Turkey - Second Agricultural Extension and Applied Research Project

Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No. 8192-TU STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT TURKEY SEC*Nfl AGRICULT-RAL. EXTENSION MA)D APLIED RESSEARC PRvJECT FEBRUARY 22, 1990 Agriculture Operations Division Country Department I Europe, Middle East and North Africa Region This document has a resdticted dtrbutdon and may be tisad by redpients only In the performanc of their officml duies ib content may not otherwise be dhdosed wihout World Dbnk autborbaion.  CkUJRECYOUTVALENT Turkish Lira TL) I - US$0.0005 ia TL 2,100 - US$1.00 FISCALXK January 1 to December 31 VEIGHTS AND MEASUESS Metric Unit System Metric Unit British/US Equivalent 1 milimeter (mm) - 0.039 inch 1 meter (m) - 39.37 inch 1 kilometer (km) - 0.62 mile 1 hectare (ha) - 2.47 acres 1 square kilometer (km&) - 0.386 square mile 1 liter (1) - 0.264 gallon (USA) 1 kilogram (kg) - 2.2046 pounds 1 metric ton (m ton) - 2,205 pounds PRINCIPAL ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS USED AE - Agricultural Engineer (Agricultural graduate) AEARP - Agricultural Extension and Applied Research Project AES - County Agricultural .-tension Superv. or CAYKUR - Government Tea Agency CCC - Central Coordinating Comnittee CD - County Agricultural Director CEC - Central Executive Committee EIC - Extension Information Coordinator FTE - Farmer Training and Extension Section GDOS - General Directorate of Organization and Support GDPC - General Directorate of Protection and Control GDPI - Genera:. Directorate of Project Implementation GDRS - General Directorate of Rural Services GOT - Government of Turkey MAFRA - Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Affairs PDA - Provincial Director of Agriculture RC - Research Coordinator RCC - Regional Coordination Committee SEE - State Economic Enterprise SEKER - Government Sugar Factories SMS - Subject Matter Specialist TCZB - Agricultural Bank of Turkey TEKEL - Government Tobacco Agency TKV - Development Foundation of Turkey VGT - Village Group Technician VGTC - Village Group Technician Center i_ Exchange rate prevailing at time of appraisal (May 1989).  FOR OMCIAL USE ONLY ECON4D AGRICULTURAL EXTENS3ON AND APPLIED RESEARCH PRiOJig Table of Contents page No. Loan and Project Summary ..........................iii I. PROJECT AND SECTOR BACKGROU4D .................................1 A. Introduction ........................................... 1 B. Agricultural Sector .1 C. Bank Group Lending ........................................ 5 II. AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION IN TURKEY ............................... 8 A. General ........... 8 B. Project Area ........... .. 9 C. Rationale for Bank Involvement ............................ 11 III. THE PROJECT .... ....... 12 A. Project Objectives ........... 12 B. Summary Description ........... 12 C. Project Details ........... 13 D. Crlt- FVatt1tes ............................................ 21 E. Procurement .................................,,,,.. 23 F. Disbursements . 25 G. Accounts and Audits . 26 IV. ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT . 27 A. Central Level . 27 B. Provincial Level . 28 C. Project Assessment, Reporting and Mid-term Review .28 V. BENEFITS. JUSTIEICATIONS AND RISKS ..29 A. Benefits and Justification .29 B. Environmental Effects .30 C. Risks .31 VI. AGREEMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .31 This report is based on the findings of an appraisal mission which visited Turkey in May/June, 1989. Mission members included Messrs. Henry P. Gassner, Michael G. Saddington. Willem Zijp (IBRD), Sam R. Freiberg and Ms. Gulten Cakir (Consultants). Ms. Haeyoung Lee processed the project cost estimates, and Ms. Gonul Moray typed and produced the report. 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.  (il) Table of Contgnta (cont'd) 1. Financial Data Table 1: Detailed Cost Estimates Table 2: Estimated Annual Expenditures Table 3: Estimated Schedule of Disbursements Table 4: Proposed Allocation of Loan Funds 2. Agricultural Extension Organization 3. Agricultural Research Component 4. Additional Resources Table 1: Incremental Staff Table 2: Vehicles Table 3: Extension Equipment Table 4: VOT and SMS Team Distribution by Provivce 5. Selected Documents and Data Available in Project File *HARTS 1. ImplementatLon Schedule 2. MAFRA Organization Structuie 3. Provincial Extension Service Organization IBRD No. 22041 - Project Area  (iii) TM 83COND "AGRICLTURAL RITIN=ION AND APPLIED RESRARCE PROJECT Loan and Project Summary Borrower: Government of Turkey. Beneficlaries: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Affairs. Av.gm=: US$63.0 million equivalent. Terma: Seventeen years, with a five-year grace period, at the Bank's standard variable interest rate. kroQeit The project would be the second phase in the Government of Descri1tlon: Turkey's (GOT) program to strengthen provincial extension services. It would upgrade extension services in an additional 19 provinces in a program GOT commenced in 1984 under the Agricultural Extension and Applied Research Project (La. 2405-TU). The project would improve the implementation and management of provincial extension systems through diagnosing farmers' problems, subsequently formulating improved appropriate technical recoeusudations to solve these problems, decentralizing and mobilizing project staff and providing training and strong technical support of field staff. To improve extension staff's contact with farmers, the project would provide housing in the villages, vehicles and equipment. It would provide additional specialist staff and training to widen the range of technical support given to field staff, and assist them in their work. The project would support research institutes, which would backstop the project area extension services, by providing additional training facilities, vehicles, equipment, research staff and training. The project would develop strong linkages between extension, research and farmers through diagnostic surveys, establishing Research Extension Liaison Departments in research institutes, and bimonthly training workshops. The project would formulate responses to the needs of homogenous categories of farmers, monitor farmers' uptake and reactions to extension recommendations, and transfer research-based recommendations to reduce the degradation of Turkey's environment and agricultural resources. It would initiate a pilot program to train women engaged in agriculture, and a pilot program of mobile veterinary units to supply improved livestock health services in the villages. Finally, it would provide technical assistance to help implement the project, and funds to prepare a follow-up project.  (iv) bnefits The project would upgrade and strengthen the provincial sad Risks: extension services' capabilities to diagnose farmers' productivity problems and to extend improved, appropriate technology to solve them. This would translate into increased farm production, improved quality of agricultural commodities and animal health, expanded exports and higher farm income. The project would also help to renew and preserve Turkey's agricultural resource base, and reduce pollution and contamination of water and food. Main risks include farmers possibly not adopting improved technology, budgetary shortfalls, inadequate training, slow vehicle procurement and civil works construction, and ineffective project management. Diagnostic studies should result in a better appreciation of farmers' needs and problems so that the research/extension recommendations are more readily acceptable to them. Funding constraints would be lessened by limiting new staff recruitment and, through detailed extension planning, promoting a more efficient utilization of available staff. A skillgap analysis should result in the designing of more suitable training programs; early preparation of bidding docuw,ents should speed procurement; while training, comnrlemented by technical assistance, would help strengthen project management, and coordination committees would assist resolve project implementation problems. Estimated Costs: Local Forein Total -==------- (US$ million) ---------- Extension 47.9 48.7 96.6 Research I 1Q 10.8 Total Baseline Costs 51.7 55.7 107.4 Physical Contingencies 6.7 6.7 13.4 Price Contingencies 11.12. 24 Total Project Cost 10.3 145.4 Li LA Includes US$3.1 million taxes and duties.  (v) Pintacndn Plan: Local Foreig Total ------ (US$ million) ---------- GOT 70-3 12.1 82.4 IBRD 63.0 63.0 70.3 75.1 145.4 tmated Disbursooments: IBRD Fiscal Year 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 ------------------ (US$ million) ------------------ Annual 4.0 2.0 6.0 10.0 14.0 13.0 8.5 5.5 Cumulative 4.0 6.0 12.0 22.0 36.0 49.0 57.5 63.0  DRAFT SITF rMIALIRUiPOR TU SECOND A'iRICULTUR U MMTERSION AND APPLIED RESEARCH PROJECT I. PROJECT AND SECTOR BACKGROUND A. Introductign 1.01 The Government of Turkey (GOT) has requested the World Bank to assist in financing a project to strengthen its agricultural extension services. The project is the second phase of the Government's program for upgrading provincial extension services and would extend to 19 additional provinces (out of the 71 provinces of Turkey) the improvements in extension practices introduced in 181/ provinces under Loan 2405-TU (Agricultural Extension and Applied Research). The project would assist GOT in strengthening the field testing, demonstration and transmission of improved crop and livestock production practices to farmers, the establishment of priority extension goals and the planning activities to achieve them, and expanding the use of feedback from farmers and field agents in the setting of applied research priorities and programs. 1.02 GOT identified and prepared the project with some technical assistance provided by consultants employed under the first extension project and by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)/IBRD Cooperative Programme. This report is based on GOT's feasibility report (Agricultural Extension and Applied Research Project TYUAP Phase II, MAKRA, April 1989), and the findings of an appraisal mission which visited Turkey during May/June 1989. B. Agricultural Sector 1.03 Struc=e. Agriculture is an important sector in the Turkish economy. Although declining in relative importance, it still generates 17X of GDP and over 201 of export earn1nr-, while providing about 501 of civilian employment. The rate of growth of agricultural production is below that of the rest of the economy, but agriculture will continue to be important in meeting domestic food and industrial raw material requirements, and in providing foreign exchange earnings and employment. 1.04 Turkey has 41.6 million ha of agricultural land and present land use is as follows: 1, Loan 2405-TU initially covered 16 provinces. Two of the project provinces were subsequently split to become four provinces.  - 2 - Present Land Use Area Percent of (million ha) 8rich Lnnd (X) Field crops 18.1 44 Fallow 5.8 14 Orchards/vineyards/vegetables 35 Total crop land 27.4 66 Pastures and meadows JA.2 34 Total agricultural land 41.6 100 About 3.2 million acres are irrigated (18X of the cropped area) with a substantial increase planned for the 1990s as a result of ongoing works on the Euphrates River. Irrigation presently receives some 651 of the pubic sector agricult'kral investments, and generates 401 of the crop output and 251 of agricultural exports. Turkey's western provinces, with generally favorable climatic conditions, are agriculturally the most developed. Central Anatolia is the main cereal growing area while mountainous eastern Anatolia has sparse cereal production in the valleys and livestock which graze the mountain pastures in summer and are housed in winter. The distribution of farms is characterized by a large number of small holdings and a few large holdings. The average farm size is 6.4 ha; 611 of all holdings are under 5 ha, 821 under 10 ha aad 921 under 20 ha. k : Turkish farmers engage in mixed crop and livestock production; 861 of all farms produce both crops and livestock, and 90% of all agricultural area is devoted to mixed farming. 1.05 Cereals dominate field crop production (75X of sown area), with wheat and barley constituting nearly 701 of sown area. The next major crops by area are pulses, followed by industrial crops (cotton, sugar beet, tobacco), and horticultural crops. By value of production there is not so much difference between the major crop groups, however, wheat is still the most important intiividual crop, followed by cotton, barley and grapes. Crop production contributes lout 671 of total agricultural Gross Domestic Product, while livestock contributes 33X. 1.06 Turkey has a large livestock resource, with over 12 million cattle, 40 million sheep and 13 million goats. Commercial poultry production is important, while apiculture and sericulture are valuable sources of income for landless rural people. Low income areas, predominantly in the eastern provinces, support the major part of the country's livestock herd under low input/low output conditions. Because severe winters restrict the growing season, and the degraded nature of much pasture and rangeland, many animals suffer a considerable feed deficit for four to six months each year, which is only partially offset by crop residues and conserved forages. 