FAO/GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY PROJECT DOCUMENT PROJECT ... · PDF fileproject document project title: conservation and sustainable management of turkey’s steppe ecosystems

FAO/GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY

PROJECT DOCUMENT

PROJECT TITLE: CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF TURKEY’S

STEPPE ECOSYSTEMS

PROJECT SYMBOL: GCP/TUR/061/GFF

RECIPIENT COUNTRY/IES: TURKEY

RESOURCE PARTNER: GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF TRUST FUND)

FAO PROJECT ID: 626050 GEF/LDCF/SCCF PROJECT ID: 5657

Executing Partner(s):

- Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs (MFWA); General Directorate of Nature Conservation and

National Parks

- Ministry of Food, Agriculture, and Livestock (MFAL); General Directorate of Plant Production

EXPECTED EOD (STARTING DATE): MAY 2016

EXPECTED NTE (END DATE): MAY 2020

CONTRIBUTION

TO FAO’S STRATEGIC

FRAMEWORK1

a. Strategic objective/Organizational Result: SO2 - Increase and improve

provision of goods and services from agriculture, forestry and fisheries in a

sustainable manner b. Regional Result/Priority Area: [3] Natural Resource Management,

including climate change mitigation and adaptation

c. Country Programming Framework Outcome: Sustainable use of natural

resources and forests ensured and improved:

GEF FOCAL AREA/LDCF/SCCF: BIODIVERSITY

GEF/LDCF/SCCF STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES:

BD-1: Improve sustainability of protected areas

BD-2: Mainstream biodiversity conservation and sustainable use into production landscapes, seascapes

and sectors

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT CATEGORY (INSERT √): A B C

FINANCING PLAN: GEF/LDCF/SCCF ALLOCATION:

Co-financing:

MFWA (in kind)

MFWA (grant)

MFAL (in kind)

MFAL (grant)

FAO (in kind)

FAO (grant)

Subtotal Co-financing:

Total Budget:

2,328,767 USD

2,700,000 USD

3,310,000 USD

1,200,000 USD

1,800,000 USD

150,000 USD

350,000 USD

9,510,000 USD

11,838,767 USD

1 For projects operated by country offices, it is necessary to link projects in FPMIS at OR level. For all other

projects, linkage at product/service level is necessary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Steppes are one of the most ecologically important and vulnerable ecosystems in Turkey. Turkey’s

steppe ecosystems include pastures, meadows, and grasslands and cover approximately 32 million hectares of

the country. Steppe ecosystems are prevalent in Eastern and Central Anatolia as well as the high mountains

of the Aegean and Mediterranean Regions. Project activities will take place in Sanliurfa province, located in

southeastern Turkey along the Syrian border. Sanliurfa has an average elevation of 518m and a total surface

area of 19 million hectares. In the last twenty years, the population has grown from approximately 1,000,000

to nearly 2,000,000 inhabitants. This is in addition to more than 350,000 Syrian refugees currently hosted in

the province. Nearly 600,000 people live in the provincial capital, also called “Sanliurfa”. In spite of rapid

growth, Sanliurfa province continues to benefit from some of the nation’s best remaining, intact steppe

ecosystems. Approximately 250,000 hectares of Şanlıurfa Province are considered grasslands. These

grasslands are part of both the globally significant Akçale Steppes and Ceylanpınar Key Biodiversity Areas.

These are some of the last remaining well preserved and biodiversity rich steppe ecosystems in Turkey and

Europe. Project effort will focus upon three distinct Sanliurfa grasslands: Kızılkuyu Wildlife Development

Area, TekTek Mountains National Park, and the Karacadağ Steppes. The project will enhance biodiversity

within these sites and promote greater connectivity between these sites. These three sites represent the last

and best remaining examples of relatively intact step ecosystems remaining within the greater Anatolian

region. Each site faces nearly the same threats and barrier challenges to biodiversity conservation.

The integrity of Turkey’s steppe ecosystems faces three primary threats: habitat loss and degradation,

overharvest, and climate change. Expanding cultivation is likely the most evident driver of steppe habitat

loss, though infrastructure development also contributes significantly. Some estimate that over 15% hectares

of steppe has been converted to urban use over the last few decades. Over-grazing is the main cause of steppe

habitat degradation. Nearly all steppe areas are subject to grazing pressure by domestic livestock. Livestock

grazing generally rises beyond carrying capacity limits and diminishes the integrity of steppe ecosystems.

Overgrazing occurs on steppe systems both inside and outside of protected area boundaries. The rate and

intensity of overgrazing is increasing as the total hectares of grasslands are reduced and the total number of

livestock remains stable and/or increases.

Regarding overharvesting, numerous steppe dependent species are subject to harvest. This is particularly

pronounced in terms of flora. Most of this activity is driven by subsistence and/or medicinal use, though

some take is income motivated. Similarly, poachers often target both bustards and wild gazelle. While

bustards are harvested for sport and consumption, gazelle are primarily live capture from herds reintroduced

to the Kızılkuyu Wildlife Development Area. Rather than flight, young gazelle often rely upon cryptic

measures. This makes them relatively easy to target while hiding in steppe grass. Young animals are sold to

citizens who raise these suckling gazelle as garden pets. In addition, though the rate of fuel wood

consumption within steppe forest areas has slowed over the past decade due to energy infrastructure changes,

the residual impacts of past overharvest continue to impact steppe ecosystem integrity. Finally, climate

change is an emerging threat to Turkey’s globally significant steppe habitats. Climate change will compound

and accelerate the negative impacts of existing threats, further reducing the resilience of steppe ecosystems.

The cumulative impact of these three threats is the rapid loss and degradation of Turkey’s steppe lands:

over the past 80 years, approximately 12 million ha of natural steppe have been lost. At the same time,

Turkish experts categorize nearly 60% of Turkey’s steppe lands as highly degraded. Steppes represent less

than 1% of the national protected area system with only 6% of all grasslands having protected status. Those

with protected area status often struggle under less than ideal conservation management systems.

The long-term solution is to reduce the loss rate of steppe lands and associated biodiversity values. This

requires improving the conservation of currently degraded steppe lands, reducing the rate at which steppe

lands are permanently lost to cultivation and urbanization, and the conversion rate of steppe biodiversity.

Steppe lands must also be conserved on a landscape level. Conservation of Turkey’s globally significant

steppe biodiversity demands conservation effort both within protected areas and beyond the borders of

protected areas. The best examples of Turkey’s globally significant biodiversity must benefit from adequate

levels of conservation within protected areas. However, Turkey’s protected areas system will never be large

enough to preserve populations of large mammal species such as gazelle within protected area boundaries.

To conserve biological integrity, connectivity between the best remaining steppe habitats must be maintained.

This includes reducing the rate of species loss and habitat fragmentation.

Safeguarding Turkey’s globally significant steppe biodiversity demands conservation effort beyond the

borders of protected areas. Over 40% of Turkey is considered steppe. Many steppe species are wide ranging.

Attempting to create a protected area regime covering the entire landscape is not tenable. Steppe biodiversity

outside of protected areas benefits from almost no measurable conservation support. However, it is within

these areas outside of protected areas where biodiversity is most threatened by human encroachment and

overuse. The three barriers that will be addressed by the project are (i) limited experience with highly

effective steppe protected area design and management, (ii) limited experience with integrating steppe

conservation with grazing and agricultural management practices, and (iii) limited capacity to generate

institutional and policy level support required to achieve landscape level grasslands conservation.

In this context, the project’s objective is to improve the conservation of Turkey’s steppe ecosystems

through effective protected area management and mainstreaming steppe biodiversity conservation into

production landscapes. The project will apply three components each designed to systematically address the

three barriers standing between the existing situation and long-term solution of securing the ecological

integrity of Turkey’s globally significant steppe ecosystems. The first component will aim to facilitate the

emplacement of tools and experience required for protected area design and management to become much

more effective at conserving steppe ecosystems and associated globally significant biodiversity. This will

include setting in place a rigorous framework for steppe protected area management planning and monitoring.

The second component will support the emplacement of tools to integrate steppe conservation within

grazing and management practices. The project will support protected area managers, government extension

agencies and agriculturalists to mainstream steppe conservation within their production activities. The

protected area staff and others will work with grazing interests to emplace much better models for grassland

management predicated upon spatial and temporal carrying capacities. A major part of this effort will be to

innovate a stock management system that maintains ecosystem services, reduces business risk, and increases

profitability. Finally, the project will help generate the institutional and policy level support required to

achieve steppe conservation on a landscape level. Agriculture and associated infrastructure development is a

major driver of steppe ecosystem losses. This development is also fragmenting remaining steppe, including

existing protected areas. This problem persists due to the limited capacity and experience in Turkey with the

generation of institutional and policy frameworks required for the realization of landscape level conservation.

The project will help to remove this barrier by creating a model for provincial level steppe conservation

planning. A centrepiece of this effort will be the generation and implementation of a provincial level steppe

conservation strategy. Commensurate capacity building will support this effort.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... (i)

Glossary of Acronyms ............................................................................................................................... (ii)

Section 1: Relevance

1.1 Context ............................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Rationale .......................................................................................................................................... 15

1.3 FAO’s Comparative Advantage ....................................................................................................... 28

1.4 Stakeholder Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 29

1.5 Lessons Learned from Related Experiences ..................................................................................... 35

1.6 Links to National, GEF, and FAO Strategies and Objectives .......................................................... 36

Section 2: Project Framework and Expected Results

2.1 Project Objective, Strategy, and GEF Alternative ............................................................................ 41

2.2 Project Outcomes and Activities ...................................................................................................... 42

2.3 Expected Results and Global Benefits ............................................................................................. 52

2.4 Cost Effectiveness ............................................................................................................................ 54

2.5 Innovativeness .................................................................................................................................. 54

Section 3: Feasibility

3.1 Environmental Impact Assessment .................................................................................................. 54

3.2 Risk Management ............................................................................................................................. 55

Section 4: Implementation and Management

4.1 Intuitional Arrangements .................................................................................................................. 58

4.2 Implementation Arrangements ......................................................................................................... 59

4.3 Financial Planning and Management ............................................................................................... 67

4.4 Financial Management and Reporting ............................................................................................. 69

4.5 Procurement ..................................................................................................................................... 70

4.6 Monitoring and Evaluation ............................................................................................................... 71

4.7 Provisions for Evaluations ................................................................................................................ 75

4.8 Communications and Visibility ........................................................................................................ 75

Section 5: Sustainability of Results

5.1 Social Sustainability and Gender Mainstreaming............................................................................. 76

5.2 Environmental Sustainability ........................................................................................................... 76

5.3 Financial and Economic Sustainability ............................................................................................ 76

5.4 Sustainability of Capacities Developed ............................................................................................ 76

5.5 Appropriateness of Technology Introduced ..................................................................................... 76

5.6 Replicability and Scaling Up ............................................................................................................ 77

Appendices

1 Results Matrix ......................................................................................................................................

2 Provisional Work Plan..........................................................................................................................

3 Results Budget......................................................................................................................................

4 Draft Terms of Reference .....................................................................................................................

5 Quantifying and Monitoring Carbon Benefits ......................................................................................

6 Tracking Tools .....................................................................................................................................

Acronyms

AWP/B Annual Work Plan and Budget

BH Budget Holder

CEO Chief Executing Officer (GEF)

CFA Community Forestry Association

CBNRM Community Based Natural Resource Management

EP Executing Partner

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

BERN The Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats

BD Biological Diversity

BH Budget Holder

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CC Climate Change

CEO Chief Executing Officer (GEF)

CE Critical Endangered

CGRFA Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

CSOs Civil Society Organizations

DKM Nature Conservation Centre (DoğaKorumaMerkezi)

EN Endangered

EP Executing Partner

EU European Union

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FPMIS Field Project Management Information System

GAP Southeastern Anatolian Project (GüneydoğuAnadoluProjesi)

GEBs Global Environmental Benefits

GEF Global Environment Facility

GEFSEC GEF Secretariat

GDF General Directorate of Forestry

GDNCNP General Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Parks

GDPP General Directorate of Plant Production

GoT Government of Turkey

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

LTO Lead Technical Officer

LTU Lead Technical Unit

KBA Key Biodiversity Areas

METT Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool

PC Pasture Commission

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MFAL Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock

MFWA Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs

NBMS National Basin Management Strategy of Turkey

NCSA Turkey’s National Capacity Self-Assessment

NP National Park

PA Protected Area

PIF Project Identification Form (GEF)

PIR Project Implementation Review

PPG Project Preparation Grant (GEF)

PPR Project Progress Report

PRODOC Project Document

PSC Project Steering Committee

PY Project Year

PoWPA Protected Area Working Programme

SCP Systematic Conservation Planning

SPA Steppe Protected Area

STAP Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel

RAMSAR Convention on Wetlands of International Importance

TA Technical Assistance

TCI Investment Centre Division (FAO)

TOR Terms of Reference

UNCCD United Nation Convention to Combat Desertification

UNEP United Nation Environment Programme

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNFCCC United Nations Framework on Climate Change Convention

USD United States Dollar

VU Vulnerable

WDA Wildlife Development Area

WDP Wildlife Development Plan

WOCAT World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies

WWF-Turkey World Wildlife Fund-Turkey

Project Document: Conservation and Sustainable Management of Turkey’s Steppe Ecosystems Page 1

Section 1 Relevance

1.1 Context

1.1.1 National Context

1. Turkey is situated at the cross roads of Asia and Europe. The nation’s total territory is

approximately 780,000 km2. The population exceeds 77 million. Over 90% of Turkey’s

population lives in urban areas. The national literacy rate is over 95%. Turkey’s GDP ranks in the

world’s top 20.

2. Turkey is food self-sufficient. Agriculture makes up approximately 9% of the nation’s GDP.

Crop production represents approximately 60% of all agricultural value. Nearly 35% of the

country is arable land with more than 27 million hectares under cultivation. Only 20% of all

cultivated land is irrigated. There are over four million farm households in Turkey. Nearly 70%

of these farmers work less than five hectares of land. Livestock production represents

approximately 35% of agricultural value. The national herd consists of more than 10 million

cattle and 25 million head of sheep. The Government of Turkey would like to increase

agricultural production with an ambitious target of becoming one of the world’s top five

agricultural countries by 2023. This includes expanding irrigated crop production from a current

5.5 million hectares to approximately 8.5 million hectares.

3. The country’s diverse landscapes include forests, mountains, steppes, wetlands, and coastal

and marine ecosystems. The Irano-Anatolian, Caucasus, and Mediterranean biodiversity hotspots

intersect within Turkey. The nation is on several major flyways and provides critical habitat for a

large array of bird species, including breeding habitat for several threatened European bird

species. There are 1,500 vertebrate species with more than 120 endemics. There are 236

freshwater fish species, 28 amphibians, 129 reptiles, 456 birds, and 165 mammal species. Turkey

has an estimated 21,000 invertebrates with nearly 4,000 endemic species/subspecies.

4. The country has 12,000 flowering plant species (including intraspecific taxa). There are

approximately 9,000 vascular plant species, of which at least 2991 are endemic. Of the 12,000

species known to exist in Europe – defined as everything west of the Urals – 11,000 are recorded

from Turkey. In addition to being rich in endemic species, Turkey’s flora has an important place

among other countries. The second richest country in Europe for endemism is Greece, where the

number of endemic taxa is between 800 and 1000. Although some of the endemics of Turkey are

widespread, some are peculiar to a specific region or mountain range. Some endemics might

require special habitats like soils with salt or gypsum. The Amanos Mountains, Uludağ, Kaz

Mountain, Munzur Mountains, Ilgaz Mountains, and Erciyes Mountain are the richest mountain

ranges with respect to endemism.

5. Among woody plants, one notable genus that may have its origins here is Quercus (oak). With

18 species of Quercus in Turkey, this region is the gene center of the genus. Turkish flora, among

the Middle East Countries, is also richer in woody species, as it is in other herbaceous endemic

species. The number of tree species and tall bushes is around 300, including, notably, Sorbus,

Pyrus, Amelanchier, Malus, Mespilus, Crataegus, Amygdalus, Prunus, Cerasus and Cotoneaster.

The abundance of fruit trees is high compared to other Middle Eastern countries, suggesting that

cultivation of these fruits is of Anatolian origin.

6. A number of important domestic crop plants likely originated in Turkey. These include: Isatis

(Indigo grass), Draba, Alyssum, Astragalus, Alcea, Phlomis, Salvia, Verbascum (mullein),

Scrophularia, Veronica, Campanula (bell flower), Anthemis (daisy), Centaurea (cornflower),


Achillea (klamath weed, yarrow), Allium (onion) and Iris species are among those believed to

originate in this region.

7. Turkey has declared approximately 9.5 million ha of land as protected areas. This represents

8% of the nation’s total territory. Turkey has twelve types of protected areas, ranging from

National Park to Seed Stands.

Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs Protected Areas Number of Sites Area (ha)

National Parks 40 848,202

Nature Parks 192 90,218

Nature Conservation Areas 31 64,242

Nature Monuments 112 6,683

Wildlife Development Areas 80 1,191,340

Wetlands (13 of them RAMSAR Site) 135 3,215,500

Protection Forests 55 320,450

Gene Conservation Forests (in-situ) 257 47,977

Seed Stands (in-situ) 351 47,062

Seed Orchard (ex-situ) 179 1,413

Ministry of Environment and Urbanization Protected Areas Number of Sites Area (ha)

Special Environmental Protection Areas 16 2,459,116

Natural Sites 1273 1,322,748

Total Hectares Nationally Designated Protected Areas 9,614,951

8. Steppes are one of the most ecologically important and vulnerable ecosystems in Turkey.

Turkey’s steppe ecosystems include pastures, meadows, and grasslands. Steppes cover

approximately 32 million hectares of Turkey. Steppe ecosystems are prevalent in Eastern and

Central Anatolia as well as the high mountains of the Aegean and Mediterranean Regions.


9. There are four types of steppe in Turkey. The rare Gramineae steppes are dominated by

gramineae species. Broad-leaved plants define Malacophyll steppes. Tragaganthic steppes have

cushion-forming spiny species such as Astragalus L. and Acantholimon Boiss. Salty steppe

species incorporate Chenopodiaceae and Plumbaginaceae families.

10. As described in more detail below, Turkey’s steppe ecosystems are globally significant and

unique. Five separate Key Biodiversity Areas have been identified in the Urfa region alone.

These steppes have incredibly rich flora and fauna composition. Over 1,000 endemic plant

species have been identified within Turkey’s steppe region. There are numerous endemic insects,

including several butterfly species. Reptile species include the Desert monitor (Varanusgriseus).

Steppes host endemic subspecies Anatolian mouflon (Ovisorientalisanatolica), Steppe Lynx

(Felis caracal), wolf (Canis lupus), birch mouse (Sicistacaucasia), mole (Talpaeuropea), jerboa

(Allactagawilliamsi), ground squirrel (Citelluscitellus), and globally endangered bird species

including Great Bustard (Otis tarda), griffin vulture (Gyps fulvus), black vulture (Aegypius

monachus), lesser kestrel (Falco naumanni), snake eagle (Circaetusgallicus), hawks (Buteo sp.),

falcons (Falco sp.), harriers (Circus sp.), little bustard (Otis tetrax), hoopoe (Upupaepops), and

quail (Coturnix sp.).

Table: Steppe Representation in Turkey

Type of Steppe Area (ha) Key BD

area (%)

PAs

(%)

Arable

(%)

Agric.

(%)

Pasture

(%)

Permanent

crops (%)

Natural

(%)

Mountain Steppe

Mid-Anatolia Mountain 8,362,018 13 0.7 27 23 1 0.9 48.7

Central Eastern Anatolia

Mountain 2,788,501 28 0.0 11 17 1 0.6 70.0

Eastern Anatolia Mountain 5,181,794 27 2.2 13 16 2 0.1 69.2

Eastern Anatolia High

Mountain 1,567,547 34 3.2 2 7 1 0.0 90.5

South Eastern Anatolia

Mountain 1,223,513 28 0.0 36 19 23 2.8 19.0

Plain Steppe

Mid-Anatolia Plain Steppe 7,821,932 14 6.2 47 22 5 1.6 24.7

South Eastern Anatolia Plain 2,532,580 37 0.8 56 12 7 7.0 18.6

Eastern Anatolia Plain

Steppe 1,425,703 23 0.9 43 20 6 0.2 31.2

North Eastern Anatolia 193,541 21 0.0 58 11 16 0.1 16.0

High Plain

Thrace Plain Steppe 714,202 5 0.0 67 15 8 0.1 11.0

Salt Steppe

Mid-Anatolia Salt Steppe 317,156 85 59.1 16 16 10 0.6 66.9

Eastern Anatolia Salt Steppe 154,309 41 1.8 23 23 1 0.0 61.4

Total 32,282,796 94% 30% 6% 33% 15% 7% 44%


1.1.2 Project Site Context

Sanliurfa Province

11. Project activities will take place in Sanliurfa province. The province is located in

southeastern Turkey along the Syrian border. Sanliurfa has an average elevation of 518m and a

total surface area of 19 million hectares. In the last twenty years, the population has grown from

approximately 1,000,000 to nearly 2,000,000. This is in addition to more than 350,000 Syrian

refugees currently hosted in the province. Nearly 600,000 people live in the provincial capital,

also called “Sanliurfa”.

