Turkey - Eastern Anatolia Watershed Rehabilitation Project

/--/\ -7 j (7- 7d; Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY rveport No. 11294-TU STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT TURKEY EASTERN ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT FEBRUARY 9, 1993 Agriculture Operations Division Country Dapartment I Europe and Central Asia Region This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.  CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS AT APPRAISAL Currency Unit = Turkish Lira (TL) USSI = TL 7,000 (AppraisaL: June 1992) US$1 = TL 8,200 (November 1992) WEIGHTS AND MEASURES Imperial Units Metric Units 1 foot (ft) = 30.5 centimetres (cm) 1 square foot (ftMI 0.093 square metres (mW) 1 cubic foot MftI) = 0.028 Cubic metres (C) 1 mile (mi) = 1.609 kilometres (km) 1 acre (ac) = 0.405 hectare (ha) 1 square mite (sq mi) = 259 ha 1 pound (lb) = 0.454 kilograms (kg) I Long ton (1 ton) - 1,016 kg (1.016 metric ton) I ft'/sec (cusec) = 0.028 m/sec ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS USED AGM Department of Reforestation and Erosion Control (MOF) APKKB Research, Planning and Coordination Board (MOF) DSI General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works FCPCPS Farmer Centered Problem Census Problem Solving FTE Farmer Training and Extension Department of PDA GEF Global Environment Fund GET Global Environment Trust GIS Geographical Information System GOT Government of Turkey ICARDA International Centre for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas KHGN General Directorate of RuraL Services MARA Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs MC Microcatchment HIS Management Information System MOE Ministry of Enviromnent M-OF Ministry of Forestry 0GM General Directorate of Forestry ORKOY Forest Village Development Fund PCSU Project Coordination and Support Unit PDA Provincial Directorate of Agriculture PPF Project Preparation Facility PUB Project lplementation Unit SMS Subject Matter Specialist TAGEM General Directorate for Agricultural Research TCZB Agricultural Bank of Turkey TEDGEM General Directorate of Organization and Support TKV Turkish Development Foundation TMO Turkish Grain Marketing Board TUGEM General Directorate of Production and Development TYAUP II Second Agricultural Extension and Applied Research Project VGT Village Group Technician GLOSSARY Kaymakam County Governor Nezra Village Sub-unit Muhtar Village Leader Stere I om of stacked wood Voli Province Governor GOVERNMENT OF TURKEY FISCAL YEAR 1 January - 31 December  FOR 0MCU USEONLY STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~gu ASTERN ANATOLIA WATERSHED RAILITATION PROJECT Table of Contents Page No. LOAN AND PROJECT SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-iii I. PROJECT AND SECTOR BACKGROUND . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 A. Introduction .1 B. Agricultural Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 C. Bank Group Lending for Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 II. PROJECT AREA AND RATIONALE 6. . .. a.. .6 A. Definition of Area .............. . . 6 B. Physical Characteristics ................. 7 C. Social Characteristics . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . 9 D. Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 B. The Institutional Setting. . . . . . . . . . 10 F. Project Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . .3 . 13 III. THE PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 A. Objectives . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 13 B. Summary Description . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 14 C. Detailed Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Dn Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 S. Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 F. Procurement . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 22 G. Disbursements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 H. Accounts and Audits . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 I. Project Supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 IV. ORGANIZATION AND I ANGMNAGE lNT. ...... .....28 A. Institutional Arrangements . . . . ....... . . . .28 S. Micro-catchment Planning . 3 . # . . . . . . . . 30 C. Monitoring and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 V. PROJECT BENEFITS AND JUSTIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 A. Production and Marketing . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . .32 B. Farm Income and Cost Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 C. Economic Analysis and Risks . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . 35 D. Environmental Impact . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . 