin Bagsiz, Aynur Ebinc, Yesim Basaran, Filiz Soydal
CYGM:
Sedat Kadioglu, Saliha Degirmencioglu, Yakup Zeyrek, Ozgur Cakmak,
Emine Ercan, Nuray Taneri, Guzin Arat, Guven Ulusoy, Bilal Dikmen, Sibel
Gucver, Mahmut Dagoran, Tuncay Demir
Consultants to the Project Preparation Team:
Philip Metcalf (Waste Management Specialist); Ramesh Kanwar (Soil and Water Quality Monitoring
Specialist); Frank Anderson (M&E Specialist); Keith Openshaw (Environmental Assessment Specialist);
Sema Alpan (Environmental Assessment Specialist); Akin Atauz (Social Assessment Specialist); Surkal
Co. (Household Questionairre for GEF component); Nazif Kolankaya (Soil and Water Quality
Assessment); Peter Brul (Organic Farming Specialist); Ferko Bodnar (Nutrient Management Specialist);
Suha Satana (Financial Analyst)
- 64 -
Preparation assistance:
Preparation of GEF-related activities was funded in part by a GEF PDF B Grant (US$300,000).
Bank staff who worked on the project included:
Name
Speciality
S. Nedret Durutan
Team Leader, Agriculturalist
Peter Dewees
Team Leader, Forest Economist
Joop Stoutjusdijk
Irrigation Specialist
Rasit Pertev
Senior Agricultural Economist
Jitendra Srivastava
Agriculturalist
Cuneyt Okan
Operations Specialist
Elmas Arisoy
Procurement Specialist
Salih Kalyoncu
Procurement Specialist
Aysa Seda Aroymak
Financial Management Specialist
Julian Lampietti
Social Assessment Specialist
Shahridan Faeiz
Social Assessment Specialist
Tijen Arin
Environmental Economist
Dilek Barlas
Lawyer
Ulker Karamullaoglu
Program Assistant
Consultants to the World Bank:
John Cole
Agriculturalist
Meeta Sehgal
Economist
Benoist Veillerette
Economist
Raffaele Suppa
Economist
- 65 -
Annex 8: Documents in the Project File*
TURKEY: ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT
A. Project Implementation Plan
B. Bank Staff Assessments
Anatolia Watershed Management Project, Social Assessment, January 12, 2003
Anatolia Watershed Management Project, Procurement Assessment, January 2003
Anatolia Watershed Management Project, Financial Management Assessment, October 2003
Eastern Anatolia Watershed Management Project: Implementation Completion Report, May 20, 2002
Eastern Anatolia Watershed Management Project: Project Performance Assessment Report (OED draft,
November 18, 2003)
C. Other
Project Preparation Reports and Working Papers
Working Paper 1: Basic Data for Thirteen Provinces
Working Paper 2: Baseline Household Survey in four Provinces
Working Paper 3: Menu of Project Activities for Micro-catchment Rehabilitation & Income Generation
Working Paper 4: Manure Management System
Working Paper 5: Pollution from Agro-Industry
Working Paper 6: Water and Soil Quality Monitoring Program
Working Paper 7: National Level Strengthening of Policy & Regulatory Capacity
Working Paper 8: Design of Public Awareness Campaign, Capacity Building and Replication Strategy
Working Paper 9: Project Organization and Management
Working Paper 10: Regional Environmental Assessment
Working Paper 11: Operational Manual for Micro-catchment Rehabilitation
Working Paper 12: Project Cost Tables
Working Paper 13: Project Benefits, Financial & Economic Evaluation, plus Incremental Cost Analysis for
GEF
Working Paper 14: Project Monitoring & Evaluation System
Working Paper 15: Project Procurement Plan
Working Paper 16: Financial Management System
Working Paper 17: Operational Manual for Manure Management System
Working Paper 18: Operational Manual for Water & Soil Quality Monitoring System
Working Paper 19: Nutrient Management & Demonstration Program for Conservation Tillage
*Including electronic files
- 66 -
Annex 9: Statement of Loans and Credits
TURKEY: ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT
30-Mar-2004
Difference between expected
and actual
Original Amount in US$ Millions
disbursementsa
Project ID
FY
Purpose
IBRD
IDA
GEF
Cancel.
Undisb.
Orig
Frm Rev'd
P082801
2004 EXP FIN 2
303.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
300.07
-3.03
0.00
P059872
2003 BASIC ED 2 (APL #2)
300.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
292.96
149.83
0.00
P070286
2002 ARIP
600.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
398.79
332.12
0.00
P074408
2002 SRMP
500.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
378.58
219.37
0.00
P069894
2001 PRIV SOC SUPPRT
250.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
131.65
107.32
0.00
P044175
2000 BIODIV/NTRL RES MGMT (GEF)
0.00
0.00
8.19
0.00
5.72
3.51
0.00
P068368
2000 MARMARA EARTHQUAKE EMG RECON
505.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
300.13
300.00
66.04
P068792
2000 ERL
759.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
375.00
375.00
375.00
P009073
1999 INDUSTRIAL TECH
155.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
51.39
51.39
0.00
P009072
1998 PRIV OF IRRIGATION
20.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.38
1.38
1.38
P048852
1998 NAT'L TRNSM GRID
270.00
0.00
0.00
27.79
173.43
201.22
-9.44
P008985
1998 CESME WS & SEWER
13.10
0.00
0.00
2.70
5.56
8.26
0.82
P009076
1995 HEALTH 2
150.00
0.00
0.00
20.17
24.00
50.67
50.67
Total:
3825.80
0.00
8.19
50.66
2438.65
1797.03
484.46
- 67 -
TURKEY
STATEMENT OF IFC's
Held and Disbursed Portfolio
Feb 29 - 2004
In Millions US Dollars
Committed
Disbursed
IFC
IFC
FY Approval
Company
Loan
Equity
Quasi
Partic
Loan
Equity
Quasi
Partic
1995/96
CBS Boya Kimya
0.00
0.65
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.65
0.00
0.00
1994
CBS Holding
4.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1996/01
CBS Printas
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
1992
Cayeli Bakir
2.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
1990/02
Conrad
3.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
1998
Demir Leasing
0.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
2002
EKS
13.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
13.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
1995
Entek
20.50
0.00
0.00
13.25
20.50
0.00
0.00
13.25
1998
Finans Leasing
0.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
1999
Finansbank
5.56
0.00
0.00
5.18
5.56
0.00
0.00
5.18
1998
Garanti Leasing
0.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
1999
Gumussuyu Kap
4.00
0.00
3.58
0.00
4.00
0.00
3.58
0.00
2001
Gunkol
7.38
0.00
7.38
0.00
7.38
0.00
7.38
0.00
1998
Indorama Iplik
5.63
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.63
0.00
0.00
0.00
1998/00/02
Ipek Paper
17.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
17.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
1990
Kepez Elektrik
4.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
1988/90
Kiris
10.87
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.87
0.00
0.00
0.00
1991
Kula
5.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
2003
MESA Group
11.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
2002
Milli Re
50.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1998/02
Modern Karton
10.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1991
NASCO
10.18
0.00
0.00
3.55
10.18
0.00
0.00
3.55
2004
Oyak Bank
50.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2002
Pasabahce
7.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
1998
Pinar ET
5.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
2000
Pinar SUT
15.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.95
0.00
0.00
0.00
1999
SAKoSa
20.04
0.00
0.00
12.77
20.04
0.00
0.00
12.77
1990
Silkar Turizm
2.74
0.00
0.00
3.12
2.74
0.00
0.00
3.12
2002/03
Sise Ve Cam
67.31
0.00
0.00
42.07
67.31
0.00
0.00
42.07
1998/02
Soktas
3.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1999
TEB Finansal
1.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
1982/83/89/91/96/99
Trakya Cam
0.00
0.61
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.61
0.00
0.00
1999/02
Turk Ekon Bank
17.78
0.00
15.00
0.00
17.78
0.00
15.00
0.00
2001
Turkish PEF
0.00
10.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.37
0.00
0.00
1999
Unye Cement
13.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
13.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
1999
Uzel
9.48
0.00
0.00
5.69
9.48
0.00
0.00
5.69
1998
Viking
8.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
1995
Yalova Acrylic
2.50
0.00
0.00
1.33
2.50
0.00
0.00
1.33
1998
Yapi Kredi Lease
0.53
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.53
0.00
0.00
0.00
1998
ALease
0.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
2001/03
Adana Cement
2.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
1998
Akbank
25.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
25.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1996/01/03
Alternatif Bank
4.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Arcelik
18.97
0.00
0.00
0.00
18.97
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total Portfolio:
620.89
19.48
25.96
122.48
517.78
10.85
25.96
122.48
- 68 -
Approvals Pending Commitment
FY Approval
Company
Loan
Equity
Quasi
Partic
2001
Akbank
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
2004
Akbank BLoan Inc
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
2003
Cayeli Expan 2
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
2004
Meteksan Sistem
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
2002
Milli Reasurans
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
2004
OPET Petrolculuk
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.05
2003
Sisecam Exp.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
2002
TEB III
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
2004
Turkish Leasing
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total Pending Commitment:
0.12
0.00
0.01
0.13
- 69 -
Annex 10: Country at a Glance
TURKEY: ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT
Europe &
Lower-
POVERTY and SOCIAL
Central
middle-
Turkey
Asia
income
Development diamond*
2002
Population, mid-year (millions)
69.6
476
2,411
Life expectancy
GNI per capita (Atlas method, US$)
2,500
2,160
1,390
GNI (Atlas method, US$ billions)
174.0
1,030
3,352
Average annual growth, 1996-02
Population (%)
1.7
0.1
1.0
Labor force (%)
2.2
0.4
1.2
GNI
Gross
per
primary
Most recent estimate (latest year available, 1996-02)
capita
enrollment
Poverty (% of population below national poverty line)
..
..
..
Urban population (% of total population)
67
63
49
Life expectancy at birth (years)
70
69
69
Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births)
33
25
30
Child malnutrition (% of children under 5)
8
..
11
Access to improved water source
Access to an improved water source (% of population)
82
91
81
Illiteracy (% of population age 15+)
14
3
13
Gross primary enrollment (% of school-age population)
101
102
111
Turkey
Male
105
103
111
Lower-middle-income group
Female
96
101
110
KEY ECONOMIC RATIOS and LONG-TERM TRENDS
1982
1992
2001
2002
Economic ratios*
GDP (US$ billions)
64.4
158.9
145.2
182.8
Gross domestic investment/GDP
17.0
23.9
16.8
21.3
Trade
Exports of goods and services/GDP
11.9
14.4
33.7
28.8
Gross domestic savings/GDP
13.8
20.9
19.2
19.6
Gross national savings/GDP
18.5
24.4
20.7
20.7
Current account balance/GDP
-1.5
-0.6
2.3
-0.8
Domestic
Interest payments/GDP
1.8
2.0
3.6
3.4
Investment
savings
Total debt/GDP
30.6
35.6
78.4
71.9
Total debt service/exports
29.4
32.1
44.0
49.0
Present value of debt/GDP
..
..
..
..
Present value of debt/exports
..
..
..
..
Indebtedness
1982-92
1992-02
2001
2002
2002-06
(average annual growth)
Turkey
GDP
5.1
2.8
-7.5
7.8
4.7
GDP per capita
2.7
1.0
-9.0
6.1
3.6
Lower-middle-income group
Exports of goods and services
5.5
11.4
7.4
11.0
4.9
STRUCTURE of the ECONOMY
1982
1992
2001
2002
Growth of investment and GDP (%)
(% of GDP)
50
Agriculture
22.7
15.3
12.8
13.0
Industry
25.1
29.9
26.1
25.4
Manufacturing
17.7
18.9
15.8
16.0
0
Services
52.2
54.7
61.1
61.6
97
98
99
00
01
02
Private consumption
76.3
66.2
66.6
66.3
-50
General government consumption
9.9
12.9
14.2
14.0
GDI
GDP
Imports of goods and services
15.0
17.3
31.3
30.5
1982-92
1992-02
2001
2002
Growth of exports and imports (%)
(average annual growth)
Agriculture
1.4
1.1
-6.0
7.6
40
Industry
7.2
2.6
-7.2
5.7
20
Manufacturing
7.2
3.3
-8.0
8.2
Services
4.2
3.1
-6.2
7.0
0
97
98
99
00
01
02
-20
Private consumption
4.3
2.2
-9.2
2.6
General government consumption
3.4
4.4
-8.5
5.4
-40
Gross domestic investment
5.0
1.1
-42.0
35.7
Exports
Imports
Imports of goods and services
8.8
8.3
-24.8
15.7
* The diamonds show four key indicators in the country (in bold) compared with its income-group average. If data are missing, the diamond will be incomplete.
