Turkey - Second Livestock Development Project

Document of The World Rank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No. 3517 PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT TURKEY SECOND LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (CREDIT 330-TU) .Tinp 9 1981 Operations Evaluation Department This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only In the performance of meir u1cnan ouues. us contents may not omherwise be aisclosea witmout world Bank authorization. ADDIEV Itil 1i4D FSD - Fattening sub-project of Livestock II LDP - General Director of Livestock Development Projects MINAG - Ministry of Food-Agriculture and Livestock, Turkey TCZB - Agricultural Bank of Turkey VSD - Village Livestock Development sub-project of Livestock II VaD nWWITA ITQW nNIT V KUJECT YEKFURANCE AUDI KEUKT TURKEY SECOND LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (CREDIT 330-TU) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Preface ....................................* . . ............. . 1 Basic Data Sheet ...................... . ... ........ .............. ii Highlights ...................... ..........*.. ....................... iv BANK OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT .......1........... 1 ATTACHMENT: PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT I. BACKGROUND ................................. 6 II. PROJECT ................................ ........ 8 III. IMPLEMENTATION ..... ............... .......... 9 IV. IMPACT OF THE PROJECT - .. . o .................. 34 V. BORROWER AND BANK PERFORMANCE ................ . 43 VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ............. ........ 45 Annexes A - Withdrawal of World Bank Loan Proceeds ................. 48 B - Development Projections ....... ........ ..... 50 VSD private farms models ............. ........ 50 VSD machinery group model ...................... 67 FSD feed-lots model projections .................. 68 C - Details of Production Projections (VSD) ................ 71 D - References ............................ 74 MaD 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.  - 1 - PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT TURKEY SECOND LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (CREDIT 330-TU) PREFACE This is a performance audit of the Second Livestock Development Project in Turkey, for which IDA Credit 330-TU was approved in September 1972 in the sum of US$16.0 million. The closing date of the project was June 30, 1980. Thp audit renort consists of highlights prepared by the Operations Evaluation Department, the project completion report (PCR) and an Overview (hnth Ated Fhruary 1981). The PCR was nrenared by the Director of Live- stock Development Projects, Government of Turkey; the Overview by the Europe, Middle East and North Afrirn Rpgional Office. Tn nrenaring these documents, the Appraisal Report (PA-122a of March 15, 1972), the President's Report tn-inA7 of March 15 107? nnA tho Tnnlnnmant rrAit AarpmPnt (Nn- '110-TIl of September 28, 1972) and correspondence in the project files were reviewed andA BankL sta,ff interviewedo Since t-he projct had nn mnin,r nrnh1Pmc Pyrpnr A time overrun, and a high rate of return, and had been reviewed in detail in tl1e contextL of - prtosEautinOaninlPln Review - Delays in Project Implementation Study (OED Report No. 2946 of Apr41 11 1o0a akkrv4a*eA auA4ting procedure -r- annliqd Under.... these prc-rs 4he aui fin-- no rason~ to, quetion the PCR's analyses and major conclusions. The draft PPAR was sent to the borrower for comments on April 7, 1901. By hs cable of June 16, Lne uouwer aUvise that, Lsc te udit report seems to conform with views in our completion report, we do not have any major comments to uiaCe. ine cUUpL1 U.L naL.LLUL JumJmLLUOnC appear in the project completion report.  - ii - r 7.1T1M nDnVAn M1V ATT"TM DAVTf. TNAMA QUVVM LUrVJL1 OrAUL U L t%VD .U L MV L, L IMLL'l ULI 1 (CREDIT 330-TU) KEY PROJECT DATA Appraisal Actual or Item Expectation Current Estimates Total Project Cost (US$ million) 28.3 28.3 Overrun () - - Credit Amount (US$ million) 16.0 16.0 Disbursed - 16.0 Repaid to 12/31/80 - Outstanding to 12/31/80 - 16.0 Date Physical Components completed 12/77 6/80 Proportion Completed by Above Date (7) 48 100 Proportion of Time Overrun (%)- 50 Economic Rate of Return (7) 20% 23% Cumulative Estimated and Actual Disbursements (US$ million) FY74 FY75 FY76 FY77 FY78 FY79 FY80 FY81 Estimated 3.1 9.4 15.4 16.0 - - - - A1.U1 - - A.0 1. A lAO 1 O 1r.0 neou LU.. v v*, LJ*T *.*.T* Actual/Estimated (%) - - 26 39 65 74 99 100 OTHER PROJECT DATA Original Actual or item Pan ReVIsUHn ULLE timated- First Mention in Files - 10/70 Government's Application - - 11/70 Negotiations 02/72 - 02/72 Board Approval 04/04/72 - 04/04/72 Credit Aareement Date 09/28/72 - 09/28/72 Effectiveness Date 01/05/73 - 01/05/73 Closine Date (Credit) 06/30/77 12/31/79 06/30/80 Borrower Government of Turkey Executing Agency Livestock Development Projects (LDP) Agricultural Bank of Turkey (TCZB) FiAnAl Year of Borrower March 1 to last day of February Follow-on Project Livestock IV and V T.nan 1586-TU 1862-TU Amount (US$ million) 24.0 51.0 noan Aavgeement Dato 06/0/78 11/06/80 - iii - MISSION DATA Month/ No. of No. of Mission Date of Item Year Weeks Persons Manweeks Report Identification ) By the Ministries of Agriculture and Finance, Preparation ) Government of Turkey, between 1967 and 1970 Appraisal 06/71 4 4 16.0 03/15/72 Total 16.0 Supervision I 09/72 1 1 1.0 10/06/72 Sueriio T 03/73 1 1 1. 05/18/1 73 Supervision III 10/73 2 2 2.0 01/07/74 Supervsio VLASA V 04/74 2 ~ 2. 03/22/174 Supervision V 06/74 1 1 1.0 07/13/74 Supervision V 12/74 T 1 1 A A1/2I/. Supervision VII 02/75 2 1 2.0 03/26/75 Supervision VIII 05-06/75 2 1 2.0 A07/8/75 Supervision IX 11/75 1 1 1.0 11/26/75 Supervision A v6r17 1 2.u u7/cit7 Supervision XI 03/77 1 3 3.0 05/09/75 Supervision XII 09-10/77 1 3 3. A2197 Supervision XIII 06/78 1 3 3.0 07/24/78 Supervision XIV 10/78 2 1 2.0 12/21/78 Supervision XV 05/79 3 1 3.0 05/24/79 Supervision XVI 07/80 1 2 2.0 08/12/80 Total 31.0 COUNTRY EXCHANGE RATES Name of Currency (Abbreviation) Turkish Lira (TL) Year: Appraisal Year Average - 1971 Exchange Rate: US$1 = TL14.917 - 1972 14.150 - 1973 14.150 - 1974 13.927 - 1975 14.442 - 1976 16.053 - 1977 18.002 - 1978 24280 - 1979 47.120 Completion Year Average - 1980 (Oct.) US$1 = TL82.700 - iv - KUJECT PKUKMANCE AUUIT KEPUK TURKEY SECOND LIVESTUCK DEVELOYMENT PKOJECT (CREDIT 330-TU) HIGHLIGHTS By the end of 1980 the Bank Group has granted five credits and loans to Turkey to support livestock development. The First Livestock Development Project (Credit 236-TU) which was audited in 1979,11 aimed to support inten- sive dairy production. The Second Livestock Development Project, which is the subject of this audit, was the first phase in the support of village livestock breeding in the north-eastern highlands, and the fattening of store sheep and cattle, mainly on the Central Anatolian Plateau. Project funds were channelled to farmers through the Agricultural Bank of Turkey (TCZB). Technical feasibility of sub-borrowers' farm plans were reviewed by staff of the Livestock Develop- ment Projects (LDP); plans also had to meet the financial criteria established by TCZB. The project also provided funds for consultants, vehicles and staff training. Based on experience gained with the first livestock project, a special covenant was introduced to provide financial inducements to national staff to volunteer for service in the remote, backward and climatically harsh north-eastern highlands. Introduction of the stipulated staff incentives was delayed and due to these initial difficulties, the Village Livestock Development component started slowly and delaved proiect completion from June 30. 1977 to June 30, 1980. The project has successfully demonstrated to farmers as well as the mant trAde that henefits from slauzhtering finished animals are greater than slaughtering stores and that the public is willing to pay for the higher nialftv meat. This lesson has influenced the Government Droiect planning agencies and is reflected in the two follow-on projects (PCR paras. 3.07 and 6.06). The economic rate of return for the entire Droject. estimated to be 20% at the time of appraisal, has now been recalculated at 23%; financial returns to narticinting farmers met appraisal estimates: 25% for fattenine cattle and 29% for fattening sheep. The village livestock development com- ponent hoywver, despi4te its PyT7 t~ erppdpd Annrigal eRtImatas with a financial RR of 25% instead of 19%. 1/ OED Report No. 2542 of June 18, 1979. - v - Ihe~ folinU.Ig pont may be ot specialintLerest& - pLUJtCL sall, recruILeu ana assigned only after continuous pressure by the Bank, had their activities severely curtailed since 19I9, Decause of limited operating budgets (overview, para 8 and PCR, para 3.04); - the fact that considerable efforts were required by the Bank to persuade TZb to pay into the Special Uperating Fund 1% of all interest recoveries: this did not take place until after January 1980. The fund was expected to supplement travel and daily allowances of staff, as an inducement to visit project farmers more frequently (Overview, para. 7); - the number of sheep that would be fattened under the stock fattening component was considerably overestimated: 240,000 against an actual 75,000 (Overview, para 12); in contrast the numbers of sheep purchased for breeding under the Village Livestock Development component were underestimated: over 100,000, against an estimated 16,000. Despite a shortfall in the numbers of breeding cattle (forecast 12,500 but actually only about 3,500), the project financed more animal units (sheep plus cattle) for breeding than expected (PCR para 3.13); - most of the ancillary components to livestock development, like the formation of tractor groups, purebred livestock breeding groups, formation of irrigation associations or the development of common meadow groups evoked little interest or were not taken up by borrowers at all (PCR para 3.13); - a *smaller than expected number of farmers borrowed for the village development component, most probably because of price increases of the required inputs (PCR para 3.11) and also indicating that TCZB s lending terms tended to exclude small- scale operators (PCR para 3.18); - extensive foreign training had been imparted to staff of the Directorate of Livestock Projects (PCR para 3.24); and - technical supervision by the Bank's Livestock Specialists was of particularly high standard, and contributed materially to the success of the project (PCR paras 5.06 and 5.07). TURKEY SECOND LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (CREDIT 330-TU) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Bank Overview of the Project Completion Report 1. Attached is the Project Completion Report (PCR) of the Second Livestock Project (Credit 330-TU), prepared by the General Directorate of Livestock Development Projects (LDC) of the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock. The attached PCR is a thorough and perceptive analysis of project implementation and major project issues. This overview is intended to highlight major points of interest and to supplement LDC's report with the Bank's own viewpoints and experience. A basic data sheet is attached. 2. Livestock is a key resource of Turkey, contributing about 30% of the gross value of agricultural production and 8% of GNP. The livestock population is amongst the highest in Europe and the Middle East. Current estimates indicate the country has about 41.1 million sheep, 18.8 million goats, 14.8 million cattle and buffalo and 2.3 million horses and donkeys. This extensive resource is not being fully utilized or developed. Analysis of published figures indicates that the number of grazing animals has increased at only about 0.7% annually since the early 1960s due mainly to competition from crop farming. Furthermore. most animal producers have failed to modernize and to increase their productivity. 3. In May 1973, IDA lent US$16.0 million to Turkey (Credit 330-TU) to SUnnnet nn intprated iinPrviqed crpdit program directed at the develooment of Turkey's livestock industry as part of the Government's Second Five-Year Plan. it comprised two subproJeCts: (a) a Village Livestock Development Subproject (VSD) in Northeast Turkey, to stimulate increased production of meat and milk; and (h) a Vatrpnina S,hnrniprt (FSD). focusing on the main fattening districts, particularly on the Anatolian Plateau and in the coastall., pl,is in, adiin nr-h n j t-. b-n the~ PStablighment of a technical services group in the General Directorate of Livestock Development Projects (Lr and another professional group nt Agricultural Bank of Turkey (TCZB). Of the total project cost US$28.3 mil-ion 7 TIZl4 n milln) use tn financed by the Credit. 21% (USt6.0 million) by TCZB, 16% (US$4.7 million) by farmers, and 6% (US$1.6 million) I- ;- T. /Tl 1Q71 M-acnfintions took place in February 1972, and the Credit became effective in January 197I 3. 4. Because or a slow start uue maily to Uelays .Lu LCLULLL6 suitable local and international staff, the project completion date had to be extended from December 31, 1978 to June 30, 170U. nowever, all subiLoan disbursements for the FSD component were completed in 1979. The VSD subproject was completed in 1979 and, as customary, there was a six-munLl period between physical completion and receipt of the last withdrawal requests. Actual implementation time, excluding the initial period of difficulties, did not take more than the five years as anticipated at appraisal. 5. Aggregate performance records in both subprojects generally exceeded appraisal estimates, though there were some deviations from - 2 - Drojected technical coefficients, especially regarding estimates of weight gains in fattening operation (see para 12). Subloan cancellations have been relatively few and recovery performance has been satisfactory. On-farm development in both subprojects was generally very satisfactory until 197/79. Thereafter. LDP's performance began to deteriorate because of budgetary and staff constraints. This resulted in reducing the number of on-farm development n1ane nrodtied and adversely affected the supervision of farm plans under implementation. 6. Beyond its physical and productivity aims, the ultimate impact of the project u-as institutional- TDP was established in 1971 under the IDA/IBRD-financed First Livestock Development Project (Credit 236-TU), to ..A- f- panin and tvnion Srvices to livestock Droducers. Since then, it has been actively engaged, with TCZB, in implementing four izvestock the, f4el f-, n49 ;nipt , deon commence in 1981. involves LDP in an expanded role in livestock production. Although commendable progress has been made in developing the inst-tittinalI f-ra;mework of T.DP. and it now has small cadre of experienced officers possessing financial, agroomi an tt -, Tn1D cotne to sufe from twon chronic problems. 