Document of The World Bank
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY n <;7G( 3- 75 Public Disclosure Authorized Report No. 5869-TU
Public Disclosure Authorized STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT
TURKEY
DRAINAGEAND ON-FARN DEVELOPMENTPROJECT Public Disclosure Authorized February 6, 1986 Public Disclosure Authorized Regional Projects Department Europe, Middle East and North Africa Agriculture III
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. CURRENCYEQUIVALENT
US$1 furkish Lira (TL) 540 'a TL 1 US$ 0.001852 TL 1,000,000 = US$ 1,851.85
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
1 kilogram (kg) 2.20 pounds 1 metric ton 1,000 kilograms I metric ton 0.98 long ton 1 meter (m) 1.09 yards 1 kilometer (km) 0.62 mile 1 hectare (ha) 2.47 acres 1 decare = 0.1 ha 0.25 acre 2 1 square kilometer (km ) = 110 ha = 0.386 square mile 1 liter (1) 0.264 gallon
ABBREVIATIONS
DSI - General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works of MENR GDPI - General Directorate of Projects and Implementation within MAFRA GDRS - General Directorate of Rural Services within MAFRA IBRD - International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank) ICB - International Competitive Bidding MAFRA - Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Affairs MENR - Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources 0&M - Operation and Maintenance PPAR - Project Performance Audit Report SPO - State Planning Organization within the Prime Ministry TL - Turkish Lira
FISCAL YEAR
Government of Turkey - January 1 - December 31
/a Average exchange rate for 1985. FOROFMCUIL USE ONLY TURKEY
APPRAISAL OF
DRAINAGEAND ON-FARMDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Table of Contents
Page No.
I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1
II. THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR ...... 2
A. Sectoral Adjustment Program ...... 2 B. The Irrigation and Drainage Subsector ...... 5 C. Performance Under Previous Irrigation Projects ...... 10
III. THE PROPOSED PROJECT ...... 11
A. Objectives and Strategy ...... 11 B. Main Features - First Time Slice ...... 13 C. Project Description ...... 14 D. Riparian Rights ...... 16 E. Status of Engineering ...... 17 F. Cost Estimate ...... 19 G. Financing ...... 21 H. Procurement ...... 24 I. ImplementationSchedule ...... 25 J. Disbursements ...... 25 K. Environmental Impact ...... 27
IV. ORGANIZATIONAND IMPLEMENTATION...... 27
A. Implementing A;encies and Responsibilities ...... 27 B. Operation and Maintenance ...... 30 C. Accounts and Audits ...... 31 D. Project Monitoring and Completion Report ...... 32
V. PRODUCTION, MARKET ARRANGEMENTS, PROSPECTS AND PRICES ... 32
A. Production ...... 32 B. Market Prospects and Inputs Availability ...... 34 C. Prices ...... 36
VI. FARM INCOMES, FINANCIAL ANALYSIS AND COST RECOVERY ...... 37
A. Farm Incomes ...... 37 B. Project Charges and Cost Recovery ...... 39
This document hasa restrictd disutibutionand may be usedby recipientsonl in the perform of their ofrii duties. Its contentsmay not otherwise be dic_sed wthout Wodd Bank authriatn Table of Contents (Con'd) -ii-
Page No.
VII. BENEFIT AND JUSTIFICATION...... 43
A. Benefits .43 B. Economic Analysis .44 C. Risks .45
VIII. ASSURANCES AND AGREEMENTS .47
ANNEXES
1. Public Investment Allocations 1979-1985.49
2. Description of the Subsector Area .50
3. The Proposed Project ...... Pages 1-2 58 Tables 1-12 60
4. Project Organization and Implementation...... Chart 1 77 Map 1 78 Chart 2 79 Map 3 PO Tables 1-2 81
5. Production, Market Prospects and Prices ...... Table 1-4 83
6. Cost Recovery and Farmers' Income Analysis ... Table 1-7 87
7. Benefits and Justification...... Table 1-14 94
8. Selected Documents and Data Available in the Project ImplementationFile ...... 108
CHARTS
1. ImplementationSchedule ...... 109
MAPS
1. IBRD 19280 and 19281 - Maps Showing Completed and Ongoing Irrigation and Drainage Projects TURKEY
APPRAISAL OF
DRAINAGEAND ON-FARMDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Loan Summary
Borrower: Republic of Turkey.
Beneficiaries: (a) The General Directorate of Rural Services within the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Affairs (GDRS); (b) The General Directorateof State Hydraulic Works (DSI) within the Ministry of Energy & Natural Resources (MENR); and (c) About 97,000 private farmers benefittingfrom the project.
Amount: US$255 million
Terms: SevenLeen years including four years of grace, with standard variable interest rate.
Description: The Drainage and On-farm DevelopmentProject (1986-1991). consists of the followingworks: (a) rehabilitationof surface drains to restore them to their planned performance; (b) excavation of additional,main, secondary and tertiary drains to supplement the existing drainage system; (c) installationof subsurface drainage network in medium and light clayey soils; (d) addition of subsurface collector pipe drains within the existing subsurfacedrainage installations; (e) reclamationof selected tracts of saline land to avoid serious deterioration; (f) constructionof access roads along the irrigation and drainage networks to facilitateoperation and maintenance; (g) constructionof minor buildings,field workshops and other structures for operation and maintenanceof the system; (h) installationof piezometersand other devices to monitor the waterlogged areas; (i) strengtheningof existing drainage and reclamation research stations in the irrigation areas; (j) employment of engineeringconsulting firms by DSI and GDRS to provide additional design and implementationcapacity; (k) employment of consulting firms by DSI and GDRS for review of the work by the engineeringconsulting firms; and (1) training of GDRS and DSI headquartersand regional staff in selected fields and in appropriatecountries.
Benefits and Risks
The proposed project would support the rationalizationof the public investmentprogram for drainage and on-farm development,as part of the Government'ssectoral adjustment program for agriculturebegun with Bank assistance under the AgriculturalSector Adjustment Loan (ASAL, Loan 2585-TU). The proposed investmentswould eliminate waterloggingand salinity, restore the existing irrigated areas to full production,and would prevent further deteriorationof soils and reduction in crop production. The approximately 97,000 farmers who own and operate land in the 220,000ha to be improved, and neighboring farmers operating land which without the proposed investments would eventually become waterlogged, would benefit. At full development, annual on-farm employment in the improved areas would increase by about 7 million mandays per year above the current levels, an increase of about 20S of current on-farm employment within the DSI irrigation perimeters. Adkditional exports of cotton and pulses and fewer wheat imports nt fuLl development would generate potential incremental foreign exchange earnings/savings amounting to about US$177 million equivalent per year.
The main risks to achieving subsector objectives are institutional: (a) Availability of funding for the Irrigation and Drainage Project, and within the subsector priority allocation of resources to drainage and on-farm development; (b) Government's capacity to prepare, appraise and select priority investments; (c) Ability of the implementing agencies to coordinate overlapping implementation plans and schedules; and (d) Availability of adequate funding for O&M. Measures are included to minimize these risks. To reduce the risk of funding shortfalls, the Government will give the Bank an opportunity to comment on the proposed budget allocations for the project prior to finalization of the budget. If a shortfall in annual program funding or delays should occur, selected program elements could be deferred and the project period extended without jeopardizing individual project benefits or subsector objectives. Further provisions to minimize these risks include application of criteria for selection of priority subprojects, improvement of design and implementation capacities and training of DSI and GDRS staff. In addition, the ASAL includes financing for procuring essential equipment and the project provides the associated costs needed to remove the constraint or.O&M arising from accumulated rehabilitation requirements.
Estimated Cost: The costs of the project, net of taxes but including contingealcies, are:
Estimated Allocation of Z to be Items Cost Loan Proceeds financed --- US$ Million--- Civil Works for DSI 166.29 74.00 45 Civil Works for GDRS 305.72 169.00 57 Consulting Engineering Services 6.99 6.99 100 Reviewing Consultants 0.61 0.61 100 Training for DSI & GDRS 0.70 0.70 100 Equipment, Books & Periodicals 0.20 0.20 100 Unallocated - 3.50 Total 480.51 255.00
Annual Estimated Disbursements ------$ Million ------Estimated Bank FY 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Disbursements: Annual - 11.0 40.0 47.0 51.0 51.0 55.0 Cumulative - 11.0 51.0 98.0 149.0 200.0 255.0
Economic Rate of Return: 22Z TURKEY
DRAINAGEANDi ON-FARM DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
I. INTRODUCTION
1.01 The Government of Turkey has requested a Bank loan of $255 million to assist in financing a Core Program of priority drainage and on-farm development works. This program was agreed under the Agricultural Sector Adjustment Loan (ASAL) (Loan No. 2585-TU) approved in June 1985 to support implementation of the Government's policy and institutional reforms for the agricultural sector, amongst which rationalization of public investment is key.
1.02 The proposed project is in line with the objectives of the Bank's assistance strategy for Turkey. With Bank support, a five-year program of economic stabilization and adjustment has been successfully completed. A series of five Structural Adjustment Loans (SALs), of which the last was fully disbursed in November 1985, has assisted Government efforts to restore the external balance and market orientation of the economy. The adjustment process has not been without flaws and major challenges ahead include the further dampening of inflationary expectations, removal of financial market distortions, reduction of unemployment, rationalizationof the public investment program and improved public resources mobilization, needed to foster sustained growth. The ASAL responded to the need to broaden and deepen the adjustment process at the 'cectoral and subsectoral levels, linking the process to, and complementing the assistance provided through ongoing and proposed Bank-financed agricultural projects. The ASAL was designed to support Government initiatives to (a) phase out retail subsidies on fertilizers and encourage private sector participation in the distribution of fertilizers and other inputs, (b) strengthen sector planning and policy formation, (c) systematize the application of trade and producer price incentives, (d) rationalize public investment programming and financing of the sector, and (e) strengthen implementing institutions and supporting services by providing part of the foreign exchange needed for channel maintenance equipment, consulting services and training needed to implement a first time-slice of the Government's Core Program. The proposed project would support initiatives to improve and strengthen the investment strategy, institutions and public resource mobilization in the irrigation and drainage subsector.
1.03 Several Bank missions during 1984 and early 1985 assisted the Government in the design of the project. An appraisal team consisting of Messrs. Mahmud Tirmazi, Javier Tellez and Edgar Hunting (IBRD) and Messrs. Naceur Bakhtri and Barkat Ali (FAO/CP) visited Turkey in June 1985. This report is based on their findings. -2-
II. THE AGRICULTURALSECTOR
A. Sectoral Adjustment Program
2.01 Backtround. The Turkish economy has shown impressive response to the structural adjustment program begun in 1980 and supported by the Bank. Since the introduction of the adjustment program, the economy has demonstrated a major shift in structure towards an outward oriented economy, operating witb a markedly increased reliance on market forces. The transformation of Turkish agriculture from heavily subsidized and protected production to financially independent, diverse commercial and export activity is a key component of the adjustment program.
2.02 Wile the relative importance of the agricultural sector in the economy is declining, it still represents about 18% of GDP, about a third of export earnings and about half of civilian employment. The growth rates of agricultural GDP and exports are projected to remain below those for the rest of the economy. Nevertheless, the agricultural sector will continue to play a significant role in meeting domestic food needs, supplying industrial raw materials, and providing foreign exchange earnings and employment.
2.03 Turkish agriculture is diverse. Intensive crop cultivation is prevalent in the coastal regions which receive plentiful rainfall or are equipped with irrigation facilities. Mixed (crop and livestock) farming predominates in the eastern and central parts of the country where pastures and meadows form more than half of the agricultural land and crop production is dependent upon rainfall. In these areas much of the land is kept fallow in alternating years. While the livestock production system is largely traditional, dependent on grazing lands and low productivity systems of animal husbandry, it produces about one-third of agricultural GDP. Cereal crops occupy about 66Z of the cultivated area, fruits and vegetables about 20%, industrial crops about 6%, and oil seeds, pulses and tubers the remaining 7Z.
2.04 Through the 1970s, Turkey's agricultural policies were inward-looking, stressing food self-sufficiency through subsidized inputs and producer prices. This led to relatively rapid growth of production through the first half of the 1970s, averaging 4.7% from 1972-75. However, with a deteriorating overall macroeconomic situation, these growth rates could not be maintained due in part to the strain placed upon the budget by the level of subsidization, and the competing demand for resources from the manufacturing sector. As a result of the overall economic crisis, growth in the sector slowed to less than 1.5% per annum during the late 19709. Ineffective public investment policies, weaknesses in technical services, and problems in marketing and credit also contributed to sluggish growth. During this period, sectoral exports remained a small fraction (about 4Z) of total production due to the overvalued exchange rate and other disincentives to export.
2.05 Nev Policies. As part of the structural adjustment program adopted by the Government in 1980, many of the incentives were dismuantled, and market-oriented policies were introduced. With the introduction of a flexible exchange rate policy, most commodity prices were brought in line with or below export prices. The Government deregulated agricultural exports to a large extent and, as a result, agricultural exports increased rapidly. The commodity composition of exports gradually diversified, export markets -3- expanded to the Middle East and North Africa, and private exporters- responding to the increasing opportunities--inpart replaced publi export agencies. The Government also undertook to reduce input subsidies_/ and production price supports, and to gradually convert the remaining supports from artificially high incentive prices to floor prices. More recently, it has liberalized the import regime for commodities and imported inputs. These policies, in combination are designed to encourage specialization of production in accordance with Turkey's comparative advantages through intensified crop and animal husbandry patterns.
2.06 In the area of sector financing policies, the overall restraint on monetary policy forced a curtailment of agricultural credit availability. However, the Government committed itself under SAL IV to achieve and maintain thereafter positive real interest rates in agricultural lending. Recent interest rate increases and the decline in the rate of inflation suggest major progress towards achieving real positive rates before end-1986-the target date stipulated during the recent SAL V tranche review. In the Government's medium-term objectives, resources available for agricultural lending will be augmented and institutional capabilities will be strengthened.
2.07 The Government made progress towards rationalizing the public investment program by constraining the rate of growth of the overall program below 2.5% per year, in real terms, compared with over 18% per year before 1977, and by reducing the number of investment programs. In accord with the adjustment program, the post-1980 investment policies led to an increased share for agriculture in the public investment program, from 7% in 1980 to 10Z in 1985 (Annex 1, Table 1). While public investment allocations were not fully rationalized, the Government emphasized project completions and investments with short gestation periods. Facing a shortfall in Government revenues and worsening overall fiscal performance, the Government in 1981 introduced a 5% tax ("stoppage" tax) on all crop sales and 2X on animal and animal products sales, in 1984 began to reduce export tax rebate incentives and in January 1985 introduced a value-added tax (VAT) of 10X. In addition, in 1983 under the IAEE project (Loan 2433-TU), the Government agreed to increase cost recovery assessments and collections (para 6.06). Progress has been made in implementing these agreements.
2.08 Performance. As was expected, adoption of the new polirtypackage initially resulted in severe short-run shocks for the sector: the growth of agriculturalGDP in real terms fell to an average of only 0.9% in 1980 and 1981. In 1982 and 1983, however, real growth in agricultural GDP recovered to an average annual rate of 3.1%. During 1984, it reached 3.7Z. Due to the adoption of a realistic exchange rate and relaxation of export licensing restrictions, agricultural exports increased by an annual average of 17.7Z during 1980 aud 1981. If agroindustrial exports are included, the average annual rate of gcowth increases to 18.9%. In 1982 and 1983, while agricultural exports continued to grow in volume, the average annual rate
1/ In 1979, prices paid by farmers for fertilizers averaged 70% below import parity prices. By 1984 the average subsidy had been reduced to less than 50% below adjusted parity prices, while subsequent price adjustments have largely eliminated the subsidy on the more important fertilizers used in Turkey. The Government is committed under the ASAL to eliminate the retail subsidy entirely (except for the costs of transport to remote low income areas) by the end of 1988. -4- of growth of the value of agricultural exports dropped sharply to only 1.2%, due to the decline in the prices of the main commodities. However, for agriculture and agroindustries combined, the average annual rate of export growth remained at a &ealthy 9.5X, indicating a significant switch from unprocessed to processed exports. During 1985 the agricultural growth rate declined to 2.3Z and exports for the first nine months declined by about 7Z, reflecting the effects of an unusually severe drought.
2.09 Prospects. The potential for Turkey's agricultural sector, over the medium-term, was examined in the recent agricultural sector study by the BankY and updated with more recent data. The report stated that the possibilities for growth through expansion of the cropped area or of livestock numbers under a system of extensive grazing, were largely exhausted by the mid-1970s. Growth must now come primarily from increased productivity-for which agricultural intensification is the key--and changing the crop mixture to better reflect Turkey's comparative advantage. Increased productivity would require expansion in the irrigated area through improved efficiency of the implementing agencies (better planning, increased use of contractors), better extension and research programs, expanded imports of improved seeds and appropriate equipment, and increased availability of institutional credit (particularly for small and medium-scale farmers).
2.10 The demands of an export-oriented approach have led to a change of emphasis in Government policy from food self-sufficiency to increased net agricultural contribution to the balance of trade. Thus, imports of certain foods in which Turkey does not have a comparative advantage have been allowed. Increasing agricultural exports has involved appropriate pricing ignals, maintenance of a competitive exchange rate, reduction of export regulations, and improved marketing. The initiatives introduced in these policy areas since 1980 will have to be maintained.
2.11 While significant progress has been achieved in Turkey's structural adjustment program over the past five years, the task of restructuring is by no means over. During the second phase of the adjustment program, the Government is determined to deepen the adjustment process to the sectoral level in order to complete the foundation for sustained growth. Reattaining historical growth rates in the agriculturaL sector, under conditions of markedly reduced subsidization and increased exposure to market forces, will require additional strengthening of the inputs distribution systems; reform of agricultural SEEs and marketing agencies; a major effort to further discipline public investment expenditures and to improve the priority and selectivity of the irrigation and drainage program; an increase in the effectiveness of technical services (agriculturalextension and research) and credit, and improved sectoral planning. With continued reform in these areas, and adherence to policies designed to increase exports, agricultural GDP is expected to achieve a growth rate of about 3.0X annually during the remainder of the 1980s, and a growth of agricultural exports (excluding agroindustries) from 5Z-8% annually.
1/ Turkey - Report No. 4204-TU, June 30, 1983, Agricultural Development Alternatives for Growth with Exports. -5-
B. The Irrigation and Drainage Subsector
2.12 Initiated through the ASAL and to be continued under the proposed project, a marked change is being introduced in the development strategy for irrigation and drainage with a view to rationalizing their public investment, project selection criteria and method of carrying out the construction of works to speed up project completion.
Importance of Irrigation and Drainage
2.13 Irrigation investment represents about 66% of the public sector agricultural investment program and has been a major factor in increasing and stabilizing agricultural production. While less than 15% of arable land is irrigated, roughly 40% of all plant output and about 25% of agricultural exports are grown under irrigation. In many respects, however, irrigated agriculture has performed considerably below its capacity. Newly developed irrigation projects have often failed to produce expected production increases, while the increase in irrigated crop areas has lagged significantly behind the expansion of irrigation infrastructure. The underutilization of this infrastructure, built at comparatively high cost, results in a large loss to the economy.
2.14 The main irrigated areas are along the Mediterranean coast and southern reaches of the Aegean coast. The total area put under irrigation in recent years is estimated to be about 4.7 million ha (out of 28 million ha of arable land) which includes major Covernment irrigation projects (1.3 million ha), Government constructed small irrigation schemes (1.0 million ha) and private irrigation (2.4 million ha). However, the cropping intensity is low -and no more than 70% of the area provided with public irrigation inrrastructure is under crops in any year. Moreover, the total irrigated area varies considerably from year to year, since wheat is not usually irrigated in years of adequate rainfall.
2.15 Two public agencies are responsible for the construction of irrigation facilities. The General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works (DSI) of the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources (MENR) is responsible for the construction of the basic irrigation infrastructure for large-scale projects. The General Directorate of Rural Services (GDRS) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Affairs (MAFRA) is responsible for the construction of on-farm development works on large-scale irrigation projects and the development of small-scale projects. These agencies have not been able to contribute fully to agricultural productivity increases because of budget constraints, attempts to work on too many projects, excessive reliance upon force account work, inadequate coordination between the two agencies in project design and implementation, and poor supporting services, resulting in slow project completion and limited agricultural benefits.
It o d Draina Pential
2.16 According to the last available comprehensive study by GDRS, an estimated total area of 8.7 million ha could be irrigated. It is likely that only a smaller area could be developed economically, when the cost of development and competing uses of water resources are taken into account. -6-
2.17 In addition to increases in irrigated areas, a large potential is available for exploitation through the rehabilitationand completion of the existing infrastructure and on-farm development works, respectively, within the completed irrigation projects. A widespread system of surface drains and pumping stations has been constructed simultaneouslywith the development of irrigation infrastructure. However, since the introduction of large scale irrigation, the surface drains and natural drainage streams have deteriorated due to lack of maintenance and have been incapable of discharging the surface runoff and the seepage from the fields and canals. The high water table has caused waterlogging and consequent loss of production and, in some areas, prevented leaching of incoming salts from the root zone. Installation of subsurface drainage at the farm level, which was foreseen during project preparation in areas with adverse soil conditions, has been completed only in a small percentage of these areas. Rehabilitation and expansion of the surface drainage systems and installation of subsurface drains on the farms have thus become prerequisites for restoring and preserving the productivity of the irrigated areas. An area of about 440,000 ha can thus be restored and developed to full production at relatively low cost (Annex 2, para 2.06). These areas, which can be developed in a relatively short period of time, constitute the best economic potential for immediate agricultural development.
Previous Investment Strategy
2.18 Since 1981, irrigation investment levels have been increasing at about 4Z per year, in real terms. The DSI investment program has averaged about twice that of GDRS. Since 1980. when DSI resources were spread thinly over 142 ongoing projects, considerable progress has been made in concentrating DSI's resources on a smaller number of projects. As a result, the new area placed under command each year by DSI has increased from 18,000 ha in 1981 to 86,000 ha in 1984. However, GDRS has recently been able to complete only 10-12,000 ha per year of on-farm development, creating a major backlog of work for on-farm development on completed DST schemes (para 2.20). This ever-increasing backlog between irrigation infrastructure development by DSI and GDRS' on-farm development works represents a major misallocation of public resources for irrigation investment.
2.19 In the past, Turkey's public investment programs favored allocations to large new irrigation infrastructure. By the end of 1984, DSI had completed 146 large irrigation projects covering an area of 1.11 million ha. Meanwhile, partial completion has been achieved on another 52 projects (total area 0.44 million ha). The actual irrigated crop area has lagged significantly behind the expansion of irrigation infrastructure, as shown in Table 2.1 below. By the end of 1984, an area of 266,000 ha which had been provided with the irrigation facilities was not being used. -7-
Table 2.1 Use of Areas Developed and Operated for Irrigation by DSI (1965 - 1984,
Year of r.rgation Area Irrigation Total Cropped Not Utilized - 000 ha-- Z
1965 289 161 128 44 1970 521 285 236 45 1975 671 420 251 37 1980 755 494 261 35 1981 773 561 212 27 1982 814 606 208 26 1983 879 623 256 29 1984 965 699 266 28
Source; DSI Statistical Yearbooks
2.20 The reasons for this discrepancy between DSI development and actual utilization lie in (i) the neglected state of operation and maintenance, particularly of the surface drainage systems, which has now assumed such proportions that these drains would require rehabilitation, and (ii) the absence of on-farm development works in most areas. These latter works, summarized in Table 2.2 below, which are the responsibility of GDRS, include subsurface drainage and land reclamation works and, to a lesser extent, land levelling.
Table 2.2 GDRS Backlog of On-farm Development Works
Estimated 1989 Additions Total Backlog To end-1984 to Program at Pres. Pro- Program to end Rate of grammed Completed Backlog 1985-89/1 1989/2 Progress/3 _ _ __ - -ha - --
Farm Surface Drainage 198,577 112,877 85,700 62,600 148,300 87,755 Subsurface Drainage 375,842 153,739 222,103 117,497 339,600 287,855 Land ReclAmation 72,248 11,251 60,997 16,603 77,600 70,020 Access Roads 178,500 99,800 78,700 90,600 169,300 117,860 Land Consolidation 105,219 61,396 43,823 27,077 70,900 50,895 Land Levelling 556,234 374,703 180,531 178,069 358,600 216,880
1/ On-farm development works on DSI completions during 1985-89. 2/ The sum of the end-1984 backlog and estimated additions to Program. 3/ Based on average annual rate of completions, 1977-1984.
In case GDRS continues at the present rate of completion, the progress which can be achieved up to the end of 1989 would be no more than 152 for key items, leaving intact a growing backlog and its adverse effects on the agricultural economy. -8-
2.21 Total budgetary allocations to the irrigation and drainage subsector, and distribution of funds between DSI and GDRS appear to have been based on historical trends. Of the total for the irrigation and drainage subsector, DSI's allocation covers about two-thirds vs GDRS's share of about one-third. Thus, the fact that there was a major difference in the rate at which GDRS and DSL were finishing their respective work loads did not have an impact on overall allocation policy. The investment program in current and constant prices for both agencies in recent years is shown in Table 2.3. While GDRS's budget in 1980-the year when Government first moved to meet the economic crisis--showed a significant reduction in constant 1985 terms, overall, since 1979, the budget has shown an increase of about 30%. However, this increase does not reflect the high priority required for on-farm development works.
Table 2.3 Public Investment of Irrigation and Drainage Subsector
Current Prices Constant 1985 Prices DSI GDRS Total DSI GDRS Total -…TLBillion ------TLBilion------
1979 8.1 5.3 13.4 60.4 39.3 99.7 1980 16.9 8.6 25.5 60.0 30.5 90.5 1981 37.0 19.9 56.9 88.8 47.8 136.6 1982 42.2 23.8 66.0 81.0 45.6 126.6 1983 58.7 31.4 90.1 94.0 50.3 144.3 1984 78.3 42.2 120.5 98.0 52.8 150.8 1985 112.4 50.3 162.7 112.4 50.3 162.7
Note: Actual expenditures from 1979 - 1984, and budget allocations in 1985.
2.22 Public investment policies in the past have led to the financing of a large number of DSI projects located in widely dispersed parts of the country. During the period 1975-80, annual allocations for new and ongoing DSI projects averaged some 4% of their total construction cost, thus implying an average construction period of 25 years. In 1983 and 1984, these figures wez: 8% to 9% and 11 to 12 yearb, respectively. While this represents an improvement, the average yearly allocations per project are still not nearly sufficient to allow projects to be completed within the initially projected construction period, which, for new projects, has averaged about five years.
A New Approach
2.23 During the remainder of the Fifth Five Year Plan period, Turkey will likely continue to face severe limitations on domestic and foreign financial resources. The major constraint to effective development of irrigation and drainage thus has been the poor investment allocation practiced by the works agencies. Both DSI and GDRS have responded with difficulty to the new exigencies of public investment mandated by the structural adjustment program, viz, a concentration of future investments on quickly gestating projects with high economic returns. The problem has been compounded by a lack of -9- coordination between DSI and GDRS at the planning level. As a result, the agencies have continued to carry out their annual work programs for irrigation and drainage development more or less independently. Furthermore, GDRS's design and construction capability is severely constrained by a near total reliance on force account construction for major works with the use of contractors being confined to supplemental tasks.
2.24 The Government recognizes, however, that a rapid expansion of the completion rate is possible (along with realization of agricultural intensification) if the agricultural investment budget continues to be rationalized through (i) further concentration of DSI resources on quickly gestating new projects and drainage rehabilitation investments; (ii) providing GDRS with the capability to complete drainage and on-farm works in areas where major irrigation tacilities have been completed or are nearing completion; and (iii) improving maintenance. This would be facilitated by procedural changes to improve (i) the implementation capacity of the works agencies; (ii) design efficiency; and (iii) planning and coordination, to be supported by the development of effective extension services able to introduce appropriate irrigation techniques to first time users and to farmers currently using inappropriate methods and cropping patterns.
2.25 To implement this new approach, Government has agreed to carry out an Irrigation Development Study and formulate a 10-year Irrigation Development Master Plan (1986-1995) using funds made available under the IAEE Irrigation Project (Loan 2433-TU). The Master Plan would be based on a detailed project-by-project inventory and an assessment of existing and projected irrigation and on-farm development investments and financial and implementation constraints. It would detail the issues and targets to be reached including additional works required, cost and timing, arrangements for sustainability of irrigation works and cost recovery improvement. The Government has indicated that it would be utilizing the services of the consultants being appointed for the proposed Drainage and On-Farm Development Project to carry out the preparation of the Master Plan. In parallel, and with financing from the Bank-assisted Agricultural Extension and Applied Research Project (Loan 2405-TU), the Government is also implementing a program to improve agricultural extension, with priority for irrigated areas.