12. Şanlıurfa is a major tourism destination. The province is considered the birthplace of

Abraham. Şanlıurfa has many ancient archaeological sites. Gobeklitepe is a unique prehistoric

site dating to 9,600 BCE. This stone structure adorned with numerous carvings of wild animals is

considered the first human-made temple.

13. The major driver of growth is the Southeastern Anatolia Project (GüneydoğuAnadoluProjesi

or GAP). Begun in the early 1990’s, the Southeastern Anatolia Project (GAP) is one of the largest

river basin development projects in the world. The GAP covers nine provinces and represents an

investment worth tens of billions of dollars. The stated objective is to provide employment

opportunities for 3.8 million people. GAP is linked to major hydro-programs on the nearby

Euphrates and Tigris rivers with more than twenty dams under production. The accompanying

irrigation program is rapidly expanding and intensifying cultivation. As of 2013, GAP has brought

more than 3.1 million hectares into agricultural production. This includes more than 1.2 million

hectares in Sanliurfa. There are aspirations to bring another 1.8 million hectares under irrigation.

14. In the early 1990’s when GAP commenced, the value of agriculture in the region was less

than US$ 20 million/annually. Agriculture is now valued in the billions. The agriculture sector

employs over 70% of the population. Approximately 60% of Sanliurfa’s total territory is now

under crop production. At least two thirds of Sanliurfa’s natural steppes have been converted to


agricultural lands. Sanliurfa province now produces approximately 45% of the nation’s cotton,

10% of the barley and wheat crop, 36% of the lentils, 20% of the corn, and nearly 40% of the

national pistachio crop.

Şanlıurfa Pilot Sites

15. In spite of rapid growth, Sanliurfa province continues to benefit from some of the nation’s

best remaining, intact steppe ecosystems. Approximately 250,000 hectares of Şanlıurfa Province

are considered grasslands. These grasslands are part of both the globally significant Akçale

Steppes and Ceylanpınar Key Biodiversity Areas. These are some of the last remaining well

preserved and biodiversity rich steppe ecosystems in Turkey and Europe.

16. The world’s largest critically endangered sociable lapwing (Vanellus gregarius) population

depends upon this region during migration. Thirty-seven species of diurnal raptor have been

recorded in this region, including 14 breeding species. Important fauna include Great bustard (Otis

tarda), Egyptian vulture (Neophron percnopterus), Mahely’s horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus

mehelyi), striped hyena (Hyaena hyaena), marbled polecat (Vormela peregusna), goitered gazelle

(Gazella subgutturosa), varan lizard (Varanus griseus), lynx (Lynx lynx), lapwing (Vanellus

vanellus), crested lark (Galerida cristate), calandra lark (Melanocorypha calandra), grouse

(Pterocles orientalis), and hoopoe (Upupa epops). Many of these are IUCN and Bern Convention

species.

17. Sanliurfa is home to Turkey’s only remaining population of free-ranging goitered gazelle

(Gazella subguttorosa) representing the western fringe of this species. Gazelle depend upon large

intact grasslands, making them a very suitable umbrella and indicator species for grassland health

and connectivity. The total gazelle herd consists of approximately 300 free-roaming individuals

and more than 1,500 captive gazelles. Gazelle are a very important part of Sanliurfa culture, often

depicted in art and song.

18. The province’s forested steppe areas contain some of the world’s last stands of wild pistachio

(Pistacia terebinthus). The pistachio shrubland includes other woody plant species such as

cerasus (Cerasus sp.), whitethorn (Crataegus aronia) and ficus (ficus sp.). Additional globally

significant plant species include wild chickpea (Cicer pinnatifidum Jaub. & Spach), wild Lathyrus

(Lathyrus cicera L.), wild lentil (Lens orientalis Boiss.), iridescent flower (Centaurea obtusifolia

(Boiss. & Hausskn.) Wagenitz); astragakus (Astragalu saleppicus Boiss) whitethorn (Crataegus


aronia (L.) Bosc. var. aronia), versicolour flower (Centaurea obtusifolia (Boiss. &Hausskn.)

Wagenitz).

19. Project effort will focus upon three distinct Sanliurfa grasslands: Kızılkuyu Wildlife

Development Area, TekTek Mountains National Park, and the Karacadağ Steppes. The project

will enhance biodiversity within these sites and promote greater connectivity between these sites.

These three sites represent the last and best remaining examples of relatively intact step

ecosystems remaining within the greater Anatolian region. Each site faces nearly the same threats

and barrier challenges to biodiversity conservation. As describe below, each site presents slightly

different steppe ecotypes.

Pilot Site 1: TekTek Mountains National Park

20. TekTek Mountain was declared a national park in 2007. The protected area covers 20,000 ha.

State owned lands cover 18,000 ha with the remaining held by local communities. There are seven

villages with a total of nearly 3,000 people located inside protected area. Residents depend

primarily upon animal husbandry. The northern part of the site is not open for grazing and as a

result the steppe habitat there is well preserved. The central and southern parts of TekTek are

open to grazing. These areas are under intense grazing pressure. Approximately 2,500 livestock

graze across 10.000 ha of land. Approximately 3,000 hectares are used for dryland crop

production. The protected area’s topography is hilly, located between the Harran and Viranşehir

Plateaus. The elevation varies between 500 and 750 meters. Part of the Irano-Turanianphyto

geographic region, TekTek is defined as “forest steppe”.

21. TekTek hosts an array of endemic species. This includes one of the world’s last remaining

wild pistachio forests. There are 2,800 ha of turpentine pistachio (Pistacia terebinthus) shrubland.

Pilot Site 2: Kızılkuyu Wildlife Development Area

22. Kızılkuyu was declared a wildlife development area in 2006 managed according to the

Terrestrial Hunting Law by GDNCNP and the MFWA Şanlıurfa National Park Division.

Kızılkuyu is located just outside the city of Şanlıurfa. The average elevation of the site is 600m

with the highest elevation of 764 meters. Kızılkuyu encompasses approximately 20,000 ha. More


than 90% of the land belongs to the state. There are 6 villages within Kızılkuyu with a total

population of roughly 2,000. Residents are primarily engaged in pastureland production with

more than 6,000 sheep/goats and 1,000 cattle grazing Kızılkuyu. This represents a fluctuation of

the number of the sheep/goats and cattle depend on the climatic condition and immigration from

rural to urban areas. Since 2000 the number of the sheep/goats and cattle are degreasing 20%.

23. Kızılkuyu is the one of the most important stopover sites for the critically endangered sociable

lapwing (Vanellus gregarius). The site is also an important wintering area for great bustards.

Other species of conservation concern are the pin-tailed sandgrouse (Pterocles alchata), the

cream-colored courser (Cursorius cursor) and Montagu's harrier (Circus pygargus).

24. Goitered gazelle (Gazella subgutturosa) is the key species in Kizilkuyu. The Gazelle

Breeding Station lies in the center of the protected area. Kizilkuyu currently has approximately

200free-ranging gazelle. This herd is currently increasing. However, the herd’s capacity to

extend habitat range is constrained by surrounding urban and agricultural development.

Pilot Site 3: The Karacadağ Steppes

25. The Karacadağ steppes cover approximately 720,000ha. Karacadağ does not have protected

status. Although Karacadağ is an identified key biodiversity area (KBA), the region does not have

formal protected area status. Karacadağ is managed under the Pasture Law by MFAL. The site is

primarily within Şanlıurfa province with very small portions within neighboring Diyarbakır and

Mardin Provinces.

26. Karacadağ is an extinct volcano. The elevation ranges between 1,000 m and 1,981 m. There

are 12 villages surrounding Karacadağ. The total population is approximately 14,000. The total

number of livestock associated with these villages is estimated to be around 19,000 cattle and

50,000 sheep/goats. There are no permanent residents in the upper core areas.

27. The core area covers approximately 135,000hectares is snow covered during the winter

months (December to March). Overgrazing in the core area is often severe with widespread

evidence of depopulated species and erosion. The upper “core” area is used seasonally by


approximately 200 grazing families. The total number of livestock in this area often exceeds

70,000 animals. Many of the semi-nomadic herding families travel from more than 500

kilometers to use the pasturelands. There are three main clans who use the area. Grazing is

loosely regulated using a combination of traditional tribal structures controlled by tribal leaders

and a “Pasture Commission” headed by the Sanliurfa governor’s office.

28. Karacadağ has outstanding steppe flora diversity. There are 534 plant species representing

269 genera and 66 different families. More than 32 endemic species have been discovered within

Karacadağ. Three endemic plants are specific to the Karacadağ: (Hesperis hedge, Lathyrus

trachycarpus, and Paracaryum kurdistanicum). Six endemic plants are specific to Southeastern

Anatolia Region: (Symphytum aintabicum, Cicorechino spermum, Scrophulari mesopotamica,

Verbas cumtenue, Trigonosciadium tuberosum and Allium variegatum). More than twenty plant

species found within Karacadağ are endemic to Turkey. Numerous species are rare or

endangered.

29. Recent research indicates that Karacadağ was a center of early wheat domestication. Wild

“hot spring wheat” (Triticum boeoticum) grows in the region and is linked to Einkorn (Triticum

monococcum). Wheat agriculture likely commenced in this region using Karacadağ stock more

than 10,000 years ago. Numerous wild ornamental plants are found in Karacadağ. These include

Crocus spp. Fritillaria spp., Iris spp., and Tulipa ssp., Allium ssp., Gladiolus spp., and

Ornithogalum ssp.


1.1.3 Legal, Policy and Institutional Context

Institutional Context

30. Please see the annex for a comprehensive summary of the project’s institutional context.

31. The Ministry of Food, Agriculture, and Livestock (MFAL) manages grazing lands in

accordance with the Pasture Law of 1998. Two provincial directorates located in Şanlıurfa and

Diyarbakır represent MFAL in the project area. These units improve agricultural practices,

manage meadows and grasslands, and coordinate the Ministries’ relations with farmers through

capacity building and direct support.

32. MFAL is responsible for wildlife management among and nearby croplands. MFAL is

responsible for the in-situ and ex-situ conservation of genetic resources of plant species in Turkey

under the General Directorate of Agricultural Research.

33. MFAL’s General Directorate of Agricultural Research and Policies (TAGEM) is responsible

for conducting research studies on vegetable and animal production issues, and collaboration with

international research institutions. TAGEM undertakes demonstrations in plant production and

animal husbandry. TAGAM’s Ceylanpınar Enterprise located in Şanlıurfa is the largest of all

such enterprises in Turkey. Ceylanpınar Enterprise covers 176.000 ha or 9% of Şanlıurfa. The

Soil, Fertilizer, and Water Resources Central Research Institute assists in monitoring information

on soil, include organic carbon levels.

34. MFAL has several research institutes located in Sanliurfa. The GAP Agricultural Research

Institute works for the protection of genetic resources, development of new techniques, research

on plant diseases, surveys on socio economy, and capacity building. The GAP International

Agricultural Research and Training Center in Diyarbakır focuses on agricultural research and

capacity development through conferences, workshops and trainings. The Pistachio Research

Station in Gaziantep aims to improve pistachio production and marketing.

35. The Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs (MFWA) is the main management authority for

protected areas and biodiversity. The MFWA manages pastures within the borders of designated

forests. The MFWA and MFAL cooperatively manage Pasture and pasture lands declared as

protected areas.

36. The MFWA sets and implements biodiversity and natural resources management guidelines

and procedures. The MFWA is responsible for natural resource conservation including planning,

monitoring, and enforcement. The MFWA is regulated by the National Parks Law No. 2873;

Terrestrial Hunting Law No 4915; and, RAMSAR Convention. The Ministry implements and

oversees efforts to meet the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), European

Landscape Convention, Bern Convention, and Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD).

37. The MFWA General Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Parks (GDNCNP) is

responsible for the selection, designation, planning, conservation, and management of national

parks, nature parks, natural monuments, and nature reserve areas. The GDNCNP manages each

protected area under the rules of its “long term development plan” (management plan) through a

network of Park Directorates. Each Directorate is responsible for the conservation of game and

wildlife species within their natural habitats.

38. The Şanlıurfa Province Directorate is directly responsible for carrying out the MFWA’s

mandates within the project area. The provincial directorate oversees the conservation, planning,


and management of protected areas, conducts biodiversity surveys at the regional level, manages

of wetlands and wildlife, and regulates hunting.

39. The Ministry of Environment and Urbanization (MEU) coordinates Turkey’s climate change

related policies, prevents pollution and ensures the fulfillment of environmental impact

assessments. The MEU General Directorate of Environmental Management, Department of

Climate Change, General Directorate of Spatial Planning and the General Directorate of

Preservation of Natural Heritage are each project relevant.

40. The Sanliurfa Provincial government is important with regards to development planning and

natural resource management. Provincial governments in Turkey are composed primarily of

representatives of national government agencies. The Governor of Sanliurfa is appointed by the

national government. As the province’s most senior official, the Governor oversees most

government functions and enforcement. The Governor presides over the provincial assembly and

the provincial administrative council. The administrative council consists of provincial level

representatives of key national agencies, including MFWA and MFAL. The province of Sanliurfa

is further divided into eleven districts. Each district has various national government branch

offices and representatives.

41. The Sanliurfa “Pastureland (Meadow) Commission” (MC) is responsible for high-level

decisions regarding the use of pasturelands in a province. PC is often involved in grazing land

allotments. The commission serves as a dispute resolution board for grazing lands. This

commission is headed by the deputy Governor. Additional members of the commission include

representatives and agricultural experts from MFAL, MFWA, the Union of Agriculture, and other

key officials invited by the governor’s office. The PC according to the direction the meadow law

has the authority to establishing technical working groups. The commission in Sanliurfa meets at

least monthly. The commission approves the annual grazing plan based on the recommendation of

MFAL.

42. Traditional grazing management mechanisms also exist. Although government owned,

management of most pasturelands are also informed by traditional or clan leadership models.

Policy Framework

43. A large body of legislation is relevant to the protection and management of natural resources

and pastures in Turkey. For a full description, please see the Annex.

44. The Pasture Law (1998) defines policies regarding the allocation of pastures for use by

villages and municipalities. All steppe lands in Turkey are state owned. Utilization rights may be

delegated to local people and local administrations. MFAL determines pasture boundaries and

allocates use to relevant entities. In 2015, the government passed a new by-law covering summer

pasturelands.

45. The Forest Law (1956) governs the management and protection of forests and associated

grasslands. The Regulation on Forestation (2012) describes procedures and principles for

forestation, erosion control, and pasture improvement. According to these policies, surrounding

villages determine the boundaries of protected forests. The MFWA determines management

conditions. Livestock grazing on state forestlands is to be done according to MFWA plans and

permission.

46. The National Parks Law (1983) establishes the principles governing the selection and

designation of protected areas. Protected areas include: national parks, nature parks, natural

monuments, and nature reserve areas. The law describes conservation and management criteria.

The NP Law is further defined by the National Parks by-law.


47. The Regulation on Wildlife Preservation and Wildlife Development areas (2004) governs all

activities within wildlife development areas. The regional directorate of MFWA proposes and

manages wildlife development areas. These proposals are reviewed by the GDNCNP and then

approved by the national MFWA. Areas chosen for wildlife development should be large enough

to accommodate large population of migrating animals. Wildlife development areas are managed

in accordance with management and development plans prepared by GDNCNP. All activities

much comport with the management plan. This generally includes outlawing development that

could damage the ecosystem and conservation objectives. Hunting may be allowed.

48. The Environment Law governs pollution and environmental impact assessments. The Law on

the Protection of Natural and Cultural Entities establishes the baseline for the declaration and

protection of natural sites in Turkey.

49. The By-law on Protection of Wetlands (2014) regulates the identification of important

wetlands, defines protection zones, prepares management plans, and declares Ramsar sites. It

determines rules and procedures related to conservation, management, and development of

wetland areas together with relationship mechanisms and coordination among related institutions

and stakeholders.

50. The Terrestrial Hunting Law (1937, revised 2003) regulates all decisions on species and

habitat conservation, including within wildlife protection areas. The law is to ensure and regulate

sustainable hunting, protect game and other wild animals within their natural habitat, evaluate

hunting resources for the benefit of the national economy, and provide coordination among the

related institutions and the private corporate individuals.

51. The Agricultural Law (2006) defines the principles, objectives and priorities of agricultural

policies, training and advisory services for farmers, protection of biodiversity and genetic

resources, and ensures bio security and bio safety. The law mandates agricultural sector and rural

area development plans and strategies.

52. The Organic Farming Law (2004) supports organic farming and maintains consumer safety.

The Law sets up the principles and procedures of organic farming and defines the rules and

procedures of inspection and control, and certification.

53. The Regulation on Good Agricultural Practices (2010) states that agricultural procedures and

principles should protect natural resources and prevent harm to the environment, humans, or

animal health.

1.1.4 Threats and Impacts

54. The integrity of Turkey’s steppe ecosystems faces three primary threats: habitat loss and

degradation, overharvest, and climate change. The cumulative impact of these three threats is the

rapid loss and degradation of Turkey’s steppe lands; over the past 80 years, approximately

12 million ha of natural steppe have been lost (1935: 44.3 million ha of steppe existed in Turkey;

1950: 37.8 million ha; 2013: 32 million ha). At the same time, Turkish experts categorize nearly

60% of Turkey’s steppe lands as highly degraded. Steppes represent less than 1% of the national

protected area system with only 6% of all grasslands having protected status. Those with

protected area status often struggle under less than ideal conservation management systems.


55. The three identified threats are also causing the biological integrity of the last remaining

steppe lands to be degraded. This includes the loss of connectivity. Turkey’s residual steppe

“islands” are increasingly separated by the rapidly expanding urban and agricultural landscape.

Wide ranging species such as gazelle, hyena, and jackal are increasingly isolated and unable to

traverse developed areas that separate intact steppe ecosystems. Integrity is also being diminished

due to the simple loss of biological diversity and carrying capacities. As a result of the three main

threats, numerous globally significant species are now endangered. This includes endemics found

only in these remaining steppe ecosystems. The impacts are compounded in that diminished

habitat availability forces key indicator species such as bustards and lapwings to exceed the

systems carrying capacity. The loss of biological integrity results in key ecosystem services being

impacted. Steppe areas are generally located in the uplands. These are critical areas to maintain

water flow, slow erosion rates, and buffer against climate change impacts. Over the past 20 years,

more than 13 species have gone extinct in Turkey.

56. Sanliurfa Province is very indicative of national trends. Although Sanliurfa Province

continues to hold a substantial percentage of Turkey’s intact steppe areas, the province is

threatened from habitat loss, unsustainable consumption of biodiversity, and climate change. The

cumulative impact of these threats is advancing rapidly. Since 1970, approximately 75,000 ha of

natural steppe have been lost. Approximately 250,000 ha of steppe remain in Sanliurfa. Of the

total remaining steppes, only 40,000 ha currently benefit from protected area status. The

remaining steppes are highly vulnerable. Approximately 33% of remaining Sanliurfa steppe are

severally degraded.

Threat #1: Habitat Loss and Degradation

57. Expanding cultivation is likely the most evident driver of steppe habitat loss. Since 1950,

over 2 million ha of steppe has been converted to cropland nationally. Over roughly the same

time period, more than 40,000 ha of steppes have been converted to agriculture in Sanliurfa

province. The rate of conversion is accelerating as Turkey continues to invest in large-scale

irrigation and cultivation programs. Over the next 5 - 10 years, a significant amount of

Sanliurfa’s remaining pastureland will be converted to agriculture if no action is taken. Once

steppe areas are brought under plow, there is generally no chance to recover these systems.

58. Infrastructure development is also causing habitat loss. As noted, the population of Sanliurfa

has increased from 1 million to 1.8 million persons over the last two decades. This increased

population is accompanied by extensive infrastructure development. This includes roads,

irrigation systems, housing development and other infrastructure that is gradually consuming

remaining steppe areas. Some estimate that over 15% hectares of steppe has been converted to

urban use over the last few decades. Although the extent is not well known or documented,

anecdotal evidence suggests that Invasive species are also causing habitat degradation ushered in

by development.

59. Over-grazing is the main cause of steppe habitat degradation. Nearly all steppe areas are

subject to grazing pressure by domestic livestock. Livestock grazing generally rises beyond

carrying capacity limits and diminishes the integrity of steppe ecosystems. Overgrazing occurs on

steppe systems both inside and outside of protected area boundaries. The rate and intensity of

overgrazing is increasing as the total hectares of grasslands are reduced and the total number of

livestock remains stable and/or increases.

60. There are 2.5 million households in Turkey that own livestock. Turkey has over 56 million

head of livestock. Approximately 35% of these animals rely upon grasslands for production.

Meanwhile the total amount of steppe lands available has decreased from 32 million hectares to

26 million hectares. This forces a greater number of livestock to rely upon a smaller amount of

steppe land. These same trends are evident in Sanliurfa. In 2007, there were 1.7 million livestock


that utilized 2.7 million ha of steppe lands. More recently, 2 million livestock utilize 2.6 million

ha of Sanliurfa’s last remaining grassland ecosystems. This phenomenon greatly accelerates the

severity of grazing impacts.