7. First, the problems of recruiting and maintaining field staff, pdaLLLuidLly ln EdLL Anato14 vA T) effectiveness especially since 1978/79. Since 1979, the agency's extension activities nave been reduced and many benefciaries have any, visits to assist them in practicing the improved standards of forage proUuCL.iLII, ILr: maniigcen [and~~L~LL~i. animial .L 0U -. -LV r, The Credit Agreement included a covenant aimed at meeting the costs of special incetive fro a peia-A'Fn (QV), financed by T07R from the interest payments of sub-borrowers. However, that fund was mainly used to finance LDP's budgetary deficits and, although a porton of it resources were spent on per diem payments, this did not provide sufficient incentives. Also, TCZB interpreted this to mean that contributions to tne SOF should be based on the foreign exchange component only of the loan balances, thus underfunding the SOF. After prolonged discussions, compliance was secured and TCZB agreed that, beginning January 1980, contributions to the SOF would be computed on the total of the outstanding loan balances. 8. Second, the continuing shortage of budgetary allocations since 1979 to meet operating expenses, especially for car maintenance and operation, adversely affected LDP's capacity to develop and supervise farm plans. These budgetary restrictions became also evident for agencies other than LDP, such as the General Directorate of Veterinary Services. Hence, follow-up extension and advisory activities since 1979, particularly in regard to the maintenance of animal health, were only infrequently implemented as veterinarians just could not make sufficient farm visits. For the same reason, the availability of vaccines and drugs deteriorated. - 3 - cow-models, the FSD cow-models and the FSD sheep-models are 25%, 25% and I WIIF I_ -- - .a LI -- -LL- 2 - e sO. t u'. It FF- - . o The ERR is currently estimated at 23% compared with 20% projected at appraLtial. Deviations from the Original Appraisal Expectations Included the Following 10. Subloans. The total number of farm plans funded under the Village Subproject was reduced from 5,000 to 2,253, and those under the Fattening Subproject from 1,600 to 627. In both instances, the main causes were unexpectedly rapid price increases, accounting for about two-thirds of the reduction in farm plans, and an underestimation of some costs at appraisal, accounting for the balance. The contingency estimates in dollar terms, at appraisal were reasonable. 11. Pilot Operations. The project design included the establishment, on a pilot scale, of a number of group activities, i.e., common meadow groups, irrigation groups and pure-bred livestock groups 11. Because of psychological and social reasons, the farmers in the project areas were not prepared to cooperate in these endeavours. 12. Output. because of very conservative weight gain estimates, actual aggregate incremental meat output in both subprojects was considerably higher than expected at appraisal. Milk production, however, was much less than expected because of a steady decline in the profitability of milk production relative to mutton production. Also, the relative contributions of the different project components to total output differed substantially from those projected at appraisal; e.g., whereas at appraisal mutton was expected to account for only 7% of the incremental production value in the VSD, it actually contributed 70% of that value. In the Fattening Subproject, a much larger production increment was realized than expected at appraisal, though with much smaller numbers of animals than was originally anticipated. The farm models were recalculated and the economics of fattening, especially of sheep and lambs, were a lot more attractive than estimated at appraisal. The following numbers summarize the above: 1/ A ninnhr of fnrmir nnirubqQP q rnl-hrPd hiill fnr iiqpm in thpir nwn fq-rm and for renting to other farmers. -4- Villaze Subproiect Actual Actual (VSD) Tons TL Million Tons TL Million Milk 16,485 19.9 29,000 35.0 Beef 412 4.5 1.800 19.6 Mutton 4,030 56.4 300 4.2 Subtotal 80.9 __- (FSD) Cattle fattened (No.) 72,000 100,000 .jCl-ep 'E tt e n e -1 Jl 0 -7 , no LM' A , J'nJ Increm. carcass wt. 5,380 4,200 increm. carcass value 69. Vu, Total 150.5 109.2 13. Loan Proceeds. As the project progressed, there were four successive reallocations of Bank loan nroceeds to different rAteCori_. More specifically, the original allotments at appraisal of 55% and 29% of the Bank loan proceeds of UStl6 million for VSD and FSD Q1hnrn!tets respectively, were increased to 58% and 39%, at the expense of the allotments for technical servires and technical studies- Th 1nft-r allotments were to finance farmers' training and applied research and demonstration. However. it was not nonqihle to undertake these activiti P because farmers were not prepared to come. 14. Devaluation. In the past seven years, the Turkish Lira devalued gradually from TL 14 to US1 in 1973 to TL78 to TTCl in 190A to offset domestic inflation. As a result, project costs in TL for the unit subloans total cost of the project, in financial terms, was about 82% higher than preulcu a- appra-Isal. n[ tue oU'- [-nU, Lue IL uevaLuation increaseu the value of the IDA contribution relative to the local cost component and bUnce uIiiy Io/o u1 this contribuuon was useu in toreign currency for Lne purchase of machinery, the TL devaluation to some extent helped the project coming close LO ILS LargeLS. 15. Consultants. For reasons well explained in the PCRK, it was not possible to attract three competent full-time consultants for the entire project implementation period though the project has been fortunate in having had the services of one eminent specialist for the full duration. The main lessons to be learned from the project include the following: 16. Inflation. It seems advisable, in periods of high inflation, to have flexibility in meeting the full requirements of farmers assisted, and therefore not to quantify in advance the number of farmers' subloans to be - 5 - made. if the real value of the amount available for on-lending diminishes, or alternatively, if the project costs for the unit subloans increase gradually during implementation--as they did in the project--it will generally be preferable to reduce the number of subloans, as was done here, rather than to reduce the average amount per subloan. 17. Technical Estimates. In projects of this nature, and which aim at fattening different types of animals of different sex and varying age groups, as well as increasing milk production, the opportunities of substituting one activity for another, at the farm, are numerous. Indeed, it is then extremely difficult to make a sensible forecast of the specific composition of output by animal species. Whenever it is felt that such detailed projections would convey impressions of spurious accuracy, it would seem advisable to present only simple aggregate numbers such as carcass weight equivalents. Under such conditions, it is necessary that the executing agency, during and after project implementation, maintains a feedback of actual field performance to the research organization. 18. Some of the tables contain small arithmetical inaccuracies. This, however, does not alter the general conclusions of the PCR. -6 - TURKEY SECOND LIVESTOCK PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT I. BACKGROUND 1.01 Livestock is one of the most important subsectors in Turkish agriculture and the livestock production practices have long heen well founded in the nation's cultural and social heritage. As colloquially described, the country's food habit turns around the main dish of "ET - EKMEK" i.e., meat and bread. The animal protein consumption per capita in Turkey has, since long, been the highest in the developing world. The latest nutritional survey puts it as 22.5 gm of animal protein out of 85 gm of total protein intake per consumption unit (c.u.) pVer day (1 person=0.8 c.u.), the intake value contributed by meat being 11.3 gm and that by milk at TL 388 billion or about 38% of the total value of agricultural productiion(including f LLLL L.ostry)) the projected. value o uth prodFtJ..uc.t.ion in 1979 and 1980 is not markedly different. 1.02 During the last twenty years (1959-1979), the sheep population of Lhe country increaseu dby 3uo, frou1 33.6 to 4 mllion wile the goat population decreased by 21%, from 19 million to 14.8 million; the cattle andu UUffilU pUpULLLUL1 d icLteadau UUL aL a sIUWL tLe UL 110, fLLU 14.3 to 15.9 million. The annual increase in milk and meat production respectively was 5.6 and 5.4% in 1978, and 5.8 and 5.7% in 1979, the projected values for 1980 being 6% for each. 1.03 The area cultivated for crop production has increased during the same twenty years period from about 23 to 24.5 million hectares; the actual area currently cultivated every year is 16.4 ha, the remaining being kept in the form of yearly fallows. A gradual increase in wheat plantation through the last years is the main cause of the increase in the area cultivated; the wheat area increased by 24%, from 7.5 to 9.3 million hectares through the last twenty years (1959-1979). The area covered by natural grassland and meadows has unfortunately reduced significantly from 28.6 million hectares in 1960 to 21.7 million hectares in 1975. Thus, the percent total natural meadows pastured in the total area of Turkey dropped from 36.8% in 1960 to 27.9% in 1975, the total area of the country being 77.8 million hectares. Therefore, the estimated production in meadows in the equivalent of hay, dropped by about 6% from 18.8 to 16.4 million tons during the same time. However, the increase in fallow land (0.4 million hectare) as a result of the increased area sown, the increase in the area (3 million hectares) for alfalfa, Sanfoin and cow vetch production during the last fifteen years (1960-1975) tended to compensate the production losses as a result of reduction of meadow land. Besides, the area sown by other forage crops have also increased significantly during the last few years. Also, current research work on the effective use of fallows for the production of adopted dry land forage crop in the country has been very encouraging: - 7 - Cropping Pattern Av. yield (Kg/de) Total Prod. (Kg./de) Wheat Hay Wheat Hay F-W-F-W-F-W-F 102 - 306 - S-S-S-W-W-W-W 104 272 416 544 S-Sanfoin: W-Wheat: F-Fallow 1.04 Other exoeriments showed that some annual legumes and cereal mixture could be used successfully (250 Kg/de) in the fallow years without any reduction in wheat vield in successive alternate years. Thus. the forage production potential of currently available 8.2 million ha of annual fAllnw.q Qppm tn he arpeA fnr PynlnitAtfin hy the Tuirkiqh fArmrq ibn nre very receptive to innovations. 1.05 The livestock production in the past has been very seasonal and donanAn- nn ntivrnl npasture, aixyina risp to seasonal nrnAut ifinn A largei proportion of the good meadow land are in the 12 mountainous Eastern and South Eastern provinces of Turkey- (heaedlb ENrzra Vna Un nde Agri4 where due to extreme weather conditions, the growing season for field crops high. The Eastern provinces constituting 28% of the total area in the counJtryflL, [Las abot40 L'.t,of theL L[cto.tal meLado..wladnd3%othttl cattle, sheep and goat population of the whole country. But, because of Lt1 ~LIJLL i iLi ~ L tL 6 OCaDULL, LIle jJLVuaU . .LVLI Ui £ L1 ~~0J L L1L Q'...W dependent livestock under traditional system has been low. As a result, less than a third of the production potential is actually exploited Uy traditional farmers of the East. Thus, farmers in these remote areas do not actually know the production potential of their own nerus anu there was very little extension to make them come to realize the economic benefit of the input investment in their own livestock, thereby increasing proauccion per unit animal as well as total production and reducing the cost of producuon unuer ever growing market uemana Lor tne products at Home anu abroad. Some of the well-off traditional farmers, in the past had shown interest in exotic high-yielding purebred cattle, because of their high production. Once they had a chance to raise these valuable cattle with guidelines of feeding and management provided to them in a package deal, the realization in the magnitude of inputs of feeding and management in a feed-livestock economy was apparent; this was particularly revolutionary against the background of livestock production, dependent on seasonal natural pasture in the traditional pattern of "scavengerism" with an economic philosophy of getting something out of nothing. The experience had a feed back in bringing in a different look at the livestock production practices. 1.06 The Second Livestock Development Project, even though it follows the World Bank's first endeavour in the sub-sector in Turkey (First Livestock-Intensive Dairy-TU 236), it is not a repeater. In fact, it was -8- the first development effort in the country in the remote rural areas of relatively underdeveloped rather isolated Eastern highland provinces of Turkey with long and rigorous cold winters, a short crop growing season, a limited road approachability to villages and limited social services but with high potential for livestock development because of itA geatpt concentration of livestock that are being bred in a traditional system exDloiting the vast unmanaged natural meadows and gra.qqand no to the 1er blade, with the resultant seasonal production characterizing low yield short nrodnition period hut gpnerating the mnost imnorant eAonomic avit of the area and its people. So, the Second Livestock Development Project, pcssentin1IvyasuiPruiscre ,dit- prranm, a rmr ie t a increasing livestock production in the North East through improvement in providing all necessary inputs including seeds, fertilizer, machinery, di-e--s no nrorl, technicM.nc _aSs-t_n_e,- tc. too riv,ate famr W., integrated crop-livestock agriculture; (b) increasing meat production particularly available in the breeding areas of the Eastern provinces for La CC t--at ---.a. y -Li --I a".Ja-LtLU £iA[aCtJiLaL pi CIdu, CILLU \U / UL61dL1.LZ,_[16 an infrastructure of trained professional and subprofessional staff in the proj ect area to be of assistance to the livestock farmers and to promote animal agriculture through training, research and demonstration. Driet vescriptiUI 2.u The Seconod Livestock Development Project, essentially an integrated credit program, was designed as the first phase in the development of Turkey's livestock industry as a part of the Government's Second Five-Year Plan primarily through breed improvement, increased forage production by including it in the cropping pattern of the arable land and by improving natural meadows and grassland and increased production per unit animal upgraded and/or selected to take full advantage of adequate feed input, improved animal husbandry practices, technical assistance and disease control programs. The project comprises two subprojects: (a) a Village Livestock Development Subproject (VSD); and (b) a Fattening Subproject (FSD). 