- 70 -
Turkey
PRICES and GOVERNMENT FINANCE
1982
1992
2001
2002
Inflation (%)
Domestic prices
(% change)
100
Consumer prices
..
70.1
53.9
44.8
75
Implicit GDP deflator
28.2
63.7
54.8
43.5
50
Government finance
25
(% of GDP, includes current grants)
0
Current revenue
..
19.0
29.3
28.2
97
98
99
00
01
02
Current budget balance
..
-1.3
-14.7
-4.7
GDP deflator
CPI
Overall surplus/deficit
..
-10.7
-20.9
-12.3
TRADE
1982
1992
2001
2002
Export and import levels (US$ mill.)
(US$ millions)
Total exports (fob)
5,890
14,891
34,373
39,827
60,000
Textiles
1,145
5,603
10,344
12,066
Processed agricultural products
1,571
2,293
1,876
1,705
40,000
Manufactures
4,655
13,440
28,695
32,673
Total imports (cif)
8,843
22,871
41,399
51,270
Food
123
1,398
848
1,211
20,000
Fuel and energy
3,943
3,903
8,316
8,955
Capital goods
2,214
7,970
7,344
8,949
0
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
Export price index (1995=100)
..
95
76
75
Import price index (1995=100)
..
90
81
80
Exports
Imports
Terms of trade (1995=100)
..
105
94
93
BALANCE of PAYMENTS 1/
1982
1992
2001
2002
Current account balance to GDP (%)
(US$ millions)
Exports of goods and services
7,818
23,343
50,403
54,608
4
Imports of goods and services
9,592
26,706
45,816
55,095
Resource balance
-1,774
-3,363
4,587
-487
2
Net income
-1,455
-1,670
-5,000
-4,549
0
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
Net current transfers
2,277
4,059
3,803
3,496
-2
Current account balance
-952
-974
3,390
-1,540
-4
Financing items (net)
1,120
2,458
-16,314
1,328
Changes in net reserves
-168
-1,484
12,924
212
-6
Memo:
Reserves including gold (US$ millions)
2,027
15,252
30,192
38,067
Conversion rate (DEC, local/US$)
162.9
6,881.3 1,228,367
#######
EXTERNAL DEBT and RESOURCE FLOWS
1982
1992
2001
2002
(US$ millions)
Composition of 2002 debt (US$ mill.)
Total debt outstanding and disbursed
19,716
56,554
113,806
131,407
IBRD
1,962
5,564
4,707
5,367
A: 5,367
IDA
187
148
95
89
G: 15,155
B: 89
Total debt service
2,968
9,086
24,623
28,632
C: 21,503
IBRD
209
1,207
723
708
IDA
3
6
7
7
Composition of net resource flows
D: 10,400
Official grants
307
506
0
334
Official creditors
762
-509
74
797
E: 6,433
Private creditors
146
3,604
-2,187
3,811
Foreign direct investment
55
779
2,769
862
Portfolio equity
0
-1,194
-4,611
-1,180
F: 72,460
World Bank program
Commitments
648
686
2,200
1,650
A - IBRD
E - Bilateral
Disbursements
500
286
1,537
1,031
B - IDA
D - Other multilateral
F - Private
Principal repayments
86
733
437
442
C - IMF
G - Short-term
Net flows
415
-447
1,100
588
Interest payments
127
480
292
272
Net transfers
288
-928
808
316
Development Economics
9/2/03
1/ 2001 and 2002 are based on the new classification.
- 71 -
Annex 11: GEF Incremental Cost Analysis
TURKEY: ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT
Introduction
1.
The Turkey Black Sea Agricultural Pollution Control Project (APCP) (to be funded under the GEF
WB Partnership Investment Fund for Nutrient Reduction in the Black Sea/Danube Basin) has been fully
blended with the Turkey Anatolia Watershed Rehabilitation Project (AWRP). The global environmental
benefit expected from APCP is the reduction of nutrients from agricultural sources flowing into the Black
Sea, which would contribute to the alleviation of eutrophication of the Black Sea. This annex presents the
baseline and GEF alternative scenarios, and analyses the incremental cost of achieving the global benefits
under the GEF Alternative.
Background
2.
Over the past three decades, the Black Sea has experienced significant losses in aquatic
biodiversity, fisheries, public health and tourism due, in part, to eutrophication caused by extensive flows
of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) from point (industrial and municipal wastewater) and non-point
(agricultural) sources. Background diagnostic analyses have identified that upstream Danube riparian
countries (including Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Ukraine, Turkey and Russia) contribute to the nutrient
pollution. Nutrient flows into the Black Sea and its tributaries decreased in the 1990s, mainly due to the
economic downturn in the transition countries, but are expected to increase in the near future as a result of
resumption of industrial activities and renewed intensification of agriculture. A GEF Partnership on the
Black Sea and Danube Basin was established in May 2001 to take coordinated actions for the rehabilitation
of the Black Sea/Danube environment. The Partnership is led by the GEF and its implementing agencies,
the World Bank, UNDP and UNEP, and funded through a US$95 million GEF grant over several tranches.
The WB executed, US$70 million Investment Fund for Nutrient Reduction in the Black Sea/Danube Basin
is financing investments in improved agricultural practices, wastewater treatment and restoration of
wetlands, as well as policy and legal revisions, and capacity building for enhanced monitoring and
enforcement. The UNDP and UNEP are implementing two regional projects aimed at regulatory reform and
capacity building in a basin-wide integrated fashion.
3.
With a Black Sea coastline of approximately 1,700 km and with three large rivers, Sakarya,
Kizilirmak, Yesilirmak, originating in Central Anatolia and emptying into the Black Sea, Turkey is one of
the contributors of pollutants to the Black Sea. According to the Black Sea Transboundary Diagnostic
Analysis (1996), Turkey's annual discharges of N and P to the Black Sea are estimated at 38,000 t/y and
5,800 t/y, respectively. These amounts make up about 20 percent and 12 percent, of the total N and P,
respectively, produced in the non-Danube Black Sea Basin.
4.
The Nutrient Reduction Action Plan for Turkey prepared with GEF assistance identified
agricultural non-point source pollution as a very important source of nutrient loads in Yesilirmak and
Kizilirmak. The main causes of river pollution from agricultural non-point sources were identified as (i)
poor agricultural practices, including inappropriate and excessive application of agricultural chemicals,
such as fertilizers; (ii) inappropriate management, storage and disposal of animal manure and waste; (iii)
soil erosion resulting from unsustainable land use and (iv) poor drainage. There is indication that excessive
application of agricultural chemicals has also led to widespread contamination of wells which provide
- 72 -
drinking water to rural communities, thus threatening public health. The Action Plan calls for the
development of sound agricultural management and participatory integrated river basin management.
5.
The Kizilirmak and Yesilirmak basins are intensively cultivated and home to agro-processing
enterprises. Kizilirmak, Turkey's longest river with 1,151km, and Yesilirmak originate in the Central
Anatolian Plateau and empty into the Black Sea at the Bafra and Carsamba Deltas in the Samsun Province.
In both deltas, intensive horticultural and small-scale livestock production is carried out. Along Yesilirmak
to the south of Samsun, Amasya and Tokat are also significantly engaged in intensive cultivation of fruits,
vegetables and crops, and in as small-scale livestock production. In the upper regions of Kizilirmak, to the
southwest of Samsun, the land is under intensive rice cultivation in addition to crop production. Large-scale
poultry production is prevalent in Corum while plastic house or green house vegetable production (with
high levels of chemical use) is becoming popular in the Bafra Delta.
6.
Nutrient Loads from Yesilirmak and Kizilirmak. The Turkey Black Sea Environmental Priorities
Study (1998) funded by the GEF Black Sea Environmental Programme estimated nutrient discharges for
Yesilirmak and Kizilirmak (Table 1). Intensive crop cultivation, livestock production and agro-processing
which is dominant in the Kizilirmak and Yesilirmak Basins and believed to be the most important source of
nutrient flow into these rivers. In particular, the Bafra and Carsamba Deltas, where intensive horticulture is
practiced, are nutrient hotspots.
Table 1.
Kizilirmak
Yesilirmak
Total N
4,730
7,768
Total P
278
414
Source: Turkey Black Sea Environmental Priorities Study (1998)
Baseline Scenario
7.
In the baseline scenario, the Government of Turkey and the NGOs community would continue their
ongoing and planned activities in the agriculture and environment sector. These include activities aiming at
water pollution control in the Black Sea region as well as related policy and capacity building measures,
namely (i) annual Government expenditures in monitoring and control activities in the 14 provinces of the
Yesilirmak and Kizilirmak Basins; (ii) AWRP, but excluding the Black Sea region; (iii) the EU funded
Water Quality Analysis Project, (iv) a GTZ funded erosion control project in the eastern Black Sea region,
and (v) Dutch-funded activities to align environmental regulations with those of the EU.
8.
The General Directorate for Protection and Control (KKGM) of the Ministry of Agriculture and
Rural Affairs (MARA) would continue its water quality monitoring and control activities in the 14
provinces of the Yesilirmak and Kizilirmak basins. In 2002, Government funding allocated to GDCP's
provincial directorates for their work in water quality control amounted to approximately US$17,000.
Additionally, approximately US$20,000 were allocated to Provincial Control Laboratories in Samsun,
Amasya, Tokat, Ankara and Kayseri. Assuming that the same amount would be allocated for these
purposes during the project period, 2004-2010, the total amount is estimated at US$259,000.
9.
AWRP which is a follow-up to the successful Eastern Anatolia Watershed Rehabilitation Project,
would be implemented in the Seyhan, Ceyhan and Goksu Basins which drain into the Mediterranean Sea.
The objective of the project is to support sustainable natural resource management and raise income of the
communities in degraded watersheds in Anatolia. In the baseline scenario, there would be no incentive to
extend AWRP's effective integrated and participatory microcatchment management approach to the
- 73 -
introduction and popularization of environmentally friendly agricultural practices in the Black Sea basin.
Furthermore, without APCP, original AWRP provinces would not benefit from the emphasis on proper
manure management and fertilizer use methods. The total cost of AWRP, without APCP, is estimated at
US$57.05 million, of which US$36.62 million will be covered from a World Bank loan and the rest by the
Government and project beneficiaries.
10.
MEF is carrying out a program to monitor land-based sources of pollution to the Black Sea
Region.The project cost of $500,000 has been allocated by Government to MEF for 2004 to finance
implementation.
11.
Furthermore, the EU-funded Water Quality Analysis Project of approximately US$9 million has
supported capacity building, notably equipment and training, in 10 laboratories in Turkey. In the absence
of concrete data, we conservatively assume that approximately US$0.5 million has been spent on upgrading
the Samsun Water Analysis Laboratory.
12.
Another related project in the Black Sea region focuses on erosion control and natural resources
management in Bayburt, Coruh Valley. Funded by the German bilateral cooperation agency, GTZ, the
project has been implemented by the NGO TEMA since 2000 and will continue through 2007. The total
project cost is approximately US$4 million.
13.