2.26 The Government's overall Irrigation and Drainage Investment Program during the 1985-1989 Plan period includes completion of irrigation infrastructure for 475,000 ha of new lands by DSI, similar infrastructure for 325,000 ha of small schemes to be carried out by GDRS and drainage and on-farm development works. The total cost of this project is estimated at about TL 1,200 billion (US$2.2 billion). Under the recently approved Agriculture Sector Adjustment Loan, a Core Program for Irrigation and Drainage Investments was agreed, designed to bring abont adequate drainage in the command area of DSI's ongoing and completed projects, the completion of highest priority on-farm works, and the provision of adequate O&M to insure the optimum utilization of the command area. This Core Program, established in consultation with the Bank (Annex 3, page 1), would cost about US$1.21 billion and would be carried out within the context of the revised funding criteria and priorities to be applied to project selection, as agreed under the ASAL (Annex 3, page 2). These works will be assigned the highest priority until the on-farm development backlog has been overcome. -10-
2.27 The Governmenthas agreed to progressivelyincrease, in real terms, the share of GDRS, and to allocate annually from the investmentbudget, the full requirementof an agreed high priority core program of drainage and on-farm developmentworks. Specificworks to be completed under this program would be selected in accordancewith criteria agreed with the Bank. The Governmentindicated its intent to maintain funding levels beginning in 1986 to permit GDRS to complete 100,000ha/year of on-farm works. This would also be facilitatedby increasedreliance on contract constructionwork. In order to supplement current staff capacity for implementingthis project, the ASAL financesengineering consultantsfor a two year period to assist in operationalprogramming, scheduling and design of approved works in the Core Program, and in monitoring their implementation. In view of the complexity of the task, the ASAL also finances internationallyrecruited consultants to review the economic, agricultural,and engineeringwork of the consulting engineeringfirms. To assist DSI in implementingits portion of the Core Program (excavationof new surfacedrains in a length of about 6,000 km, rehabilitationof the existing systems, and subsequentmaintenance of the new and existing systems through improved OWM), ASAL finances a portion of the machineryand equipment importsneeded for the rehabilitationand maintenance of surface drains.
2.28 As described in Chapter III of this report, the proposed project would support the implementationof a first slice of Core Program works. It would also finance a continuationof the consultingservices and training programs begun under the ASAL--whichare required to strengthenthe work's agencies capabilitiesand to assist with the implementationof the new approach.
C. PerformanceUnder Previous IrrigationProjects
2.29 The Bank and IDA have provided financing for six irrigation projects in Turkey through loans and credits totallingabout US$274 million. Some of these projects included power components. All but one (the IAEE Irrigation Projectapproved in June 1984) have been completed. Aside from components under two rural developmentprojectsl/, no irrigation lending took place between 1973 and 1984 due to failure to zeach agreement on adequate measures regardingcost recovery.
2.30 While irrigationcost recovery has been a problem, significant progress is being made on this issue, as described in para 6.07 below. The Governmentwould maintain adequate water charges on both DSI and GDRS' works in the area served by this project, in accordancewith the same criteria agreed for the IAEE Project (Loan 2433-TU),namely full recovery of DSI O&M expenditurefor the prior year, recovery of DSI capital costs over a period not to exceed 50 years, and recoveryof GDRS costs over 20 years.
2.31 The most recently completedProject PerformanceAudit Reports (PPARs) and Impact EvaluationReport 2/ on two irrigationprojects found them to have been generally successful and to have high economic benefits. But, in addition to the issue of cost recovery, the PPARs noted initial delays in establishingproject implementingunits and periodic delays in providing
1/ The recently completed Corum-CankiriRural DevelopmentProject (Loan 1130-TU),and the ongoing Erzurum Rural DevelopmentProject (Loan 2094-TU). 2/ OED's Report No. 5745 on Seyhan Irrigation Project (Stage II) (Loan 587-TU/Credit143-TU). -11- adequate local cost financing. The proposed project has been designed to take full account of these lessons. In the areas served by the Ceyhan-Aslantas project (Loan 883-TU/Credit 360-TU, FY 1973) and the Corum-Cankiri Rural Development Project (Loan 1130-TU, FY 1975) the extension service has been using an improved approach pioneered under several Bank projects. The Government has recognized the need to reorganize and strengthen its extension activities and is developing programs for introducing the new extension system on a nationwide basis. Loan 2405-TU (Agricultural Extension and Applied Research Project), approved in 1984, assists in financing a first phase program to introduce improved extension and research methods in 16 of Turkey's 67 provinces. A second extension and research project is currently under preparation. Since the proposed Drainage and On-Farm Development Project would finance completion or improvement of services for ongoing irrigation programs, most of the implementationunits already exist. Government has agreed to the arrangements for Bank review of proposed project budget provisions (para 3.22) which would provide arAearly warning system and facilitate compliance with Government undeL.Lakingsto provide adequate financial support for the project.
III. THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Objectives and Strategy
3.01 The objectives of the proposed Drainage and On-Farm Development Project are to concentrate Government's resources, while remaining within the scope of the Core Program agreed under the ASAL (Loan 2585-TU), on those subprojects which have the highest priority and, at the same time, to assist in improving design and implementationcapacity of DSI and GDRS.
3.02 In line with the investment priorities and the strategy agreed under the ASAL, the proposed project would include surface and subsurface drainage, land reclamation, and access roads, which constitute the key elements for accelerating the completion of on-farm development works. The proposed project would finance the first time slice of the Core Program to be implemented during 1986-1991. In selecting the first time slice, the following criteria were applied:
(i) works which can be initiated during the next three years and completed by December 31, 1991;
(ii) rehabilitationof surface drainage works which are a prerequisite for any subsurface drainage;
(iii) projects where irrigation infrastructure by DSI has been physically completed and the on-farm development works can be started immediatelyby GDRS;
(iv) synchronizedcompletion of all work components in any given area, and maintaining the investment targets;
(v) priority selection criteria and resource allocation; and
(vi) institution building through consultants and training.
The associated costs of the total Core Program, the first time slice and the financing of investments from the ASAL are abstracted in Table 3.1. Table 3.1 PHASINGOF THE COREPROORAM
T_OI Oot (ComProwmJw rh:.d ad AMAL25U Peranm Vint Tim Bsl Prod bSd Tim Slic La'AlzbrAl FamimF.E. uk-al vordi'm Toul P.Zocl F v Tous r.s. Le. raOf 8 beal F.E.
A. 9Cse' br A. bilitiei of f e drns 81.23 74.97 156.20 48.0 - - - - 39.47 36543 75.90 48.0 41.76 3S.54 80.30 48.0 Constgtum of *dir 40.a4 45.16 W5.23 53.0 - - - - zo.07 22.63 42.70 53.0 19.97 22.53 42.50 53.0 spipmot i~ 111.00 111.00 100.0 - Il.00 111.00 100,0 - - - S1CUl mzfic drghvn Ual. 7 31.U 35. - TluT52A 7t5 V 5 59.06r611E8.0 . 49.8 61.73 61.07 I12J0 49.7 S. sk"fte rabin 1th Ilallation of irnAoem drain 151.32 ZC0.58 351.90 57.0 - - - - 75.6t I0.32 176.GU 57.0 75.64 100.26 175.,0 57.0 IiUtalatim' of collectr pipe a Aintilahm 9.93 9.17 19. .0 - 4.94 4.56 9.50 48.0 4.99 4.61 9.60 48.0 Ik6ti,tal inhawfm .kalnjsE mardrs 161. 2C9.75 371.00 56.5 -0.62 104,11lO56.5 W .63 II87 185.50 56. C. MidaulLmiu w smcltim, of saliu IJe 16.81 7.23 24.10 3D.0 - - _ _ .68 3.72 12.40 30.0 8.l9 3.51 11.70 30.0 Acgmsroab 7.7) 3.30 I1.W 3 - - _ _ 3.dS 1.65 5.50 30.0 3.o5 1.65 5.50 30.0 FuciLities (cc aZ 1.2D 0.80 2.C0 40.0 - - - - o.i Ow L.OU 40.0 0.60 0.0 I.0O 400 1IIJllatium of plsmtar £ 0.78 0.52 1.30 40.0 - - - - 0.39 0.26 0.65 40.0 0.39 0.26 0.65 40.0 StrutiwuM of dran reseuzh statim 0.57 0.25 0.S2 30.0 - - _ _ 0.2# 0.12 0.40 30.0 0.29 0.13 OA2 30.0 9ktata1 IrImtmsllmm azs 27.12 10 39.22 3D.9 - - - 1.34 6.15 19.95 30.8 3.32 5.95 19.27 30-9
U. ul0mtX eni nu1It i's VW cf DR 3.26 11.54 14.) 77.0 0.40 1.40 1.80 77.0 0.63 2.13 2.76 77.0 2.23 8.01 10.24 77.0 leviwu savwices for Do - 1.OD I.W U10.0 - 0.20 0.X 10.0 - 0.24 0.24 100.0 - 0.56 0.56 100.0 Oxomltiw wvi m f CmIs 3.26 11.54 14.80 77.0 OO 1.40 1.80 17.0 0.63 2.13 2.76 77.0 2.23 8.01 10.24 77.0 kv1lwze gavLees for am16 - 1.60 I.W 100.0 - 0.20 0.20 100,0 - 0.24 0.24 10.O - 0.56 0.56 10.0 SibctatI cawultirg =vcie 6.52 25.08 31.60 19.4 080 3.20 4.00D j- 4.7432W 7. 4 21.60 78.2 C. lISn. Abro rr Mh of Du Staff - 3.30 3.30 1M.O - 1.00 1.00 100.0 - 0.30 0.30 M1.0 2.0 2.m 10.0 Trainair of GS saff 3.30 3.30 10.0 1.00 100,0 - 0.30 0.30 100.0 - 2.OD 2m00 o0. aSttot l trani bd - a6.0 6.60 ID0.O - 2.00 2.300- 100.O F 4T) W_0I F. Crm i WIb t * Solut or wXe_ ar 141 - 1.00I,@ I.ao 1.00 11)3.0alo.0____ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-.------1.1.0 1.0. 100.O0. TeUI Im"Ongt Cot 316.16 485.66 8u1t2 60.6 0.60 116.2) 117.00 99.0 155.22 175A3 330.65 53.1 160.14 19.03 354.17 54.7 otal Bmalia CoSta RiCylAl CMiz uia 46A3 51.32 97.75 52.5 - - _ _ 23.09 25.52 48.61 52.5 23.34 25.80 49.14 52.5 PRie C iiwiea 141.09 165.21 3C6.30 53.9 - 47.1J 54.U7 101.25 53.4 93.91 111.14 25.05 54.2 TOta Poject Clts 53J.68 702.19 1Wm5,87 58.2 0.80 116.20 117.0D 99.0 255.49 255.02 480.51 53.1 277.39 330.97 60SJ6 54A
4014Z -13-
B. Main Features - First Time Slice
3.03 The objectives of the Drainage and On-farm Development Project, during the first time slice, would be achieved through the implementationof the following works:
(a) rehabilitation and cleaning of surface drains to restore them to their planned performance;
(b) excavation of additional main, secondary and tertiary drains, where needed to supplement the existing drainage system;
(c) installation of subsurface drainage network in light to medium soils which cannot be drained by surface drains;
(d) addition of subsurface collector pipe drains, wherever not already provided within the existing subsurface drainage installations;
(e) reclamation of selected tracts of saline land to avoid serious deterioration;
(f) construction of access roads along the irrigation and drainage networks to facilitate operation and maintenance and to otherwise connect with the public roads system;
(g) construction of minor buildings, field workshops and other structures for operation and maintenance of the system;
(h) installatiou of piezometers and other devices to monitor the water- logged areas;
(i) strengthening of existing drainage and reclamation research stations in the irrigation areas;
(j) employment of engineering consulting firms by DSI and GDRS, to assist in preparation of inception reports, feasibility studies, and bidding documents for execution of works and in their supervision when appropriate;
(k) employment of reviewing consulting firms by DSI and GDRS for review of the work done by the engineering consulting firms; and
(1) training of GDRS and DSI headquarters and regional staff in selected fields and in appropriate countries.
A description of these components is given in paras 3.04 to 3.15. Details of the project area including topography, soils, climate, population, land tenure, present agricultural situation, agriculturalresearch and extension are given in Annex 2. The locations of completed, ongoing and future irrigation and drainage projects within the Core Program are shown on map numbers IBRD 19280 and IBRD 19281 -14-
C. Project Description
3.04 Rehabilitation and Cleaning of Existing Surface Drains. Silt clearance and weed removal from surface drains and repairs to damaged earthwork and structures are some of the esseatial maintenance requirements. Under DSI regulations, main surface drains are required to be cleared every three years and secondaries and tertiaries every five years. Due to lack of appropriate equipment, the maintenance of the drainage systems is generally neglected and therefore drainage ditches are choked with silt deposits and weed growth. Consequently, subsurface drainage outlets from the adjoining high water table areas are submerged and cannot evacuate the groundwater from these affected areas. In most of the completed irrigation projects, the drainage systems are blocked to varying degrees and are malfunctioning. The on-farm development works proposed by GDRS, in particular subsurface drainage networks, cannot be carried out until the surface drainage systems have been rehabilitated by DSI and are maintained to their original design sections. Rehabilitation of surface drainage systems comprises five categories of work: (i) excavation of accumulated silt, (ii) grading and stabilization of O&M roads, (iii) rehabilitation of embankments along drains, (iv) cleaning of flood channels and creeks which serve as recipients of drainage flows and (v) stabilization of operation and maintenance roads along these flood channels. The initial thrust of this rehabilitation program by DSI would be under the first two categories and would be concentrated on those priority areas where a coordinated program of on-farm development works has been agreed and established between GDRS and DSI. Surface drains serving an area of 668,000 ha are expected under the first time slice to be rehabilitated and cleaned.
3.05 Construction of New Surface Drains. DSI's jurisdiction extends to main, secondary and some tertiary surface drains. In projects which are opened for irrigation, DSI is expected to complete the surface drainage network simultaneously. However, as a result of irrigation application and a low initial intensity of surface drains, salinity and waterlogging problems have since arisen, over significant areas. Studies by DSI indicate that for effective surface drainage the intensity of surface drains should be 15 m/ha. Host of the waterlogged areas have an average intensity of only 5.6 m/ha and is a contributory factor towards water logging. It has been estimated that a total of 6,000 km of additional surface drains of all sizes would be required in the existing irrigated area; however, under the first time slice only priority sub-areas (about 668,000 ha) would be undertaken.
3.06 Installation of Subsurface Drains. Light to medium clay soils with ground water table between 0-1 m and, which cannot be drained by surface drains would require subsurface drainage. The existing data indicate that for effective lowering of the water table a spacing of about 30-35m between drains would be necessary. A depth of 1.2 m at the head of the drain would be sufficient to grow most crops in the area except in saline areas, where to avoid secondary salinization due to capillary action, a greater depth (about 1.8m) would be necessary. An approximate area of 137,500 ha is expected to be provided with subsurface drainage facilities, of which about 40,000 ha are saline and would also require reclamation (para 3.08). -15-
3.07 Installation of Collector Pipes in Existing Areas. The responsibility for carrying out all on-farm development works, including subsurface drainage works, rests with GDRS, which has completed about 150,000 ha of tile drainage network over the last two decades (para 3.18). In most cases the subsurface drains have been connected by GDRS to DSI's outlet drains through small surface drains instead of collector pipes, probably to save on investment costs irrespective of the difficulties of maintenance. Due to absence of maintenance, these minor drains are unable to perform their functions and do not provide a proper linkage between the two systems, resulting in serious malfunctioning of the already installed tile drains. Most of these open surface drains should have been subsurface collectors to start with. The Project provides for the replacement of these existing surface tertiary drains constructed by GDRS, by subsurface pipe collectors. An area of about 75,000 ha would be provided with these improved subsurface installations.
3.08 Reclamation of Saline and Alkaline Land. Salt affected areas would be provided with enclosed levees, about 0.6 m in height, and the areas would be leached. Minor areas suffer from alkali problem and would require application of chemical amendments (gypsum) to improve soil permeability, lost due to excess sodium in the soil. An area of about 40,000 ha is expected to be reclaimed.
3.09 Construction of Access Roads. Provision has been made for improvement of road network through construction of about 1,310 km of access roads. These roads which are necessary for maintenance of the drainage systems, their structures and pumping stations would be 7.3 m wide within a right of way of 13 m along main drains and 4.6 m wide within a right of way of 8.7 m along secondary drains and would be compacted and stabilized with gravel. As far as feasible, these will be constructed along the irrigation and drainage channels and linked with main and other roads of the area. Total area served by these access roads would be about 85,000 ha.
3.10 Facilities for O&M. A number of minor field offices, field stores, warehouses, other structures and field workshops would be constructed under the project to serve as facilities needed by the operation and maintenance staff.
3.11 Installation of Piezometers & Other Observation Devices. A grid network of piezometers and observation wells would be installed at suitable intervals in the water logged and potentially water logged areas to monitor groundwater levels and observe the effect of anti-waterloggingmeasures.
3.12 Strengthening of Drainage Research Stations. Eleven research stations are in operation within GDRS and are located at Menemen, Eskisehir, Ankara (2), Tarsus, Konya, Urfa, Erzurum, Samsun, Tokat & Kirklarelli. With the exception of the first five, the remaining stations have been recently set up and are lacking in equipment and staff. The two stations located in the waterlogged areas (Menemen and Konya) would be strengthened through provision of buildings, research and other equipment and library facilities. -16-
3.13 Employment of Engineering Consulting Firms. The existing staff of DSI and GDRS would require technical assistance through consulting engineering firms to assist them with the intensive work under the first time slice project. The recruitment of consulting engineering firms has already been agreed and their initial period of work would be financed from the ASAL. The first draft of the terms of reference and scope of work has been reviewed by the Bank and the Government is exiected to submit shortly a revised draft of these documents. Upon completion of disbursements under the ASAL (Closing Date - December 31, 1987) the consultants' continued employment would be maintained throughout the implementationperiod with additional financing from the proposed project (para 8.01 (a)). The responsibilityof these firms, inter alia, would include the completion of the following tasks to assist in the implementation of the Drainage and On-farm Development Project (man-months are shown in Annex 3, Table 1):
(i) inception reports, setting out the criteria and priorities; (ii) feasibility studies for the projects selected to be initiated during the period 198C-1991; (iii) final designs, cost estimates and bidding documents for implementation cf the selected projects; and (iv) supervision of construction.
3.14 Employment of Reviewing Consulting Firms. In view of the complexity of the task, a periodic review of the economic, engineering and agricultural work by the consulting engineering firms employed by GDRS and DSI would be required through specialized reviewing consulting firms. The recruitment of these reviewing consulting firms has also been already agreed and would be financed initially from the ASAL with supplementary financing from the proposed project. The first draft of the terms of reference has been reviewed by the Bank and a revised document is expected to be submitted shortly. Their employment would be maintained throughout the implementationperiod with additional financing from the proposed project (para 8.01 (a)).
3.15 Training of Staff. DSI and GDRS staff would be provided with technical training in selected fields related to the works of the Core Program and in strengthening farmers' organizations involved in irrigation and drainage. The training program would extend over about 400 man-months of training abroad in addition to the in-house training with the consulting engineering firms and would cover about 35 trainees from DSI and GDRS. The training period would be equally divided among drainage engineers, agricultural economists and agronomists who would receive training in Europe and USA. Approximately half the candidates would be attached to construction companies and to drainage institutes for practical training, while the other half would receive academic training and degrees.
D. Riparian Rights
3.16 It was agreed during negotiations that the sub-projects to be financed under the loan would be selected from an agreed list of 155 DSI's irrigation and drainage schemes, both completed and on-going (details at Annex 3, Table 2). None of these 155 schemes are located on an international river and, therefore, no riparian rights issues are involved (para 8.01 (b)). -17-
E. Status of Engineering
DSI
3.17 Until December 1984, DSI had achieved the following progress in construction of large scale irrigatLon projects:
Gross Project Area No. of Projects _---ha----_
1. Under operation 1,111,630 146 2. Under construction 437,400 52 3. Final designs ready (however, construction not started) 488,470 38 4. Final designs under preparation 285,720 31
Details of these projects are shown on map numbers IBRD 19280 and IBRD 19281. On-farm development works are identified by DSI at the planning or feasibility stage; however, as these are to be carried out by GDRS which is under a separate ministry, these designs are not carried further. During appraisal the mission examined and summarized the findings contained in 242 feasibility studies retrieved from DSI's archives. The data derived from the feasibility studies on subsurface drainage and land reclamation would serve as the base line data, which would need to be updated and refined to the final design Level. However, DSI's designs of the completed irrigation and drainage systems are meticulously drafted and maintained. No additional technical design work is, therefore, necessary for the rehabilitation of the surface drainage system to be carried out by DSI. The new surtace drains are located in the fully designed and completed irrigated areas and constitute extension ot the systems for which only minor additional design work is necessary. The tinal designs for these new drains would be completed during 1986 while actual implementationwould start in 1987. In addition, DSI would be assisted by a consulting engineering firm in programmingi preparing, and implementing the drainage program in coordination with GDRSY. The consulting firm would also assist DSI in the review of its annual investment program, new and ongoing as related to the coie program. Proposals for short-listing of these consultantshave already been finalized. The terms of reference and scope of work are now under revision by the Government and are expected to be submitted shortly for Bank approval. It is, therefore, evident that all consultancy arrangements are well advanced and final designs for the DSI works for the 1986 program are substantially ready.
1/ The employment of these consultants will be a condition of loan effectiveness (para 8.03). -18-
GDRS
3.18 On-farm development works are undertaken by GDRS on a piecemeal basis and design and execution of construction proceed simultaneously. Consequently, in one project area the works continue for many years. During appraisal the mission carried out an extensive review of all on-farm development works carried out by GDRS since 1976. The findings of this review would again serve as a part of the base line data for the GDRS' works under the project. The quantities completed until end of 1984 are summarized below:
Area Completed Completed Within Ongoing Schemes Schemes Total ------ha-- -…
Subsurface drainage 127,801 21,471 149,272 -Surface drainage 98,600 14,600 113,200 Land reclamation 11,251 - 11,251 Access roads 97,810 31,341 129,151 Land consolidation 48,782 3,376 52,158 Small irrigation completion 1,275 - 1,275 Land leveling 301,192 32,441 333,633 Terracing _ 3,400 3,400
(Note: These areas are not additive as most activities are overlapping in the same areas)
When compared with the areas which have been provided with irrigation infrastructure by DSI, and considering the existing and potential backlog of on-farm development works it is obvious that GDRS would not be able to meet the design and implementation requirements of the first time slice project unless assisted by a competent consulting engineering firm. As in the case of DSI, early actions for employment of consultants have already been taken and proposals for short listing have been finalized-'. Government is now reviewing the detailed terms of reference and scope of work and is expected to submit a revised document shortly for Bank approval. The final design for the subsurface drainage works would be prepared during 1986 while actual implementationwould start in 1987.
Consultants' Program and Procedures
3.19 The Government's program for the first year's subprojects which relate only to rehabilitationof surface drains would be submitted by the Government for Bank approval in early 1986. Before initiating procurement for the second year's subprojects, the Government assisted by the Consulting Firms would prepare and select a program based on agreed selection criteria, which would be submitted to the Bank for review and approval along with the procurement documents. The same procedure would be followed during the succeeding years of implementation. During negotiations, assurances were obtained that these procedures would govern the program of the selection of subprojects (para 8.01 (c)}.
1/ The employment of these consultants will be a condition of loan effectiveness. -19-
F. Cost Estimate
3.20 The total estimated cost of implementing the Core Program, excluding taxes and duties,11 but including physical and price contingencies is about USS1.21 billion. The foreign exchange component whLch includes both direct and indirect foreign costs is estimated at about US$702 million or 58% of the total cost. The total estimated cost of the proposed project for the first time slice (1986-1991) is about USS480.5 million, excluding the cost of equipment for rehabilitation and maintenance of surface drains and the initial consultants and training programs, financed under the ASAL. The direct aud indirect foreign exchange component is estimated at about USS255.0 million or about 53Z of the total cost of the time slice (1986-1991). These estimated costs are based on unit rates currently applicable (December 1985) on similar works in Turkey. The mission, working on typical technical designs, also calculated independently the quantities of work, cost of operation of various types of earth moving and excavation equipment, unit rate analysis, and the toreign exchange component. Physical contingencies at 15Z of the base cost have been added on civil works. Price contingencies have been compounded annually for the years 1986 to 1991 respectively, at 7.0X, 7.0%, 7.5%, 7.7X, 7.6X and 4.5% for local and foreign costs. In calculating local cost contingencies it is assumed that the Government will continue its current policy of adjusting the value of its currency to compensate for the difference between the local inflation and average international inflation. Total price contingencies over the implementation period would amount to about US$101.3 million, or about 27X of base cost plus physical contingencies. Cost estimates for the proposed project are summarized in the Table 3.2 and the annual schedules of expenditures, for the total Core Program, the First Time Slice (1986-1991), and the Second Time Slice (1989-1993) are given at Annex 3, Tables 3, 4 and 5.
1/ Estimated to be about 5%. -20-
Table 3.2 Estimated Cost of the Drainage and On-farm Development Project (1986-1991)
Foreign Items Local Foreign Total Exchange
A. Surface Drainage Works Rehabilitation of surface drains 39.47 36.43 75.90 48.0 Construction of new drains 20.07 22.63 42.70 53.0 Subtotal surface drainage works 59.54 59.06 118.60 49.8
B. Subsurface Drainage Works (On-farm Development) Installation of subsurface drains 75.68 100.32 176.00 57.0 Installation of collector pipes in existing areas 4.94 4.56 9.50 48.0 Subtotal subsurface drainage works 80.62 104.88 185.50 56.5
C. Miscellaneous Works (On-farm Development) Reclamation of saline land 8.68 3.72 12.40 30.0 Access roads 3.85 1.65 5.50 30.0 Facilities for O&M 0.60 0.40 1.00 40.0 Installation of piezometers & monitoring 0.39 0.26 0.65 40.0 Strengthening of drainage research stations 0.28 0.12 0.40 30.0 Subtotal miscellaneous works 13.80 6.15 19.95 30.8
D. Consulting Services Consulting services for DSI 0.63 2.13 2.76 77.0 Reviewing consulting services for DSI - 0.24 0.24 100.0 Consulting services for GDRS 0.63 2.13 2.76 77.0 Reviewing consulting services for GDRS - 0.24 0.24 100.0 Subtotal consulting services 1.26 4.74 6.00 78.8
B. Training Abroad Training of DSI Staff - 0.30 0.30 100.0 Training of GDRS Staff 0.30 0.30 100.0 Subtotal training abroad - 0.60 0.60 100.0
Total Baseline Costs 155.22 175.43 330.65 53.1
Physical Contingencies 23.10 25.51 48.61 52.5 Price Contingencies 47.17 54.08 101.25 53.4
Total Project Costs 225.49 255.02 480.51 53.1 -21-
3.21 Detailed cost estimates were also prepared for six selected representative projects which yielded the following summary results. Details are at Annexes 3, Tables 6 to 11.
Table 3.3 Location, Estimated Cost and per hectare Cost of Representative Proiects
Cost/ha Total Water- Water- Name of Project Total logged Total logged Proiect Region Type Cost Area Area Area Area (US$M) -ha--- -- US$ -
Turgutlu Izmir Coastal 12.14 15,500 6,949 783 1,747 Menemen Izmir Coastal 11.74 17,900 8,640 483 1,359 Alasehir Izmir Coastal 8.18 12,200 5,023 412 1,629 K.O.S. Konya Inland 53.80 59,500 18,752 315 2,869 Koprucay Antalya Coastal 15.96 21,000 8,970 427 1,779 Sarakoy Aydin Coastal 9.61 14,100 4,663 331 2,061
Among the six representativeprojects the cost/ha of the waterlogged area ranges from US$1,359 to US$2,869. The average cost/ha of the project to be carried out in the first time slice is US$2,309 per ha. The inland type areas require on the average about 652 higher investment cost per hectare as compared to the coastal type area, mainly due to higher intensity of subsurface drainage and problems of drainage outfalls.
G. Financing
3.22 The proposed Bank loan (US$255 million) would finance about 53Z of the cost of the first time slice project (US$480.5 million) l/, or lOOZ of the foreign exchange component. Local costs of US$239, as well as interest during construction and interest charges, would be met by the Government through annual budget appropriations. During negotiations the Government presented its indicative planning figures for the irrigation subsector. These figures are in line with the Government's policies, recorded in connection with ASAL, for allocating to agriculture about lOS of the total budget allocations for all sectors. Irrigation and drainage works, to be carried out by DSI and GDRS will receive about 66X of the sectoral allocations for agriculture. The investment budget for irrigation and drainage will be increased progressively in real terms; however, considering the importance of on-farm development works, the GDRS's allocations will receive an accelerated increase in real terms, as compared to the DSI's allocations. Government's planned future allocations for GDRS and DSI, as presented at negotiations, are shown below in Table 3.4:
1/ T.L. 260 billion in constant 1985 prices. -22-
Table t A Futuwe Bxdget Allocatis to and DSI /1
Irrigtion and Drme DjE's Allocar.s GiS's Allocatios Increase Allcatioos IwErease Allocaticia Increase AllcAtici Year (O) ( Bill) (uss ill) (Z) (DL Bill) (X hill) (Z) (L Bill) (US$ Mill)
1986 Actual 233.0 431.5 Actual 15.0 305.6 Actual 68.0 125.9 1987 4.0 A2.3 448.7 2.50 169.1 313.1 7.6 73.2 135.6 1988 4.5 253.2 468.9 2.75 173.7 321.7 8.6 79.5 147.2 1989 5.0 265.9 492.4 3.00 179.0 331.5 9.3 86.9 10.9 1990 5.5 280.5 519.4 3.25 84.8 342.2 10.1 95.7 177.2 1991 6.0 297.3 550.6 3.50 191.2 354.1 13.8 106.1 196.5 1992 6.0 315.2 583.7 3.75 198.0 366.7 10.5 U7.2 217.0 1993 6.0 334.1 618.7 4.00 205.3 380.2 9.9 128.8 238.5
/. Based an docummts tabled on Jamnary 7, 1986 by the Turkishnegotiati teen. Note. Based m 198bactual allocations, calauated in 1986 prices, with iucreasesin real term.