2.02 The Village Subproject aimed at achieving its objectives by providing long-term credits to private farmers for: (a) development on about 5,000 private farmers; (b) development of common meadows by about 80 groups; (c) improvement of small-scale irrigation schemes by about 80 groups; (d) building of barns and purchase of purebred bulls by about 50 groups; and (e) purchase of about 200 tractors and other machinery by groups and individual farmers. The project area selected was supposed to include about 250 villages in Erzurum, Kars, and Agri provinces of the North Eastern Anatolia. -9- L.UJ Ine Fatcening Suoproject nad plans LU LILLZL, LULLLy OIatL 000 feed lot operations in and around 24 fattening districts throughout Turkey but mainly in tne anatolian plateau anu cvastle plue as part of a widde Government program, and finish an incremental 240,000 sheep and 100,000 cattle annually at full development through proviuing rentewavie 51ULLnC-eLL (11-month) credits for necessary period indicated in the financial projection of the farm plan. 2.04 The project also planned for the expansion of the operation of Lur General Directorate set up to implement Livestock Development Projects partially financed by the World Bank and to establish regional and provincial offices with necessary technical services involving 65 fully employed professional and subprotessional statt in addition to those already existing in some of the project area to carry out implementation of the project successfully. The project also had provision of funds for technical studies and training which was expected to include feasibility studies for prospective projects for World Bank financing in the future, applied research and demonstration and training of technical staff abroad in countries with similar farming problems. 2.05 The total project cost was estimated at US$28.3 million, about US$14.9 million for the Village Sub-Project, US$10.3 million for the Fattening Sub-Project, and US$3.1 million for technical services and studies. The IDA credit of US$16.0 million was allocated to finance foreign exchange cost of US$6.5 million and local cost of US$9.5 million. It was decided that project implementation and technical and economic aspects would be the responsibility of LDP, while the Encouragement and Development Loans Division of TCZB would handle the credit aspect. Preparation, Appraisal and Negotiation 2.06 The Droiect was prepared by the General Directorate of Livestock Development Projects (LDP) assisted by FAO/IBRD missions that visited Turkey between November 1967 and March 1969. An Appraisal Mission was made in October 1970 by an IDA Group. The credit was approved by the Board of Directors of the World Bank on April 4, 1972 and the Project Agreement with IDA was signed on September 28, 1972. The project was effective on January 5. 1973. III. IMPLEMENTATION Implementing Body and its Organization 3.01 LDP was established as General Directorate within the Ministry of ,% -reb a Goenmn decree on February 9- 197n- rn idpntifv and prepare new livestock development projects including their feasibility Studines and tevelopment strategy for financing by the Wnrl Rlnk and to implement all the approved projects either directly or in collaboration - 10 - with other departments of the Ministry of Agriculture for the development of livestock industry in the country. Previous to the establishment of LDP General Directorate, in order to look after the livestock development project activities mainly as a coordinating body, a Livestock Development Projects Department directly under the Minister of Agriculture through his Private Secretary was created on September 26, 1969. Subsequently other regional and provincial offices were established as shown below: Development of LDP Infrastructure Office Date of Location Type Official Establishment Ankara Regional July 8. 1970 Istanbul "f Izmir Adana " " Erzurum " " Kars Provincial July 11, 1973 Azri " " Malatya Regional July 21, 1975 Konva " " Kayser ti August 19, 1976 V.n ifDPcember 14, 1978 Mus Provincial Th, i rhn I- rII Erzincan (Hakkari) Af A 4 1 A. 1070 HatLay Denizli " " Bursa January 21, 1980 3.02 The VSD subproject of Second Livestock Development Project operating in the provinces of Erzurum, Kars aru Agri had subsequently opened the following county offices called Group Chief Offices in the VSD project area: Ardahan, Arpacay, Cildir, Gole, Horasan, Hinis, Pasinler, Selim and Tortum. In FSD subproject, before the establishment of regional offices at Konya, Kayseri and Malatya, the rarm plan preparation and project supervision for the Central and South-Central Anatolian plateau were handled by the Ankara Regional ufice assisted by the FSD staff at the Headquarters of the General directorate. 3.03 At the LDP Headquarters in Ankara VSD was staffed by a Manager and two deputy Managers and FSD was staffed by one Manager and one deputy Manager. The Second Livestock Development Project also had the provision of three internationally recruited technical specialist consultants to supervise the preparation and implementation of development plans and to - 11 - proviae training ana support ior project staff. Ine team o ConsulItants included a Senior Consultant stationed at Ankara, A VSD Consultant stationed at the Erzurum Regional Office and a FSD Consultant stationed at Ankara. In actual practice, however, it was rather difficult to recruit a suitable consultant, for stationing at Erzurum, who could successfully help in implementing the project. After the initial organizational preparation, after the project became effective in January 1973 the VSD Consultant joined the project in May 1973 and the Senior Consultant joined LDP in July 1973. The FSD Consultant joined the project in August 1975. However, the VSD Consultant left the project after about one-and-a-half year in December 1974 while the Senior Consultant in Ankara left in August 1976, after working for three years. The FSD Consultant alone took care of both the subprojects from then onward till the completion of the project, except tor a period of one year from August 1977 to July 1978 when he was assisted by a VSD Consultant in Erzurum. 3.04 The VSD, FSD and LDP budget, staff and field program expanded steadily through the year as shown in the following tables: Development of VSD Budget, Staff and Work Program Farm Plans Year Budget Staff Prepared Ending (TL Million) Professional Sub-professional Support (on-farm) 1973 5.6 3 - - 1974 7.4 6 2 9 - 1975 6.3 11 10 24 167 1976 2.6 13 10 29 640 1977 1.6 22 41 45 759 1978 1.7 23 53 50 579 1979 2.9 28 78 55 490 Development of FSD Budaet. Staff and Work Prozram Yp,r RudqPt Staff Farm Plans Ending (TL Million) Professional Sub-professional Support Prepared 1973 2.9 2 - 2 - 1074 3.9 9 4 5 438 1975 4.0 4 4 6 292 1076 0. 10 11 117 1977 0.7 12 14 12 236 1n7 0. 12 20 15 9A 1979 1.8 12 22 15 16 - 12 - Development of LDP Budget, Staff and Work Program (FSD, VSD, IDPD) YVar Budget Staff Farm Plans Ending (TL Million) Professional Subprofessional Support Prepared 1973 15.9 26 9 30 123 1Q7Zi 70. 40 17 49 467 1975 20.9 47 27 71 536 1976 1.5 57 32 85 795 1977 35.1 75 79 112 1087 107 A A 7A 109 135 1274 1979 82.7 86 140 147 799 OnleingI OperLations 3.0 _- te AgricUu1lure Bank of TurkeY (TGB was responsible fonr channelling credits to participating project farmers. Initial applications were processed by the local TC7ZB ,I brancha offices 1 nqhih Pseqsdthp applicant's creditworthiness, and made recommendations for the maximum credit to be allowed. LDP regional and provincial offices then prepared the farm investment plans for creditworthy farmers after visiting the Ib ' -n ni ac r,r farmers and determining their armin6g wo0 rmno 1C 'J- 4 T11 subsequently reviewed and approved by the TCZB branch Manager, the technical Specialist and the LV Project Manager. Finally, plans were submitted to the Board of TCZB for approval following a final review by their Encouragement and Development Loans Division. 3.06 The tirst set or FSu rarm plans were approved Iy T CZ 1974'while the approval of the first set of VSD farm plans did not take place until April 1975. Once approved, the implementaUtn of prjct started within days. After the initial delay in actually disbursing the farm subloans, the activity picked up speed and by the end u 1979 all subloan funds were disbursed or committed for both the subprojects. As the project implementation proceeded, the actual time taken to process a loan application (from submission of an application to actual loan disbursement by TCZB) reduce to less than two months, which helped the project implementation a great deal. 3.07 The fattening subproject. The total number of project sub-loans approved by the TCZB amounted to 1352 in six years of project implementation; the total cost of the projects (subloans) was TL 369,529,783, the credit provided being TL253,732,762. Since the fattening subloans were short term in nature (11 months) to be renewed on conditions, after repayment, every year, some of the project farmers withdrew at the end of every loan term and some were made to withdraw because of lack of proper implementation. The funds made available from these withdrawn sunblans were recycled to provide subloans to new applicants. The - 13 - appraisal estimates of the number of subloans to be disbursed along with a schedule of loan disbursement, and the actual number of subloans as well as actual loan disbursement schedule as implemented are given below: Appraisal Estimates of Loan Disbursement Schedule Year of Implementation No. of Subloans Total Proj. Cost Total Loan Amount --------------------- ---------------Million TL 1 300 28.76 20.13 2 600 60.00 42.00 600 57.14 40.00 FSD Project Sub-loans Disbursed by TCZB Yearly Slubloans Disb_ursedI I/ SulasWtdan Clumii1 tixro Siihl nq. Year No. Total Credit . No. Total Credit No. Total Credit ----Million TL----- -----Million TL----- -----Million Tl------ 1974 438 70.45 48.88 6 2.92 20.38 432 67.54 46.85 1975 292 74.01 50.809 34 8.0 5.1 690 1331 92. 12 1976 112 31.16 21.32 64 14.75 10.56 740 149.57 102.88 1977 236 69.92 48.15 17n46R3.5 78 14.7 170 1978 258 117.42 79.97 242 72.09 45.91 814 230.20 161.14 1979 16 6.58 4.52 203 42.04 32.24 627 19.74 13. Total: 6 1352 369.53 253.73 727 174.79 120.31 - 1/ Actual number of subloan application processed was 107 more than that approved. - 14 - Loan Withdrawal Schedule by TCZB for FSD from IDA Appraisal Estimates Actual Withdrawal Amounts 1/ Implementing Amount Years Amount Year TL-Million-US$ (Total) US$-Million-TL 1 14.0 1.0 1975 2.41 36.20 2 29.4 2.1 1976 1.23 18.66 3 28.0 2.0 1977 0.86 15.36 1978 1.41 32.55 Total 3 71.4 5.1 1979 0.38 10.02 Grand Total 6.29 112.79 3.08 The VSD sub-project. A total amount of TL 366.49 million 2/ was disbursed for 2299 subloans at a total project cost of TL 410.16 million by TCZB during a period of five years for implementation of the Village Livestock Subproject. The appraisal estimates for the number of subloans along with a schedule of sub-loan disbursement, and the actual number of sub-loans as well as actual loan disbursement schedule as implemented in the project are given below: Appraisal Estimates of Loan Disbursement Schedule (VSD) Yor of No. of Total Project Total Loan Implementation Sub-loans Cost Amount - - -Million TT.--------- 2 2192 78.75 70.87 3 2175 An QL 77-94 4 - 10.9 0.98 1/ For details of withdrawal see Annex 'A!. 2/ Includes tractor groups. - 15 - VSD Project Sub-loans Disbursed by TCZB 1/ Subloans Subloans Subloans for project Approved Withdrawn implemented Total Total Total Project Credit Project Credit Project Credit Year No. Cost Amount No. Cost Amount No. Cost Amount -----Million TL----- -----Million TL------ -----Million TL----- 1975 Pr. farm 140 26.01 22.56 15 2.77 2.45 125 23.24 20.12 Tract. gr. 6 1.01 0.81 - - - 6 1.01 0.81 1976 Pr. farm 573 94.36 83.82 26 4.81 4.25 547 89.56 79.57 Tract. gr. 13 2.82 2.26 - - - 13 2.82 2.26 1977 Pr. farm 689 110.55 99.45 35 6.47 5.72 654 104.08 93.73 Tract. gr. 7 2.70 2.16 - - - 7 2.70 2.16 197A Pr. farm 530 93.90 84.48 23 4.25 3.75 507 89.65 80.72 Tract. gr. 11 3.79 2.99 - - - 11 3.79 2.99 1979 Pr. farm 434 93.53 84.45 7 1.29 1.14 427 92.23 83.31 Tract. gr. 2 1.02 0.82 - - - 2 1.02 0.82 Total Pr. farm 2366 418.35 374.76 106 19.59 17.31 2260 398.76 357.45 Tract. r 9 11.40 9.04 - - - 39 11.40 9.04 1/ Actual number of subloans processed is more than 10% of the subloans approved. Loan Withdrawal Schedule by TCZB for VSD from IDA Appraisal Estimates Atual wrTiuawa m Implementing Amount Year Amount MT -I.: 1 1 ___T,..- 0t ' TT -M 4 1 1 -~~-~7 -'£17 antO f 1V UL.'+ 1.06 2 50.40 3.6 1976 11.997 0.74 r ^ 3 - 1 Q 7 1* A 11)) r -7 3 _). . Oki JI 4 7.00 0.5 1978 104.753 4.32 1 7Q iA. 1 1.7 Total 131.60 9.4 1980 83.923 0.22 Grand Total 303.225 9.38 2/ For details of withdrawal see Annex 'A'. - 16 - 3.09 The loan size distribution to the VSD farmers and FSD fatteners are given below: FSD Subloans Up to Sept. 1975 Up to Dec. 1979 No. of % of Total No. of % of Total Loan Size (TL) Feeders Credit Feeders Credit Up to 100,000 1/ 431 66.6 149 23.8 100,001-150,000 55 8.6 128 20.4 150,001-200,000 58 8.9 56 8.9 200 001-250.000 30 4.6 114 18.2 250,001-300,000 23 3.5 66 10.5 300001-30000 9 1.4 29 4.6 350,001-400,000 11 1.7 25 3.9 400.001-450.000 6 1.0 31 4.9 450,001-500,000 11 1.7 16 2.5 500,001-750, nn 13 2.0 12 1.9 1/ Up to 50 cattle or 200 sheep fattening project farm plans could be -reare .4y- th creA4*... amun o TL A 100001 (OnT n-f Hfnfn t1t1 nrn,ipcr cost) provided to the individual feeders plus the feeders contribution (30% / o f the tot al pro Ject cost) at the early part of the ipeetto period. However, as the inflation in the country increased rather arastically durug tne Ltter part uf ne m L- -- for a 50 cattle or 200 sheep fattening plan became increasingly higher. Now since the loans were ror snort term, to be renewed ever yea a repayment, some farmers withdrew in successive years. When the price coefficient was adjusted by TCZB, to make project cost ilre Lealistic vu far from actual, new loan size for a minimum of 50 cattle or 200 sheep project farm became higher and the distribution of the loan sizes to remaining old fatteners and new fatteners became different as shown in the table. - 17 - VSD SubLoans (on-farm) 1/ Loan Size (TL) No. of On-farm Projects % of Total Credit Up to 50,000 40 1.8 50,001-100,000 1206 54.7 100,001-150,000 293 13.3 150,001-200,000 231 10.5 200,001-250,000 107 4.9 250,001-300,000 120 5.4 300,001-350,000 61 2.8 350,001-450,000 57 2.6 450,001-500,000 21 0.9 500,001-550,000 36 1.6 550,001-750,000 32 1.5 1/ Up to the end of implementation on December 1979. 3n10 TCZB reuired that all Rnb-horrowers should have title deeds to farm land and/or other property in order to be eligible for project sah-1nAnc HWnwpupr_ frnm July 1975. a new amendment to the existing rules came into effect. which required one, two or three co-signers only, dependingn farmers' monatry ernneitinn t nrovide suh-Inans UD to TL 100,000. Later, this amount was increased to TL 150,000. The repayment rcordorproect su-borowr thusC~ farLtVr, hasA been stfao-J - Tr7 Branch Managers have monitored the progress of on-farm implementation investment purposes. Gn Ha rIU IJUFIU"_IL 3.11 Overall, implementation of the maiu Un-Iam lveok, proJcts were satisfactory, even though some of the group activities in the VSD sbUprUject as planneu at _-iAtaL _uuxu Up e ay numu t vx UurJIL jL LIU L aFFjLaLOML, %,UU.U.L. LLW6L Ofcure quite obviously, there were some deviations from original appraisal projections and estimates. The most important of tnese ath given beLw. - 18 - (a) The project required seven years to implement in full. This was principally due to a slower start than anticipated. In fact, once the farm plan preparation started, the project gained its momentum and the total time taken to actually implement the project was not more than five years. The main reasons for a late start and prolongation of the implementation period were: (i) extreme difficulties in the recruitment of technical staff for the three VSD Eastern provinces of Erzurum, Kars and Agri because of unwillingness of potential employee to go to the area of extreme climatic conditinnq. 