It should also be mentioned that the MEF, in its capacity as the coordinating agency for efforts to
harmonize environmental legislation with the EU acquis, is cooperating with the Government of
Netherlands to align Turkish regulations with EC Water Framework and Environmental Impact
Assessment Directives. Both activities will last two years at a cost of 800,000. An agreement has also
been signed between the Turkish and Dutch governments, in the framework of which MEF's priority areas
of Black Sea water quality improvement and construction of wastewater treatment infrastructure in the
Black Sea region will be addressed. Finally, while not directly part of the baseline scenario for APCP, it is
also worth mentioning that the Turkish Government is also beneficiary of the Dutch MATRA project
"Implementation of Water Framework Directive in Turkey". The main aim of the project is to implement
the Water Framework Directive and to analyze water use arrangements in Turkey with a focus on the
Buyuk Menderes Watershed located in the Western part of the Turkey.
14.
The Yesilirmak Basin Development Project which was carried out between 1996 and 2001 under
the support of the Governor's Offices of the provinces Samsun, Amasya, Tokat, Corum and Yozgat,
should also be mentioned as it helped put in place capacity that will be very useful in the implementation of
APCP. The project aimed at land use planning taking into account ecological concerns, modern natural
resource management, erosion prevention, identification of water pollution sources and their monitoring,
rangeland rehabilitation, identification of forest areas and their monitoring, monitoring of urbanization and
industrialization, and resolving issues in planned development. In 1998, satellite images and data on
climate, soil, settlement areas and roads were collected. In 1999, data needed for a GIS infrastructure were
completed. This GIS capability will contribute significantly to the implementation of APCP.
15.
Turkey has also carried out two consecutive Local Agenda 21 projects with UNDP funding. The
projects have coordinated by IULA-EMME International Union of Local Authorities Section for Eastern
Mediterranean and the Middle East and designed and executed by local committees made up of local
authorities, NGOs and educational institutions. The purpose of the projects was to have local authorities,
via their commitment to Local Agenda 21, foster a participatory, multi-sectoral process to achieve the
goals of Agenda 21 at the local level through the preparation and implementation of long-term, strategic
action plans that address priority local sustainable development concerns. To this end, city-wide
- 74 -
consultative mechanisms (City Councils and other platforms), as well as working groups and special task
forces have been constituted from amongst different types of local actors and citizens in a significant
number of cities. In the Black Sea region, the provinces of Samsun, Kastamonu, Bolu, Carum, Trabzon
and Zonguldak have been part of the these projects and some of them elected to form working groups
focusing on environment and sustainable agriculture issues. These formations provide a good civil society
basis for the implementation of the APCP project. A cost estimate for this part of the project is not
available.
16.
Finally, Turkey has played a prominent role in efforts to rehabilitate the Black Sea. In particular,
since the early 1990s Turkey has hosted the Black Sea Environment Programme based in Istanbul and has
contributed about 40 percent of the operating costs of this organization.
17.
The total cost of these baseline activities are US$ 61.66 million over the period 2004 2010. Of
these, US$37.92 million are baseline activities specifically associated with AWRP.
GEF Alternative Scenario
18.
GEF Alternative will aim at reducing nutrient discharges from agricultural sources into the
Yesilirmak and Kizilirmak rivers. Project activities to achieve this benefit are (i) promoting
environmentally-friendly farming practices, including proper animal waste management; (ii) strengthening
policy and regulatory capacity for meeting EU standards in agricultural pollution control; (iii) raising
public awareness to disseminate the benefits of the proposed project activities and developing a replication
strategy to promote project activities in other similar areas in Turkey as well as in Black Sea riparian
countries; and (iv) applied research. These activities will be fully blended in the components of the Anatolia
Watershed Rehabilitation Project.
19.
Under the "Environment-friendly Practices" component, the project will construct storage and
provide handling facilities for livestock waste management. It will also provide training to farmers. Such
activities are a first in Turkey and would not have happened without the project's financial and technical
contribution. Advice on crop nutrient management will also be made an integral part of extension advice to
farmers, supported by provision of simple field equipment for soils analysis and part payment of KHGM
soil analysis services used by farmers. The project will train MARA and MEF staff on crop nutrient
management. The outcome of these activities will be more judicious application and partial replacement by
manure of synthetic fertilizers which will lower the run-off of excessive nutrients. Demonstration of
financial gains from more rational use of fertilizers will help convert farmers to such practices and ensure
sustainability and replication by farmers in other parts of the region. The project will also support the
development of organic farming in the project area which by definition will contribute to nutrient reduction.
20.
The implementation of the EU Nitrates Directive and adoption of a Code of Good Agricultural
Practices will provide the regulatory backing for the above activities and help ensure sustainability and
replicability. The project will support institutional development in MARA and MEF. Awareness raising
campaigns at the provincial and national levels will further support the dissemination of knowledge about
environmentally friendly activities.
21.
Applied research will concentrate on conservation tillage and its potential to reduce nutrient
leakages. Annually up to 20-40 percent decreases in N and P flows have been recorded on demonstration
plots in other parts of Turkey and other countries. The component will aim to achieve wider application of
the practice in the Black Sea region of Turkey by emphasizing the financial gains conservation tillage holds
- 75 -
for farmers.
22.
As the above project description demonstrates, the GEF Alternative will provide the Government of
Turkey with capacity to systematically control agricultural nutrient pollution which does not currently exist
in Turkey. It will foster collaboration of agencies involved which is also lacking. Furthermore, by adopting
AWRP's integrated participatory micro-catchment (MC) management approach the project will ensure that
project interventions reflect MC preferences and that villagers are committed to sustainable resource
management. The MCs will also serve as basic water quality monitoring units.
23.
The project activities described above will result in estimated reduction of nutrient flows of 20
kg/ha N and 2.5kg/ha P annually. These estimates are transferred from the case of the Romania
Agricultural Pollution Control Project. It is believed that per hectare savings would be the same in both
countries. Project activities will be carried out on about 50,000ha (4 MC s and one irrigation perimeter of
approximately 10,000 ha each). Of this agricultural area is estimated at 20,000 ha. Assuming that by the
end of the project, 50 percent of the farmers adopt environmentally friendly agricultural practices supported
by the project, the reduction of annual N and P run-off at the farm level would be 200 tons N and 25 tons
P. Furthermore, conservatively assuming that in 10 years such practices are adopted on 30 percent of the
1.7 million ha of agricultural area in the four project provinces, annual reductions of N and P run-off at the
farm level would reach 11,000tons N and 1,300 tons P, respectively, by 2003. In the long run , the effect
will be multiplied as nutrient saving practices will be more widely adopted in Turkey's Black Sea Basin.
The incremental costs of these benefits is estimated at US$7.00 million, which will be requested from the
GEF.
- 76 -
Table 1: Incremental Cost Matrix (USD million)
Component
Cost Category
Cost*
Local Benefits
Global Benefits
(US$ million)
1. Rehabilitation of Baseline
17.38
Reduction of resource
degraded natural
degradation
resources
With GEF Alternative
23.51
Financial gains from
Reduction of
(Introduction of
rational nutrient
nutrient run-off to
environment-friendly
management; reduced
the Black Sea.
practices, incl. manure
health risks from ground
management, nutrient
and surface water
management, organic
contamination.
farming and water/soil
quality monitoring.)
Increment
6.13
2. Income raising Baseline
17.57
Increased household
activities
incomes in rural areas.
With GEF Alternative
17.57
Increment
0
3. Strengthening
Baseline
0.10
Limited harmonization
policy and
with EU directives.
regulatory
capacity towards
meeting EU
standards
With GEF Alternative
0.18
Enhanced capacity of
Enhanced
(Policy and regulatory
regulatory agencies to
sustainability and
capacity building, incl.
monitor and enforce water replicability of
implementation of the
quality regulations.
nutrient reducing
Nitrates Directive,
Improved quality of
activities in
preparation of a Code of
agricultural produce and
Turkey's Black Sea
Good Agricultural
more secure access to
Basin.
Practices and support for
European agricultural
institutional development
markets.
for organic farming.)
Possibility of capturing
local and international
niche markets for organic
produce and associated
incomes.
Increment
0.18
4. Awareness
Baseline
0.68
Farmers become aware of
raising, capacity
sustainable resource
building and
management practices and
replication
are more likely to adopt
strategy
them.
With GEF Alternative
1.06
In addition to the above,
Replication and
(Farmer training on
farmers understand
sustainability of
environment friendly
financial benefits from
environment
agricultural practices,
proper manure and
friendly agricultural
public awareness raising
nutrient management
practices in the
at the national level, and
practices as a result of
project region and
- 77 -
creation of a replication
which they more likely to
across the country.
strategy.)
adopt them.
Increment
0.38
5. Project
Baseline
2.19
Project implementation
Management
with financial, fiduciary,
environmental and social
due diligence.
With GEF Alternative
2.50
Project
implementation
with financial,
fiduciary,
environmental and
social due diligence.
Increment
0.31
Total
Baseline
37.92
With GEF Alternative
44.92
Increment
7.00
* Includes price and physical contingencies
- 78 -
Annex 12: GEF Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP) Review
TURKEY: ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT
Scientific and technical soundness
The scientific and technical basis of the project is sound. It addresses the critical issue of reducing nutrient
pollution of the Kizilirmak, Yesilirmak Rivers flowing into the Black Sea. It builds upon and is linked with
the "Strategic Action Plan for the Protection and Rehabilitation of the Black Sea" (BSSAP), formulated
with the assistance of the Global Environment Facility (GEF).
The proposal builds upon and extends the practical demonstration of implementation and benefits of
pollution reduction projects Eastern Anatolia Watershed Management Project (EAWP). It seeks, with
reasonable recognition of the social constraints of patriarchal "elder" decision making, to build
understanding and acceptance of and commitment to identifying and operating within the constraints of the
ecological systems that underlie agricultural production.
Global environment benefits and costs
Nutrient pollution of the Black sea has been identified as an environmental issue of global significance. If
this project achieves its objectives it will have clear benefits in addressing a significant source of nutrient
pollution of the Black Sea from Turkey. With similar success in comparable projects being undertaken in
other country catchments draining into the Black Sea this project will contribute substantially to the global
goals of reduced agricultural pollution of the Black Sea
The context of GEF goals and guidelines
The project clearly addresses the objectives of the integrated land and water and water quality within the
context of watershed agricultural and environmental management. It addresses the objectives of providing a
basis for achieving sustainability and it applies the guidelines with respect to incremental costs and the
log-frame. GEF Operational Program Number 8, "Waterbody Based Operational Program", which
focuses "on seriously threatened water-bodies and the most important trans-boundary threats to their
ecosystems". The Project is also consistent with GEF Operational Programs 12 "Integrated Ecosystem
Management" and 9 "Integrated Land and Water Multiple Focal Areas Operational Program".
Regional Context
Discussed above. The project is important in the context of the rehabilitation of the Black Sea.
Replicability
This project builds on experience of projects addressing agricultural pollution and watershed rehabilitation
of major river systems draining into the Baltic Black and Mediterranean Seas. It is replicating and
extending this experience in the socioeconomic context of the EAWP by addressing 3 Mediterranean
watersheds from EAWP and 2 additional Black Sea watersheds. The clearly stated intention in the design
concept is that this extension will consolidate and further develop experience and capacity to replicate
similar practices in other catchments.
- 79 -
Sustainability
This is a key element of project design. It has been developed in the light of experience of local
participation and conditions in EAWP. The ongoing sustainability will depend on demonstration of
benefits and on community and particularly appreciation by decision-makers of the economic,
environmental and social benefits of alternative agricultural methods and on a reasonable flow-on of those
benefits from landowners to others in the communities.
Contribution to future strategies and policies
Success with this project should contribute to the broader adoption of pollution minimizing agricultural
practices in the catchments of the Black and Mediterranean Seas.
Involvement of stakeholders
The project proposal recognizes stakeholder involvement as a critical issue. It discusses the issues of
patriarchal elder decision making, the capture of benefits by elites and the vulnerability of younger men to
exclusion from decision making concerning land and resources for which they will eventually be
responsible. The discussion on extension addresses demonstration sites and public awareness programs. It
can be inferred that the demonstration sites are targeted largely at the decision makers.