The proposed allocations to drainage and on-farm development works, included in the core program are estimated to be sufficient to permit the second phase of the Core Program to be completed by 1993. Details of proposed annual allocations under the core program, the first time slice and the second time slice are given n Annex 3, Tables 3, 4 and 5. Assurances were received that updated financing plans will be submitted ro the Bank every year and would include a revised schedule of estimated .-xpenditures, Laking into account the effects of inflation on costs. These revised financing plans would be submitted to the Bank for its review by September 30 each year (para 8.01 (d)). The Bank loan would be repaid over 17 years including a 4 year grace period. Financing of the cost including contingencies for the project for (1986-91) would be shared in the afrmunts and proportions as given in Table 3.5. -23-
Table 3.5 Financing Plan for the Project (1986-1991)
Foreign Exchange Cost Local IBRD Total Total Agency Cost Loan F.E. Cost - ---- US$ Million~--
I. Investment Costs
A. Surface Drainage Works Rehabilitation of surface drains DSI 53.58 47.75 49.35 102.93 Construction of new drains DSI 28.73 32.39 32.39 61.12 Subtotal Surface Drainage Works 82.31 80.14 81.74 164.05
B. Subsurface Drainage Works (On-famn Development) Installation of subsurface drains GDRS 113.56 150.53 150.53 264.08 Installation of collector pipes in existing areas GDRS 7.42 6.85 6.85 14.27 Subtotal subsurface drainage works 120.97 157.38 157.38 278.35
C. Miscellaneous Works (On-farm Development) Reclamation of saline land GDRS 13.01 5.58 5.58 18.59 Access roads GDRS 5.79 2.48 2.48 8.27 Facilities for O&M DSI 0.85 0.57 0.57 1.42 Installation of piezometers & monitoring DSI 0.55 0.37 0.37 0.92 Strengthening of drainage research stations GDRS 0.43 0.18 0.18 0.61 Subtotal miscellaneous works 20.6 1 9.18 29.81
D. Consulting Services Consulting Services DSI 0.79 3.49 2.70 3.49 Reviewing consulting sarvices DSI - 0.30 0.30 0.30 Consulting Services GDRS 0.79 3.50 2.71 3.50 Reviewing consulting services GDRS - 0.31 0.31 0.31 Subtotal consulting services 1.58 7.60 6.02 7.60
E. Training Abroad Training of staff DSI - 0.35 0.35 0.35 Training of staff GDRS - 0.35 0.35 0.35 Subtotal Training Abroad - 0.70 0.70 0.70
Subtotal DSI 84.50 85.22 86.03 170.53 Subtotal GDRS 140.99 169.78 168.99 309.98
Total Project Costs 225.49 255.00 255.02 480.51 -24-
H. Procurement
3.23 The methods proposed to be used to procure the goods, works and services for the project are tabulated below in Table 3.5.
Table 3.6 Procurement Arrangements - USS million -
Project Force Price Total Element ICB Account Quotations N/A Cost
Civil Works 307.14 164.87 - 472.01 (166.09) (80.41) (-) (-) (246.50) Equipment - 0.20 - 0.2 (-) (-) (0.20) (-) (0.2) Services 7.60 7.60 (-) (-) (-) (7.60) (7.60) Training - 0.70 0.70 C-) (-) (-) (0.70) (0.70) Total 307.14 164.87 0.20 8.30 480.51 (166.09) (80.41) (0.20) (8.30) (255.0)
3.24 Surface Drainage Works. All equipment for rehabilitation and maintenance of surface drains (US$111.0 million) would be financed under the ASAL, and procured under ICB procedures consistent with Bank Guidelines. The execution of rehabilitation and maintenance works for surface drains (US$164.05 million) through utilization of this equipment would, however, be carried out by the 25 regional directorates of DSI through force account. This procedure would be the most economical and consistent with Bank procedures as it would ensure procurement of all equipment through ICB, while the rehabilitation and maintenance works which are complex and in scattered locations and which cannot be pieced together for a bidding document would be carried out through force account.
3.25 On-farm Development Works. These civil works consisting of installation of subsurface drains, reclamation of saline land, and construction of access roads, constitute the bulk of the Project during 1986-89 (about US$305.21 million). With the assistance of consulting firms, GDRS would establish priority annual investment programs, based on agreed criteria (Annex 3, page 2), which would be coordinated with the programs of rehabilitation and construction of surface drainage works to be carried out by DSI for the respective years. The subprojects would be regionally combined to form groups sufficiently large to attract international bidders. To the extent practicable, contracts for works shall be grouped in packages estimated to cost the equivalent of US$15 million or more each. Assurances were obtained during negotiations that these civil works would be procured under ICB procedures consistent with the "Guidelines for Procurement under World Bank Loan and IDA Credits" published by the Bank in May 1985 (Bank Guidelines) (para 8.01 (e)).
3.26 Consulting and Reviewing Consulting Firms. Employment of consulting engineering firms and reviewing consulting firms by DSI and GDRS has already been agreed and would be financed in the earlier years from the ASAL (US$4.0 -25- million). These consulting firms would be engaged under the ASAL, with contracts covering the entire period of implementation. Supplementary financing for the remaining years, about US$7.6 million including contingencies, would be provided under the proposed project.
3.27 Strengthening of Drainage Research Stations, Facilities for O&M and Monitoring of Ground Water. Civil works contracts for research stations and facilities for O&M, estimated to cost a total of US$ 1.93 million, would be procured under ICB procedures consistant with Bank Guidelines. Assurances to this effect were obtained during negotiations (para 8.01 (e)). Contracts for equipment for the research stations and for monitoring of ground water estimated to cost about US$200,000 would be awarded on the basis of price quotations solicited from at least three suppliers eligible under the Bank Guidelines, in accordance with procedures acceptable to the Bank. The installation of piezometers, estimated to cost about US$0.82 million, would be carried out by DSI through force account. DSI has already installed ground water monitoring devices in 38 existing schemes, and is the agency best suited to continue this on-going program.
I. ImplementationSchedule
3.28 It is estimated that within the areas with high water table problems, with groundwater reaching 0-lm depth during March/April, about 137,500 ha would be provided with subsurface drainage facilities. Implementation of this component is critical and is expected to proceed as shown below:
Table 3.7 Schedule of Implementation for Subsurface Drainage Works (1986-1999)
Installation Subsurface Drainage 1986 198; 1988 1989 1990 1991 Total
Area Completed - ha - 20,600 23,400 27,500 31,600 34,400 137,500 - - 15 17 20 23 25 100
3.29 All advance actions necessary to expedite the implementation of other works have been taken. All equipment required for the rehabilitation and maintenance of surface drains has been prefinanced under the ASAL and procurement actions are well advanced. Employment of consultants for DSI and GDRS has also been prefinanced under the ASAL and in this case as well, procurement actions are well advanced. Most of the works expected to be completed during the first year pertain to rehabilitation of surface drainage works for which no additional designs are required. Agreement has already been reached with the Government on the selection criteria for subprojects (Annex 3, page 2). A complete Schedule of Implementation for all construction works is given in Annex 3 -Chart 1.
J. Disbursements
3.30 The proposed loan of US$ 255 million would be disbursed over seven years. Table 3.7 sets for'h the categories of items to be financed out of the proceeds of the loan, the allocations of the amounts of the loan to each category and the percentage of expenditures for items so to be financed in each category: -26-
Table 3.7 Loan Categories and Allocations
Amount of the Loan Allocated (Expressed in X of Expenditures Category (US$ Equivalent) to be Financed
1. Civil Works (a) for DSI 74,000,000 45
- Surface Drainage - Facilities for O&M and Monitoring Ground Water
(b) for GDRS 169,000,000 57
- Subsurfac- Drainage - Land Reclamation - Access Roads - Research Stations
2. Consulting Engineering Services for DSI & GDRS 6,990,000 100 3. Reviewing Consultants for DSI & GDRS 610,000 100 4. Training for DSI & GDRS 700,000 100 5. Equipment, Books and Periodicals 200,000 100 Foreign or local - Ground Water Moni- ex-factory toring - Research Stations
6. Unallocated 3,500,000
Total 255,000,000
A disbursement schedule is given in Annex 3, Table 12. The entire loan is expected to be disbursed in about 7 years as compared to 7 years for 95% of the disbursements under the standard disbursement profile for Turkey. The proposed schedule is only slightly shorter than the historical profile for recent agricultural projects in Turkey as it is intended that the proposed project would finance a six-year time slice of an accelerated but ongoing drainage and on-farm development project. Prefinancing for critical items of machinery and institutional support to strengthen implementation and design capacities of the implementing organizations has already been provided under the ASAL. Procurement procedures are well advanced which would accelerate implementation and disbursements. Disbursements will be made against normal documentation, except for reimbursement to DSI on force account and payment under contracts with a total value under $10,000 for equipment and $20,000 for civil works, which would be made against statements of expenditure. Documents for disbursements against statement of expenditures would be audited (para 4.10) and the supporting documents would be retained by DSI and made available for review by Bank supervision missions. -27-
3.31 Most expenditures under the proposed loan would be financed initially from a special account. Assurances were obtained during negotiations that the Government will establish a special account in the Central Bank of Turkey to deal exclusively with eligible expenditures under the project (para 8.0' (g)). The World Bank would make an initial deposit of US$20 million. 1/ The Special Account would be replenished against withdrawal requests at monthly intervals or as appropriate when the undisbursed balance of the account falls below US$10 million. Imports would be made directly by actual users.
K. Environmental Impact
3.32 The drainage and on-farm development project is confined to areas which are already developed and served by fully or partially completed irrigation and drainage systems. In the coastai areas, which predominate, the project is likely to have beneficial effects by providing drainage to the waterlogged land in several subproject areas with effluent going into the sea. In the case of inland rivers which open into lakes, the salts and other pollutants carried would be inconsequential and hence, no detrimental effects on the physical/chemical/biologicalregime of the water or soil are expected. The improved drainage provided under the project would also be expected to reduce mosquito breeding and lead to a reduction in the incidence of malaria.
IV. ORGANIZATIONAND IMPLEMENTATION
A. Implementing Agencies and Responsibilities
4.01 Implementation of the project under the first time slice would be the responsibility of the General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works (DSI) and the General Directorate of Rural Services (GDRS). A brief description of the two agencies and their responsibilities follows:
General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works
4.02 DSI was established in 1954 as a legal entity and was brought under the aegis of the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources in 1964. Its responsibilities are the multiple utilization of surface a-Idgroundwater resources, the prevention of soil erosion and flood contrcl. More specifically its duties are to plan and construct;
(i) flood protection works; (ii) irrigation and drainage systems and drainage of swamps; (iii) hydro-electric generating plants; (iv) city water supply and treatment schemes; (v) river improvement schemes; (vi) to carry out and record soil surveys and agricultural feasibility studies; and (vii) to operate and maintain schemes.
1/ This amount is based on the World Bank's estimated share of the tour-months average of foreign exchange expenditures to be channeled through the revolving fund. -28-
DSI headquarters, located in Ankara, i8 headed by a General Director with four assistants, a bureau and council as advisers. The headquarters organization has 13 departments concerned with planning and implementation of activities, the provision and maintenance of services, research and planning, agricultural development, accounts, administration and training (Annex 4, Chart 1). Responsibility for the implementation of the project would rest with the Design and Construction Department, whose department chief would also act as the project director. Assistance would be forthcoming from all other departments, in particular the maintenance and operation, planning and investigation and machinery departments. Operations at field level are carried out through 25 regional directorates (Annex 4, Map 1). DSI has a work force of 25,700 permanent staff (1983), of whom 3,240 are technical staff. Of the latter, 25% are located at headquarters. DSI has a substantial annual budget accounting for 6 to 7% of the total national budget and 20 to 25Z of that allocated for capital development. Some 30 to 40% of this is devoted to agriculture. DSI's completion of irrigation and drainage works averaged 50,000 ha annually during the early and mid-1970s declined to less than 40,000 ha annually in the period 1978 to 1980, and has increased to about 80,000 ha since 1981. Although DSI carries out most construction by contract, it maintains in the regions a large machinery pool mostly for maintenance work and workshops fully equipped for the servicing and repair of this machinery. Most of this equipment has served its useful life and the pool is being replenished from the proceeds of the ASAL.
4.03 Consulting Engineering Services to Assist DSI. The work program of DSI under the proposed project would be implemented with the assistance of a domestic consulting firm, who would advise on programming, preparing and implementing the project. This domestic firm would also assist DSI in the review of its annual investment programs, new and ongoing. DSI would be further assisted by an independent, reviewing consulting firm. Th..e consultancy arrangements have been agreed and would be financed under the ASAL. The balance of the cost would be met from the proposed project. The duties of the consulting firm, whose tenure would extend to about six years would include the following:
(a) review all existing feasibility studies for completed and ongoing irrigation projects and their drainage components;
(b) based on the above review, summarize their findings in the form of an inception report, which would include a priority ranking of all drainage projects based on agreed criteria (Annex 3, page 2);
(c) assist DSI in preparing groups of priority drainage projects for timely and coordinated implementation;
(d) assist DSI in carrying out field studies, and preparing final designs and bidding documents for the selected drainage projects;
(e) assist DSI in the supervision of construction, if called upon to do so; and
(f) review and evaluate DSI's public investment programs according to agreed criteria, and set up monitoring and evaluation programs for the investment portfolio. -29-
General Directorateof Rural Services
4.04 The irrigationdepartment of GDRS, then known as TOPRAKSU,was established in 1952 as the irrigation and drainage section of the Ministry of Agriculture. It was reorganized as the General Directorate of Soil Conservationand Farm irrigation within the Ministry of Village Affairs in 164. With the integrationof the latter Ministry and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forests, in June 1984, into the new Ministry of Agriculture, Forests, and Rural Affairs (MAFRA), this Directoratewas merged with the Directorate G:neral for Rural Services with the following responsibilities:
(a) to carry out on-farm works on State irrigation schemes;
(b) to develop small water resources (up to 500 1/) for irrigation;
(c) to carry out surveys, soil analyses, soil classification and soil maps;
(d) to conduct research on soil, water, plants and fertilizer;
(e) to control erosion and floods in arable land, and maintain soil productivity;
(f) to provide technicalassistance, farmer training and credit for soil and water conservationpractices; and
(g) to plan and implement land consolidation.
The irrigationdepartment of GDRS consists of a central organization(Annex 4, Chart 2), 18 regional planning offices (Annex 4, Chart 2), three project offices, 11 research centers, three training centers, a machinery and supply directorate,a cartographicdirectorate, an operation unit for Urfa province (stone-clearing)and several provincial offices/workunits. Present permanent staff total about 9,200, of whom about 1,200 are technical,800 are semi-skilledand 7,200 are laborers. About 20Z of the technical staff are located at headquarters. GDRS's budget for 1985 for the irrigationdepartment was about halt of DSI's budget for irrigationworks. The irrigation department of GDRS would be responsible for the implementationof the project and its departmentchief would be designated as the project director.
4.05 ConsultingEngineering Services for GDRS. The proposed project of GDRS would be implemented,with the assistance of a domestic consulting firm who would advise on programming,preparing and implementingan on-farm development project, consisting of subsurfacecollector drains, subsurface drainage network, land reclamation and access roads. The domestic firm would also assist in the review of GDRS's annual investment program. GDRS would be further assisted by an independentreviewing consulting firm. The consultancy and financingarrangements have already been agreed and would be financed under the A&IT. The balance cost would be met from the proceeds of the proposed project. The duties of the consulting firm whose tenure would extend to about six years, would include the following:
(a) review annual and five-year program of draiaage, land reclamationand access roads. (These programs would be prepared by a separate consulting firm employed by DSI and would be based on a review of all existing feasibilitystudies for completed and ongoing irrigation projects and their drainage components). -30-
(b) assist GDRS in establishing priority annual investment programs, based on agreed criteria, and coordinated with the programs proposed in the DSI for the respective years (paras 4.03 (b and c));
(c) carry out detailed field surveys and field investigations including but not limited to the following:
- topographical surveys; - pedological surveys; - hydrogeological surveys; - soil investigations; and - infiltration and other tests.
(d) these surveys and investigations would be sufficient in nature and extent to permit final design of the farm drainage and subsurface drainage systems;
(e) prepare final designs, bidding documents and cost estimates for the selected groups for ICB, and assist GDRS in evaluating the bids;
(f) assist GDRS in the supervision of construction if called upon to do so; and
(g) review and evaluate GDRS Public Investment Program according to agreed criteria, and to set up monitoring and evaluation programs for the investment portfolio.
B. Operation and Maintenance
4.06 Role of DSI & GDRS. DSI has responsibility for constructing headworks, distribution canals and the large bulk of the surface drainage systems including main, secondary and some tertiary drains as well as pumping stations, and GDRS is basically responsible for on-fa-m development works. While DSI's charter of activities includes operation and maintenance of all works constructed by them, GDRS has neither authority nor funds for maintenance of the on-farm works constructed under its control.
4.07 DSI's O&M Staff. Among its 13 departments in the Read Office, DSI maintains a regular department for operation and maintenance, which is headed by an officer of the level of a regional director and manned at various levels by experienced officers and supporting staff. In the field there are 25 regional directorates, each having an O&M section in the regional of :ice and an O&M section in the field organization. For every 10,000 ha of irrigated land, DSI has one O&M field engineering unit. During the peak season, hired temporary labor can also be employed depending upon requirements. The engineers would be provided with motor vehicles and technicians with motorcycles. Mobile/stationary wireless sets are provided for communications purposes. When the size of the project reaches 35,000 ha the O&M F'ield Engineering Division, which is headed by an engineer-in-chief, the niumberof personnel are increased in proportion to those given for a Field Engineering Unit of 10,000 ha. In general, DSI has organized satisfactory O&M units which are capable of handling day-to-day maintenance problems provided the required equipment and funds are made available to them at the right time. -31-
4.08 Assessment of O&M Requirements. Each year, a team of O&M engineers visits all the works being operated in each regional directorate and makes an on the spot assessment of the maintenance needs. For electrical and/or mechanical installation,suitable electrical and/or mechanical engineers are included in the team. After inspection and necessary discussions, their findings are presented in an examination report which gives a brief description of the various categories of works, the nature and magnitude of the maintenance problems, the suggested remedial measures and the funds required to meet the situation. This examination report is reviewed in the regional office and then in the DSI General Directorate and forms the basis for allocation of funds for O&M.
4.09 Future Needs of O&Mand Extension Services. The expenditure on drainage systems is 50% of the total on both irrigation and drainage. The actual annual cost for 1984 for drainage only in 1985 prices has been worked out as TL 10,186/ha, or $18.86/ha (Annex 4, Table 1). Future needs at full development are estimated to be 50% higher in order to make up for deficient maintenance in the past and to maintain an acceptable quality in the future. These are shown in Annex 4, Table 2 which also shows the incremental cost of 0&M at full development in 1985 prices. These O&M costs as summarized below are about 1.5% of the average investment costs in current prices. The Government would take measures to ensure adequate maintenance of facilities constructed or rehabilitated under the project. DSI has adequate maintenance staff, and is fully capable of providing appropriate maintenance provided the required equipment and funds are made available. GDRS has no maintenance staff and is expected to organize farmer cooperatives to maintain on-farm facilities which it constructs. However it does administer a budget for repairs of facilities that it constructs. Most of the GDRS drainage facilities constructed under this project would be subsurface drains and would not require regular maintenance. However, collector drains constructed under the project would require occasional maintenance and repairs. GDRS would carry out these periodic repairs and maintenance from the funds available under the allocations for repairs. Assurances were obtained during negotiations that GDRS will make arrangements for and provide on a timely basis adequate funds for the maintenance of collector drains which it constructs (para 8.01 (g)). In addition, under a recent Bank project (Loan 2405-TU), agricultural extension services similar to the Training and Visit extension methods are being set up in 16 provinces and are expected to be extended throughout Turkey through similar projects in the future. Government would be required to provide adequate extension services and facilities in the project areas completed under the proposed project. Assurance for these arrangements were obtained during negotiations (para 8.01 (g)).
C. Accounts and Audit
4.10 The accounting and auditing departments of DS- and GDRS are well staffed, are experienced, and have satisfactorily discharged their functions for other Bank projects. These offices would each maintain separate accounts for the project. Staff of DSI would prepare at the end of each quarter a detailed statement of project expenditures during the period (in an agreed format) and submit such statement to the Bank within 45 days after the end of each quarter. Such statements would, inter alia, be used as basis for supervising the progress and costs of force account works. Annual statements of receipts and expenditures would be prepared and overall financial repo-ting and auditing will be in accordance with the Guidelines for Financial Reporting -32-
and Auditing of Projects Financed by the World Bank issued in March 1982. An annual audit would be carried out by the Treasury Controllerand the audit report submitted to the Bank within nine months of the end of each fiscal year. Assurancesto this effect were obtained during negotiations (para 8.01 (h)).
D. Project Monitoringand Completion Report
4.11 Project Monitoringand Key Project Indicators. DSI and GDRS, would submit in quarterlyand annual reports to the Bank, the information necessary to measure systematicallyproject executionagainst the proposed implementationschedule, and project performanceafter completion of constructionagainst project benefits foreseen during appraisal. The reports would include data on the progress of constructionof all physical facilities under various project components, progress in the procurementof consulting services,and data on project expenditures. Agriculturaldata indicating the areas reclaimedand drained, cropping patterns applied, crop yields and output, and informationon the operation and maintenance costs of irrigation and drainage works would be submitted annually. DSI would monitor and evaluate the data on groundwater in waterloggedareas (para 3.11), cropping patterns, inputs and yields (para 5.05) and submit them to the Bank with the annual reports. In addition, DSI and GDRS would submit quarterly all financial and other data on physical progress. DSI would be the lead agency for compiling the quarterly and the annual reports. Assurances were obtained during negotiationsfor the timely implementationof the physical, technical, agriculturaland financialmonitoring and evaluation and submission of the reports in a format acceptable to the Bank (para 8.01 (i)).
4.12 Proiect CompletionReport. Immediatelyafter completion of the project, but in any case not later than six months after the closing date of September 30, 1990, DSI and GDRS would prepare and submit to the Bank a project completionreport. DSI would be the lead agency for compiling the report. It would report on the implementationand operations of the project, its costs and its existing and projected derived benefits. Assurances were obtained during negotiationsfor their timely submission (para 8.01 (i)).
V. PRODUCTION,MARKET ARRANGEMENTS,PROSPECTS AND PRICES
A. Production
5.01 The proposed investmentswould restore existing irrigated areas to full production and prevent further deteriorationof soils and reduction of crop production by eliminatingwaterlogging and salinity, permitting cultivationof abandoned land, and restoringyields from currently depressed levels to the levels in the fully drained adjacent areas. The production impact of the investmentsis estimated on the basis of crop and farm models representingconditions in the Coastal and Inland regions (para 6.01).
5.02 Lifting the waterloggingand salinity constraintswould have their main effect on crop yields whic4 would increase primarily through better soil aeration, restorationof optimum planting dates, and more efficient use of inputs, seed, fertilizer and chemicals. In approving individual projects, DSI and GDRS, assisted by consultants,would assess the variation of existing yields under waterlogged and non-waterloggedconditions and similar soils within the irrigationperimeter, using existing records and the results of periodic monitoring and field surveys. For the purpose of analysis, future yields in improvedareas after removing the waterloggingconstraint would be -33-
those already obtained by farmers under similar soil conditions in the non-waterlogged areas of the same perimeters. In contrast, failure to overcome waterlogging without the proposed investments would result in a gradual further decline of yields. The yields in this report are based on DSI irripation census data, DSI sample observations, and field observa,ions by the mission. Moreover these yield assumptions are justified because soils in waterlogged and non-waterlogged areas are essentially the same. Present and projected yields, with and without drainage, are shown below;
Table 5.1: Present and Projected Yields
Present Future Non Without With Waterlogged Waterlogged Drainage Drainage ------(tons/ha) ------
Coastal Seed cotton 2.8 1.2 0.8 2.8 Wheat 4.0 1.0 - 4.0 Rice paddy - 3.6 3.5 5.5
Inland Wheat 4.0 1.6 1.0 4.0 Seed cotton 2.8 1.2 0.8 2.8 Broad beans (shelled) 3.0 - - 3.0 Fodder 8.0 - - 8.0
5.03 It is also assumed that the measures to be implemented under the proposed project would enable the prevailing cropping patterns in neighboring areas under similar conditions to be maintained in areas improved. In the coastal region, cotton would dominate the patterns and the small rice area would decline. In the inland region, wheat would dominate and fallow would be converted to fodder crops (mainly alfalfa) and pulses (mainly broad beans and lentils). The patterns of major crops in currently waterlogged areas, at present and in the future after drain installations,are represented as follows:
Table 5.2: Present and Future Cropping Patterns /1
Coastal Inland Present Future Present Future …------_ ( -)…__
Cotton 80 85 13 13 Wheat 15 15 47 47 Fodder - - - 10 Broad beans - - - 30 Fallow _ - 40 _ Rice 5 0 - -
Total 100 100 100 100
/1 The future cropping pattern at full development is shown. The future cropping pattern without drainage is assumed to be the same as the present pattern. -34-
5.04 About 55? of completed and ongoing DSI irrigation projects lie in areas with conditions typical of the Coastal region and about 45X lie in areas typical of the Inland region. Based on DSI monitoring data, in the Coastal region about 40% of the irrigation area within perimeters currently is affected by waterlogging and salinity; and in the Inland region about 26%. The gradual rise in subsurface water tables over the ten-year period of monitoring indicate that the area subject to waterlogging and salinity without the proposed measures by 1991 would amount to an estimated 440,000 ha in completed DSI projects. The first time-slice investments under the proposed project would remove these constraints from half of the area (220,000 ha). The future additional area which would eventually become waterlogged without the proposed investments, which is difficult to quantify, has not been estimated. Accordingly, the benefit areas for the analysis are as follows:
Table 5.3: Benefit Areas
Coastal Inland Total - - - - ('000 ha) …
Total Core Program 288 152 440 First Time-Slice 144 76 220
5.05 Agricultural production would be monitored by periodic measuring of harvested yields. DSI is already collecting this type of data. Under the project, DSI would evaluate its data to establish historical yield levels and trends in waterlogged and non-waterlogged areas. In addition, DSI would continue to monitor and evaluate yields on a Deriodic basis. Assurances were obtained during negotiations that complete recording of the sample surveys of crop yields would be carried out and supplied to the Bank on a yearly basis with the Annual report (para 8.01 (j)). Present and future crop production in the areas to be improved under the first time-slice are summarized as follows:
Table 5.4: Present and Future Crop Production
Future Present Without With Increment
______…- -_ ('000 tons) ------…------
Rice paddy 21.6 21.0 0.0 -21.0 Seed cotton 131.2 87.4 323.0 235.6 Wheat 74.6 46.6 258.6 212.0 Fodder - - 80.0 80.0 Broad beans - 90.0 90.0
B. Market Prospects and *nputs Availability
,.06 Turkey's growing domestic requirenents and competitive export market for selected commodities would absorb the incremental production from the drained areas. Rising incomes and growing urban population will continue to stimulate domestic consumption which is generally below European per capita levels. Turkey has established export markets in Europe and the Middle East. Despite increasing competition in these markets, Turkey is expected to maintain its comparative advantage in certain commodities and markets. Recent trends and market prospects for Turkey for the main commodities where remedial measures are proposed in the Coastal and Inland regions are given in Annex 5 (Tables 1-4). -35-
5.07 Cotton. Over the past decade, annual lint production in Turkey has been about 500,000 tons per year of medium and long staple cotton, of which Turkey exported 20-40%. The anticipated production increment under the project of 82,500 tons of lint per year would be readily absorbed by Turkey's export and domestic markets. The additional byproducts would help supply the growing domestic markets for edible oils and livestock feed. The main part of Turkey's production is sold as raw material for the expanding domestic yarn, fabric and garment industries. Local yarn and cotton goods sales are growing in line with increasing per capita incomcs. Although Turkish exporters face strong competition abroad, especially with expansion of the EEC, Turkish yarn, fabric and garment exports to Europe are expanding in relation to Turkey's high yarn and fabric quality and competitive pricing. To encourage exports, the Government recently reduced the export tax on cotton. In 1984, lint cotton exports were valued at nearly US$170 million, while yarn, fabric and garment exports (largely cotton) were valued at over US$1.0 billion. In the long term, world market prices for lint are expected to increase moderately, further strengthening the cotton market in Turkey. Most farmers sell their seed cotton to a marketing cooperative or private ginnery. Ginneries in and near the producing areas currently are operating below installed capacities.