1.07 Development Objectives. GOT's main agricultural sector development objectives a&e to: (a) modernize production techniques to raise productivity, yield and farmer income; (b) maintain food requirements of a growing population; and (c) promote agricultural exportL.  - 3 - 1.08 Strategies. Since 1980, GOT has adopted a wide-ranging program of structural reforms throughout the economy, representing a sharp break from the past policies emphasizing central controls and an import substitution development strategy. Overall, the new policies were designed to promote increased efficiency and growth through greater rellance on market forces and the private sector, and to promote a more outward o-ientation of the economy. While key changes were introduced in macroeconomic and '.ndustrial policy, the progress on agricultural policy was more limited, although still significant. Input subsidies were reduced, regulatory restrictions were relaxed and the private sector encouraged to take a larger role in input distribution and product marketing. In line with its sectoral objectives, GOT strategies have emphasized improving agricultural productivity through strengthening research and extension services, expanding the irrigated area and improving irrigation efficiency, and encouraging the use of improved seeds and agricultural inputs. 1.09 Major macroeconomic disturbances in 1979/80 and the shift in agricultural strategy reported in para 1.08 led to an initial sharp decline in agricultural growth rates in 1980 and 1981. Thereafter, however, growth resumed to an average 3.91 per year from 1983 through 1987 against GOT's planned growth of 3.5X per year for 1983-1989. Overall, based on reported data, agriculture's sectoral performance since 1980 has been satisfactory, keeping pace with Turkey's aggregate economic output and income growth which has been excellent. Nevertheless, there are underlying signs of a weakening in the sector's performance including a lessening in the rate of agricultural commodity yield increases. 1.10 Issues. Although Turkey has a comparative advantage in the production of many crops (for example, wheat, barley, cotton, tobacco. sunflower seeds, olive oil, melons), it is behind many of its competitors in crop yields and also in crop yield growth rates. Without accelerated progress in adopting improved technology, Turkey is in danger of losing its competitiveness in terms of being able to profitably export these crops or compete successfully against imports. In cotton production, for example, Turkey's cotton yields are substantially above Pakistan's. Nevertheless, between 1975 and 1985, Pakistan's average cotton yield increased from 401 to 701 of Turkey's, thus drastically reducing Turkey's competitiveness with Pakistan. Insufficient research, weak extension services, inappropriate irrigated farming techniques, and agricultural resource degradation all contribute to this reduction in productivity growth. 1.11 Extension Services. While GOT has introduced improved extension services to 211/ of Turkey's 71 provinces, the remaining provinces are still operating ineffective extension services. Extension staff are located away from farmers, are not mobile, are not fully in touch with farmers' needs or with research findings and thus have often given inappropriate technical advice. While research services have done excellent work in developing new technology, in several instances insufficient on-farm research has been done S Eighteen ?rovinces financed unGer Loan 2405-TU and three under rural developmtnt loans 1130-TU and 2094-TU. Extension services have also been strengthened in portions of additional provinces (for example, under IAEE Irrigation, Loan 2433-TU).  - 4 - to adapt improved methods for local areas. Additionally, research services have run down during MtA lIs reorganization (1984-88) and require rebuilding. 1.12 Irrigated FarEing. Except for the more developed western provinces, farmers in many irrigated areas are unfamiliar with proper irrigation practices and techniques. Excessive water use with subsequent drainage and water-logging problems, insufficient maintenance, and poor agronomic practices have all led to below potential production and deterioration of the overall irrigation systems. Extension is needed to train farmers in good sustainable irrigation procedures and to assist them realize crop and incoma potential. Recent beneficiaries of irrigation projects in particular require assistance in adjusting cropping patterns and irrigation practices. As Turkey has increased irrigated area by about 240,000 ha over the past five years, and proposes to irrigate about an additional 675,000 ha over the next five to eight years, improved extension services are critical to ensuring that this investment produces maximum returns. 1.13 Livestock. Turkey's milk yield per cow and beef carcass weights are almilar to those in Central Asia grazing-based regions and far below those of East European countries of similar income levAs. Beef carcass weights appear to have declined over the last five years. On-fam research with subsequent extension is essential to test opportunities for herd upgrading, increased forage and pasture production, and improved livestock management. 1.14 Degradation of Agrcultural Resource Base. Increasing population densities and intensity of land use ha considarably iegraded Tu-key' s agricultural resource base. Cropping of steep, fragile slopes, excessive grazing of natural pastures, and overcutting of forested areas have greatly damaged soil resources and led to massive erosion. Excessive and improper use of fertilizers and pesticides has polluted streams, lakes, and groundwater and contaminated food production. While economic and social factors will play a large part in solving these problems, agricultural research and extension will be essential in formulating and implementing sustainable solutions, particularly in watershed and rangeland rehabilitation, and introducing integrated pest management practices. 1.15 Bank's Airicultural Strategy. The Bank has aimed its agricultural lending at increasing output productivity, exports and rural employment, and supporting and promoting the necessary policy and institutional reforms in the sector. The Bank's strategy has included: (a) supporting institutional reform, particularly developing improved research and extension services, establishing a sectoral planning capability, reforming government enterprises involved in agricultural marketing and input supply, and improving irrigation agencies' implementation capabilities; (b) rationalizing the public sector investment program, particularly in irrigation, with greater emphasis on quick gestating projects; (c) expanding the credit supply, particularly for medium and small scale farmers, together with increasing the efficiency of credit  institutions and improving financial sector policles to encourage greater private investment ln the sector; (d) promoting a greater use of market forces through reducing subsidies and price supports, interest rate reform and increas.ad involvement of the private sector in marketing agricultural inputs and products; and (e) liberalization the foreign trade regime, including deregulating exports and imports. 1.16 To meet its agricultural sector objectLves, Turkey must expand and accelerate ongoLng programs to: (a) lmprove agricultural extension, research and technical servlces; (b) develop a stronger and more effective network of financlal intermedlation services and institutions; (c) increase funds available for agricultural credit; (d) speed up completion of economically justifled irrigation projects which are currently stretched over 10 to 15 years because of budgetary limitations; and (e) increase the efficiency of agricultural marketing systems. At the same time GOT should continue the deregulation of the agricultural sector, particularly by removlng export levies, phasing out input subsidies, and reducing costly purchase and storage price support operations. C. Iank Group lendini i.i7 Ariculturai Projects. As of December 31, i989, the Bank Group has supported 25 agricultural projects in Turkey, of whlch 18 are closed and 7 being implemented. During the 1980s the Bank has financed the following projects all which support GOTs and the Banks' development objectives and strategies: projects in livestock, fruit and vegetables, and rural development which support increased production and institutional development [Livestock V Project (Loan 1862-TU), Second Fruit and Vegetable Project (Loan 1967-TU), Erzurum Rural Development Project (Loan 2094-TU)I; two agrlcultural credit projects which support the strengthening of credit institutions and expansion of agricultural credit [Agricultural Credit II Project (Loan 2318); Third Agricultural Credit Project (Loan 3090-TU)]; two irrigation/drainage projects whlch focus on a core program for completing essential drainage and on-farm development works, strengthening of the invectment planning/ implementation processes, expansion of cost recovery, and strengthening of technical and managerial capabilities of agency staff [Igdir-Aksu-Eregli-Ercis Irrigation Project (Loan 2433-TU), Drainage and On-farm Development Project (Loan 2663-TU)]; an agricultural extension and applied research project aimed at upgrading and strengthening national agricultural extension systems. and developing and disseminating appropriate improved technology to lift farmers' productivity and incomes [Agricultural Extension and Applied Research Project (Loan 2405-TU)]; an agricultural structural adjustment loan which emphasized sectoral plannlng and analysis in MAFRA, rationalization of public expenditure (especially irrigation), liberalization of the trade regime, seed and fertilizer pricing and distribution, and managerial strengthening of fertilizer distribution and State Economic Enterprises (SEEs) involved in seed production and distribution [Agricultural Sector Adjustment Loan (Loan 2585- TUO,; and an agroindustry project which supports the processing of agricultural produce, focusses on restructuring existing enterprises, and  - 6 - developing and/or strengthening technical, financial and marketing institutions in the private sector [Agroindustry Project (Loan 3077-TU)]. The proposed project would be a second stage in the strengthening of extension systems throughout Turkey, and would be a major component in the Bank's strategy to raise agricultural incomes and long-term agricultural growth. 1.18 Extension Projects. Extension components were included in a number of early Bank-assisted projects in Turkey as support to specific investments in infrastructure or farm development. The component was usually implemented by establishing a special project extension unit independent of the existing provincial extension services beginning with the Seyhan Irrigation Project Stage I (Credit 34-TU) followed by the Seyhan Irrigation Project Stage II (Loan 587/Credit 143-TU). It was under the Stage II project that the training and visit system (T&V, of extension was first introduced, prior to its inclusion in many Bank-supported projects in other countries. Similar project extension units were created in subsequent Bank-assisted projects in Turkey, such as Fruit and Vegetables Export Project Loan (Loan 762/Credit 257-TU), Irrigation Runabilitation and Completion Project (Credit 281-TU), Ceyhan-Aslantas Multipurpose Project (Loan 883/Credit 360-TU), Corum-Cankiri Rural Development Project (Loan 1130-TU), and the Fruit and Vegetable II Project (Loan 1967-TU). In the early projects, the project extension units were disbanded upon project completion and their methodology ignored by the general extension service. However, the contribution of the improved extension service, especially in dryland farming, to farmers' income in the Corum-Cankiri project through stressing fallow reduction and introducing winter vetches and food legumes convinced GOT officials of the desirability to introduce improved extension services progressively to all its provinces. As a first step, agreement was reached in 1981 between GOT and the Bank to merge the two parallel services of the Corum-Cankiri extension unit with the provincial services to assure continuity of improved extension methodology. Beginning with the Erzurum Rural Development Project (Loan 2094-TU), the focus was in strengthening the existing provincial extension organization.. 