There is no specific mention of a role for school based education in this process. Inclusion of a school
based curriculum element would have to be addressed sensitively but other environmental projects have
demonstrated the benefits of accelerating the acceptance of information into communities through school
children having good information and discussing it within family groups. A further stakeholder issue that is
perhaps understated relates to the human health benefits of improved water quality. This is an issue often
of particular interest to women as careers of the sick and sickly and explicit treatment of that issue in the
public awareness strategy could provide another avenue of persuasion to customary decision makers.
Risk assessments
To the extent that I can judge, being unfamiliar with the field operating situation, the risks seem to be
reasonably discussed and I concur with the assessments
Costs
I have insufficient operational experience in the target area to make substantial comment on the detail of
funding allocations. However in the light of comments above on replication and community education I
would suggest that the design team consider the adequacy of the budget components for Component 4 (a)
Public Awareness and Replication Strategy. Unless there is some other source of provision for
development and delivery of school and community education materials a total expenditure USDM 0.39
from a total budget of USDM69.70 appears insufficient. I make this comparison in the light of my
experience in other projects seeking to develop community involvement and "ownership" and my
understanding of the scale of the areas being addressed. The allocation for component 4 (b) Capacity
Building seems reasonable and I would not suggest reducing that.
Conclusion
- 80 -
This is a soundly designed project drawing on the experience of similar projects to tackle critical issues of
agricultural pollution in ways that appear to be appropriate to the socio-economic situation described for
Anatolia. Subject to specific consideration of the targeting, resourcing and budget adequacy of provisions
for Component 4 (a) Public Awareness and Replication Strategy I recommend that it should proceed.
R A Kenchington
RAC Marine Pty Ltd
17 February 2003
- 81 -
Bank Response to STAP Reviewer's Comments
(i) Stakeholder Involvement. "...there is no specific mention of a role for school based education in this
process... A further stakeholder issue that is perhaps understated relates to the human health benefits of
improved water quality. This is an issue often of particular interest to women as carers of the sick and
sickly and explicit treatment of that issue in the public awareness strategy could provide another avenue
of persuasion to customary decision makers".
The project team concurs with the STAP reviewer that school-based education would be a useful tool to
inform and train potential beneficiaries in resource management and conservation techniques, including
environmentally friendly agricultural practices as proposed under the Project. It is expected that as a result
of the participatory approach of the project, whereby communities will actively determine and evaluate
public awareness activities during project implementation, school-based programs will become a significant
avenue for dissemination of knowledge and provision of training in natural resources management.
Towards this, the Project Management Unit will design an appropriate school-based program and allocate
necessary funds for its implementation.
The public awareness campaign designed under the Project to disseminate information on project benefits,
includes the importance of clean drinking water and its implications for human health. The project will
encourage the participation of women so as to assure that gender issues are mainstreamed into MC
development, planning and implementation.
(ii)
The design team consider the adequacy of the budget components for Component 4 (a) Public
Awareness and Replication Strategy. Unless there is some other source of provision for development and
delivery of school and community education materials a total expenditure USDM 0.39 from a total
budget of USDM69.70 appears insufficient.
Project costs were revised and finalized during the appraisal mission in January 2004, in part to take
account of this concern. The allocation for the component on Public Awareness and Replication Strategy
is US$1.06 million, of a total project cost of USD 45.11 million.
- 82 -
Annex 13: Environmental Management Framework
TURKEY: ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT
Introduction
On balance, the Anatolia Watershed Rehabilitation Project is expected to have significant positive
environmental impacts. It is expected to contribute to reduced erosion, increased vegetative and forest
cover, improved land management, and will reduce the discharge of polluting nutrients into waterways.
Wider positive environmental impacts will be an outcome of institutional measures implemented by the
project to support application of the EU nitrates directive and public awareness building in this regard. The
project was screened by Bank Safeguards staff who concluded that it should be rated as a Category B
project, with potential adverse environmental impacts on human populations or environmentally important
areas. These impacts are site-specific; few if any of them are irreversible; and in most cases mitigatory
measures can be readily designed and implemented.
In order more closely to consider the project's potential negative environmental impacts, Government
commissioned a Regional Environmental Assessment to provide the analytical framework better to address
environmental concerns in the design, implementation, and monitoring of project interventions. The
Regional Environmental Assessment confirmed that the project is not expected to result in any significant
environmental risks or negative environmental impacts, but indicated that a range of potential, minor
negative impacts are, however, possible. The Regional Environmental Assessment identified these impacts,
and mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project's design. Potential negative environmental
impacts include,
l
impacts resulting from poorly designed soil erosion control measures such as terracing;
l
impacts resulting from the rehabilitation or construction of access roads;
l
impacts on forest villages which may find traditional access to forests restricted;
l
impacts associated with the possible use of abiotic pesticides during the establishment and operation of
tree nurseries which are to provide seedlings for afforestation and for microcatchment rehabilitation;
l
impacts associated with dam safety, resulting from the construction of numerous small farm ponds and
irrigation tanks.
Project investments are to be made on the basis of priorities identified through a participatory and
community-based planning process in each of the 28 microcatchments where the project is to be operating.
The project itself will be supporting this planning and priority setting process, and so the project's likely
environmental impacts can only be described in the abstract ex-ante, on the basis of the technologies which
are likely to be supported in project microcatchments. In this respect, the project comprises a series of 28
microcatchment sub-projects, each with their own potential environmental impacts.
The project's Environmental Management Framework seeks to balance the need for screening new
microcatchment management plans for their potential environmental impacts, for putting in place mitigation
measures which are consistent with prevailing best-practice technical standards and which will be triggered
depending on the mix of activities which are adopted in each microcatchment, for monitoring environmental
performance in each microcatchment, and for making further corrections as monitoring and evaluation
activities identify environmental concerns and the need for further mitigation during implementation.
The Regional Environmental Assessment was reviewed by Government and by the Bank, and was
- 83 -
subsequently revised. The revised Regional Environmental Assessment was translated into Turkish, and
was made widely available. A consultation on the revised draft was held on February 20, 2003 and
involved a range of civil society organizations and government agencies. The REA describes a methodology
for screening microcatchment plans for environmental impacts, and for proposing and introducing
mitigating steps, which will be handled as part of the regular criteria-based microcatchment selection
process. The project will support the establishment of capacity within the implementing agencies to ensure
that subprojects are assessed for their potential impacts, and environmental management plans are prepared
and implemented in compliance with the national requirements as well as Bank policy on environmental
assessment (OP 4.01). The REA describes the procedures and arrangements between the implementing
agency, the environmental authority and the borrower entities for subproject environmental screening,
assessment, consultations and disclosure. Generic EMPs for investments in different subsectors (farm
ponds, feeder roads etc.) are provided as examples. EMP recommendations are incorporated into the
Project Implementation Plan and describe screening standards, mechanisms, examples, and procedures
related to Safeguards issues.
Screening
A screening exercise, which reviewed 38 sets of project activities, was carried out as part of the REA to
determine the extent of possible negative environmental impacts. A screening matrix was developed which
assessed these likely impacts of these activities, and was completed in conjunction with a detailed review of
6 microcatchment plans which had been completed prior to Appraisal. The objective of preparing the
screening matrix was both to ensure that potential impacts are adequately identified upstream and that these
can be mitigated as part of the project, but also to provide guidance to project staff for the implementation
of microcatchment managment plan environmental screening during project implementation. The screening
process identified a range of possible negative environmental impacts.
Possible negative environmental impacts
Potential for increased soil erosion
Ground preparation in forest areas, both with machines and by hand, and the manual construction of
terraces will be undertaken, as required, in some forest areas. In some agricultural areas, the prevailing
land-use practice has been to plough perpendicular to the contour, rather than with the contour. Where
these practices are widespread, erosion could clearly be worsened by the introduction of various cropping
measures through the project. On balance, when poorly implemented, a range of practices to be supported
by the project could actually lead to increased erosion rather than to erosion control and in the absence of
various mitigation measures, ground preparation activities can lead to soil compaction.
Access road rehabilitation or construction
There are three types of roads to be constructed under the project. Provisions have been made for the
construction of around 80 km of service roads by AGM in project microcatchments, primarily along ridges.
Another 60 km of B-type secondary forest roads are to be constructed by GDF. Finally, the project is
expected to build around 30 km of service roads in microcatchments to provide access to irrigation
channels and pipes by KHGM for their operation and maintenance.
Generally speaking, the primary potential negative environmental impacts related to the construction of
roads include habitat loss/fragmentation (associated with the footprint of the road); alteration of
drainage/natural hydrologic regime; stream erosion; soil erosion and downstream sedimentation; slope
- 84 -
instability and landslides; and resultant secondary impacts (e.g., increased access to formerly remote areas,
increased resource extraction and resultant impacts to biodiversity and physical environment, economic
impacts such as employment both temporary (road construction impacts) and permanent (ongoing
maintenance and resource extraction impacts)).
Traditional access to forests
It is conceivable that the community-based participatory planning process may identify degraded forested
areas within microcatchments which would benefit from protection, or from otherwise restricting access to
traditional use. This determination will be made on a microcatchment-by-microcatchment basis.
Restrictions in access may affect household access to common grazing resources or to fuelwood, but likely
not to Non-timber Forest Products (which can largely be extracted with minimal negative impacts).
Pesticide use
The only sub-component which may involve the use of abiotic pesticides (but not their purchase with IBRD
funds) is the component which results in the production of tree seedlings. The project will not be directly
financing the purchase of pesticides, but the agents contracted for nursery production may use pesticides in
conjunction with tree seedling production. More generally, farmers who are involved with the project may
use pesticides as part of their on-going farming practices, but their use is neither advocated nor financed by
the project.
Dam safety
Under the income generation component, the project will finance small scale irrigation, including
construction of concrete ponds, diversion weirs and small dams. Highest priority will be given to irrigation
ponds at strategic places throughout the MC areas as this will allow to reach the largest number of
beneficiaries. Construction of dams will only occur in MCs with extreme water shortage. Based on the
experience with EAWP, these dams are expected to be less than 15 high. Dam safety concerns are issues
where poor design and construction standards may result in dam failure. No land acquisition or resettlement
is expected to be required, as dams will be constructed on public lands.
Mitigation measures
Potential for increased soil erosion
All terracing is to be carried out manually. Mechanical terracing was abolished by the MoF after bad
experiences during the early stages of the EAWRP. When undertaking ground preparation, including
terracing, to reduce erosion, to improve degraded forest and range areas, and for reforestation, care must be
taken not to exacerbate erosion and to increase flash flooding. This will be done by first undertaking a
classification of soil types depth, slope and rainfall and then adhering to prescriptions for terracing
according to internationally acceptable criteria, as outlined the instructions published by AGM. (Issues to
be Taken into Account in the Erosion Control Activities, Instruction No: 14, Ankara, 1999; Instructions
No. 6, 7 and 8 regarding erosion control activities, in-forest rangeland rehabilitation activities and
reforestation activities respectively; Guidelines for Terracing, TOPRAKSU, Ankara; and Technical
Specifications for Bidding for Terracing KHGM (Ankara-2000)). These Instructions conform to
international best-practice standards.
On agricultural land, where fields are narrow and contour ploughing may not be practical, alternatives to
- 85 -
`slope' ploughing include minimum tillage. Terracing and the planting of perennial crops will be
introduced. It was observed in Malatya that, by planting fruit trees and vegetables on terraces, while
planting either fodder or vines on slopes, agricultural benefits to farmers are increased and environmental
benefits are improved. The demonstration of alternatives to slope ploughing with the appropriate agronomic
package, including drip irrigation on terraces, is essential as is farmer participation in the planning and
execution of alternatives. Early commitment of farmers should be sought for re-vegetation of terraces,
including perennials, immediately after they have been prepared.