37 B. Impact on Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 VI. AGREEMENTS REACHED AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization i  Table of Contents (cont'd) 1A Agriculture 13 Rainfed Terracing and Small-Scale Irrigation 2 Rangelands 3 Treatments on Forest Lands 4 Guidelines for Micro-catchment Planning S Treatment Menu and Cost Sharing 6 Organization Chart 7 Monitoring MIS and Evaluation 8 Project Cost Estimates and Disbursement Profile 9 Economic Analysis 10 Sociological Characteristics 11 Training and Technical Assistance 12 Adaptive Research 13 Documents Available in Project File 14 Micro-catchment Plans for First Year Project Xmplementation 15 Implementation Program 1993 IRD No. 24166  - i - STAFF APPRAISAL REPR EASTERN ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT TURKEY LOAN AND PROJECT SUMMARY Borrowers Republic of Turkey Beneficiaries Ministry of Forestry (MOF) Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA) Ministry of Environment (MOE) GET co-financed Amount: US$77 million equivalent loan US$5.1 million equivalent GET grant (cofinanced) Termss Seventeen years, with a five-year grace period, at the Bank's standard variable interest rate. GET funds would be on a grant basis. ProJect Obiectivess The project addresses important problems of rural poverty and natural resource degradation. It would help restore sustainable range, forest and farming activities in three provinces in the upper Euphrates watershed, reducing soil degradation, erosion, and sedimentation in reservoirs as well as increasing productivity and incomes in this impoverished region of Turkey. By using a participatory approach it would strengthen farmers' planning and implementing capacity, and improve the responsiveness of rural services agencies to farmers' needs. A subproject for jI-situ gene conservation supported by a Global Environment Trust grant would establish, manage and monitor sites for Ji-situ conservation of the wild relatives of globally significant herbaceous and woody species indigenous to Turkey. Proiect Descriotions The project would support development of a partici- pato3ry approach to watershed rehabilitation in 54 micro-catchments in Malatya, Elazig and Adiyaman provinces over a seven-year period. Treatments would be integrated across a micro-catchment, and selected and implemented with the participation of the local population. Treatments would include improved range management and enrichment, reforestation and oak coppice rehabilitation, improved crop husbandry and fodder production. Supporting treatments would include small scale irrigation, fruit tree cultivation and apiculture.  - ii - The project would also strengthen provincial field services and planning and coordination cayacity and would provide for some applied research. The A&- situ gene conservation subproject would support surveys and inventories, selection and management of jr-situ gene conservation areas, data management, in-Alta gene conservation strategies, institutional support, monitoring and training. aenefits and Risks: The benefits focus on poverty reduction and sustainable resource management. The project would increase vegetative cover and control soil degradation. It would increase output of fodder, fuelwood and other wood products, horticultural and food crops. It would increase the incomes of poorer farmers living in remote hilly areas in Easter& Turkey. By supporting a participatory planning approach it should make rural service agencies more responsive to farmers' priorities. Its success could prove a model for participatory natural resource management and watershed rehabilitation in Turkey and elsewhere. The ERR is estimated at 17%. The GET subproject would protect Ji-situ the biodiversity of wild relatives of globally significant herbaceous and woody species. Nevertheless, the project has technical and institutional risks. Technologies are mostly well confirmed but where this is not the case, treatments are reduced to a pilot scale or phased. The project requires coordination between provincial institutions which do not have much experience of working together. However, these institutions have been closely involved in the project preparation and are well-versed with and committed to an integrated, participatory approach. Government has budgetary constraints; project size has been adjusted so that local budgetary commitments can be met. The project is robust, to delays, cost increases and benefit decreases.  - iii - Costs. Financn. Disursemnt Sumert Estimated Project Coits: X Foreign % Total Loco fgryiun Igtqj Exchane Be" Cost Connont .......- (USS million) ------- Strengthening Agency Capacity 2.4 3.5 5.9 59 7 Watershed Rehabilitation 40.5 18.2 58.7 31 67 Supporting Activities 14.7 8.1 22.8 36 26 Applied Research .-7 0.1 0.8 17 1 Baseline Costs 58.3 22 Du 34 100 Physical Contingencies 5.8 2.8 8.6 32 10 Price Contingencies 9.7 3.3 13.0 25 1 Total Project Costs 73.8 36.0 109.8 33 125 GET subproject* 1.9 3.8 5.7 67 119 Grand Total ZMJ7 39.8 115. * Includes contingencies. Finamcing PtanFoeg Floreign Total Exchange Source LofForeimn Cid Costs _ osts ------- (US$ million) -------- (% of Project) Goverinent 32.5 0.3 32.8 30 1 IBRO 35 6 M.A0 70 99 Sibtotal 73.8 35.9 109.8 100 100 GET Grant 1.3 3.8 5.1 89 100 Govt. Contribution 0. Q0 0. 