1ck of proner social services. remoteness of the area, undeveloped family welfare facilities and hnna wo-rkring conditionsQ intHep hilly fpvvnn without proper road communications; (ii) initial mixed reactions of the farmers of Eastern plrovi,,nes trds~A Se1nrvis c,Aredi t prog.ram-, some Orthodox farmers were hesitant to yield to accepting a credit, d atiraitiofLPErnRgonal beliefs were limited during the short spring and summer seasons. Eve beforeI anAti ~ arLer "e~ 1Lt 4 seasons, many of the villages are unaccessible because o0 muu anu water on t[e village roaus, adu 'iv) inadequate availability of vehicle, spare parts and fuel expenses. (b) Lack of success in implementing the group activities (-viz. common meadow group, irrigation group and bull studgroup) for developing facilities and removing constraints for the farming community in some selected project area or the VSD subproject. The main reasons were: (i) unwillingness or half-heartedness of area farmers to come together in such a project activity for the benefit of all, irrespective of magnitude of their individual needs and contributions, and ask for a credit and be responsible for the repayment and implementation of the project. Thus, essentially the cause of the failure was a lack of an organized village cooperative movement preferably initiated by the Government to demonstrate the benefits and its sharing and to eliminate mutual mistrust. (ii) the failure to form groups for the improvement and exploitation of meadowland accounts for the fact that very little of the funds envisaged at the time of afn a ;O I0 T.nc en,n O - n - h t-1-,om on f .,0-. .rp - a a p n r h ie e e t - m a o a d =10 and the purchase of haymaking equipment. On the other hand, the success or tne mixed farming component--giving as by-product, a considerable amount of fodder and stubble grazing--was manifested by a considerably increased demand for machinery to assist cereal production (table on page 20). (c) Fewer sub-borrowers benefitting under the sub-project (see Table 3.18) mainly due to: (i) price increases (ii) underestimation of some costs at appraisal (d) Inclusion of a few more counties in addition to those specified at appraisal, within the three provinces of the VSD project area. (e) Some variations in the percentages between investment categories. (f) Some readjustment in allocated proceeds of Bank loans within categories of items to be financed (Table 3.23). 3.12 Under the village subproject, the area of operation increased as given below: Revision in VSD Project Area Provincq ERZURUM KARS ACRT Cat and Hinis Selim, Ardahan Eleskirt Arpacay. Cildir and Gdle Later Additions: Pasinler -Nil- Hamur Hornasan Taslic_ay Tortum Diyadin 1/ The selection of original project area was based upon priorities, after =CL UCILLL6 O .L I. LlL ..ULL .LO 'i LLLC LLC pLtJVLLL .ca, ULL LIC UL±LWL1 criteria.: herd size distribution by family, land holding distribution by JLmLLy, Leeu sLtoua.LUn UL Luke urcediug sLULt, area sown anu YieLU per hectare by crops, animal housing facilities, available farm machinery and equipment, larm buluings, village cheese factories, avaLlavle worK strength, on-farm credits already under circulation, etc. - 20 - 3.13 The on-farm project sub-components implemented against that projected at appraisal can be summarized as follows: No. of subloans No. of farm plans projected at Village SubProject actually implemented appraisal 1. Private farms Erzurum Kars Agri Total Cattle 108 134 26 268 Native Sheep 877 436 281 1594 Merino Sheep 3 50 9 62 Cftlp and Native 269 4 56 329 Total 1257 A2 379 99S3 s00 2 Tractn croun 9 29 8 39 200 3. Common Meadow Group 80 5. Purebred Livestock Grou~p 50 No. of Project Farms - - 4 _. 77~- Withdrawals subloans FatLening PILU;Ul Yor umuuaLJve FvJ-- Subproject Implemented Rejections Strength at appraisal Fattening establishments 1354 727 027 LOVu - 21 - Appraisal Projection and Actual Long-term Material Investment in the VSD Project Farms and Machinery Group 1/ Total Units Private Farm Units App. Estimate Actual Forage and Pasture Establishment Area of Forage Crop Developed Ha 15,000 7,312 Area of Meadow Improved Ha 20,000 130 Livestock Barn New No. 1,250 42 Renovation No. 3,750 55 Machinery Grain Drill No. - 306 Mower No. 1,500 184 Hay Rake No. 1,500 - Grain Harvester No. - 643 Tractor No. 183 Trailer No. - 182 Cream Separator etc. No. 5,000 - Ot-hern No. - 85 T ,ieto- Heifer No. 10,000 3,124 n.u11 N 2.500 414 Ewe (Native) No. 15,000 88,604 vN --) - 5.250 Ram (Native) No. 1,000 7,030 Ram1UL1 erino): No.7LUUI LaentineLy 'JLoup Tractor No. 200 39 Trail er No. 200 11 Plough No. 200 15 Disc. Harrow U. 100 Land Leveller No. 50 Grain Harvester No. 5 Grain Drill No. 20 29 Hay Baler No. 5 Others No. 4 1/ Does not include figures of the withdrawn projects. TURKEY COMPLETION REPORT LIVESTOCK II - VSD No. of Livestock Bought Eor the Functioning Project Farms and the Number at Full Development Project Animals Purchased (heads) No. at Full Development (heads) Farms M. Karaman Years Established /1 Merino Ewes Ram Heifer Bull Merino M. Karaman Cow 1975 133 1,270 6,483 502 232 31 1,550 12,310 645 1976 611 3,650 26,874 1,412 873 72 3,970 45,769 1,315 1977 656 2,295 26,042 1,357 943 147 2,970 34,408 1,775 1979 400 - 12,679 507 1,147 76 -- 18,663 1,076 TOTAL 2,254 7,545 88,604 5,250 3,124 414 8,820 133,330 6,132 /1 Does not include the withdrawn project farms. TUKEY SECUND LLVESTUCK KUJECT CU1LETILUN REPUKT - VSD Forage Crop Establishment and Hay Production by Year and Province Years 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 Erzurun Alfalfa (Dk) 1,952 5,508 6,254 4,651 5,039 Sanfoin (Dk) 400 1,101 2,740 1,460 1,145 Vetch (Dk) 1,235 1,795 448 202 196 Grass (Dk) 3,658 2,439 518 323 10 Agri Alfalfa (Dk) 355 912 522 561 681 Sanfoin (Dk) 200 1,295 1,555 1,196 315 Vetch (Dk) 20 - - - - Grass (Dk) - - - - - Kars Alfalfa (Dk) 562 249 163 - - Sanfoin (Dk) 2,205 4,051 3,984 1,498 854 Vetch (Dk) 3,297 6,158 1,007 624 441 Grass (Dk) 640 100 - - - Yearly Total (Dk) Alfalfa 2,869 6,669 6.939 5,212 5.720 Sanfoin 2,805 6,447 7,879 3,154 2,314 Vptch 4,552 7,953 1,455 826 637 Grass 4,298 2,539 518 323 10 Total Crop Area (Dk) 14,524 23,608 16,791 9,515 8,681 Yearly Hay Production (Ton) Alfnlfn 2-008.3 46668.3 4857.3 3-648.4 4.004.0 Sanfoin 1,122.0 2,578.8 3,151.6 1,261.6 925.6 Vetch 1,593o2 2,783-A 5093 ?AQ01 ?30 Grass 2,149.0 1,269.5 259.0 161.5 5.0 Total 6,872.5 11,300.2 8,777.2 5,360.6 5,157.6 - 24 - private farms were lower in many cases than the appraisal projections, mainly because of price rises t-here weare few not~habl exceptions. The following table shows that even though the total number of breeding cattle provuiud d L mto thefarmerswere aout onC fourth of tne nuumver projecd LU the appraisal (15,000 vs 3538), the total size of the sheep breeding stock Y101,377/, Lhe fdimeis aculdly DLaLLed theiL heLd develUpmetL wiLh, at the beginning, more than six-and-a-half times than that was projected at appraisal (16,000); when converted into animal units, the project actually had more breeding stock input than that was projected at appraisal. The numoer or barns renovated or newly constructeu was lower than ose o appraisal estimates, because many of the project farmers did not wish to have modern barns and they did not really need new barns. 3.15 The size of the project farms at full development according to the number of livestock are given below: FSD Feed Lots 1/ No. of animals No. of feed 2/ Percent per cycle lots feed lot sizes Cattle 50- 60 445 67.4 61- 70 33 5.0 71- 80 28 4.2 81- 90 4 0.6 91-100 108 16.4 101-150 25 3.8 151-200 6 0.8 200 + 11 1.7 660 100 Sheep 200-250 111 70.3 251-300 16 10.1 301-350 6 3.8 351-400 16 10.1 400 + 9 5.7 158 100 1/ The figures are from the annual short-term sub-loans with an all-time highest numnber nf functional feedlot units. in subsequent years, as the prices increased, the proportion of 50-60 beef cattle and 200-250 sheen increased ,a new suahn were distributed with the funds recycled from the discontinued or withdrawn projects. 2/ 25 farms had both sheep and cattle. VSD Private Farms No. of Animals No. of Private 1/ Percent at Full Development Farms Farm Sizes Sheep 0- 50 446 22.3 51- 70 727 37.1 71-100 650 33.2 100 + 137 6.9 1960 100 Cattle 0- 5 87 15.5 6- 10 362 64.5 11- 20 112 20.0 561 100 1T 329 farms had both sheep and cattle. 3.16 The main deficiency or drawback in the proper development and modernization of the VSD private farms were lack of regular supervision of the farms by LDP technicians because of (a) remoteness of the project villages and lack of proper road communication in the three Eastern provinces: (b) inclement weather condition and short season for agricultural activities; (c) adequate professional staff and vehicle; and (d) lack of spare parts for servicing and fuel availability. 3.17 The FSD fattening establishments on the other hand were more regularly supervised, the feed lots being generally located in and around the district headauarters of central Anatolian plateau and coastal plains. Also, the animal feeders were relatively more informed and educated than the VSD farmers. Five different cards were develoned to keen un-to-date data in every feed lot and to check the progress and condition of the establishment at each visit by the technicians. Annex 'B' shows the samnle of the following feed stuff and feeding record card, health control record effort, however, were not successful, because of lack of cooperation from theo faer and lack of Horoughal s^evso y ehiin f all fanm. Total Project Costs 3.18 The total project costs were TL 739 million against an appraisal estimate of 1L 390 million. Lue vLeadouwn I Ue project cost vy ma- components are summarized as follows: Project Cost No. of Loans Appraisal Actual Components Appraisal Actual ---- TL Million ---- Village Subproject Private Farms 1/ 5,000 2,260 169.4 398.8 Machinery Sub-borrowers 200 39 21.0 11.3 Irrigation Groups 100 -.6 Purebred Livestock Groups 50 - 1.4 Common Meadow Groups 80 - 11.2 Fattening Subproject 2/ 1,600 814 144.2 230.2 Technical Services and Consultants - - 37.8 79.5 Technical Studies and Training - - 5.6 0.7 Total 7,030 3,249 396.2 720.5 Percent ChanRe: 1/ Annraisal prediction at TL 34,000 per farm at a flat rate. Actual cost averaged at TL 176,469 per farm. ?/ Anpnaiqnl nrpdiction at TL 90.000 per feedlot. Actual cost averaged at TL 282,555 per feedlot. 3.19 The breakdown of all actual project cost investments according to th m4 - grisnon Tit ths esiae ar appraisal are given below: TURKEY LIVESTOCK II COMPLETION REPORT Investment Cost by Categories (TL '000) ----- --------------------------------------------------VSD----------------------------------------------------------- Machinery Irrigation Common Meadow Pure-bred Stud Fattening Percent of CategorL Private Farm Group Group Group _ -Group Establishment Total Total Cost Appraisal Appraisal Appraisal Appraisal Appraisal Appraisal Appraisal Appraisal Fixed Investment Estimate Actual Estimate Actual Estimate Actual Estimate Actual Estimate Actual Estimate Actual Estimate Actual Estimate Actual Land Preparation 11,750 6,116 - - 2,850 - 2,100 - - - - - 16,700 6,116 4 0.8 Fertilizer 12,400 3,128 - - - - 3,600 - - - - - 16,000 3,128 4 0.4 Seed 2,625 6,273 - - - - 960 - - - - - 3,585 6,273 1 0.9 1Weed Control 4,200 - - - - - 1,200 - - - - - 5,400 - I - Barn (now and renovations) 44,375 6,061 - - - - - - - - 33,900 14,508 79,025 20,569 20 2.9 Fencing 3,000 - - - - - 1,760 - - - - - 4,760 - 1 - Breeding Livestock 47,000 211,434 - - - - - - 750 - - - 47,750 211,434 12 29.3 Tractors and accessory equipment - 51,032 13,000 11,303 - - - - 750 - - - 13,000 62,335 3 8.6 Other Machinery and Equipment 22,500 13,492 6,120 - 1,650 - - - - - - - 30,000 13,492 8 1.9 Miscellaneous 14,950 4,492 1,880 - 500 - 880 - 150 - 3,750 - 22,110 4,492 6 0.6 Sub-total 162,800 302,007 21,000 11,303 5,000 - 10,500 - 1,650 - 37,650 14,508 238,600 327,518 60 45.5 Incremental Workin_ Capital Livestock for Fattening - - - - - - - - - 77,550 146,439 77,550 146,439 20 20.3 Feed - 50,187 - - - - - - - - 28,800 53,743 28,800 103,930 7 14.4 Fertilizer 2,100 8,507 - - - - - - - - - 2,100 8,507 - 1.2 Weed Control 2,150 28 -- - - - - - - - - - :2,150 28 1 - Miscellaneous 2,950 38,752 - - - - - - - - - 15,509 2,950 54,261 1 7.5 Sub-total 7,200 96,752 - - - - - - - - 106,305 215,691 113,550 312,443 29 43.4 Total sub-borrowers investment 170,000 398,759 21,000 11,303 5,000 - 10,500 - 1,650 - 143,955 230,196 352,150 640,260 29 88.9 Technical Services and Consultant 38,000 79,550 10 11.0 Technical Studies and Training -20 =-30t4 1 C.l Total Project Cost 395,750 720,540.4 100 10C.0 - 28 - 3.20 In terms of local money (Turkish Lira) the total expenditure of the project was about TL 325 million or approximately 82% higher than that was estimated at appraisal. This increase in the final cost of the Project that fell far short of the physical targets projected at appraisal gives the manitudp of inflation in the cotintry which was greatly influenced by the successive devaluations of Turkish Lira from TL 14 to a US$ at AnnrAiQAl rimp to TT. 78 to T TSt qt the cloqe of the Yroipct imolementation during the course of about seven years; the devaluation, however, increased t-hi hnnk cont-rihition from TT. 903 million to TT. 477 million for sub-borrowers' investment in the VSD and FSD subprojects; and since only ahon- 1A% nf thi4 hnnk r-nn-rihiit-4on ws used in fnreign rtrrency for the purchase of machinery, the TL devaluation helped the project in achieving the material target it has ga-ined. qSince mo-St o-f theka dra_Stic TL devaluation took place during the later part of the implementation period and since the VSD subproject implementation continued till theeand of the period unlike FSD subproject which completed disbursement of subloans currency derived out of the proceeds of the World Bank loan provided as an inurect fureign exchnge ost. TIE SECOND LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (LOAN 330-TUj) COMPLETION REPORT Sub-borrowers TCZB Government IDA Total Category Amount (%) Amount (7) Amount (%) Amount N)_ Amount (%) --------------------------------------------------- TL Million)--------------------- VSD 43.6(22.4) 10.6(11) 120.5(54.6) 29.4(2:6) 246.0(131.6) 60.0(64) 410.1(208.6) 57 ( 53) FSD 69.1(43.4) 30.0(30) 48.3(29.4) 21.0(21) 112.8( 71.4) 49.0(49) 230.2(144.2) 32 ( 36) Consultant and Technical Services 74.4(21) 93.6(55) 5.1( 16.8) 6.4(45) 79.5( 37.8) 11 ( 10) Technical Studies and Training 0.1(0.1) 14.3(20) 0.6( 4.2) 85.7(80) 0..7( 5.6) 0.1( 1) Total 112.7(65.8) 15.6(16) 168.8(84.0) 2:2.5(21) 74.5(1.6) 10.5( 6) 364.5(224.0) 51.4(57) 720.5(396.2) 100 (100) The figures in the parentheses are appraisal estimates. 