With respect to the potential for soil compaction, deep ripping will only be applied where the soil will
benefit from infiltration. It should be confined to where trees are to be planted or sown, or on a limited
basis where rangeland areas are to be re-seeded. Building on experience gained through EAWRP, most
rangelands will be improved through enclosure. When soils are disturbed, exposed ground will be
re-vegetated quickly to prevent erosion and to improve water retention. Water harvesting will be considered
on rangelands to be rehabilitated in order to sustain the vegetative cover and to improve the soil-water
balance.
Gully plugging, especially at an early stage will prevent loss of topsoil and fertility. The number and
frequency of gullies will be assessed in each microcatchment in order to optimise environmental benefits
and to minimize costs. The lessons learnt from the EAWRP in gully plugging must be transferred and
implemented in the AWRP. Gullies can be prevented through appropriate and sufficient vegetation cover,
correct land preparation practices (especially for arable farming), reduction of fallow and the use of
suitable harvesting methods and equipment.
Access road rehabilitation or construction
Access road construction standards have been developed by GDF in various Instructions which describe
technical and administrative specifications and conditions for road construction bidding, including a format
for special provisions and a sample contract (Forest Roads, Road Construction Works, Gen. Dir. of
Forestry, Ankara, 1988). Roads are to be constructed with the specifications of 4 m platform width plus 1
m ditch width (5 m. in total) and 0.5 m sub-grade width, a minimum curve radius of 10-12 m and
maximum slope of 10%. These standards should be updated to more fully incorporate more recent
environmental best practice standards in road construction.
When undertaking road construction, maximum slopes should not exceed standards set for the soil type and
terrain. Culverts should be installed to prevent erosion and bridges built across streams or rivers of a
specified width. Where the soil is disturbed through cut and fill, the exposed ground should be re-vegetated
quickly to prevent erosion. There will be clauses in the road building contract concerning environmental
protection such as no cutting of trees without approval, replacing cut trees with appropriate species, where
to dump excavated soil, no use of explosives without approval from MoE, how to maintain a temporary
camp etc. Maintenance of roads is important to prevent erosion, rutting and water logging etc. Planting
vegetation along the roadside should stabilize the soil and improve the microclimate.
Traditional access to forests
With respect to forestry activities, communities and individuals with interests in the use and management of
forest resources will be identified and consulted during the participatory preparation of microcatchment
plans. The project is not expected to limit to any significant extent communities' traditional use of forested
areas. The project fully complies with OP 4.36 on Forestry as it aims to "reduce deforestation, enhance the
economic contribution of forested areas, promote afforestation, reduce poverty and encourage economic
- 86 -
development," through an integrated and participatory approach to microcatchment natural resource
management, particularly through activities aimed at rehabilitating degraded forest lands and income
generation activities geared towards compensating communities for short term costs associated with land
management and protection.
Pesticide use
All farmers that use or will use permitted herbicides, insecticides and pesticides on their arable and
horticultural crops will be trained in the storage, handling and use of these chemicals as well as with
respect to the careful disposal of the containers in a manner consistent with the Directive on the Method
and Principles of Registration of Pesticides and Similar Agents used for Plant Protection as well as other
regulations and directives. The use of appropriate clothing will be encouraged through demonstration. It is
not envisaged that the any pesticides will be procured with project funds. Alternatives to chemicals, such as
disease resistant strains (from local wild varieties) and integrated pest management will be demonstrated.
Local people may know of natural predators and plants with naturally occurring insecticide properties:
such indigenous knowledge should be tapped. The control of ticks and other parasites is important in
animal husbandry; therefore, pastoralists will be trained in the handling and use of control agents. The
procurement of any abiotic pesticides, including those on WHO 1A and 1B lists will not be allowed
through the project.
More generally, Turkey has signed the Rotterdam Convention covering the use of chemical control agents.
Pesticides are differentiated according to their toxicity with the eventual goal of phasing out the use of
pesticides which are hazardous for the environment and human beings. The use of following pesticides is
banned in Turkey: 2,4,5-T, Aldrin, Binapacryl, Captafol, Chlordane, Chlordimeform, Chlorobenzilate,
DDT, Dieldrin, Dinoseb and its salts, HCH (mixed isomers), Heptachlor, Hexachlorobenzane, Lindane,
Pentachlorophenol, Hg (Mercury) compounds, Endrin, Leptephos, As (Arsenic) compounds, Fluorodifen,
Chlorpropylate, Daminozide (Alar 85), Taxophane, Zineb, Azinphos ethyl, Dibromochlorpropan (DBCP),
Methylarsenic (MSMA). From the list of pesticides, which are subject to PIC (Prior Informed Consent)
according to the international legislation only the following preparatives which are in compliance with PIC
limitations are not banned, and the rest are either banned or not registered licensed at all: Monocrotophos,
Methamidophos, Phosphamidon, Methyl parathion, Parathion. The Aqua Products Law (No. 1380 of
1995) lists pesticide concentrations allowed in inland water bodies, and there are guidelines on products
which can be used for phyto-sanitation published by the MARA General Directorate of Protection and
Control (Plant Protection Products 2002, MARA, TISIT, Istanbul, 2002).
Dam safety
The implementing agency for this component, KHGM, has long experience with the design, construction
and maintenance of over 600 small dams throughout the country. During project preparation and appraisal,
it was determined that KHGM has the relevant knowledge and experience to design, construct and maintain
small dams and that it has proper design standards to guarantee the safety of small dams. Operation and
routine maintenance of irrigation infrastructure will be the responsibility of beneficiary communities under
the supervision and guidance of KHGM. Under the project KHGM will provide relevant local communities
with training on dam surveillance, operation and management to assure that they can effectively carry out
their responsibilities. Although it is unlikely that the project will include construction of dams higher than
15 meters, a panel of independent experts, consisting of a dam engineer and a hydrologist with
qualifications satisfactory to the Bank, has been designated who would be called upon to carry out an
independent review of the investigation, design, and construction of the dam and the start of operations, as
spelled out in OP 4.37. No private land will be acquired for the construction of dams and resettlement is
- 87 -
thefore not an issue.
There should be no major negative environmental effects when building irrigation channels, ponds, small
reservoirs and realigning water courses. Reservoir construction is mainly to regulate water flow and
provide water balance to the soil since rainfall is very irregular between the seasons. Flooding is expected
to be reduced by roughly 40-60%. There may be some initial erosion, but this can be quickly stopped
through re-vegetation. Some of the irrigation and pond work etc. will be put out to tender. There are
internationally acceptable technical specifications published by KHGM (Ankara-2000) for small irrigation
dams (up to 15 m high). During the tendering process, provisions will be made to ensure that environmental
standards are adhered (i.e. limited tree cutting, replacing cut trees, re-vegetation of bare soil, dumping of
excavated soil).
Monitoring environmental performance
Environmental monitoring standards are to be incorporated into the project's Monitoring and Evaluation
system, which is to be undertaken by staff in the Project Operations Unit. Monitoring of environmental
performance will focus both on a range of environmental indicators (areas reforested, pastures
rehabilitated, sediment load, etc.) as well as on implementation of mitigation measures (compliance with
roads construction standards, compliance with terrace construction standards, etc.)
Institutional responsibilities and capacity building
It was agreed during Appraisal that a mechanism would be established within the Project Operations Unit
formally to screen Microcatchment Management Plans, once these have been prepared, in a manner which
is consistent with the guidance provided in the REA. The Project Operations Unit will also be responsible
for ensuring that mitigation measures described in the REA are fully incorporated in these plans.
Environmental performance will be monitored as part of the M&E system, and will be supervised by the
Bank during project implementation.
Capacity to undertake these tasks is weak. The project will provide resources to train project staff in the
development and implementation of environmentally-sound microcatchment management methods and
approaches, including screening and mitigation of possible negative environmental impacts.
Other issues
Involuntary Resettlement (OP4.12): A review of possible issues surrounding resettlement concluded that
this OP does not apply to the project. No land acquisition is involved. In particular, this review concluded
that all dams to be built under the project will be very small and be constructed on public land located in
the mountainous upper part of watersheds. No private land will be acquired for dam construction and the
dam location will be selected such that the reservoirs will only flood rocky, barren land. No grazing or
other public land from which communities might derive a livelihood will be affected. The loan agreement
will include a covenant to this effect.
Projects in International Waterways (OP7.50): Various concerns were raised during project preparation
that the OP on Projects in International Waterways might be triggered because of the small scale irrigation
component. The matter was thoroughly reviewed by Bank legal staff who concluded that the OP does not
apply because their impact on abstraction of water flowing into the Meditteranean and Black Seas would
be negligible. The small streams (many of which are already intensively used by local farmers) are third or
fourth level tributaries of these five national rivers. A number of diversion schemes, irrigating about 20 ha
- 88 -
each, will be constructed along these small streams in each of the five national river catchments.
Considering the annual flow of these large rivers, the total annual abstraction is negligible (less than 0.1%
in the river with the smallest annual flow). The project's emphasis on extension will result in reduced
agriculture based pollution of ground and surface water.
- 89 -
Annex 14: Summary of Social Assessment
TURKEY: ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT
1.0
Social Development Outcomes
This Annex summarizes the key social issues relevant to the project objectives. The detailed social
assessment is available in the project documents. The project will contribute to the following social
development outcomes:
l
Equity. Labor intensive project interventions such as tree planting and construction works will offer
poor villagers income-earning opportunities. Improvements in agricultural and forest productivity and
new employment opportunities will enrich the livelihood strategies of poor villagers.
l
Empowerment. The project emphasises people's participation in the conservation of particular natural
resources essential for their livelihood strategies. Local communities will be empowered to organize
and mobilize themsleves and be fully involved in the planning and management of their natural resource
base.
l
Social Inclusion. Project intervention at the MC level will be demand driven primarily through the
involvement of local communities in developing their own micro-catchment management plans. In
addition, the application of the farmer-centred-problem-census-problem-solving (FCPCPS) approach
has helped strengthen inter-agency collaboration and will further improve access of local communities
to goods and services generated by the project.
2.0
Method
A social survey using both qualitative and quantitative methods was conducted in July-August 2002 in five
MCs located in five different provinces. The MCs were selected based on their location in each of the five
catchments (Kızılırmak, Yeşilırmak, Seyhan, Ceyhan, East Mediterranean- Göksu) and reflecting
different climatic and vegetation conditions. In general, there are two types of MCs corresponding to the
two different categories of intervention in the project: Type I refers to the MCs where erosion control and
land management is the main concern and forms the bulk of the MCs covered under the project. Type II
refers to the MCs where interventions are targeted at controlling agricultural pollution and corresponds
with the GEF financed sub-component of the project. In the social survey, the MCs studied were the
Gogden, Orcan and Kabaktepe MCs under Type I, and Kazova and Ilyasli under Type II. The surveys
included in-depth interviews with village muhtars (village heads), and focus group discussions particularly
with women and livestock producers. The quantitative household survey (QHS) was undertaken in 25
villages representing 566 households in the project area.
3.0
Description of Project Beneficiaries
The population of the five project provinces total 10 million where more than half the number live in rural
space. Within the project sites (28 MCs encompassing an estimated 200 villages) the estimated number of
project beneficiaries are 98,000. The majority of the population depend on agricultural-based activity as the
primary livelihood strategy. Each watershed, however, have different patterns of cropping, livestock, and
non-farm activity. A detailed description of the 5 surveyed MCs is provided in the project files. Table 1
shows the general characteristics of the MCs surveyed.
- 90 -
Table 1: General characteristics of MCs surveyed
GÖGDEN
ILYASLI
KABAKTEPE
KAZOVA
ORCAN
No. of villages
4
8
3
8
7+4
Total population 1 500
4 313
495
3515
11 864
of the MC
Total area of the 17 271
7 196
5 780
4 883
8 772
MC (ha)
Forest area of the 6 240
368.2
1 905
180.5
4 871
MC (ha)*
Total agricultural 5 351
3.790
952
2 308
3 402
land (ha)
Rangeland (ha) 5 034
N/a
2 057
n/a
40
No. of cattle
132
2 170
1 996
4 499
1 325
No of sheep and 13 350
1 220
2 300
3 700
9 330
goats
* The forest area includes "productive forest", "degraded forest" and "former forest"
Non-farm income is a major source of cash for these communities, especially in Type I MCs. There is
substantial seasonal movement of labor which varies in intensity between the MCs. Most of the migration
are to cities and tourist centers and take place during the construction and tourism seasons. Most of the
migration are done by the young men of the villages. In some MCs, such as Göğden, Orçan and Kabaktepe,
there have been net outmigration of the population.