1 subtotal 1.9 3.8 5.7 100 00 Grand Total _ 39.8 115. Estimated Comletion Date: Watershed Project - March 31, 2000 GEt J.D-gj Subproject - September 30, 1996 Estimated IBRD and GET Disbursements: IBR0 Fiscal Year 93 294 9S 525 6 1 29 2000 ----------------------------- .USS million) --------------------- Watershed Prolect Arnual 0.75 11.7 13.5 11.1 13.6 14.3 9.4 2.6 Cumulative 0.75 12.5 26.0 37.1 50.7 65.0 74.4 77.0 In-Situ Suborolect Annual 0.2 3.1 1.0 0.6 0.2 Cumulative 0.2 3.3 4.3 4.9 5.1 Economic Rate of Return: 17X for Uatershed Rehabilitation Project. Not applicable for In-Situ Gene Conservation Subproject SAP: IBRD No. 24166 Turkey Eastern Anatolia Watershed Rehabilitation Project  STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT EASTEN ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT I. PROJECT AND SECTOR BACKGROUND A. Introduction 1.01 The Government of Turkey is attaching increasing priority to sustainable environmental management, and in particular to natural resource conservation. Soil degradation from erosion is one of the most serious problems affecting long-term sustainability of agriculture; erosion affects 57 million hectares in Turkey, or over 70% of the land area of the country. The Government has requested the World Bank to assis> in financing a project to restore productivity through better soil and moisture conservation farming practices in the Upper Watershed of the Euphrates River, in the three provinces of Elazig, Malatya, and Adiyaman in Eastern Anatolia. 1.02 Soil degradation was recognized as a serious problem in the 1983 World Bank sector Report "Agricultural Development Alternatives for Growth with Exports" and confirmed in the draft report on Agricultural Resource Conservation in Turkey (June 1992). This project was first identified by the Turkish government in May 1990 and examined in a joint PAO/World Bank identification mission which visited Turkey in April 1991. The project was prepared by Consultants together with GOT from September 1991 to February 1992. It was preappraised by the World Bank in January 1992 and appraised in June 1992. Post-appraisal took place in November 1992. B. Agricultural Sector 1.03 Turkey has an area of 780,000 km2, including 78,000 km2 of lakes. According to the latest agricultural census (1991) it has about 21 million ha of cultivated land, 3.6 million ha of which are irrigated. Field crops account for about 14.4 N ha, fallow land for 3.6 M ha, orchards and permanent crops 2.3 m ha and vegetables for 0.6 M ha. Significantly, Turkey with a population of 56 million is not only largely self-sufficient in food but has considerable net agricultural exports. Agricultural GDP growth averaged 3.3% annually over the 1985-90 period, contributing 17-18% of GDP. In addition, clothing and textiles represented 37% of exports and other industries based on agricultural raw materials about 16% of exports. About 4 million households in Turkey are engaged in agriculture. Crops contribute about 56% of agricultural GDP, animal products 32%, forestry 7% and fisheries 4%. 1.04 The country consists primarily of undulating plateaux rising eastward from 800 m to 2,000 m, bordered by high mountains with fertile plains next to the coast and in inland valleys. Much of the land is hilly, over one third having slopes of more than 20%. Climate is characterized, except along the coastal areas, by cold winters and hot dry summers. Much of the precipitation, averaging from 350 to 600 mm (more along the coasts), falls in winter and spring. This combination of climate and precipitation shortens the growing season except along the coasts and increases the vulnerability of  - 2 - soils to erosion, particularly if they are fallow or overgrazed, with sparse vegetative cover. 1.05 The distribution of land-use, excluding lakes, urban land, national parks and military reserves is indicated below in Table 1. Table Is LAND USE IN TURREY Cultivated Land Area {M ha) Field crops: Wheat 7.3 Barley 2.6 Rice 0.04 Sugarbeet 0.37 Sunflower 0.44 Oats 0.16 Chickpea 0.69 Lentil 0.48 others 2.35 of which cotton 0.59 Of which tobacco 0.24 Subtotal 14.43 Orchards & rermanent crops 2.34 Vegetables 0.59 Fallow 3.63 Cultivated land subtotal 20.99 Land suitable for farming but not in use 2.16 Permanent range and meadow 12.37 Forest land 19.23 Area unsuitable for farming 11.34 Total 66.09 Total Area of Turkey 78.00 Source: 1991 Census (preliminary results subject to change). 1.06 Cultivated land is dominated by cereal production, which accounts for nearly 50% of cultivated area. Forest land accounts for 25% of the land area; however, over half of this is seriously degraded and unproductive for forest purposes. Rangeland accounts for a further 16%. Range area has been reduced by half since 1950 as low fertility, often steeply sloping land has been brought into cultivation, while cropped area has increased by 60%. Farmland is largely privately owned. Average farm size is 6.5 hal however 62%  of farms are under 5 ha. Fragmentation through inheritance is an issue; the proportion of farms with 6 or more parcels increased from 31% to 41% between the 1970 and :;980 censuses. Fragmentation increases the difficulties of using soil and moisture conserving cultivation techniques across a sub-watershed. 