5.08 Wheat. Turkey has become a marginal net exporter of cereals. Wheat comprises two-thirds of Turkey's 25 million ton annual cereal production. However, wheat, which is the main cereal consumed domestically, has been imported in increasing quantities, largely soft bread wheat for domestic consumption. Incremental wheat production under the project of about 212,000 tons (soft wheat) would offset a portion of imports. Farmers in the project areas market wheat through private traders and local flour mills. About 15 percent of internal trade is handled by the state enterprise Soils Products Office (TMO) which is being assisted by the Bank's Grain Storage Project (Loan No. 1742-TU). Thus, farmers would have no difficulty marketing their incremental production through existing channels.
5.09 Pulses and Broad Beans. Since 1980, Turkey has increased pulse production by about 75%, to 1.4 million tons in 1984. Over 60% of the increase has gone towards expanding exports (to Europe, North Africa, and Asia); the balance has been sold to meet rising domestic requirements. Although broad beans comprise a small part of total pulse production, broad beans are increasingly popular pulse crops in irrigated areas because of ease of cultivation with increased availabiliry of mechanization. Incremental production under the project of 90,000 tons per year at full development would comprise less than 10% of current pulse production. Farmers market pulses through private traders and the THO, who would be able to handle the anticipated increases.
5.10 Fodder (alfalfa). While grazing has been the traditional basis for animal production in Turkey, requirements for fodder, feed grains and feed concentrates are increasing rapidly in response to aniimalfattening programs, export demands for animal products, and domestic demand for poultry products. Alfalfa is a relatively high value fodder crop currently grown in sugar beet areas where intensive animal husbandry is increasing through availability of sugar beet by-products for feed. Incremental production of 80,000 tons (dry) under the project would be consumed iL parc on local farms and in part sold through private traders. -36-
5.11 Chemical Inputs. Turkey currently imports about 20Z of its fertilizers. Thus, the large bulk of fertilizer use is served by domestic production. Fertilizer is produced by both public and private sector firms. Tvo State Economic Enterprises (DONATIM and SEKER - SEKER related only to sugarbeet production) presently have a monopoly on fertilizer distribution. They provide timely and adequate service, though at high cost to the economy and not necessarily optimal nutrient packages. Thus farmers should encounter few problems in obtaining fertilizers through existing arrangements. In the future, the range and variety of available fertilizers should increase, as a result of Government's intention (supportedby the ASAL) to open the distribution system to private trade on a phased basis beginning in 1986, and to end the SEE's monopoly on importations. Pesticides are imported ana sold to farmers by both public and private sector firms.
5.12 Seeds. To reduce constraints on yield progressions, in 1983 and 1984, the Government adopted measures to encourage the development of a private sector seeds industry through foreign seed companies' participation in joint ventures, relaxed importation, testing, and certification procedures, and by deregulating seed pricing. These measures to date have produced significant results in attracting the establishment of private sector seed companies. Wheat and barley seed production is expected to remain largely in the public sector since private marketing of these seeds has been typically less profitable than other seed production. To meet the need for wheat and barley seeds, the Government in 1983 formed a new State Economic Enterprise, the Turkish Agricultural Enterprise (TIGEM) out of predecessor institutions, which will operate on commercial principles and become a self-sustaining entity. In addition, the Government has agreed to design a national seeds industry development plan, to assist establishing a coordinating association for private seed producers, and to turn over supply of certified self-pollinators to fully commercialized certified seed growers.
C. Prices
5.13 Since 1980 Turkey's price policy Kas aimed at bringing the domestic price structure in line with international price parities. Farmgate prices which used to be significantly protected are now lower than their border price equivalents (the ratio of the total value of tradeables at border prices to the value at the prevailing farmgate prices increased from 0.850 in 1979 to 1.282 in 1982), and price relationships among commodities at the farmgate are closer to the relationships at international prices. This price structure will encourage exports and promote cropping patterns reflecting comparative advantage.
5.14 Recently, the Government has taken important steps to rationalize production price supports which during the 1970's had placed a heavy burden on the budget. By end 1983, the number of announced supports had been reduced from 25 to 13. The level of the announced prices is now set somewhat below seasonally adjusted market prices. Consequently, the share of procurement at official prices has been reduced, thus minimizing the distorting effect of official intervention. A portion of this difference between export receipts and farmgate prices is captured through export levies, earmarked for agricultural development expenditures. An assessment of the efficacy of these export levies will be carried out by MAFRA's APK under the ASAL. -37-
5.15 Since 1980, the Government has instituted measures to reduce the subsidies for pesticides, fertilizers, irrigation water, and deregulated prices and liberalized imports for seeds and farm machinery. The subsidy was eliminated for plant protection materials which are now sold to farmers at cost. Seed prices and the pricing of agricultural machinery were deregulated in 1984. Machinery prices subsequently declined, and some exporting occurred. The Government also has increased irrigation water charges (para 6.06). Similarly the Government has been increasing retail fertilizer prices periodically, with increases in 1984 of 50% in real terms and further increases in February 1985. However, since c.i.f. spot prices were in a cyclical upswing, the average retail subsidy in February 1985 was still 45X as compared to 60X in 1983. Under the ASAL, the Government confirmed its intention to phase out the remainder of the retail fertilizer subsidy by the end of 1988. In August 1985 a further increase in prices of 17% in real terms was announced. However, as a result of declining international fertilizer prices, the August 1985 price announcements have effectively eliminated the retail price subsidy--for the time being at least, on urea and DAP, while the subsidies on the less important products have been reduced to between 10-20x.
VI. FARM INCOMES, FINANCIAL ANALYSIS AND COST RECOVERY
A. Farm Incomes
6.01 To test the project's effect on farmers' incomes, twelve crop models have been developed representing the most important crops grown with irrigation, under waterlogged and non-waterloggedconditions, in the schemes located in the coastal and inland regions of the country. Following the observed cropping patterns in the irrigated areas, four farm models have also been developed tc represent the waterlogged and non-waterlogged areas of the selected typical irrigated schemes or perimeters. The farm models assume gradual changes in yields after the drainage and on-farm development works take place to remove waterlogging -- the constraint to production. Thus, the farm models reflect in the without project situation a deterioration in yields as waterlogging continues and increases due to the absence of or the existence of non-functional surface or subsurface drainage. As drainage is introduced, the deterioration of yields ceases.
6.02 The gross value of crop production has been calculated at constant mid-1985 market prices. Production costs incl.ude all inputs also valued at mid-1985 market prices, as well as hired labor valued at the present market wage rate of TL 2,500 (US$4.63J per day. The existing water charge assessment covering DSI's O&M costs has been included as an input cost. Benefits attributable to the project start in year 2 after the works and on-farm improvements havE been completed in year 1, and reach full development in year 5. Detailed farm budgets are shown in Annex 6, Tables 1-4. The income analysis is sumwarized in Table 6.1 below, and is detailed in Annex 6, Table 5. -38-
Table 6.1 - Summary Farm Budgets
Farm Model IA IC IIA IIC Coastal Coastal Non-Water- Inland Non-Water- Water-logged logged Waterlogged logged ------2 ha------3 ha-----
Net Farm Revenue: (1985 TL'000 annually per farm)
1. Present Situation 244 742 100 404
2. Future Situation at Full Development
A. Without Project 128 742 54 404 B. With Project: Before Water Charges 741 762 666 427 After Water Charges 509 720 348 372
Net Farm Revenue Per Capita 121 171 83 89 Estimated Relative Poverty Level ------106…------Estimated GNP/Capita ______- __-319-----
Net benefits (or net disposable farm revenue after project charges) at full development over the without project situation increase three-fold in the coastal waterlogged farm (2 ha) to TL 509 thousand (US$ 943). The coastal areas are characterized by a long tradition in the use of irrigation and intensive farming with high value crops. Substantial investments have taken place in these areas over long periods; thus farmers are already oriented towards high value crops both in waterlogged and non-waterlogged areas. On the other hand, in the inland regions, farmers are oriented towards traditional and low risk crops such as sugarbeet and wheat. With the additional investments in drainage, farmers would be expected to shift to some higher value crops to increase their incomes while covering repayment of such investments. For the representative waterlogged inland faxMs (3 ha) the net benefits increase five-fold in the future situation to TL 348 thousand (US$ 645) but from a lower base than the coastal farms, as a result of the lower productivity of Turkey's central and southcentral plains, where typically 40% of the irrigated laud is in fallow due to poor drainage which, with the improved conditions in the with project situation can increase cropping intensity to 100Z.
6.03 Directly benefitted farmers within the irrigated perimeters of the proposed project are expected to be about 72,000 in the coastal regions and 25,000 in the inland regions. Data on farm size distribution in the coastal regions indicate that 70% of the land is in holdings of usually two plots and averaging 2 ha per holding. The average farm size ranges from 1.8 ha in the Alasehir perimeter to 2.7 ha in Menemen. In the inland regions, 65Z of the land is in holdings of usually three plots and averaging 3 ha per holding. This compares with national averages of 12% of the farmed area held by 30Z of farmers having an average farm size of 2 ha in the Western Coastal Areas (Agricultural Region II). Nationwide, 6% of the farmed area is held by 14% of farmers in farms averaging 2 ha. -39-
6.04 The benefitted farmers in the coastal regions would increase per capita incomes solely from crop production activities (after all charges) above the relative poverty level (RPL) but below the estimated per capita GNP. Without the project, per capita incomes would decrease steadily over time (the latter two indicators include incomes from all sources). In the inland regions, per capita incomes with the project would increase but would remain below the RPL. The level of charges therefore represents a balance between farmer incentiLvesto take up the investments and the public savings needed by government for the sustainabilityof these projects (paras 6.10-6.12).
B. Project Charges and Cost Recovery
Introduction
6.05 The Government of Turkey is aware ot the problems it faces in irrigation cost recovery and its importance as one mechanism for resource mobilization in face of fiscal constraints. The Government has embarked on increasing the level of assessed water charges to recover DSI's operation and maintenance costs (O&M), and has made great strides in reducLng long standing subsidies in the economy in general, as well as in agriculture. As the arable land frontier was reached in the early 1970s through lateral exparsion of cultivation, production growth since then has been primarily through intensification of production. This was due mainly to increased yields and to the reduction in fallowed lands which accounted for up to one-third of the expansion of cultivated area. Government's main objective is to complete the transition from a highly subsidized, protected and inefficient system of primary production to one which is essentially self-reliant, financially independent and responsive to policy signals and incentives. The key instruments of Government's policy emphasis which affect the proposed project are policy reforms to: (i) reduce producer subsidization while maintaining adequate incentives and (ii) rationalize public investment with primary focus on irrigation, the key to intensification as lateral expansion is being exhausted.
Cost Recovery by DSI and GDRS
6.06 Under the IAEE Irrigation Project (Loan 2433-TU, FY83), the government agreed to (i) adjust DSI capital recovery charges under existing legislation to include interest, (ii) progressively increase DSI water charge assessments for operation and maintenance to 100I (by 1986) of the actual cost of operating and maintaining such facilities during the previous year; and (iii) increase penalties for overdue payments. It was further agreed that action would be taken to permit GDRS to recover its capital costs for on-farm works over 20 years. Considerable progress has been made to implement these agreements. DSI's O&M assessments were increased by 254% in real terms by 1984 over 1978 levels. Beginning in 1983, the Government also adopted a much stiffer schedule of penalties for late payment. Under the new rules, if payment is late by one year, a total penalty is levied equal to 54X of the initial assessment. Before 1983, the penalty was a flat 10%. A further increase of the penalty rate to 75Z took effect in mid-1985. New legislation was enacted in May 1985 allowing GDRS, for the first time, to recover its -40- costs. The required implementingrules and regulations,however, require Council of Ministers' approval. Draft regulations have been prepared and the process of review and approval is underway. Arrangements satisfactory to the Bank for carrying out GDRS cost recovery obligations (expected to be met through Council of Ministers' approval cf the regulations referred to above) would be a condition of loan effectiveness (para 8.02 (a)).
6.07 DSI's actual recoveries for capital costs have increased from 35% of amounts due in 1978 to 51% in 1983. Recoveries for O&M costs on due assessed charges have increased from 49% in 1978 to 74% in 1983. Annual fluctuations seem to be linked to the relationshipof inflation and the level of the penalties for late payments. In the past, assessed charges for O&M were lower than the previous year's actual O&M cost, resulting in an average rate of cost recovery of 27% between 1978 and 1983. With much increased assessment levels (para 6.06, the situation should be redressed. During negotiations assurances were received that the Government would take all necessary actions to improve collection of DSI accounts, including instituting appropriate legal procedures against users whose accounts are more than twelve months overdue (para 8.01 (k)).
6.08 The charges assumed in the rent and cost recovery analysis follow DSI's current practices and the progressive improvementsagreed under the IAEE project (para 6.10). DSI's O&M costs are charged in full annually to all of the farmers within a given ;rrigated perimeter, as are capital costs over 40 years at an imputed 5% interest rate. With regard to GDRS it is assumed that the required implementing rules and regulations under the new iegislation (para 6.06) will conform to the agreement under the IAEE project, for recovery of costs, including interest, amortized over a period not to exceed 20 years from the completion of the works. For current financial calculations, we are assuming that the GDRS cost recovery regulations will provide for capital cost recovery over 20 years, with one year of grace and with a 5% rate of interest.
6.09 The irrigation cost recovery mechanism cannot appropriately be viewed only on the basis of direct water charge assessments on farmers. All farm land owners are subject to an annual tax of 0.3% of the assessed value of their land. Field observations indicate that the assessed values are about 25% of the market value of the land. In addition, a withholding tax was introduced in 1981 providing for a 5% tax on all crop output sold and 2% on all animal and animal product sales. This tax was intended to compensate for the difficulty in collection of taxes on agricultural income, but also serves to reduce and to a certain extent correct the remaining deficiencies in cost recovery (such as the long amortization period and low interest rate for DSI capital cost recovery).
6.10 Assurances were received during negotiations, which provide for maintaining under the current project cost recovery in accordance with the agreements reached under the IAEE project (para 8.01 (1)). In the case of DSI charges, the Government would (a) annually assess water charges from users of irrigation facilities constructed by DSI least equal to: (i) the actual cost of operating and maintaining such facilities during the previous fiscal year plus, and (ii) the amount required for recovery of capital costs of such facilities, including reasonable interest thereon, amortized over a period not -41- exceeding fifty years; and (b) take all appropriate action to collect amounts due on such accounts, including instituting appropriate legal procedures against users whose accounts are in delay for more than twelve months. In the case of GDRS, the Government would take necessary action to assess and take steps to collect from farmers receiving on-farm development investments under the Project the cost of such investments, including interest, through periodic payments amortized over a period not exceeding twenty years from the completion of such investments.
Cost Recovery at the Farm Level
6.11 The implications for public revenues and farmers' incomes in the recovery of the capital and recurrent costs of both DSI (surface) and GDRS (surface and subsurface) drainage investments are analyzed below. All data are in present value terms, discounted at 12Z over the 40 year evaluation period and in mid-1985 prices, with the following assumptions:
(i) present levels of assessments for ongoing O&M activities (79%) are increased to full levels by 1986 in keeping with government policy but are not attributable to the project (para 6.07);
(ii) the incremental activities of O&M for DSI's drainage activities are costed fully and at an increased level in the quality of these O&M activities. These charges are applied to all the farmers withi- the perimeter;
(iii) the investments in subsurface drainage are recovered from the actual beneficiaries in 137,500 ha for the first time slice; and
(iv) the investments in surface drainage are recovered fully and are spread over the entire area for the first time slice of 668,000 ha as is the practice followed by DSI whereby capital improvements and increases in O&M costs are spread over and charged to the full area of each irrigation scheme or perimeter.
6.12 The rent and cost recovery analysis has been applied to farm models in waterlogged and non-waterlogged areas in the coastal and inland regions. The rent recovery index takes into account several factors. Family labor was fully costed at the alternative of outside employment as unskilled farm labor, as there exist possibilities for employment at the current daily wage of TL 2,500 (USS 4.63). A return to management has been imputed at 20Z of the annual net farm revenue. No allowance has been imputed for risk or uncertainty because the crops grown are annual, not perishable, relatively well known to farmers and because there exists an active market for the supply of inputs and farming custom services. Furthermore, with ample water supplies and the elimination of waterlogging, there is not a great risk in water deficiencies due to drought periods. The results are summarized in Table 6.2 below and detailed in Annex 6, Table 6. -42-
Table 6.2 Rent and Cost RecoveryIndices (TL'OOOin 1985 terms)
IA IC IIA IiC Coastal Inland Coastal Non- Inland Non- Type of Farm Waterlogged Waterlogged Waterlogged Waterlogged ---- 2 ha …-- -- 3 ha--- -- 1. Net cash income 3,817 4,251 2. Rent as a percentage of income 78 70 3. Total direct charges 1,545 122 2,235 195 4. Rent recoveryindex 52 - 75 - 5. Public SectorOutlays 2,368 211 3,459 360 6. Cost RecoveryIndex 65 58 65 54
6.13 The 2 ha waterloggedcoastal farm (IA), with lower incremental incomes,pays chargesannually to DSI of TL 39 thousand(US$72) for O&M costs and TL 7,424 (US$18)for the recoveryof investments. It also contributes annuallyduring 20 years TL 185 thousand($343) for the recoveryof GDRS investments.All combinedcharges represent 52% of the farm rent and recover 65Z of public outlays. In additionthe non-waterloggedcoastal farm contributes33Z of all DSI publicoutlays because DSI recoveriesare spread over the whole perimeter. The 3 ha farms on the waterloggedinland areas (IIA) pay to DSI annual charges for O&M of TL 33 thousand(US$61) and of TL 7,238 (US$13)for capitalrecovery. In addition,recovery for GDRS investmentsamount annually to TL 278 thousand(USS 515). The farmts combined charges represent about 75% of the farm's rent and recover 65X of public outlays. The farm in the non- waterloggedarea (IIC),contributes 38% to 1,SI'spublic outlays. These rates indicatethat the farmerswould have sufficientfinancial incentive to achieveprojected yields and cropping intensities(the financialrate of returnagainst public investmentsfor the 2 ha coastalwaterlogged farm (IA) is estimatedat 18%, and for the 3 ha inland waterlogged farm (IIA) at 14%). The absolute level of project charges during the recovery period amounts to $433 annually for the coastal farm and $589 for the inlandfarm. The level of chargesrepresents a balancebetween farmer incentivesand the public savingsneeded by Governmentfor the sustainability of these investmentsin the irrigatedperimeters.
Cost Recoveryat the AggregateLevel
6.14 First Time Slice. With the objectiveof the proposedproject to rehabilitatedrainage in an area of 668,000ha of which 220,000ha suffer from major drainageproblems, an aggregatecalculation for the first time slice has been carriedout, after phasing in the investments,to ascertainthe overall impactof the proposedundertaking. As data in Annex 6, Table 7 indicate,the coastalregions can contribute53% to the publicoutlays with the proposed repaymentarrangements, while the inlandregions contribute 55Z, for a weightedoverall cost recoveryindex of 54%. -43-
VII. BENEFITSAND JUSTIFICATION
A. Benefits
7.01 The proposedproject would supportrationalization of the public investmentprogram for drainage and on-farmdevelopment. The proposed investmentswould increasecrop output from existing irrigationschemes under growing domesticconsumption and industrialrequirements and demand in competitiveexport markets. The investmentswould thus increaseemployment and householdincomes in farms and market centers. The value of future incrementalproduction in currentlyaffected areas 'benefitareas) under the first time slice comprisesthe quantifiablebenefits treatedin the economic analysisbelow. Additionalbenefits which are attributableto the future area which would eventuallybecome waterloggedwithout the proposedinvestments are difficultto quantifyand have not been included. In addition,the proposed projectwould benefitthe irrLgationand drainagesubsector by strengthening operatingand investmentmanagement through provision of trainingand streamliningof investmentselection criteria used by DSI and GDRS.
7.02 Beneficiaries.Approximately 97,000 farmersown and operate land in the 220,000ha currentlysubject to waterloggingand salinityunder the first time slice. These and neighboringfarmers operating land which without the proposedinvestments would eventuallybecome waterlogged would benefit.
7.03 EmploymentImpact. At full development,annual on-farmemployment in the currentlywaterlogged areas would increaseby about 7 millionmandays per year, about 20Z of currenton-farm employmentwithin the DSI irrigation perimeters. This increasewould be absorbed largelyby farm household members,and in part by an increasein hired labor.
7.04 ForeignExchange Impact. Additionalexports of cottonand pulses and fewer wheat importsat full development(first time slice)would generate potentialincremental foreign exchangeearnings/savings amounting to about US$177 millionequivalent, as follows:
Table 7.1 EstimatedForeign Exchange Earnings/Savings
'000 tons USS million
Cotton lint 82.5 122.7 Wheat 212.0 29.5 Broad beans (shelled) 90.0 24.8 Total 177.0
While a portionof cotton and pulse productionwould be sold locally,the incrementalsales would enable additional exports from other parts of Turkey. In the projectareas, rice production would declineby about 21,000 tons, with the result that additionalrice importsvalued at about US$10.8million would be needed to meet the current level of domesticdemand. In addition,the incrementaloutput under the projectwould requireadditional 30,000 tons of fertilizervalued at the border at US$6.6million. Assuming that all incrementalfertilizers would be imported,net foreignexchange earnings/savingsunder the projectwould amount to about US$160million equivalentper year. -44-
B. Economic Analysis
7.05 The impact on the Turkish economy in terms of economic rates of return (ERRs) and net present values (NPVs) would be evaluated by the Goverument using agreed criteria as a basis for selecting each investment (Annex 3, page 2). The analysis for this appraisal covers:
(a) six representative individual projects, five in the coastal zone covering the major share of the waterlogged areas and one covering a substantial area in the inland zone; and (b) the first time-slice investments, overall.
In addition, indicative ERR and NPV values are estimated for the entire core program. The quantifiable net benefits from incremental crop production are evaluated on the basis of the typical farm budgets for the inland and coastal zones, after adjustments for taxes, subsidies and debt service. The investment and operating costs in each case are based on unit rates including capital and operating costs for equipment. The cost estimates thus include the full construction costs taking into account equipment financed both from the project and other sources. Price contingencies are excluded. In the irrigated areas in Turkey's coastal and inland regions, farm mechanization levels and household labor mobility are relatively high. Although rural household members are generally underemployed, they receive opportunities to participate in the rural labor force at prevailing wages which are freely determined. In view of the above, future household family labor in the analysis is valued at the prevailing unskilled labor wage rate. The analyses extend over a 25-year period, including the initial six-year implementation period and four years thereafter to realize the anticipated level of benefits at full development.
7.06 Economic Prices. Farm production and inputs are valued at farmgate. Farmgate prices for internationally traded commodities or their products (cotton, wheat, rice, and broad beans) and fertilizer inputs are derived from projected border prices based on World Bank price projections, prevailing trade parities in Turkey, and recenc Turkish export/importvalues where available (Annex 7, Tables 1-5). Border prices for broad beans, not covered in the World Bank projections, are based on recent unit export values. Adjustments are made for transport, handling, and processing costs between border and farmgate. For pesticides, which are imported with no restrictions or tariffs other than the value added tax (10%) at sale point, 90% of the prevailing prices paid by farmers is used. Prevailing farmgate prices are used for other farm commodities and inputs. Economic farmgate prices used in the analysis are sunnarized in Annex 7 (Table 6).
7.07 ERR and NPV. Based on the above assumptions, the estimated ERRs and NPVs would be as follows; details are at Annex 7 (Tables 7-13). -45-
Table 7.2 Estimated NPVs and ERRs
NPV /1 ERR (TL million) (X)
Alasehir Project (Coastal) 4,498 27 Koprucay Project (Coastal) 7,500 25 Menemen Project (Coastal) 8,590 31 Sarakoy Project (Coastal) 3,256 22 Turgutlu Project (Coastal) 5,922 25 KonyR Cumra Project (Inland) -3,298 10
Overall 1st Time slice 103,400 22
Overall Core Program 143,600 19
/1 Estimated assuming opportunity cost of capital (0CC) at 12%.
Tne generally high rates of return, particularly in the coastal region, confirm the relatively high benefits and short gestation periods for on-farm investments within areas already supported by irrigation infrastructure. In the inland region Konya Cumra project, despite the anticipated yield increases, a high per hectare investment cost coupled with relatively low output value and high cost of mechanization for the predominant crops has resulted in a low ERR. Individual projects with appraised ERRs such as this would not be selected for on-farm investments. The range of results indicate the necessity for the Government to screen individual proposals with the aim of funding only those proposals which would maximize the total NPV withiu available resources.
7.08 Sensitivity Analysis. The analysis indicates that satisfactory returns would be achieved on most individual subprojects and for the project overall, even with substantial increases in investment and operating costs. For example, for the first time-slice project and the coastal region projects analyzed, investment costs could increase by 50X or more before the ERR would be unacceptable. The benefits are sensitive to variation in assumed yield levels and prices. However, the assumed yield levels have already been achieved in similar areas not affected by waterlogging. Possible yield improvements attributable to use of improved technology have not been taken into account. Changes in international prices would more likely affect the cropping pattern than the overall economic viability, as existing conditions encourage farmers to cultivate high value crops and make efficient use of requisite inputs. Thus, the economic benefits from the proposed investment project are relatively secure. -46-
C. Risks
7.09 The proposed project would entail lower risk than many others in Turkey because it would support tested technical improvements in areas already supported by major irrigation infrastructure. Projected cropping practices and yield levels for the areas to be improved already are achieved in adjacent areas not effected by waterlogging and salinity. Domestic and export market prospects are good and marketing channels are well established.
7.10 The main risks to achieving project objectives and sustaining efficient development are institutional:
(a) Availability of funding for the Irrigation and Drainage subsector and within the subsector priority allocation of resources to drainage and on-farm development;
(b) Government's capacity to prepare, appraise and select priority investments;
(c) DSI and GDRS's ability to coordinate overlapping implementationplans and schedules; and
(d) Availability of adequate funding for O&M.
7.11 Measures are included to minimize these risks. Under the ASAL, the Government has agreed to maintain 1OZ of total public investment for agriculture (of which 66X has traditionally been allocated for irrigation and drainage). The Government also agreed to accord the highest priority to an agreed core program of drainage and on-farm development investments within the budget allocations for irrigation and drainage (para 3.22). If a shortfall in annual program funding should occur, selected subprojects in the project could be deferred, thus extending project completion without jeopardizing the realization of individual project benefits or subsector objectives. In addition, current economic conditions are substantially improved over conditions under which some projects were delayed in the past, and the Government has undertaken measures to improve recovery of investment and operating costs. Since it has been agreed that the financing plans and the requisite budget provisions based thereon would be made according to an agreed timetable to be reviewed with the Bank each year, there would be sufficient time to adjust the investment program so as to maximize benefits, taking account of any risk of shortfalls in funding available to carry out project investments.
7.12 The Government has confirmed its resolve to rationalize investment priorities in the face of limited resources and political pressures. Provisions are made under the project for institution building to improve the capacity of implementing agencies in preparation, planning, design and review of proposals. Consultants are to be engaged under the ASAL who are expected to make a major contribution to increasing the capacities of DSI and GDRS to carry out preparation, design and selection of proposals; continuation of these consultant services would be financed under the proposed project. DSI and GDRS responsibilitiesunder the project have been delineated so as to -47- minimizethe necessityfor coordinationduring implementation.DSI and GDRS implementationplans and scheduleswould be agreedunder the investmentreview process. The proposedproject also providesfor trainingof DSI and GDRS staff. DSI and GDRS would appraiseand select the individualproposals using criteriaand methodologyacceptable to the Bank.
7.13 DSI's regionalmaintenance sections are adequatelystaffed, well experienced,and have made effectiveuse of maintenanceresources and funds. The Governmenthas consistentlybudgeted funds for recurringO&M costs, but OM has been constrainedby lack of foreignexchange for purchasingequipment needed for major rehabilitationof channels. Equipmentnow on hand is overused,with more than 90X of the existingitems older than 5 years and over 40S older than 10 years. The ASAL includesUS$111 million for purchasingthe requiredequipment needed to remove this constraint;while other associated costs for rehabilitationof the systemare being financedfrom the proposed project.