4.0
Poverty
The project has been designed to target the rural poor in the selected watersheds. The provinces of the
project are spread across the second, third and fourth quartile of the 1997 Turkey Human Development
Index. Within these provinces, the project MCs are located in zones of high poverty. The annual cash
income of the families in the surveyed MCs is between 1,500 million TL and 6,000 million TL - the lowest
being in Orçan and the highest is in Kazova. The annual income of the lowest group of family (in Orçan
and Kabaktepe) in dollar equivalent is about USD 920.24. The average daily income of the family is
USD2.52 with a per-capita income (assuming a family of 5) at USD 0.50. This is half of the level defining
absolute poverty in Turkey which is USD 1.0 a day per-capita. The better off households (in Kazova) have
a daily income of USD10.08 per family and a per-capita income of USD 2.017. This stands at only two
times above the absolute poverty line, which is suggestive of the very low incomes in the project area.
In Type I MCs, the poorest families do not generally make cash expenditures on housing, most food items,
heating in winter, and for most of the agricultural /livestock input and labor expenditures. Families practice
subsistence agriculture (producing mainly cereals, vegetables, fruits, dairy products) to avoid cash
payments for food items. Barter is used to obtain greater variety in their diet. Very little cash expenditure is
made for agricultural inputs (seed, animal fertilizer etc). During the harvest season, labor is obtained
through exchange among families. In dry agriculture areas very little machinery and chemicals are used. In
general, the daily cash expenditure items of the poor families are: sugar, tea, oil, cigarettes, fuel for cooking
and transportation. The monthly and annual cash expenditures include electricity, telephone, clothing and
school expenditures. Health expenditures are met through the use of the green cards which allows access to
free state health care. For families in the Type II MCs, there is greater use of cash in the economy. Cash
expenditures are made on all spheres of life. However, the practice of purchasing chemical inputs for
agriculture on credit has created a serious debt problem for many families. In the past, obtaining credit to
purchase inputs from farmer cooperatives was a livelihood strategy to defer payment until the harvest was
- 91 -
sold. The recent removal of agricultural subsidies by the government, however, accompanied by rapid
inflation has inflated the cost of inputs and pushed the farmers into a debilitating debt cycle.
The QHS found significant variation in the distribution of land ownership of irrigated and dry agricultural
land. While some households may have little or no irrigated land they may own large holdings of dry
agricultural land. The distribution of agricultural and dry land size within the survey area can be seen in the
detailed social assessment. The QHS also found that there is a class of households who do not own any
land at all. These households can constitute as low as 3.4% of the population (in Ilyasli) and as high as
16.4 % of the population (in Orcan). The 2002 Turkey poverty assessment found a strong correlation
between land ownership and poverty. In this regard, the social assessment identified households with little
or no land as a particular vulnerable group in the project. Table 2 shows the distribution of landless
households in the MCs surveyed.
Table 2: Distribution of landless households in survey area.
Göğden
Orçan
Kabaktepe
Kazova
Ilyasli
% of land owners 96.7
83.6
95.7
92.0
96.6
% without any land 3.3
16.4
4.3
8.0
3.4
Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
5.0
Beneficiary Priorities
Land-owning farmers. Their main priority is to increase cash income through increased agricultural
efficiency and yields. Specific expectations include development of water resources, advanced/new seeds
for agricultural production, fruit tree saplings, grafts. In addition, there was also interest in training on
techniques for improving agricultural efficiency and on entrepreneurial skills for market oriented
production.
Landless poor. This includes owners of small land-holdings, women and young men. Their main priority is
to have greater short-term employment opportunities and training in non-asset based income generating
activities.
Livestock owners. This group has similar priorities with the landless poor. In addition, they require
compensation for giving up their goats and for funds to help start-up new businesses. In the long run, they
expect the project to assist them in cattle grazing through improved rangeland management.
Middle-income to poor farmers in Type II MC. Their main priority is assistance to switch to alternative
agricultural production including moving to environment-friendly agriculture.
Better-off farmers in Type II MC. Assistance from project to decrease input expenditure and new
approaches and techniques to improve their profit margin.
6.0
Vulnerable groups
The SA identified poor families, women, young males and livestock owners as groups who are vulnerable
to risks arising from the project.
- 92 -
Poor families. This group includes families with little or no land. The basic socio-economic characteristic
of the family is its dependence on paid labor. Commonly children above 8 years are already included in the
wage-earning category. The family is usually large with a high number of children in the younger age
groups. The family lives on subsistence farming and the combination of different livelihood activities of
different family members. This group will be left out should the project place emphasis only on improving
agricultural productivity. Recognizing this the project has incorporated labor intensive project interventions
such as tree planting and construction works that will offer poor villagers income-earning opportunities.
Improvements in agricultural and forest productivity and new employment opportunities will enrich the
livelihood strategies of poor villagers.
Women. Women are engaged in agricultural activities, livestock management, and as wage labor. They
receive relatively less formal education. After the age of 12-13 school attendance decreases markedly for
girls in some MCs (especially in poorer MCs like Orçan). The survey found that women were excluded
from the development of the MC plans even though these plans had an impact on their economic and social
life. During focus group discussions with women groups, the SA found a strong demand for more
information about the project. Women expressed a high interest to participate in alternative income
generating activities promoted by the project. This includes training for new income-generating activities.
Recognizing this the project has incorporated training for women officials to achieve greater access to the
women of the villages and ensure participation of women in the project implementation.
Young men. Young men are a vulnerable category in the project because of their subordinate status in the
village structure. The households in the project area can be described as patriarchal and extended with
brides moving to the household of their husband's family. The married couple and unmarried children live
within the same extended family house or land belonging to the family. Income of all family members are
pooled into one household budget which is controlled by the male head of the household (usually the
father). Land is owned exclusively by the head of the family. Because of the leading position of the
patriarch in the household, village level decisions are made largely between the patriarchs (referred to as
the old men of the village). While this is not by itself a problem, the young men are concerned that the
project brings a unique risk in introducing rapid changes to the village. In this context, they worry that their
voice will not be heard in any decision-making process. In particular, they are concerned that issues of land
use, which they will inherit at a later time, will be decided without their input and consideration.
7.0
Social Risks
The potential social risks associated with the project are summarized below:.
Capture of benefits by elites. Within the villages there are uneven power relations between the rich landed
farmers and poor and landless farmers. Rich and powerful families are called zengin. The muhtar (village
head) tends to come from the zengin class and is a man of considerable influence in the village. There is a
risk that the project emphasis on improving land productivity may be manipulated by the elite to their
benefit while neglecting the poor who tend to be landless. The project addresses this potential risk by
ensuring effective participation of stakeholders through the FCPCPS approach and by targeting the most
vulnerable groups in the village. This includes designing activities that don't require land ownership such as
bee-keeping The project has learnt from the EAWRP that simply giving out bee hives to farmers is
insufficient. Most of the farmers are involved in multiple livelihood activities and do not have the time to
rotate their hives during different seasons. Recognising this, the project will provide special training on bee
keeping and facilitate village-level organization of bee keeping. This may involve identifying individuals
dedicated to managing the hives for the other farmers on a profit-sharing basis. , providing greater
wage-earning opportunities such as tree-planting and construction, and offering vocational training such as
- 93 -
wild tree grafting, pruning and simple agro-processing.
Administrative capacity. This is a complex project involving many different interventions and the
participation of many different stakeholders. While the project aims to institute protection measures to
rehabilitate degraded lands, it also offers a suite of benefits to the villages for accepting the changes to their
traditional mode of practice. In this context, coordination between agencies becomes an important
requirement to ensure timeliness of project interventions. Livestock owners, for example, should not be
fenced out of their grazing ground before being offered a substitute or benefits to switch to alternative
activities. The risk arises during implementation because of the multiple agencies involved whose different
internal processes and procedures may result in some agencies lagging behind the others and failing to
deliver the project benefits in a timely manner. At the same time, the sequencing of interventions is also
dependent on the particular circumstances of the MC. The project addresses this risk by ensuring closer
and effective collaboration between the agencies especially at the provincial level. The project will also
provide training to the provincial level agencies on community mobilization and communication to ensure
effective local participation and be able to respond effectively to the demands of individual MCs.
Village cultivation of forest lands. In the southeastern part of the project area, significant portions of land
that fall officially under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Forestry are either occupied by human
settlements or are being cultivated under usufructary and other tenure claims. The most common activity is
the production of pistachio (through the grafting of wild pistachio trees) which forms an important source
of cash for the local communities. There is anecdotal evidence that lands under such claims are better
managed than those without. In some MCs, villagers pay a collection tariff (a very small symbolic amount)
to the Ministry to collect the harvests. Notwithstanding this, there are grave concerns among local
communities that the conservation focus of the project will strengthen the Ministry's claim over these lands
and result in the acquisition of their lands and pistachio groves. In MCs where such contested land claims
occur, the project will work together with local communities to transfer long term management
responsibility to community member and strengthen the role of community in protecting the forest. To
better inform the project about potential conflicts and develop conflict resolution mechanisms, the PIU will
ensure that a social scientist be on its team.
Different priority of beneficiaries. This applies to Type II MCs. The project beneficiaries, especially in
tobacco growing areas, have voiced concern that their main concern is their worsening economic condition.
The project emphasis on pollution reduction measures, in this light, may not be adopted by all the
beneficiaries. The social assessment identified that the beneficiaries would like assistance to switch to
alternative crops as a response to the crisis within the tobacco economy. The project recognizes that there is
an opportunity to encourage the farmers to switch not just to different crops but to more sustainable
agricultural practices. The project addresses this by providing training and extension services as well as
facilitate the beneficiaries' access to the direct income support for cushioning the impact of the subsidy
removal under the WB financed Agricultural reform Implementation project (ARIP).
- 94 -
Livestock Owners. Livestock owners, particularly those involved in sheep and goat management, are at the
focus of behavioral change in the project. Within the villages there is already pressure from crop producers
on the livestock owners to reduce their sheep and goat holdings. The project will help alleviate some of this
tension by providing incentives to livestock owners to switch away from livestock or to adopt sustainable
livestock management practices. The project operational manual will specify conflict resolution measures
to ensure that potential conflict situations are resolved up-front and that livestock owners will participate
effectively in the development of Microcatchment management plans. The PIU social scientist will take the
lead in managing this issue and will emplace an independent monitoring and evaluation system. In some
areas, the reinstatement of pasture leases to nomadic shepherds from provinces outside the project have
come under protest by crop producers who allege that their land resources are being degraded by the
seasonal movement of these animals. The project will ensure that nomadic shepherds are not deprived of
their legal access to pasture grounds.
8.0
Participation
This project builds on the success of the previous EAWRP which emphasized the strong participation of all
stakeholders especially at the MC level. The EAWRP has also bred a greater appreciation and
understanding of participation among the implementing agencies which had traditionally been used to a
top-down culture of doing business. The project will build on this new awareness among government
officials, especially at the provincial level, to provide training on community mobilization and other PRA
techniques. This will make the agencies much more effective in ensuring participation at the local level and
engaging with the communities in a more constructive manner. In addition, training will be provided for
women officials to achieve greater access to the women of the villages and ensure participation of women
in the project implementation. The project will also create at the local level MC Resource Management
Associations (MRMA) that will mobilize the community to participate in project implementation and to
take up responsibility for post-project operation and maintenance to ensure sustainability.