1.07 In addition to cereals Turkey grows a wide range of crops; particularly important are chickpeas and lentils for which Turkey ii a significant exporter; area planted to legumes has increased significantly as the result of a successful fallow-reduction project introduced by the Turkish government in the early 19809. Fruit trees are also important and Turkey exports large quantities of apricots, hazelnuts and raisins. In the west and south horticulture and citrus are of importance, while cotton and tobacco make an important contribution to industrial exports and meet local market demands. Turkey, where three major phytogeographical regions converge, is unusually rich in its range and variety of plants. More than 3,000 species are known to be endemic, including wild relatives and landraces of the major crop species that feed the world (wkeat, barley, lentils, chickpeas, pasture plants and horticultural and forest plants). Plant breeders from all over the world use these strains to develop enhanced varieties that are more productive and are resistant to cold, drought, salinity and disease. 1.08 Livestoc% is a major resource in Turkey, accounting for 32% of agricultural GDP, and comprising 16 million cattle and buffalo, 45 million sheep, 11 million goats, 1.4 million equines and 64 million poultry. Mixed farming is the predominant farming system, with 86% of farms producing both livestock and crops. Animals feed on range and pasture grasses in the summer, and crop residues, conserved forages and purchased concentrate in the winter. The winter diet is often deficient, and animals are frequently put out to graze on communally owned rangeland too early in the spring for vegetation to be well established. Rotational grazing is rarely practiced, further reducing range p:oductivity. Increased fodder production on agricultural land would reduce pressure on fragile rangelands. In the center and east vegetative cover averages only 10-20% compared with the 40% that is necessary to control erosion effectively and the 80-90% that could be achieved with proper Aanagement; yields, currently 100 to 500 kilos of dry matter per hectare could be tripled. Turkey has many indigenous legumes and grasses and the production potential of the rangelands is good from a genetic standpoint. overgrazing, however, is weakening the genetic resource base. 1.09 Forest land accounts for 25% of land area. Forests vary from productive, well managed coniferous and mixed deciduous/coniferous forests along the Black Sea and Mediterranean coasts to the degraded oak coppice forest, used and overexploited for fuelwood and fodder, that is characteristic of Eastern and South-Eastern Anatolia. Poor management of rangelands has incraosed grazing pressure on forest lands and also lowered their productive potential. Approximately 40% of forest land is classified as productive and 60% as unproduct've. Annual production of fuelwood is estimated at 28 million m3, and fuelwood accounts for about 20% of household energy consumption. Approximately 8 million people live in villages in and around forest areas. They have access to forest products at reduced prices and are employed in forest management programs. While in some areas relations between foresters and the local community have been good, in others there have been tensions.  - 4 - Nevertheless forestry staff, of all the government rural support services, have the most contacts with forest village populations and tsns most experience In working to conserve soils in difficult upland areas. 1.10 Development obiectives. GOT's agricultural sector development objectives are to: (a) modernize production techniques to raise productivity, yields, farmers' incomes and reduce dependence on the weather; (b) maintain the food requirements of the population; and (c) promote agricultural exports. 1.11 Strategies. Government introduced many key economic reforms in the early 1980s whose aims were to encourage private sector and market forces for increased efficiency and growth. In agriculture, although these reforms were more limited, input trade and distribution was gradually liberalized, regulatory restrictions were reduced and the privat sector played an increasing role in crop marketing. Overall throughout the 1980s there was a policy bias against agriculture compared with industry, though the degree of "policy bias was limited. In 1992, however, the sector has been more favored through price support and input subsidy policies. GOT plans to reexamine these over the next years. in general, both the research and extension subsectors suffered from declining government budgetary support, especially in the late 1980s. This lack of support has been reflected in disappointing progress in yields, further exacerbated by crop husbandry techniques which do not emphasize soil and water conservation. Bank's tricMltural Strategy 1.12 Agricultural lending has aimed at increasing output productivity and exports, and supporting the necessary policy and institutional reforms