1.19 The first Agricultural Extension project (Agricultural Extension and Applied Research Project 'AEARPI - Loan 2405-TU) was approved in 1984. However, following a Government change, a major reorganization occurred merging the Miaistry of Village Affairs into an enlarged Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Affairs (MA2FRA). Furthermore, major steps were taken to decentralize control of technical services and to improve coordination at the provincial level. The provincial services merged the Directorates of Extension, Veterinary and Plant Protection Services under one Provincial Director of Agriculture (PDA) in each province reporting directly to the Undersecretary of MAFRA. Also, at the national level in Ankara, the General Directorate of Agriculture Affairs with line authority for most crop research and extension services, was abolished and three new General Directorates established providing only advisory authority in extension (General Directorate of Organization and Support Services - GDOS), veterinary and plant protection (General Directorate of Protection and Control - GDPC) and implementation (General Directorate of Project and Implementation - GDPI). The new organization of NAFRA did not become fully operative until late 1986 and delayed implementation of AEARP by at least two years. Additional time was also required to train PDAs to carry out their new responsibilities under the decentralized system and to replace directors Who did not carry out their  - 7 - now responsibilities adequately. Implementation was further delayed by the slow process within NAFRA in determining how to organize its agricultural research activities, and only in late 1988 was an operational scheme put in place with GDPI having prime responsibility for about 80X of all agricultural research in MAFRA.. These delays have seriously affected AEARP implementation, especially for the agricultural research component. Nevertheless, extension services in the project area have improved, particularly with regard to management of extension at the provincial level, and the forging of stronger linkages between research and extension. Successful implementation has particularly occurred in those provinces with effective uanagement thrrolgh its PDA and/or familiarity with the Corum-Cankiri Rural Development Project. A number of PDAs or Directors of Farmer Training and Extension received their experience in Corum or Cankiri province and were transferred to one of the 18 provinces of AEARP to provide institutional guidance. Project implementation continues to improve and despite the hindrances and delays, the project already is having a major impact in improving production methods and farmer knowledge of improved technology. The better managed provinces have considerably improved their extension planning and dissemination of appropriate technology to farmers, while all project provinces are providing better extension services than those in neighboring non-project provinces. 1.20 Research comonents. Linkages between extension and research have traditionally been weak. While funds were provided under the Fruit and Vegetable II Project for strengthening citrus research oriented to solving farmers' problems, significant Bank efforts to assist in improving extension-research linkages did not occur until AEARP. AEARP included measures to strengthen agricultural research entities' ability to solve farmers' problems on a regional basis through participating with provincial extension services in training of Subject Matter Specialists (SMSs), and receiving feedback on farmers' concerns from the extension servic. through monthly workshops and other provincial or regional meetings. This aspect of the project has been most successful with the research institutes backstopping the project area extension services providing effective training sessions for SMSs and some VGTs, developing appropriate technology for project area farmers, and bringing research and extension staff into closer communications. However, there is a clear need to strengthen MAFRA's agricultural research organization to better provide for present and future demands of farmers, especially since some 801 of the staff have only a Bachelor's degree equivalent with little training in research methodology. Through the Agricultural Sector Adjustment Loan (2585-TU), a review was recently completed of priority needs for strengthening MAFRA's agricultural research system, which could be the basis of future Bank assistance through a separate Agricultural Research Project. 1.21 Project Performance Audit Reports. The Bank's Operations Evaluation Department has produced four project performance audit reports (PPARs) and one impact evaluation report concerning Bank-assisted projects in Turkey which established agricultural extension units. These are: PPAR No. 2747, Seyhan Irrigation Project Stage II (Loan 587/Credit 143-TU); PPAR No. 3515, Turkey Irrigation Rehabilitation and Completion Project (Credit 281-TU); PPAR No. 4265, Turkey Fruit and Vegetable Export Project (Loan 762/Credit 257-TU); Impact Evaluation Report No. 5745, Seyhan Irrigation Project Stage II (Loan 587/Credit 143-TU); and PPAR No. 6756, Ceyhan-Aslantas Multipurpose Project  - a - (Loan 883/Credit 360-TU) and Corum-Cankiri Rural Development Project (Loan 1130-TU). The two major lessons w'..ich these reports identify regarding efforts to strengthen and upgrade extension services are firstly, improved extension systems must be part of or incorporated into the national extension system if they are to be sustainable. Secondly, long-term planning of extension activities and better extension/research linkages are vital to an efficient, effective extension service. Despite several of the extension units established being highly successful during project implementation, since they were outside the national system, when the project was completed staff were gradually moved out of the units, operating funds reduced, and vorn-out equipment not replaced. It was also found in these situations that although farmers had accepted higher technology, they still required extension advice, contrary to GOT's expectations. The experience with these units further reinforced the Bank's worldwide experience that extension services must have strong linkages to research to be effective, and there must be adequate extension planning to ensure extension services adapt to farmers' changing extension requirements over time. As noted in para 1.18, beginning with the Erzurum Rural Development Project the Bank's assistance now focuses on strengthening the existing provincial extension organizations. Additionally the proposed project is designed to improve extension/research linkages (para 3.24-27) and foster good extension planning through diagnostic surveys (para 3.18) and monitoring of farmer uptake of recommended technology (para 3.36). II. AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION IN T ! AIM THE PROJECT AM A. General 2.01 The reorganization of NAFRA during 1984 to 1986 resulted in each PDA having six technical sections or departments in addition to administrative and finance sections (see Chart 3). The six technical sections include Projects and Statistics, Plant Protection, Livestock Health, Farmers' Training and Extension, Control, and Support Services. Each Farmers' Training and Extension (FTE) section handles extension operations in the province and is staffed with agricultural engineers and technicians and a small number of SNSs. Within each province HAFRA has county offices headed by a County Director (CD) and usually staffed with an agricultural engineer, veterinary specialist, several agricultural technicians, and on occasion village group technicians (VGT). 2.02 At present MAFRA's agricultural staffing in Turkey's 71 provinces and 631 counties includes approximately 2,950 agricultural engineers assisted by 9,300 agricultural technicians; 1,300 veterinarians supported b) 2,450 animal health technicians; and 600 plant protection specialists backstopped by 800 plant protection technicians. Prime responsibility for contact with farmers in extending new technology now rests with VGTs supported by their FTE Sections, SMSs, and county staff. VGTs are meant to be in the forefront for daily contact with farmers. However, so far VGTs, who are operating from the villages, are mainly based in AEARP project provinces or other provinces which have had Bank-assisted extension projects. In most provinces, county-based staff (agricultural engineers and technicians) are responsible for contacting  -9- farmers. A priority goal of the Bank-assisted extension projects has been providing the housing, transportation, training, and other support services so that VGTs can be moved into the villages and supported, thus fostering increased and more effective contacts with farmers and facilitating the transfer of improved technology for increasing farm income. This has included provision of adequate backstopping by qualified SKSs, effective linkages with agricultural research, living quarters in the village,improved extension planning based on the existing agroecological and social conditions, improved information systems, vehicles, and, above all, effective management. As observed in AEARP, establishing a viable provincial extension system greatly depends on having an effective PDA as its manager. 2.03 In the past, extension staff have been responsible for extensive gathering of statistical data and estimating input requirements as well as for administrative and regulatory functions to comply with central and bureaucratic procedures. With reorganization at the provincial level, a number of these functions have been compartmentalized in the sections dealing with project and statistics, administration, control and support services. It permits the FTE section to focus primarily on transferring information to and from farmers, working closely with the agricultural research centers, preparing provincial extension programs, including on-farm trials and demonstrations, and preparing and implementing home economics programs. Nevertheless, VGTs have a range of responsibilities beyond systematic contact with farmers in the villages under their jurisdiction. In particular they are the main source for obtaining statistical data on crop areas and yields, livestock, land utilization, and other items, and conveying this to the county to be transmitted to the Project and Statistics (P&S) Section of the Province. These duties of VGTs, apart from extending improved technology to farmers, are essential for the proper functioning of Government support services but reduce the time spent by VGTs with farmers for imparting new information important for long-term benefits. Nevertheless, VGTs should be able to devote some 80X of their time to extension duties. 2.04 Linkages with Research. Formal linkages between research and extension were first developed unoer AEARP. Six research institutes have provided backstopping services to the extension services of the project's 18 provinces. This has included supplying improved technology developed at the institutions, conducting monthly workshops for training SMSs, and appointing extension, information and research coordinators. B. Pro1ect Are 2.05 The project area covers 19 provinces which are contiguous with provinces strengthened under AEARP, Erzurum Rural Development Project and Corum-Cankiri Rural Development Project and were selected based upon their potential for increasing productivity through currently known technology. Particular emphasis was placed on opportunities for increasing effectiveness of irrigation infrastructure. The 19 project provinces (see MAP) are as follows: (a) Central Region (Kirsehir, Yozgat, Nigde, Aksaray, Nevsehir, Kayseri); (b) Central North Region (Amasya, Tokat, Sivas, Erzincan);  - 10 - (c) Central Southeastern Region (Gaziantep, Kahramanmaras, Adiyaman, Nalatya, Siirt); (d) Mediterranean Region (Antalya, Icel, Adana, Hatay). 2.06 Agriculture is more developed and commercialized in the coastal Mediterranean provinces but would still benefit substantially by a revitalized extension network extending into the villages. The inland and mountainous areas of these same provinces are far less developed than the coastal areas, and the remaining provinces in the project area are also at a much lower level of development. Generally, the provinces vary greatly in their agricultural systems and potentials, and hence in their informational needs. The 19 ! provinces are subdivided into 156 counties, and contain 9,494 villages and approximately 1.1 million farm families. The project areas' agricultural aspects as contrasted to Turkey as a whole are as follows: Trkey Li Proiect &Ara La Number of villages 36,126 9,494 Number of farm families (million) 3.1 1.1 Cultivated Area (million ha) 23.2 9.0 of which: rainfed 20.7 7.2 irrigated 3.2 1.8 field crop 18.1 5.1 fallow 5.8 2.1 fruits 1.5 0.4 vegetables 0.6 0.2 vineyards & other crops 1.4 1.3 Pasture and Meadow (million ha.) 14.2 5.0 Forest Land (million ha.) 20.2 Sheep (million head) 40.4 10.2 Goats (million head) 13.1 4.2 Cattle (million head) 12.4 2.8 Li Turkey, Statistic Yearbook, State Institute of Statistics, 1987. LI 1987 MAFRA Statistics. 2.07 At present MAFRA employs 646 agricultural engineers and 2,390 agricultural technicians in the project area provinces of whom 130 (201) and 1,444 (60X), respectively, are at county level (NAFRA survey June, 1989). The provinces have stationed approximately 100 agricultural technicians in villages as VGTs, and MAFRA currently owns 90 houses (77 one-family and 13 two-family) at village level to accommodate the VGTs. 2.08 Constraints to Extension. Extension services in the project area are hampered by problems of undertrained, underequipped and underutilized fieldstaff who mainly are located physically away from farmers in the county centers, with insufficient transport to reach them, with insufficient training and motivation to find out the needs and expectations of the different groups of farmers, and with insufficient support from their supervisors and agricultural engineers concerning the appropriate recommendations to convey.  - 11 - The result is a fairly unresponsive extension service which does not Involve farmers in problem identification, which has inadequate planning and targeting, and which has not sufficiently developed monitoring of farmers' feedback, or research linkages. 