VIII. ASSURANCESAND AGREEMENTS
8.01 Duringnegotiations, assurances were obtainedfrom Governmentthat:
(a) consultingand reviewingengineering firms financedinitially under the ASAL to assist DSI and GDRS would be maintained throughoutthe implementationperiod with additionalfinancing from the proposedproject (paras 3.13 and 3.14);
(b) subprojectsproposed for financingunder this projectwould be selectedfrom an agreed list (para 3.16);
(c) subprojectsfor the first year of implementation(rehabilitation of surfacedrains) would be submittedfor Bank approvalin early 1986. The programof the selectionof subprojectsfor financing beyond the first year of implementationwould be governedby the follovingprocedures: prior to initiatingprocurement for the secondyear's subprojects,the Governmentassisted by the ConsultingFirms would prepareand selecta programbased on agreedselection criteria, which would be submittedto the Bank for reviewand approvalalong with the procurementdocuments; the same procedurewould be followedduring the succeedingyears of implementation(para 3.19);
(d) Governmentwould make appropriatearrangements to provide the remainingfunds requiredfor the project,and submitto the Bank for its reviewby September30 each year an updatedfinancing plan includingrevised schedule of estimatedexpenditures, taking into account the effectsof inflationon costs (para 3.22);
(e) civil works consistingof installationof subsurfacedrains, reclamationof salineland, constructionof access roads, facilitiesfor O&M and researchstations would be procuredunder ICB proceduresconsistent with the "Guidelinesfor Procurement under World Bank Loan and IDA Credits"published by the Bank in May 1985 (Bank Guidelines)(paras 3.25 and 3.27); -48-
(f) Government will establish a special account in the Central Bank of Turkey to deal exclusively with eligible expenditures under the project (para 3.31);
(g) GDRS will make arrangements for and provide on a timely basis adequate funds for the maintenance of collector drains which it constructs; and Government will provide adequate extension services and facilities in the completed project areas (para 4.09);
(h) maintenance of project accounts, preparation and use of statements of expenditures and receipts, and the carrying out of financial reporting and auditing will be as set out in para 4.10;
(i) regular monitoring and evaluation of key indicators will be undertaken and quarterly and annual reports will be submitted in a timely basis in format acceptable to the Bank (para 4.11); and a project completion report will be submitted in a timely fashion (para 4.12);
(j) complete recording of the sample surveys of crop yields would be carried out and supplied to the Bank on a yearly basis with the annual report (para 5.05);
(k) Government would take all necessary actions to improve collection of DSI accounts, including instituting appropriate legal procedures against users whose accounts are more than twelve months overdue (para 6.07);
(1) DSI and GDRS cost recovery under the proposed project would proceed under the criteria agreed under the IAEE project (para 6.10).
8.02 The following action would be condition of Loan Effectiveness:
(a) Goverrnent would make satisfactory arrangements for GDRS Cost Recovetry(para 6.06); and
(b) appoint project consultants, financed initially under the ASAL (paras 3.17 and 3.18). -49- ANNEXI Table 1
TURKEY DRAINAGE AND ON-FARM DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Public Inve5tment for Irrigationand Drainage Sub-Sector (TL Million at current prices)
Total Agricultural Sector Irriaatior Sub-Sector Invest1ment Year Goverrment X of By By X of Investment Total Cov, Total I GDRS Total Agdrc Sector 1979 229,006 17,801 7.8 8.146 5,294 13.440 75.5
1980 470,411 33.179 7.1 16,900 8.580 25.480 76.8
1981 750.343 72,274 9.6 37,012 19.931 56.943 78.8
1982 924.116 90.355 9.8 42.174 23,758 65.932 73.0
1983 1.296.761 116.958 9.0 58.708 31,410 90.118 77.1
1984 1.740.700 190.575 10.9 78.338 42,220 120.558 63.3
1985 2.410.476 245.407 10.2 112.400 50.300 162.700 66.3
Note: 1979-84: Actual Expenditures;1985: Program allocations. Sources: Annual Investment Program of Government. OSI and GORS Expenditure and budget reports.
3946Z -50-
ANNEX 2 Page 1
TURKEY
DRAINAGEAND ON-FARMDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
SubsectorProgram Topography,Soils, Climate,Population, Land Tenure,Agricultural Situation and AgriculturalExtension
A. Descriptionof the SubsectorProgram
2.01 Location. The programwill be implementedin the irrigatedschemes where DSI has fully or substantiallycompleted construction and where GDRS's onfarm developmentsrelated to these irrigationworks needs to be completed. Irrigationhas been developedparticularly in the coastalzone of the Mediterraneanzone and Aegean regionsand in the CentralSouth region. The subprojectsto be financedunder the loan would be selectedfrom an agreed list of 155 DSI's irrigationand drainageschemes, both completedand ongoing (Annex3, Table 2).
2.02 Topographyand Soils. In Turkey,mountains cover a great portionof the land and only one-fifthof the countryremains at altitudeless than 500 m, mainly locatedin the coastalzones. Altitudeand continentalityare the factorswhich determinemost of the croppingand farmingsystems. Soils are generallyof moderate quality,which, when managed properlyare able to give higheryields. Alluvialsoils dominatein the coastalregions. Large areas of centralTurkey have fine texturedmedium to shallowcalcareous soils of the reddishbrown and brown soil groups. Soils of the Black Sea region are of heavier texture;however, generally all soils are suitablefor drainage measures. The main constraintslimiting the potentialof the soils lie with severewinter conditions leading to frost and slow plant growth,and topographywith relatedproblems of soil and water conservation,and water-loggingin the irrigationschemes.
2.03 Climate- Temperatureand Precipitation.Turkey as a whole lies in the temperatezone but its climatehas considerableregional variations dependingon the altitudeand the distancefrom the sea. The coastalareas have a mild sea climatewhile inlandsevere continental conditions prevail. Variationsin temperature,slight on the coast, are considerableinland. The south has a typicalMediterranean climate with hot, dry summers;and mild winters;the averageannual temperatureis 19-20°C,the averagefor July being 28C and for January 8-11°C. The influenceof the Mediterraneanis also felt on the shores of the Aegean and Marmara Sea, althoughaverage temperaturesfall from South to North. In the Inland zones (CentralAnatolia) summersare hot and dry and winter very cold with frequentsnowfalls. The -51-
ANNEX 2 Page 2 average annual temperatures is 10-120C. In Eastern Anatolia, summers are cool and winters severe. South Eastern Anatolia is influenced by desert climate with hot, dry summers and severe winters. Climatic characteristics of the two zones are given in Annex 2, Attachment 1. Average annual rainfall is the hignest in the Aegean provinces (Manisa: 746.7mm; Izmir: 700.2m; Canakkale: 629.1mm; Balikesir: 609.2mm); but there are large variations ranging Erolih323.9nm at Konya to 746.7mm at Manisa. The number of raindays is lowest at Ankara (69.8 days) and highest at Bursa with 200.9 days. Number of frosty d,ys in the lowest coastal zone is 6.8 days at Izmir and highest in the Inland rone of Konya with 100.1 days. Frosty days can begin as early as August 2 in Kutahya and continue as late as May 31 in Eskisehir. Highest temperatures is observed at Urfa with 40.5°C and the lowest temperaturesat Konya with 28.2C below zero.
2.04 Population and Land Tenure. The program area is characterized by a very large number of small farms averaging 2.2 ha in Coastal and 3.8 ha in Inland regions. Farm units are not only small but they are also composed of several parcels scattered in the schemes, about 2 plots per farm in the Coastal region and 3 plots in the Inland region. The average plot size is 1.0 ha in the Coastal and 1.4 ha Inland. The following table summarizes the farm distribution:
Coastal /1 Inland Size of Parcels Parcels Area (2) Parcels Area (X) (ha) (No.) (ha) (No.) (ha)
0.1 - 1 10,085 7,066 53 14,898 8,194 22 1.1 - 2 2,053 3,208 24 5,604 8,686 24 2.1 - 3 567 1,365 10 2,727 6,954 19 + 4 249 988 8 1,574 9,587 25 Total 13,170 13,333 1 100 25,820 37,031 100
No. Farmers 5,886 9,722 Average Parcel Size 1.01 1.43 Average Farm Size 2.27 3.80 Averege Number of Parcels 2.23 2.66
Source: DSI Regional Directorate Records. 1I Average of Three Schemes = Turgutlu, Menemen, Alasehir.
2.05 Land Use. About 562 of agricultural land represents the crop land in Turkey, which is occupied by field crops (about 63X), fallow (about 24%) and vineyards, orchards and vegetable gardens (about 13%). The dominant system of cultivation in rainfed areas consists of a rotation including fallow 1 year out of 2, especially for the interior regions. Fallow is of lesser importance in coastal regions, which benefit from higher rainfall and are usually better equipped with irrigation facilities. About 187 of the agricultural land is irrigated. -52-
ANNEX 2 Page 3
Distribution of Arable Land (1982)
Area Particulars ha '000 %
Area Sown 17,157 63 Area Fallow 6,614 24 Crop Area 23,771 87
Vegetable Gardens 618 2 Vineyards 655 3 Orchards 1,426 5 Olive Groves 811 3 TOTAL 27,281 100
Source: Statistical Year Book 1983. Note: An additional area of 20.2 million ha is also under forests.
2.06 Degree of Waterlogging. The monitoring by DSI of the water table level in 38 irrigation schemes over a period of 10 years (total net irrigated area of 369,000 ha) has shown that during March/April 1983, an average of 35X of the irrigation area has water table standing at 0-lm depth (Annex 2, Table 2). In the coastal regions the average was 40% and in the inland regions the average was 26%, on this basis, the area subject to water-logging is estimated to be 440,000 ha, by 1989. The regression curves for nine irrigation projects show that the water logged area is increasing at the rate of about 3X annually, in the publicly managed irrigation systems.
B. Agricultural Situation in the Program Areas
2.07 Present Cropping Pattern. The present agricultural situation in the 38 irrigation projects which have been monitored for water logging has been examined for the years 1979-1983 separately for the coastal and inland areas. In areas where irrigation has been introduced yields have remained below potential mainly because of incomplete onfarm development works and water-logging. It is estimated presently that only 70X of the irrigable land is cultivated under irrigation and only 65X of that land is cultivated without drainage constraint. Cropping patterns for the years 1979-83 are summarized belaw. -53-
ANNEX2 Page 4
PresentCropping Pattern in theDSI fanitred Projects
( 1993-19793
COASTALAREAS (Z) IhUD AREAS()
1983 1992 1991 1980 1979 1983 1982 1991 1980 1979
Cereals 6.23 9.46 2.46 0.62 2.91 40.46 37.21 35.04 24.23 39.16 leans 3.40 3.19 0.64 0.07 0.42 4.22 3.22 2.31 4.92 5.71 S. Beet 0.79 0.62 0.52 0.71 0.40 20.16 20.95 20.31 16.55 11.10 Cotton 57.42 51.22 66.73 70.85 53.75 13.20 12.07 14.60 19.91 15.03 Rice 3.55 5.41 4.97 2.42 5.81 1.62 2.44 3.00 2.31 2.96 Maize 2.78 6.13 3.10 2.86 9.44 0.61 0.96 0.89 1.24 1.04 Citrus/Fruits 4.MX 2.59 3.16 3.03 2.45 3.08 3.15 3.09 3.90 2.82 Vegetables 4.75 4.95 4.23 3.41 4.91 5.37 6.77 6.32 7.45 4.90 melons 4.24 5.58 4.50 4.47 3.24 1.07 1.32 2.01 2.74 1.99 Vines 2.45 2.24 2.29 1.56 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 Fodder 1.25 1.04 1.15 1.12 0.83 4.83 5.91 6.32 6.79 4.60 oilseds 3.99 2.30 2.46 2.93 4.34 1.82 3.47 3.14 6.2 3.64 Others 4.97 5.27 3.79 5.95 11.90 3.5 2.71 2.97 4.72 7.05
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Irrigation Area 307700293900 291900 245390 254854 166250 165750 148690 16205 168943 Cultivated Area 220251 241043 231031 192913 191291 129309 121956 11451U 93414 112959
2.08 Effects of Waterlogging on Cropped Areas and Yield. The consequence of the high water table situationis a reductionin the cultivatedarea, for the land which is permanentlywater logged, estimatedto represent1S on averageof the irrigatedland, and a net reductionof yield in the partially or temporarilywater-logged area (over 440,000ha). The data collectedby DSI on crop yields, as well as observationsmade by the appraisalmission ir differentparts of Turkey and analysisof the publishedtrial data, as surmarixedbelow, confirmthe adverseimpact of water loggingon yields. -54-
ANNEX 2 Page 5
Effect of Waterlogging on Yield
2 of Yield Yield Under Yield Under Reduction Crop/Scheme Waterlogging non-Waterlogging kg/ha - - --- kg/ha
Cotton Koprucay 750 2,800 73 Saraykoy 620 2,720 77 Menemen 1,400 3,650 62 Alasebir 1,520 2,800 46
Wheat Konya 1,680 3,800 56 Menemen 3,300 4,600 28
Melon Konya 9,000 23,000 61
Rice Koprucay 2,300 - Alasehir 4,000 Turgutlu 3,650
Source: DSI 1984.
The benefits arising from drainage works depend on factors like the timing, length and severity of water-logging, type and value of crops and salinity hazards.
C. Predominant Crops in the Program Area
2.09 Cereals. Wheat is the main cereal grown in the program areas, in rotation with sugar beet in the Inland region, and with cotton in the Coastal region. Yields are reasonably high and average 3.5 tons/ha. Varieties are generally of semi-dwarf high yielding type. Wheat cultivation is totally mechanized. Rice is grown mainly in the Coastal region in totally or partially water-logged zones. Yields range from 4 to 6 tons/ha level.
2.10 Cotton. The Mediterranean, Aegean and Southern Anatolian regions are the main cotton producing areas in Turkey. Yields range from 2.5 to 3 tons/ha in non water-logged areas and are only 0.8 to 1.2 tons/ha in the waterlogged areas and have been almost static in recent years. Picking is almost totally by hand, with casual laborers coming from Eastern Turkey. Pests are a major constraint in addition to water logging in depressing yields. -55-
ANNEX 2 Page 6
2.11 GrainLegumes. Lentils,broad beans, chick peas and dry beans are the major pulsesgrown in the programarea. Broadbeans is a mechanizedcrop from plantingto harvesting,while for other pulsesharvesting is done by hand mainly because of the non-uniform maturities. These crops are grown by small scale farmersusing familylabor, resulting in good qualitycultivation and relatively high yields,3 tons/hafor broad beans and 1.8-2 tons/hafor lentils,chick peaa and dry beans.
2.12 Fodder. Alfalfais the predominantfodder crop under irrigation. The main varietyis Fayseriof Turkishorigin, but other improvedvarieties from USA and Peru ewceincreasing. Alfalfa is mainly grown in Inland regions where it occupiesabout 6% of the land. It is harvestedin winterup to 4 to 5 times when temperaturespermit. In the irrigationschemes, animal productionis a marginalactivity. Animalsare kept by a limitednumber of farmersonly to meet familyneeds. There is no organizedcommercial livestock activityfor meat or milk production. 2.13 Tobacco. Traditionallytobacco is grown under rainfedconditions where qualityis good but yields low and uncertain. In recent years, there has been a shift towardsproducing tobacco under irrigation,particularly in the Coastal region.
2.14 Sugar Beet. This is a major industrialcrop in Inland region,and is grown in rotationwith wheat and fodder. Yields are moderatelyhigh; 38 tons/haon average. Sugar companiescontrol production, through contracts governingthe area to be plantedand provisionof extensionservices, seed, and certaininputs. Harvestingis organizedin August/Septemberto suit factoryneeds. A premium is paid to farmersfor early delivery. Sugarbeet tops and a portionof the wet pulp is given back to farmers to be used as animal feed.
D. ProductionInputs. Research and Extension 2.15 Use of ProductionInputs. Past subsidizationof fertilizerprices encouragedits widespreaduse, and currentlyin many cases, farmersstill are using more fertilizerthan needed. The use of agriculturalchemicals (herbicides,pesticides) has not spreadas widelybecause of high prices and limitedfarmer's know how. Presentlyuses of pesticidesare consistentwith OPN 11.01. Disinfectedseed producedby farmers,and certifiedseeds are commonly in use.
2.16 AgriculturalResearch. Researchinstitutes have succeeded in introducinga number of new varietiesfor severalcrops and promote recommendationson culturalpractices. However,in a number of cases these recommendations have been too broad and not adapted to specific farming systems. Research effectivenessalso is constrainedby weak linkages between research, and extensionand the farmers. -56-
ANNEX 2 Page 7
2.17 AgriculturalExtension. MAFRA'sprovincial Agricultural Extension Serviceis representedin all the 67 provincesand 631 counties. Each provinceis servedby a Directorof Agriculturewho is responsiblefor coordinationof the various technicalservices within the province. Services providedthrough section chiefs consist of animalhealth plant protectionand agriculturalextension. Under a recentBank project,Loan 2405-TU,services akin to the T&V extensionmethods have been set up in 16 core provincesand are expectedto be extendedthroughout Turkey.
3946Z TURKEY APPRAISAL OF
DRAINAGE AND ON-FARM DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
MeteoroloagcalData
Average Max. Min. Average No. of Extremes for Extremes for Precipitation Precipitation Temp. Temp. Temp. Frost Prevailing Beginning of Ending of Citljs in Days NM _oC_ o.C. DC Days Winds Frost Days Frost DOYS Afyon 105.4 455.5 37.8 -27.2 11.2 92.5 SSW 22 Sept.-2 Dec. 25 March-14 Hay Ankara 69.8 367.0 40.0 -24.9 11.8 84.7 S 29 Nov.-10 DOec. 10 March-14 May Balikesir 97.1 609.2 43.7 -21.8 14.6 36.2 NESSW 8 Oct.-23 Jan. 4 March-30 Apr. Burdur 88.5 436.7 39.6 -16.7 13.2 65 S 1 Oct.-27 Dec. 8 March-24 Apr. Bursa 200.9 713.1 42.6 25.7 14.4 33.6 SSE 20 Oct.-23 Jan. 19 Feb.-30 Apr. Canakkale 104.8 629.1 38.7 11.5 14.9 26.3 SSE 27 Oct.-15 Jan. 27 Feb.-14 Apr. Denizli 82.2 547.0 41.2 -11.6 15.8 28.6 S 15 Oct.- 5 Feb. 30 Feb.-30 Apr. Diyarbakir 88.5 495.9 46.2 -24.2 15.9 64.0 S 7 Oct.-13 Dec. 21 Feb.-23 Apr. Eskisehir 107.8 373.6 39.1 26.3 10.9 97.3 N,NW 21 Sept.-23 Nov. 23 Mar.-31 May ' Isparta 103.2 619.3 37.5 -17.8 12.2 65.3 5 1 Oct.-27 Dec. 8 Mar.-24 Apr. -4 Iamir 100.3 700.2 42.7 8.2 17.6 6.8 SWIW 22 Nov.-27 Feb. 22 Nov.-23 Mar. Konya 73.7 323.9 40.0 -28.2 11.5 100.1 SW 14 Sept.-20 Dec. 21 Mar.-12 May Kutahya 115.3 564.6 36.8 -28.1 10.6 92.5 NW 2 Aug.-2 Dec. 30 Mar.-3 May Manisa 153.6 746.7 44.5 17.5 16.8 8.2 S 22 Cct.-24 Jan. 24 Jan.-l May Mardin 80.8 713.4 42.0 -13.9 15.8 55.0 S 23 Nov.-25 Jan. 22 Dec.-S Apr. Urfa 72.3 473.1 46.5 -12.4 18.1 24.3 E 9 Nov.-6 March 22 Dec.-5 Apr.
69.8 323.9 36.8 -28.2 10.6 6.8 Extremes 200.9 746.7 46.5 8.2 18.1 100.1
Source: State MeteorologicalService.
Doc. 3946Z
0 M,
f-A -58-
ANNEX3 Page 1
TURKEY
DRAINAGEAND ON-FARM DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Core Program for Irrigation and Drainage
(a) Rehabilitationof surfacedrains within the completedand ongoingirrigation schemes over an area of about 1.4 millionhectares to restorethese channelsto their planned performanceand subsequent maintenance through prOvision of machinery and equipment.
(b) Excavation of additional main, secondary and tertiary surface drains by DSI in a length of about 6,000 km within the completed and ongoing irrigationschemes.
(c) Installationof subsurfacecollector drains by GDRS over an area of about 150,000hectares.
(d) Installationof subsurfacedrains over about 275,000hectares of waterloggedland.
(e) Land reclamationthrough construction of small dykes and leachingover an area of about 78,000hectares.
(f) Constructionof access roads along the irrigationand drainage system coveringan area of about 170,000hectares.
(g) Implementationof an operationand maintenanceprogram for drainage.
(h) Employmentby GDRS of an engineeringconsulting firm for the programming,preparation of inceptionreports, feasibility studies, final design and biddingdocuments for executionof Core Programworks through contractorsand employmentof reviewingconsulting firm for review of the work done by the engineeringconsulting firm.
(i) Employmentby DSI of an engineeringconsulting firm for the subprojectspreparation of inceptionreports, feasibility studies, final designsand biddingdocuments for executionof surfacedrainage works by contractors;review and evaluationof DSI's annualpublic investmentprograms accordingto agreed criteria;and assistanceto DSI to set up monitoringand evaluation programs for the investment portfolio, and employment of reviewing consultingfirms to reviewthe work done by the engineeringconsulting firm.
(j) Trainingof GDRS and DSI headquartersand regionalstaff in selectedfields in appropriatecountries.
Source: ASAL Loan 2585-TU,Supplemental. Letter No. 1, Annex 1. -59-
ANNEX 3 Page 2
TURKEY
DRAINAGEAND ON-FARMDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Criteria for Subproject Selection
1. In carrying out the Core Program for Irrigation and Draiaage, the followiug criteria would be applied for purposes of determining which DSI and GDRS works would be carried out on a priority basis:
(i) works having an estimated economic rate of return of 15% or higher; and (ii) works which can be completed within a period of three years or less from their date of inception.
2. For the purposes of funding, works so identitied would be ranked according to the following technical characteristics:
Wi) the areas which can be drained and rehabilitated by cleaning and digging to design levels those main and secondary drains which require maintenance; (ii) areas where minimum additional investment is required in order to drain the land, through provision of the drains and open farm drains; (iii) areas with minimum additional investment as may require pumping facilities to evacuate the drainage effluent; (iv) areas with extensive and moderate to severe secondary salinization problems; and (v) areas requiring heavy investment cost, supporting high value crops, such as citrus, cotton and vegetables.
3. On this basis, it is expected that drainage works, both surface and subsurface, as vell as access roads and land reclamation would take priority.
Source: ASAL Loan 2585-TU, Supplemental Letter No. 1.
3946Z -60-
ANNEX3 Table 1 TURKEY
DRAINAGE AND ON-FARM DEVELOPMENTPROJECT
Detail of Expertise Consulting Services and CounterpartDSI and GDRS Staff
Consulting Services DSI Man- Man- Months Months Man- in in Home Months Man- DSI No. Turkey Office Total No. Months
CONSULTING SERVICES
Team Leader ( 4 1/4 yrs) 1 51 0 51 - - Drainage Design Engineers (3 yrs) 6 216 0 216 6 216 Hydrologist/Groundwater Engineers (3 yrs) 2 72 0 72 2 72 Survey & Construction Specialists(4 yr.) 15 720 0 720 15 720 Drainage Construction Specialists(3 yr.) 3 108 0 108 - 108 Agronomist (3 yrs) 1 36 0 36 1 36 Economist (3 yr.) 1 36 0 36 1 36 Unallocated - 24 16 40 - 120 1,263 1,279 1,308
REVIEWING CONSULTINGSERVICES
Senior Technical Expert
(20 yrs) - 30 20. 50 -
GDRS Consulting Services GDRS
CONSULTING SERVICES
Team Leader 1 1 0 51 - - Drainage Design Engineers 6 6 0 216 6 216 HydroLogist/Groundwater Engineer 2 2 0 72 2 72 Survey & Construction Engineers 12 12 0 576 12 576 Drainage Construction Specialists 3 3 0 108 - - Agronomist 1 1 0 36 1 36 Economist 1 1 0 36 1 36 Unallocated - 24 16 40 - 120 1,135 1,056
REVIEWING CONSULTING SERVICES
Senior Technical Experts
(20 yrs) - 30 20 50 - -61- ANNEX3 Table 2 Page 1
TURKEY
DRAINAGE AND ON-FARM DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AGREED LIST OF DSI's IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE SCHEMES
Schemes Under Operation (1985)
Gross Irrigation DSI Region Name of Scheme Area (ha) Water Source
I. BURSA
1. M. Kemalpasa 17,890 M. Kemalpasa C. 2. Bursa Golbasi 1,850 Golbasi B. 3. Orhangazi 1,100 Iznik G. 4. Ulubat 5,650 Ulubat G. 5. Keramet 2,230 Iznik G. 6. Demirtas 2,160 Demirtas B. 7. B. Karadere 1,800 Manyas G. 8. Iznik P. 3,000 Iznik G.
II. IZMIR
9. Menemen 18,470 Demirkopru B. 10. Ahmetli 57,200 Demirkopru B. 11. Adala 25,720 Demirkopru B. 12. Sarigol 2,740 Buldan B. 13. Alasehir 14,070 Avsar B. 14. Maltepe I.ks. 2,700 Gediz N.
III. ESKISEHIR
15. Kutahya 2,310 Porsuk C. 16. Eskisehir 23,200 Porsuk B. 17. Cifteler 6,240 Porsuk B. 18. Inonu 1,820 Dodurga B. 19. Kaymaz 470 Kaymaz B. 20. Enne 600 Enne B. 21. Yarali 3,940 Sakarya N. 22. 0. Sakarya 3,720 Sakarya N. -62-
ANNEX.3 Table 2 Page 2
Gross Irrigation DSI Region Name of Scheme Area (ha) Water Source
IV. KONYA
23. Cumra 45,000 Beysehir G., Apa B. 24. Uluirmak 18,500 Mamasin B. 25. Ayranci 4,600 Ayranci B. 26. Atlanti 12,090 Cavuscu C. 27. Nigde Bozkir 970 Bozkir B. 28. May 1,200 May B. 29. Sille 220 Sille B. 30. Gebere 600 Gebere B. 31. Altinapa 1,200 Altinapa 32. Gumusler 350 Gumusler B. 33. Akkaya 1,000 Akkaya B. 34. Eregli Sol Sah. 12,100 Ivriz B.
V. ANKARA
35. Murted 5,000 Kurtbogazi B. 36. Koprukoy 8,000 Kesikkopru B. 37. Bolu 10,400 Golkoy B. 38. Duzce Sag Sah. 10,600 Hasanlar B. 39. Duzce Sol Sah. 10,940 Hasanlar B. 40. Ayas Asartepe 2,260 Asartepe B. 41. Kumbaba P 530 Kizilirmak 42. Kalecik P 600 Kizilirnmak 43. Corum 1,590 Corum B. 44. Alaca 1,550 Alaca B.
VI. ADANA
45. Seyhan 107,300 Seyhan B. 46. Berdan 11,630 Berdan B. 47. Silifke 5,360 Goksu 48. Anamur 3,770 Anamur C. 49. Misis 2,700 Ceyhan N. 50. Kesiksuyu 8,760 Mehmetli B. 51. Kozan 7,200 Kozan B. 52. Mersin 4,050 Berdan B. 53. Ceyhan 98,710 Aslantas B. 54. Limonlu 100 Lamas C. 55. Gilindire 300 Gilindire C. 56. Bozyazi 1,530 Bozyazi C. 57. Erdemli P. 1,460 Erdemli K. 58. Kirikhan 8,200 Tahtakopru B. -63-
ANNEX 3 Table 2 Page 3
Gross Irrigation DSI Region Name of Scheme Area (ha) Water Source
VII. SAMSUN
59. Tokat 21,350 Almus B. 60. Amasya 3,150 Yesilirmak 61. Erbaa 3,050 Kelkit C. 62. Niksar 7,750 Kelkit C. 63. Ulukoy 1,210 Ulukoy B.
XII. KAYSERI
64. Sarimsakli 6,620 Sarimsakli B. 65. Zamanti 3,500 Zamanti I. 66. Cogun-Guzler 4,370 Cogun B. 67. Kultepe 3,040 Kultepe B. 68. Tatlarin 240 Tatlarin B. 69. Akkoy 740 Akkoy B. 70. Damsa 700 Damsa B.
XIII. ANTALYA
71. Alanya 1,050 Dim C. 72. Manavgat 8,940 Manavgat C. 73. Aksu 11,000 Aksu C. 74. Varsak 6,200 Kirkgozler K. 75. Koprucay 24,400 Koprucay 76. Alara 1,300 Alara C. 77. Korkuteli 4,300 Korkuteli B. 78. Elmali 300 Elmali K.
XVII. VAN
79. Van 6,450 Samran C. 80. Ercis 3,750 Zeylan C. 81. Muradiye 6,640 Bendimahi C. 82. Ahlat 3,000 Nazik G.
XVIII. ISPARTA
83. Seyitler 2,860 Seyitler B. 84. Selevir 8,080 Selevir B. 85. Bogazova 1,800 Egridir G. 86. Atabey P. 13,300 Egridir G. 87. Karamanli 3,000 Karamanli B. 88. Yalvac 2,180 Yalvac B. 89. Senirkent P. 9,340 Egridir G. 90. Cildirim 2,350 Cildirim K. -64-
ANNEX 3 Table 2 Page 4
Gross Irrigation DSI Region Name of Scheme Area (ha) Water Source
91. Onac 400 Onac B. 92. Gelendost P. 4,880 Egridir G. 93. Burdur Karatas 5,600 Karatas G., Eren C. 94. Aksu Yilanli 2,840 Aksu C. 95. Uluborlu 1,640 Uluborlu B. 96. Kozagaci 460 Kozagaci B.