3.22 The Bank loan of US$16 million withdrawn at different time with different exchange rate was equivalent to TL 364.5 millon whin fnanced 51% of the project cost, the projection of the Bank contribution at appraisal being 57%. The percents of farmers' and TCZB' s contributions in the on-farm project costs were not markedly different from those projected at appraisal. Disbursement and Reallocation of Proceeds of Bank Loans 3.23 As the project progressed, there were four successive reallocation of Bank loan proceeds to different categories particularly with the object of diverting more funds to on-farm development providing more sub-loans to FSD and VSD sub-borrowers as shown in the following table. The table shows that original allotment at appraisal of 55% and 29% of the Bank loan proceeds of US$16 million for VSD and FSD subprojects, respectively, were increased to 58% and 39% at the expense of original allotments for Technical Services, Technical Studies and Training and Unallocated categories. Revision in Allocating Proceeds of Bank Loan to Different Categories Revisions Original First Second Third Final Category Plan (Actual) -------------------- US$ '000 --------------------- I. (1) VSD On-farm Proj. 8,900 7,400 7,200 7,325 b/ 7,557.3 d/ (2) VSD Tractor Group - 1,500 1,700 1,925 b/d/ 1,837.9 II. FSD On-farm Proj. 4,700 6,100 a/ 6,100 6,300 c/ 6,300.0 ITI.Services of Cnnstiltants 500 500 500 b/ 350 d/ 265.3 (1) Vehicles and Spares 50a (2) Other Equipments 100 100 100 b/ - - V. Technical Studies and Tra~Wtng 30 3000 c/ 100d 39.5 VI. Unallocated 1,000 a/ 100 100 b/ Total 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000.0 a/b/c/d - Reallocation of categories took place by aujUtmLIetL vetween amounts with similar superscripts. Technical Studies and Training 3.24 At appraisal, no concrete plans and programs were presented for execution by the Government. A proposal for training of staff was prepared by LDP which was approved by the World Bank and implemented as shown in the following table. An in-service training program for training of LDP staff within the country was formulated and implemented as also shown in the following table. TUIXEY TRAINING PROGRAM IMPLEMENTED Subject Time and Duration Place No. of Staff Cost JQ Fore! / Beef and Sheep Jan. 31 - April 30, 1978 Colorado 2 224,309 Production State Utniv. U.S.A. Practical Production and Processing of Meat Animals - Oct. 22 - Nov. 7, 1978 France and Italy 3 174,175 Travelling Seminar - Implementation of World Bank Livestock Project - Nov. 26 - Dec. 4, 1978 Spain 7 121,796 Travelling Seminar Forage Crop Production May 23 - July 29, 1977 Colorado 2 Cost met from State Univ., U.S.A. other project Farm Credit Sept. 5 - Sept. 30. 1977 USDA, Washington D.C., U.S.A. 2 117,495 Local Techniques in the Implementation Aug., 1974 Turkey 6 4,440 Fattening Projects (4 days) - Do - Dec., 1976 15 14,700 (6 days) Feeding and Nutrition Jan., 1977 19 15,640 of Beef and Sheep (6 days) Preparatton of Farm Development Oct., 1974 12 11,760 Plans (10 days) Techniques and Organization Feb., 1975 4 3,680 in VSD Project Implementation (5 days) - Do - April, 1975 3 2,400 (5 days) Pasture and Forage Crop June, 1975 " 3 3,260 (5 days) Record Keeping Feb., 1976 3 3,260 (5 days) Feeding and Management of Nov., 1976 8 6,000 Farm Animals (5 days) Techniques and Organization Dec., 1976 3 3,075 in VSD Project Implementation (7 days) Farm Buildings May, 1977 3 2,625 (5 days) Meadow and Pasture Improvement June, 1977 8 6,800 (7 days) Repair and Maintenance of Feb., 1978 6 6,000 Tractors (10 days) Farm Plan Preparation Feb., 1979 7 19,000 (7 days) 730,415 1/ One person was sent to Holland for dairy production training finance ry the Government of Netherland. - 33 - 3.25 The most important constraints faced in taking full advantage of overseas training of staff by sending more LDP and TCZB staff for training abroad was the language barrier; and some of the prospective programs suggested had to be abandoned because of lack of personnel in LDP with minimum basic knowledge of language to undergo such a training abroad. 3.26 The component also included in general, provision for feasibility and preparation studies for future Bank Group financing for dairying in the country. In fact such studies were conducted leading to identification and preparation of a Third Livestock Project for intensive dairy development and even a Fourth Livestock Project covering dairy, sheep and cross breeding program under village livestock development in the Eastern and the South Eastern Turkey; and even before the end of Second Livestock Project, the Third and the Fourth Project financially assisted by the World Bank became operational. However, the proceeds of Bank loan alloted for this purpose was not needed to be used. 3.27 About the end of the Second Project, a National Dairy Industry Study including feasibility evaluations was conducted hv a team of DaniRh specialists provided by a consulting firm, for a possible National Dairy Industry DeveloDment Proiect to he financially aRRisted hy the wnrld Bank. The funding of this study was from the foreign exchange component of the Technical Studies comoonent of the Fourth T.jPet-nrL- P-rneet 3.28 Thp TvAi;na and echia Studies Component was also supoe to include (i) farmers' training in improved farming techniques and (ii) particularly forage production. However, no such activity was possible to org-nnize and undertake. 3.29 Even though the Secona Livestock Development Project did nor nave all the consultants during the whole period of project implementation, it was very fotunate Lo have one VCL a tyrnatiUon HLCLLLUalliy CCU0[intU Livestock Specialist, who stayed with the project throughout the actual mmn'aion period up to tne enu, anu, wuo out ouy ulii ieu ae i alne requirements in Terms of Refrence for both the subprojects and prepared the cauLe omUp"etion report of the project, out also took the leading role in the identification and preparation of the oncoming Fourth and Fifth Project and helped in otner future strategy and feasibility studies or the subsector including that for the product development studies. It was difficult to really locate such competent consultants who would not only be a livestock specialist but also has field experience in special livestock project implemenation, working experience in developing countries, knowledge in English and the native language, knowledge in planning and evaluation of agricultural projects, open mindedness, desire to work, humane attitude to understand the cultural background and socio-economic infrastructure. - 34 - Pronrurment 3.30 T.nP/vRD acted as the procuring a2ent for all imported tractors and other machinery and equipment and as responsible authority to deliver these inntitA to nroipct farmers. TCZB arranged for the foreign exchange payments and insurance. Tractors and machinery were procured from abroad through international cnmnpritive hidding (TCB). One of the most important drawback in this method of procurement was the long delays even up to one year becaue the bids could not be aolled until machinery orders werp large enough to attract bidders. 3.31 The procurement of local cross-bred cattle and sheep and machinery viz., trailers werZe purchased from the local market, the cr,oss--br.ed Brown Swiss cattle and Merino sheep particularly were mostly bought from the Government State Farms and breeding stations. The only constraints in procuring cross-bred cattle and Merino sheep were lack of availability in adequate number o lives t meet the demands LU project farrs[. Accounts and Audit 3.32 DOth TULD anu LDr OvO-rSu Kept utleu records anu account oun all project subloans, and submitted quarterly summaries of this information to the Bank. IV. IMPACT OF THE PROJECT Introduction 4.01 The Second Livestock Development Project of Turkey even though followed the World Bank's first endeavor in the sub-sector in Turkey (First Livestock--Intensive Dairy - TU 236), it was not really a repeater. -In fact, it was the first development effort in the country in the remote rural areas of relatively underdeveloped, rather isolated eastern high land provinces of Turkey with long and rigorous cold winters, a short crop growing season, a limited road approachability to villages and limited social services but with high potential for livestock development because of its greatest concentration of livestock as compared to other parts, that are being bred in a traditional system exploiting the vast unmanaged natural meadows and grass land in the area. So, the Second Livestock Development Project, essentially a supervised credit program, was primarily aimed at (a) increasing the yield of livestock production in the North East through improvement in forage production and feeding, management and disease prevention, and genetic quality of livestock of providing seeds, fertilizer, machinery, veterinary assistance, technical assistance, etc. to orivate farmers with integrated crop-livestock agriculture; (b) increasing meat production by fattening underfinished offtakes and other feeder cattle and sheeD, Darticularly available in the breeding areas of the Eastern Provinces for cattle feeder mainly in the adjacent Anatolian plateau; and (c) nrqnnizing an infrastructure of trained professional and subprofessional staff for the implementation of such development projects. 4.02 Although the implementation of the Project, had some constraints and the organizing system had some shortcomings, the project did succeed in achieving the basic goals as presented in the Implementation Section (Chapter V) of the report. Ine following are some contributing factorE to the impacts made by the project. Institutional Impact 4.03 The main innovations brought about were: (a) the establishment of provincial and regional offices with subsequent developing of some county offices, in the project area of the Eastern (VSD) and Central Anatolia (FSD), of an agency (LDP) capable of preparing and supervising on-tarm development plans and providing material inputs for the credit granted and technical services to individual farmers; (b) the establishment of an agency (LDP) where veterinarians and agronomists are working hand to hand for livestock development; (c) the acceptance by the individualistic farmers of a principle of supervision of their farms by an outside agency; (d) the acceptance by the farmers the value of record keeping; (e) the establishment of a platform (LDP) by the World Bank from which further development of livestock and allied agriculture and agro-industry development programs could be launched; (f) the establishment of a unique input system for the rural farminL community to improve their farm income by way of long-term credit investment based on sound farm plans with viable financial proiection supported by continued technical supervision and material help, as against traditional short-term small loans without any farm plan and supervision to support with; (g) the establishment of harmonious working system between an implemnntan aeny (T.DP) andal nan granting authority (TCZB); (h) the realization by the farmers that livestock production per production period lengthened by adequate feeding through the physiological cyleof an animas --8-agsist seaona production based on spring pasture, and that the higher nopuL tradi tina LILJU6LL t U±y S ILp r s tLe no-cost traditional pasture system; - 36 - (i) the development of on-the-job training to meet the practical field work need of project staff of both LDP and TCZB at professional and subprofessional levels; and (j) the assignment of internationally recruited foreign consultants to the project not only helped implementing the project by way of guiding the project operational procedures, providing technical know-hows, training technicians and staff, helping in overseas training of staff, developing record-keeping system, supervising and reviewing project farms, etc. but also made major contribution in identifying and preparing new projects in the livestock subsector. Agricultural Imoact TechnologPir1 Chnnge 4L.04z Thea Tnain impac-t of project line not nlyv in itc drec ot effect- in increasing supplies of milk and meat but also in long-term technological imoacts. TIn order to tranfpr thp technoloV effectively in a develoPning country with deep rooted traditional practices, one has to make a demonstrable or are at least convincing to the village leaders. In VSD subproject one of the causes of late start foilowed byj an ablrupt increase of subloan applications from the farmers, was the "seeing and believing" aftttude of the. fnar n heEat u"nMila wi .;th1 the1 obliation" of following modernization guidelines in farm plans attached to the credits. The skill of selecting early farmers in the project contrib Uted a lot to- the success of the later projects. 4.05 The effect of level of uptake of new technology by the farmers in in~re~ingfarmincom, th effct-o modern.Lzat-Lon ofhsbnryracie 1ncre-asin 18aII LUU 00 Llt ULLZ!t.L UL UUCLI4G LUH U HbUaLULY PLCd1U.L1t-Z in attaining satisfactory technical coefficients, and the use of credit Lunu's in Le cause of gou management practLese were maLie o consideration in evaluating the technical impact of the project. These changes were studied at different times during the project implementation years on random samples of 5-7% of the project farms by observations during supervision and by analyzing data collected through questionaire by trained technicians supervising the projects. The following are some of the observations in this regard: 1. The FSD project cattle feeders usually located in and around provincial or county towns did change to relatively high energy feed intake system, reducing the traditional practices of high straw feeding and increasing the proportion of barley and wheat bran. The project farmers were also very receptive to the idea of protein supplements viz., cotton seed meal, sunflower meal especially to supplement high sugar beet pulp ration. The use of mineral and vitamin supplements to correct the deficiencies of some of the ration constituents were also generally - 37 - adopted. The use of various agricultural by-products viz., Brewers' grain, cotton seed hull, citrus pulp, etc. were alse readily accepted by the cattle feeders. The cattle feeders also had developed the sense of business management determining break even points for profit and the most advantageous age and body weight of starting animal, period of feeding and time sale for finished products. However, the traditional practices of indoor fattening of tide-up bulls could not be changed. Opening of the windows for cross ventilation was as far as they would go. Low cost semi-open or outdoor feedlot system suggested by LDP and demonstrated by the Government research organizations were not convincing enough. The merit of such closedoor fattening was considered to be: (a) the bulls tied up in files were well packed restricting free movements and mutual confrontations, accomodating maximum number for the available closed floor space; (b) the darkness prevailing in the closed barn prevented environmental disturbances and distractions for the bulls, enabling them to concentrate on ad - libitum feed consumption; (c) it prevented exposure of one's wealth to the neighbour for social reasons. 