Threat # 2: Overharvest

61. Numerous steppe dependent species are subject to harvest. This is particularly pronounced in

terms of flora. Several plant species have a value. Most of this activity is driven by subsistence

and/or medicinal use. Some take is income motivated. Examples include species such as Salvia

viridis L. that is used for stomachache. The species Teucrium polium L. is used for digestive

troubles by people as well as sheep. Although the extent of this use is not well documented, it is

presumed to be extensive.

62. Poachers often target both bustards and wild gazelle. Bustards are harvested for sport and

consumption. Gazelle are primarily live capture from herds reintroduced to the Kızılkuyu

Wildlife Development Area. Rather than flight, young gazelle often rely upon cryptic measures.

This makes them relatively easy to target while hiding in steppe grass. Young animals are sold to

citizens who raise these suckling gazelle as garden pets. Young gazelles will sell for

approximately US$ 700.

63. The rate of fuel wood consumption within steppe forest areas has slowed over the past decade

due to energy infrastructure changes. However, the residual impacts of past overharvest continue

to impact steppe ecosystem integrity. Chamaephytes or “dwarf shrub” provides ground cover and

soil stabilization with deep root systems. Removal of chamaephytes for fuel wood has exposed

the region to greatly increased erosion rates. Historical records and scientific research shows that

relict dry forest across Sanliurfa and within all three pilot sites (TekTek Mountains, the Kızılkuyu,

and Karacadağ) was almost completely destroyed over the past 50 years. This includes important

species such as wild pistachio (Pistacia terebinthus) and local oak (Quercus sp.) communities.

64. An associated impact of cultivation is the increased use of fertilizers and pesticides. Although

very little information exists, Turkish biodiversity conservation experts believe that intensive

fertilizer and pesticide use adversely impacts biodiversity on proximate steppe lands. This

includes impacts to water quality, pollinators, and other critical ecological elements.

Threat #3: Climate Change

65. Climate change is an emerging threat to Turkey’s globally significant steppe habitats.

Climate change will compound and accelerate the negative impacts of existing threats, further

reducing the resilience of steppe ecosystems.

66. Turkey exhibits a peculiar heterogeneous ecology for a temperate zone. Due to its situation in

the temperate zone, global warming and climate change will influence Turkey. A 70-year model

for climate change impacts in Turkey states that precipitation will be 29.6% lower than today at

the Mediterranean coast, the central region, and the Firat basin. (Onder et al. 2009) This model

predicts a 2.8-5.5°C increase in temperature over the country. The increase in temperature is

expected to trigger evaporation and raise it 17.8% along the Mediterranean coast, 18.4% at the

Black Sea coast and 22.2 % over the country (Onder et al. 2009, Turkes 2007).

67. During the next 50 years, the desert zone that is present in southern Turkey is expected to

expand towards the north and increase the temperature. Increased aridity and desertification will

be particularly pronounced within the steppe regions of central and southeast Anatolia.

Diminished ground cover will compound the negative impacts of shifting rainfall events, exposing

systems to great vulnerability in terms of water retention and soil loss. Prolonged drought events


will compound the negative impacts of overgrazing. The negative impacts of climate change will

be further multiplied as a result of shrinking steppe “island” ecosystems that are ecologically

isolated due to increased development.

68. Endemic plant species that have evolved to exist only along thin bands of unique elevation

zones will be particularly vulnerable. Within Sanliurfa, many of these plants exist along the thin

band between alpine and subalpine. These steppe ecosystems are already degraded. The systems

have very limited resilience or elasticity remaining to allow these globally significant species to

adapt and shift range as climate change advances. This will also impact species such as wild

pistachio dependent upon highly constrained ecological zones for their survival.


1.2 Rationale

1.2.1 Long-term Solution

69. The long-term solution is to reduce the loss rate of steppe lands and associated biodiversity

values. This requires improving the conservation of currently degraded steppe lands, reducing the

rate at which steppe lands are permanently lost to cultivation and urbanization, and the conversion

rate of steppe biodiversity. Steppe lands must also be conserved on a landscape level.

Conservation of Turkey’s globally significant steppe biodiversity demands conservation effort

both within protected areas and beyond the borders of protected areas. The best examples of

Turkey’s globally significant biodiversity must benefit from adequate levels of conservation

within protected areas. However, Turkey’s protected areas system will never be large enough to

preserve populations of large mammal species such as gazelle within protected area boundaries.

To conserve biological integrity, connectivity between the best remaining steppe habitats must be

maintained. This includes reducing the rate of species loss and habitat fragmentation.

70. The total amount of steppe area contained within the protected area regime must be increased.

The objective of this effort is to make certain representation of the nation’s most valuable steppe

biodiversity benefits from rigorous conservation effort. The Government of Turkey committed to

expanding the national PA network to cover 10% of Turkey by 2015. Expanding the protected areas network to incorporate steppe lands is a government priority. To date, the total protected area system includes 9.5 million hectares or approximately 7% of the nation’s territory. Steppe areas represent less than 1% of the total protected area system. More than 32 million hectares or 40% of Turkey is considered steppe. However, only five protected

areas are predominately “steppe”. These five steppe protected areas cover approximately 207,000 hectares: Beypazarı Nallıhan WDA, Konya Bozdağ WDA, Şanlıurfa Kızılkuyu WDA,

Ağrı Mountains NP and TekTek Mountains NP.

71. Safeguarding Turkey’s globally significant steppe biodiversity demands conservation effort

beyond the borders of protected areas. Over 40% of Turkey is considered steppe. Many steppe

species are wide ranging. Attempting to create a protected area regime covering the entire

landscape is not tenable. Steppe biodiversity outside of protected areas benefits from almost no

measurable conservation support. However, it is within these areas outside of protected areas

where biodiversity is most threatened by human encroachment and overuse.

72. Locations such as Sanliurfa Province must be established as national and regional models for

steppe habitat conservation. The primary success indicator is the existence of steppe. Currently,

234,000 hectares of steppe exist currently within Sanliurfa Province. Approximately 50,000

hectares are within protected areas.

73. Achieving this solution will be challenging. To maintain connectivity and resilience, the

management of productive landscapes must become much more supportive of steppe land

conservation. Best examples of remaining steppe areas must be brought within the existing

protected area system. Current and future steppe protected areas must benefit from more effective

management regimes. Better models for landscape level planning and conservation should be

emplaced. Landscape conservation models should ensure that adequate habitat is conserved for

wide-ranging species such as gazelle and resilience exists to allow for the long-term survival of

globally significant plant species. Capacities must be built so that decision-makers are better able

to identify and conserve highly critical steppe corridors within the productive landscape. This will

involve setting in place landscape level planning that supports both steppe conservation within the

context of expanding rural development. Production models that support steppe conservation are

needed and must be emplaced on both the productive and protected landscape. Government and

private agricultural enterprises must be empowered and incentivized to adopt more steppe friendly


production models. This includes addressing overgrazing, unsustainable agricultural practices,

random transformation of natural areas to cultivated lands that leads to fragmentation of

ecosystems and loss of ecosystem services.

74. To insure sustainability and long-term conservation success, each of these elements must be

secured within a strengthened institutional and policy setting. This includes establishing stronger

policies and strategies that take into account effective land use practices and natural resource

management approaches. These policies will enhance coordination and cooperation between the

authorities responsible for conservation, production, and land use. Policies will also make certain

that adequate conservation financing is allocated to actively plan for and monitor the health of

steppe ecosystems.

1.2.2 Barriers to Achieving the Solution

75. There are three barriers standing between the current situation and achievement of the long-

term solution.

Barrier #1: Limited experience with highly effective steppe protected area design and

management

76. Protected area management is very much evolving and improving in Turkey. However, the

management effectiveness of existing protected areas must be improved drastically and new

protected areas created if there is any hope of conserving remaining biodiversity. Unfortunately,

the country does not have experience with the innovative techniques required to create replicable

models of steppe-protected areas. There are no good working examples of complimentary

management schemes that balance the productive desires of community members with the

conservation objectives of the protected areas. An absence of innovative protected area

conservation approaches stymies successful conservation of biodiversity within protected areas

and progress towards the creation of new steppe-protected areas. Participatory planning that

engages stakeholders within the protected areas is crucial. Innovative mechanisms such as

controlled grazing units and rest/rotation models linked to monitoring and conservation of

biodiversity values must be emplaced.

77. Steppe protected areas do not have the technical capacity and experience to development

participatory, long-term strategic management planning. Even basic protected area management

tools require strengthening. Planning, monitoring, financing, enforcement and other conservation

skills are generally not up to par. There is an urgent need to improve landscape-level conservation

planning within protected areas. This includes better coordination between protected area

managers and other government agencies concerned with resource use within protected areas.

Monitoring of steppe ecosystems within protected areas is ad hoc and rarely linked to the

achievement of management objectives. Protected area management needs to be holistic and

ecologically centered. Protected area managers need the tools required to consider the status of

the entire suite of species and their interactions. They need the management capacity to

understand how best to maintain ecological functionality. Protected areas need the capacity to use

protected areas as centers for education and awareness. Improved monitoring should help

decision-makers at all levels better understand how grassland ecosystems work and inform

management decisions on the wider productive landscape. MFWA policy calls for protected area

staff to benefit from annual in-service training programs. Such training does not exist for steppe-

protected areas due to both financing and capacity constraints.

78. Even if existing protected areas were effectively managed to serve as a motivation for steppe-

protected area expansion, Turkey has not benefitted from a clear path for identification and

prioritization of critical landscapes to include within the protected area regime. There is no


replicable model in place for establishing a new protected area process that is inclusive of

stakeholder participation. This includes participation of government decision makers, private

industry and local resource users such as traditional grazing families. Tools are not in place for

comprehensive strategic assessment and gap analysis. The purpose of this assessment is to create

a well-reasoned proposal for the creation of new steppe protected areas. The analysis should

address not only the conservation of steppe ecosystems, but how best to establish and maintain

connectivity between protected areas. This is critical to maintaining populations of large

mammals over time. Steppe ecological and representation gaps are not critically assessed prior to

expansion decisions. There is a need to build such capacities. There is a need to do this first on

the provincial level. Then these models may eventually be scaled to the more ambitious national

level.

Barrier #2: Limited experience with integrating steppe conservation with grazing and

agricultural management practices

79. Conserving steppe protected areas demands management approaches that incorporate multiple

uses. In Turkey, steppe protected areas are typically used for production. Steppe protected areas

are used for the collection of plant species and collection of fuel wood. Steppe protected areas are

widely used for the grazing of domestic livestock. Local herding groups and villagers have strong

traditions of pastureland use. Proximate villagers or in some cases nomads travel seasonally to

access protected area pastures. This is often in conflict with the conservation objectives of the

protected areas. Grazing very often exceeds sustainable limits.

80. Protected area managers have struggled to innovate and apply the creative conservation

measures required to shift grazing and other uses towards greater sustainability. Currently, the

government supports limited land use and grazing management planning. However, the planning

process does not adequately integrate and/or reflect biodiversity conservation objectives. For

instance, individual Pasture Commissions (PC) are responsible for generating pasture

management plans at the provincial level. These management plans rarely include any reference

to or actions required for the conservation of globally significant biodiversity. Likewise,

protected area management plans generally fail to integrate and/or reference pastureland

management. The result of this capacity barrier is a failure to address one of the primary threats

to steppe biodiversity.

81. There is an immediate need to incentivize and empower stakeholders with the knowledge

required to adopt improved steppe productive practices, particularly as this relates to grazing.

Turkey has very limited experience with the integration of steppe conservation practices within

productive sector activities. Agencies, extension officers, and agricultural industries do not have

formal or informal pathways for identifying and adopting steppe-conservation friendly production

methods. There is very limited exposure to best international practices related to agricultural

management and particularly grazing designed to improve both conservation and productivity.

Turkey needs farmer field schools and extension services as a platform to improve agricultural

and grazing practices and orient farmers and herders towards conservation and good landscape

management. This includes the establishment of carrying capacity parameters and working with

women and men farmers to better understand how maintaining ecosystem services actually

generates financial benefits.

Barrier #3: Limited capacity to generate institutional and policy level support required to

achieve landscape level grasslands conservation.

82. Turkey does not benefit from national and/or provincial level examples of strategic steppe

biodiversity conservation. Steppe biodiversity is most at risk beyond the boundaries of Turkey’s

limited protected area regime. There is a high need to demonstrate and maintain connectivity at a

scale required to support long-term ecological integrity. Turkey has struggled to generate a


national and provincial level policies and institutional frameworks required to support grasslands

conservation.

83. The nation has extremely limited capacity and experience with the management of grassland

ecosystems at the landscape level. There are no specific and/or regular opportunities resource

managers to improve their knowledge regarding the status of steppe ecosystems and/or exchange

information, lessons, and opinions regarding how to improve conservation and coordination

across platforms.

84. Turkey has limited experience with conservation planning and financing designed specifically

for the productive landscape. There are no working models of a regional conservation strategy

designed to conserve steppes at the landscape level. Decision-making by national and provincial

governments is not guided by landscape level steppe conservation planning. Government

institutions need tools, capacity, and knowledge to integrate steppe conservation into their

strategic work plans. Government agencies do not have experience with the identification and

prioritization of steppe lands for conservation. There is limited experience with gaps analysis,

monitoring, and other tools required to generate informed decision-making at all levels and across

platforms. Stakeholders do not benefit from simple institutional structures designed to generate

and implement a unifying conservation vision. The result is that government action and financing

occurs with limited regard for impacts on steppe biodiversity.

85. There is minimal experience with cooperation and co-ordination between key stakeholders

across the productive and protected landscapes. Few examples exist for coordination even

between key conservation agencies. The Ministry of Food Agriculture and Livestock (MFAL) is

the primary authority responsible for steppe ecosystems in Turkey in accordance with the Pasture

Law of 1998. If pasture and pasturelands are declared as a protected area, the Pasture and

National Parks Laws states that the Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs (MFWA) and MFAL

must work in close cooperation. Steppe biodiversity is under the jurisdiction of General

Directorate of National Parks and Nature Conservation (GDNCNP) of Ministry of Forestry and

Water Affairs (MFWA). Sustainable management of steppe resources is under the jurisdiction of

Ministry of Food Agriculture and Livestock (MFAL). Successful steppe conservation depends

upon these two institutions collaborating. However, there are no formal procedures in place to

catalyze necessary coordinated and strategic approaches.

86. Steppe protected areas are managed largely in isolation from the surrounding landscapes, a

recipe for long-term ecological decline. Protected areas and surrounding lands need to be

strategically managed to deliver landscape level impacts, and maintain connectivity and resilience.

Coordination and conservation partnerships across protected area boundaries are limited.

Protected area planning should be linked to broader, provincial level planning to foster landscape

level conservation. Protected area managers do not have experience with the use of protected

areas to anchor steppe conservation across the broader landscape. There are no tools in place to

help make certain productive lands are managed in ways that support achievement of proximate

protected area conservation objectives.

87. This barrier persists because existing land management and use laws do not provide a

platform for the identification of conservation areas or areas of high conservation value. There

are no policies or strategies in place to incentivize the improvement of agricultural practices to

support steppe conservation objectives. There are no replicable examples of provincial level

development planning that integrates steppe conservation. Without such models, it is not possible

to upscale and replicate steppe conservation planning nationally.

88. There is a very limited amount of information regarding the location and function of steppe

ecosystems. Only recently have steppe areas become the subject of increased public attention,

with stakeholders and especially CSOs and academics taking up the issue. Turkey needs


assistance with the generation and implementation of a comprehensive steppe monitoring system

that can inform strategic planning and decision-making. There is a paucity of data and

information on priority species numbers, distribution and status, local resource use, and trends

regarding current and emerging threats. The absence of reliable information hampers

conservation effectiveness and associated decision-making. Scientific institutions have conducted

considerable research on the ecology and biodiversity of Turkey’s steppe areas. However,

cooperation among scientific and government institutions is extremely limited. There are no

policy or institutional pathways in place to make certain knowledge generated is utilized in

decision-making. Partnerships do not exist to coordinate information sharing among key

stakeholders such as MFWA, MFAL, Agricultural Research Institutes, National and Regional

CSOs, Regional Universities. Practical monitoring methodologies for steppe wildlife and

ecosystem health are poorly developed, resulting in significant data gaps.


1.2.3 Baseline Analysis: Programmes and Co-Financing

Government Investments and Actions

89. The Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs (MFWA) actively supports steppe conservation in

protected areas and the productive landscape. The MFWA annual budget is US$ 3.5 billion. The

MFWA has approximately 5000 staff. The General Directorate of National Parks and Nature

Conservation (GDNCNP) under MFWA is responsible for protected area management. The

GDNCNP has 750 staff nationally and 15 staff in Sanliurfa Province. The total national

GDNCNP annual budget is US$ 5.7 million. The GDNCNP spends approximately US$ 85,000

each year for protected area management in Sanliurfa.

90. Under the baseline, the MFWA and GDNCNP are engaged in a number of relevant activities.

This includes regular management and operations of protected areas. Special efforts include

completing the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (2008-2017). The GDNCNP

maintains the Nuh (Noah’s Arc) Database for biodiversity.

91. The MFWA sets and implements biodiversity and natural resources management guidelines

and procedures. This responsibility extends to forest, wetland, mountain, steppe and other

habitats within all the natural areas. The MFWA is not only responsible for conservation of the

natural resources, but also it is responsible for planning, development, monitoring and working

with co-operation with all stakeholders to conserve these values. The MFWA regulates the

represent of the country in the international level on biodiversity and natural resource

management. Beside conservation of the natural resources, the MFWA is responsible for wildlife

management and conservation. GDNCNP is responsible for the selection, designation, planning,

conservation, and management of national parks, nature parks, natural monuments, and nature

reserve areas management of the wildlife development areas and RAMSAR sites. The GDNCNP

manages each protected area under the rules of its “long term development plan” (management

plan) through a network of Park Directorates. The Directorate is also responsible for the

conservation of game and wildlife species within their natural habitats by making necessary

decisions on hunting control throughout the country.

92. Establishing of the new protected areas to support conservation of the biodiversity are

regularly ongoing activities under the GDNCNP. Many of the scientific resources and field

studies are contributing by Research Centers, Scientific Bodies and Ministerial Institutions in the

field level especially management and monitoring of the valuable habitats and species. Beside

research activities, landscape restoration activities in the natural areas are carrying out by relevant

authority with support of GDNCNP. Biodiversity inventory for each province in Turkey is main

activity to identify and clarify of country level biodiversity. Besides inventorying of the

biodiversity, all the information related with BD is incorporated into the Noah Database to support

effective monitoring and management of the BD of Turkey. Many of the new protected areas

such as National Parks, RAMSAR Sites and Natural Parks are establishing by GDNCNP.

Management plans for protected areas and species action plans for individual flora and fauna

species are also preparing to support conservation of the BD. Although the inventory and

planning of the valuable protected areas and species, there are many other side management

activities such as visitor management, information and awareness activities and facilities such as

visitor centers, nature training centers and other related infrastructures are constructing by

GDNCNP. Specifically ecosystem evaluation programs, wildlife management programs and

ecotourism programs are developing for support sustainability of the protected areas and support

income generation activities for local residents in and around the PAs.

93. Example baseline investments include:


National Parks Program (MFWA financed) (US$ 40,000,000 since 2009): General support

for protected areas management and operations.

Wildlife Development Areas Program (MFWA financed) (US$ 40,000,000 since 2010):

General support for Wildlife Development Areas management and operations. The Kızılkuyu

Wildlife Development Area in Sanliurfa has received US$ 500,000 since 2004. The annual

budget for Kızılkuyu now ranges between US$ 75,000 and US$ 120,000 per annum.

Enhancing National Protected Areas System Project (MFWA financed) (2014 - 2016) (US$

1,000,000): The project aims support nature conservation and biodiversity across all

ecosystems. The MFWA will prepare a national strategy and action plan for protected areas

including strategies, policies, and management objectives for existing and new protected

areas.

National Biodiversity Research Project (MFWA financed) (US$ 10,000,000 between 2013

and 2018): The aim is to stimulate biodiversity inventory studies and a monitoring

framework. This is a national program covering all 81 provinces.

Hunting-Wildlife and Aquaculture Project (MFWA financed) (US$ 3,500,000 in 2015):

Annual support for wildlife management and hunting issues in protected wildlife areas.

TekTek Mountains National Park Integrated Flood Control Project (MFWA financed

through General Directorate of Combating Desertification and Erosion) (US$ 2,300,000):

Aims to conserve and support sustainability of natural values (soil, water, biodiversity), and

prevent/mitigate floods in 8868.9 ha of Han-El Ba‟rur (GökDeresi) Microbasin. Project

activities will be carried out by Şanlıurfa Regional Directorate of Forestry. Including flood

control measures, planting, pasture rehabilitation, improvement of agriculture and irrigation.