2.09 Lessons Learned from A1ARP. AEARP addressed most of these issues by moving field staff closer to the client population, by making staff mobile, by ensuring the relevance of recommendations and by managing the system better. As already noted in para 1.17, AEARP has considerably improved extension services in its project area. Nevertheless, implementing AEARP has taught several lessons which the project would incorporate. 2.10 Organization of SMS Teams. Under AEARP eight-member provincial SMS teams are located at the provincial capital, while in the larger provinces additional four-member county-group SMS teams are located in a county to service a group of counties. The provincial SMS team supervises the county level teams. Several problems have surfaced including: (a) shortage of qualified staff; (b) insufficient expertise in planning, economics and extension; (c) muddled task delineation between the provincial and county level teams; (d) insufficient support to VGTs; and (e) limited involvement of provincial SMSs in farmers' problems and extension planning. To correct these deficiencies, the project would: (a) establish all SNS teams to work at the county-group level; (b) provide initial training for agricultural engineers selected to become SNSs; (c) allow SMS team composition to be flexible in numbers and disciplines so that it can be situation-specific; and (d) emphasize SMS team's major role in VGT training and technical support (see paras 3.13-3.15). 2.11 Unclear Line of Command. Under AEARP the double layer of SIS teams at both provincial and county-group levels has also blurred the line of command between FTE Director and the county-group SMS teams. All SMS teams report to the PTE Director. However, with county-group teams located at one particular county office, the CD has on occasion assumed the team reported to him, and has attempted to limit their work to the physical boundaries of his county. Under the project, while SMS teams would be working and located at the county level, the PDAs would clearly establish with county officials that the FTE Director would support and supervise all SKS teams, and they would be responsible for working in a group of counties, not only the one where they live (para 3.15). 2.12 Project Phasing. Correct phasing and synchronizing of project activities are essential to successfully upgrade extension services. Under the prc.ject, provinces would only commence providing improved extension services once staff have been trained, and provided with hcusing, transport, audio-visual aids, and ready to participate in the initial diagnostic survey (para 3.36). C. Rationale for Sank Imolvement 2.13 The project forms an integral part of the Bank's agricultural sector development strategy and expands the ongoing program of assistance to agricultural extension and other technical support services. In the Bank's experience upgrading extension services takes considerable time, and up to 15  - 12 - years of financial, technical and supervisory support may be required.' While the Bank has assisted to finance several projects in Turkey with improved extension services, these services were confined to relatively small areas or specific products and were (until the early 1980s) outside the national extension system. It was only under AEARP that GOT decided to upgrade its national extension service based upon a model developed with Bank assistance. Continued Bank assistance is essential to support and help bring to fruition the institutional changes required to provide effective support to farmers in upgrading their technology. As noted in paras 2.08-2.10, GOT needs to further refine some of these organizational changes introduced beginning in 1984. Besides supporting this, the project would also introduce other ideas to further upgrade the extension service such as diagnostic studies to improve extension planning (para 3.16), and initial training of SMSs to improve the quality of support that SHSs give VGTs. III. THE PROJECT A. Project Objectives 3.01 Ob ectI es. The project's objectives are to: (a) foster increased productivity and agricultural incomes in the project area through improving the flow of information concerning their needs and problems from farmers to MAFRA's extension/research services, and the transmission of improved, appropriate technology which is economically and environmentally sustainable through the extension services to farmers; (b) contribute to institution building and strengthening of MAFRA's extension/research services, including, on a pilot basis, hiring extension workers to meet the needs of women engaged in agriculture; and (c) a pilot program to improve animal health services to complement successful extension services. B. Summarv Description 3.02 The project's main thrusts are to: improve the implementation and mar.,gement of extension services in the project area provinces, i4cluding formulating responses to the needs of homogeneous groups of farmers and monitoring farmers' uptake and reactions to extension recommendations; develop strong linkages between extension, research and farmers; support the research institutes which would backstop the project area extension services; and provide training and technical assistance. The project also includes pilot programs to improve availability of animal health services in the villages and to provide extension services to women farmers, and funds to prepare the next M "Strengthening Agricultural Research and Extension - The World Bank Experience", OED Report No. 4684, Sep. 1983.  - 13 - phase of GOT's program to upgrade provincial extension servlces. The project would include the following components:V1 (a) upgrading provincial agricultural extension servicer by undertaking diagnostic surveys to develop a basis for extension planning and research, moving extension staff closer to the farming community through constructing staff housing in the villages and county capitals, procuring vehicles, equipment and scientific books and journals to mobWlize staff and assist them in disseminating technology to farmers, recruiting additional staff to provide expertise in agricultural economics and extension methodology/ training, to provide improved extension services to women farmers and to drive the additional vehicles, providing on a pilot basis mobile veterinary clinics to improve livestock health services in the villages, and funds for vehicle and equipment operating and maintenance costs and new construction upkeep; (b) strengthening extension/research linkages and supporting 14 research institutes, which would backstop the project area extension services by establishing research extension liaison departments, providing bimonthtly workshops for SMS training, constructing additional training facilities, recruiting additional staff, providing vehicles, equipment and scientific books and journals, and funds for vehicle and equipment operating and maintenance costs and new construction upkeep; (c) providing training and technical assistance to assist MAFRA Implement the project, strengthen staff capabilities, and prepare the next phase of GOT's program to upgrade provincial extension services; and (d) improving monitoring and evaluation of the provinces' agricultural extension service activities. C. Proiect Details Improved Extension Services 3.03 Villagg Level. Under the project MAFRA would construct approximately 860 village group technician centers (VGTC), consisting of a two-storey building, including an apartment for the VGT, an office/farmer meeting room and small storage area, in selected villages throughout the project area. These, plus the 90 existing houses and offices MAFRA already owns in villages, would allow the 19 provinces to locate some 950 VGTs in project area villages (Annex 4, Table 4 gives VGT numbers per province). In accordance with NAFRA policy, these houses would include a second office/ apartment for such other staff (in addition to the VOTs) as MAFRA may wish to post in the villages. PDAs and FTE Section Directors would select VGTs from the reservoir of existing agricultural technicians at provincial and county level, choosing the better technicians with above average communication I Annex 1, Appendix 1 summarizes project activities.  - 14 - skills. This should allow a budget-neutral transfer (in terms of numbers) of technicians from provincial and county level to the village level. VGT to farmer ratios would be roughly 1 to 850 in irrigated areas, and 1 to 1,900 in dryland areas. While GOT plans to irrigate approximately an additional 675,000 ha of the project area during the project's life, the timing of this new irrigation is too uncertain to be considered when planning VGT distribution under the project. This area could require approximately an additional 50 VGTs. Depending upon timing, the necessary investments could be accommodated within the allowance for contingencies or be provided by GOT outside the project when necessary. 3.04 Besides the VGTC, the project would provide each VGT a motorcycle, office furniture and supplies, demonstration materials and simple equipment (for example, jortable blackboard, weighing scales, and pest surveillance equipment such as a magnifying glass and insect traps), and audio-visual equipment including a slide projector per six VGTs, suitable slides, and video tapes for playing in village coffee houses. This last equipment would be stored at the county agricultural supervisor's (AES) office. In areas where weather or wild dogs makes the riding of motorcycles impossible, two VGTs would share a pick-up which would also be stationed at AES's office. 3.05 VGTs would work with selected farmer groups. Each group would be as homogenous as possible, consisting of farmers with similar agricultural and financial resources, farming systems and socio-economic circumstances, so that they could accept the same recommended technology. VGTs and their supervisors would set the criteria for categorizing farmers (or formulating recommendation domains) on the basis of the diagnostic study (para 3.16). 3.06 VGTs would spend about 801 of their time in the fields with farmer groups. They would be responsible for: (a) assisting farmers to articulate their main problems and pass these onto higher extension and research levels; (b) giving appropriate technical advice to homogenous groups of farmers to lift productivity and farm income, (c) with farmers' consent, giving credit agencies technical advice on farmers' credit needs; and (d) report on farmers' uptake of suggested new technology and, if farmers reject technology, the reasons why. Upon their initial arrival in a village, VGTs would undertake a situation analysis of their project area villages to: (a) enumerate the basic agricultural data and farming systems; and (b) familiarize themselves with the area. They would then assist their AESs, SMSs and research staff undertake a diagnostic survey of the area. 3.07 The county AESs would directly supervise VGTs, and county-group SMSs teams would support them on technical matters, and train them regularly. SNSs would not supervise VGTs. Besides this regular fortnightly or monthly training, VGTs would receive initial training in the project's conceot, their responsibilities, undertaking the situation analysis and diagnostic study, and other technical training from research staff. 3.08 Pilot Women Farmers' Extension. At present extension services do not train female farmers (except in handicrafts, nutrition and home economicn). In many areas social practices preclude having male extension staff working directly with females. The project would establish a pilot program to train women in improved methods of agricultural production. The  - 15 - program would evaluate the following methods: (a) training and stationing female full-time VGTs in villages to train homogeneous groups of women engaged in agriculture in a similar manner as followed by male VGTs; (b) training wives of VGTs who are interested in part-time work opportunities (and who are literate and have other needed skills and who would carry out functions similar to (a) but on a part-time basis); and (c) developing video cassettes and other training materials specifically aimed at enhancing the role of women in the farm community. 3.09 Female VGTs would be placed in villages of selected counties in Tokat, Er.zincan and Icel provinces, and would cover some 25X of the total farming families in these three provinces. As women are little involved in cereal production (mainly mechanized), the counties selected would have predominantly multicropping farming systems such as fruit, vegetables and livestock production where women play an important role. Female full-time VGTs would be selected from agricultural engineers and from existing home economists. Home economists would be given technical agricultural training before being placed in villages. Existing VGT training institutes would be available during the summer for training of home economists and wives of current VGTs. Project staff would monitor and evaluate the results of the pilot operations to determine which approaches are most effective and worth replicating. 3.10 Instead of motorcycles, the project would provide a station wagon and driver for every two female VGTs. The second apartment/office in selected VGTCs in Tokat, Erzincan and Icel provinces would be used for female full-time VGTs. VGT wives serving as part-time VGTs would share office and meeting space with their husbands. To assist in implementing the program, the project would also provide six months of locally recruited technical assistance. 