in the sector. This has included: (a) Supporting institutional strengthening and particularly technical support services of research and extension, improving irrigation agencies' implementation capabilities especially at on-farm level and reforming government enterprises involved in agricultural marketing and input supply; (b) rationalizing the public sector investment program especiallv in irrigation; (c) expanding credit supply, especially for medium and small farms, together with increasing the efficiency of credit institutions and improving financial sector policies to encourage greater private investment in the sector; (d) reducing subsidies and price supports to prompt increased use of market forces, interest rate reform and increased private sector involvement in agricultural marketing; (e) increased focus on environmental concerns, to ensure that in the long run Turkey preserves the resource base for sustainable agriculture; and  - 5 - (f) increasing gupport for improving agricultural productivity in the poorer Eastern provinces, which have been relatively neglected until recently. C. Bank Grout Lending for Argiculture 1.13 As of December 1991 the Bank group had supported 26 agricultural projects in Turkey; however, 20 are closed and only 6 are under implementation. Lending to the sector has declined through the 1980.. The ongoing projects include an irrigation/drainage project, a credit project, an agroindustries project and two extension projects with applied research components. An Agricultural Research Project was approved in May 1992. This project includes provision for support to Research Institutions in Eastern Turkey, whose work programs focus on support to farming systems in cold, drought-prone areas with soils vulnerable to erosion. 8ome of the provinces receiving support under the Extension projects are also in Eastern Turkey. Earlier Bank projects included support for Rural Development Projects, and two such projects are currently ongoing with IFAD support. The Bank also supported a Forestry Project in the 1970s. However, this would be the first watershed management project, integrating activities on range, forest and agricultural land to improve productivity by focussing on activities which conserve soil and moisture and reduce erosion, and ensure the long-term sustainability of farming in the watershed. 1.14 Experience with project implementation has been mixed. The main difficulties have included procurement delays and inadequate local funding. Government is well aware of these difficulties and is no longer wil:ing to agree to new projects unless counterpart funding will be available The Ministry of Forestry (MOP), which would be the coordinating agency for the proposed project, hae in general suffered less than the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA) from budgetary shortfalls since many of its expenditures are financed from internally generated funds. It has also retained a strong central management which has facilitated the making of decisions and allocation of priorities. 1.15 Recent reviews of projects in Turkey include those of the Second Agricultural Credit Project, the Erzurum Rural Development Project, and the Northern Forestry Project. The Erzurum Rural Development Project Completion Report (PCR) concludes that even in less developed areas in Turkey farmers respond readily to an appropriate development package. It also highlights the need for participation of beneficiaries in project preparation. The Northern Forestry Project PCR emphasizes the importance of realistic project preparation, and the need for technologies to have been tested in Turkey before they are introduced on a large scale. 1.16 Watershed Rehabilitation projects are relatively new in the Bank, and few have yet been completed. PPARs on two early ones, however, suggest the following. For the Philippines Watershed Management and Erosion Control Project (Loan 1890-PH, August 1980), the PCR (September 1991) emphasized the need for a thorough understanding of prevailing legislation, simplification of organizational arrangements, a reasonable time frame for project implementation and the importance of securing the support of local communities  in project planning and implementation. For the India Kandi Watershed and Area Development Project (Loan 18!"i-IN, September 1980) the PPAR (December 1991) emphasized the value of addressing man-induced environmental degradation in upper watersheds, and the broader value of the project as providing the starting point for other watershed management projects in India. 