94. The Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock (MFAL) actively supports steppe

conservation in protected areas and the productive landscape. The MFAL annual budget is

approximately US$ 5.2 billion. The MFAL has approximately 57,000 staff. The MFAL spends

approximately US$ 750,000 annually in Sanliurfa Province. In general, the baseline activities of

the MFAL are comprised of: preservation and record of the agricultural genetic resources and

biodiversity; managing and rehabilitation of meadows and pastures; in-situ and ex-situ conservation of genetic resources of plant species.

95. Under the baseline, the MFAL is engaged in a number of relevant activities. MFAL is the

responsible authority on environmental friendly technologies and technics in order to support

biodiversity conservation and meadows-pastureland management. The Ministry supports

conservation and rational utilization of the soil and water resources. Developing of the grass,

pastureland and fodder production is important responsibilities for Ministry because of support

sustainability of the meadows and grazing areas. It supports national botanical garden to support

BD conservation in the country. MFAL is not only support agricultural practices but also support

conservation and sustainable management of the soil and water resources and rural development

to increase the knowledge, capacity and experience on sustainable use of the resources. Example

baseline investments include:

Grass Pasture and Fodder Plants Production Project (MFAL financed) (US$ 2,360,000)

(2014-2016): The national project will decrease the pressure on meadows and pastures

nationwide and increase the grass pasture and fodder plant production.

Pasture registration and monitoring system (MER-BİS) (MFAL financed): Good agricultural

practices are implemented. Environmentally friendly agricultural techniques and studies are


supported. This project is part of the regular work for MFAL with staff employed to

implement the work.

Developing Pasture Services Project (MFAL financed): Aims to improve the meadows in

Turkey through restoration, rehabilitation, and management of the meadows in Turkey. The

total budget for Diyarbakır-Şanlıurfa-Adıyaman Provinces is US$ 2,820,000.

Conservation Program on the Agricultural Lands for Environment (ÇATAK Project, 2005-

2008 external budget; 2009-2016 national budget) (MFAL financed): An innovative and

effective program to conserve and achieve sustainability of soil and water; decrease erosion;

decrease the negative effects of the agricultural practices; and support land conservation.

The program offers direct incentives for women and men farmers for better field practices.

The program encourages the implementation of environmentally friendly agricultural

practices. A new legislative regulation related to the project was completed in the first year

of the project. A total of US$ 1 million was paid to 469 producers for 1,727 ha land. In 2007,

US$ 1.7 million was paid to 1048 producers. About 2,395 ha land were supported in 2006.

After 2008 the project was financed by national budget. The budget for the project between

2010 and 2013 was US$ 28,700,000. At the end of the 2014, 143,335 ha land was supported

by the national government through the ÇATAK project, and in total US$ 51,150,000 was

paid to 44,122 land owners.

Local Government Investments and Actions

96. Southeastern Anatolia Project (Güneydoğu Anadolu Projesi - GAP): funded mainly by

Ministry of Development and more than 50 public organizations, the GAP Authority has been

working in the region since 1989. The budget of GAP changes between years and it ranges

between US$ 400,000 and 2,000,000 (ongoing). This is a multi-sector integrated regional

development project based on the concept of sustainable development in the Southeastern

Anatolia region of Turkey. GAP's basic aim is to eliminate regional development disparities by

raising people's income level and living standards; and to contribute to national development

targets of social stability and economic growth by enhancing the productive and employment

generating capacity of the rural sector. The project area covers nine provinces located in the

basins of the Euphrates and Tigris and in Upper Mesopotamia: Adıyaman, Batman, Diyarbakır,

Gaziantep, Kilis, Siirt, Şanlıurfa, Mardin, and Şırnak. Two main pillars of GAP are the GAP

TAYEP (Agricultural Training and Publication Project) and ÇATOMs (Multi-Purpose

Community Centres). In Şanlıurfa, there are 3 ÇATOMs in Viranşehir, Hilvan and Siverek

districts. TAYEP and ÇATOMs have excellent experience with capacity development and

achieving gender targets of the project in the region.

97. The GAP Agricultural Research Institute is based in Şanlıurfa and works for the protection of

genetic resources, development of new techniques, research on plant diseases, surveys on socio

economy and capacity building. Based in Diyarbakır, the GAP International Agricultural

Research and Training Center focuses on agricultural researches and capacity development

through conferences, workshops and trainings. The center undertakes large scale projects and

partnership with other key stakeholders to fulfil its goals. Lastly, the Pistachio Research Station

in Gaziantep is aiming to solve problems and overcome obstacles regarding pistachio growing

from production to marketing. The station also works to increase capacity of pistachio growers in

the region.

98. Karacadağ Development Agency is the local institute responsible for Diyarbakır and Şanlıurfa

provinces. The agency is responsible for contributing to regional and rural development studies.

The agency announces support programs according to its regional development plan. Non-profit


organizations can apply for grants, including government organizations and NGOs under direct

support, technical support, and financial support growth center support programs.

99. Karacadağ Development Agency Tourism Branding Project (GAP Administration financed)

(US$ 846,000) (2014-2017). It is supporting by Southeaster Anatolia Project _GAP

Administration in order to conservation and evaluation of cultural heritage with integrative

approaches and conservation-utilization balance; increase of the income and employment from

tourism and sustainability of tourism activities in the region. The project is started 2014 and it will

completed 2017. It is total budget is approximately 2.5 million TL. In order to implement project

activities, there is a Regional Office under the GAP Regional Office. The project will support

developing of the management plans on tourism and ınformation and branding of the region.

100. JICA Technical Cooperation Project (upcoming JICA financed project, budget not

determined yet), (2016-2020). Technical Cooperation Project on development of agricultural

based industry. The project aim is capacity building on agricultural industry in Diyarbakır and

Şanlıurfa Provinces. Karacadağ Development Agencies is the main partner of the project.

101. IPA Supported Projects under the Regional Competitiveness Operational Program (EU

funded), (US$ 3,210,000), (2014-2017) carried out by the Ministry of Science, Industry and

Technology. The “Reactivate History in Şanlıurfa“ project will be implemented by Karacadağ

Development Agency. The budget of the project is US$ 3.2 million. It will be implemented

between 2014-2017.

102. IPA Rural Development II Program (EU and Republic of Turkey -between 65-70% EU

funded, 30-35% project owner funded), (MFAL) (1,045,069,412 Euro in total with 18,847,059

Euro for Agri-Environment-Climate-Organic Farming), (2014-2020). This program is supporting

the Turkish Government modernizing and developing the agricultural sector. Beside agricultural

practices, rural development and rural tourism activities are also supported under this program.

The implementing units of the programme are the IPARD Agency and the Agriculture and Rural

Development Agency (TKDK) under MFAL. IPA Rural Development Program with the joint

finance of EU and Turkish Government aims to support Turkey’s rural development during the

accession period. The first phase of the program was undertaken during 2007 and 2013.

Şanlıurfa Province is one of the eligible provinces under the program. Supporting environment

and climate friendly agriculture as well as organic farming is one of the key themes of the

program. The program will introduce a subsidy system designed to protect farmland species in

line with the EU biodiversity mechanism. The globally threatened Great Bustards will be a part of

this program. Eligible farmers will be subsidized to change their agriculture techniques to support

great bustard conservation. Kızılkuyu Wildlife Development Area is a key site for migratory

Great Bustards. Therefore the proposed project will be aligned to coordinate with the IPARD

program.

103. Şanlıurfa Tourism Project (EU Funded), (2,416,000 Euro).EU gives support to Technical

assistance for revitalization of history in Şanlıurfa Project under the IPA program. The project

aims “to improve the regional competitiveness of the tourism industry in Şanlıurfa by developing

a site management plan which provides support for the Şanlıurfa urban conservation area and

Göbeklitepe archaeological site to enter into the Unesco world cultural heritage list by means of

increasing the regional competitiveness of the city in the tourism sector through the creation and

implementation of a sustainable tourism governance model based on the public-private

partnership.” The funding amount is 2,416,000 Euro. The project has started in 2014.

104. Agricultural Implications for Ecosystem Based Adaptation (EBA) to Climate Change in

Steppe Ecosystems. (EU IPARD II funded) (3.3 million €), (2016-2017): (Implementing Agency:

FAO). FAO will implement the project in coordination with MFAL in the Anatolian steppe. This

http://tureng.com/tr/turkce-ingilizce/competitiveness


proposal targets the vulnerability of ecosystems and agricultural systems under impacts of climate

change in the Anatolian steppe, and is set to integrate EBA into local policies for conservation and

sustainable use of steppe ecosystems. It will receive up to USD 3.3 million as a direct grant from

EU under IPARD II, expected implementation 2016 – 2017.

105. Through two separate partnership agreements between the Government of Turkey and FAO,

it is expected that about USD 20 million will be available for a financial and operational

framework for projects in the sub-region of Central Asia which covers Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan,

Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. One is the second phase of the

FAO-Turkey Partnership Programme (FTPP) on sustainable management of natural resources, the

other is the FAO-Turkey Forestry Partnership Programme (FTFP) on sustainable management of

forest and tree resources, both of which are expected to run between 2016 - 2020.

106. Integrated Approach to Management of Forests in Turkey with demonstration in high

conservation value forests in the Mediterranean region project. (GEF Contribution), (US$

7,120,000) (2013-2017), (Implementing Agency UNDP). This project promotes an integrated

approach at the landscape level to the management of high conservation value forests in the

Mediterranean region to secure, among others, biodiversity mainstreaming.

107. Maximize the production of goods and services of Mediterranean forest ecosystems in the

context of global changes (project funded by the French Global Environment Facility - FFEM),

(8.5 million €) (2013-2018) (implemented by FAO Silva Mediterranea Commission and Plan

Bleu). The project will encourage improved management of environmental products and services

for Mediterranean forest areas.

108. Conservation and Sustainable Development of Biological Diversity and Natural Resources

in Yıldız Mountains (EU funded) (2.05 million Euro) (2008-2009): The project developed the

cross-border cooperation between Turkey and Bulgaria and strengthened conservation and

sustainable development of natural resources and biodiversity of the Yıldız Mountains (Istranca

forests). The project was funded by the EU Cross-border cooperation program according to the

2006 Accession Partnership. Under the project biodiversity and natural values of the Yıldız

Mountains were evaluated and a participatory management plan for the area based on the

biosphere reserve approaches has been developed.

109. Strengthening the national nature protection system for implementation of Natura 2000

requirements project (2015-2017) (EU funded) (US$ 9,300,000) (2015-2018): The project will be funded by European Commission and is directly related to biodiversity conservation and

strengthening of institutional and technical capacity, with reference to Natura 2000. Under this

project, the technical structure for Natura 2000 will be established and potential areas to be

protected will be identified. The project budget is estimated to be US$ 9,300,000.

110. The UNDP Turkey works towards achieving addressing structural and intertwined

challenges from a crosscutting sustainable human development perspective in line with recently

adopted Sustainable Development Goals. Under its climate change and environment cluster, the

organization promotes all stakeholders’ voices on environmental issues and enabling of ecosystem

services. The UNDP in Turkey works for strengthening the capacities for environmental

degradation, forest management and chemical waste prevention and management. UNDP cluster

aims to achieve climate change adaptation and mitigation action across sectors, including

initiatives to strengthen systems and tools for risk-centered, integrated disaster management and

increase societal resilience overall, taking into account differentiated gender impact. The primary

target will be rural population in sensitive biodiversity/hot spots.


Relevant Community and NGO Investments and Actions

111. Many national CSOs are working on biological diversity, especially on identification and

management of biodiversity within forests, wetlands and steppes. Universities, such as the Harran

University, civil societies and CSOs, the Nature Conservation Centre (DKM), WWF-Turkey,

DoğaDerneği and the Chamber of Agricultural Engineers will be included to assist the project

activities in the field level during the implementation process. Scientists are working on steppe

ecosystem in Turkey from Botanical, Ecological and Agricultural Departments in different

institutions. They are also key stakeholders to implement the project.

112. Nature Conservation Centre: Working on steppe habitats under its “Systematic

Conservation Planning” Program. The NGO is partnering with the MFWA since the beginning of

its work to identify the priority biodiversity-rich areas. Steppes are a key part of this analysis.

The Nature Conservation Centre has recently assessed the southeastern region of the country.

113. The Nature Association: This is the BirdLife International partner in Turkey. The Nature

Association Steppe Conservation Program has an annual budget of 350,000TL. The organization

is working in Şanlıurfa Region through their local office in Birecik. The organization works in the

Kızılkuyu Wildlife Development Area. The association supports general conservation efforts

related to gazelle, great bustard, bald ibis, and sociable plover, striped hyena, desert monitor, and

cream-coloured courser.

114. The Sustainable Rural and Urban Development Agency (SURKAL): This national NGO

supports rural development, sustainable agricultural practices, and gender issues. The Support of

Women NGOs project, encompassing the eastern and southeastern region of Turkey, has been

carried out participation with this NGO in the region.

115. Harran University: Established in Sanliurfa Province in 1992, Harran University has

approximately 12.000 students and 11 faculty. The University has an extensive and evolving

agricultural program. The teaching and research university works extensively with both grazing

and cultivation throughout out the region. This includes a botany department that does some work

with the identification and conservation of important steppe species. The botany department

currently supports approximately 60 graduate students.

116. AnaDOKU (Anatolia Nature and Culture Conservation Cooperative):This national NGO is

implemented a capacity building project on 5 endemic plants and 5 endemic animal species in

Şanlıurfa Province with financial support of XV. Regional Directorate under Ministry of Forestry

and Water Affairs.

117. Anatolian Grasslands (“AnadoluMeraları”) is the international Savory Institute's official

Hub in Turkey. Being one of the first hubs accredited throughout the World, Anatolian

Grasslands' headquarters are located in Biga, Çanakkale near the 27 ha learning site where

Holistic Management is applied, trained and monitored closely. Anatolian Grasslands consults

farmers around Turkey on Holistic Management framework and its main “Holistically Planned

Grazing” tool, trains farmers with a special focus on youth, implement special projects with local

authority. One of these project is running in Sarayönü, Konya in a 40 ha site of Commons. The

project is implemented in cooperation with local branch of MFAL and Farmers' Union. After its

high success in 7 months, the local partners requested to increase the project site to 220

ha. Another implementation of the organization is in Biga, Çanakkale where running a viable and

low-cost livestock business, they managed to increase the livestock carrying capacity of the land

by 80% in the first year of holistic planned grazing, and boost an additional 15-20% increase per

year. As a result, the soil organic matter has increased by 0.62% (in the first 30 cm) in 11 months

just by Holistic planning grazing.


GEF Projects

118. During the project design period, every effort was made to make certain this project is

complimentary and symmetrical with the existing GEF portfolio. The project will also build on

the experiences and lessoned learned from past GEF investments.

119. The Biodiversity and Natural Resource Management Project- (GEF funded) (implementing

Agency Ministry of Environment and Forestry) (11.5 milion $) (2000 to 2007). The aim of the

project was sustainably conserve the biological diversity and ecological integrity of selected

forest, wetland, steppe and alpine ecosystems that are representative of Turkey's four major bio-

geographical zones, which include the Black Sea and Caucasian mountain region, the Central

Anatolian plateau, and the European and Mediterranean regions. The project helped to establish

effective intersectoral, participatory planning and sustainable management of protected areas and

natural resources at four selected biodiversity conservation demonstration sites and build capacity

at the national level to facilitate replication of these activities at priority conservation sites

throughout Turkey. These lessons are well integrated within the current project design.

120. Enhancing Coverage and Management Effectiveness of the Subsystem of Forest Protected

Areas in Turkey’s National System of Protected Areas. (GEF funded) (Implementing Agency

UNDPin partnership with WWF) (2.404.000€.) (2008-2011). T Its aim was to enhance nature

conservation and sustainable resource management in Küre Mountains National Park at the Black

Sea coast through an effective and participatory management model. The main lessons learned

from this medium-scale project were that: sustainability of project results and scaling-up of good

practices can benefit from integration with long-term strategies of other stakeholders; successful

biodiversity conservation and sustainable development require a participatory approach for

legitimacy and the buy-in of all relevant stakeholders; it is important to have practical

demonstration activities on the ground that directly contribute to livelihood benefits; and local

communities and governments can see protected areas as tools to catalyze sustainable

development. Nevertheless, during the project’s final evaluation it was noted that key barriers to

effective management of Turkey’s protected area system remained: an inadequate policy

framework; an inadequate institutional framework; capacity gaps at individual and institutional

levels; and incomplete mechanisms for protected area financing.

121. The Sustainable Land Management and Climate Friendly Agriculture project will be

operational from 2015 - 2020. Implemented with support from FAO, this US$ 5.7 million

investment aims to improve agricultural and forest land use management. The project will

support grazing improvements. Activities under this project will be closely aligned to make

certain lessons learned are well shared and transferred, building economies of scale and

replicability in two separate provinces.

122. The Integrated Approach to Management of Forests in Turkey with demonstration in high

conservation value forests in the Mediterranean region project is being implemented with support

from UNDP. The project is designed to benefit from the methods for integration of biodiversity

conservation into forest landscape management. This project promotes an integrated approach at

the landscape level to the management of high conservation value forests in the Mediterranean.

The two projects will be aligned to share lessons learned regarding biodiversity mainstreaming.

123. The Strengthening Protected Area Network of Turkey: Catalyzing Sustainability of Marine

and Coastal Protected Areas project focuses upon improving the effectiveness of the marine

protected areas. Lessons learned regarding institutional capacity building, governance issues, and

developing a collaborative working environment will be aligned.

124. Strengthening Protected Area Network of Turkey: Catalyzing Sustainability of Marine and

Coastal Protected Areas project focused upon improving the effectiveness of the marine protected


areas. Lessons learned regarding institutional capacity building, governance issues, and

developing a collaborative working environment will be aligned.

125. Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Forest Management in Kaz Daglari, The project

is currently at PIF stage. It aims at improving biodiversity conservation and sustainable forest

management in the Kaz Daglari region for environmental and socio-economic benefits and is set

for a duration of four years. As with other GEF projects under implementation, its activities will

be closely aligned to make certain lessons learned are well shared and transferred.

126. The Land Degradation Neutrality under Climate Change Conditions project aims at

establishing a decision-support system to prevent land degradation and developing suitable

interventions for agriculture, rangelands and forestland rehabilitation over a course of four years.

Upon endorsement, its activities will be closely aligned to make certain lessons learned are well

shared and transferred.

Table: Relevant On-Going GEF Supported Projects

Project Title Agency GEF Investment

(US$)

Project

Years

Brief Project Description

Sustainable Land

Management and Climate-

Friendly Agriculture Project

FAO US$ 5,750,000 2015-2019

Project aims to improve sustainability

of agriculture and forest land use

management through the diffusion and

adoption of low-carbon technologies

with win-win benefits in land

degradation, climate change, and

biodiversity conservation and increase

farm profitability and forest

productivity.

Integrated Approach to

Management of Forests in

Turkey, with demonstration

in high conservation value

forests in the Mediterranean

region

UNDP US$ 7,120,000 2013-2018

This project promotes an integrated

approach at the landscape level to the

management of high conservation

value forests in the Mediterranean

region to secure, among others,

biodiversity mainstreaming.

Mainstreaming Biodiversity

Conservation and Sustainable

Use for Improved Human

Nutrition and Well-being

UNEP US$ 5,517,620 2012-2016

Global project to strengthen the

conservation and sustainable

management of agricultural

biodiversity through mainstreaming

into national and global nutrition, food

and livelihood security strategies and

programmes.

Decision Support for

Mainstreaming and Scaling

up of Sustainable Land

Management

FAO US$ 6,116,730 2015-2019

Global project to improve capability

and decision-making of countries

engaged in the mainstreaming and

scaling-up of SLM to combat land

degradation, as well as to enhance food

security, mitigation and adaptation to

climate change.

Mainstreaming Biodiversity

Conservation and Sustainable

Use for Improved Human

Nutrition and Well-being

UNEP US$ 5,517,620 2012-2016

Global project to strengthen the

conservation and sustainable

management of agricultural

biodiversity through mainstreaming

into national and global nutrition, food


and livelihood security strategies and

programmes.

Biodiversity Conservation

and Sustainable Forest

Management in KazDaglari

FAO (US$ 4,657,535) 2017-2020

Endorsed proposal at PIF stage for

improving biodiversity conservation

and sustainable forest management in

the KazDaglari region for

environmental and socio-economic

benefits.

Land Degradation Neutrality

Under Climate Change

Conditions

FAO (US$ 3,800,000) 2017-2020

Proposal at PIF stage for establishing a

decision-support system to prevent

land degradation and develop suitable

interventions for agriculture,

rangelands and forestland

rehabilitation.

1.3 FAO’s Comparative Advantage

127. In the field of sustainable land management, FAO (i) promotes sustainable forest

management by placing technical expertise in forestry at the disposal of member countries

through field projects, (ii) gives guidance to climate-friendly agriculture and related activities and

(iii) provides intensive experiences to reduce GHG emissions from deforestation and forest

degradation as well as from agricultural practices. FAO supports member countries on a wide

range of complementary sustainable land management technologies and approaches (such as

conservation agriculture, integrated land and water management, local land planning, and farmer

field schools) by providing training, information, communications, tools and equipment, advisory

services for institutional strengthening, policy reform and national programming.