9.0
Safeguard Issues
The construction of small dams in the Type I MCs may trigger the Bank's operational policy on
involuntary resettlement (OP 4.12) through two possible scenarios:
1. Possible acquisition of private lands for small dam construction. The Type I MCs are located in areas
with limited water resources. It is anticipated that there will be a high demand by the project beneficiaries
for the project to develop their water resources. The project will do this largely through the development of
irrigation ponds and streams. Only in extreme water-scarce catchment areas without springs and only
seasonal streams, would the development of a small dam be accepted. These dams have a body height of
7.0-20.0 m and cover a surface area of between 0.3 - 4.0 ha. The Government of Turkey has given a
guarantee that private lands will not be acquired for the construction of small dams under the project. A
covenant will be included in the legal agreement to reflect this. The project will also incorporate this
restriction into the operational manual and put in place a monitoring and evaluation program to ensure
compliance.
2. Possible restriction of access to grazing grounds on public lands. The small dams mentioned above will
be built on the upper sections of the participating microcatchments. These dams will be built mostly in
steep gullies and flood infertile lands which are not used by local communities for agricultural or grazing
purposes. Since the exact location of these small dams will only be known during the implementation of the
project, there is a small possibility that some traditional grazing grounds on public lands may be flooded
resulting in the changing of land use and, therefore, restricting access to livelihood resources. The
Government of Turkey gives an assurance that the small dams will only be constructed in public lands that
- 95 -
are not used for grazing purposes. A covenant will be included in the legal agreement to reflect this
commitment. The project will also incorporate this restriction into the operational manual and put in place a
monitoring and evaluation program to ensure compliance.
- 96 -
Annex 15: Procurement of Goods, Works and Services from Government-owned
Enterprises
TURKEY: ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT
The implementing agencies are proposing to procure materials, some agricultural inputs and services from
government owned enterprises under the scope of the proposed project. Below is the brief information
about the procurements in this nature:
1. Forestry Seedlings:
Under the scope of project; forestry seedlings (i.e. pine, cedar, acacia, fur) shall be planted under the
supervision of General Directorate of Forestation (AGM) in each year for a period of 7 years in 5
provinces. The total quantity of the seedlings to be used will be about 22 million.
The forestry seedlings are available in the market for very small quantities where maximum few thousands
of seedlings are available at once, but with a questionable quality (mostly contaminated with diseases).
However, significant amounts of disease free seedlings can only be supplied by the Forestry Nurseries that
are specialized in seedling production. These nurseries are operating under Provincial Directorates of the
Ministry of Forestry and they are the only available and reliable source of supply.
2. Fruit Bearing Forest Seedlings:
Under the scope of project; fruit bearing forest seedlings (i.e almond, walnut, wild cherry) shall be planted
by the General Directorate of Forestation (AGM) in each year for a period of 7 years in 5 provinces. The
total quantity of the seedlings to be used will be about 200,000.
The fruit bearing forest seedlings are available in the market for very small quantities where maximum few
thousands of seedlings are available at once, but with a questionable quality (mostly contaminated with
diseases). Or, the required type and/or species may not be available at all in the market. However,
significant amounts of disease free seedlings can only be supplied by the Forestry Nurseries that are
specialized in seedling production. These nurseries are operating under Provincial Directorates of the
Ministry of Forestry and they are the only available and reliable source of supply.
3. Fruit Tree Seedlings:
Under the scope of project; fruit tree seedlings shall be provided to the farmers in each year during a period
of 7 years in 6 provinces.
These seedlings are generally available in the market but in small quantities where maximum few hundreds
seedlings can be available at once. First, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA) will try to
procure the needs from the local market through National Shopping and Local Competitive Bidding
procedures. If the required amount and type/varieties of seedlings can not be procured from the market,
then remaining need will be supplied by the Agricultural Seedling Production Directorates, whose primary
responsibility is production of good quality, disease free seedlings, under Provincial Directorates of the
Ministry of Agriculture. This seems to be the main source of available and reliable supply.
4. Forest Tree Seeds:
Under the scope of project; forest tree seeds shall be planted under the supervision of General Directorate
of Forestation (AGM) in each year during a period of 7 years in 5 provinces. The total quantity of the
seedlings to be used will be about 100 tones.
- 97 -
These seeds are generally available in the market for small quantities where maximum few hundreds kilos
of seeds can be available at once. First, General Directorate of Forestation (AGM) will try to procure the
needs from the local market through National Shopping and Local Competitive Bidding procedures. If the
required type/variety of seeds can not be procured from the market, then remaining need will be supplied by
the Forestry Nurseries under Provincial Directorates of the Ministry of Forestry. This seems to be the main
source of available and reliable supply.
On the other hand, sufficient amount of seeds, sometimes, may not be available in the Forestry Nurseries.
In such cases, villagers or workers will be hired to collect the seeds from forest lands.
5. Agricultural Seeds:
Under the scope of project; agricultural seeds shall be provided to the farmers in each year during a period
of 7 years in 6 provinces.
These seeds are generally available in the market for small quantities where maximum few hundreds kilos
of seeds can be available at once. First, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA) will try to
procure the needs from the local market through National Shopping and Local Competitive Bidding
procedures. If the required type/patterns of seeds can not be procured from the market, then remaining need
will be supplied by the Agricultural Production Directorates located under each Provincial Directorate of
the Ministry of Agriculture. This seems to be the main source of available and reliable supply.
6. Bee Hives:
Under the scope of project; bee hives shall be made available for villagers in each year during a period of 7
years in 5 provinces. The total quantity of the beehives to be used will be about 360 units, where 1 unit
contains 15 hives.
These bee hives are generally available in the market for small quantities where few units can be available
at once. First, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA) will try to procure the needs from the
market through National Shopping and Local Competitive Bidding procedures. If the required amount and
type or race of bees can not be procured from the market, then the remaining need will be supplied by Bee
Production Stations located in some regions under the Ministry of Agriculture. This seems to be the main
source of available and reliable supply.
7. Digitized 1/25000 Scale Maps:
The digitized maps for the selected micro-catchments will be required to prepare implementation plans for
the micro-catchments. These maps have to be procured in the early stages of the project, lets say in the first
three years. This type of 1/25000 scale maps are available only at the General Headquarters of
Cartography. This is the only source of digitized maps in Turkey.
The total estimated cost of digitized maps is about US$ 50,000
Conclusion and Recommendation:
Based on the above given reasons and justifications, the Bank (OPCPR) agrees, on an exceptional basis,
with the procurement of above listed agricultural inputs and services from government owned enterprises
under the scope of the project, if and when they can not be procured from private sources in local market.
The above underlined agencies are the Government agencies and they are not eligible according to
paragraph 1.8 (c) of the Bank's Procurement Guidelines. More specifically, they are not legally and
financially autonomous; they do not operate under commercial law; they are the dependent agencies of the
- 98 -
Borrower or the Sub-Borrower i.e. implementing Ministries. However, because of specific nature of the
project and when there is no private sector alternatives for these agricultural inputs and services, the Bank
(OPCPR) agrees the direct procurement from government owned enterprises for the concerned agricultural
inputs.
There are several reasons why ICB is not an appropriate method for supplying inputs (seeds and seedlings)
for agricultural and forestry interventions and why government agencies have to be used as suppliers in
addition to the private sector companies. The reasons are given below under 3 categories: i) forest seedlings
for afforestation and erosion control activities on the state land, ii) fruit tree seedlings for agricultural
activities on the farmers' land, and iii) seeds for agricultural activities on the farmers' land.
A. Forest seedlings for afforestation and erosion control activities on the state land
These seedling can only be provided from the Nurseries under the Ministry of Forestry.
Turkey wants to conserve its biodiversity. Turkey has a very rich biodiversity and homes a number of
endemic (means only grown in Turkey) species. The country is making serious effort to conserve this
richness and wants to use its own species in forestry activities instead of bringing new and foreign
species from outside.
Genetic pollution is not desired. Turkey is also rich in genetic diversity and committed to protect this.
In fact, successfully implemented a GEF project (which was the first one in the world at this size) to
conserve this diversity in-situ. Bringing seedlings even for the same species means new genetic material
that results in genetic pollution that is not desired at all.
Origin of the seedling material is extremely important. Research indicates that success of the
plantations depends on several factors that include the origin of the material and the quality of the
seedlings. Therefore, 125 nurseries were established in Turkey by the General Directorate of
Afforestation and Erosion Control under Ministry of Forestry to improve the success of the plantations.
Each nursery serves an area of 200 km diameter and 100-150 m elevation range between location of
planting and the nursery. For each planting are, the field staff inform the appropriate nurseries about
the seedling needs a season in advance. Nurseries collect seeds from the selected species from their
service area, produce the seedlings, make them ready for the planting season and wait for the request
for the transportation date. Supplying seedlings from one region to another region even in Turkey cause
failures in plantations due to inappropriate origin.
Buying in bulk is not appropriate. There will be 6 provinces in the Project and a total of about 28
micro-catchments (MCs) will be included where forestry activities will be conducted. MCs that are
scattered in a province have their unique features in terms of climate, soil, and topography that dictate
the planting time. During spring and fall, in a MC when soil is in appropriate condition, terraces are
made and as soon as favorable conditions occur, seedlings are planted. In case of delays due to a
variety of reasons i.e. late arrival of seedlings, problems in providing labor, there is a substantial risk
of losing soil moisture. In this case, another rainy season has to be waited. While in MC A, the soil
moisture is suitable for planting in March, in MC B, conditions occur only in April. This could happen
within the same province. On the other hand, provinces also differ widely in terms of ecological
conditions where planting times show great variation. Planting time is site-specific and seedlings are
made ready for planting according to these local conditions. Therefore, buying in bulk (millions) and
making them survive until the right conditions occur for planting is not possible. When the Nurseries
are informed about the exact planting dates by the field people, seedlings are transferred to the MCs.
The seedling reach to the planting area within 1-2 days following the request.
- 99 -
Completion planting is needed in the following years. Despite all the efforts, survival rates for the
planted seedlings are not 100%. There are factors beyond the control of the project staff that effects the
survival rate: conditions in the MCs are harsh mainly due to the elevation; quality is not perfect for
every single seedling, imperfect operation always occur in manual planting and in that season weather
conditions could be unfavorable, mainly drought hits the plantation. Therefore, after the first planting
year, dead seedlings need to be replaced with new ones. Same genetic material needs to be supplied
timely for this operation.
Private sector in Turkey is not developed enough to seedlings for forestry activities. There are number
of private nurseries in Turkey selling forest species but as ornamental plants for parks and gardens.
They do not have the infrastructure to supply the species in demand timely, with the right origin, and in
large quantities.
B.
Fruit Tree Seedlings for Agricultural Activities
Depending on the scale of the need, availability, quality, and timeliness of the delivery, procurement can be
done from: i) nurseries under Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA), ii) agricultural research
institutes (MARA), iii) TIGEM; a state economic enterprise that produces seedlings for fruit tree species
and multiplies seeds for farmers mainly for some field crops that are not usually supplied by the private
sectors due to low profitability; and iv) private companies.
Buying in bulk is not appropriate. There will be 6 provinces in the Project and a total of about 28
micro-catchments (MCs) will be included where agricultural activities will be conducted. This is a
participatory project where the decisions for the private land are made by individuals living in the MCs.
During spring and fall, in a MC when soil is in appropriate condition and weather temperatures are
favorable, farmer arranges his labor, prepares his land and plants the seedlings. For fruit trees,
temperatures have particularly important, early and late frosts need to be taken into consideration. All
these characteristics show great variation with elevation and topography. As mentioned above, MCs
that are scattered in a province have their unique features in terms of climate, soil, and topography that
dictate the planting time. In other words, planting time is site-specific and seedlings need to be made
ready for planting according to these local conditions. Buying in very large quantities and keeping them
until the right conditions occur for planting is not possible. Government nurseries and or private sector
are informed about the exact planting dates by the local agricultural people and seedlings are
transferred to the MCs in a short period of time and delivered to the farmers. It should be noted that, in
this participatory project, relationships depend on the trust.