1.17 Government initially requested Bank assistance with financing a project focussing on reforestation, improved range management and environmentally sustainable farming in 17 provinces in Eastern Turkey. It was realized that a project with such a wide geographical area would be difficult to implement, and project size was reduced to the 10 provinces of the upper watershed of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, where erosion problems appeared to be particularly severe. Furthermore, because of poor endowment of natural resources, compounded by a harsh climate, income levels in these areas are relatively lower. Project area was further reduced, to the three provinces of Elazig, Malatya and Adiyaman in the middle catchment of the upper watershed, principally for logistical reasons, and partly because provincial government officials in these provinces were most ready to work with local communities. II. PROJECT AREA AND RATIONALE A. Definition of Area 2.01 The project concerns the rehabilitation of ten highly degraded subcatchments in the middle basin of the Euphrates river. These subcatchments cover an area of about 1.5 N ha within the provinces of Elazig, Malatya and Adiyaman and can be broken down into 214 microcatchments (MCs). They have been selected to exclude plains areas which experience minor problems of degradation. On the basis of an analysis of the implementing capacity of concerned agencies 54 of these NCs covering an area of about 400,000 ha will be treated during the seven year project period. The provincial forestry department would in consultation with other agencies be responsible for selection and MCs with a larger proportion of range and forest land would be given priority. The criteria for selection of MCs will inr.lude judgements about (i) the severity of problems in terms of vegetative degradation and soil erosion including the imbalance between the supply and demand for fodder and wood; (ii) the prospects for achieving an adequate return to the treatments offered under the project; and (iii) the extent to which the problems are recognized by the MC population and there is a willingness to explore solutions. Eighteen NCs have been tentatively identified while the remaining 36 will be selected during the course of project implementation. The definition of the project area is summarized in table 2.1 below (see also Annex 1A, Table 1B).  Table 2.1s DEFINITION OF PROJECT AREA PrOyte -C amo Ar.. A -sr;e Avera Niat - ea Etiri.fluNa# - 0 1 ,4..-00 ... ,.' .. " .. ' *: ..... <~~T (part 4x 10,00 . B. Phslcal Characteristics 2.02 The climate in the project area is semi-arid and harsh. Precipitation averages between 350 to 600 mm and much of it falls in the form of snow. Summers (June-September) are very hot and dry. The geology of the area is extremely complex and soils are variable with a high proportion of erodible materials (fine-grained sediments, acid igneous rock, and unconsolidated parent material or 40ft rock). The topography is characterized by steep slopes interspersed by valleys of varying width. The 0egetativ0 ooverage on forest and range lands is poor and 35PA of the project area (middle Basin) is severely and 441 strongly eroded (both shoot and gully erosion). The mean annual soil clmt in the project area is estimated at a very high 40- 50 tons per hectare. Erosion is particularly high during the snow melt and intense rainfall in the spring. 2.03 Out of the cultivated area in the three provinces about 17.S5b is irrigated, 7.5e i( devoted to orchards (mainly apricot) and the reoainong 7the ia under rainfed cereal productions about one third of thig area io fallowed under the prevailing cropping system. The main cereal crop is wheat which is reported to yield 1.5 to 2 tons per ha under rainfed conditions and double that under irrigation. Yields have not changed rignificantly during the lant ten years. other crops include barley, tobacco, pulses and vegetables.  Fodder production is rarely integrated into the cropping system. The pleins which to a large extent are excluded from the project area, support more intensive cropping and have a higher proportion of irrigation. The mid- slopes, which lie between the plains and the ridges and have slopes between 8% and 30%, are of major concern to the project. Crop production there is less stable and mainly rainfed, although there is some irrigation in combination with terracing. Orchards comprise a larger proportion of cultivated area than on the plains. Even shallow soils and steep slopes have, wherever possible, been brought under cultivation. Some mountain villages also practice subsistence cereal production on the highland plateaux under marginal conditions. Major problems identified by project area farmers include the short growing season, lack of fodder and fuelwood, moisture stress and low productivity in dryland farming systems. Inadequate drinking water supplies, caused in part by the drying of springs due to excessive runoff, are also identified as a problem. 2.04 Rangelands constitute, as noted above, 40% of the project area and have yields varying from 100-500 kg dry matter per hectare. The opportunities of conversion of range land to cultivated land have been more than fully exploited. Land used for feeding of livestock is commonly classified into three types: - highland range (yayla) i.e. rangelands with summer houses on the high plateaux which are used for communal grazing by transhumant herds during the summer months; - rangelands (mera) i.e. upland areas which are used for communal grazing; - meadowlands (cayir) i.e. highly productive spring watered grasslands which are used for hay production. They occupy a very small proportion of the land area (only about 3,000 ha in the three provinces). The range- and meadowlands belong to the government ,Treasury) but villages are reported to have exclusive usufruct rights (see also Annex 2 para 5). The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs is responsible for overall range management; this will be formalized in a Rangeland Law shortly to be considered by Parliament. 