XIX. SIVAS
97. Yildizirmagi 1,470 Yildizirmagi 98. Gemerek 2,050 Sizir K. 99. Maksutlu 380 Maksutlu B. 100. Yapialtin 2,600 Yapialtin B.
XX. K. MARAS
101. Kahramanmaras 22,550 Kartalkaya B. 102. Goksun 6,160 Goksun C.
XXI. AYDIN
103. Nazilli 18,480 B. Menderes N. 104. Saraykoy 12,530 B. Menderes N. 105. Akcay 18,450 Kemer B. 106. Irgilli 3,920 B. Menderes N. 107. Isikli 3,000 Isikli K. 108. Curuksu 7,860 Curuksu C. 109. Fethiye 8,100 Esen C. 110. Cine Topcam 4,160 Topcam B. 111. Acipayam-Golcuk 1,410 Dalaman C. 112. Soke I. ve2.ks. 12,800 B. Menderes N.
XXIII. KASTAMONU
113. Karacomak 1,790 Karacomak B.
XXV. BALIKESIR
114. Bigadic 3,060 Caygoren B. 115. Sindirgi 3,700 Caygoren B. 116. Canakkale 4,470 Atikhisar B. 117. Balikesir 7,400 Caygoren B. 118. Gokceada 700 tokceada B. -65-
ANNEX 3 Table 2 Page 5 Schemes Under Construction (1985)
Gross Irrigation DSI Region Name of Scheme Area (ha) Water Source
I. BURSA
119. Iznik 2,700 Iznik G. 120. M. Kemalpasa 1,050 M. Kemalpasa C. 121. Karacabey Sultaniye 3,800 Manyas G. 122. Hasanaga 710 Hasanaga B.
II. IZMIR
123. Maltepe 2.Ks. 1,700 Gediz N. 124. Bergama 4,250 Kestel B.
III. ESKISEHIR
125. Pamukova 5,880 Sakarya N. 126. Tavsanli 5,160 Kayabogazi B. 127. 0. Sakarya 2,010 Sakarya N. 128. Seyitgazi 15,500 Kunduzlar B., Catoren R
IV. KONYA
129. Cumra I. Esas 28,540 Beysehir G. 130. Gevrekli 5,080 Beysehir G. 131. Eregli Sag sah. 27,200 Ivriz B. 132. Karaman Godet 11,640 Godet B.
V. ANKARA
133. Guldurcek 6,600 Guldurcek B.
VI. ADANA
134. ASO III. Merhale 17,780 Seyhan B. 135. Berdan II. Merhale 15,890 Berdan B. 136. Andirin 2,920 Andirin C., Kesis C. 137. Yuvarlakli 1,470 Kalecik B.
VII. SAMSUN
138. Yedikir Suluova 6,780 Yedikir B. 139. Zile 6,620 Belpinar B., Boztepe B. 140. Amasya Yerkozlu 2,490 Yesilirmak 141. Ladik Suluova 7,750 Tersakan C. -66-
ANNEX 3 Table 2 Page 6
Gross Irrigation DSI Region Name of Scheme Area (ha) Water Source
XII. KAYSERI
142. Agcacar 15,730 Agcacar B. 143. Kovali 3,180 Kovali B. 144. Uzunlu 7,680 Uzunlu B. 145. Yozgat Yahyasaray 4,060 Yahyasaray B.
XIII. ANTALYA
146. Aksu Kargi 7,850 Karacaoren B. 147. Finike Tekke 9,890 Alakir B. Tekke B.
XVII. VAN
148. Ercis Kockopru 7,500 Kockopru B. 149. Van Gurpinar 11,300 Zernek B.
XIX. SIVAS
150. Susehri 6,230 Golova B.
XXI. AYDIN
151. Soke 3.ks. 7,140 Adiguzel B. 152. Curuksu Sag S 4,840 Curuksu 153. Fethiye Esen 4,490 Esen C. 154. Denizli Baklan 2.ks. 8,800 Isikli G.
XXIII. KASTAMONU
155. Germectepe 840 Germectepe B. 47- ANNEX 3 TURKEY Table 3 DRAINAGE AND ON-FARMDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Estimated Schedule of Expenditures - Core Program (USS) But Costs Foreisn Ehnhh
1996 1997 199 19 1990 191 1992 193 Totil Mot uuuuuurn sun 533i52 sinu ESESE omassa uses annumz msa
I. INVESTII COSTS
A. SURA DAINAEHRS
RBIAILIATIONOF SURFACE DRAINS 17.70 17.70 17.70 20.00 20.50 20.40 20.00 22.20 156.20 4890 74.98 COITRUCTIONOF NEWDRAINS - 10.80 10.80 12.00 12.00 12.00 13.00 14.0 85.20 53.0 45.16 EIU2IRNT 111.00 ------111.00 10010 111.00
Sub-TotalSWRFACE IINASE MOR;S 128.70 28.50 28.50 32.00 32.50 32.40 33.00 36.90 352.40 65.6 231.13 3. -SU ACE DRAINE MIKS
INSTALUTIONOF SUB-SIRFACE DRUNS - 26.40 29.90 38.70 51.10 63.30 73.90 68.60 351.90 57.0 200.59 IHSTAUTIONF wcILECTE nKS IN EXISTINGAREAS - 1.0 1.60 2.10 2.90 3.50 4.00 3.70 19.10 48.0 9.17
Sub-Total 5U3-SURFACEDRAINAGE MIRKS - 27.80 31.50 40.80 3.90 6.90 77.9 72.30 371.00 56.5 209.75 C. RISCELLN S WORKS
RIELAIMITIEOF SALINE LAND - 1.90 2.10 2.70 3.50 4.0 4.90 4.0 24.10 30.0 7.23 FE-IER0u - 0.80 0.90 1.20 1.60 2.00 2.30 2.20 11.00 30.0 3.30 FACILITIESFOR OIN - - 0.50 O.50 0.50 0.50 - - 2.00 40.0 0.80 INSTALUTIONOF PIEZOETERS I NONITORING - - 0.33 0.32 0.32 0.33 - - 1.30 40.0 O.52 STROEIITIEBINBOF DRAINAGE RESEAC STAnONS - - 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.22 0.82 30.0 0.25
se-TotaI NISCELLEOUSMOMS - 2.70 3.93 4.82 6.02 7.33 7.40 7.02 39.22 30.8 12.10 3. CINiSLTINGSRVICES
CUISULTINGSEICES FORDSI 1.36 1.36 0.46 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.05 2.04 14.80 77.0 11.40 REIIE SERVICESFOR SI 0.14 0.14 0.04 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.11 0.12 1.00 100.0 1.00 CONTING SERVICESFOR GDRS 1.36 1.36 0.46 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.05 2.04 14.80 77.0 11.40 REVIEWNGS!ERVICES FOR BURG 0.14 0.14 0.04 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.11 0.12 1.00 100.0 1.00
Gti-TotalCIIISILTING SERUICES 3.00 3.00 1.00 5.32 5.32 5.32 4.32 4.32 31.60 78.5 24.79 E. TRANIN AIRS
TRUININGWF DS2 STFF 0.50 0.50 0.10 0.70 0.50 0.50 0.50 - 3.30 100.0 3.30 TRAININGOF GMRS STAFF 0.50 0.50 0.10 0.70 0.50 0.50 0.50 - 3.30 100.0 3.30
Sub-Total TRAININAl 1.00 1.00 0.20 1.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 - 6.60 100.0 6.60 F. CUFUTERERIIPIENT I SOFTWARE FORHIE - - - 1.00 - - - - 1.00 100.0 1.00
Total I2UTJEIT COSTS 132.70 63.0065.13 85.34 98.74 112.85123.62 120.44 901.82 60.5 485.37
PlnaicalContinwris 2.66 .8.5 9.59 11.64 13.66 15.98 17.7517.42 97.75 52.5 51.30 Price Cotinunnixes 0.75 7.4014.03 26.9842.33 59.05 74.07 81.69 306.30 54.6 169.54
Totl FROECTCOSTS 13611 79.2588.75 123.96 154.93I7.88 215.44219.55 1205.87 58.4 706.21 = = zrr rinuB ssfl Sn 2== MM18OS3
Jranuay29p 1986 08:35 -68-ANE3 TURKEY Table DRAINIAGEALD ON-FARM DEVELOPMENTPROJECT Estimated Schedule of Expenditures - First Time Slice (1989-91) (US$) BaseCasts Forum Exhgtnm
19B6 1997 1998 1I39 1990 1991 Total I hsiant =CE=t Gz=C= =CCCZ CZM-- L--C=z *_=8= C3=--C eiu mmm=
1. INIESTHENTCOSTS
*. SUWFACEDRAINAGE lURES
REHABILITATIONOFSURFACE DRAINS 17.70 17.70 17.70 11.90 5.50 5.40 75.90 48.0 36.43 CONSTRUCTIONOF NED DRAINS - 10.80 10.80 11.10 5.00 5.00 42.70 53.0 22.63
Sb-Totael SURFACEDRAINAGE VARKS 17.70 28.50 28.50 23.00 10.50 10.40 118.60 49.8 59.06 3. SUl-SURFACEDRAINAGE U0KS
INSTALLATICNOFSB-SURFACE RAINS - 26.40 29.90 35.20 40.50 44.00 176.00 57.0 100.32 INSTALLATIONOF COLLECTOR PIPES IN EXISTINGAREAS - 1.40 1.60 1.O0 2.20 2.40 9.50 48.0 4.56
Sub-Total S3-EffACE DRAINAGE109KS - 27.80 31.50 37.10 42.70 46.40 185.50 56.5 104.88 C. HISCELLAEOtUSURKS
RELMANATIONOFSALINE LAND - 1.90 2.10 2.5D 2.80 3.10 12.40 30.0 3.72 FENER - - 0.00 0.90 1.10 1.30 1.40 5.50 30.0 1.65 FACIUTIESFOR 0IN - - 0.50 0.50 - - 1.00 40.0 0.40 INSTALLATIONIF PIEZOIETERS I NONITURING - - 0.33 0.32 - - 0.65 40.0 0.26 STiEJIIENU IOFDAINAGE RESEARCH STATIONS - - 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.40 30.0 0.12
9ub-Total MISCELLANEOUSWORKS - 2.70 3.93 4.52 4.20 4.60 19.95 30.9 6.15 3.CINSNTING SERUICES
CCNGILIE SERVICESFOR DSI 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 2.76 77.0 2.13 REVIEWINGSERVICES FOR DSI 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.24 100.0 0.24 CONSULTINGSERVICS FOR SIRS 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 2.76 77.0 2.13 REVIENINSSERVICES FOR 9M6D 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.24 100.0 0.24
Sat-Tota Ca TIN SERVICES 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 78.8 4.73 E. TRUINIGAROD
TRININ6OF DSI STAFF - - 0.10 0.20 - - 0.30 100.0 0.30 TRAINING6OFDS STFF - - 0.10 0.20 - - 0.30 100.0 0.30
Sat-Total TRAININGAAD - - 0.20 0.40 - - 0.60 100.0 0.60
Total INESTNENTCOSTS 18.7060.00 65.13 66.02 58.40 62.40330.65 53.1 175.42
PhysicalContinhmncies 2.66 8.85 9.57 9.69 9.61 9.21 48.61 52.5 25.51 Price ConltinDuaeius 0.75 7.40 14.03 21.0625.19 32.82 101.25 53.4 54.08
TotA PROJECTcoSTS 22.1076.25 98.75 96.77 92.20 104.43 480.51 53.1 255.02
Forign Exdbhnh 10.9340.04 46.65 51.51 49.65 56.25255.02 0.0 0.00
January179 1986 5:54 -69- ANnE 3 TURXEt TabrF DRAINAGEAND ON-FARM DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Escimated Schedule of Expenditures - Second Time Slice (1989-1993) (US$) NM costs ForeignExcilf_
19W 1987 1K 18 1990 1991 1m 1m Total * Amount
I. INVESTHNTCOSTS
A. SURFAC NAGEMORS
RENABILITATIONOf SURFACE MRAINS 8.10 15O 15.o0 20.00 22.20 80.30 48.0 31.54 COSTRUCTIONF NM DRAINS - - - 0.90 7.00 7.00 13.00 14.60 42.50 53.0 22.53
Sub-Total SURFACEDRAINAGE YOKS - - - 9.00 22.00 22.00 33.00 36.90 122.80 49.7 61.07 3. SUD-RFACEDAMINAGE MMORS
INSTALLATIONOF SUB-SURFACE MAINS - - - 3.50 10.60 19.30 73.90 68.60 175.90 57.0 100.26 INSTALLATIONF COLLECTOR PIPES IN ExiSTINGAREAs - - - 0.20 0.60 1.10 4.00 3.70 9.50 46.0 4.61
Sub-TotalS2-SURFACE DRAINAGE SOAKS - - - 3.70 11.20 20.40 77.90 72.30 195.50 56.5 104.97 C. NISCELLANEOWMOWS
RECANATIONOFSALINE LAND - - - 0.20 0.70 1.30 4.90 4.60 11.70 30.0 3.51
FEDE ROA - - - 0.10 0.30 0.60 2.30 2.20 5.50 30.0 1.65 FAULITIESFOR 01I - - - - 0.50 0.50 - - 1.00 40.0 0.40 INSTALLATIONF PIEZONETERS I NONITORING - - - - 0.32 0.33 - - 0.65 40.0 0.26 STREGTHBEN1;OFBRAINAGE RESEARCH STATIONS ------0.20 0.22 0.42 30.0 0.13
Sub-TotalIISCELLAN SM - 0.30 1.32 2.73 7.40 7.02 19.27 30.9 5.95 3. CGISLLTINGSERVICES
Cfh- TI6 SERVICESFMR DSI - - - 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.04 10.24 77.0 7.88 REVIENINGSERVICES FOR OS1 - - - 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.56 100.0 0.56 CONSLTINSSERVICES FOR GM5 - - - 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.04 10.24 77.0 7.88 REVIEMINSSERVICES FOR 6DRS - - - 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 O.56 100.0 0.56
sub-Total CINSULTINOSERVICES - - - 4.32 4.32 4.32 4.32 4.32 21.o0 78.2 16.8? E. TRAININGAIROD
TRAININGOF DEISTAFF - - - 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 - 2.00 100.0 2.00 TRAININGOF 6DR STAFF - - - 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 - 2.00 1OO.O 2.00
Sub-Total TRAININGABROD - - - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - 4.0D 100.0 4.00 F. C UTEREUIPENI SOFTiAREFOR ME - - - 1.00 - - - - 1.00 100.0 1.00
Total INEST1EJTCOSTS - - - 19.3240.34 50.45 123.6 120.44 354.17 54.7 193.78
Phwuical ConUinuwrcius - - - 1.95 5.25 6.77 17.75 17.42 49.14 52.5 25. fl Price Continlurcies - - - 5.92 17.14 26.23 74.07 81.U6 205.05 54.2 111.21
Total PROJECTCOSTS - - - 27.19 62.73 83.45 215.44 219.5 608.35 54.4 330.77 5_ 5-=: ==== C= GCZ== -
Jawrn 17t 1986 15:57 -70- ANNEX3 Table 6 TURKEY DRAINAGEAND ON-FARM DEVELOPMENTPROJECT Estimated Schedule of Expenditures - TURGTLU (US$) PaswCosts Fovrai Exchan*
1986 1987 Total Z Amount
I. INUSTrE COSTS
A. SRffACEDRAINAGE WRMS
REHBILITATIONOFSWUFACE BRAINS 0.95401.4310 2.3850 57.0 1.3595 COtTUCTIONOF NEM DRAINS 0.52520.7878 1.3130 60.0 0.7878
Sub-Total SURFACEDRIAE VORMS 1.47r22.2189 3.6"0 58.1 2.1473 B. SUB-SUAMEDRN VORKS
INS1TALATIONOFSU-SURFACE DRAINS 2.1852 3.277 5.4630 57.0 3.1139
Sub-TotSUD-SIRFACE DBIIMUE MOR 2.18523.277 5.4630 57S.03.1139 C.NISELLAINU i
REMAAMTIONO SAUK LAND 0.1188 0.172 0.2970 3D.0 0.0891 FER ROADS 0.0480 0.0720 0.1200 30.0 0.0360 FACILITIESFOR OUt 0.0040 0.0060 0.0100 40.0 0.0040 INSTALlTIONPIEZ1TE I MONITORIN 0.0040 0.0060 0.0100 40.0 0.000
Sub-TotalMISCELLANEOUS MOM 0.1748 0.2622 0.4370 30.5 0.1331 II.CINSILTING SERVICES
CONLTIN6AND RMIN SERVICESFOR DSI 0.0380 0.0570 0.0950 77.0 0.0732 CONSUTNGAND RIEDUG1 SERVICES FOR 6DRS 0.0380 0.0570 0.0950 77.0 0.0732
Sub-TotalCINSLTX6 SERVICES 0.0760 0.1140 0.1900 77.0 0.1463 E.TRAINING AOD
TRAININOF 05E STAFF 0.0056 0.00840.0140 100.0 0.0140 TMININGOF ONRS STAFF 0.00560.0084 0.0140 100.0 0.0140
ub-Total TRAININGAD 0.0112 0.0168 0.0280 100.0 0.0280
Tota INVUTM COSTS 3.92645.8896 9.8160 56.7 5.568F Total BASELINECOSTS 3.5264 5.896 9.8160 56.7 5.568 Phnical Contingius O.575Y0.8639 1.4397 56.2 0.8091 Price Cntinunius 0.1576 0.7257 0.88 .56.7 0.5005
Total PROJECTCOSTS 4.65 7.4791 12.138 56.7 6.8792 ====z== ==z == ==_ ForeinExchmh .^ 2.6404 4.23796.8M82 0.0 0.0000
Octobr 18 1995 12:39 -71- AANNEX3 TURFM Table 7 DRAINAGEAND ON-FARMDEVELOPI4T PROJECT Estimated Schedule of Expenditures - 1,ENEIEN (US$) loweCosts Foreig ExThangt
196 w117Total Amtnt
I. INS£f5 COSTS
A. SUtFAMEDRAINAGE MMS
REHABILITAnONOFSIMFACE DRAINS 1.0980 16470 2.7450 57.0 1.5647 CONSTRUCTIOOFNE I DRAINS 0.6048 0.9072 1.5120 60.0 0.9072
-- -- %ub-TotalSURFACE DMINE M 1.7022.5542 4.2570 59.1 2.4719 B. SUB-SURfACEDRAINAGE MS
INSTAUATIONOFSWI-SWIfACE lAINS 1.7121 2.5692 4.2132 57.0 2.4407 INSTALTIONOF CLLECTOR PIE IN EXISTINAEA 0.0960 0.1440 0.2400 49.0 0.1152
Sb-Total SUD-SUIFACEDRAINAGE MO5 1.8M882.7n32 4.5220 S6.5 2.=555 C. NISCaLAES WORKS
RELAATIONOF SALINE LAND 0.1368 0.2052 0.3420 30.0 0.1026 FEEDERROADS 0.055 0.06 0.13Y0 30.0 0.0417 FACIMIS FMROCI 0.0040 0.0060 0.0100 40.0 0.0o0 INSTALLATIONOFPIE20S : NOITORING 0.0040 0.0060 0.0100 40.0 O.0040
Sub-TotalIISCELLA S m 0.'004 0.3D06 0.5010 30.4 0.1523 D. CINSILTINSERIcES
CONTIN ANDREVIUn SENIMCESFOR SI 0.0372 0.0 0030 77.0 0.0716 CONSULTINGANDREVIEMING SERVICES FOR GDRS 0.0372 0.O5Q 0.0930 77.0 0.0716
Sub-TotalCINUTING SERVICES 0.0744 01116 0.1860 77.0 0.1432 E. TRAININSGAJOAD
TRAININGOFPSI STAFF 0.005 0.008 0.0140 100.0 0.0140 TRAININGOFMS STAFF 0.0056 0.0084 0.0140 100.0 0.0140
Sub-Total TRAINDINGAROA 0.0112 0.0168 0.0290 100.0 0.0280
Total NESTNENTCOSTS 3.7976 5.6964 9.4940 56.4 5.3513 Total BAS COSTS 3.7976 5.6944 9.4940 56.4 5.3513 PhssicalCutinncius 0.-5 0.8352 1.3920 55.8 0.7770 Price Contingnesi 041524 0.7011 0.85 '56.3 O.4809
Total PROE COST 4.50W8 7.2334 11.7402 56.3 6.6092 *sin a _ u am ForeisgnE.chmn 2.5M1 4.0721 6.6092 0.0 0.0000
Octar 1St 1985 12:2B -72- ANNEX 3 Table 8
DRAINAGEAND ON-FARMDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Estimated Schedule of Expenditures - ALASEHIR (US$) BaseCosts ForeignExchange
1986 1987 Tot;l Z Amount
I. INuESTfTCOsts
A. SURFACEDRMIIUE ONRKS
REOwLUTATIONOFSURACE WAINS 0.7484 1.1226 1.8710 57.0 1.0665 C 1UN OFNOEI DRAISS 0.4120 0.6180 1.0300 60.0 0.6180
Sub-Toal SUWACEAIME MS 1.1604 1.,406 2. 7010 co.1 1. 684! D. SJR-SNACEDAINAGE MARIS
INSTALLATIONOFSu-SIACE DRAIWNs 12L85' 1.9278 3.2130 57.0 1.8314
Sib-Total SUD-JSFACEDAINAGE WORMS 1.2852 1. 3.2130 57.0 1.8314 C. NISC.LEUAU MS
RECLMTIONOF SAINE LAN 0.0932 0.138 0.2330 -0.0 0.0699 FEEIERMS 0.0380 0.0570 0.0950 30.0 0.0285 FACILITIESFMR OSU 0.1040 0.0060 0.0100 40.0 0.0040 JSTMLATIONF PIEZIETEFtS : mOITORING 0.0040 0.0060 0.0100 40.0 0.0040
Sub-TotalMISCELLANEOUS MS 0.1392 0.2088 0.3480 30.6 0.1064 0. CISLT? SERVS
CO TDNSIL6ANOREVIEiING SERVICES FOR DSI 0.0260 0.0390 0.0650 '7.0 0.0501 C LTII ANDREVIEIN SERVICESFOR GMRS 0.0260 0.0390 0.0650 '7.0 0.0501
Su-TotalCINSLTIN SERVICES 0.0520 0.0780 0.1300 -7.0 0.1001 E. TRANINAAD
TRAININGOFBOS STAFF 0.0040 0.0060 0.0100 100.0 0.0100 TRAININGOF OMDS STAFF 0.0040 0.0060 0.0100 100.0 0.0l00
wbTo TRAININGABROAD 0.0080 0.0120 0.0200 100.0 0.0200
Total 1R1STINf COS 2.6448 3.9472 6.6120 564 3.7424 Total AE CSTS 2.64483.9672 6.6120 56.6 3.7424 Phniea Caotinmries 0.3877 0.5816 0.7693 56.1 0.A433 Price Conuin*nez 0.1061 0.489B 0.5949 56.5 3.3363
TOt PRLECTCOSTS 3.1387 5.0375 8.1762 56.5 4.6220
Fotrigo Exchame .. 1.7743 2.8477 4.6220 0.0 0.0000
Octowr 19. 1995 22:12 -73... ANNEX3 TURKEY Table 9 DRAINAGEAND ON-FARM DEVELOPMENTPROJECT Estimated Schedule of Expenditures - KONYACUMRA (KOS) (US$)
Base Costs ForeignExchange
19M 1987 1988 Total Z Amount
I. INVESTtlENTCOSTS
A. StRFACEDRAINAGE UMRKS
REHABILITATIONOF SURFACE DRAINS 2.'372 2.7372 3.6496 9.1240 57.0 5.2007 CONSTRUCTIONtOF1&1 BRAINS 1.50751.5075 2.0100 5.0250 60.0 3.0150
Sub-Total SURFACEDRAINAGE WUlKS 4.2447 4.2447 5.659614.1490 53.1 8.2157 B. SUB-SURFACEDRAINAGE SORKS
INSTALLATIONOf SUB-SURFACE DRAINS 7.1955 7.1955 9.5940 23.9850 57.0 13.6715 INSTALLATIONOf COILECOR PIPES IN EXISTINGAREAS 0.4254 0.4254 0.5672 1.4180 48.0 0.6806
Sub--TotaSUB-SURFACE DRAINAE MONK 7.62097.6209 10.161225.4030 56.514.3521 C. ,ISCELLANEOUSMOMS
RECLAMATINOFSALINE LAND 0.3411 0.3411 0.4548 1.1370 30.0 0.3411 FEEDEROADS 0.1383 0.1383 0.1844 0.4610 30.0 0.1383 FACILITIESFOR Of1 0.0120 0.0120 0.0160 0.0400 40.0 0.0160 INSTAllATIONOFPIEZCJETERS I NONITORIN6 0.0120 0.0120 0.0160 0.0400 40.0 0.0160
Sub-Total mISCELLANEOUSVMS 0.5034 0.5034 0.67121.6780 30.5 0.5114 D. CINSULTINGSERVICES
CONSULTINGANDREVIEWING SERVICES FOR S2 0.0930 0.0930 0.1240 0.3100 77.0 0.2387 CONSUTINGAND REVIEWING SERVICES FOR GDRS 0.0930 0.0930 0.1240 0.3100 77.0 0.23F:7
Sub-TotalCINiLTING SERVICES 0.1860 0.1360 0.2480 0.6100 77.0 0.4774 E. TRAININGABROM
TRAININGOF SI STAFF 0.0141 0.0141 0.0188 0.0470 100.0 0.0470 TRAININGOF6DRS STAFF 0.0141 0.0141 0.0188 0.0470 100.0 0.0470
Suh-TotalTRAINING ABROAD 0.0232 0.02B2 0.0376 0.0940 100.0 0.0940
Total INWESTMETCOSTS 12.5832 12.583216.7776 41.9440 56.4 23.6506 Total BELIE COSTS 12.58M 12.5832 16.7776 41.9440 56.4 23.6506 PhmsicalContingencies 1.8554 1.8554 2.4738 6.1845 56.0 3.461? Priee Continencies 0.5053 1.5514 3.6161 5.6fl8 56,3 3.1957
Total PRJECTCOSTS 14.?439 15.?90022.8675 53.8013 56.3 30.3081 a _ _ = _ _ Forein Exdang 8.4184 9.0077 12.882030.3081 0.0 0.0000
October 18. 1985 12:22 -74- ANINEX3 TURKEY Table 10 DRAINAGEAND ON-FARMDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Estimated Schedule of Expenditures - KOPRUCAY (US$)
Ban Costs ForeaignExchan
1986 1M Total Z Amot
I. INMESTIMCOSTS
A. SRFACEDRAINAGE lMOS
REHABILITATIONOFSUIRFACE DRAINS 1.2860 1.9320 3.2200 57.0 1.8354 CONSTRnINOF NEW DRPAS 0.M092 1.0638 1.7730 60.0 1.0638
Sub-Total SURFACEDRAINAGE UDRICS 1.V972 2.958 4.9930 58.1 2.8992 3. SUB-SWNAMDRAINAGE NORMS
INSTALLATIONOFSUB-SURFACE DAIS 2.5244 3,7866 6.3110 57.0 3.S973 INSTALLATINOFCOLEC PIES IN EXISTINGARAS 0.9B90 0.4320 0.7200 48.0 0.3456
Sub-TotalSID-SURFACE DRAINAG MIENS 2.8124 4.236 7.0310 56.1 3.9429 C. .ISCELLMEMS
RECLMAATIONWFSALINE LAND 0.16040.2406 0.4010 30.0 0.1203 FEEDERROADS 0.062 0.0978 0.1630 30.0 0.0489 FACILITIESFOR OMI 0.0060 0.009 0.0150 40.0 0.0060 INSTALLATIONOF PIEMNETERS I NIOIING 0.0060 0.0090 0.0150 40.0 0.0060
Sub-Total ISCELLANEOtISIR 0,2376 0.3W54 0.5940 30.5 0.1812 B. CINSRLTIN6SIMRVICS
;JNiLTINGAND REVIEVIN SERVICES FOR DSI 0.0504 0.0756 0.1260 77.0 0.0970 CMNLTINGAlM REVIEBIN SERVICES FOR ODRS 0.0504 0.0756 0.1260 77.0 0.0970
Sub-Total CINSILTINSERVICES 0.1008 0.1512 0.0 77.0 0.1N40 E. TRAININGAWRO
TRAININGOF O5I STAFF 0.0080 0.0120 0.000 100.0 0.0200 TRAININGOF GDRSSTAFF 0.0080 0.0120 0.0200 100.0 0.02O
Sub-Total TRAININGALRAD 0.0160 0.0240 0.0400 100.0 0.0400
Total IIKNESTI1COSTS 5.1640 7.746012.9100 56.2 7.2573 Total BASIE COSTS 5.1640 7.7460 12.9100 56.2 7.2573 Ph¶sicul Cuntingucis 0.7571 1.1356 1.8927 55.7 1.0'5 Price Cantinrmwcis 0.2072 0.9543 1.1616 56.1 0.6I21
Total PRIECTCOSTS 6.1213 9.80 15.9643 56.1 8.9&29 *~~~~~~~a -azz ===M Forein Exchanme 3.4407 5.53 8.9629 0.0 0.0000
October18S 1985 12:24 ANNEX 3 Table lI TURYEY DRAINAGEAND ON-FARMDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Estimated Schedule of Expenditures - SARAKOY (USS) B;seCosts ForeignExchane
1936 1987 Total Amount
I. INETMNT COSTS
A.SURFACE DRAIA OMS
REHABILITATIONOFSUFAC DRAINS 0.5S481.272 '.1620 V.0 1.2313 COUSTRUCTINOF HER DRAINS 0.47640.7146 1.1910 60.0 0.7146
Sub-TotalSURFACE DRAINAGE ZIRKS 1.24122.0118 3.50 58.1 1.9469 3.T11B-SLRFACE DPAINAGE WS
INSTALLATIONOF SUB-SURFACE DRAINS 1.537 2.3064 3.8440 57.0 2.1911
Sub-TctalSUB-SURfAC DRAINAGE OK M. 2.30643.8440 57.0 2.1911 C.HISCELLANEOS VORS
RECLANATIONOFSAINE LUD 0.10760.1614 0.2690 30.0 0.0807 EEDERROADS 0.04360.0654 0.1090 30.0 0.0327 FACILITIESFOR OOH 0.00400.0060 0.0100 40.0 0.0040 INSTALLATIONOFPIEZETERS t MONITORING 0.0040 0.0060 0.0100 40.0 0.0040
Sub-TotalMISCELULAEOUS WOKS 0.1592 0.2388 0.390 30.5 0.1214 0.CDILTING SRICES
CONSULTINGANDREVIRING SERVICS FOR BSI 0.0304 0.0456 0.0760 77.0 O.0585 CO LTINAND REVIEWING SERVICS FOR GDRS 0.03040.0456 0.0760 77.0 0.0585
Sub-TotalCIMNLTING SERVICES 0.06080.0912 0.1520 77.0 0.1170 E. TRAININGABROAD
TRAININGOF OSISTAFF 0.00440.0066 0.0110 100.0 0.0110 TRAININGOF GDRS STAFF 0.0044 0.0066 0.0110 100.0 0.0110
Sub-Total TRAININGABROAD 0.0088 0.0132 0.0220 100.0 0.0220
Total INVEmfNTCSTS 3.1076 4.6614 7.7690 56.6 4.3985 Totl BASEINECOSTS 3.1076 4.6614 7.76O 56.6 4.3495 Physical Continecies 0.45570.6836 1.1393 56.1 0.6389 Price Contingcies 0.12470.5743 0.690 56.5 0.395
TotalPRJE COSS 3.68805.9193 9.6073 56.5 5.4327 =-- _ = 3 a: ForeisnExchane . . .055 3.3472 5.4327 0.0 0.0000
October 18, 185 12:29 -76- ANNEX 3 Table 12
TURKEY
DRAINAGE AND ON-FARM DEVELOPMENTPROJECT
EstimatedSchedule of Disbursements
IrRD Fiscal Year Annual Estimated CumulativeDisbursement and quarter Disbursements at End of Quarter Proposed Profile US$ million US$ million X Z
1986/87 September30, 1986 December31, 1986 - March 31, 1987 4.0 June 30, 1987 11.0 11.0 4 5
1987/88 September30, 1987 21.0 December 31, 1987 31.0 March 31, 1988 41.0 June 30, 1988 40.0 51.0 J 18
1988/89 September30, 1988 63.0 December 31, 1988 75.0 March 31, 1989 86.0 June 30, 1989 47.0 98.0 38 37
1989/90 September30, 1989 111.0 December31, 1989 124.0 March 31, 1990 136.0 June 30, 1990 51.0 149.0 58 57
1990/91 September30, 1990 162.0 December 31, 1990 175.0 March 31, 1991 187.0 June 30, 1991 51.0 200.0 78 74
1991/92 September30, 1991 214.0 December31, 19Q1 228.0 March 31 1992 242.0 June 30 1992 55.0 255.0 100 87
1992/93 September30, 1992 - December 31. 1992 - March 31, 1993 - June 30, 1993 - 95
1993/94 September30, 1993 December31, 1993 March 31, 1994 June 30, 1994 100
3946Z 11/07/85 DRAINAGEAND ON-FARMDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
GENERALWRECTOfIATE Of S1C. E IrCAUICN WORKS GAGWIZArioNCHAIMT
As, .e . IS NINCAL
Im I Ibe
e.wsfI;*6 K & _ I >9.II se OII -SII Cj't U UI | IeEI WI £tIgm_U IM ~I I~a Im- EgM14I=i
221~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~__~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ TURICEY
I)DVINAC3AND ON-FARMDEVELOPMINT PROJECT
LOCATION MAP-ui;m
t 5.I -XIV - - l
-AURA -n - Xl -x __,_ sm..~x e*eeu * I * * | r * | @ a
AMASYA~ ~ iaaxm XuiY UUhK %
sea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~NU! TURKEY
DRAINAGEAND ON-FARMDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
OrganizationChart of the General Directorate of Rural Services | GDRS 1
n.s.. SoallV.t.r.b.4 a-t.#. Develo cri.dI A C... Sell 3Marym 11e&Im.ipA ~ 8. aIiIm$S~ a ~~Sa*I. twltgeItmf 5ep. VSemhet. b..4ml. Ike%. S.p.ut"ime Sapyip 1*Septt. trownTI.Sp. aent.m Oveloolsom^ ez selz wa_mlrtrsy wrssma osel tm o4| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Cinget_ _e, hbl1 "| -tdu{_Wffite1- |.b*vateqIe.1d . n
3 ho.4"Directors ft4um.17 Nru ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a1trII. Dll eee
It 3 d10 OC108"
h TURKEY
DRAINAGE AND ON-FARM DEVELOPMENTPROJECT
LOCATION MAP - GDRSREGIONS
0 L CA a I, k S e*--S- -{-.l .l
_ _ ._.. __._._ .... a______S - "^ t* r* e*n O*eeeo-r t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CAM~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 I8
______( -- -81-
ANNEX4 Table I
TURKEY
DRAINAGE AND ON-FARM DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Operation & Maintenance Cost (1985 Prices)
Actual Annual Actual Annual Actual Annual Cost for 1984 Cost for 1984 Cost for 1984 for Irrigation for Drainage for Drainage & Drainage only only 1985 Prices _____ ------TLJha--- Operation Expenses
Personnel 2,084 1,042 1,303 Energy, fuel, oil etc 2,600 1,300 1,625 Transportation 802 401 501 Others (phone, heating, rent) 88 44 55 5,574 2,787 3,484
Maintenance & Repairs
Yearly maintenance & repair 6,352 3,176 3,970 Periodic Special M&R 101 50 64 Flood Drainage Repairs 48 24 30 6,501 3,250 4,063
Subtotal, M&R Expe.ses 12,075 6,037 7,547
Cost of Machinery 4,222 2,111 2,639
Grand Total 16,297 8,148 10,186
3946Z -82-
ANNEX 4 Table 2
TURKEY
DRAINAGEAND ON-FARMDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Incremental Operation & Maintenance Cost at Full Development
Actual Annual Estimated Annual Incremental Cost for 1984 Cost for O&M at Cost of O&M ar for Drainage Full Development Full Development only 1985 Prices 1985 Prices 1985 Prices ~----TL/ha-- Operation Expenses
Personnel 1,303 1,955 652 Energy, fuel, oil etc 1,625 2,438 813 Transportation 501 752 251 Others (phone, heating, rent) 55 83 28 3,484 5,228 1,744
Maintenance & Repairs
Yearly maintenance & repair 3,970 5,955 1,985 Periodic Special M&R 63 95 32 Flood Drainage Repairs 30 45 15 4,063 6,095 2,032
Subtotal, M&R Expenses 7,547 11,323 3,776
Cost of Machinery 2,639 3,959 l1320
Grand Total 10,186 15,282 5,096
Incremental cost of maintenance and operation at full development TL 5,096/ha us$ 9.44/ha
3946Z -83-
ANNEX5 Table 1
TURKEY
DRAINAGEAND ON-FARMDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Cotton Lint
Turkey's Production and Trade
Net Additions Domestic Production Exports Imports to Stocks Consumption -- ('000 tons)
1984 511 (est.) 100 15 +36 390 (est.) 1983 522 127 1 +10 386 1982 489 217 0 -78 350 1981 488 206 0 -29 311 1980 500 181 0 +22 297 1979 476 151 0 +53 272 1978 475 278 0 -115 312 1977 575 150 0 +128 297
Source: State Institute of Statistics, Ankara; and Izmir Association of Exporters.