4.06 Thus, almost all of the sub-borrowers in the fattening sub-Project got higher average daily gains than the appraisal estimates of 600 gm for cattle (during a 100-day period) and 150 gm for sheep (during a 90-day period) with comparable initial body weight while the majority of the fatteners got 750-800 2m of daily gain in cattle and 175-200 gm of daily gain for sheep. The number of cross-bred feeder cattle (Brown Swiss X Native: Friesian X Native) in the proiect farms increased significantly as the project progressed through the years. As a result, the initial body piaPht nnd d1irarion of each fatrpnina vclp for the cross-bred cattle increased over the standard figure of 175 kg. and 100 days. Also, the init4nl body weight- of the nnfiup~ fpori,- rittlp in f-hp rniert- fpPrilot- increased as the project progressed due to improvement in general condition of cttleraIsng ad du sigificnt;pice ncoae0 4% t1, faoao-r rnftlp~ which motivated the Eastern farmers to look after their young male stock. 4.07 The technological impact in the VSD farms in the Eastern provinces had wi de ran-g es o_f te ch n i cal -oe f fi ci en-ts-a, b ec au Se o f h,igl a,1 ,I . nature of some of the rural farms and because of lack of proper supervision weather conditions. However, the appraisal estimates for at least some of theco 4:vetlc en's were rall-er lower tan uouae v gv M. .Ampc 4 u-1 -"e j LU L L LL W~LLL L'WL Li U L LU L V~ a_ LL _ LL LLI milk production for native sheep (Ak-Karaman and Mor-Karaman) has been give as 20 kg bpeL yea, W11ih is ULULialLy, lUW CVeL W11L pLadCU LU a farmer outside the project without any input but the medium to low quality pasture uuring june, July, August and part oz oepLember, -ne veeuiug tue being late October. An average project farmer, however, produced 60 kg. the range being 50-75 kg per lactation. Our study with the VSD projece farmer shows the following: Av. Lambing season: Mid March - Mid April Breeding season: October June - 600 gm x 15 days = 9,000 July - 900 gm x 31 days = 27,900 August - 700 gm x 31 days = 21,700 September - 400 gm x 30 days = 12,000 60,600 4.08 There was a sizeable number of project farmers who followed barn feeding with concentrate input along with pasture and got the following yield: April - May - Nursing June - 700 gm x 30 days = 21,000 .Tiilv - 1000 am ' 31 dAvq = 31.000 August - 750 gm x 31 days = 21,500 September - A0 gm i 30 ays 1 ,000 output, a modest yield figures have been used as shown in the respective Incremental Output and Financial Benefit 4.10 The following is the lay-out of the incremental production for the raLtening subproject as LIimPIeItLtU LLUn6 wiLu a 1m-ULLIF. u . ULLe incremental production projected at appraisal. TURKEY SECOND LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (LOAN 330-TU) ,COMPLETION REPORT .Incremental Production and Income Generation - FSD Actual Inmpleentation Years ApraisaL Projection Project Items 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 Year 1 Years 2-8 Number of feedlots 432 690 740 798 814 663 800 1,600 Cattle fattened (herds) 24,235 76,924 82,500 92,066 91,772 71,524 50,000 100,000 Sheep fattened (herds) 16,870 86,800 81,950 82,110 83,550 75,230 120,000 240,000 Incremental carcass meat (ton) 1,530 5,230 5,437 6,021 5,684 4,525 2,100 4,200 Value of incremental production (TL million) 45.9 184.4 217.5 246.0 341.0 407.2 46.9 93.8 Value at fixed price (30 TL/kg) 45.9 156.9 163.1 180.6 170.5 135.7 (TL million) 45.9 156.9 163.1 180.6 170.5 135.7 Net increase in revenue to sub-borrower (TL million) 92 92" 29 (US$ million) 2 2 2 - 40 - 4.11 The data shows that even though the number of cattle and sheep fattened were lower than that was projected at appraisal, the amount of incremental carcass meat produced per year from the project farms were higher than than was predicted at appraisal mainly becuase of the higher initial weight of the feeder cattle and higher killing out percentages. The net increase in revenue to sub-borrowers did not change from that was predicted at appraisal. 4.12 The incremental production of animal products including the increased revenue of the sub-borrowers and the forage production and stock strength at full development with comparable figure projected at appraisal for VSD are given in the table below: YEARLY INCREMENTAL PRODUCTION AT FULL DEVELOPMENT FOR VSD FARMS L! Item Unit Appraisal Proiection Actual at full development mton Amt. Value (TL Million) Amt. Value (TL Million)2/ Milk " 29,000 35.0 16,485 247 Beef (carcass) " 1,800 19.6 412 28.8 Mutton (carcass) " 300 4.2 4,030 332.4 Wool (Merino) " - - 40 7.2 Wonl (Nativt) " - - 370 32.4 Net minimum to sub-borrowers 42.0 50.6 YEARLY FORAGE CROP PRODUCTION AND BREEDING STOCK TIN FAMC AT FILTTLT DEUET_PMFNT App. Est.fl . Actal Prject imlentio Total (Ha) Area planted (Ha) Hay produced ('000 mton) Forages 2/ A I 7/ al. 1 L l a Z_ /9-j Sanfoin 2260 9.0 Vetch 154L J*R Grass 769 3.8 Total 15,000 7312 34.9 Breeding Stock 4J (No) App. est. Actual Proj Native Sheep 45,000 133,330 Merino Sheep 8,820 Cross bred cattle 7,000 6,132 1/ See Appendix 'C' for details of calculation. 2/ 1979 prices: mutton - TL80/kg; beef - TL70/kg; milk - TL15/kg; Merino wool - TL180/kg; native wool - TL120/kg 3/ Does not include meadows. 4/ With the exception of lambs and calves. - 41 - 4.13 The net incremental production of 2,256 functioning private farms in the project, in comparison to that of 5,000 private farms proposed at appraisal, shown in the above table, was not only higher in amount of all productions per unit farm, but the total amount of meat produced in the project farms was even higher than the meat production in 5,000 farms in appraisal estimates. The net minimum increased revenue to VSD sub-borrowers, when calculated on the basis of lowest increased revenue per farm per year through the years multiplied by the number of total project farms, was also higher than that was predicted at appraisal. Financial Analysis 4.14 A summary of producers' financial benefits derived from representative production models is given in the following table: - 42 - Investment Models Invest. Net Income Incremental Rate of Debt Incremental Components Cost at Full Net Income Return of Serv. Income after Development Incremental 1/ Debt Serv. Investment --------------------------('000 TL)-------------------------------- Implemented VSD Farms 50 Ewe 1975 37.4 19.4 15.0 21.3% 8.2 6.8 1979 119.7 59.9 43.4 32.8% 20.0 23.4 10 Cattle 1975 61.9 40.7 33.9 44.8% 13.8 20.1 1978 133.9 82.1 76.0 32.4% 23.1 52.9 VSD Machinery 1975 138.4 73.8 73.8 29.1% 35.4 38.4 1978 220.8 83.9 83.9 15.8% 56.7 27.2 FSD Feed Lots 2/ 50 Cattle 1974 129.3 40.2 20.4 27.0% 3/ 17 23.2 1979 354.3 102.3 102.3 25.0% 28.8 53.5 200 Sheep 1974 121.8 52.0 52.0 39.0% 17.8 34.2 1979 27.5 92.2 92.2 29.8% 35.8 56.4 Appraisal Estimates VSD Farm 7-Sheep and 7-Cattle 34 16 9 19 56 3.8 VSD Machinery 90 21 22 22 16 5.6 FSDi Feed Lots~ Q 40 Cattle/Cycle 90 20 20 25 14 6.3 (100~~ Cattle/Year) 160 Sheep/Cycle (400 Sheep/Year) 90 24 24 29 14 10.3 Machinery Group 90 21.7 21.7 22.5 16.1 5.6 1/ Interest + Capital 2/ Short-term loan (11M-months) renewable every year; 2.5 cycles/year. 3/ Annual from the first year. 4/ Long term 4.15 The financial analysis tables consisting of tables for investment projection, herd development projection, income and operative expenses, cash outflow and financial projections are given in Annex B. All the data for the above mentioned tables were taken from selected project farm plans as it appeared in the project file without any change in spite of price discrepancies. Since there were farms of different types, different sizes, and of different years of establishment, the financial analysis of only one model each of a cattle upgrading, sheep breeding and tractor group project farms established in 1974-1975 and in 1978-1979 were presented. In general terms, these farm models have proved to be representative of what has actually happened during the implementation of the subprojects. V. BORROWER AND BANK PERFORMANCE A. Borrower Performance 5.01 The Borrower regarded the development of its livestock industry as a high priority within the agriculture sector. It appreciated the Bank's efforts in conducting the sector studies, in defining the strategy of development and in offering timely guidance for future project perspectives. The overall performance of the Borrower was satisfactory; the only points that could be considered for improving project implementation in the future, from the side of the Borrower are: (a) better communication to influence TCZB to hand over the Special Operation Funds to the project implementing agency, LDP, in right amounts and in due time; (b) to allocate adequate budget required for the functioning of LDP particularly to run field operations of the project; (c) to provide funds in the form of special incentives (as practiced in the Government Agencies with incomes and having revolving fund facilities) to attract competent staff particularly in the Eastern provinces with hardships in living conditions. 5.09 The TCZR the nroect credit channel to the quh-borrowers has been satisfactory. Like all credit banks, the TCZB started with careful and conservative attitude to secure 2uaranteed return of the loans: however, with time, it was flexible in changing and relaxing the collateral eligibilitv renuirement durinL the coutrqe of Drniect imnlementntion. TCZB also improved in the efficiency of the time taken for processing and hnndling th lnnn annrlitnionncz nnd tho time htarpn the dnto of fnrmprQ' application and the date of loan disbursement was gradually reduced to about 45. Ays.. The Bnk1 (ID)A) tand Tr7B diagreed noer thep cluainof monies accruing to the SOF. Further the effectiveness of the SOF was reduced by the fact that project effectiveness preceded the actual disbursement of sub-loans by more than a couple of years and which in turn pr.cededk b'y at least a year , the atual. p.aymetci oieet bL y Lthe farmIers. J*UJ LLe peLLULiinuce UK LDP/VOU - foU Wdb VELJ IdLibitLUy, a.u project was implemented in full with alloted loan amount disbursed cUlllpltLely inspite of a slow start UU LU U11 iiitutHLULL ULLsomUeLeb - 44 - encountered particularly in the three relatively underdeveloped provinces of Eastern highlands with extreme weather conditions and with intricate social taboos, where such supervised credit projects supported by viable farm plans were rather new. 5.04 Of course, the project implementation had some difficulties in recruiting professional staff in adequate numbers for the Eastern provinces, in supplying required number of vehicles with adequate fuel supply and with necessary spare parts for the maintenance and normal running of the cars on the roads. The project also did not fully succeed in keeping proper record of the production performance of the farms which was a handicap for accurately monitoring the rate progress as a result of transfer of technology and accurately assessing their financial viability. The project farmers were often reluctant to participate in such exercises or help VSD/FSD technicians to maintain record keening operation that was initiated. However, the performance of the farmers, the inputs provided to the fprmerR. the marketing condition-_ the nrire structure. the profitability of the farm enterprises, the difficulties faced by the fArmprq- were Pfiidied rAYn1arlv qnrd ron-rt- tn thp World Bank in every quarterly report. The reports also included the problems of imDlementation. current status of the nroipct. farmers reected from the project as a result of their not following the farm plan procedures, nerannneT ataff tri-lni ngandsannervismon. 5.05 r So fara providing Far inputs are concerned - Tl3/XVQT did a good job except that the forage crop seeds were not always made avialable to the prnoect farmer n ti;meo Also, VSD) sudiproject- sometimes: has difficuilty in securing enough cross-bred cattle and Merino breeding stock to meet the numbers in the Government State Farms. The project also encountered required for the project farms. B. Bank Performance 5.06 The Bank did an admirable job in supervising the project implementation at regular intervals and Keeping tracK U te various developments. Also the EMENA Project Department of the Bank kept in close touch with LDP and provided regular guidance, instructions ana aavices. The Country Department of the Bank was also in touch with the TCZB and Treasury Department, and reminded them of the project implementation schedules, limits and constrains. 5.07 Even though quite obviously, very short occasional field visits (particularly to the East) by a member or two of the Supervision Mission, hardly had any beneficial effect on the technical or organizational aspect of the project implementation, it created goodwill and an understanding of the Bank staff on socio-economic aspect of the area population. The mission at every visit ot LDP enquired and came to know the well-known chronic staffing problem that LDP was experiencing but nothing ever - 45 - resulted from the repeated identification of the same problem towards its solution. The TCZB felt that the Bank Supervision Mission should have worked more closely and that liaison should have been more technical in nature. 5.08 Also on the problems viz., appointment of consultants particularly in the Eastern Provinces of Turkey, the Bank was concerned and tried to help out from the beginning but had difficulties in proposing to LDP the names of comnetent livestock -necialists with field experience who were willing to work under Turkish conditions and live in the Eastern province nf Rcr,om. Haoever, the Bank helped the Borrower by providing an internationally recognized competent consultant for the project, who stayed w,th the project throuahon the act1al imnlampntation nPriod un to the end and who not only fulfilled all the Terms of Reference for both subprojects an rpae he enir rn-rnlatin Rpnvit of the Prnipcf htit also took a leading role in the identification and preparation of the on-coming Fourth an Vf4-CI pro 5.09n There were several changes in project criteria and specifirtion along with several readjustments of proceeds of Bank loan, and the Borrower these changes. 5.10 The Borrower felt that even though the Bank was aware of the long procedure in the procurement process of farm machinery leading to long delays in the actual delivery of the machinery to the farmers, no solution was found. VI. SUMMHARY AND CONCLUSION 6.01, This completion report essentially records and evaluates the implementation achievements made, judges the performances of various organizations involved, assess the multi-tacet impacts made and determines the incremental benefits gained in the Second Livestock Development Project of Turkey (TU-330). An IDA loan or uS$o milion was approveu for tne project on April 4, 1972; the loan agreement was signed on September 28, 1972 and the project was declared effective on January 5, 1973. The project is essentially an integrated credit program directed at the development of Turkey's livestock industry and is comprised of two subprojects: (a) a Village Livestock Development Subproject (VSD) which aims at increasing both milk and meat production by improving both the cattle and sheep breeding herds and offtake in the North East, and (b) a Fattening Subproject (FSD) which plans to increase meat production through fattening the underfinished offtakes and other animals to heavier weights prior to slaughter, mainly in the Anatolian Plateau. The total cost of the project, projected at appraisal was US$28.3 million or TL396 million. The LDP General Directorate is responsible for technical and economic implementation of the project which TCZB is the channel of loan disbursement. 