Private sector nurseries in Turkey is not developed enough to provide good quality, disease free
seedlings. There is number of small private nurseries in Turkey providing fruit tree seedlings but these
are not certified. It means one should depend on the verbal guarantee of the seller, since it is not always
possible to detect diseases and identify varieties visually. In many cases, hundreds of seedlings that
were planted turned out to be diseased, a mixture of different varieties, different ages and the result was
a total failure. In such cases the cost of this failure is very high, farmers lose their confidence in the
project staff.
Private sector nurseries in Turkey do not have the infrastructure to supply good quality, disease free
seedlings in bulk. In some cases, the private nurseries are trustworthy but they do not have the
infrastructure to provide the demanded species and varieties in bulk. In such cases, whatever is
available is procured from these nurseries and the remaining needs are supplied by the government
nurseries.
- 100 -
C.
Procurement of Seeds for Agricultural Activities
Depending on the scale of the demand, availability, quality, and timeliness of the delivery, procurement has
to be done from: i) agricultural research institutes under MARA, iii) TIGEM; a state economic enterprise
that produces seedlings for fruit tree species and multiplies seeds for farmers mainly for wheat, barley,
forage crops and pulses that are not usually supplied by the private sectors due to low profitability; and iv)
private companies.
Varieties that are adapted to local conditions have to be used. In most of the MCs, agricultural
production is made under rainfed conditions since irrigation is very limited. This means cereals (wheat
and barley); pulses (lentil and chickpea) and forage crops (vetch, sainfoin) are the major crops for these
conditions. Turkish agricultural research institutes developed a number of varieties for these crops that
are adapted to local conditions (elevation, climate, soil and local quality preferences). In fact, Turkey is
the gene center for these crops. Therefore, the varieties developed by the agricultural research system
need to be supplied to the MC farmers and these are produced by the government agencies.
Private seed sector has limited interest in cereals, forage crops and pulses. Private sector in Turkey is
the major actor in vegetable, maize, soybean, and sunflower hybrid seed (every year new seed needs to
be purchased) production. These are mostly the distributors of the international big companies.
However, the interest by these companies for wheat, barley, forage crops and legumes is very limited.
Since these are produced with standard/conventional seeds (same seed could be used for about 5 years),
the profitability is comparatively very low. Therefore, for these crops, the main seed supplier is the
government. However, if the companies can provide certified seed in the amount requested, seed
purchase is also made from them. For project purposes, the seeds for vegetables, maize and sunflower
are mostly purchased from the private sector companies.
- 101 -
Annex 16: Identification and Selection Criteria for Microcatchments
TURKEY: ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT
This Annex describes the process used in selecting microcatchment areas for intervention. This process,
which involves three levels of selection at the level of the watershed, the province, and the microcatchment,
has been well developed and successfully implemented in the course of the Eastern Anatolia Watershed
project.
(a)
Selection of watershed for project funding: The main criterion is whether or not the river can be
classified as an international waterway. If so classified, it can not be included in the project. In the event
that a watershed is not classified as an international waterway, then selection would be on the basis of
severity of natural resource degradation. The proximity of a watershed to an area that had already
benefited from microcatchment rehabilitation would be taken into account to achieve a broader impact.
(b)
Selection of Province: The main criterion is location in relation to untreated pockets of
degradation within a watershed. The watershed could be either one that has already benefited from
microcatchment rehabilitation, or an unimproved watershed where the objective would be to capture the
synergies from dealing with several sub-catchments. The overall objective would be to avoid rehabilitation
works being too widely scattered over the country leading to excessive unit costs and reduced impact. In
addition, the capacity of the implementing agencies at the field level would be taken into account in
selecting a Province. All agencies should be sufficiently staffed to carry out the planning and
implementation simultaneously in several microcatchments.
(c)
Selection of Microcatchments: The criteria used for the selection of microcatchments are as
follows:
l
Severity or magnitude of natural resource degradation: has to be rated as severe, a cause of
poverty and already subject to flooding and landslides;
l
Size of microcatchment: 5,000 to 10,000 hectares;
l
Location: adjacent to another microcatchment either one that has already benefited from
microcatchment rehabilitation, or an unimproved microcatchment where the objective would be
to capture the synergies from dealing with several microcatchments. The overall objective
would be to avoid rehabilitation works being too widely scattered over a watershed leading to
excessive unit costs and reduced impact.
l
Accessibility of microcatchment: adequate degree of access for contractors/transporters;
l
Level of rural poverty: as demonstrated by rural out-migration and measured through
estimated annual incomes;
l
Risk of natural disaster through flood and/or landslides: risk to be rated high;
l
Possibility of reversing the natural resource degradation in a sustainable and economic way:
investments should lead to sustainable rehabilitation of degraded natural resources;
l
Willingness of microcatchment community to participate in the project: prepared to make
in-kind and/or cash contributions and take responsibility for specific activities (e.g. rangeland
management, conservation of new plantations and use of irrigation water); and
l
Level of potential for introducing income raising activities: sufficient agricultural resource base
to be used as leverage for better natural resource management.
- 102 -
IBRD 32412
28°
32°
36°
40°
44°
R O M A N I A
T U R K E Y
44°
44°
R U S S I A N F E D E R AT I O N
ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT
PROJECT WATERSHEDS
TURKEY
PROJECT WATERSHEDS
PROVINCE CAPITALS
EXISTING HYDRO POWER SITES
NATIONAL CAPITAL
B U L G A R I A
RIVER BASIN BOUNDARIES
RIVERS
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES
B
l
a
c
k
S
e
a
GEORGIA
Edirne
Sinop
Kirklareli
1
Bartin
MERIC-ERGENE
Bosporus
Zonguldak
G R E E C E
Ergene
2
Kizil
Samsun
Artvin
Ardahan
MARMARA
13
Kastamonou
Karabük
Irmak
Tekirdag
Istanbul
BATI
Trabzon
Çildir
KARADENIZ
Ordu
Meriç Delta,
Rize
Kocaeli
mak
23
Gölü
Gala Lake
Çark
(WEST BLACK SEA)
Ir
Sea of Marmara
(Izmit)
Sakarya
22
ÇORUH
AZERBAIJAN
Izmit Körfezi
Giresun
Kars
(Marmara Denizi)
Yesil
DOGU KARADENIZ
L.Sapanca
(Adapazari)
`
Çoruh
ARMENIA
Dardanelles
Yalova
2
Bolu
Çankiri
mak
Amasya
Gümüshane
¸
14
24
MARMARA
Delice Ir
YESILIRMAK
¸
ARAS
Lake
Nilüfer
Kelkit Çayl
Çanakkale
Bayburt
40°
2 Manyas
Bursa
Çorum
Tokat
40°
MARMARA
Lake
Bilecik
Igdir
Apolyont
Sakarya Nehri
Ankara
Koca Çay
Simav
3
ANKARA
Kirikkale
4
12
Erzurum
SUSURLUK
Porsuk Ça
15
y
Erzincan
KUZEY Balikesir
Eskisehir
i
Agri
SAKARYA
KIZILIRMAK
Sivas
AZER-
Yozgat
EGE
BAIJAN
Sakar
(NORTH
AEGEAN)
Kütahya
Euphrates
ya
Nehri
Lake
21
Kirsehir
Seyfe
Tunceli
FIRAT
I S L A M I C
Izmir Kör
21
Keban
Bingöl
25
5
FIRAT
Reservoir
VAN GÖLÜ
Mus
R E P. O F
Manisa
Gediz
GEDIZ
Afyon
fezi
Eber
11 Karamik
Tuz
Lake
Lake
Nehri
Lake
Gölü
I R A N
Elazig
Van
Van
Nif
Usak
Nevsehir
Izmir
AKARCAY
Kayseri
Bitlis
Sultan
6
Marsh
Aksaray
KÜÇÜK MENDERES
Malatya
26
Golcuk Lake
Hoyran
Aegean Sea
Aci
Gölü
7
Egridir
DICLE
Aydin
16
Büyükmenderes
Gölü
Gölü
Konya
BÜYÜK MENDERES
Nigde
Diyarbakir
18
Batman
26
Nehri
KONYA
Siirt
Denizli
Isparta
10
CLOSED
SEYHAN
Tigris
DICLE
Ceyhan Nehri
Euphrates
Burdur
Adiyaman
Hakkari
Burdur
BURDUR Gölü
Sirnak
GÖLÜ
Beysehir
Kahraman
20
Maras
21
Güllük
Sütçüler
Gölü
Sugla
Gölü
CEYHAN
Mardin
Körfezi
FIRAT
Mugla
9
Köycegiz
Sanliurfa
8
Lake
ANTALYA
Karaman
Gaziantep
fezi
BATI AKDENIZ
Osmaniye
Gökova Kör
(WEST
Antalya
Icel
I R A Q
MEDITERRANEAN)
17
(Mersin)
Adana
Kilis
DOGU AKDENIZ
19
Gulf of
(EAST MEDITERRANEAN)
Iskenderun
ASI
0
50
100
150
200
Gulf of
Göksu
Antalya
KILOMETERS
36°
36°
Göksu
This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank.
Finike
Hatay
Körfezi
Delta
(Antakya)
S Y R I A N A R A B R E P U B L I C
The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information shown
on this map do not imply, on the part of The World Bank Group, any
judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any endorsement or
M e d i t e r r a n e a n S e a
acceptance of such boundaries.
28°
32°
36°
40°
44°
FEBRUARY 2004
IBRD 32584
TURKEY
0
1
2
3
4
5 Kilometers
ANATOLIA WATERSHED
This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank.
The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information shown
on this map do not imply, on the part of The World Bank Group, any
REHABILITATION PROJECT
judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any endorsement or
acceptance of such boundaries.
SAMPLE MICROCATCHMENT PLAN
FOR FORESTRY ACTIVITIES
19.3
2.7
142.2
38.4
16.8
7.4
108.3
10.4
20.2
6.0
71.9
139.7
12.6
43.7
48.0
TURKEY
165.6
38.8
30.8
7.8
17.4
94.7
24.6
240.6
7.0
8.6
161.3
11.4
12.8
3406.3
32.6
142.8
8.7
313.4
43.2
35.5
25.9
10.7
17.0
58.4
12.9
94.7
233.8
772.1
6.0
68.9
67.0
71.3
65.2
11.7
18.5
32.0
446.3
2.4
157.8
28.0
23.3
4.9
36.1
19.2
13.2
36.6
49.5
12.3
12.9
198.4
151.6
4.8
10.4
8.2
64.7
34.9
229.9
7.2
Area in hectares:
REHABILITATION OF DEGRADED AND HIGH FOREST WITH 10% CANOPY CLOSURE (BBK)-423.0
LITHOZOLIC (Ky)-184.6
OAK COPPICE REHABILITATION (MsR)-537.7
SOIL CONSERVATION AFFORESTATION_machinery_potential (Potansiyel TMA_Makina)-171.3
SOIL CONSERVATION AFFORESTATION_manual_potential (Potansiyel TMA_Isçi)-735.0
SOIL CONSERVATION AFFORESTATION_machinery (TMA_Makina)-253.5
SOIL CONSERVATION AFFORESTATION_manual_gully rehabilitation(TMA_Isçi Oyuntu Tahkimi)-18.5
SOIL CONSERVATION AFFORESTATION_manual (TMA_Isçi)-1136.1
PRODUCTIVE FOREST (Mb1)-15.8
WILD TREE GRAFTING_potential (Potansiyel_YAs)-158.1
WILD TREE GRAFTING (YAs)-66.1
AGRICULTURAL LAND (Z)-3716.8
PROTECTION AND IMPROVEMENT OF POOR, DEGRADED AND BARE SOIL_Potential (Potansiyel_ÇZAs)-795.9
PROTECTION AND IMPROVEMENT OF POOR, DEGRADED AND BARE SOIL (ÇZAs)-417.0
Total area: 8772 Ha.
JULY 2003