3.11 CogansvLryr1. At county level the project would provide each of the 156 CDs a station wagon, and corresponding AES a house, pick-up, plus office and audio-visual equipment for training VGTs and farmers. 3.12 While CDs are responsible for all government county agricultural services and activities, provincial authorities would select an agricultural engineer or technician for each county to be the county agricultural extension supervisor. He would work under CD's direction, and would be responsible for organizing, planning, training and monitoring of county agricultural extension activities. AESs would be selected from staff currently at the provincial and county levels and would be chosen according to the agricultural needs of the region, but also with emphasis on their training and experience which would help them effectively supervise VGTs. AESs would supervise VGTs (maximum 10), visiting them in the field; organize VGTs' regular training; coordinate information gathered and generated in the county; and coordinate, with the Director FTE, CD and other provincial technical services, the support SMSs would give the county extension activities. 3.13 County-xroug Level. At the county-group level the project would establish 32 SMS teams, one for not more than every 40 VGTs. On average the tesms would contain six agricultural specialists, and while they would be located in either the provincial capital or a county main town, their work area would cover some Zour to six counties. The project would provide housing  - 16 - for teams located in county towns (13 teams, so some 78 apartments), vehicles (one station wagon and one double-cab pick-up per team). audlo-visual equipment (video camera, recorder/player and monitor) and pest surveillance equipment. The project would also construct an additional 13 VGT training halls to be attached to county offices where the teams would train VGTs, and which presently do not have a suitable training room. SMS teams would train VGTs in about 60 training rooms or halls, and the project vould provide audio-visual equipment for 45 of these (see Annex 4, Table 3). 3.14 The teams' composltion and size would depend on the farming systems in the team's work area. However, all teams would include expertise in agricultural economics, extension methodology/training, and erosion control. The FTE Director would select team members from the existing provincial and county agricultural engineers, however as few of these staff have expertise in agricultural economics or extension methodology, some 64 additional agricultural engineers would be recruited. To enable agricultural engineers to become successful SMSs, all staff selected for SMS positions would receive six months' initial training (see para 3.28). 3.15 SMS teams' main responsibilities would be to: (a) regularly train VGTs in technical matters (groups of about 20); (b) technically support VGTs in the field; (c) assist AESs plan extension activities in the country; and (d) liaise with research staff and institutions inside and outside the province. All sMS teams would work at the county-group level and would report directly to the FTE Director regarding their work program and its execution. However, those SMS teams residing in a county would administratively coordinate through their team leader with the county's CD. All provinces would administratively locate an SNS team in the provincial capital, while those with more than one team would locate the additional teams in an appropriate county capital. 3.16 Diagnostic Surveys. To develop a basis for extension planning, and improve feedback to research concerning farmers' productivity problems, the project would provide for a diagnostic study of each county-group, including technical assistance to help the provinces undertake the studies (para 3.31). Multidisciplinary teams, with expertise covering the areas's farming systems, agricultural economics, rural sociology and women's issues, would undertake the surveys. The teams would consist of some VGTs, AESs, SMSs from the appropriate county-group teams, and researchers from the relevant research institutions. Consultants would train the team members in diagnostic survey techniques (including training 'trainers" to continue the program in MAFRA) and assist the teams undertake their work. The surveys would be partially based on VGT's situation analyses, and would include reviewing these, relevant secondary data sources, and an exploratcry survey of the county meeting with farmers, local rural leaders, government staff, input suppliers and other key informants. The diagnostic survey team would produce a report listing, among other things, descriptions of county farmers' main farming systems, their most pressing productivity problems split between those for which appropriate tested solutions are available and those for which research still needs to find appropriate technological answers, and ldentlfying different homogeneous categories of farmers who could accept and use the same technological intervention. County-group diagnostic studies would be aggregated at the provincial level, and would be the basis for describing the provincial farming  - 17 - systems, prioritizing the problems of the different farmer categories, and planning research and extension activities to assist and support the various farmer categories. 3.17 Pest Surveiilance. The project would support the introduction of integrated pest management procedures to reduce the spraying of pesticides on crops. In particular it would supply pest surveillance equipment for SMS teams and VGTs (see paras 3.04 and 3.13) to monitor the density of insect populations and ensure farmers only spray when it is economically worthwhile to do so. Cotton, fruits and vegetables would be the main crops involved. SMS teams would determine for individual crops when and at what population densities farmers should spray (that is, determine economic thresholds for spraying), while VGTs would monitor the pest densities. 3.18 Provincial Level. At the provincial level the project would provide vehicles and a small personal computer and appropriate software for PDA and FTE section. Vehicles would include station wagons for PDA and FTE Director, two double-cab pickups for FIE Director's assistants, and one midi-bus and 10 ton truck for the FTE section to transport staff, farmers, materials and equipment. 3.19 FTE Director would be responsible for planning, programming, budgeting and coordinating all extension activities in the province, and the project would provide from one to three staff, depending on the province's size, to assist him. These staff would be selected from existing provincial agricultural engineers, with particular emphasis given to expertise in economics and farm machinery. 3.20 Animal Heltah. The project would provide four vans, animal health equipment and supplies, additional drivers and operating costs for a pilot program to test the effectiveness of mobile animal health units. These would be located in provinces selected based on their need for government animal health services. The provinces would man them with their existing veterinarians and animal health technicians, and would deploy them in particular to undertake early diagnoses of animal diseases, preventive vaccination campaigns and action against outbreaks of contagious diseases. 3.21 National Level. To enable them to supervise and support provincial staff, the project would provide headquarter's staff vehicles and equipment. Annex 2 gives more details on the improved extension services, and Annex 4 on additional staff, vehicles and equipment. Extension-Research Linkages 3.22 The project would assist in developing effective working relationships between the extension services in the 19 provinces disseminating improved appropriate technology with those research entities generating such technology. To this end, and to ensure the research institutes could effectively train extension staff, join in the diagnostic surveys, and undertake on-farm trials testing new technology for project area farmers, the project would strengthen and support seven research institutes through constructing additional training facilities, and providing vehicles, equipment, scientific books, training, additional staff, and funds for on-farm  - 18 - research and other operating costs. Annex 3 describes this assistance in more detail. The institutes would include: (a) Cukurova Agricultural Research Institute, Adana; (b) Animal Diseases Research Institute, Adana; (c) Plant Protection Research Institute, Ankara; (d) Horticultural Research Institute, Erzincan; (e) Livestock Central Research Institute, Konya; (f) Fruit Research Institute, Malatya; (g) Cotton Research Institute, Nagilli/Aydin. 3.23 These research institutes would be backstopped by seven other research institutes to providp additional trainirg as well as providing appropriate technology pertinent to the project area. The project would support these institutes to a lesser extent through minor renovations to buildings, vehicles, training, additional drivers, and some operating funds. The institutes include: (a) Ataturk Central Research Institute for Horticulture, Yalova; (b) Animal Diseases Research Institute, Etlik/Ankara; (c) Field Crops Centra. Research Institute, Ankara; (d) Southeastern Anatolia Agricultural Research Institute, Diyarbakir; (e) Plant Protection Research Institute, Adana; (f) Soil and Water Research Institute, Ankara; and (g) Rural Services Research Institute, Sanliurfa. 3.24 Incremental Staff and Coordination. The seven main research institutes would recruit an additional 31 technical staff to allow them provide more assistance to the extension services. Additionally, they would hire another 14 staff (two per institute) to establish a Research Extension Liaison Department in each institute. This would consist of a Research Coordinator (RC) and an Extension Information Coordinator (EIC) who would be responsible for: (a) training facilities, developing appropriate training programs and materials, and initiating and running training programs; (b) field work in the provinces, including institute's input to diagnostic studies, planning of necessary research for the involved provinces, and on- farm trials; and (c) integrating research findings into appropriate recommendations for different categories of farmers. The project would also provide audio-visual equipment for the Research Extension Liaison Departmexits, which would bb administratively under the Director of the relevant research institute. 3.25 Bimonthly Workshops. Under the project, the main research institutes would provide bimonthly workshops to train all SMSs, and on occasions some VGTs. To improve the research institutes' training facilities, the project would construct a dormitory to sleep 50, meeting room, dining room, kitchen, laundry and recreation room at the Livestock Central Research Institute, Konya; Fruit Groeing Research Institute, Malatya; and Animal Disease Research Institute, Adana. It would also renovate or make minor additions to the existing facilities at all 14 research institutes involved in training extension staff.  - 19 - 3.26 The two-day workshop sessions would be organized by RCs in collaboration with EICs based at the same research institutes. The Research Director would ensure that most professional staff would participate irs these workshops and when approptiate, specialists from other research institutes would also be invited to participate. Training staff would utilize audiovisual aids and include a field trip in the program. The workshop objectives would include: (a) inform SMSs on agricultural conditions; (b) inform SNSs on the stacus of research, particularly on research seeking answers to identified farmer problems; (c) discuss technical matters; and (d) support the planned training and extension programs, including demonstrations. Training. Technical Assistance and Project Prenaration 3.27 Initial Training. Before project commencement, GDOS staff would undertake a skill-gap analysis to determine the knowledge, skills and attitudes all project staff would require; the skills and knowledge existing staff have; and the training required to equip project staff with the necessary skills and knowledge. The skillgap analysis would also provide an agreed set of job descriptions, profiles and minimum requirements, and a proposed, transparent incentive structure for staff. AEARP would provide GDOS six months of technical assistance to help with the skillgap analysis. 3.28 Notwithstanding the results of the skillgap analysis, under the project, all staff including PDAs, Research Institute Directors, and other pertinent Provincial Section Directors, would be given orientation training on the project's strategy and organization. VGTs and their supervisors would also receive training in extension methods, group work, and diagnostic surveys. GDOS would provide all SHSs and SMS candidates six months initial training consisting of four months technical training in the relevant disciplines in which they would work, one month practical training seconded and working alongside experienced, selected SMSs in the most successful AEARP provinces, and one month training in extension methods. The relevant research institutes or agricultural universities would provide the technical training. SHSs and a limited number of researchers would be trained in diagnostic survey techniques. The project would provide project staff technical assistance for formulating and supervising the necessary training programs (para 3.31). 