2.05 Livestock production in the three provinces is based on some 1.4 M sheep, 0.45 M goats and 0.45 M cattle. The long winter necessitates stall feeding for 5-6 months using scarce crop by-products, hay from meadows and better rangelands, oak leaves from lopping of oak forest and purchased concentrate. The number of livestock units has not increased significantly in the last 20 years, but the productive range area has diminished. The objectives of livestock keeping have changed with draught power diminishing in importance. Due to the increasing shortage of labor, there is the beginning of a trend away from large flocks of small ruminants, requiring much labor for shepherding and milking, towards stall feeding and milking of improved dairy cattle. The scarcity of winter fodder, which means keeping livestock outside for as long as possible in the fall and releasing them early in the spring,  - 9 - together with general over stocking has had disastrous effects on vegetative coverage and species composition. The range lands are thus rapidly deteriorating and are by now a major source of erosion. The decreasing productivity of the range is fortunately recognized by farmers and, together with the scarcity of winter fodder and labor shortages for shepherding, seen as major problems in livestock production. 2.06 Forest land belongs to the government and is administered by the Ministry of Forestry but is used on a controlled basis by villages for fuel and fodder. Degraded rangeland may also be allocated to the Forestry administration for rehabilitation, and this sometimes causes friction with the villagers. However, by and large boundaries are respected and villagers do not encroach onto land managed by MO0 for rehabilitation purposes unless allowed to do so. Although the project area reportedly contained dense oak forests some 30 to 50 years ago, exploitation before nationalization of these lands and increasing pressure on natural resources have resulted in most of the forest area (88%) now being classified as bush, rather similar in appearance to the rangelands. Protection until recently has focused on the small proportion of remaining forests and particularly on the areas which have been rehabilitated or planted. Thin, often infertile soils and low and badly distributed rainfall cause slow woody biomass growth averaging 1-2 cubic meters per hectare per year. C. Social Characteristics 2.07 Although socioeconomic data comparing the project area with the rest of Turkey are not available, aggregated data indicate that the project provinces are substantially poorer than Turkey as a whole, while incomes in the rural mountainous areas of the project area are below the average for the project provinces. Rural incomes in Turkey are lower than urban incomes, and those in Eastern and South-Eastern Anatolia are lower than those elsewhere in the country. According to the Household Income and Consumption Survey of 1987, per capita incomes in Eastern and South-Eastern Anatolia were 67% of the Turkish average, while rural per capita income was 60% of urban. Food absorbed 46% of household expenditure in rural Eastern and South-Eastern Turkey (a money value was given to home produce) compared with 32% for Turkey as a whole. Other significant indicators include fertility, 5 in the east compared with 4 for all Turkey, and infant mortality which in 1985 averaged 66/1,000 for Turkey, compared with 95/1,000 in Elazig and Adiyaman project provinces (including urban and rural areas). Female literacy averaged 50% for the project provinces (again including urban and rural areas) compared with 62% for Turkey. 2.08 The average village in the three provinces has a population of about 600 people and embraces an area of roughly 2000 hectares. Settlement is rather scattered and the village frequently contains a core and a number of smaller settlement units. On average there are three units per village. The microcatchment would normally cover an area with about 4 to 6 villages. The village is administered by an elected headman (Muhtar) who executes the laws and decisions of Government and by the Council of Elders which is an advisory body containing elected as well as appointed members (teacher, religious leader). Cultivated land is privately owned; a survey in Eastern Anatolia  - 10 - indicated considerable fragmentation as the average farm contained about 6 parcels of land. In the project area, farm size is smaller than the national average and some 13% of villagers have no cultivated land. The same survey concluded that almost all households keep some cattle, sheep and/or goats. Livestock is the main economic activity in some of the villages where livestock producers tend to leave in May for the highland pastures and return to the home village in October. 