128. FAO is the leading agency in gathering and disseminating data and information related to

land degradation and SLM, which are built upon scientific knowledge, local experience and

farmer innovation, available through FAO’s web sites and information systems such as

FAOSTAT, TERRASTAT, LRIS, and GTOS. FAO is also a leading partner in several

international initiatives, such as the Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands (LADA), the

World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT), the Asia-Pacific

Agro-forestry Network (APAN), and the Participatory Watershed Management in Asia Network

(WATMANET). Regarding climate change mitigation, FAO also has proven experience in

climate change mitigation in agriculture and forestry through carbon sequestration, substitution

and conservation, assessing carbon stocks and modeling win-win scenarios of carbon

sequestration through land use change, and capacity development in developing countries.

129. FAO’s work on sustainable land and good agricultural activities in the Turkish Republic

and the wider region includes projects for capacity development on the assessment and systematic

development of modernization of forestry and agricultural management, including training on

above mentioned subjects. FAO has also piloted its tools and methods for assessing and mapping

land use systems, land degradation and SLM (LADA-WOCAT) through training on national

mapping and assessment with CACILM (Central Asia Countries Initiative on Land Management).

130. FAO has considerable experience, expertise and a proven comparative advantage in

sustainable forest and land management, grazing management and the climate change focal areas

of GEF. FAO has worked extensively on a global level to support protected areas management.

FAO’s skill is particularly strong with regards to improving protected area management in areas

with well-established productive, community-based resource use such as grazing and forestry.


FAO-Turkey has actively engaged with on-going GEF protected area management projects and

will build upon lessons learned to date.

131. FAO has a strong comparative advantage in pasture management. The current FAO/GEF

portfolio includes a project in the Konya Closed Basin dealing in part with pasture management

and biodiversity conservation. The steppe and Konya projects will benefit from this synergy.

FAO has worked with Turkey to align its national UNCCD NAP with the UNCCD 10-year

strategy including all aspects of land management, monitoring and reporting. FAO assists several

land and biodiversity conservation projects through the FAO Turkey Partnership Program. These

include conservation of globally important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIHAS) in Turkey and

Azerbaijan, conservation agriculture in Turkey and Central Asia, and protection and cultivation of

medicinal and aromatic plants in West Mediterranean region in Turkey. FAO will also implement

a project on EBA to climate change in Anatolian steppe ecosystems under the EU IPARD II

programme which will be closely aligned with the proposed GEF project.

132. The FAO office in Ankara is well equipped with a multi-disciplinary team, including crop,

land and water, livestock and forestry specialists, as well as project management and

administration. FAO-Ankara is fortunate to have both a local and regional FAO technical staff in

the same location. This means that FAO has in-house regional specialists covering sectors such as

environmental services, bio-energy, forestry, rangelands management, and crop production.

FAO/Turkey is taking a programmatic approach to the implementation and support of GEF

projects. This includes having a full-time staff in the FAO/Turkey office dedicated to providing

GEF support.

1.4 Stakeholder Analysis 133. This is a complex and multi-dimensional project. The issue of stakeholder analysis and inclusion was critical to the project design phase and will be critical to the project implementation phase. The project development team undertook a detailed stakeholder analysis

through workshops, meetings, and fieldwork studies with key stakeholders. Regional, provincial, and district directorates of relevant ministries have participated to the planning.

134. Both MFWA and MFAL were heavily involved in the project design process. High-level representatives were appointed as a focal point of their organizations. The MFWA’s General

Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Parks and the MFAL’s General Directorate of

Plant Production are the primary government stakeholders. They will be responsible for the

coordination of both preparation and implementation processes of the project.

135. The MFWA team participated as leaders of the stakeholder consultation process.

Department Directors were appointed as a focal point from both General Directorates. Several

departments of the GDNCNP such as National Parks, Wildlife, Hunting, Nature Conservation,

and Biodiversity Nature were consulted throughout the preparation period. A project team was

built in the GDNCNP from 7 different Department Directorates. Six of them are from GDNCNP,

and one is from the EU and Foreigner Department of MFWA. High-level decision makers at the

Ministry were also consulted and their contributions were gathered through several meetings.

During the field study visits, personnel from the local branch of the Ministry were interviewed to

collect their contribution to the project design. The local know-how regarding the Kızılkuyu

Wildlife Development Area and TekTek Mountains National Park were useful to the project

design in terms of understanding and addressing the obstacles, barriers and possible solutions.

136. Detailed discussions were held with several general directorates under MFAL such as

TİGEM, TAGEM and BÜGM. Relevant personnel of the Ministries’ provincial branches in


Şanlıurfa and Diyarbakır participated in the fieldwork and regional stakeholder consultations.

Two GDPP representatives were part of the project team.

137. A series of round table meetings and workshops were held in Ankara and in Şanlıurfa with a

number of partners to gather the contributions of institutions to the project. A kick-off meeting

was held in Ankara with the participation of both Ministries’ representatives and an independent

expert group. The meeting was organized and carried out by MFWA. Participants from both

Ministries and FAO attended for the project design and implementation process.

138. Between April and May 2015, three expert meeting were held with the participation of

national consultants and FAO representatives. Another introductory meeting was held in MFAL

with the participation of relevant departments of GDPP. During 06-08 May 2015, a preliminary

site visit was held in the Şanlıurfa (Kızılkuyu Wildlife Development Area, TekTek Mountains

National Park and Karacadağ Region), with the participation of stakeholders. This was followed

by one more site visit by the FAO-SEC and experts team. In those meetings almost all of the local

governmental organizations, including regional, provincial and district branches of relevant

ministries, as well as NGOs and private sector representatives, were consulted. In addition to field

visits and meetings with stakeholders, a special meeting was held with Harran University,

Chamber of Agricultural Engineers in Şanlıurfa, GAP Agency, Karacadağ Development Agency,

and Şanlıurfa Governor’s office to introduce the project and gather information from them.

139. The second site visit was held between 29-30 June and 01-02 July 2015 in Şanlıurfa, to

further fill the knowledge gaps and to gather additional information regarding the baseline

description and the development of the project strategy and approach. Several meetings were held

with organizations and individuals to share perspectives on these objectives. A special meeting

was held with Karacadağ Development Agency, the Organization for Supporting Agricultural and

Rural Development, the Province Directorate of the Ministry of Food, Agriculture, and Livestock,

the GAP Regional Office, the Education and Publications Unit, the GAP Authority Directorate,

the Environment and Social Unit, the Regional Directorate of Forestry and Diyarbakır Sub-

Regional Directorate of Forestry, academics from Biology and Agriculture Departments of Harran

University, the Chamber of Agricultural Engineers in Şanlıurfa, Local Branch of Nature

Association to discuss threats to steppe ecosystems, institutional weaknesses, problems in the

region, and pilot project sites.

Table: Stakeholders and their roles

Stakeholder

Relevance

National Government

Ministry of Forestry and Water

Affairs (MFWA)

As the executive organization of the project, the MFWA is responsible for

conservation of nature. The organization declares and manages natural parks,

nature parks, nature conservation areas, and wildlife development areas. MFWA

also manages water resources, streams, lakes and ponds, as well as forest

management and conservation planning. MFWA will play a leading role in the

design, implementation, financing and mainstreaming of the strategy, policy

improvements, and related activities for the project. As the chair of the Project

Steering Committee, MFWA will coordinate and implement the Project and

support impact and progress monitoring, information dissemination, and national

replication/scaling up of project success.

Ministry of Food, Agriculture and

Livestock (MFAL)

MFAL is the organization for the management, improvement and conservation of

soil and agricultural lands in Turkey. The ministry is the key authority for the


management of steppe habitats in Turkey. The organization works towards

combating land degradation, preventing loss of soil and water resources, and

achieving biodiversity conversation. The General Directorate of Vegetative

Production is the unit for the management of pasturelands in Turkey unless they

are part of forest areas, in which case the General Directorate of Forestry under

MFWA is the legal authority to manage the lands. However, both ministries have

means of collaboration for pasturelands management in Turkey. MFAL will

support the design and implementation of the project through its headquarters and

local branches in Şanlıurfa and Diyarbakır. The organization will be a member of

the Project Steering Committee.

Ministry of Development

Ministry of Development of the Republic of Turkey is an expert based

organization that plans and guides Turkey’s development process at a macro level

and focuses on the coordination of policies and strategy development. The

ministry will support the project in terms of impact and progress monitoring and

information dissemination.

Ministry of Culture and Tourism

Ministry of Culture and Tourism is the public authority to manage and coordinate

efforts regarding to visual and written arts, historical places, museums as well as

developing the turkey’s tourism potential and all related affairs regarding those

subjects. Ministry has a province directorate in Sanliurfa. Ministry will be the

main focal point regarding to any eco-tourism activity within or after the project

period.

Regional-Government Agencies

XV. Regional Directorate of

Forestry and Water Affairs (RDoM)

(MFWA)-Malatya

RDoM is the regional body of the MFWA based in Malatya. The RDoM is

responsible for the conservation and improvement of natural parks, nature parks,

nature conservation areas, and wildlife development areas, as well as wildlife

resources. RDoM participates in work and activities related to the conservation

and enhancement of biodiversity and natural resources over which it has

responsibility. The Regional Directorate will be a member of the project steering

committee and a coordinator unit at the field level to implement and support

project activities, monitoring of achievement of objectives, and information

sharing. The Ministry has a Division Directorate in the province of Şanlıurfa.

They are actively managing the protected areas in Şanlıurfa as well as responsible

for reproduction and release of gazelles into the natural habitat. The local branch

is active in wildlife conservation in the field, with activities such as hunting

control and awareness raising in the rural areas.

GAP Regional Development

Administration

Southeast Anatolia Project (GAP) was initiated in the early seventies as a program

to develop the water and soil resources of the region. In 1989, a master plan was

prepared to further widen the content of the program including a wide range of

activities for social and economic issues focusing on the development of the

region. It covers 9 cities and 10% of Turkey’s population. The GAP authority has

its HQ in Şanlıurfa. The organization has prepared its new strategy for 2014-2018

and started implementation. The project will align its approach and activities with

the GAP plan.

The organization has two units key to project implementation. The TAYEM

(Education and Publications) is the unit responsible for extension services for the

GAP. They have extensive experience working with farmers in the region. The

other unit is the ÇATOM (Multi-Purpose Community Centers) and they are highly

involved with working with women and youth in the region. Their experience and

local offices are key for achieving the gender targets of the project.

Karacadağ Development Agency

The Agency works for rural development for Diyarbakır and Şanlıurfa provinces.

It provides grants through several mechanisms for non-profit organizations


including government units, NGOs, and academia. The HQ is based in

Diyarbakır, and in Şanlıurfa the Agency has an Investment Office. The agency is

also responsible for contributing to regional and rural development studies as well

as capacity development in general. It is important for the project to align its

approaches with the development agency.

Regional Directorate of Forestry

Sanliurfa Regional Directorate of Forestry is the main official organization to plan

and manage the forests of the region and undertake the relations with forest

villages in the region. The Directorate also manages the rangelands that are placed

within the forest areas. Through its credit systems, regional directorate can

support forest villages to decrease the dependence of people in forest fuel

resources.

Regional Directorate of State

Hydraulic Works

Sanliurfa Regional Directorate of State Hydraulic Works is the main body of

water related affairs in the region. The organization plans and organizes the

utilization of surface and ground waters. Moreover the directorate undertakes

measures for preventing soil erosion and flood damages. The organization is also

responsible from realizing dams for irrigation and power generation purposes.

Provincial Government Agencies

Şanlıurfa Governor’s Office

As the representative of central government in the Şanlıurfa Province, the

governors have a unique role on coordination of all government organizations in

the region. Therefore the governor of Şanlıurfa will be a natural member of the

project implementation team. The Pastureland Commission operates under the

Governor’s office too.

Şanlıurfa Division Directorate of

MoFWA

Şanlıurfa Division operates under the Malatya Regional Directorate of the

Ministry. The division is responsible from management and protection of wildlife

and biodiversity in general. That includes management of protected areas and

controlling hunting activities in the region. The Şanlıurfa Division has a lonlasting

experience in conservation of gazelles and their habitats.

Province Directorate of Ministry of

Food, Agriculture and Livestock

(PDAs)

(Diyarbakır and Şanlıurfa provinces)

As the local units of the MFAL, the Şanlıurfa and Diyarbakır PDAs will be

members of the project implementation unit in the region. They are responsible

for dissemination of information about improving the conservation of natural

resources and sustainability, improvement of agricultural practices, and farmers

training activities. PDAs will support the project activities in and around both

pilot sites, as well as mainstream the steppe conservation outputs into

management of pasturelands and croplands.

Southeastern Anatolia Forestry

Research Institute

The institute is based in Elazığ. Established in 1977, it undertakes scientific

researches to rehabilitee the forests of region and increase the efficiency in forest

production.

International Development Organizations and Donors

Agriculture and Rural Support

Institution (TKDK)

TKDK is working as a mechanism under the IPARD program, and has an office in

Sanliurfa. The program distributes supports to commercial organizations as well

as individuals who are looking for investment funds. The program gives support

to farms and facilities up to 3 million euro as well as providing supports to bee

keeping, greenhouse investments, and rural tourism activities. The applicant must

be based in rural areas with a population less than 20,000. The project should

communicate with TKDK to align its priorities with TKDK’s.


FAO

FAO is the main partner for the project. FAO Promotes the conservation of steppe

habitats, promotes sustainable forest management by placing technical expertise

in forestry at the disposal of member countries through field projects, provides

intensive experiences to reduce GHG emissions from deforestation and forest

degradation as well as from agricultural practices.

FAO will be a member of the Project Steering Committee and executive partner of

the project (with MFWA). FAO will coordinate and implement the project and

support impact and progress monitoring and information dissemination.

UNDP

One of the core areas of UNDP is environment and sustainable development.

UNDP Turkey has supported many environmental projects in country and made

partnership before. The project will establish close collaboration with UNDP to

exchange information and experience.

JICA

The Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) supports environmental

improvement and human resources development in the five regions. Natural

environment conservation, fisheries, gender and development, environmental

management issues are supporting by JICA Turkey. Many of the field works and

awareness activities in the project regions are carrying out cooperation with local

stakeholders.

NGOs

The Chamber of Agricultural

Engineers, Şanlıurfa Division

The organization represents the agricultural engineers and mainly focuses on

policy making, advocacy and capacity building for its members and also farmers.

The group has nearly 1,500 members in Sanliurfa. Moreover, the Chamber has

various facilities in its offices and elsewhere for trainings and meetings that could

be used during the project course. They can play a role in distributing the project’s

outcomes within their network of engineers and farmers.

Nature Association

Nature Association is the BirdLife International partner in Turkey and has a local

office in Birecik, Şanlıurfa. The organization has been actively working in the

region towards the conservation of steppe habitats including Kızılkuyu Wildlife

Development Area and species like bald ibis, gazelle, striped hyena and desert

monitor. Having a Steppe Conservation Program, the organization has played an

active role in preparation of the management plan of Kızılkuyu Wildlife

Development Area as well as community involvement in steppe conservation.

Nature Conservation Centre

Nature Conservation Centre is a national NGO working to achieve nature

conservation in Turkey. The organization has a long history of working with

government and private sector on biodiversity mainstreaming, climate change, and

land degradation. Systematic Conservation Planning is one of the key working

areas of the organization that takes into account steppe habitats and prioritization

of steppe biodiversity. The organization is leading the Life Plus Environment

Program in partnership with MFAL and FAO and with the support of Coca Cola

Life Plus Foundation. The project aims to achieve climate smart agriculture

targets as well as water retention in agricultural lands.

KIRÇEV

Rural Environment and Forestry Issues Research Association is a major national

NGO on rural environment, rural development and forestry field. As well as

working on forest researches, it is regularly organizing “Forest Ecology School”

and “Steppe Ecology School” since 2000. The Association has very large expert

group as a volunteer to support these schools. They are working In center Anatolia

steppes for support sustainability and erosion control.


Savory Institute Turkey “GÖZESİ” -

Anatolian Grasslands

The main responsibility of the Savory Institute is developing a holistic

management and holistic grazing plan, considering biodiversity, combatting

desertification and ecological restoration of grasslands. The Anatolia Grasslands

is an autonomous and independent enterprise but it is closely related with the

Ormanevi Cooperative and Sustainable Rural Future Association.

Anatolian Grasslands' headquarters are located in Biga, Çanakkale near the 27 ha

training site where Holistic Management is applied, trained and monitored

closely. Anatolian Grasslands consults farmers around Turkey on Holistic

Management framework and its main “Holistically Planned Grazing” tool, trains

farmers with a special focus on youth and implements special projects with local

authorities. One of these projects is running in Sarayönü, Konya on a 40 ha site of

common grasslands.

Nature Culture and Life Association

The organization is based in Birecik district of Şanlıurfa. With a strong volunteer

network in the region, the organization aims to protect the natural and cultural

assets in Birecik and Şanlıurfa. The organization is closely involved with bald

ibis and striped hyena conservation work, as well as other key species in the

region.

Academic and Scientific Organizations

Harran University

Harran University is the well-established university of Şanlıurfa, with a faculty of

Agriculture and a department of Biology. The academic members of the

university are involved with research on the agricultural activities and wildlife of

the region, as well as involved in capacity building and conservation activities.

The related departments of the University are key partners for achieving success

for the project.

GAP Agricultural Research Institute

The Research institute is based in Şanlıurfa and works under MFAL. The main

goal of the institute is to achieve protection of genetic resources, development of

new techniques, research on plant diseases, surveys on socio economic issues, and

capacity building.

GAP International Agricultural

Research and Training Center

Based in Diyarbakır, the center focuses on agricultural research and capacity

development through conferences, workshops, and trainings. The center

undertakes large scale projects and establishes partnerships with other key

stakeholders to fulfill its goals.

Pistachio Research Station

The Pistachio Research Station of MFAL is based in Gaziantep. The station aims

to solve problems and overcome obstacles regarding pistachio growing, from

production to marketing. The station also works to increase capacity of pistachio

growers in the region.

Southeastern Anatolia Forestry

Research Institute

Based in Elazığ. Established in 1977, it undertakes scientific research to

rehabilitate the forests of region and increase the efficiency in forest production.

Agriculture Representative

Organizations

Farmers of the region are organized under several structures. The main

organization for farmers in each province is the Agricultural Chambers that have

also sub-district branches. These are democratically governed units of farmers.

Moreover, there are other specialized structures farmers. These include:

Sheep/Goat Breeders Union, Cattle Breeders Union, Agricultural Credit

Cooperative, Irrigation Cooperatives.

Private sector


Local women and men farmers

As well as working with farmers through representatives organizations, the project

will also engage with farmers directly throughout the region.

Rural women

Men and women have different roles, knowledge, interests and priorities in natural

resources management and animal production. In general, rural women are

responsible for animal breeding and cultivating crops. In this sense, rural women

do not participate in selling, plowing or fertilizing activities. Women’s

involvement is constrained by social norms and poor access to extension, training,

credits and markets. Women cannot participate in marketing and entrepreneurship

activities. They cannot access technology and credit resources and decision

making processes.

The project will be based on a participatory approach with the aim of ensuring

women farmer’s participation and equity in benefit – sharing, increasing women’s

mobility and their experience in public speaking. This approach will be based on a

socio-economic assessment including gender analysis in the project villages and

carried out at micro (household), mezo (institutions) and macro (policy) level. The

target groups are grazing families in the project region. Men and women’s roles

are not static and are often renegotiated under changing economic and social

conditions. Women and men may have different knowledge and skills in various

aspects of animal production: this is important to recognize particularly when it

comes to preventing and controlling diseases. To increase women’s knowledge

not only on animal production but relevant policy and documents, awareness-

raising activities and specific trainings which will be identified during socio-

economic assessment will be conducted.

Women’s ability to benefit from animal production is restricted due to precarious

access to land, water and fodder on which animal production is dependent. The

project will aim to increase women’s access to productive assets. Additionally,

women’s involvement in decision-making processes will be increased by their

participation in project meetings and campaigns. This involvement will be

provided by the community members themselves and relevant NGOs such as the

GAP Multi-Purpose Community Centers (ÇATOMs) in Sanlıurfa for Gender

Mainstreaming. Gender mainstreaming activities will be monitored by gender

checklists and indicators.

1.5 Lessons Learned from Past and Related Work and Evaluations

140. The MFWA, through General Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Parks,

completed a set of pilot projects on conservation of biodiversity and effective management of

natural resources. The GEF-II Biodiversity and Natural Resources Management Project was

completed for four sites, which represent four different habitat types. The ‘Conservation and

Sustainable Development of Biological Diversity and Natural Resources in Yıldız Mountains’

project is also completed. The MFWA is currently implementing the ‘Strengthening the National

Nature Protection System for Implementation of Natura 2000 Requirements’ project and the

‘National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (for the period 2008-2017),’ which supports the

conservation and effective management of existing resources. The proposed project will build on

the experience of MFWA in the implementation of these projects.