3.29 In-service Training. SMSs would regularly train VGTs every two or four weeks depending on the relative needs of the particular farming systems. VOTs would be trained in the impact points for the various crops and operations identified during or resulting from the diagnostic studies. VGTs would be thoroughly trained in a crop's impact points before the season commenced so training sessions could respond to immediate feedback from the field. Staff would review and discuss impact points after each season to ensure they were still relevant. SMSs would receive regular bimonthly training at their relevant research institutes (see para 3.25). VGTs on occasion would join these SMS workshops. 3.30 training Abroad. Training abroad under the project would include long-term MSc degree training, and short-term observation tours, attendance at seminars, conferences and workshops. The MSc degree program would train about 61 extension staff and 24 research staff. Extension staff would be selected  - 20 - from FTE teams (19), SMS teams (32), and headquarter GDPI and GDOS staff (10), while research staff would come from those working on problems vital to farmers in the project area. The project would provide funds for language training prior to MSc students commencing their studies. Under short-term training the project would provide: (a) 400 months for provincial and 50 months for headquarters extension staff to undertake observations tours or attend international conferences, seminars or workshops; (b) 336 months for research staff from the participating research institutes to undertake short courses (one to six months) or attend international research conferences; and (d) about 370 farmers from the 37 AEARP and project area provinces (10 per province) 25-day study tours of relevant, active, operational farmers organizations outside Turkey. MAFRA would internationally recruit a firm to assist with the training program (see para 3.31). 3.31 Technical Assistance. The project would provide MAFRA about 65 staff months (sm) of technical assistance for implementing the project. KAFRA would internationally recruit consultant firms to assist: (a) supervise and support overall training programs (24 sn); (b) train staff in extension methodology including training of Turkish trainers to take over the program (8 sm); (c) strengthen monitoring of project activities (4 sm); (d) present topical workshops or seminars (10 sm); (e) train staff in diagnostic survey techniques (13 sm); (f) implement the pilot women farmers extension program (6 sm); and (g) place and administer MSc and short-term trainees in suitable foreign country universities and programs. This technical assistance would be split into two contracts, one to cover the training of staff in extension methodology (which would be combined with the skillgap analysis to be financed under AEARP), the other to include all other items mentioned above, including the providing of training services. The firm selected for the major contract should have local expertise and experience on women farmers' extension activities and the proposed t'pical workshops. The signing of contracts between MAFRA and internationilly recruited firms of consultants. with aualifications and under conditions acceptable to tho Bank. to assist in =mnlementing the project. including placing and administering MSc and short- term trainees in suitable foreign country universitites and programs. ould be a condition of disbursement exceeding USS5.0 million equivalent for vehicles. equipment and civil works (including USS4.0 million from the Special Account). 3.32 The project would also provide MAFRA about five staff months of internationally recruited consultants, plus funds for feasibility report preparation and printing, to assist it to prepare the next phase in GOT's program of upgrading provincial extension services. MAFRA would engage this technical assistance at a suitable time during the latter part of project implementation. An Assurance was obtained from GOT that MAFRA would engage internationally recruited consultants with aualifirations and under conditions acceptable to the Bank to assist in urenaring the next phase in GOT's orograM of upgrading provinciai extension services. Monitoring and Evaluation 3.33 The Monitoring and Evaluation Divisions of GDPI's Coordination and Evaluation Department, in conjunction with provincial FTE and P&S Sections, would organize and implement monitoring and analysis of project activities. To strengthen GDPI's Monitoring and Evaluation Divisions, the project would  - 21 - provide one station wagon and one minibus, appropriate computer software, 12 months overseas short-term training; four months technical assistance, four additional graduate staff, funds for hiring local economic institutes or agricultural universities to undertake agricultural case studies, and vehicle and staff operating funds. 3.34 Monitoring under the project would be "management oriented", that is, designed to provide information to assist internal project management decisions. Project activities would be monitored and analyzed at four levels, that is, starting at the lowest level, project inputs (for example, number of extension staff, transport, field offices), project outputs (selection of farmer groups, training of extension staff and so on), project effects (improved husbandry practices, use of new varieties), and project long-term objective or impact (increased productivity and rural incomes). Under AEARP monitoring of project inputs and outputs was well developed, but monitoring of the project's effects and long term objectives was not. The Monitoring Division would now concentrate on developing the monitoring and analysis of the project's effects through measuring farmers' adoption rates of improved technology. As concerns the project's long-term objectives or impact, the Monitoring Division would use farm management case studies to measure productivity or income changes. It would not become involved in project area-wide baseline and completion studies to measure changes in production and income lvels because: (a) for dryland production nine to ten years of observation are required to ascertain a trend; (b) the difficulty of ascribing production changes or some percentage of them to extension services; and (c) such work is extremely time consuming and would overload the Monitoring Division's resources. An assurance was obtained from GOT that HAFRA would engage local consultants. economic institutes or agricultural universities. with qualifications and under contract conditions acceptable to the Bank. to undertake farm manaaement case studies to evaluate the proiect's long-term Lmact. 3.35 Internationally recruited consultants would assist the Monitoring Division to initiate and implement the technolcgy adoption rate surveys, and hold a workshop at the project's start where management would decide the project objectives to be monitored, the indicators to be measured, the annual targets to be met, whe would measure the indicators and analyze the results, and to whom would the findings be distributed. 3.36 Project Phaslng. GOT would implement the project during the approximately seven years from March 1990 to December 1996. Appropriate phasing of implementation activities is essential to the project's success. VGTs should not commence regular visits to farmer groups until the results of the diagnostic survey are known, they are housed in the villages and have received their initial training and transport. To assist the coordination of project activities, staff would implement the project in blocks of SMS country-group areas, thus making all staff in a county-group area operational at the same time. Chart 1 shows the project implementation schedule. D. Cost Estimates 3.37 The total estimated project cost is US$145.4 million, of which US$75.1 million (52X) is the foreign exchange component. Project costs are  - 22 - expressed in June 1990 prices, and include duties and taxes estimated at US$3.1 million. Base cost estimates were derived from recent HQPRA agricultural extension operations, training programs, construction contracts and vehicle and equipment purchases. Contract quantities for building construction are based on standard GOT designs. Consultant services are based on recent contracts for similar services ln Turkey. The cost estimates include allowances for physical contingencles of 15X for clvil works aAd 10l for vehicles, machinery, equipment, training and technlcal assistance. Additionally, they include allowances for forelgn and domestLc prlce escalations during implementatlon (20X of base cost plus physical contlngencies) based on Bank projectLons for the Manufacturing Unit Value Index for Turkey's maln trading partners of 3.6X in 1990 (half year), and 4.41 annually from 1991 to 1996. Changes ln Turkish exchange rates are expected to compensate for the differentials between Turkey's domestic inflatlon rate and those of lts maln trading partners. 3.38 Table 3.1 summarLzes project costs wille Annex 1, Tables 1 to 2 give the details of these costs. TbLe 31: PROJECT COST S1IORY (IL rAUi1n) s '000) I otal S Tota Z Foiu Im I Fouim am Lal Fouia Totl Ehmo Costs La Fden Tol Exhiw cuts - - - m m mm miu A. EB8IN 100504.47 102t37642 20290.79 50 90 47.59.27 408750.63 9640.90 so 90 -, Kum. Os85 14H677.49 22,704.3 65 10 352.3 69M.29 10811.59 45 10 Totl AE COSS 108,=.32 117053.81 225e.,2 52 100 So15 MM,7391 107421.49 52 100 vucal CoAntucis 13,9569 14.02,97 27,M.90 50 12 6.6415 6,692.37 13i.. 50 12 Price Ctumelas 25.019,65 26.687,13 519706.78 52 23 111442 12708.16 24t2.8 TX 23 Toa PJECT oSS 147507.U8 157sM391 305,28179 52 15 70,241.S 75,110.43 145.3M2I 52 US 3.39 Table 3.2 shows the proposed project financing plan. The proposed IRD loan of US$63.0 million would finance 431 of project costs, including 841 of foreign exchange costs (1001 of the foreign exchange cost excluding the additional apartments/offices in the VGTCs for non-extension staff, as described in para 3.03). GOT would provide the balance of project funds, TL 172,982 million (US$82.4 million equivalent) to project implementing agencies out of anual budget appropriations. Excluding duties and taxes, IBRD would finance 441 of project costs.  - 23 - Table 3n2: PROJECT FINANCING PAN (US$ million) Category 1 Dgtal Civil Works 65.6 21.9 87.5 Vehicles 1.0 9.5 10.5 Machinery, Equipment & Books 0.8 5.3 6.1 Furniture 1.2 - 1.2 Overseas Training - 14.5 14.5 Local Training 0.8 - C.8 Technical Assistance - 1.3 1.3 Incremental Salaries & Allowances 3.9 4.0 7.9 Incremental Operating Costs 9.1 6.5 15.6 Total 4 SA 1454 Za ig Includes US$3.1 million estimated taxes and duties. 3.40 Funds have been allocated in the 1990 budget for financing the investments and operations planned for that year of project implementation. E. Procurement 3.41 Table 3.3 summarizes the project's procurement arrangements, while the following paragraphs describe them in more detail.  - 24 - Table 3.3: PROCUREHENT ARRANGEMENTS (US$ million) LA Procurement Method Total OEetther iCost, Civil Works - 87.5 - - 87.5 (21.9) (21.9) Vehicles 10.5 - - - 10.5 (9.5) (9.5) Machinery, Equipment, 3.8 - 2.3 - 6.1 & Books (3.4) (1.9) (5.3) Purniture - 1.2 - 1.2 Overseas Training - - 14.5 - 14.5 (14.5) (14.5) Local Training - 0.8 - 0.8 Technical Assistance - 1.3 - 1.3 (1.3) (1.3) Incremental Salaries - - - 7.9 7.9 & Allowances (4.0) (4.0) Incremental Operating - - 15.6 - 15.6 Costs c (6.5) (6.5) Total 14.3 87.5 35.7 7.9 145.4 (12.9) (21.9) (24.2) (4.0) (63.0) L& Includes taxes, duties and contingencies. Figures in parentheses are the respective amounts the Bank loan would finance. Ak Procurement procedures are not applicable. c Bank financing would be limited to expenditures on field-trials, farmer demonstrations, and operation and maintenance of vehicles procured under tbe project. 3.42 Civil Works (US$87.5 million). Project buildings would be small and dispersed geographically throughout Turkey. They would consist mainly of standard design housing with office, apartments and meeting rooms, and are unlikely to interest foreign contractors. These works would be undertaken following local competitive bidding procedures (LCB). Turkish LCB procedures are generally consistent with the need for economy and efficiency in the execution of the project. There are, however, a few procedures which are inconsistent with Bank procurement guidelines and others which require clarification. During negotiations, agreement was reached regarding the  - 25 - adoption of procedures acceptable to the Bank. Works would be packaged into contracts of either US$150,000 equivalent value or more, or at least the minimum value to require the General Directorate of Rural Services (GDRS) to supervise them from its Ankara office, whichever is the larger (para 4.02). 3.43 Goods. Vehicles, motorcycles, agricultural equipment and machinery, audio-visual, pest surveillance and office equipment (US$14.3 million) would be bulked into contracts of US$250,000 or more, and procured following IBRD international competitive bidding (ICB) guidelines. A preference limited to 15X of the c.i.f. bid price or the actual customs duty applicable to non- exempt importers, whichever is lower, would be extended to qualified local manufacturers in the evaluation of bids. Machinery, other goods and equipment needed at different places and in small quantities costing less than US$50,000 for each contract, could be locally or internationally procured through shopping involving at least three price quotations. Additionally laboratory equipment (US$0.6 million), required in small amounts and at sites scattered throughout the project area, would also be procured through local or international shopping. The total value of such items procured through shopping would be limited to an aggregate US$1.3 million. In addition, scientific books and journals (US$1.0 million) may be purchased directly from suppliers. 