3946Z
(10/17/85) -84- ANNEX 5 Table 2
TURKEYl
DRAINAGE AND ON-FARM DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Cereals and Wheat
Turkey's Production and Trade
------'000 tons)------
ProductionLi 24.212 24.237 25.556 24,323 25,299 26,418 24.366 25591 Exports Li 790 2.167 859 618 759 1.014 1.382 NA Inports L2 36 37 23 6 299 566 -- 177 NA Net available 23.458 22,107 24.720 23,711 24.839 2S.970 23.161 NA
ProductionLI 16,650 16,700 17.500 16.500 17,000 17.500 16.400 17,200 Exports aZ 591 1.329 686 338 316 296 610 292 Iqports Li o o Q 0 272 ___5Z5 - n13 836z
Net available 16.059 15.371 16,814 16.162 16.556 17.729 15.803 17,744
LI1 Source: State Institute of Statistics. Li Source: FAO Trade Yearbcok.
3946Z -85-
ANNEX5 Table 3
TURKEY
DRAINAGEAND ON-FARMDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Rice
Domestic Production Imports Consumption --- ('000 tons)--
1984 162 85 247 1983 189 10 199 1982 210 20 230 1981 198 26 224 1980 143 0 143 1979 225 0 225 1.978 190 0 190 1977 165 0 165
Source: State Institute of Statistics, Ankara.
3946Z -86- ANNEX -S Tabic 4
TURKEY
DRAINAGEAND ON-FARMDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Pulses and Broadbeans
iuirteX'sProduction and Trade
T97 197 l§7 im8 l9E 198 198 1984 _ …(_'____ ------000 tons)------
Pulses Production aI 813 729 762 817 876 1.222 1.428 NA Exports LZ 91 118 155 219 448 508 607 NA Imports LZ O. _- _ _ _ NA
Net available 722 611 607 598 428 714 821 NA
Broadbeans
ProductionLI 50 54 52 52 55 65 77 75 Exports /I NA NA NA NA NA 31 42 23 Imports m - NA NA "A NA NA NA Net available NA NA NA NA NA 34 A! 35 LI 52 L4
LI Source: State Institute of Statistics. L, Source: FAO Trade Yearbook. LI Source: 1982-84. Export Promotion Research Center. Ankara (shelled) A& Estimated.
3946Z -87- lTMt ANNEX6
IMPAK N . FI r MW Table 1
aTUL KUEMI MlTiiFA 1U1O to - 2m I
ImAWIgifL F CMNfLW
(In IL)
196 1N7 1 1m 19o 39 192 39 194-207 20012010 2011 2011 024 20 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-____w-,-_, KTRT FMr
NU FM EmE Km: 34143.e0 31311-0 2300.0 2444.0 20740 217.0 21714.0 2207. 2274.0 22Z743.0 274.0 2643.0 224 3. 0 Nin LAW 54510.0 500.0 54100.0 410.0 5450.0 54 .0 5s 54M0.0 5M60.0 140.0 1410.o 5m46.0 5500.0 9nMT 1AS 2M20.0 243.9 2305. 21231.1 1410.0 1912 19.0 2013.2 2S76.0 210o.0 20370.0 20329.o 20o30.0 iiiti* i miiE oi 2300.0 2330.0 23100. 230.0 2330.0 23m30.0 2D .0 23306.0 23.0 20.0 2330.0 23.0 3mo.0
Off FM K 243623.0 11974.1 179013.0 3413.9 10933.0 114460.1135.0 12307 3Wn.0123073.0 u3073.0 123073.0 32n73.0 MET = F m i U FUMlYLAE 131.1 15131.9 123.61 12.4 319.1 4.1 37.? 92.2 M3.3 91.1 9s.3 9.8 93.3
FM K KMEWEE: 343443.0 47364.3 6349.6 7 77. 49227.S9M31. 3274 003015.61026.27. 102W27.6 102027. 10202.6 102027.6 KIE LAEI 54U30.0 9325.0 11753. 17050.0 209000.02m0900.0 20 0 906.0 20900.0 2 0.e 209ee.0 200.0 209000.0 FSITIE YU 2020.0 312.3 46715.0 S1 .2 67276.0 63174.4 691.0 191.4 7640.0 7030.0 7080.0 7404.0 7M4o.0 El miii OMin
PIff LOU. FM 01f111 fLU 2330.0 25100.0 21. 0.0 20 20.0 22400.0 225e010.0 25400.0 20.0 20.0 21600.0 2140.0 TUTU.F3L LES. FM m oIN 279.0 374.0 3096.0 76.0 3097.0 30974.0 3W71.0 30976.0 3976.0 3W76. 33974.0 30977.0 30976.0 TU. -LM Ol ImU i m 23793.0 31144.3 35112.1 34n1.0 3726.0 3372.0 3 370.0 37n2. 3320.0 312e.0 33720.0 3;20.0 TUTU.LM oini FM MU UNYEIrNEIr - 7424.0 7424.0 7424.0 7424.0 7424.0 74244 7424.0 7424.0 7424.0 7424.0 7424.0 7424.0
MN miSIWNE - - 1us2se-e620 13260-1260136 135230.0I 1353.0ue- - - - -
T NEl= 2332e.0 303.7 217373.30 7-4 44153.6 4W7?.2 4754 449 2.2 S13.1 694643.1 694443.6 6.43.6 614643.4 NE liME PRIIRT W FUOL LOW 1730.3 2203.7 1541.7 2260. 2M9.3 319.4 3212.5 33.1 3441.6 4193s 4n.1 4693.5 4693.5
flCIEKU F UUEI
INUfML I FM EFIT -4m.0 1029.1 1.o0 11-3 31700.6 344263.4 391n.6 3193.4 331290.6 367. 566570.4 s5670.6 S44570.6
GM 2316000.0 ------231600. - 33900. MI 12300.0 ------240.0
11-UTmU 2444000.0 ------23100.0 - 134760.0
R3LL1M1AL. OLUCEl
IoS - 2160-3 436. 1101.0 7744.0 7744.0 77444 7744.0 7744.0 7744o 774.0 7744.0 nu44.0
. Tl. 03CM 2U444000 21U.3 4331.6 11.0 7744.0 7744.0 7744.0 7744.0 7744.0 7744.0 23744.0 7744.0 133514.0
WE II U FM ISIl - 10777.9 242174.633793 5924.6 3117.4 50t1.4 s76612.4 30I4.6 5354.6 W94.6 S114.6 594.6
METF l WllT L -244000.0 31 29.300331 31130.644 1.4153.5 6 S19.41 53170.6 91170. -1734W29.4 Sn170.6 -76189.4 - ______- - btab-t13.395 1010 -88- TwaIy ANNEX6
MU A1111DONFARM lEVELONT PRO.ECT Table 2
COASTALRESiON ( NON ATER LOGO AREA IC - 2H
INEICIENTALFARN CASH FLOW
(In TL)
1966 1997 1988 19? 10-2024 2025
WWNgfPROAC
UT FM 1EV KEFRE: 967.0 986827.092.0 9827.0 986827.096827.0 HICDLAUR 1525.0 152500.0152500O .12500.0 152500.0152500.0 PRIObN TAX 71850.0 71850.0 71981.0 71850.0 71950.0 71850.0 EXISTINDS1 MATER CNIS 20900.0 20900.0 200.0 209M0.0 20900.0 20900.0
NETFAN REUE 762477.0762477.0 762477.3 762477.0 762477.0762477.0 NETDRE PER A F FMILTLAORM 3648.2 3648.2 3648.2 3648.2 3648.2 3648.2 mITH T
RETFOE REVEMEE:R 967.8 986827.8987.8 996827.896827.8 996827.8 HISD LAOR 152500.0152500.0 152500.0 152500.0 152500.0152500.0 PRUUJC11UTAX 71850.0 71850.0 71850.0 71850.0 71950.0 71950.0 DII MATERCUBES?
PRESETMLEVUEL FOR ONGOING GIN 20900.0 20900.0 20900.0 20900.0 20904.0 20900.0 flTL FULLLEVEL FOR ONGOING 0DI 25289.0 25289.0 25299.0 2523.0 25289.0 25289.0 TOTLMU CNRBES INCLUJNG MEN 0I9 25289.0 27059.2 28829.5 30599.7 31611.3 31611.3 TOTALREM OURES FOR NED IN!ESTIENTS - 11136.0 11136.0 11136.0 11136.0 11136.0
NETFAO REUEE 737198.8724282.6 722512.3 720742.1 719730.6719730.6 ET INCOHEPER FAMILY LABOR 3527.2 3465.5 3457.0 3448.5 3443.7 3443.7
INCREJENTALFARMRENUE
INCREMENTALFARMREYVERE -25298.2-38194.4 -39964.7 -41734.9 -42746.5-42746.5
-ITENSIUSUS*2U
SM WNENTCDSTS
DSI 192000.0 - - - - -63360.0
FULLONZ COSTS
DSI - 1770.2 3540.5 5310.7 6322.3 6322.3
TOTS.COSTS 1920D0.0 1770.2 3540.5 5310.7 6322.3-57037.9
NETFAO IEIIT IC -19199.2 -1769.4 -3539.7 -5309.9 -6321.5 57038.6
Orttr 13o 1995 10:09 -89- TLWEY ANNEX 6 IWINAIEA ON00Fm2 WYLWIII MOOE?T Table 3 U119 OIEu I 9499* LOGGED 4 1112- 14
INlE T*L FM CANFLU
966 I" 1m l916 9 9 19I9 292 IM I94-2017 20-2010 2011 2012-20254 VS
NETF RWEVanUME: 124446.0211300.0 17a0.0 340U.0 6968.0 71114.0 723u.0 7N34.0 74768.0 74761.0 74760.0 74741.0 7476.0 WAREeLAW ------* OcnlCTM ru i2720.0 11673.6 2I10.0 93.4 0440.0 00.9 160.0 u310 360.0 a3.0 60.0 6610.0 600.0 D1ST2N 811 2 0 12132290.01:2130. 0 1218t.012226-0 1218.0 12180.0 12190.0 2223.e0 12190.0 12130.0 1216.O0 1216.0 12160.0
MET IFlI 9543.0 37446.4 71019.0 62342. 492.0 50513.2 5162.0 52M1.2 5396.0 50.0 5 93M.0; .0 53901.0 METIIA FM llWIl WFFMILY 1s51.4LAM 409.1 4167.7 3463.5 2741.6 3105.7 2060.2 292.4 24.9 294.9 2994.9 2944.9 2994.9
WI FM REJEIIE 1E:22444.0 4U24.6 314910.2 62003.2 70s320.2 712574.2726720.2 796.2 73120.2 7212.2 75220.2 7251N20.2 7Z5120.2
NINOE LAW0 ------pUOICII TU 12720.0 37400.4 44297.5 5117 50 u115.05=27.0 S3IM.0 53747.0 S995.0 59.0 51155.0 535.0 595.0 El la1 9MES:
PKSEMTLEYES FORU I se 0U 12160.0 21630.0 21630.0 21630.0 2130.0 2160.0 21630.0 263.0 2163.0 2163.0 2160.0 2160.0 21630.0 r1* Fnu LEWVLFRa1e1 0M £417.6 26172.3 26172.3 26172.3 21U.3 26172.3 2172.3 26272.3 26172.3 24172.3 26172.3 26172.3 26172.3 WI. EU 0*08 1iV3 go 0 14737. 20004.4 29 .4 31666.5 32715.4 32715.4 32715.4 3271.4 3271.4 3271.4 32715.4 32715.4 32715.4 mr.L NEI ;i; FMIEl II3NES11T - 72331.0 238.0 7230.0 7238.0 7238.0 7233.0 700 7233.0 723.0 7239.0 723.0 7230.0 - uIiER Olar:
EV WAIMEEzSESTr - - 277O.0 277r23.0 2772.0 277 .0 277920.0277920.0 27792.0 - - - -
El 3NIT 9699.2 34S60.9 157618.3242033.1 33231.8 3375.0 340311. 344355.0 3421.a 661J 426u1 6242211. 6W21.0 ET IEUM RPIN r601 FMlLYLAM 53.3 14134.9 5003.8 6296-6 7366.2 7472.0 7512.5 765i.3 773.1 Im 5 1915.6 13915.1 1391a.6
IrLMiura FN E1IEFT
INaW0TL FAN 30n -23s7.8 z625.5 02600.3 179M . 262993.05285 1. 2 03.0297-1 243 3.0 53 S0.7303 572303.a 572303.0
mUU33SUEGITEnNSU ninU
mS 3474000.0 - - 347400.0 - 2014400.0 si 124e000.0 ------41114.0
sITorer Y D3530.0 ------347400o.0 - 2043216.0
FILL DOM?*L O'I CDSTS
9! - 6632.1 264.1 549.2 654.1 443.1 6543.1 64.1 6543.1 6543.1 643. 6543.1 654.1
TOTALWMTs 3216500.0 1032.1 3664.1 5496.2 6543.2 43.1 4543.1 6543.1 6543.1 6543.1 300043.1 6543.1 204975.1
METIImOffAL IE ?FT - 7J417.9 385414.7404337.0 53977.2 M55.2 54377.2 597245.2 6077.2 6007.2 600077.2 o007.2 60077.2
KT FAIl 19!T 1A -35900.0 2955.e 391750.64M40.8 M34.2 502.1 50734.1 590722.2 534.1 593534.1-210465.9 394.1 -1449a2.9
Octobhr lo. 15 10:11 -90- ANNEX6 Table 4
DRAIAGAND ON FAIN DEUCLUPtNT PROECT
COASTALRION CNN MATERLOG ARA IIC - 3A)
INCRENTM.ALFARiCASH FLOU
1986 ?.07 13 17im39190-2024 2025
MIlnWUPECT
NETFAMI REVEIllE 1EOIE 62197.5629197.5 29197.5 629197.5 69197.5 629197.5 NINOLAROR 142500.014250.0 142500.0 142500.0 142500.0 142500.0 PRODUCIONTM 59797.559797.5 59797.5 59797.5 59M.5 597.5 EXISTIIBEl! MATERCHAR EM 22300.022900.0 22900.0 22900.0 22800.0 22900.0
METFAIN REUEIWE 426900.0426900.0 426900.0 426900.0 426900.0 426900.0 ETICONE PER IWDII OFFAILTY LAW 2042.6 21042.62042.6 2042.6 2042.6 2042.6
NMTPROJECT
NETFAIN REVENUE BEFORE: 629197.56 t2997.562997.5 69197.5 629197.5 629197.5 HIM£LEIR 142500.0142500.0 142500.0 142500.0 142500.0 142500.0 ROIDUCTINTAX 5Y797.559797.5 59797.5 597917.5 5797.5 59797.5
PRESENTLVL FORONIIU DUI 22800.022800.0 22800.0 22800.0 22900.0 22800.0 TOTA.FUL LE FMONIGFOR 0 27591.027598.0 2758.0 27588.0 27588.0 27588.0 TUTA.NEU DOM IN I NE01 27588.0M2919.2 31450.3 33381.5 34485.0 34485.0 TTALNEU CUMES FOR NED INWESTES - :20602.020602.0 206.0 2062.0 20602.0
NETFAIN REVE 39312.0 376778.8374847.7 37216.5 371813.0 371813.0 NETINCOIE PER FAiL LAWOR 1910.6 1902.8 1793.5 1784.3 1777.0 ""I9.0
ICIETAL FAN REUENUE
INCWENEWTALFARREUENUE -2.7388.0-50121.2 -52052.3 -53983.5 -55087.0 -55087.0
DLIETI0ffmmST
DSI 395200.0 - - - -- 117216.0
FULLDINMMCST
BSE - 1931.2 3862.3 i793.5 6897.0 697.0
TOTALCOSTS 355:00.0 1931.2 3862.3 5793.5 6897.0-110319.0
NETF^ IENIT IIC -355200.0 -1931.2 -3862.3 -S793.5 -68Y7.0 110319.0
Octabr LOP1M5 10:14 -91-
ANNEX fi Table 5 TURKEY
DRAINAGE AND ON-FARM DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
P-oducers' Benefits
FARM MODEL
IA rc II1A IIC Coastal inland Coastal Non- Inland Non- Location and DescriRtion Waterlogge Waterlogged Waterlogegd Waterlggad _ __------2 'a------3 ha------
1. Present Situation (1985 TL'OO Annually per farm)
Gross Revenue 530.4 1,437.0 254.4 1.196.0.
Operating Costs 236.4 602.7 130.0 709.3 Pro&...don Tax 26.5 71.9 12.7 59.8 Existing Water Charges 23.8 Z1.2 Z2.8
Net Farm Revenue 243.7 741.5 99.5 404.1
2. Future Situation at Full Development
A. Without Proiect
Gross Revenue 407.4 1,437.0 173.6 1.196.0
Operating Costs 235.2 602.7 98.8 709.3 Production Tax 20.4 71.9 8.7 59.8 Existing Water 23. a20. 12.2 zz A
Net Farm Revenue 128.0 741.5 53.9 404.1
B. With Proiect
Gross Revenue 1.416.8 1.437.0 1,179.1 1.196.0
Operating Costs 605.2 602.7 454.0 709.3 Production Tax 70.8 71.9 59.0 59.8
Net Farm Revenue (Before Charges) 740.8 762.4 666.1 426.9
Charces: OSI
Ongoing OLH
- Present Level (25.6) (20-9) iZ1.6) (22.8) - At full level 31.0 25.3 26.2 27.6
New OM 7.7 6.3 6.5 6.9 New Investment 7.4 11.1 7.2 20.6
Water Charges: GORS
New Investment 185.3 0 277.9 0
Net Farm Revenue 509.4 719.7 348.3 371.8
3946Z -92-
ANNEX fi Table 6 TURKEY
DRAINAGEAND ON-FARMDEVELOPMENT PROMJECT
Rent and Cost Recovery Indices (TL'OOO in 1985 terms)
IA IC IIA IC Coastal Inland Coastal Non- Inland Non- Typg of Farn Waterl ed Watierloaed W gd WatgterloJa -2 ha------3 ha------
1. Gross value of farn production at farm gate 6,169.0 6,640.2 2. Less cash production costs 2.3S2.3 Z2389A
3. Equals net cash income 3,816.7 4,251.2 4. Less imputed value of family labor 396.3 745.7 S. Less management fee 763.3 850.2 6. Plus production taxes 308.4 332.0
7. Equals rent/surplus 2.965.5 2,987.3
8. Rent as a percentage of income (7/3) 78 70
Water Charges for Ongoing OSI
9. Present levels 13.2 69.5 10. Full recovery 16.0 84.0 11. New O8H 49.3 * iDa 41.6 A3L2 12. Subtotal 78.5 40.2 195.1 43.9
13. Water charges for new DSI works 54. 81.9 53.Z IS1.4
14. Total DSI water charges (12+13) 133.1 122.1 248.3 195.3
Charaes for New GORS
15. New investment 1,103.2 - 1,654.9 -
16. Total direct charges (6+14+15) 1,544.7 122.1 2.235.2 195.3 17. Rent recovery index (16/7) La 52 - 75 - Public Sector OutlaXs
18. New DSI investment 113.8 170.7 111.0 315.9 19. New GORS Investment 2,204.4 - 3,306.6 - 20. New OSI OH 49.3 40.4642 . 43.9
21. Subtotal 2,367.5 210.9 3,459.2 359.8
22. Cost Recovery Index La 65 58 65 54 23. Farmer's income per capita. in TL, in year 4 (year 1990) 121.3 171.4 82.9 88.5
24. Estimated RPL. same year (1990) -_-_- ______-106.3------25. Estimated GNP. same year (1990) ------318.9------
La These ratios are defined on a gross basis (as defined in OPN 2.10. para 25); thus item 6. production taxes, are included in values given in 7 and 16. - All items are Incrementaland discounted at 12% over 40 years. except items 23-25. Items 24 and 25 are projected from Bank estimates. Items 13 and 15 assume zero inflation.