141. The proposed project will build on the experience and lessons learned of the GEF-

II/Biodiversity and Natural Resource Management Project, ‘GEF/Enhancing Effectiveness of

Forest Protected Areas in Küre Mountains,’ ‘EU/ Conservation of Biodiversity and Natural

Resources and Sustainable Development in Yıldız Mountains’ project that created the acceptance

of the need for improved protected areas management systems. The results achieved by those

projects, such as increased capacity of protected areas management, improved public awareness of

steppe habitats conservation, and strengthened policy/institutional framework, created an


understanding within provincial and local government of the need for greatly improved

management systems. The proposed project will build on this awareness to expand the coverage

of the PA system and mainstream biodiversity conservation into production landscapes.

1.6 Links to National, GEF and FAO Strategic Objectives

1.6.1 National Eligibility and fit with National Strategic Objectives

142. Turkey is a party to Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Turkey signed the

convention in 1992 and ratified it in 1996. As a response to the CBD, Turkey has prepared and

started implementing its National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan in 2007, with the

participation and contribution of a wide range of organizations and stakeholders. Besides the

CBD, the government of Turkey has signed many other international environmental conventions,

such as the Convention on the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1983), the

Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (RAMSAR) (1994), the Convention on

International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (1996), the Bern

Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (BERN) (1984), the

European Landscape Convention (2001), the Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and

Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean (1988), and The Black Sea Biodiversity and Landscape

Conservation Protocol (2004).

143. The proposed project is consistent with the various strategies, programs, and action plans

published by the Government of Turkey (GoT) pursuant to its commitments under the relevant

international environment and nature conservation conventions, as well as with the relevant

national development plans and strategies adopted by the GoT. With respect to the environmental

conventions, i.e. the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the proposed project is fully

consistent with and will contribute significantly to implementation of the following strategies,

programs and action plans:

Table: Relevant International Agreements Ratified by Turkey

Convention/Agreement Signed

Convention on Biological Diversity 1992

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) 1996

Framework Convention on Climate Change 2004

Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 2009

Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity 2004

Convention to Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitats [Ramsar] 1994

World Heritage Convention on Nature and Culture Sites under UNESCO 1983

Bern Convention (European Wildlife Conservation Convention) 1984

United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification 1998

European Landscape Convention 2003

Barcelona Convention ( Protocol on Conservation of the Mediterranean Protected Areas) 2002

144. The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (2007) objectives include “protect

steppe biological diversity, to ensure the sustainable use of its components, as well as to ensure

the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits from the utilization of genetic resources; and to

combat against the loss of steppe biological diversity and the social-economic results of that.”

The strategy calls for identifying the state of the existing species in steppe ecosystems, and

mapping and determining the threats. The proposed project will contribute specific responses

addressed in the National Action Plan, including: the education of people specializing in

taxonomy, ecology, and genetic areas to be able to build up a steppe biological diversity inventory

with the cooperation of education and research institutions, and the organization of those people

so that a systematized work can be done; the identification of steppe areas and the special areas


which have special importance for biological diversity and/or are especially under threat in

steppes and mapping them by using GIS; and the identification of the status of existing species in

steppe ecosystems, the determination of the threats to the existing species and habitats, and an

update of the red lists of the endangered species.

145. The proposed project will directly support the implementation of these objectives by

preparing and developing a national strategy that incorporates steppe biodiversity conservation

considerations into actions, tools, and guidelines to manage steppe ecosystem and realize the

actions under the objective.

146. The project will directly address one of the cross-cutting issues requiring capacity

development, namely national thematic assessment identified in Turkey’s National Capacity Self-

Assessment (NCSA) under the Rio Conventions (2011). The NCSA was financed by Global

Environment Facility (GEF) through the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) to assess

the existing national capacity, identify and prioritize the capacity needs, and reveal the cross-

cutting issues and synergy areas among three Rio conventions (UNCBD, UNFCCC, UNCCD) to

be implemented in Turkey.

147. The National Capacity Action Plan has been prepared by the Turkey’s National Capacity

Self-Assessment (NCSA) project for the three Rio Conventions (UNFCCC, UNCBD, UNCCD) in

order to be implemented effectively. The National Capacity Action Plan includes the activities to

be carried out in the synergy areas that cover all three conventions, the current capacity in terms

of time, human resources and finance.

148. The “Assessment of National Capacity and Identification of Needs” refers to “With regard

to legislation, gap was identified in some issues while lack of implementation and sanctions was

identified in some issues. The principal issues that have legislative gaps are biosafety, use of

genetic resources, benefit-sharing, alien species, microorganisms, steppe protected areas and

coastal-marine protected areas. The issues where lack of adaptation, implementation and sanction

are observed intensify in objectives on planning and sustainable use.”

149. The project will directly contribute to the Ninth Development Plan of Turkey (2007-2013).

Under Strategic Objective 4,”Protection and management of rural environment”, protection and

management of rural environment and sustainable management of natural resources are a priority

for the country’s overall economic development. The other important measure under the

Development Plan is “to provide sustainable utilization of natural resources.” One of the main

priorities under the measure of the Development Plan is to promote strategic management of the

country’s steppe ecosystems and its flora and fauna species.

150. The project will support implementation of the GoT’s National Rural Development Plan

(2009-2013), which targets the conservation of agricultural areas, pastures and forests, wetland,

and steppe ecosystems including flora and fauna resources in areas that will be integrated into

forest regimes. The Rural Development Plan underscores the relationship between rural poverty

and natural resource degradation, recognizing a significant increase in recent years in erosion and

degradation of land and water resources in the country, in many cases due to improper farming

techniques and increasing climate variability (droughts, floods, and landslides). To mitigate these

processes, the Plan gives priority to strategies, measures, and activities that address management

of steppe ecosystems.

151. Turkey has prepared its National Strategy and Action Plan for Combating Desertification in

alignment with the UNCCD’s 10-Year Strategy. The strategy and the action plan refer to steppe

protection under output 7.4 as “undertaking rehabilitation implementations in forests, steppes,

pasturelands, wetlands, coastal and other natural habitats…” Activity 7.4.6 indicates, “Increasing

the management effectiveness in steppe protection areas to ensure the conservation of steppe


habitats”. Activity 7.4.6 was defined as “To revise and improve the protected area definitions;

representing different types of steppe habitats in protected areas network and preparing

management plans for protected areas.”

152. The National Action Plan for Climate Change also takes into account steppe habitats in

Turkey. Objective UO2.6 refers to identification of climate change’s effect on steppe ecosystems

and its ecosystem services, monitoring the effects and developing measures towards adaptation.

The plan also aims to define and implement research criteria for steppe indicator species and

sensitive habitat types.

1.6.2 Alignment with GEF Priorities

153. GEF-5 Focal Area Strategy and Programme: The proposed project is a single focal area

project and in line with the Biodiversity Conservation (BD-1 and BD 2) Focal Areas. The

proposed project will contribute to the improvement of effectiveness of existing steppe protected

areas as well as development of new steppe protected areas under the BD-1, outcome 1.1 The

project will also contribute to mainstreaming biodiversity conservation and sustainable utilization

into the steppe production landscapes (BD 2, outcome 2.1), and its incorporation into policy and

regulatory frameworks at national level (BD-2, outcome 2.2).

Table: Fit with GEF Focal Area objectives

Relevant FA Outcomes

Associated Project Outcomes

BD-1

Outcome 1.1: Improve sustainability of

Protected Areas

Outcome 1. Representation of the various steppe ecosystems and

threatened steppe species in the PA system under various

management regimes improved.

Outcome 2: Reconciliation of land use activities with steppe

biodiversity conservation in sensitive buffer zones around

Karacadağ

BD-2

Outcome 1.1: Mainstream biodiversity

conservation and sustainable use into

production landscapes, seascapes and sectors

Outcome 3. Steppe ecosystems (landscapes) more effectively

managed by strengthened national and local PA institutions and

stakeholders, leading to reduced threats to steppe ecosystems

154. Aichi Targets: The proposed project supports the Aichi Targets adopted at the 10th

Conference of the Parties of the CBD.

Relevant Aichi Target

Project Contribution

Strategic Goal A: Address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss by mainstreaming biodiversity across

government and society

Target 1: By 2020, at the latest, people are aware of

the values of biodiversity and the steps they can take to

conserve and use it sustainably.

The project will build awareness regarding steppe

biodiversity and conservation at three levels:

national, provincial and field/user group.

Target 2: By 2020, at the latest, biodiversity values

The project’s strategic approach to steppe

conservation will be integrated with development


have been integrated into national and local

development and poverty reduction strategies and

planning processes and are being incorporated into

national accounting, as appropriate, and reporting

systems.

planning for both the national government

stakeholders (MFAL, MFWA) and provincial

stakeholders (Sanliurfa).

Target 4: By 2020, at the latest, Governments, business

and stakeholders at all levels have taken steps to

achieve or have implemented plans for sustainable

production and consumption and have kept the impacts

of use of natural resources well within safe ecological

limits.

The project aims to mainstream conservation of

steppe biodiversity by generating strategic

plans/policies within the productive sector.

Strategic Goal B: Reduce the direct pressures on biodiversity and promote sustainable use

Target 7: By 2020 areas under agriculture, aquaculture

and forestry are managed sustainably, ensuring

conservation of biodiversity.

The project will work extensively to shift current

agricultural practices - particularly grazing - to be

more compatible with biodiversity conservation

objectives.

Strategic Goal C: To improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species and genetic diversity

Target 12: By 2020 the extinction of known threatened

species has been prevented and their conservation

status, particularly of those most in decline, has been

improved and sustained.

The project will benefit a host of endangered and

endemic species, including plant and animal species

of global significance.

Strategic Goal D: Enhance the benefits to all from biodiversity and ecosystem services

Target 14: By 2020, ecosystems that provide essential

services, including services related to water, and

contribute to health, livelihoods and well-being, are

restored and safeguarded, taking into account the needs

of women, indigenous and local communities, and the

poor and vulnerable.

Maintaining ecosystem services is a major drive of

the project. This includes working with livestock

grazers to better link the conservation of ecosystem

services with improved production and profitability.

Strategic Goal E: Enhance implementation through participatory planning, knowledge management and capacity

building

Target 19: By 2020, knowledge, the science base and

technologies relating to biodiversity, its values,

functioning, status and trends, and the consequences of

its loss, are improved, widely shared and transferred,

and applied.

The project will contribute substantially to the

understanding of steppe ecosystem functionality,

status and monitoring of the positive/negative

conservation impacts of various management

decisions.

1.6.3 Alignment with FAO Strategies and Objectives

155. The project will directly contribute to the FAO global Strategic Objective 2 (SO2): Increase

and improve provision of goods and services from agriculture, forestry and fisheries in a

sustainable manner. The project will contribute to: Outcome 1 (Producers and Natural Resource

Managers Adopt Practices that Increase and Improve the Provision of Goods and Services in the

Agricultural Sector Production Systems in a Sustainable Manner); Output 1.1 (Innovative

practices for sustainable agricultural production are identified, assessed and disseminated and


their adoption by stakeholders is facilitated); Output 1.2 (Innovative approaches for ecosystem

valuation, management and restoration are identified, assessed, disseminated and their adoption

by stakeholders is facilitated); and, Output 1.3 (Organizational and institutional capacities of

stakeholders are strengthened to support innovation and the transition toward more sustainable

production systems).

156. The project reflects Regional Priorities for Europe and Central Asia in the area of [3]

Natural Resource Management, including climate change mitigation and adaptation. FAO is a

signatory to the United Nations Development Cooperation Strategy for Turkey (2011-2015)

prepared in accordance with Ninth Development Plan, which focuses on strengthening policy

formulation and implementation capacity for the protection of the environment and cultural

heritage in line with sustainable development principles under Priority Area [1] Democratic and

Environmental. The project supports the FAO Country Programming Framework (CPF) 2012-

2015. This includes the following priority areas: Natural resource management including climate

change mitigation and adaptation; Food security and nutrition (both in-country and abroad);

Policy support to small farmers; Control of trans-boundary pests and diseases (animal and plant);

and, Policy and institutional support for EU accession and integration.


Section 2: Project Framework and Expected Results

2.1 Project Objective, Strategy and GEF Alternative

157. Project Objective: The project’s objective is to improve the conservation of Turkey’s

steppe ecosystems through effective protected area management and mainstreaming steppe

biodiversity conservation into production landscapes.

158. Project Strategy and GEF Alternative: The project will apply three components each

deigned to systematically address the three barriers standing between the existing situation and

long-term solution of securing the ecological integrity of Turkey’s globally significant steppe

ecosystems.

159. The project’s first component will aim to address Barrier #1 (Limited experience with highly

effective steppe protected area design and management). The project will facilitate the

emplacement of tools and experience required for protected area design and management to

become much more effective at conserving steppe ecosystems and associated globally significant

biodiversity. This will include setting in place a rigorous framework for steppe protected area

management planning and monitoring. Management will become much more coordinated,

inclusive, informed, and effective. Cooperative management approaches will strengthen linkages

between protected areas managers, government agencies, researchers, civil society conservation

organizations, and private stakeholders. The project will help protected area managers to innovate

solutions to make certain productive uses within the protected area are more in line with

achievement of long-term conservation objectives. The project will catalyze the inclusion with

the protected area regime of a substantial area of steppe that is currently at risk of being lost. The

Government of Turkey will be enabled to create a new protected area designed specifically to

bring a biologically critical steppe area within the protected area regime.

160. The project’s second component will aim to address Barrier #2 (Limited experience with

integrating steppe conservation with grazing and agricultural management practices). With GEF

support, tools will be emplaced to integrate steppe conservation within grazing and management

practices. The project will support protected area managers, government extension agencies and

agriculturalists to mainstream steppe conservation within their production activities. The

protected area staff and others will work with grazing interests to emplace much better models for

grassland management predicated upon spatial and temporal carrying capacities. A major part of

this effort will be to innovate a stock management system that maintains ecosystem services,

reduces business risk, and increases profitability.

161. The project’s third component will aim to address Barrier #3 (Limited capacity to generate

institutional and policy level support required to achieve landscape level grasslands

conservation). The project help generate the institutional and policy level support required to

achieve steppe conservation on a landscape level. Agriculture and associated infrastructure

development is a major driver of steppe ecosystems. This development is also fragmenting

remaining steppe, including existing protected areas. This problem persists due to the limited

capacity and experience in Turkey with the generation of institutional and policy frameworks

required for the realization of landscape level conservation. The project will help to remove this

barrier by creating a model for provincial level steppe conservation planning. A centerpiece of

this effort will be the generation and implementation of a provincial level steppe conservation

strategy. Commensurate capacity building will support this effort. Long-term implementation

will be ensured by institutional, policy, and financing improvements. The approach will slow the

loss of steppe ecosystems outside of protected areas, generate buffer zones for protected areas and

secure ecological corridors between protected areas. All efforts will be approached so that

national level replication and upscaling is supported. The project will help concerned national


institutions to build necessary capacity, capture lessons learned, and create policy and institutional

pathways required to facilitate national level support and replication.

162. The GEF alternative represents a substantial and transformative change to the status quo.

The GEF project will assist Turkey to catalyze immediate conservation gains in terms of

improved conservation of globally significant biodiversity within existing and new steppe

protected areas. This could not likely be realized without the exposure to best international

principles and practices facilitated through GEF financing. The project will create the foundation

required to identify and conserve biologically critical steppe habitats nationally. For a relatively

small investment, GEF financing will catalyze a long-term and lasting change. By project close,

Turkey will be much better positioned to substantially increase the effectiveness of conserving

globally significant steppe biodiversity at the protected area, provincial and national levels.

2.2 Components (Outcomes) and Activities

Component 1: Effectiveness of protected area system to conserve steppe biodiversity

increased

Component Budget: GEF (US$ 688,500), Co-financing (US$ 2,853,000)

Output 1.1 New steppe protected area established and operational

163. The project will assist with the establishment of a new protected area encompassing the

Karacadağ steppe ecosystem. The project will provide the technical support to initiate the design

and capacity building required to establish the protected area. The project will assist the GDNCNP

to generate a comprehensive proposal for protected area establishment. Declaration of this new

protected area will require completion and submission of a protected area proposal dossier. This

proposal will be submitted by GDNCNP to the Ministry of Environment for approval prior to the

close of project year two. By project close, the new protected area will be fully staffed and

financed by the Government of Turkey.

164. Effort will commence with a rapid appraisal and documentation of status of globally

significant biodiversity contained within the region. The survey work will assess biodiversity,

social and economic issues. The assessment will generate the baseline information and processes

required to inform protected area design, inform the protected area management plan (Output 1.2),

inform the monitoring program (Output 1.3), inform the mainstreaming of conservation within

productive systems (Outcome 2), inform the creation of larger landscape conservation strategies

(Outcome 3), and build public awareness regarding biodiversity and ecosystem service values.

165. The project will assess current resource use and associated impacts to biodiversity. The

assessment will review issues related to livelihoods and women and men community members.

The assessment will review current decision-making structures, including both government and

traditional grazing management regimes. The project will assist with the generation of maps

demarcating areas of highest biodiversity value and overlays detailing current and proposed

resource use patterns. The assessment will be used to help define and prioritize conservation

needs. The assessment will include recommendations for protected area establishment, including

innovating approaches for designation that integrate sustainable resource use and conservation

objectives. The process of protected areas establishment will involve identifying areas of highest

conservation importance and commensurate zoning. Methodologies will be informed by best

international and national models for biodiversity gap analysis adapted for the specific needs of

steppe protected area assessment.

166. The assessment effort will be used to build the capacities of GDNCNP and related

stakeholders. The project will provide the technical support required to build this capacity. The


effort will be complimented by assessment guidelines including gender checklists to be generated

with project support. These guidelines will be suitable for replication and use nationally. The

guidelines will be scaled appropriately to make certain future replication is cost-effective and

efficient. The assessment process will draw upon GDNCNP and GDPP staff from both national

and provincial offices. The assessment will engage other stakeholders and representatives of

academic institutions, civil society, and farmer’s organizations. The assessment will be

accompanied by a series of workshops designed to inform key stakeholders of assessment

methodologies and results.

167. The primary challenge of establishing a protected area within this landscape will be

balancing the demands of existing resource users with the achievement of desired national and

global biodiversity conservation objectives. Over fourteen proximate communities and hundreds

of seasonal pastoralists are reliant in part upon the proposed protected area’s resources. The

Government of Turkey through previous GEF projects has worked to engage stakeholders with

protected management and planning. However, the Government has extremely limited experience

with the engagement of local stakeholders for protected area establishment.

168. To address this issue, the project will generate and support implementation of a model

stakeholder engagement guidelines. The guidelines will serve as a strategy to provide a foundation

for the identification of stakeholders at the national, provincial, and local resource user level (e.g.,

pastoralists). This will include full reflection of gender, poverty, and other issues associated with

most vulnerable sectors of society. The engagement strategy will identify and describe methods

to alleviate current government staff capacity weaknesses related to effective stakeholder

engagement. This will include organizing and implementing necessary training and capacity

building efforts. The strategy will define concrete steps and recommended methodologies for

stakeholder engagement. Methodologies will be based upon best international principles and

practices, including participatory rural appraisals and open forum meetings. Engagement will

provide pathways to improve stakeholder knowledge, awareness and pride regarding existing

biodiversity benefits.

169. Issues of gender will be an important element of the guideline development and

implementation. In Sanliurfa, GAP has established multipurpose community centers specifically

for women and rural development. FAO/Turkey has a number of tools that are being used to help

facilitate engagement of rural women in decision making and planning processes, such as the

“Gender Thematic Checklist for Forestry Sector”. These tools will be modified and applied to

strengthen the engagement process to become more fully gender sensitive.

170. Strategy implementation will ideally culminate in the generation of broad-based support for

protected area establishment, reflecting and balancing both conservation priorities and the vested

economic interests of household members of existing grazing families. Through strategy

implementation, stakeholders will have an opportunity to actively exchange opinions, understand

the potential ecological and economic benefits of protected area establishment, and define and

innovate best conservation practices. Output activities will help create the capacity required for

the GDNCNP to adequately and effectively represent steppe ecosystems within the expanded

national protected area regime. The process will expose diverse government agencies and

stakeholders to best international principles and practices related to protected area creation,

financing, management, and stakeholder involvement. Lessons learned will be fully documented

and captured. Most importantly, the strategy will be used as a foundation for the creation of

national guidelines for stakeholder engagement, fully integrating and reflecting lessons learned

during project implementation. The project will support raising of public awareness,

dissemination of information material on Karacadağ and publication of the strategy document and

other field survey results.


Output 1.2 Effective management plans for three steppe protected areas created and

implemented

171. The project will support the generation and initial implementation of new and/or updated

management plans for three steppe-protected areas. These management plans will reflect best

international principles and practices. The management plans will elevate the current level of

management and conservation effectiveness. The plans will be predicated upon the long-term

conservation of steppe ecosystem integrity. The plans will be organic and reviewed, reported upon

and adapted annually. The plans will cover both the protected area cores as well as associated

buffer zones. This will insure that plans fully reflect the results of on-going capacity building,

monitoring, and public awareness efforts. Conservation objectives will be established that are

fully in line with GEF global priorities, including the Aichi targets. The management plans will

link provisioning of financing and human resources with the realization of protected area

conservation objectives. The project will provide the technical assistance required to make certain

current protected area management approaches are much more innovative. This will includes

provisioning of technical expertise required to fully expose protected area managers and other

stakeholders to best international principles and practices related to protected area management.