3.44 Consultant services and local studies (US$1.3 million) would be procured according to 'BRD guidelines, and overseas training arrangements (US$14.5 million) would be subject to IBRD approval. Project expenditures on incremental extension operating costs (US$23.5 million, which includes salaries and allowances, vehicle operating and maintenance costs, and materials and labor costs of field trials and farmer demonstrations) would be procured following normal GOT procedures. 3.45 Contracts for US$500,000 equivalent or more for both civil works and goods would require IBRD review of documentation before tendering and award, and this would cover some 601 of the value of works, and 75X of goods. Other contracts would be subject to selective post-award review. P. Disbursementg 3.46 The loan would be disbursed over approximately seven and a half years, and would be completed by June 30, 1997. The proposed disbursement schedule (Annex 1, Table 3) is based on the actual disbursement profiles for AEARP, the Erzurum Rural Development Project, and the Corum-Cankiri Rural Development Project, which were disbursed over approximately similar periods. The proposed disbursement profile is two years shorter than the standard disbursement profile for all Turkish agricultural projects. This is justified because recent experience from the above project shows agriculture extension and rural development projects disbursing at a faster rate than the average for all agricultural projects. 3.47 IBRD would disburse loan funds at the following rates for these items:  - 26 - Categori Percent to be Financed (a) Civil works 25X of expenditures. (b) Vehicles, machinery, 1001 of foreign expenditures, equipment & books 1001 of ex-factory prices of locally manufactured items, and 801 of local costs of imported items purchased locally. (c) Overseas training and 1001 of expenditures. Technical Assistance (d) Selected incremental operating 661 until US$4.7 million costs including salaries and equivalent has been disbursed; allowances 501 until US$8.2 million has been disbursed; and 33X thereafter. Bank financing for incremental operating costs would be limited to a percentage of salaries and allowances for incremental staff and incremental operating costs for field trials, farmer demonstrations, and operation and maintenance of vehicles procured under the project. 3.48 Divibursements would be made against statements of expenditures for civil works contracts below US$500,000 equivalent, goods procured through direct purchases or prudent shopping, and local and overseas training costs. Implementing agencies would retain supporting documentation for these items for review by IBRD and external auditors. Disbursement applications for all other items would be fully documented. Annex 1, Table 4 shows the allocation of Loan Funds to the different disbursement categories. G. Accounts and Audits 3.49 GDPI would maintain separate sccounts for the project and would prepare a detailed statement of expenditure on a semiannual basis for each six months. Such statements of project expenditures would be submitted within two months of each semiannual report or by March 1 and September 1 of each year. In addition, an annual audit would be carried out by the Treasuly inspectors, including specific reference to, and comments on, SOEs and supportir.g documents and disbursements from the special account (para 3.50), and submitted to the Bank within nine months of the end of each fiscal year. Assurances were obtained from GOT that imnlementing agencies would follow these auditing practices. 3.50 To facilitate implementation, MAFRA would establish a special account at the Central Bank and would deposit US$4.0 million loan funds in it. This account would be opened according to arrangements for existing Bank- assisted projects, and would be used for most disbursements except those in excess of US$2.0 million.  - 27 - IV. QRGM==^IO AND MANGE11ENT A. $entlal Level 4.01 At the central level the Ministry's GDPI, in associationi with GDOS and GDPC, would be the project implementing agency. GDF!'s Externally Financed Projects Department (EPPD) plus other departments, would be responsible for coordinating MAHRA's various General Directorates and agencies' input to the project, procuring vehicles and equipment, monitoring and evaluating project activities, and supervising the Provincial Agricultural Directorates management and execution of the project. GDPI would also be responsible for the supply and distribution of agricultural inputs within the project area through government agencies, and for implementing the research component. GDPC (for veterinary and plant protection research) and GDRS (for soils and water research) would also implement this component. EFPD's Project Implementation Unit would appoint a project coordinator to liaise with all concerned agencies. 4.02 GDOS's Extension Department would be responsible for programming, coordinating and executing extension training, while GDPC would implement the mobile animal health unit component. GDRS and the Ministry of Public Works and Resettlement (NPIR), in collaboration with GDPI, would be responsible for contracting and supervising the civil works. GDRS would handle the bulk of the work, and would construct VGTCs, training halls, AES houses and SMS apartments in all areas except provincial capitals where legally only MPWR can contract and supervise the proposed works. Both GDRS and MPWR would be able to handle their proposed work loads under the project with existing resources. However to ensure that GDRS manages this construction from the central level, which is essential, an assutance was obtained from GOT that GDRS would: (a) by October 31. 1990. anuoint a full-time architect-engineer to review progress and regularly visit a reoresentative selection of project sites throughout the construction season each year to ensure aualitX control: and (b) supervise all building sites at least twice per month from its regional offices. and at least three times during the construction season each year from its Ankara office. with reports pregared on the findings of such visEits. 4.03 A Central Coordination Committee (CCC) was established under AEARP to ensure coordination at the central level between HMFRA's many units implementing the project, adequate training of SMSs by the designated research institutes, and SMS's participation in extension and research activities as required. The Undersecretary of MAFRA chairs the committee, which meets once a year or more often if needed. CCC includes permanent and temporary members, with the General Directors of MAFRA's main General Directorates, Chairman of the Research Planning and Coordination Council, and Directors of EFPD and Department of Publication being permanent members. The General Directors of most agricultural SEEs are temporary members. The Committee would also coordinate this project's activities. 4.04 CCC has a Central Executive Committee (CEC) chaired by the General Director of GDPI, which meets monthly to review progress and bring issues needing resolution to CCC's notice as required. CEC's members include GDPI  - 28 - managers directly involved in project implementation plus representatives of GDOS, GDPC, GDRS and the Research Institute Directors invited as required. B. Proincial Level 4.05 The Provincial Agricultural Directorates in each of the 19 project provinces would be responsible for implementing and managing extension activities at the field level. The PDA would be the project manager at the provincial level and the Directorate's six technical sections would assist him (see Chart 3). The FTE Section would plan, program and coordinate all extension activities in the province, and would direct and supervise the County-Group SMS teams (para 3.20). These teams in turn would regularly train and technically support VGTs who would be in direct contact with the farmers. VGTs would be supervised by AES at the county level, and through CDs would have a direct line of control back to the PDA. The designated research institutes would regularly train SMSs, coordinate on-farm research trials and solve farmers' productivity problems as identified from diagnostic studies and feedback from extension. P&S section would assist monitor project and extension activities while Plant Protection and Livestock Health would assist extension staff in their area of expertise. 4.06 MAFRA would establish Regional Coordination Committees (RCCs) in each broad agroecological region of the project to coordinate project activities. MAFRA has grouped project area provinces in the following way: (1) Central Region - Kirsehir, Yozgat, Nevsehir, Nigde, Aksaray, Kayseri; (2) Central North Region - Amasya, Tokat, Sivas, Erzincan; (3) Central Southeastern Region - Malatya, Gaziantep, Kahramanmaras, Adiyaman, Siirt; and (4) Mediterranean Region - Antalya, Icel, Adana and Hatay. The General Director of GDPI or his deputy would chair each RCC, and RCC members would include PDAs, and Directors of FTE, P&S, and all regional research institutes, plus appropriate Directors from NAPRA's central level. Each RCC would meet at least once a year for two to three days to discuss technical issues and policy matters. Meeting objectives would be to review project implementation, remove constraints, increase coordination among ,relevant agencies and to outline and approve an implementation program for the coming year for the provinces involved. An assurance was obtained that MAFRA would establish RCCs to coordinate project activities in all urolect area provinces by October 31. 1990. C. 2rolect Assessment. Renorting and lid-Term Revi-ew 4.07 Project Assessment. Because of the project's intricate nature, and the number of groups within MAPRA involved in project execution, MAFRA and the Bank would jointly assess project implementation towards the end of the first two implementation years (this is expected to be around June, 1991 and 1992, respectively). The assessment would be done during a supervision mission, and  - 29 - MAFRA would prepare a short report before the supervision listing implementation constraints and shortfalls,. Following field visits, GOT and Bank mission members would discuss their findings, and issue a short report reviewing project progress and any needed changes in implementation or design. Assgrsnces were obtained from GOT that NAFRA jointly with the Bank would assess proiect imolementation towards the end of the groject's first two lmlementation years_ that is. by June 30. 1991 and 1992. respectively, and would produce a report reviewing project progres# and listingjany needed changes in iLmlementation or design. 4.08 Project Reporting. GDPI would submit to the Bank semiannual progress reports which would update and assess implementation of project components during the previous six months. The reports would list key implementation indicators and give details concerning extension and research programs. GDPI and the Bank would agree on the report format by end-June, 1990, and GDPI would forward the reports to the Bank within two months from the end of each six-month period, beginning with the semester ending December 31, 1990. Within six months of the loan closing date, GOT would prepare and forward to the Bank its input for a project completion report which would summarize project performance and evaluate the project's successes and problems. 4.09 About 3-1/2 years after the start of project implementation a mid-term review would be conducted jointly by the government and the Bank in accordance with agreed terms of reference. It would focus on: (a) modifications in project implementation; (b) serving as a guide for a possible third agricultural extension project; (c) staffing patterns; (d) county and village civil works construction; (d) effectiveness of extension system; (f) training assessments and especially monthly workshops; (g) impact of project on farmers' husbandry and agronomic practices; (h) procurement; (i) extension-research linkages; (j) central and provincial level linkages; and (k) coordination meetings. An assurance was obtained from GOT that MAFRA. iointly vith the Bank. would undertake a mid-term revlew of the project not later than December 31. 1993 in accordance with terms of reference which would be accentable to the Bank. V. BENEFITS. JUSTIFICATIONS AND RISKS A. Benefits and Justification 5.01 The project would considerably strengthen the management and capability of the extension and research services in the 19 project provinces to diagnose farmers' production problems, and to develop and disseminate appropriate technology which would lead to increased productivity and farm income. It would develop the extension services from a system which mainly transmitted messages to one which could react to farmers' needs and constraints, and through the research services assist farmers to find solutions to them. It would evaluate methods of training women engaged in agriculture which would eventually lead to much larger programs in this important area and source of potential productivity increases. It would also evaluate the use of mobile veterinary clinics to improve farmers' access to  * 30 - veterinary services, give faster disease diagnosis, and carry out preventive vaccination campaigns more efficiently. The project would emphasize economically and environmentally sustainable technology which would help to renew and preserve Turkey's agricultural resources, and reduce pollution and contamination from agricultural enterprises, particularly of water and food. The project would have major institution building benetits by developing much closer and more effective linkages between research and extension which would allow both these services to better serve farmers. 