2.09 The rural population in the three provinces, 816,000 in the 1990 census, constitutes about half of the total. The population of the project area is estimated at about 230,000. Annual growth of rural population between 1985 and 1990, according to the 1990 census, was 1.49% in Adiyaman but negative in Elazig (-0.80%) and Malatya (-1.10%), compared with a national average of 2.3% per annum and a national rural average of 0.67% per annum. There is thus a clear trend of movement towards urban centers. Patterns of population movement include dual residences, summers in the village - winters in the city, releasing young male members to work in Istanbul while other family member pursue farming, or seasonal agricultural wage labor by part or the entire family. Agriculture and livestock are in some cases increasingly becoming secondary sources of livelihood (less so in Adiyaman) and many households in Elazig and Malatya have substantial non-farm earnings. There is a strong cultural attachment to land and the home region and few families appear willing to dispose of the land and move away permanently. Women play an important role in agricultural production. Women are responsible for the care of livestock in addition to their domestic responsibilities and child rearing. With the male work force increasingly engaged in non-farm employment the women have to take over most of the agricultural work and/or reduce the farm operations. D. Infrastructure 2.10 The project area has a well developed road network which permits access during most of the year. While snow temporarily may block high elevation passes principal routes are reopened within a matter of days. Tertiary roads may occasionally be cut by erosion. Electricity and telephone service is available in most project area villages. Electricity is used principally for lighting; the preferred cooking fuel is gas while fuelwood is used for heating. Markets and marketing organizations operate freely throughout the project area and marketing should thus not be a constraint in project implementation with the possible exception of fresh milk. There are two main sources of credit, the Agricultural Bank of Turkey (TCZB) and the Agricultural Credit Cooperatives (TRK). The Forest Village Development Fund (ORKOY) also provides credit to forest villages. E. The Tnstitutional Setting 2.11 Administratively the state is represented at the provincial level by a Governor (Vali) reporting to the Ministry of Interior. The elected village leader (Muhtar) reports to the Governor through the Kaymakan (county governor) at the county level. Almost all Ministries are represented at the provincial level by provincial directors. The organizations relevant to the project are the Provincial Forestry Directorates reporting to the relevant directorate in  - 11 - the Ministry of Forestry (MOF), the Provincial Rural services Directorates reporting to the General Directorate of Rural Services (1HGM) in MARA, and the Provincial Agricultural Departments (PDA) reporting directly to the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA). Provincial work programs for Rural Services (i.e. roads, water supply and small-scale irrigation) and Forestry are prepared provincially and approved at national level by the relevant General Directorate. For agriculture they are prepared by the Provincial Agricultural Directorates, and approved directly by the Ministry. Thus, no single General Directorate in Ankara is responsible for agricultural activities at provincial level. The responsibility for natural resource preservation is fragmented although a Ministry of Envirornment (MOE) has recently been established at the national level. Key ministries are well established and functioning. An agricultural extension system has existed for many years in Turkey at provincial, county and village levels, while the Provincial Directorates of Forestry also have staff at county and village level. The Ministry of Forestry also has a Forest Village Development Fund (ORXOY), which finances various income generating activities in villages in forest areas. The present staffing of the Ministries of Forestry, and Agriculture and Rural Affairs in the three project provinces is given in Table 2.2 below. The administrations are for the most part well staffed, and the project is expected to be implemented with existing staff resources. As regards In-pitU gene conservation, research has a long tradition in Turkey, with a research establishment of over 8,000. MARA has experience in ex-_Jt gene conservation while MOF has experience in land management. The project would build on the complementary strengths of the two agencies.  - 12 - Table 2.2x PROJEZLCT ROVINCES: STAFFING OF KEY MINISTRIES F~~ ZMO ?AY OA i_O _ E _ *. _ E E . . 212 esp$jan the 103frihrsarh*tbihetthr 8n rga wihsubtomtlall x1fi aglnanmedwaaeetad *rdc$iy DRPlyARTNENaact wtint poec re * h For-st~~~ Rasear