The management plans will also include a specific “Species Action Plans” for managing and

conserving important (flag) species. The planning process will pay particular attention on

pistachio species in Tek Tek Mountains National Park for management, maintenance, researches

and administration.

172. The project will support the identification and gazetting of buffer zones around each of the

three pilot protected areas. Management plans will integrate conservation and production issues

(e.g., cultivation, water management, ecosystem services, and grazing). The management plans

will include a collaborative management system for buffer zones of the protected areas. The plans

will also identify responsibilities and implementation authority for management activities in

buffer zones according to national regulations and policies.

173. The management plans must integrate and reflect the long-standing needs of community

residents who actively use protected area resources for their livelihoods. A particular emphasis of

the project’s technical support will be building management approaches and capacities for

protected areas containing significant livestock grazing and other uses of protected area resources.

A hallmark of these new management plans will be the full identification and inclusion of a wide

range of stakeholders. This will include national and provincial government agencies, civil society

organizations, academic organizations and broad range of private stakeholders. The management

planning process will be informed by the guidelines for assessment and stakeholder engagement

generated under Output 1.1. Importantly, the management plan development process will fully

engage communities and particularly those persons who actively use protected area resources for

their livelihoods. This will include emphasis upon livelihood and gender issues. Sanliurfa is

quickly emerging as a domestic tourism destination. Management plans will specifically consider

both the potential benefits and challenges associated with tourism development. Management

planning will seek out ways to engage the tourism market as a mechanism for alternative

livelihood creation as a conservation incentive and a means to increase public awareness and

engagement with steppe conservation.

174. The management planning process will be used to build capacity both on the provincial and

national levels. The process will engage a wide-range of stakeholders. Management planning

will include workshops to inform stakeholders regarding both the process and results of

management planning. Recent GEF effort under the “GEF II” intended to generate protected area

management planning guidelines. Unfortunately, the scale of the guidelines was overly ambitious

and the result was not achieved. To fill this gap, the GEF Steppe project will generate simplified

guidelines for protected area management planning for the three Sanliurfa protected areas that can

be adapted and up-scaled nationally.

http://tureng.com/tr/turkce-ingilizce/pay%20particular%20attention%20on%20something

http://tureng.com/tr/turkce-ingilizce/pay%20particular%20attention%20on%20something


175. Draft management plans will be completed prior to the project’s mid-term evaluation.

During the project’s second half of operation, priority management interventions will be

implemented and modeled with project support. This will help to make certain that management

planning is actually translated into conservation action. The project may support limited

investment in infrastructure required to operationalize protected area management planning, e.g.,

signage, border demarcation, field monitoring and enforcement equipment, restoration of

degraded areas, and public awareness materials. Prior to the close of the project, these

interventions will be fully assessed and lessons learned captured.

Output 1.3 Rigorous monitoring program for three steppe protected areas established

176. The project will work with national and provincial level institutions to set in place a

monitoring program for all three protected areas. The monitoring program will work to engage

existing and emerging regional and national academic institutions. The project will make certain

that the monitoring program is designed to inform and improve protected area management. The

monitoring program will inform decision-making both inside and beyond the protected area

boundaries. The monitoring program will be appropriately scaled with effort focused upon a few

key indicator species for each steppe-protected area. The species will include critically

endangered and globally significant plant and animal species, including wide ranging umbrella

species such as goitered gazelle and plant species particularly vulnerable to climate change

impacts. The monitoring program will provide a platform for assessing the short and long-term

impact of identified threats upon ecosystem integrity and ecosystem services. The monitoring

program will regularly assess land degradation associated with grazing and agricultural

production. This will include assessing the root causes for these impacts. The monitoring

program will therefore integrate social elements, including economic, agriculture, and gender

issues. Ultimately, the monitoring program will feed into national and provincial level planning

and decision-making mechanisms and institutions. This will include linking with and informing

the national Nuh (Noah) Database.

177. GEF investment will provide the technical and financial support such as equipment and

tools required to initiate the monitoring program. During the project’s first year of operation, a

simple monitoring handbook will be generated and published. This handbook will help to focus

and prioritize monitoring efforts. The handbook will also identify monitoring protocols and

recommend modalities for making certain information is captured and applied to inform

management decision-making. The handbook will reflect best international and national

practices. The project will catalyze the establishment of a monitoring cohort comprised of

relevant government, non-governmental and academic institutions. The project will facilitate and

provide initial financial support for this cohort to meet on a bi-monthly (six times per year) basis.

The cohort will function as a working group to advice and support protected area managers with

the design and implementation of a rigorous biodiversity monitoring program for each of the three

pilot protected areas.

178. The monitoring program should be fully functional by project close. The monitoring

program will be linked to and informing the process of improved and innovative management

planning and decision-making. The monitoring program will be used to build public awareness

and knowledge regarding the status of biodiversity conservation and associated ecosystem

services. Monitoring will be delivering the core data and information required to make certain

protected area managers and institutions are able to fully determine and understand the

conservation effectiveness of on-going protected area management decision-making. The

established monitoring program will be fully supported by the GDNCNP, including necessary

staffing and financing.

Component 2: Steppe biodiversity conservation mainstreamed into production landscapes



Output 2.1 Sustainable grazing management program operational across three steppe

protected areas and associated buffer zones

179. Over-grazing presents a major challenge to steppe conservation across Turkey. Existing

grazing management is very basic. The current approach does not address fundamental

requirements for the achievement of biodiversity conservation objectives. The absence of an

effective grazing management program for the lands within and immediately proximate to

protected areas is a major barrier to steppe conservation. This limits the ability of protected area

managers, resource users, and government agencies to identify and conserve areas of highest

biodiversity value. To address this issue, the project will provide the technical and financial

assistance required to both generate and implement a model for sustainable grazing management

at each of the three pilot steppe protected areas and associated buffer zones.

180. The project will supply the technical expertise required to access and apply best

international principles and practices related to improving grasslands and grazing production with

and proximate to protected areas.. The program will begin during the project’s first year with a

comprehensive analysis of on-going grazing activities within each of the protected areas. This

will be supported and informed by the model assessment conducted for the Karacadağ steppe

ecosystem under Output 1.1.

181. The adopted grazing management system will shift de facto open access grazing within each

of the protected areas to a more sustainably managed grazing system. The system will be

predicated upon establishing livestock carrying capacities, improved livestock production

modalities, identification and conservation of areas with highest biological value, and

maintenance of ecological integrity and associated biodiversity. The objective of the grazing

management regime will be to maintain and improve ecological function and conserve globally

significant biodiversity associated with each protected area while providing reasonable support for

continued production. Each protected area will establish a carrying capacity target. Over time, the

total number of livestock will be ratcheted downwards using an innovative and exchangeable

(tradeable) permitting system. This “cap and trade” approach to livestock management within the

protected areas will increase the quality of ecosystem services and the value of livestock grazing

rights. Carrying capacity will be linked to a spatial and temporal grazing management plans.

Implementation of the grazing management plans will benefit from best international and national

examples. The adopted grazing management systems will be linked to and integrated within

protected area management planning (Output 1.2).

182. An important element of this activity will be to promote and improve coordination between

diverse government agencies, protected area administration, and livestock producers. Grazing

management within protected areas is controlled by GDNCNP. Outside of protected areas,

including within buffer zones grazing is under the purview of numerous government agencies at

both the national and provincial level. This includes the provincial Pastureland Committees. The

process will therefore stress coordination between government, private and civil society

organizations to discuss best ways to demonstrate grazing improvements. The process of

designing and implementing this grazing management program will be stakeholder driven using a

fully inclusive community-based approach. The stakeholder engagement guidelines generated

under Output 1.2 will help define this process. The grazing management system improvements

will reference appropriate elements of the FAO’s Voluntary Guidelines on Land Tenure, Save and

Grow program, and Global Agenda for Sustainable Livestock. This will be incorporated within

grazing land lease structural improvements. The project will provide support to stakeholder

working groups to prepare and implement sustainable grazing methods and practices with

biodiversity conservation objectives mainstreamed into these approaches. Grazing management


plans will be designed and implemented by project and GDNCNP staff working with closely with

relevant decision-making authorities (e.g. MFAL, MFWA, PC). The grazing management

demonstration program will be developed and implemented in close collaboration with private

stakeholders as well as government regulatory agencies and traditional government structure.

183. To make certain lessons are well-captured and disseminated, the project will support the

creation of a grazing working group. This working group will be comprised of national and

provincial level representatives of key stakeholders. This may include the Sanliurfa Governor’s

office, provincial offices of MFAL, meadow commission members, GAP representatives, grazing

union members, representatives of civil society and academic organizations, protected area staff,

and representatives of local herding groups. This working group will meet at least quarterly

during the project implementation period to exchange information, provide technical insights to

project approaches, and exchange information regarding program progress. The project’s

technical staff will facilitate the efforts of the working group. The meetings and efforts of the

working group will be used to collate and disseminate lessons learned so that provincial and

national level replication is fostered. The working group will be tasked with making certain

lessons learned are fully integrated within the annual PC pastureland management planning

process.

184. The grazing management plan will benefit from and inform the monitoring and assessment

programs (Output 1.3). The finalized land use plan will be integrated within the protected area

management planning process (Outcome 1) and the provincial level landscape level conservation

strategy (Outcome 3). The land use management plans will help to create the basis for the

generation of model grazing programs to be established at each pilot site (Output 2.2). The project

may support implementation of the grazing management plan through necessary equipment and

tools. By project close, the grazing management program should be fully adopted by requisite

government agencies at the national, provincial, and local level. Lessons learned will be well

captured, making certain that similar land use planning programming can be integrated into

protected area management nationally.

Output 2.2 Sustainable grazing management program impacts monitored at three steppe

protected areas

185. The project will work with academic and government extension agencies to provide the

technical and financial tools required to track the impact of improved grazing management on

both ecological and socio-economic levels. Ecosystem monitoring will measure and assess how

grazing management decisions effect ecological integrity. The project will also take a very

innovative approach to monitoring herd production, determining how the improvement of

pastureland quality relates to economic benefits for local pastoralists.

186. The program will track how conservation of ecosystem services impacts business

investment risks, business sustainability and profitability. The project will work with veterinary

services, extension officers, protected area staff, conservation biologists, and livestock producers

to initiate a program to track the impacts of improved grasslands and associated ecosystem

services on livestock health. The project will work directly with willing pastoralists to assess how

improved grassland management impacts herd production values. This effort will help create

understanding and incentives for local livestock raisers to shift current over-grazing practices to

more sustainable practices. The monitoring effort will likely assess the connections between

improved grassland management improves livestock fitness, recruitment, milk fat content, wool

quality, weight gain and other parameters useful to inform connections between ecosystem health,

herd quality, and overall production profitability. The monitoring program will address social

issues, including generation of indicators disaggregated by gender to assist with better

understanding of project related impacts. The project will assist participating herding families to


use this information to inform decision-making and potentially to create a livestock sales program

linked to “steppe friendly” production methods.

187. Livestock monitoring protocols and baseline analysis will be completed within the project’s

first year of implementation. This will be done in coordination with GDNCNP at the provincial

and national level. Impact monitoring will be linked to the on-going efforts supported under the

established monitoring program (Output 1.3). The project may support impact monitoring of the

sustainable grazing management program through necessary equipment and material. By project

close, the tracking program should be fully operational providing meaningful trend data to inform

management decisions by protected area administrations, livestock producers, and government

decision-makers. The program will be firmly established and incorporated within annual

protected area and government budgets.

Output 2.3 Model steppe conservation training program for pastoralists emplaced

188. The project will establish a set of training tools designed to expose and encourage local

grazing users to improve their production techniques to become more steppe conservation

oriented. The training program will build the capacities of three protected area administrations,

relevant government agencies, and agricultural producers.

189. The project’s training program will integrate with steppe conservation training and

awareness programs being implemented at the local and provincial level. Training will be linked

closely with the improved grazing management program (Output 2.1) and livestock production

monitoring (Output 2.2). An important element will be engaging with key stakeholders identified

during project design. These will include GAP, various livestock production unions, the

provincial Pasture Commission, and Harran University. The training program will design to

benefit national and provincial level staff and extension officers of MFWA, GDNCNP, MFAL

and GDPP.

190. The project will coordinate closely with the GEF/FAO Sustainable Land Management and

Climate-Friendly Agriculture (SLM/CFA) project. The SLM/CFA is making a large investment

in the establishment of Farmer Field Schools. Lessons learned and materials generated from the

SLM/CFA will be transferred and applied in each of the three pilot protected areas and

surrounding buffer zones. This project will likewise support the SLM/CFA by providing valuable

lessons on the application of FFS models to the specific concerns of grazing management and

steppe conservation in and around protected areas. This will coordinate closely with existing

livestock producer unions.

191. The project will implement a “soft” demonstration and training program. This will include

recruiting willing grazing groups and individuals to work as early adopters of best practices.

These early adopters will be incentivized by the project through the provision of expertise and

materials to realize improved grazing management benefits. Supported activities will be

prioritized within the protected grazing management plan. Example activities may include

fencing off highly vulnerable areas to allow for ecological restoration, providing families with

best practices through high-level extension services, and as necessary supporting families with

bridging financing to reduce the business risks associated with adopting innovative grazing

approaches.

192. The project will provide technical and financial assistance to initiate the pastoralists training

program. A project training strategy identifying information gaps and training modalities will be

created within the first six months of project implementation. This may include providing

opportunities for training recipients to gain exposure to best international principles and practices

related to grasslands management.


193. By project close, the project initiated grazing management improvement training program

will be integrated within GDNCNP’s and GDPP’s operations. This will be facilitated by a

comprehensive hand-over plan, including identification and securing of necessary financing. The

project will support the creation of a training manual and resource materials (e.g., videos,

publications, social media, etc.) for the use of protected area staff nationally. The manual and

support materials will fully capture and distill all project effort. This will include incorporation of

best practices and lessons learned from overall project effort. The project developed manual and

resource materials will provide the tools required for GDNCNP and GDPP staff to carry out

similar pastoralist training and grazing management improvements throughout steppe areas

nationally. This innovative approach will ensure that the basic training elements are up-scaled

and replicated nationally, applied to other regions where over-grazing presents a challenge to

long-term conservation of steppe biodiversity.

Component 3: Enabling environment established for the effective conservation of steppe

biodiversity across large landscapes


Output 3.1 Sanliurfa Province steppe conservation strategy and associated enabling

environment improvements implemented

194. The project will support the emplacement and implementation of a model steppe

conservation strategy for Sanliurfa Province. The strategy will serve as a platform to advance

conservation of steppe biodiversity at a large landscape scale. The strategy will:

Generate a conservation gaps analysis and associated maps to help provincial decision-

makers best understand the status, locations and priorities for steppe biodiversity

conservation;

Outline critical actions to be taken to safeguard steppe biodiversity;

Identify and make certain ecological corridors persist between protected areas;

Be informed by and integrate steppe biodiversity monitoring initiatives;

Integrate protected area management planning and implementation improvements;

Reflect integrated land use planning and grazing management enhancements;

Consider social issues related to sustainable livelihoods and gender;

Adopt and support best steppe conservation agricultural production practices;

Identify and help to secure financial support for province wide steppe conservation

improvements;

Serve as a platform for the identification and improvement of provincial policy and

institutional reforms;

Function as a model for strategic and coordinated conservation effort that can be easily

replicated nationally; and,

Catalyze, engage, inform and coordinate the efforts of diverse government, private, civil

society, and academic stakeholders.

195. The project will work with the Governor’s office to establish a steppe conservation

technical working group within the Pasture Commission. This working group will include

representation from government, private, civil society, and academic organizations.

Establishment of the working group will help foster greater coordination and cooperation between

diverse government agencies and stakeholders. Representative groups will likely include:

MFAL, MFWA, GAP, GDNCNP, Harran University, Chamber of Agriculture, and to be

identified biodiversity conservation, research and civil society institutions.


196. The working group will be tasked with supporting the design and implementation of the

provincial steppe conservation strategy. This will help to catalyze a province wide discussion and

learning regarding how best to conserve and rehabilitate remaining steppe lands, both inside and

beyond protected area boundaries. The project will help by providing the technical and financial

resources required to commence this initiative. During the project implementation period, the

working group will benefit from quarterly updates regarding the status of project supported

activities. This will help to insure that a wide-base of stakeholders are benefitting from and aware

of project progress. The strategy will be an organic document, benefitting from annual review and

updating based upon on-going monitoring and assessment activities. The strategy will benefit

from and be informed by project activities implemented through Components 1 and 2. As these

and other steppe conservation activities progress and grow in sophistications, so too should the

strategy. The strategy will also identify alternative income generation activities to sustain

livelihoods and mechanisms to support conservation of valuable steppe ecosystems. These model

concepts will be used as a basis to gather support at national level and from donor organizations.

197. By project close, the provincial steppe conservation strategy should be fully operational.

The strategy should be working to help orientate provincial development, including agricultural

and urban expansion, to minimize damage and support rehabilitation of remaining steppe habitats.

Strategy implementation and further revision will enjoy full financial and technical support from

the Government of Turkey. The strategy should be delivering tangible improvements to the way

resources are used and allocated within the province to help secure the ecological integrity of

steppe systems. The strategy should enjoy the full support of the Governor’s office and associated

government agencies. These agencies should be mainstreaming the strategy’s objectives within

their operational budgets, human resource plans and associated policies and strategies. This will

include the Sanliurfa Province annual strategic action plans adopted by the Governor’s office,

Pastureland Commission grazing management plan, and GAP strategic investment plans. The

conservation strategy should be informing development and agricultural initiatives. This will

include helping to identify improvements to current financial incentives provided to agricultural

and development interests, helping to re-orient these activities towards more steppe friendly

approaches.

Output 3.2 National steppe conservation strategy and associated enabling environment

improvements established

198. The project will support the emplacement and implementation of a model national steppe

conservation strategy. The national strategy will mirror and synchronize with the model

provincial strategy. The national strategy will serve as a platform to advance conservation of

steppe biodiversity at a large landscape scale. The strategy will:

Generate a conservation gaps analysis and associated maps to help national decision-

makers best understand the status, locations and priorities for steppe biodiversity

conservation, including protected area expansion;

Outline critical actions to be taken to safeguard steppe biodiversity;

Identify and make certain ecological corridors persist between protected areas;

Be informed by and integrate steppe biodiversity monitoring initiatives;

Integrate protected area management planning and implementation improvements;

Reflect integrated land use planning and grazing management enhancements;

Consider social issues related to sustainable livelihoods and gender;

Adopt and support best steppe conservation agricultural production practices;

Identify and help to secure financial support for province wide steppe conservation

improvements;

Serve as a platform for the identification and improvement of national policy and

institutional reforms;


Function as a model for strategic and coordinated conservation effort that can be easily

replicated nationally; and,

Catalyze, engage, inform and coordinate the efforts of diverse government, private, civil

society, and academic stakeholders.

199. The project will work with both MFAL and MFWA to establish a steppe conservation

working group. This working group will include representation from a government, private, civil

society, and academic organizations. Establishment of the working group will help foster greater

coordination and cooperation between diverse government agencies and stakeholders.

Representative government institutions will include the respective sub-agencies of the Ministry of

Food, Agriculture, and Livestock; Ministry Forest and Water Affairs; Ministry of Environment

and Urbanization; and Ministry of Culture and Tourism. Appropriate civil society and academic

representatives will be identified during project implementation.

200. The working group will be tasked with supporting the design and implementation of the

provincial steppe conservation strategy. This will help to catalyze a province wide discussion and

learning regarding how best to conserve and rehabilitate remaining steppe lands, both inside and

beyond protected area boundaries. The project will help by providing the technical and financial

resources required to kick-start this imitative. During the project implementation period, the

working group will benefit from annual updates regarding the status of project supported

activities. This will help to insure that a wide-base of stakeholders are benefitting from and aware

of project progress.

201. The national strategy will be designed to fully integrate with and inform national policies

and programs. This will include mainstreaming main objectives and programs within institutional

structures, human resource allocations, and financing for government agencies responsible for

steppe conservation, agricultural management/development, and protected areas.

202. By project close, the provincial steppe conservation strategy should be fully operational.

The strategy should be delivering tangible improvements to the way resources are used and

allocated within the province to help secure the ecological integrity of steppe systems. The

strategy will be an organic document, benefitting from annual review and updating based upon

on-going monitoring and assessment activities. As these activities progress and grow in

sophistications, so too should the strategy. The strategy should enjoy the full support of the

Governor’s office and associated government agencies. These agencies should be mainstreaming

the strategy’s objectives within their operational budgets, human resource plans and associated

policies and strategies. The strategy will be absorbed and reflected within the DNCNP National

Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan and National MFWA Annual Strategic Performance

Documents (reviews).The conservation strategy should be informing development and

agricultural initiatives. This will include helping to identify improvements to current financial

incentives provided to agricultural and development interests, helping to re-orient these activities

towards more steppe friendly approaches.