5.02 No attempt has been made to quantify expected benefits from the project since adoption rates for various recommended practices would be difficult to assess. Furthermore, other factors in addition to institutional strengthening of extension, loom large in affecting productivity, such as access and pricing of inputs, farm labor, and credit and availability of irrigation. However, effective extension services will serve as the impetus for increased and more efficient utilization of these above-mentioned inputs. 5.03 Economic benefits in the project area are expected from: (a) increased crop and livestock production and improved utilization of irrigation investments; (b) improved quality and health of crops and livestock; (c) expanded agricultural exports, especially from the Mediterranean provinces; and (d) reduced spraying costs in cotton and horticultural crops. Additionally, these benefits would flow to some 400,000 farmers with holdings of less than 4.0 ha. S. Enmironmental Effects 5.04 Project activities would contribute substantially to improving and safeguarding the agro-ecosystems. The project would assist to introduce integrated pest management approaches and programs,particularly in cotton and horticultural producing areas. Here the project's main impact would be in reducing pesticide spraying of these crops. Cotton, fruit and vegetables receive some 80X of all pesticide spraying, and experience from pilot operations in several provinces show that spraying can be reduced from 50X to 80X through the measures included under the project. Thus, the project would be expected to considerably reduce the use of pesticides, and pesticide contamination and pollution of food and water resources. Project staff would be using and transferring known technology (spraying only when pest numbers reach economic threshold densities, planting crops earlier or later to miss maximum pest build-ups and so on) including on-farm demonstrations of such techniques. While the project would not finance basic or applied research on integrated pest management, it is expected to stimulate work in this field. Nevertheless, the project does contain funds for on-farm research (adaptive research) which could be used in this area. Meanwhile, the proposed agricultural research project, which is under preparation, would be expected to cover such research. The project would also train farmers in existing methods of erosion control and should stimulate research in further erosion control measures, including use of vegetative erosion control barriers, and investigating the possibilities for changing present farming activities which cause considerable erosion. The project would help train farmers in the correct application of water to crops in irrigated areas. This would help to alleviate waterlogging in some Mediterranean province irrigation areas. In some more agriculturally developed provinces under AEARP, farmers were shown  X 31 - to be using more fertilizer than required, and extension advice was to reduce the use of fertilizer. Similar results are expected under this project. With regard to agro-forestry, while no forestry research institutes are involved in the project, extension staff would follow up possibilities of farmers integrating agro-forestry into their existing farm enterprises, for example growing poplars for matches or other suitable species for poles. The diagnostic studies could possibly indicate opportunities for agro-forestry. C. Risks 5.05 The main project risks include new technology being inadequately adapted for different categories of farmers and not being adopted, budgetary shortfalls, inadequate training of project staff, slow procurement of vehicles and construction of civil works, and ineffective provincial level management and poor central level coordination. To minimize these risks the project would firstly introduce diagnostic studies and improved research/extension linkages to ensure the relevance of recommendations for different categories of farmers. Secondly, it would recruit a minimum of new staff and would provide for detailed annual planning of provincial research programs to minimize annual recurrent budgetary demands resulting from the project and thus enable the provision of adequate funds to the extension and research organizations. Thirdly, a skillgap analysis would be used to design training programs, and the project would provide technical assistance to assist implement and supervise them. To speed vehicle procurement and civil works construction, staff would prepare procurement documents before project commencement, and a sole agency (GDRS) within MAFRA would construct most civil works. The Bank would request assurances from GOT concerning adequate construction supervision. Lastly, project orientation training would sensitize managers and staff to their roles and duties under the project, while central level supervision and the committees at central and regional level would help resolve any issues or problems concerning project implementation and coordination. VI. AGRMETS AND ROMMNDATIOM 6.01 During negotiations agreement was reached with GOT on the following points: (a) MAFRA would engage internationally recruited consultants with qualifications and under conditions acceptable to the Bank to assist prepare the next phase in GOT's program of upgrading provincial extension services (para 3.32); (b) MAFRA would engage local consultants, economic institutes or agricultural universities with qualifications, and under contract conditions acceptable to the Bank, to undertake farm management case studies to evaluate the project's long-term impact (para 3.34); (c) GDPI would maintain separate accounts for the project and would prepare a detailed statement of expenditure on a semi-annual basis for each six months. Such statements of project expenditures would be submitted within two months of each semi-annual report or by  - 32 - March 1 and September 1 of each year. In addition, an annual audit would be carried out by the Treasury inspectors, including specific references to, and comments on, SOEs and supporting documents, and the Special Account, and submitted to the Bank within nine months of the end of each fiscal year (par 3.49); (d) GDRS would: (i) by October 31, 1990, appoint a full-time architect- engineer to review progress and regularly visit a representative selectlon of project sites throughout the construction season each year to ensure quality control; and (ii) supervise all building sites at least twice per month from its regional offices, and at least three times during the construction season each year from its Ankara office, with reports prepared on the findings of such visits (para 4.02); (e) MAFRA would establish RCCs to coordinate project activities in all project area provinces by October 31, 1990 (para 4.06); (f) MAFRA jointly with the Bank would assess project implementation towards the end of the project's first two implementation years, that is, by June 30, 1991 and 1992, respectively, and would produce a report reviewing project progress and listing any needed changes in implementation or design (para 4.07); and (g) MAFRA, jointly with the Bank, would undertake a mid-term review of the project not later than December 31, 1993 in accordance with terms of reference which would be acceptable to the Bank (para 4.09). 6.02 An agreement was reached with GOT that disbursing loan funds in excess of US5.0 million equivalent for vehicles, equipment and civil works (including US$4.0 million from the Special Account) would be conditional on MAFRA signing contracts with internationally recruited firms of consultants to assist: (i) supervise and support overall training programs (24 sm); (ii) train staff in extension methodology including training of Turkish trainers to take over the program (S sm); (iii) strengthen monitoring of project activities (4 sm); (iv) present topical workshops or seminars (10 sm); (v) train staff in diagnostic survey techniques (13 sm); and (vi) implement the pilot women farmers' extension program (6 sm), and to place and administer MSc and short-term trainees in suitable foreign country universities and programs (para 3.31). 6.03 With the above assurances and conditions, the project would be suitable for an IBRD Loan of US$63.0 million equivalent at the Bank's standard variable interest rate, for a period of 17 years with a five-year grace period. The Borrower would be the Government of Turkey.  - 33- APNEX I Table 1 TURKEY SECOND AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION AND APPLIED RESEARCH PROJECT Prolect Cost Estimates Extension Component tall Fo" ToI Ita)I Tta aininmmm -1 o - A. CIIL 3,2314.77 44*80.64 129313. 41 35 63 PoW.41 21m.07 61014.43 35 63 a. mn 1,171.50 14,143,S2 u7IS.02 9 M.33 63.1 7405.34 90 e C. 13011 617.19 5M4.68 69171.97 9 I 3 90." 2,MG.0 20. *0 3 Is NOIrM9 M 760.15 485,31 M.46 90 0 36.26 324 312.40 90 0 E. GFF1 135RI1 2M.57 1050.16 2,05. 1 9I 89 95.3 97*92 I 1 FP lahn 97.32 i1s,aw0 u6.Ang 94 9 436.82 7,04.0? 7940.91 94 9 B. tNUCM M319T1 111.63 t,5964 24111.26 95 1 55.06 9.30 1 >,0536 I No UO116 TWFF I Ut* 9sW,.2 - 9,W.52 - 4,468.4 - ,45.4! - 5 It STAFF AU i 7M3,94 - 764 - 0 37.2A - .026 - 0 Jo I mILIIS M T 19.09 722.61 2s411.70 1 2.9 3410 11.1U40 30 1 K wn ON 1,726.44 153995 11,266.39 90 9 92.21 74n1e9 8.m25 90 9 to E ll e1 0 3,97 323.77 359.74 S0 0 V7.13 15417 171.30 le 0 1. DMEN lIIIB CUR 10.2? 9,U64 1I2.4 1 50.62 455.4 0646 9 1 lotl_ DE mm 1M 4.47102,16.1220290.79 so 100 4799.21 4Se50.63 96,W6.10 50 to0 Utusl Cewat1m1o 13.210.94 12,497.93 1,5778M 48 13 6324.21 1.9s.40 172s.U61 49 13 Prig, c.l1iftu 22.906.76 23.1,42 4604919.7 50 23 10,9.91 1 ,020.20 21W92.13 50 3 -- -- - - - - _ -_ - Toa fewl mm 136092.0 I 1.0 274,760.74 50 135 091146 65.722,22130,03 50 135 _ - - m _ _-s Research Component (TL Hillio) ws oo) 2 Fowos SaW Saw local Fmi T l " b_u Cos Local Feoain Totl bamE Cest a. ciL 353 3m,19.19 2#55.4 1.74.12 35 26 1913,19 979*02 2om.20 35 26 S. Wm= 184.16 16634.07 19945.63 t 8 B7.38 790.9 973.97 90 3 C. _ 123.17 1.110.3 14233.74 S0 5 9.75 520.71 597*50 9 5 D. L_llStt E NT 92n.79 035.10 99 90 4 44.19 97. 441.95 90 4 E. IS FS IF Im. 05.20 767.5 .94 90 4 4061 165,10 406.11 S0 4 F. 11 3 35.0 6S97.9 7142.S9 91 31 10.60 3,232.32 3.401.40 95 31 U. N31M1 STAlFF I 9 S 2W,6.94 - 2MM5.Y4 - 12 124.69 - 15.N69 . 12 H.s STAR 21UU11 - 2191.1 - 1 103.90 - 103.90 I I. h4313TM 365.50 365.50 m7o3 50 3 174.05 174.0: 349Lo 50 3 J. oIC. a ltnUt" N NT 43.73 20.99 6.62 30 0 23.21 9.9! 33.1 30 0 K. 311011 03 71.23 64103 M725 30 .92 365.25 U39.17 90 3 L. sEplT OIWl 49.02 432.17 410.19 9 2 22.37 205.79 229.66 9 2 otal SME cUTS 8,026*05 14i677*49 2274.33 6u 100 3822.31 6.99*2e 1091. 65 10 FdUsi Cwithsmias 676.0 1,1,504 2,211.11 69 10 21.94 73.s97 10.91 69 10 Pico Cantemmias 2,112.89 3.544.71 157.61 63 25 1.006.14 1#687.9 29694.10 63 25 Total r Cr W10,.311.91 19.77.24 30,57.05 6 N5 3 StIO.9 90408.21 1415.60 65 135 . . . .. ..a m  iF TURKEY SECOND AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION AND APPLIED RESEARCH PROJECT Estimated Annual Project Expenditures 5xtension CeunonDOM Totls Includind Contliuwin To,s belU6 Cu,ti.mries (tL millin) USt '060) 1990 11 12 m 1994 1995 199 T.tel 199 1991 1I92 1993 1994 1995 I9 TOWl _~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~azxa _ ae= _* __.o __ --- A. cmVI UKS 139175.98 44,663.14 47759.85 39P865,66 29Y72B.41 - - 17539306 6,274.21 21.363,40 220742.79 1893.66 141S6.38 - - 03520.51 a. EIIOICE - 19,039.42 1,650.79 - - - - 19,699.21 - 3b590.20 79.0S - - - - 9S376.29 C. EUUIPENt - 4,445.07 3,403.31 - - - 7,949.19 2,117.96 81620,62 - - - 39739.71 9. mm FIWRIlCLS 123.43 135.91 141 7H 149.3 154.54 161.34 168.44 1,038.39 61.16 64.67 67,52 70.49 73.59 76.93 90.21 494.47 El 0FFlC FMUTU1 26e.51 1U236,95 1.092,19 - - 2M5.2 127.67 99.2 520.09 - - - - 1,236.79 F. 13*I611 77.30 3399." 6n091.39 6,449.22 3391.99 2,514.24 75.79 22,488s.6 36.91 19614.8 2,900.66 MMO70.58 1t3.28 1.19?.26 36.09 I0P70M.95 6. TECI.t ASSISTAICE 651.68 39.92 535.97 313.29 229.57 46.40 50.53 2p669.35 310.33 399.96 255.22 149.10 109.32 23.05 24.06 1t27112 No. DITIAL STAFF I SLARIES - 1.293,62 1.7M2. 2,062.52 29174.16 24269.B2 2.369.69 11,n7272 - 611.34 95.67 91.68 1,035.31 1.080.07 1,123.42 5,701.30 1i STAFF ALLWt - 109.47 150.14 173.41 191.04 199.0 197.32 I1,O0.37 - 52.13 71.49 82,57 86.21 90.00 93.6 476.37 J. IIIB _ EINTV - 37.96 204,71 423.01 741.67 1,047.40 1,225.99 3h660.63 - 18.03 97.48 20.4 353.9 499.76 513.60 1,752.68 K. IU..E 019 - 12903.62 398.87 4366.42 4,560.63 49761,30 4M.970. 24.350,64 - 653.67 19050.42 2*.00.20 2v171.73 2,267.9 29367,05 114595.54 L. EUIIENT 0M - 247.05 210.9 - - - - 458.04 - 117.64 100.47 - - - - 20811 1, OTtER ETINS CSTS - 59.50 164.75 257,99 331.16 345.73 360.95 l.52009 - 29.33 79.45 122.95 157.70 1.64 271.69 723.5 Total M3