6.02 Even though the project took a slow start particularly for the village sub-project in the highlands or three relatively underdeveloped, rather isolated Eastern provinces of Turkey with long rigorous winters and a short crop growing season, the project was satisfactorily completed with all available subloans disbursed. As a result of the slow start, the project completion date was extended from December 31, 1978 to June 30, 1980. However, all subloan disbursement for FSD was completed in early 1979 while that for VSD was completed in the late 1979; and actual implementation period excluding the early period of difficulties did not take more than five years. 6.03 As the project progressed, the inflation in the country soared beyond all previous prediction and the Turkish Lira devalued gradually from TL14 to US$1 in 1973 to TL78 to US$1 in 1980. As a result, the project costs for the unit subloans increased gradually through the implementation years and at completion the total cost of the project totalled at TL739.1 million about 82% higher than that predicted at appraisal for an on-farm project size much smaller (3200 subloans) than the appraisal estimates (7000 subloans). Moreover, since the TL devaluation increased the IDA contribution from TL203 million to TL477 million for subloan investments, and since only about 16% of this bank contribution was used in foreign currency for the purchase of machinery, the TL devaluation helped the project implementation in approaching the target. 6.04 However, even though the number of subloans implemented in the project were lower than that was proposed at appraisal, the amount of total incremental production of meat plus milk at full development was higher and its US dollar equivalent value was even further higher than those in appraisal estimates; the total net income to sub-borrower also tended to be higher than that of the appraisal estimates, even after correcting for the inflation. 6.05 The mnin dpvition in the nrniof imnlpmPnttion from t-h original project proposal at appraisal, besides the above mentioned Y-rir,-t-4rnn ;i -n io niinibpr nf cilh1 I c n A4 Qhiir-cPd c1 n -rpgIt rif i nrapnqp in the project cost, and the delay in the completion of project implementation were: (a) lakof success in implementing th+ gouI-t-ite (809 onno meadow groups, 50 purebred livestock groups and 100 irrigation groups) for some selected project area of the VSD sub-project. The socio-economic reauUso hdVe Ue[n analyzed in an n pLUidL LLU[ U LCa pA p rrI- approaches in this regard; (b) reallocation of a portion of Bank loan proceeds from the Categories of Technical Services and Consultants, Technical Studies and Training and Unallocated to the Categories of VSD and FSD on-flarm subprojects; (c) the number of professional and sub-professional staff in the VSd subproject in the three Eastern Provinces, even though were not much tower particularly in the last years of the project, than that was in the project agreement, the early years of the project suffered staff shortages; (d) even though three expatriate consultants were hired for the project as required in the project - 47 - agreement, it was not possible to find three competent consultants for all the time during the entire project implementation period; (e) the project area in the VSD subproject was extended a bit more than the original proposal at appraisal by including seven more counties in the same three project provinces. 6.06 The project is widely perceived as successful in the Turkish farming community and amongst Government project planning and implementing agencies. The primary objective of bringing in technological inputs to the traditional farmers used to seasonal pasture-oriented livestock raising to increase yield and quality of products particularly in the highly potential Eastern provinces has been achieved and examples have been set. Also, the beef and lamb industry has been stimulated by the practical examples set by the project farms on the profitability of the gains made through scientific fattening of off-takes from the native as well as cross-bred stock taking advantage of the various agricultural by-products and crop-residues. The incremental incomes, financial rate of return and the incremental production in the project farms were satisfactory when compared to those projected at appraisal. 6.07 The Government accorded the nroject high nriorivty and the agencies involved in the project went through a rather new exercise, gaining experience for the future and did a Rnfiqfnrfnry inh in implementing the project. The World Bank was very sincere in their efforts and helped the project implementation in n harmonious fachion keening the cordial relation with LDP, the implementing agency, throughout the project. - 48 - Annex A Table 1 COMPLETION REPORT LIVESTOCK II - VSD Fattening Proiect: Withdrawal Schedule of the W.B. Loan Proceed Dates Application No. Dollar TL 12/16.1975 AB 79 2,413,150.00 36,197,250.00 02/22/1976 AB 90 899,769.46 13,496,542.00 04/01/1976 AB 92 253,117.94 3,923,328.00 07/15/1976 AB 101 77,640.63 1,242,250.00 01/06/1977 AB 112 176,951.94 2,919,707.00 02/03/1977 AB 122 67,526.67 1,114,190.00 05/04/1977 AB 124 172,110.00 3,011,925.00 06/18/1977 AB 126 172,308.06 3,015,391.00 10/21.1977 AB 131 275,472.52 5,302,846.00 01/08/1978 AB 132 462,736.21 8,907,672.00 04/06/1978 AB 135 241,523.52 6,038,088.00 07/21/1978 AB 137 270,252.08 6,756,302.00 10/20/1978 AB 141 148,232.12 3,705,828.00 12/20/1978 AB 142 285,880.08 7,147,002.00 01/04/1979 AB 144 339,762.44 8,494,061.00 07/06/1979 AB 148 43,565.33 1,524,786.55 6,299,999.00 112,797,168.55 - 49 - Annex A Table 2 COMPLETION REPORT LIVESTOCK II - VSD Actual Withdrawal Schedule of the Proceeds of the Credit for the VSD Sub-Project Application Date Amount Category No. USt TL No. AB 89 December 15, 1975 58,559.40 895,958.82 I-A AB 91 March 16, 1976 199,097.47 3,046,191.29 1-A AB 93 April 1, 1976 43,236.58 683,570.33 l-A AB 102 August 4, 1976 130,385.32 2,127,888.42 1-A AB 110 November 19, 1976 364,736.19 6,138,510.08 1-A AB 120 January 8, 1977 429,108.00 7,221,887.64 1-A AB 125 May 4, 1977 725,182.46 12,944,506.91 1-A AB 128 August 15, 1977 389,878.58 6,959,332.65 1-A AB 129 August 18, 1977 539,249.22 9,625,598.58 1-B AB 127-A September 16, 1977 491,295.97 8,769,633.06 1-B AB 127 January 9, 1978 93,780.20 1,841,374.23 1-B AB 133 January 20, 1978 813,736.99 15,977,725.80 1-A AB 136 April 21, 1978 685,190.36 17,472,35418 -A AB 138 July 13, 1978 877,163.28 22,367,663.64 1-A AB 140 October 4, 1978 437,736.04 11,162,269.02 1-A AB 139-A October 27, 1978 485,371.25 12,370,966.87 1-B AB 141-A December 6, 1978 478,792.96 12,209,220.48 1-A AB 143-A December 20, 1978 445,196.00 11,352,498.00 1A AB 145-A February 6, 1979 74,182.72 1,891,659.36 VA AB 139-B April 10, 1979 85,653.75 2,315,220.86 1-B AB 136 April 4, 1979 133,203.84 3,396,697.92 1-A AB 147 May 18, 1979 370,650.60 10,018,685.71 1-A AB 149 July 24, 1979 324,370.45 15,504,907.51 -A AB 151 October 16, 1979 118,826.25 5,679,894.75 1-A AB 150 August 29, 1979 118,624.12 5,670,232.93 1-A AB 153 December 6, 1979 246,839.47 11,626,139.00 1-A AB 152-A March 7, 1980 113,196.27 8,304,332.04 1B AB 152-Final June 10, 1980 20,360.38 1,420,340.32 1-B AB 154 August 5, 1980 88,400.79 74,162,075.00 1A - 50 - Annex B Table 1 COMPLETION REPORT LIVESTOCK II - VSD 50-Ewe Model Plans and Investments (1975) Land Available Meadow 2.3 ha Meadow Dry land 10.3 ha Wheat Present Stock 25 Mor-karaman ewes 20 Lambs Proposed Stock 50 Mor-karaman ewes 13 Female yearlings 2 Rams Ha Yield (hay,ton) Proposed Cropping Meadow 2.2 11.0 Alfalfa 1.5 12.0 Dry land 8.8 - Investment ('000 TL) 30 Mor-karaman ewes 21.0 1 Ram 2.0 Alfalfa establishment 4.5 Fertilizer 1.1 Concentrate 12.0 Animal health 1.9 Labour 7.0 49.5 - 51 - Annex B Table 2 COMPLETION REPORT LIVESTOCK II - VSD 50-Ewe Model Plans and Investments (1979) Land Available Meadow 8.0 ha Dry land 18.0 ha Present Stock 25 Mor-karaman ewes 20 Lambs 2 Rams Proposed Stock 50 Mor-karaman ewes 13 Female yearlings 45 Lambs 2 Rams Proposed Croppina 8.0 ha Meadow 32 tons 2.0 ha Alfalfa 20 tons 16 ha Wheat Investment ('000 TL) 25 Mor-karaman ewes 80.0 Alfalfa establishment 4.0 Fertilizer 1.7 Concentrate 13.5 Anima1 halfth . Labour 20.0 119.7 - 52 - Annex B Table 3 COMPLETION REPORT LIVESTOCK II - VSD 50-Ewe Model Coefficients 1975 1979 Tamhing Ratp 90% (preoroiect 80%) same Lamb Death Rate 10% same Adullt Death Rate 7% same Milk Rlea nov 1arAt4no ewe A kr (n-rPven et An ka) 60 ka Milk price 3.5 TL 15 TL Wood Price 30 TL 120 TL/kg Sheep Sales Price Cull Ewe 14 TL/kg live weight 35 TL/kg Tamk and Heaggo 14.5 TL/ 14rLk live 35g TT/I A H 1 ')0W TT /hea 1 90 TT./te Animal Health 10 TL/head 10 TL/head -.---'--I nnf IT /s--4- AA Tr I-on, - 53 - Annex B ^^-unrMAna nVnnnM COMiroEIutN RErUMl LIVETOCK rI -O VOD Flock Projection 50-Ewe Model Herd Projection 1975 or 1979 1 2 3 4 Rams 1 2 2 2 Ewes 50 45 50 50 Female Lambs 20 18 23 22 Male Lambs 20 18 23 22 Ewe Haggot - 13 13 13 Born or Bought Rams bought 1 - - - Ewes bought 30 - - - Lambs born 40 36 45 45 Deaths Lambs 6 5 5 5 Ewes 5 5 4 4 Sales Ewes - - 6 7 Lambs 21 18 27 27 Table 5 COMPLETION REPORT LIVESTOCK II - VSD 50-Ewe Model (Mor-karaman) -asuh r1ow iI Years Preproject 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-12 Milk Sales 2.1 4.9 5.6 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 Wool Sales 1.1 2.3 3.5 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 Sheep Sales 7.2 8.8 8.9 17.2 18.2 17.2 18.2 18.2 Total Sales 10.4 16.0 18.0 29.9 30.9 29.9 30.9 30.9 Increased Expenses 6.0 11.0 11.3 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 Operating Income 4.4 5.0 6.7 18.4 19.4 18.4 19.4 19.4 Incremental Income (0.6) (2.7) 14.0 15.0 14.0 15.0 15.0 Loan Service 3.0 3.8 3.8 3.8 9.1 8.7 8.2 Farmers' Increased Spendable Income (3.6) (6.1) 11.2 11.8 4.9 6.3 6.8 Investment 49.5 Net Cash Flow (53.1) (6.1) 11.2 11.8 4.9 6.3 6.8 Rate of return on investment = 21.3% Annex B Table 6 COMPLETION REPORT LIVESTOCK II - VSD 50-Ewe Model (Mor-karaman) Cash Flow (1979) Years Preproject 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-12 Milk Sales 10.5 24.0 24.0 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 Wool Sales 4.9 5.2 14.4 14.4 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 Sheep Sales 11.3 20.0 24.6 45.6 45.6 45.6 45.6 45.6 Total Sales 26.7 49.7 63.0 97.5 98.7 98.7 98.7 98.7 Increased Expenses 10.2 30.7 38.8 38.8 38.8 38.8 38.8 38.8 Onerating Income 16.5 18.5 24.2 58.7 59.9 59.9 59.9 59.9 TnrrpTnpnfl TIncome 2.0 7.7 42.2 43.4 43.4 43.4 43.4 43.4 Loan Service 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 21.5 20.3 20.0 Farmers' Increased Snondnhlp Tncno 7.0 1-3 33.2 444 91.9 23.1 23.4 Inetmn 119.7 __ Net Casch Flo 12667 1.3 3. 11I 91-9 93-1 91-4 Rate of retu.rn on irnestment =328 Annex B Table 7 COMPLETION REPORT LIVESTOCK II - VSD 10-Cow Upgrading Plans and Investments (1975) Land Available 3.5 Meadow 1.5 Alfalfa 1.0 Sanfoin 6.5 Wheat Present Stock 4 Local Cows 4 T.nrql Hpifprc 2 Local Young Bulls 2 Loca CalvAe 3 F1 Heifers (2-3) 3F I Heifers (1-2) 4 F1 Young Bulls 1 Pure-bred Bull Proposed Cropping 3.5 ha Meadow 17.5 tons 3.5 he Alfalfa 2. toOns 1.0 Sanfoin 4.0 tons investment 4 F1 Heifers 40,000 TL 1 Bull 10,000 TL Alfalfa establishment 6,UUU TL Fertilizer 2,190 TL Animal Health 1,2UU TL Labour 10,000 TL Concentrate 12,000 TL 83,900 TL Annex B Table 8 COMPLETION REPORT LIVESTOCK II - VSD 10-Cow UDgrading Cash Flow (1975) ('000 TL) Years Preproject 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-12 Milk Sales 2.4 17.1 16.5 27.3 33.9 44.1 51.3 51.3 Cull Cow Sales 3.5 - - - 7.0 3.7 - - Heifers 4.2 - - 2.8 - - - - Young Bulls - 4.2 7.2 7.0 6.7 10.1 6.1 6.1 Yearlings - - - - - - - Total Sales 10.1 21.3 23.7 36.1 47.6 57.9 57.4 57.4 Increased Expenses 3.3 11.9 13.4 13.1 14.6 14.6 14.7 14.7 Operating Income 6.8 9.4 10.3 23.0 33.0 43.3 40.7 42.7 Incremental Income - 2.6 3.5 16.2 26.2 36.5 33.9 35.9 Loan Service - 5.1 6.5 6.5 6.5 15.5 14.6 13.8 Farmers' Increased Income - (2.5) (3.0) 9.7 19.7 21.0 19.3 22.1 Investment 81.4 Net Cash Flow - (83.9) (3.0) 9.7 19.7 21.0 19.3 22.1 Rate of return on investment = 44.8% - 5o - Annex B Table 9 COMPLETION REPORT LIVESTOCK II - VSD 10-Cow Up-Grading Herd Projection (1975) Preproject 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-12 Cows 4 7 9 8 10 10 10 10 Heifers (2-3 years) - 2 - 3 2 2 3 4 Heifers (1-2 years) 4 - 3 2 3 3 4 3 Bulls (2-3 years) - 2 1 - - - - Bulls (1-2 years) 2 1 2 2 2 3 3 4- Bulls (Herd) - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Bought or Born Calves - 6 5 6 7 8 8 8 Heifers Bought - 4 - - - - - Bulls Bought - 1 Death Adult - - 1 - 1 1 1 1 Ca v n1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Sales Cows - - - 21 Young Bulls LLL 4 - 59 - Annex B IaDie IU COMPLETIUN REPORT LIVESTOCK II - VSD 10-Cow Up-Grading Plans and Investments (1978) Land Available Meadow 10.0 ha Wheat 7.0 ha 17.0 ha Present Stock 6 Local Cows 2 Local Heifers (1-2 years) 4 Calves Proposed Stock 10 Fl Cows 3 F1 Heifers (2-3) 3 Fl Heifers (1-2) 4 F1 Young Bulls 8 F1 Calves 1 Purebred Bull Pvnnoed Croning Meadow 10 ha Sanfoin 2 ha Wheat 5 ha 17 ha Investment ('000 TL) Sanfoin establishment 3.0 1 Bull 15.0 Concentrate 10.5 Animal he1th 0. Labour 15.0 133.9 Annnv R Table 11 COMPLETION REPORT LIVESTOCK II - VSD 10-Cow Upgrading Herd7 Pro7jectLion \.L7/U/ Preproject 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-12 Cows 6 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Heifers (2-3 yrs) - 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 Heifers (1-2 yrs) 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 Bulls (2-3 yrs) - - - - - - - Bulls (1-2 yrs) - 1 4 2 3 3 4 4 Bulls (Herd) - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Bought or Born Heifers - 5 - - - - - - Bulls - 1 - - - Calves 4 8 6 7 7 8 8 8 Death Adult - 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 Calves 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Sales Cows 1 1 2 3 1 - Hifpr- - - 1 3 2 3 Yoin Rull. - 1 3 2 3 2 4 3 - 61 - Annex B Table 12 COMPLETION REPORT LIVESTOCK II - VSD 10-Cow Upgrading Technical Coefficients 1978 1975 Calving Rate 80% (preproject 60%) same Calf Death Rate 10% (preproject 15%) same Adult Death Rate 4% (preproject 5%) same Milk Sales per Lactating 700 liters (preproject) same Milk Sales per Lactating 2,400 liters same Milk price 4 TL/liter 3 TL/liter Cattle Sales Price Cill Cow 20 TL/kq live weight 14 TI/kg 1. wt- Heifer 20 TL/kg live weight 14 TL/kg 1. wt. Young Bull 20 TL/kq live weight 14 TT./kg I wt. Operating Expenses Fertilizer 2,200 TL/ton 1,200 TL/ton Animen talth 15 TT/htnd 2,50 TT/tn Concentrate 10,500 TL/ton 2,500 TL/ton Annex B Table 13 COMPLETION REPORT LIVESTOCK II - VSD 10-Cow UpGrading Cash Flow (1978) ('000 TL) Years Preproject 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-12 Milk Sales 8.4 30.0 29.2 45.2 54.8 68.4 68.4 68.4 Cull Cow Sales 5.0 5.0 10.0 16.2 5.4 - - - Heifers - - - - 10.0 30.0 20.0 30.0 Young Bulls - 3.0 11.8 8.8 13.2 8.8 17.6 13.2 Total Sales 13.4 38.0 51.8 70.2 83.4 107.2 106.0 111.6 Increased Expenses 7.3 28.4 28.4 29.5 29.5 29.5 32.5 29.5 Operating Income 6.1 9.6 23.4 40.7 53.9 77.7 73.5 82.1 Incremental Income - 3.5 17.3 34.6 47.8 71.6 67.4 76.0 Loan Service - 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 25.8 24.4 23.1 Farmers' Increased Spendable Income 4-. (7.3 6.)2.8 370 5. investment13*9 Net Cash Flow - (141.2) 6.5 23.8 37.0 45.8 43.0 52.9 Rate of return on investment = 32.4/% - 63 - Annex B Table 14 COMPLETION REPORT LIVESTOCK II - FSD The Technical Coefficients and Prices Used in the Farm Plans Sheep (200) Beef (50) 1974 1979 1974 1979 Initial body wt, kg 35 kg 35 kg 160 kg 180 kg Final body wt, kg 53 kg 53 kg 230 kg 250 kg Daily gain, kg 0.2 kg 0.2 kg 0.7 kg 0.7 kg Buving price, TL 12 TL/kg 29 TL/kg 11 TL/kg 32 TL/kg Selling price, TL 15 TL/kg 32.5 TL/kg 14 TL/kg 35 TL/kg Loan size for 50 cattle - - 90,000 TL 245,000 TL Loan size for 200 sheep 85,000 TL 179,900 TL - - Feed Total (Kind and Amt.) 35.6 tons 60.8 tons 33.5 tons 75.5 tons Feed Prices (TL/kg) Barley 165 krs. 3o krs same same Bran 120 krs 200 krs same same 0i1sqpd cAke 140 krq 250 krs same same Hay 100 krs - same same Straw 60 krs 100 krq Rame qqme Beet pulp 10 krs 15 krs same same Salt 50 krs in 100lrQ Qnmp RAM Marble dust 100 krs 100 krs same same G rd ing --m- I1 n_ r * tS /1,C 30 r I rc ar m p Q1 LL6Ul. FJ tC , L,( -t. U) LCC tjt - - tfLU L m Year MilK (TL/Kg) Deel Live WL kL/Kg/ I1aLLVt wUULu k Di ,; 1 .A* In A 1975 JVL+V jU. v 1976 3.0 14.0 40.0 1 - in , n L.n f% 1977 U.U LO.u *ueu 1978 8.0 35.0 90.0 1979 15.0 35.0 10 .U (Carcass 70 TL/kg\ (Merino 180 TL/kgN - 64 - Annex B Table 15 COMPLETION REPORT LIVESTOCK II - FSD Model - Cattle Fattening - 50 Head Facility - 100 Day Cycle 1/ Investment Projection - 1974 (TL) Investments No. of Units Total Cost Working Capital Feeder Cattle 2/ 50 81,840 Feed 3/ 40,000 Veterinary 1.500 Insurance and Transport 2,000 Labour 4.000 129.340 1/ One cycle's investment. 