3946Z -93-
ANNEX 6 Table 7
TURKEY
DRAINAGEAND ON-FARM DEVELOPMENTPROJECT
Overall Cost Recovery and Its Sources - First Time Slice
Recoveries Recoveries Public Cost from from O&M Sector Recovery Surface and Outlays Index Subsurface Drainage Investments TL billion in 1985 terms-- -(X)-
First Time Slice
1. Coastal Regions
(a) Waterlogged area (144,000 ha or 72,000 farms) 73.2 5.0
(b) Non-waterloggedarea (214,000ha or 107,000 farms) 7.7 3.8
Subtotal 80.9 8.8 169.0 53
2. Inland Regions
(a) Waterloggedarea (76,000 ha or 25,300 farms) 38.0 4.3
(b) Non-waterloggedarea (216,000 ha or 72,000 farms) 9.6 2.8
Subtotal 47.6 7.1 99.3 55
Grand Total 128.5 15.9 268.3 54
3946Z -94-
ANNEX 7 Table 1
TURKEY
DRAINAGEAND ON-FARMDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Seed Cotton
Economic Farmgate Price Estimate
1985 1995 (Constant 1985 US$/ton) World Market Price (Lint cotton, c.i.f. N. Europe) A1 1,450 1,690
Export Price (Lint cotton, f.o.b. Izmir) /2 1,276 1,487
Less Transport and handling costs between ginnery and port -20 -20
Ex-ginnery value: a) Lint cotton 1,256 1,467 b) Cotton seed & linters 135 135
Less ginnery costs (per ton lint): a) ginning and baling -85 -85 b) storage -7 -7
Ginning yields: a) lint 35% b) seed & linters 60X c) waste 5X
Ginnery-gatevalue (seedcotton) 488 562 Less collection costs -7 -7
Farmuate Price (seedcotton) 481 555 (Tl/kg) /3 (260) (300)
/1 World Bank Economic Analysis and Projections Department, July 1985 (Outlook "A Index, Middling 1 3/32"). /2 1982-1984 unit values of Turkey's lint exports averaged 88Z of the Bank's World Market prices. /3 US$1 = TL 540.
3946Z -95-
ANNEX 7 Table 2
TURKEY
DRAINAGEAND ON-FARMDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Wheat
Economic Farmgate Price Estimate
1985 1995 (Constant 1985 US$/ton)
World Market Price (f.o.b. U.S.Gulf) tl 137 120
Plus transport, handling, and insurance costs between U.S. Gulf and Turkish port +19 +19
Import Price (c.i.f. Turkish port) 156 139
Plus Transport and handling costs, port to market center +11 +11
Market Center Price
Less transport and handling costs between farm and market -8 -8
Farmgate Price 159 142 (Tl/kg) 12 (86) (77)
/1 World Bank Economic Analysis and Projections Department, July 1985 (U.S. No. 1 soft red winter). 1979-1983 prices for U.S. No. 1 soft averaged 16.5% below prices for Canadian No. 1 Western Red Spring projected by the Bank. /2 US$1 = TL540.
3946Z -96-
ANNEX 7 Table 3
TURKEY
DRAINAGEAND ON-FARMDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Paddy
Economic Farmgate Price Estimate
1985 1995 (Constant 1985 US$/ton) World Market Price (rice, f.o.b. Bangkok) /1 225 315
Import Price (rice, c.i.f. Turkish port) /2 358 501
Transport and handling costs: a) port to market center +15 +15 b) mill to market center -13 -13
Ex-Mill Price Less mill costs (net, per ton rice) -90 -90
Millgate Price (Paddy) 175 268
Less collection costs -13 -13
Farmgate Price (paddy) 162 255 (Tl/kg) /3 (87) (138)
/1 World Bank Economic Analysis and Projections Department, July 1985 (white, milled, 5% Brokens). /2 1982-84 unit values of Turkey's rice imports averaged 59% over the Bank's World Market prices. /3 US$1 = TL540.
3946Z -97-
ANNEX 7 Table 4
TURKEY
DRAINAGE AND ON-FARM DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Grain Legumes (Broad Beans)
Economic Farmgate Price Estimate
1985 1995 (Constant 1985 US$Iton)
World Market Price (shelled, f.o.b.) 11 276 276
Less transport and handling costs between depot and port -11 -11
Farmgate Price (shelled) 255 255 (TlIkg) /2 138 138
/1 1982-84 weighted average unit value (in constant terms) of Turkey's broad bean exports. /2 US$l = TL540.
3946Z -98-
ANNEX 7 Table 5
TURKEY
DRAINAGEAND ON-FARMDEVELOPME!NT PROJECT
Fertilizers
Economic Farmgate Price Estimate
Urea TSP 1Q85 1995 1985 l995 - (Constant 1985 US$/ton) -
World Market Price /1 168 231 118 145
Import Price /2 183 252 156 191
Plus port handling costs +8 +8 +8 +8
Wholesale Price 191 260 164 199
Plus distributioncosts +29 +33 +32 +45
Retail Price to Farmers 220 293 196 244
(Tl/kg) /3 (119) (158) (106) (132)
/1 World Bank Economic Analysis and Projections Department, July 1985. (TSP: bulk, f.o.b. U.S. Gulf; Urea: bagged f.o.b. N.W. Europe). /2 Turkey, Agricultural Sector Adjustment Loan, Loan ImplementationVolume, Part I, Working Paper IB, Table 7. 1981-84 average unit values of Turkey's imports averaged 32X (TSP) and 92 (Urea) above respective World Market prices. /3 US$1 = Ti 540.
39462 -99-
ANNEX 7 Table 6
TURKEY
DRAINAGE AND ON-FARM DEVELOPMENTPROJECT
Financial and Economic Prices
Financial Economic 1985 1985 1995 - (1985 Constant Tl/kg)-- Outputs Paddy Kg 140 87 138 - Cotton Kg 250 260 300 Wheat Kg 50 86 77 Tomato Kg 40 - - Watermelon Kg 40 - - Grapes Kg - - - W-heat Byproduct (Coastal) Kg 20 20 20 Wheat Byproduct (Inland) Kg 10 10 10 Fodder (Alfalfa) Kg 35 35 35 Grain Legune (Broad Bean) Kg 165 138 138 Sugarbeet Kg 14.4 - - SugarbeetByproduct Kg 0.6 - -
Inputs Rice Seed Kg 150 84 133 Cotton Seed Kg 130 122 140 Wheat Seed Kg 60 93 83 Tomato Seedling Kg 5.5 - - WatermelonSeed Kg 5,600 - - Alfalfa Seed (per year) Kg 1,000 900 900 Grain Legume Seed Kg -200 150 150 Fertilizer Kg 56 113 /1 145 /1 Mechanization (Tractor Equivalent) Hr 4,500 4,050 4,050 Rice Pesticide Kg 1,845 1,660 1,660 Cotton Pesticide Kg 2,856 2,570 2,570 Wheat Herbicide Kg 1,710 1,539 1,539 Tomato Pesticide Kg 1,966 - - Watermelon Pesticide Kg 1,966 - - Grain Legume Pesticide Kg 550 495 495 Vineyard Pesticide Kg 1,485 - - Bags Unit 100 90 90 Boxes Unit 150 135 135 Prod. Tax X 5 - - Sugarbeet Seed /2 Kg 0 - -
Labor Hired Labor Manday 2,500 2,500 2,500 Family Labor Manday 0 2,500 2,500
/1 Urea: Tl/kg 119 (1985) & 158 (1995); TSP: Tl/kg 106 (1985) & 132 (1995). /2 For financial analysis, price is zero since mill gives seed free to farmers.
3946Z -100- AANNEX7 Table 7
TURKEY
DRAmm No hFAI DELOPW PROJECT
EwNaC 4MYSES
AI.SIR PRLECT(COASTAL-C523 HA EIEFIT)
(IUION TL)
1986 1?78 1738 1939 1M0-210
INaiuriL MMUSSFARN DIMCUI - 560.0 1120.0 209.0 2*.0 DNcRSEMNILFARM PRO3ICTII COSTS - 270.0 540.0 1005.0 1340.0
ET IICRIENTAL IEEFITS - 2Y.0.0 50.0 1090.0 1453.0
COSTS
cIESTTCOSTS 1639.0 2456.0 - - - INE TALPRJECT OPATINr CSTS - I5.0 62.0 62.0 62.0
TOTALCOSTS 163.0 2481.0 62.0 62.0 62.0
MET IUTS -1639.0 -2191.0 519.0 1029.0 1391.0
Octobr IS 1995 10:48
SVMCHINVALLES AT 1X
APPWISAL SVITCHINE PERCENTAGE STR5A WALUE VALUE CHANGE
3.IGFI 15,997.60 Il,499.89 -29.11S
C.iFC 7P678.06 M2175.7 -59.Z8Z C.IMV 3i420.41 7.918.12 131.S0: C.OT 401b42 4,699.14 1,120.45%
TOtALCOSTS * lr499.89 13,997.60 :3.11:
ut Pnwt Value at 0CC122 49497.7 Intenl Rateof Returna 26.7? Coun EmuvaluntRate dt Returnu 17.6?
k Mhat's next? -101-ANNEX 7 Table 8 TURKEY
* DM A 0HFAI-B M9l PROJEC
ECIOMIMCANALYSES
KrIY (COMASTL)-(8970 H EEFIT)
CBILLUOiL)
1986 1937 1938 1X3, 190-201
IIOE TL MMNSFAMl IMMUlE - 1.00 1.. 3.74 4.98 DIUOTL F PRONCTI COSTS - 0.48 0.9 1.X79 .
.TIiiniffL lIs - 0.52 1.03 1.95 2.X
IWJESITIECON 3.20 4.30 - - - TINEETL PROJECT TINScoss - - 0.10 0.10 0.10
TOTALCosis 3.20 4.80 0.10 0.10 0.10
NETlEiFriS -3.20 -4.28 0.93 1.85 2.49 3. ==,8 __ mu
October 18. 195 10:S1
SWITCHINGVALUES AT 12Z
APISAL SMITOB PERCTAGE ST5M VAUE VALUE OUEGE
31SF! 283.52 20.99 -2.8.422
CJFPC 1_.69 21.22 55.042 .C.IIIJJ .- - 6.dS 14.22 112.74% C.OPT 0.62 8.15 1P224.5M
TOTALCM "O0." 28.52 . 35.90S
Nbt Pen t alue at MC z 7.S Inte s!lte of Rtrn i 24.92 Cawm Etvilgnt RA of Reurn- 17.7%
Ok, Watt' rst? MMie KOPRUCAYECOattached -102- ANNEX 7 Table 9 TURKEY
RINA6ENS OW-FAD PELWEPROJECT
ECONOHICANALYSES
MOM PROJECT(CCASTL)-(3,64O HMA n)
(nILuON TL)
1986 19J -7 :°,39 im9-:0:0
-S
CR6ML GROSSFARM INWIE - 960.0 1920.0 3600.0 4104.0 INESNAL FANPRODUCTO CMStS - 460.0 920.0 207S.0 230S.0
No niENTI ENFT - 5000 [000.0 1525.0 2499.0 cam
imIs,NEN OS 2351.0 37.0 - - - INCR9IAL PIOJECTOPERATING COSTS - 36.0 91.0 91.0 91.0
TOTALCOSTS 2351.0 3563.0 91.0 91.0 91.0
NE BEMEITS -2351.0 -3063.0 909.0 1434.0 2408.0
OctoberI8, 15 10:52
SVITCHING'AS AT 12%
APPRAISA SMITCHINGPERCENTAGE STREAK VALUE VALUE CHANE
M.I6FI 2,506.80 18917.03 -31.23Z
C.IFPC 13,417.59 ,007.36 C.INV 4,920.81 13P500.58 174.92% C.CPT 59B.o3 9.173.40 1,4S?.'8Z
TOTALCOSTS 1,917.03 ,s7,506.80 45.41:
Net PrnSMtValw at OCC12: 8-59.8 Interl M o t RutUr- 310.6 Com Enuivalent Rate.3t Return = 18.3Z
Xk Mt's next? ESubtile gOPRUCAY/EMattwe] -103- A.NEX 7 Table 10 TURKEY
DRAINAGENO 0N-FARIDEVELOPENT PROJECT
ECONMICANALYSES SARAKOY(COASTAL)- (4,663 HAsHIT)
(MILLIONTL)
1986 11?7 :7?8 172 199-20
INCE Lc ROSSFAM INO - 520.0 1040.0 1940.0 3.0 INRMETALFA PRODUTIONCOTS - 500 5o0.0 930.0 1244.0
NETDNCW L BENFITS - 270.0 540.0 1010.0 134.0 camr
NVESTCMCOSTS 1924.0 216.0 - - - NCROIAL PROECTOPERATIN COSTS - 2P.0 72.0 72.0 72.0
rOTALCOSTS 1924.0 2895.0 72.0 72.0 72.0
NETBENEFITS -1924.0 -2625.0 48.0 93B.0 1277.0 = ~==:s = =
OctaberIBP 1985 10:52
SWITCHIN6UALUES AT 12I
APPRAISALSWITCHING PEREAGE STlEAN 'ALUE VALUE CHAMGE
B.IGFI 14.349.11 11,593.38 -21.93%
C.IFC 7124.62 10,380.35 45.70. C.IM - 4002.61 7,258.35. 81.34 C.OPT 466.14 321.87 698.44%
TOALCOSTS . 11,93.38 14689.11 .. 28.08%
Nut P t Valueat ccM1= 3,255.7 Inoten Rat of Returni 21.6% Caow Euuvulnt Rat#of Rpturmn16I
k, mat's not? Etutile KPRAy/C attchod3 -104- ANNEX 7 Table 11 TURKEY
DRAIMNGEANDOHM DVOPIWN JECT EcoutzCANALYSES
TTLU PROJECT(COsTAL)-(6949 HA BENEFIT)
(MILLIONIL)
198 198 1988 1939 l97. .20:0
In M .LGM1SS FARN INIEE - 770.0 1S4.O 2M00.0 3864.0 INCUETL f PROUCN COSTS - 370.0 740.0 1390.0 1854.0
METDMG LNJIGEFTS - 400.0 805.0 1510.0 2010.0
i WESTCmT 2431.0 3647.0 - - - INCREIENTALPROJECT WETINA COSTS - 32.0 79.0 79.0 79.0
TOTLCOSIS 2431.0 3679.0 79.0 79.0 79.0
NmEu mu -2431.0 -3279.0 726.0 1431.0 1931.0
Octdr 1i,1985 10:3
SNITCHIISVAUlES AT 12Z
APPAISAL SITClN PERCENTAGE STM VAUE VALUE OAE
B.1W! 2s 126.11 16204.49 -26.-76
C.ZIPC 10,6!4.?8 16,536.61 55.7 C.1w 5,077.70 10;9.53 116.62Z C.OPT 511.60 6P433.3 1,157.46%
TOTALCOS t6204.49 22u126.11 * 36.54Z
.Nt Proud valueat CC1 51.6 Intral . Rotairn- 25.2? Cawm Egdvulsit Rate of Rturn z 17.2Z
Ukt m1t'sMt? MSuMilt W 1CAY/EC0attace] ANNEX7 -105- - Table 12
TURKEY
wAXMAND ON'FARMm%LOEW PRQJEC
EWNC A"Ii.;YS
KONYAoCU (KOS)INLAND (1P752: HABEMEFIT)
(MILLIONTL)
199 1967 :17,3197'? 1790 199-2010
BOUM~~_ _
INCRHEMIfAL6RSS FA IMCO,E - 1330.0 2650.0 390.0 310.0 640.0 INCEISITALFAlN PROICTI COMTS - 630.0 1270.0 L910.0 2540.0 3170.0
NETDICBlW0TAL 5 - 700.01380.0 2070.0 2770.0 3470..
IN'JESTIENTCamTS 7900.0 7800.0 10396.0 - - - I D LTM.PRJECTORTING COS - 91.0 182.0 303.0 303.0 303.0
TOTALCaT 7800.0 7891.0 1057.0 303.0 303.0 303.0
NET ENUWM -7800.0 -7191.0 -919.0 1767.0 2467.0 3167.0
_tabewi 1895 10:50
SUITCHNVAUES AT 1
APRSAL StTIWIG PERCNTAGE S7RFm Viii VALUE CHAGE
.FI 36i,631.61 39,929.78 9.ocZ
C.IFnC 17i,4?6.91 14,198.74 -18.851 C.DI - '20.55207 172S3.90- -16.0Z C.OPT 1,850.80 -1.447.36 -178.20Z
TOTALCOSTM . 39y929.78 36631.41 .- 8.261
Nit Pmet Vale at MC12Z s -328.2 Intrwi Rt of RuWna .7 Coam EAivat Rat of Retun s 10.92
Ohs bit', nut? ANNEX7 -106- Table 13
TURKEY
MIME AN OFARNDEELOPNENT PJECT
ECNIC MALYSB
1st-TIlE SLIC (220,000MA IFIT)
(BILLIN TL)
1986 1987 IM 199 1990 1991 12 M 1"4-2010
HEIEFITS
IICERTAL SROSSFMN INCIE - 5,4 19.5 36.5 56.6 75.6 95.4 103.0 107.0 LESS: IEWNL FAN PMIICTIONCOSTS - 2.6 8.9 17.5 27.1 36.2 45.7 49.3 512
NETIN AEMALEIEFITS - 2.8 9.6 19.0 29.5 39.4 49.7 53.7 55.8
COSTS
INVESTNTCOSTS 16.6 35.9 39.5 37.7 34.5 37.3 - - - INCENrM.TLPROJECT UPERrTII COSTS - 0.3 0.9 15.0 2.2 2.1 3.4 3.4 3.4
TOTALCuST 16.6 36.2 39.4 52.7 36.7 40.1 3.4 3.4 3.4
NETBEEFITS -16.6 -33.4 -29.8 -33.7 -7.2 -0.7 46.3 50.3 52.4 =e~ - ==- == =
i.e..r, 30, 1986 12:34
SITOIINGVIJES AT12Z
FAISAL SIITOIIN PENTAGE STiffm GLUJE VALlE OwmN
3.1W! 503.52 400.10 -20.S4Z
C.IFPC 241.06 344.48 42.90 C.DIV 133.2B 236.70 77.60Z C.*T 25.T/ 129.19 401.36Z
TOTALCOSTS 400.10 503.52 25.85Z
htiPusnmwt almuiat OCC121 = 103.4 late mnl Rat. of Retim 21.6Z CwlowEuidwulent Rtd of Rtumn - 15.8O
Ski Es's mit? Milfil. FIRST/SLICEM attahud ANNEX 7 -107- Table 14
TURKEY
MUNKEMD fOIFFARH DCOPNENT PROJECT
ECOIHUCANLYSES CREPRIOIIM (440000R NA EIEFIT)
(LLXOII 1L)
19B6 1907 198S 1989 1990 1991 1m 1993 1994 199519"6-2010
INCREMENTALORBSS rARN INCNE - 3.6 16.3 34.0 58.4 86.7 119.8 155.6 192.0 206.7 214.0 LES: INCREIETALFARN FRCOUITION COSTS - 1.7 7.8 16.3 28.0 41.5 57.3 74.4 91.9 99.9 102.4
NETINlENT.AL awIElTS - 1.9 8.5 17.7 30.4 45.2 62.5 81.2 100.1 107.1 111.6
OUTS
INVESTENTCOSTS 71.6 34.0 35.2 46.1 53.3 60.9 66.9 65.0 - - - LCRENENTALPROJECT OPERPATIB COSTS - 0.3 0.9 1.5 2.4 3.3 4.4 5.7 6.9 6.9 6.9
MOTALCOSTS 71.6 34.3 36.1 47.6 55.7 64.2 71.2 70.7 6*9 6.9 6.9
NETBEFITS -71.6 -32.4 -27.6 -29.9 -25.3 -19.0 -8.7 10.5 93.2 100.9 104.7 == -= = _g __-_
_ avv 30, 1986 13:30
SMIIN6 VILUESAT 12Z
A ASAL SIITCHING PERCWTAGE 51TRM VALUE VALUE OWcuE
B.I6FI 835.25 691.64 -17.19Z
C.IFPC 399.69 543.30 35.S3Z C.INV 262.95 406.57 54.62Z C.OPT 29.00 172.61 495.21Z
TOTALCOSTS 691.64 9B.25 20.76Z
Nat Pmnamt Vala t OCC12Z 143.6 9te1 Rate of R.tum = 18.U Coup E.dsvlut Rate of Rmn = 15.12
OL, Met's next? CSubfil C/E/PROGRMVEMattached2 -108-
ANNEX 8
TURKEY
DRAINAGEAND ON-FARMDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Selected Documents and Data Available in the Proiect File
A. Selected Reports Related to the Agricultural Sector and Irrigation Subsector
A-1 IBRD, Turkey - Agricultural Sector Survey, Report No. 1684-TU, June 23, 1978. A-2 IBRD, Turkey - Public Sector Investment Review, Report No. 3472-TU, December 1981. A-3 IBRD, Turkey - Agricultural Development: Problems and Opportunities, Report No. 3178a-TU, May 7, 1981. A-4 IBRD, Turkey - IrrigationRehabilitation and Completion Report. PPAR Report No. 35'5, June 23, 1981. A-5 IBRD, Turkey - Erzurum Rural Development Project, Staff Appraisal Report No. 3671-TU, January 26, 1982. A-6 IBRD, Turkey - Agricultural Extension and Applied Research Project, Staff Appraisal Report No. 4818-TU, March 13, 1984. A-7 IBRD, Turkey - Igdir-Aksu-Eregli-Ercis(IAEE) Project, Staff Appraisal Report No. 4299-TU, May 13, 1983. A-8 IBRD, Turkey - Agricultural Development Alternates for Growth With Exports, Report No. 4204-TU, November 22, 1982. A-9 IBRD, Turkey - Agricultural Sector Adjustment Loan, May 22, 1985.
B. Selected Working Papers
B-1 Detailed Cost Tables B-2 Meteorological Data B-3 Agricultural Import/ExportVolume and Value for the Main Traded Commodities B-4 Cost Recovery Data and Farm Income Analysis B-5 Economic Analysis
3946Z -109-
ANNEX 3 Chart 1 TURKEY
DRAINACE AND ON-FARM DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
First Time Slice
Schedule of ImDlementation I I IBRD FISCAL YEAR 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 L991 CALENDAR YEAR 1986 B 1987 19891 1990 1991
A. SURFACE DRAINAGE WORKS
- Rehabilitation of Surface Drains |23I X 23S 23Z 17Z.z 7X |
| Construction _ - of New Drains _ 25_ 25X 26X| 12X f| 12X_
|B.SUB-SURFACE DRAINAGE WORKS I I i L I I I Installation of Sub-Surface Drains 1S | 17X 23X 25Z
Installation of Collector Pipes lSX_ l 7 20% 23X 25X
IC. MISCELLANEOUS WORKS I | l 1 I I I
I Reclation of Saline Land 11 . 17w 20l l23%
| - Access Roads I I_15X_1 17X I 20X 1 23X I2Z I
-Facilities for 1 _ LM_ _ I0X
- Installation of Piezometers | I _ _ 50X__ |_ 50_tI
D CONSULTING SERVICES | i I
I - Consulting Services for DSI |17 | 17f 17X 17X 17X is%
- Reviewing Consulting Services OSI |17 17X 17 | 17 | 17Xt 15
Consulting Services for GORS 17 | 17X I 17X 17 | 17X
- Reviewing Consulting Services GEMS |17 1 117X 17X 17 1 17X 15X
JE. TRAINING ABROAD I | I I I
- Training of OSI Staff 33_ _ _67_
| - Training of GDRS Staff 333X | 67Zt
3946Z - BULGARIA s r> -- lc e
W"_.~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sa of Marmara b wtttr~~~~~~~~ rr%~~~~--
\ 4 450 / ~ - -- S@3. of MormalR0 < M lzm0l Ad P -A-i
*_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.Kad* %-w Kf/ ,6.Dq p BolikesirX l.F70/t h skiseBoo
Aege~~~~ o n;` ' ,5vy )\.5r, . ,P>
| BuSea BileciFO
)C s g Izmir~~~~B1iksi
n_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~p 2 S31 0X .-
a vO - ___~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~w, Af o 0 _.
. 0 < ? .: 0 1 - rA~~~~~~~~S-bor
5e I6:- Medi-t. IBRD192K
noip 4 TURKEY - . - ~~~~~~~~~~~DRAINAGEAND ON-FARM DEVELOPMENT - -= 4 ~~~~PROJECT
Z=WWiko A-mcntriou*d LARGE 5CALE IRRIGATK)N PRt)JECTS
,,- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~GronPrOlKI C .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~tL_k Area (Ho.) Numerb of UrAlh 1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Exding 1.1 11.630 146 i1fii j _ ~~~~~UnrJrrComnucinin 437.400 52 510 _4ep 43 ~~~~~~D9eurd*88,470 38 ^- ZSIQ t.i_-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~26 5lS Designed 2BS.720 31
BOI G C ki Cj t75 t0 -tU rnnhywr h
10.400 ., iw13
_ < .4 fol or C ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Rir.
/A C- At X -- Do.WR.vRr -r 3.0or uK1- I 550 45w _ _t ~~~~~~~~ ---- ~~~~60Drsion Weir, A)-3 Aworrpk
2) id 3Yogl Pwnpirg Stations ANl;ARA Xr _ / * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MainIrTl9honir Cornols
5.5B0,30W, ___ r rIria
*k r_w _t_~~~~~~~~V-YInt-ainl Boundaries
Cffr r1 safire rvnJ.OOk
T: 1w0 ' }~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~4.3704<_ 0 KirSehir ,wa, U-1.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O.r -1 Kp
Ak-t-~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~.1- KS. K,240 Ng
f',~~~~~~~~~~~~~~si 1080 Ue8hirWk
AIA.W. 0 00 Ki&.j
-;;r ; ~~~12.M9 740 ODIWKl
1 41 MNJO s 3. lal . 0 7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~550 7`5 i
,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~6,dOD, ^ e.350 3Br .M, Oor_N-i§de ne _rrr -)13.5V 7 7 3'rer. n W_* Bs - - Konlya w- c drr
I.200 _ 2:t.530 -r- -F,-
- )l ' > (30 \> EnSl~WF. 1rK57.0 100 C_p Vr
Sr~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~S-- 5.erl123Wr orn NW e d! -Mn(W.0 5.0Rl~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.--- 17fs wb rr- a" W.Off._ -Y <5ia0 reoo :W30f r_ _
zerqr~~K %Z_-,. 5Xc 1,2 4UOW-_s- K,r ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Z3
Xf suoIl~~~n 5^|whZ-i 60^ _l\ussa<
Kp u a ,t53~gOSlWv-_ U.307--__0
,51 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~9, ~ ~~0 EA HDl U.S.S2: R l -- 3,770< r,4] 2369 ;- ^t p < g MR~15.
anen3>oe,3, ;V- . - s vS a w _ > sraleas0Rn l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a 190 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~EEE rv w 3V -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sinop
Rite
Sonrmun° _ 3 4.M n0 Trabzon
Ordu° Giresun°
26oU0GsiorI2i - {e - tIluIC Eb
GU7" 530 7 S A0A..yn V rd.hr 5v- *.. \ o Gumutowne d 7JO Aa _ - .-..NW
M-s2o" SA-,,. 5 7 7S0 C;orum0)5,0 0et^ 3130 22o TokotiDZ Erzuruj-- o 620 5.-S i, t-7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~S 1.55 EW Po..pq 2 K5 107510œ
Erz,ncon - nen r.f - O
E,. 0 u i 0 Yozgot Sivo7
\ * 060
ftao1.oy 1. Ow 3r A
_llnUw F920 ?
3. a7mJD Nwr G- 3shft- M oleh K00 3.20 2.050 r S-,.& - Elmi PKA
Nezvre 203,r 35K0yseri 9 70iE L 5 &W
36 4W A 1A'00 .. K e0. -- 5 atiyonoI 7so 3 'K 5/ vt ooo , Ce.. ID s. 2620 Erk~ &20_
60 15 730 - 3160 0 Aliyofman 2.500
350~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~65
or N.§de70
Mc".~ AeSeuU1.000 if-.a ,; K.Naa
. foieo v - % ~~~~~~SYRIANARAB REP. Antokyo - , Mec'. o0 ; M
,07 30 5 8'93r . _ _4. IBRD19281
;? A4 TURKEY DRAINAGEAND ON-FARM DEVELOPMENT
dArtvin U .S S. R. PROJECT
M.7 5.1. LARGE SCALE IRRIMATION PROJECTS
Kars Gros Project %xn \ Project Stoge Ara (Ho.) Number f Unih
3.309 _ ExBting 1.111.630 146 Under Contruct,an 437.400 52 0esgned 488.470 38 3 0Being igned 285720 31
APorn4., E~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~OI-On,A- k.r k--~ rr- b -b .
-,~ ~ ~~6 3.00Mk )* 0 ALji Riven
Dom,&RL-tvi
2 DwersionP WeSts
40,A Pim- PunTwi Stoiogn A5."Vrno.
MHL.P"o l * ISLAMIC REPP Main IrrigationConol s 7.720_40 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. 2 . 1 At,.... nrraanI oore 2000 7 -q o OF IRAN 3.210
MLq An," Ar&-A So4S .'.oO3jiJS
K-S M723%. 1 750 3.000 Van °
Bitlis KnC _
,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,w. t Hdkkar* 0l00ri r
IRAQ os r p. _. *_ ts _ i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..n'.o OA rCnr E0 S0OAr
BULO ~ . . r ______
- _ ~. -tiD02C
T U EY
.r ,,,. REP OFC"u5 - A IRAN
42 4 CYPRUS ARB-E
SEPTEMBE-R1985