2/ Average weieht of 160 kg at 11.00 TL ner k2 live weight. Average shrinkage of 7% excluded from the body weight. 3/ Includes an additional 10% of the feed cost for grinding feeds and loses during feeding. Yearly Sales and Operating Expenses Projection (TT.) asnh Tinflow 1 2 3 A- Sales-Cattle 1/ 293,460 293,460 293,460 293,460 Sales-Other 2/ 400 400 400 400 298,860 298,860 298,860 298,860n %,-' OULLLOW Operating Expenses Purchase-Cattle LOj,ooU 103,00V L0.,DOu 1O,ooU Purchase-Feed 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 Veterinary 3,UU 3,UU o,0 3,000 Insurance and Transport 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 Labour 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 258,680 258,680 258,680 258,680 1/ Average cattle selling price (EBK): 14.00 TL/kg live weight after subtracting 7% shrinkage from the live weight of cattle finished at 230 kg and counting 2% mortality. 2/ Includes hides of cattle from 2% mortality and meat from early slaughter due to suspicion of sickness. - 65 - Annex B Table 16 COMPLETION REPORT LIVESTOCK II - FSD 200 Head Sheev - 90 Day Cycle 1/ Investment (TL) Investments No. of Units Total Cost Working Canpitl 1974 1979 Feeder Sheep 2/ 200 78,800 192,850 rAd 1/ 36,000 61,960 Veterinary 1,000 1,000 insurance and Transport 2,000 4,000 Labour 4,000 15,000 121,800 274,810 If One cycle nsLLVmnLLLLU f/ Average weight of 35 kg at 12.00 TL for 1974 and 29.00 TL for 1979 per kg 3/ Includes an additional 10% of the feed cost for grinding feeds and losses uurIng 1eeu1u. Yearly Sales and Operating Expenses PrUJection (TL) 1974 1979 Cash inflow 1 2-8- 1 2U Sales-Cattle 1/ 287,000 287,000 621,854 621,854 Sales-Manure 7,200 I,uu 18,000 1o,0U Sales-Other 2/ 800 800 2,000 2,000 295,000 295,000 641,854 641,854 Cash Outflow Operating Expenses Purchase-Sheep 157,600 157,600 5,iuu 3o5,tuu Purchase-Feed 72,000 72,000 123,920 123,920 Veterinary 2,000 2,000 Z,UUU z,Uu Insurance and Transport 4,000 4,000 8,000 8,000 Labour 8,000 8,000 30,000 30,000 243,600 243,600 549,620 549,620 1/ Average cattle selling price (EBK): 15 TL/kg for 1974 and 32.50 TL/kg for 1979 live weight after subtracting 5% shrinkage from the live weight of sheep finished at 53 kg and counting 5% mortality. 2/ Includes hides of cattle from 5% mortality and meat from early slaughter due to suspicion of sickness. - vu - Annex B Table 17 COMPLETION REPORT LIVESTOCK II - FSD Model - 50 Head Cattle - 100 Day Cycle 1/ Investment Projection - 1979 (TL) Investments No. of Units Total Cost Working Capital Feeder Cattle 2/ 50 267,840 Feed 3/ 63,510 Veterinary 2,000 Insurance and Transport 6,000 T.qhn,iir 15,000 2/ Average weight of 180 kg at 32.00 TL per kg live weight. Avagoe shrinkne of 77 excluded from the hodv weight. 3/ Includes an additional 10% of the feed cost for grinding feeds and losses Yearly Sales an'tp-;_ -'o P-retion, (TT.) (2.5 Cyles/Year) Cash Inflow 1 2 3 4-8 -na u I7Q-7 Alf -707 7TA '707 /,79 7Q7 7 Sales-Manure 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Sales-Other L/ _,JL_ j,JL' J_ 811,000 811,000 811,000 811,000 Cash Outflow Operating Expenses Purchase-Cattle 535,680 535,680 535,680 535,680 Purchase-Feed 127,020 127,020 127,020 127,020 Veterinary 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 Insurance and Transport 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 Labour 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 708,700 708,700 708,700 708,700 1/ Average cattle selling price (EBK): 35.00 TL/kg live weight after subtracting 7% shrinkage from the live weight of cattle finished at 250 kg and counting 2% mortality. 2/ Includes hides of cattle from 2% mortality and meat from early slaughter due to suspicion of sickness. - 67 - Annex B Table 18 COMPLETION REPORT LIVESTOCK II - FSD Machinery Group Income, Operating Expenses and Cash Flow ITEM 1975 1978 1st Year 2-7 Years 1st Year 2-7 Years 1. Cash Inflow a. Loan - Long term 138.4 - 220.8 - b. Contractor's contribution 34.6 - 55.2 - c. Contracting income 127.0 127.0 165.6 165.6 Total Cash Inflow 300.0 127.0 441.6 165.6 2. Cash Outflow a. Investments 173.0 - 276.0 - b. Operating Expenses 53.2 53.2 81.7 81.7 Total Cash Oitflnw 226.9 53.2 357.7 81.7 3. Annual Cash Balance 73.8 73.8 83.9 83.9 4. Debt Service Charge a. Interest 12.4 12.4 19.9 19.9 b. interest Amnortiza-tion - 23.0 -36.8 Total Debt Service 12.4 35.4 19.9 56.7 5. Annual Cash Balance 61.4 38.4 64.0 27.2 6. Cumulative Cash Balance 61.4 321.7 64.0 277.1 Rate of Return on Investment 29.1% 15.8% Annexe B Table 19 COMPLETION REPORT LIVESTOCK II FSD 50 Head Cattle - 1974 Financial Projection 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cash Intlow Annual bales (2 cycles) 298.860 298.860 298.860 298.860 298.860 298.860 298.860 298.860 Loan k>nort term) 90.000 90.000 77.000 64.000 51.000 38.000 25.000 12.000 Proaucers Contribution 39.340 39.340 39.340 39.340 39.340 39.340 39.340 39.340 Last Years Cash balance - 14.080 28.160 43.410 59.830 77.420 96.180 116.110 Cash Outtlow 428.200 442.280 443.360 445.610 449.030 453.620 450.380 466. 310 Investments Producers Contribution 39.340 39.340 39.340 39.340 39.340 39.340 39.340 39.340 Loan (>bort term) 90.000 90.000 77.000 64.000 51.000 38.000 25.000 12.000 UperatLig Costs 258.680 258.680 2.58.680 258.680 258.680 258.680 258.680 258.680 Debt Service-Interest (97.) 8.LOO 8.100 6.930 5.760 4.590 3.420 2.25(0 1.080 Farmers' Living Expenses 18.000 18.000 18.000 18.000 18.000 18.000 18.000 18.000 Total Cash Outflow 414.120 414.120 399.950 385.780 371.610 357.440 34:3.270 329.100 Surplus Casn at Year End 14.080 28.160 43.410 59.830 77.420 96.180 116.110 137.210 Annual Kate ot Keturn 271 with 2 cycles per year; 2.5 cycles per year will have more return. Annexe B Table 20 COMPLETION REPORT LIVESTOCK II - FSD 200 Head Sheep- 1974 Financial Projection 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Lash Inflow Annual sales (2 cycles) 295.000 295.000 295.000 295.000 295.000 295.000 295.000 295.000 Loan (6hort term) 85.000 85.000 73.000 61.000 49.000 37.000 25.000 13.000 Procucers Contribution 36.800 36.800 36.800 36.800 36.800 36.800 36.800 36.800 Last Years Cash Balance - 13.750 27.500 42.330 58.240 75.230 93.300 112.450 0a Casn Outtlow 416.800 430.550 432.300 435.130 439.040 444.040 450.100 457.250 Investments Producers Contribution 36.800 36.800 36.800 36.800 36.800 36.800 36.800 36.800 Loan (bnort term) 85.000 85.000 73.000 61.000 49.000 37.000 25.000 13.000 Operating Costs 243.600 243.600 243.600 243.600 243.600 243.600 243.600 243.600 Debt bervice-1nterest (9%) 7.650 7.650 6.570 5.490 4.410 3.330 2.250 1.17C0 Farmers' Living Expenses 30.000 30.000 30.000 30.000 30.000 30.000 30.000 30.000 Total Cash Outilow 403.050 403.050 389.970 376.890 363.810 350.730 337.650 324.570 ourpius Casn at Year Ena 13.750 27.500 42.330 58.240 75.230 93.300 112.450 132.680 Annual Kate of Return 39% witn 2 cycles per year; 2.5 cycles per year will have more return. Annexe B Table 21 COMPLETION REPORT LLVESTOCK II - FSD 200 Head bheep_- 1979 Financial Projection 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cash Inflow Annual bales (2 cycles) 641.854 641.854 641.854 641.854 641.854 641.854 641.854 641.854 Loan (anort term) 179.900 179.900 154.200 128.500 102.800 77.100 51.400 25.700 Producers Contribution 94.910 94.910 94.910 94.910 94.910 94.910 94.910 94.910 Last Years Cash balance - 22.043 44.086 68.442 95.111 124.093 155.388 188.996 Cash Outflow 916.664 938.707 935.050 933.706 934.675 937.957 943.552 951.460 lnvestments Producers Contribution 94.910 94.910 94.910 94.910 94.910 94.910 94.910 94.910 Loan Lahort term) 179.900 179.900 154.200 128.500 102.800 77.100 51.400 25.700 Operating Costs 549.620 549.620 549.620 549.620 549.620 549.620 549.620 549.620 Debt aervice-luterest (97.) 16.191 16.191 13.878 11.565 9.252 6.939 4.626 2.313 Farmers' Living Expenses 54.000 54.000 54.000 54.000 54.000 54.000 54.000 54.000 Total Casn Outflow 894.621 894.621 866.608 838.595 810.582 782.569 754.556 726.543 burplus Cash at Year End 22.043 44.086 68.442 95.111 124.093 195.388 188.996 224.917 Annual Kate of Return 29% with 2 cycles per year; 2.5 cycles per year will have more return. TURKEY COMPLETION REPORT LIVESTOCK II - VSD Meat, Milk and Wool Production by Year Item Unit 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Mutton (Carcass) m.ton 92.3 445.1 803.0 1,2:13.0 2,019.1 2,808.1 3,379.8 3,832.4 4,029.7 4,029.7 4,029.7 4,029.7 Beef (Carcass) m.ton - 7.5 48.5 131.6 217.9 206.5 337.7 356.7 383.3 395.9 409.4 411.8 Sheep Milk m.ton 316.0 1,521.0 2,718.0 4,127.0 5,673.0 6,889.0 7,396.0 7,5.55.0 7,673.0 7,673.0 7,673.0 7,673.0 Cow Milk m.ton 304.0 1,508.0 3,063.0 4,483.0 6,433.0 7,787.0 8,254.0 8,080.0 9,573.0 9,812.0 9,812.0 9,812.0 Merino Wool m.ton 1.0 16.4 28.2 36.2 38.6 39.8 39.8 39.8 39.8 39.8 39.8 39.8 Native Wool m.ton 10.4 59.8 129.7 197.9 270.8 336.1 353.4 363.9 369.8 369.8 369.8 369.8 abx TURKEY Completion Report - Livestock II - VSD Milking Cows and Milk Production By Year 1975 1976 1977 1973 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 4th Year 5th Year 6th Year 7th Year 8th Year 9th Year 10th Year 134* + 164 142* + 154 123* + 196 86* + 232 48* + 310 516 516 516 516 516 Milking 503* + 611 533* + 574 458* + 746 323* + 998 1,182* + 1,166 1,052 1,052 1,052 1,052 Cows 544* + 660 576* + 620 495* + 805 349* + 944 197* + 1,260 1,420 1,420 1,420 (Hondo) 328* + :398 348* + 374 299* + 486 211* + 570 118* + 760 1,057 1,057 292* + 355 310* + 333 266* + 433 188* + 508 106* + 678 861 107 + 197 142 + 231 148 + 294 103 + 464 58 + 620 1,032 1,032 1,032 1,032 1,032 Milk 402 + 733 533 + 861 550 + 1,119 388 + 1,996 218 + 2,332 2,104 2,104 2,104 2,104 Production 435 + 792 576 + 930 594 + 1,208 419 + 1,888 236 + 2,520 2,840 2,840 2,840 (Ton) 263 + 478 348 ++ 561 359 + 729 253 + 1,140 142 + 1,520 2,114 2,114 234 + 426 310 + 500 319 + 650 226 4- 1,016 127 + 1,356 1,722 Total 304 1,508 3,063 4,483 6,433 7,787 8,254 8,880 9,573 9,812 * Native z TURKEY COMPIETION REPORT LIVESTOCK II - VSD Milking Ees and Milk Production By Yer 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 Years 1 :2 3 4 5 6 - 7 8 - 9 10 Mein Ntie ernoNtie ernoNaiv ier ino Nateir,~ a:v erino Native Meriqo Nativ.e Rerino Native Merito Native 4erino Native Milking 1,143 5,186 1,021 4,616 1,305 6,535 1,395 7,585 1,395 11,079 1,395 11,079 1,395 11,079 1,395 11,079 1,395 11,079 1,395 3,285 21,439 1,923 19,134 3,573 27,988 3,573 31,442 3,573 41,216 3,573 41,216 3,573 41,216 3,573 41,216 3,573 2,C065 20,834 1,838 18,542 2,354 26,250 2,673 30,469 2,673 30,967 2,673 30,967 2,673 30,967 2.673 E.se 297 13,221 265 11,766 297 16,658 297 19,336 297 19,938 297 19,938 297 (Heads) 10,143 9,027 12,780 14,834 16,696 57 259 51 231 78 392 84 455 84 665 84 665 84 665 84 665 84 665 84 665 Milk 164 1,075 146 957 214 1,679 214 1,886 214 2,473 214 2,473 214 2,473 214 2,473 214 2,473 103 1,042 92 927 141 1,575 160 1,828 160 1,858 160 1,858 160 18,58 160 1,858 Produc t ion 15 661 13 588 15 999 15 1,160 15 1,196 15 1,196 15 1,196 (ton) 507 451 767 890 1,008 1,008 Sub-total 57 259 215 1306 327 2391 405 372 45 2 ,221 473 6416 473 6.923 473 7,082 473 7200 473 7 Total 316 _189 L29__ 25 718 4.373 1. World Bank Appraisal Report - Second Livestock Project (TU-330). 2. Present Situation, Development Possibilities and Investigations on Grassland Agriculture in Turkey, 1976. Ankara Grassland and Livestock Research Institute Publ. No. 61. 3. Situation of Grassland and Forage Crops of Turkey and Summaries of Studies conducted between 1952 to 1975, 1976. Ankara Grassland and Livestock Research Institute Publ. No. 62. 4. Forage Crop and Grassland Development Projects, 1977, Department of Forage Crop and Grassland. General Directorate of Agricultural Affairs. Ministry of Agriculture Publication. 5. Agricultural Structure and Production 1975-1977, State Statistical Institute. 6. The Summary of Agricultural Statistics, 1978, State Statistical Institute. 7. Weekly Govt. Gazette No. 16899 (13 Feb., 1980) 1980 Program: Production - Current and Projection. 8. Fourth Five-Year Plan (1979-1983), 1980 Program, March, 1980, State Planning Organization, Turkey. 9. Project Completion Report - First Livestock Project (236-TU), Turkey, IBRD. 10. Nutrition in Turkey - A Research Study of Health and Food Intake, 1977, Hacettepe University Press, Ankara. -m410 BULGARIA - 8 / a c k S e a Inebolr iU. 5. 5. R. S,iop Area of inset macp Alpull Zongul,ia GREEE ~ ApalI~ Adpazo c e T P Kustrn)wu Somssun1 n oAdkkale a rhal E ýakary d Aokat- IEski eh N C R T H\- L8 1 i'kesir Br ANKAR TIvosE SD -il Siv,5? KUtahya- - \1 f RAN L---' AVan * CEN ? \ Kayseri TdD, ______ E N T PR Ky SMya A S T . K o n O T MDray ,A o~~~ ~ ~ Fi,&*,**"" *~* - Gaatep Ur - Kan~1/ )1, -?~ 0 ýIr VY YR l A( R flätakyö M editerranean SeaS. 5. R L loc k Sea CYPRUS TURKEY SECOND -x,jrrabzon é SECOND LIVESTOCK G1 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 777 Provinces in which Village Livestock Development r, --- Sub-project would be located Counties in which Village Livestock Development R Z U R U Sub-project would be located E . Major livestock fat,ening centers oround E which the Fatening Sub-project would -Rzu be m inly located - Export flow (cattle and sheep) E nCan bozit r Rivers A R -- Main h ghways -- - - -- +Raifroads us4 - International boundaries -0 RAN Agricultural regm boundcries KiLoMETi-RS .t-- o 50 0 50 so V- NOLES 35" - - NOVEMBER 171 iRD 3260c