Output 3.3 National steppe conservation training and awareness program for decision-makers and

resource managers

203. National level decision-makers and resource managers do not currently benefit from

consistent training opportunities designed to build capacities related to steppe conservation. To

help address this challenge, the project will organize an annual steppe conservation seminar.

204. The project will design and initiate a steppe conservation and management training program

for agriculture extension officers. There are currently 50,000 agricultural extension officers

within the MFAL and 750 forest extension officers within the MFWA. Project results and on-


going activities will be used to design a training and awareness program for these staff. The

training program will be designed to empower and incentivize extension officers to apply their

knowledge of available steppe conservation tools and deliver this knowledge to local decision-

makers and resources users. The project will take an innovative approach to increase awareness.

Rather than bringing staff to centralized locations for training, the project will generate a suite of

training materials. These materials will be distributed to extension officers electronically. Both

the MFAL and MFWA have email services to all extension staff. These email services will be

used to supply training materials to extension officers. This will be linked to requirements for

extension officers to response electronically using survey tools, (e.g., Survey Monkey) to respond

to questions regarding the provided awareness materials. In this way, extension managers will be

able to evaluate the effectiveness and absorption rate of supplied awareness materials.

205. Each of Turkey’s 81 provinces has a Pastureland Commission responsible for setting

conditions of pastureland management. As part of the awareness building activity, the project will

support the generation of model steppe conservation recommendations and instructions to be

officially approved by the MFAL. These recommendations will be integrated within the MFAL

instructions to provincial level Pastureland Commissions. This will insure that Pastureland

Commissions nationally benefit from project results and lessons learned. Individual Pastureland

Commissions may adopt these MFAL recommendations.

206. The two-day annual workshop will initially be organized and lead by project staff with

support from relevant protected area staff, government agencies, civil society organizations,

academics and private stakeholders. By project close, the annual workshop will be fully

organized, financed, and lead by MFWA using Government of Turkey financing. During project

implementation, the annual national steppe conservation workshop will be held in Sanliurfa. This

will provide an opportunity for national level stakeholders to learn and see first hand the results of

on-going project implementation. The workshops will serve as benchmarks to measure

achievement of required project outputs and outcomes. The briefings will also provide an

opportunity for relevant stakeholders to comment on the technical aspects of project activity. The

training program may be accompanied by opportunities for key staff from both ministries and

local government institutions of the project to visit international locations facing similar

challenges related to steppe conservation. This will be used to expose Turkish professionals for

gaining knowledge and experience regarding potential models of success for replication. Project

staff will also support integration of and exposure to any approaches and best practices in steppe

management, sustainable grazing and nature conservation at national level. Participants will be

tasked with presenting findings from this international exchange during the annual national steppe

conservation workshop. Resource materials generated for the workshops will serve as a

mechanism to capture and disseminate lessons learned. By project close all resource materials

will have been collated and published to serve as teaching tools for replication and amplification

of project emplaced success. Lessons learned and associated information generated will be

distributed through Government of Turkey websites supported by both MFAL and MFWA and a

website specifically for the project during its early phase in both, Turkish and English.

2.3 Expected Results and Global Benefits

207. The project is will contribute to the achievement of multiple global environmental benefits.

Achievement of these benefits will be indicated by:

Expand the total hectares of steppe ecosystems secured within Turkey’s protected area regime

from 207,000 ha to 277,000 ha inclusive of buffer zones.


Improve the conservation management effectiveness of three steppe protected areas covering

110,000 hectares with buffer zones. (25,000 ha TekTek Mountain; 25,000 ha Kızılkıyu, 60,000 ha

Karacadağ)

Enhance the steppe conservation management capacity of 75 protected area staff and 500

extension officers

Assist at least 500 women and men farmers and ranchers to mainstream biodiversity conservation

within their production efforts, shifting 110,000 hectares of currently degraded steppe to greater

ecological functionality and integrity

Mainstream strategic steppe biodiversity conservation within national and provincial policies and

strategies, including the following: GDNCNP National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan,

National MFWA Annual Strategic Performance Documents, and Sanliurfa annual strategic action

plan.

Rigorously monitor and report on the conservation status of at least 110,000 hectares of steppe

lands annually, including support from governmental, non-governmental, and academic

institutions

Increase the free ranging population of goitered gazelle in Turkey from approximately 200 to 300,

with the total steppe habitat utilized by goitered gazelle increasing from approximately 40,000

hectares to 60,000 hectares as an indicator of connectivity within and outside protected area

boundaries

Secure the future of 40 endemic plant species currently under threat from habitat loss and over

exploitation

Expand the total number of hectares effectively conserved wild pistachio habitat from 2,800

hectares to more than 3,500 hectares

Secure connectivity and steppe conservation across Sanliurfa Province with more than 50,000

hectares of steppe ecosystems outside of protected areas conserved through strategic management

planning

Reduce grazing pressure, increase productivity, and improve ecological integrity across 100,000

hectares of currently degraded steppe ecosystems

Shift at least 15,000 hectares of agriculture production towards more steppe friendly use

Enhance the strategic and effective conservation of 8 million hectares of steppe lands across

Turkey through upscaling and replication designed to improve national level management capacity

Increase the total provincial investment/budget by Sanliurfa dedicated specifically to steppe

conservation from approximately US$ 100,000 per annum to US$ 250,000 per annum

Increase the total national investment/budget by the Government of Turkey dedicated specifically

to steppe conservation from approximately US$ 1,250,000 per annum to US$ 2,000,000 per

annum


2.4 Cost effectiveness

208. During project design, several alternative scenarios were considered from the point of view

of cost-effectiveness. These included extensive purchase of hardware and other tactical

equipment, construction of major facilities for administration and agriculture and expensive

international training programs. Stakeholders eventually abandoned these options after carefully

considering conservation priorities relevant to a limited budget. In the end, the highly precise and,

therefore, cost-effective investment rested on a number of principles, each integrated within the

activities and expenditures of this proposed project. The relatively small investment is targeted to

catalyze a substantial course change. The result is a relatively small amount of financing

potentially will leverage the long-term conservation of an immense landscape and associated

global benefits. Paramount was the desire to build the regulatory, management and financial

capacity required for Turkey to independently maintain effective conservation efforts. For

instance, the project’s limited investment will help to create capacity and decision-making

pathways that enable local governments to use revenues to make pro-conservation investments

rather than ill-advised and unsustainable short-term investments. This catalytic effect coupled

with the objective of sustainability makes the GEF investment highly cost-effective.

2.5 Innovativeness

209. The project is designed to apply innovative tools for steppe ecosystem biodiversity

conservation in Turkey’s PA and agriculture land estates. One such innovative tool is a ‘Green

Steppe” scorecard that the project will enable stakeholders to develop and to pilot under this

project as a way to certify, advanced ecosystem-based steppe lands management. In Turkey, as in

many countries, it is innovative to plan strategically to conserve biodiversity in both protected

areas and in the larger productive landscape in which the protected areas exist.

210. The sustainability of a protected area system requires that each protected area site is

effectively governed and managed according to its specific demands. Some areas will require a

low level of management activity while others may require a greater management effort to

achieve their conservation objectives. In some instances the most efficient way to improve the

system’s sustainability will be to focus on improved site level management for each protected area

within the system. With the project, site level management approaches and participatory

techniques will be carried out. Landscape-level and ecosystem based participatory conservation

planning. Stakeholders will be supported to generate management that reflects best international

principles and practices. This will support the creation and effective management of new

protected areas that extends the coverage of threatened species in protected area systems and

improves the coverage of their spatial range. The project will build capacity of natural resource

and/or protected areas managers to support and create cooperation and collaboration with related

stakeholders who benefit natural resources. The project will support policies and national strategy

for steppe ecosystems that support protection systems. These innovative approaches will be scaled

up through a paradigm shift of Turkey’s protected areas managers, staff, local people and other

stakeholders.

Section 3 Feasibility

3.1 Environmental Impact Assessment

211. The project and the GEF resources invested are expected to have positive impacts on the

protection of natural resources especial steppe species and habitats and productive landscapes,

improve the integrity of ecosystems, and result in tangible environmental benefits including

biodiversity conservation, sustainable land management, and sustainable development and public

awareness. Based on the project objective, outcomes and outputs no adverse environmental or


social impacts are likely and it conforms to FAO’s pre-approved list of projects excluded from a

detailed environmental assessment (see Appendix 7: Environmental Screening and Environmental

Management Plan).

3.2 Risk Management

3.2.1 Risks and mitigation measures Risk Type Probability Mitigation

Challenging project

coordination High

Close and collaborative cooperation between many institutional

stakeholders (particularly the MFWA and the MFAL) will be essential

for the project to achieve its stated goal and objectives. This is

mitigated through the coordinating structure of the National Project

Implementation Unit and by the already existing collaboration with the

project management team at FAO. As all relevant departments are

represented in the Project Steering Committee, it will be the main task

of this body to mitigate any challenges to project coordination.

Low capacity of local

and national

institutions

Medium

National institutions capacity and technical expertise in MFWA/MFAL

staff at various levels are weak. To mitigate this risk, the National

Project Implementation Unit will support the institutional framework

and technical capacity development at national and local levels, through

a capacity building program and training at central and local levels.

Climate change Low

Climatic changes will require evolving research on the proposed

approaches and new best practices. MFAL and MFWA, with their own

unique research institutions and with the contribution of FAO’s

technical expertise, are in a good position to steer research and adopt

forthcoming results in the field. This will be the responsibility of the

National Project Implementation Unit. On the other hand, climatic

changes can also increase political support for the project.

Low ownership and

lack of sustainability

of new technologies

and techniques

Low

Lack of ownership and subsequent lack of sustainability of new

technologies promoted under the project could cause difficulties in

achieving desired adoption levels. This will be mitigated through the

above mentioned capacity building program and through an awareness

campaign targeted at project beneficiaries. This capacity building

program will involve tools, such as economic models and plans,

economic analysis that clearly show that there is an economic and

social benefit to the adoption of these technologies (win-win). This will

be the responsibility of the project’s Field Office.

Incentives for local

stakeholders are not

adequate to generate

engagement

Medium

The project is designed to engage fully with local stakeholders. This

will make certain that stakeholder desires, including local resource

users both women and men, have the opportunity to help define how

best to conserve steppe resources. A major part of this effort will

involve working directly with pastoralists to assist them to measure

how various steppe conservation activities result in economic benefits.

For instance, the project will provide pastoralists with the technical

support required to measure how improved management of steppe

delivers both enhanced ecosystem services as well as improvements to

livestock production and value. This will serve as a major incentive for

local project support. Both, the National Project Implementation Unit

and the Field Office will be responsible to generate engagement.

Regional political

conflict may stimulate

Medium

Since the PIF was approved, the political conflicts in the region have

escalated. The project’s pilot sites are located in areas relatively far


security measures

limiting

implementation

from current conflict and outside of places of security risk.

FAO/Turkey and Government are certain that the project sites will

continue to be considered safe zones throughout the implementation.

However, this will be monitored by National Project Implementation

Unit during the project period.


3.2.2 Fiduciary risk analysis and mitigation measures (only for NEX projects)


Section 4: Implementation and Management

4.1 Institutional Arrangements

a. General institutional context and responsibilities

212. The project will be provided operational and administrative support by the FAO Sub-

regional Office of Central Asia (SEC) as the operating unit of the project. The budget holder (BH)

of this project is Sub-regional Coordinator at SEC and Representative of Turkey, responsible for

operational and financial management and supervision of the project. The project itself will be

implemented through a National Project Implementation Unit (NPIU) supported by a Field Office.

MFWA and MFAL are the two lead executing partners. The NPIU will consist of MFWA and

MFAL staff but will be placed under MFWA. MFWA will be responsible for the implementation

of Component 1 and MFAL for Component 2, while Component 3 will be jointly implemented. A

Field Office will be established in Sanliurfa to provide linkages with local stakeholders, including

representatives of local staff of relevant agencies, local resource user associations and NGOs. The

MFWA and MFAL will work closely with a wide range of stakeholders, including resource

beneficiaries, farmers and herders, the private sector, universities, research institutions, civil

society organizations, etc. at national, provincial and district level. At the national level, a Project

Steering Committee will be established for the coordination of project activities.

213. The project will be launched by a well-publicized multi-stakeholder inception workshop.

This workshop will provide an opportunity to provide all stakeholders with updated information

on the project, as well as a basis for further consultation during the project’s implementation, and

will refine and confirm the work plan. In addition, certain project activities will be specifically

designed to directly involve stakeholders in project implementation.

b. Coordination with other ongoing and planned related activities

214. The project is designed to specifically respond to the demands of the Government of Turkey

to make certain coordination is facilitated. As discussed in the project framework, the generation

and implementation of steppe conservation strategies at both the national and provincial level will

be used to engage a broad base of stakeholders. One purpose of this effort is to foster improved

coordination. Representatives of on-going projects, including those financed via GEF, will be

invited to participate in associated workshops, seminars, and round-table discussions. This

engagement will help make certain that all parties are well aware of on-going project efforts,

implementation progress, and exchanging opinions and lessons learned. The result will be that all

investments are better coordinated to deliver leveraged impacts.

215. The project will also benefit from existing coordination mechanisms, such as the UNCCD

National Coordination Body, the National Drought Management Unit, etc. and contribute to the

effectiveness of the these mechanisms towards sustainable land management in Turkey. Further

analysis and detailed design of the coordination scheme will be done during project preparation to

make sure that a strong interaction among key stakeholders is facilitated.

216. The proposed GEF project will be implemented in coordination with a number of FAO on-

going and pipeline projects in Turkey consistent with and complementary to the project objectives

and outputs.

c. Coordination with other GEF Financed Initiatives

217. FAO has established a “programmatic” approach towards implementation of GEF projects

in Turkey. This includes having a dedicated set of staff within the FAO/Turkey offices


responsible for providing support for the entire FAO/GEF portfolio. The project implementation

team will work with the FAO/Turkey GEF team to regularly communicate with representatives

responsible for each of Turkey’s GEF financed initiatives. This will include facilitating and

organizing an annual meeting to discuss project progress and exchange information between

relative national GEF financed initiatives.

218. The proposed project will be coordinated with and benefit from the FAO/GEF project on

sustainable land management and climate friendly agriculture in Turkey, which is aiming, among

others, rehabilitation of degraded dry lands including pastures and mainstreaming biodiversity

conservation into production landscapes in Konya Closed Basin. Specifically, (i) preparation of

pilot integrated SLM and biodiversity conservation land use plan,(ii) certification of forest and

rangeland landscapes by internationally recognized environmental standards that incorporate

biodiversity considerations, (iii) establishment of biodiversity monitoring system, and (vi)

quantification of ecosystem services values in pilot areas of KCB, and (v) relevant enabling

environment activities, will be the main outcomes that will be coordinated with proposed project.

219. The project will also be aligned to the results of the FAO GEF project on Alignment of

Turkey's National Action Plan with UNCCD 10-Year Strategy and Reporting Process. Special

attention will be given to mainstreaming biodiversity conservation into land use strategic planning

process and to the monitoring system established for UNCCD reporting.

220. The Project will benefit from the methods for integration of biodiversity conservation into

forest landscape management developed under the ongoing UNDP/GEF project on Integrated

Approach to Management of Forests in Turkey, with demonstration in high conservation value

forests in the Mediterranean region project. This project promoted an integrated approach at the

landscape level to the management of high conservation value forests in the Mediterranean region

to secure, among others, biodiversity mainstreaming.

221. National Basin Management Strategy of Turkey (NBMS) will be the national strategy with

which the present proposal will coordinate. The results and the recommendations of NBMS will

lead the proposed project to identify the participatory measures that would maximize social

economic benefits and build capacity among key stakeholders – including local governments,

communities and private sector as part of the process of building resilience of the rural economy

and ensuring the sustainability of the natural resource base.

222. The Project will also benefit from the ‘Strengthening Protected Area Network of Turkey:

Catalyzing Sustainability of Marine and Coastal Protected Areas’, another GEF funded project,

completed by 2014. Although the project is about marine ecosystems, the general project

framework is very similar and concentrated on improving the effectiveness of the marine

protected areas. Know-how of the Marine Protected Area project will be unique asset for

institutional capacity building, governance issues, developing a collaborative working

environment, during the implementation of the steppe project. And finally, FAO will work closely

with CITES and the IUCN Cat Specialist Group to contribute information generated on the

Anatolian leopard under this project and to benefit from CITES and IUCN expertise in this area.

4.2 Implementation Arrangements

a. Roles and responsibilities of the executing partners

223. The MFWA (General Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Parks - GDNCNP)

and the MFAL (General Directorate of Plant Production - GDPP) will be the two lead executing

partners. At the request of the Government of Turkey, the project will be executed by FAO in

close consultation with MFWA and MFAL and the other project partners. MFWA and MFAL will

carry out their responsibilities to support project execution through the National Project Director


(NPD). National executing partners MFWA and MFAL will designate the NPD in consultation

with the FAO BH and the Lead Technical Officer. The NPD will be a senior staff member of the

MFWA with relevant experiences, and will be able to devote sufficient time to take part in the

project during its implementation. Among the many duties of the NPD, he/she will act as the

responsible focal point at the political and policy level within MFWA and MFAL and he/she will

ensure that all necessary support and inputs from Government personnel are provided by MFWA

and MFAL to enable the project to implement all of the proposed component activities.

224. The administration of the project will be carried out by a Project Management Team under

the overall guidance of the Steering Committee. The Project Management Team will be composed

of a National Project Coordinator, an Operations Officer and Procurement and Financial

Associates. More specifically, the role of the Project Management Team will be to: (i) ensure the

overall project management and monitoring; (ii) facilitate communication and networking among

key stakeholders; (iii) organize the meetings of the PSC and other experts and participants; (iv)

support the local level implementing unit and working groups; and (iiv) reporting and day by day

managing of the project.

225. At the local level, a National Project Implementation Unit (NPIU) will be established with

MFWA and MFAL staff. The MFWA will host the NPIU and provide technical and logistical

support on a need basis for the overall project activities. The project will be executed by the

provincial directorates of the MFWA and the MFAL at the field level. The executing partners will

work closely with a wide range of stakeholders, including village cooperatives, village leaders,

private farmers, shepherds, the private sector, universities, research institutions, civil society

organizations, local communities and residents.

226. The Şanlıurfa Division Directorate of the Şanlıurfa Regional Directorate of MFWA will

host a Field Office for the coordination of local project activities. The Şanlıurfa Province

Directorate of Food, Agriculture and Livestock under MFAL will be the partner unit for

implementation of project activities at field level. Both MFWA Division Directorate and the

MFAL Province Directorate will work in close-cooperation to implement field level activities.

227. At the Regional Level, the Şanlıurfa Regional Directorate of MFWA will be the bridge

institution among executive and field level organization bodies.

228. Other partners supporting the execution will work closely with the MFWA and MFAL

through their nominated technical focal points at the national, provincial and local level.

Collaboration partners for the project will include: Provincial Governorates, several districts and

resource-users organizations at pilot sites. The project is designed to achieve many of its key

outputs by means of Letters of Agreement (LoA) with key partners. These LoA are listed under

the “Contracts” Budget Line of the project budget. Further details on results-based LoA including

terms of references, work plans and budget tables will be developed during inception phase of the

project. Specific LoAs will be elaborated and signed between FAO and the respective

collaborating partner through competitive process to the extent possible. This will include inter

alia, civil society organizations as appropriate. Funds received under a LoA will be used to

execute the project activities in conformity with FAO’s rules and procedures.

b. FAO’s role and responsibilities, as the GEF Agency (and as an executing agency, when

applicable), including delineation of responsibilities within FAO

229. FAO will be the GEF implementing and executing agency. As the GEF Agency, FAO will

be responsible for project oversight to ensure that GEF policies and criteria are adhered to, and

that the project efficiently and effectively meets its objectives and achieves expected outcomes

and outputs as established in the project document. FAO will report on project progress to the

GEF Secretariat and financial reporting will be to the GEF Trustee. FAO will closely supervise


the project by drawing upon its capacity at the global, regional and national levels, through the

concerned units at FAO-HQ, the Sub-Regional Office and the FAO Representation in Ankara.

There is a complete separation between the GEF oversight responsibilities and project execution

roles and responsibilities, as described below.

230. Executing Responsibilities (Budget Holder): Under FAO’s Direct Execution modality, the

FAO Representative in Turkey will be the Budget Holder (BH) of this project. The BH, provided

with the technical assistance of the Lead Technical Officer (LTO), will be responsible for timely

operational, administrative and financial management of the project. The BH will head the

multidisciplinary Project Task Force that will be established to support the implementation of the

project and will ensure that technical support and project inputs are provided in a timely manner.

The BH will be responsible for financial reporting, procurement of goods and contracting of

services for project activities in accordance with FAO rules and procedures. Final approval of the

use of GEF resources rests with the BH, also in accordance with FAO rules and procedures.

231. Specifically, working in close collaboration with the LTO, the BH will: (i) clear and

monitor annual work plans and budgets; (ii) schedule technical backstopping and monitoring

missions; (iii) authorize the disbursement of the project’s GEF resources; (iv) give final approval

of procurement, project staff recruitment, LoAs, and financial transactions in accordance with

FAO’s clearance/approval procedures; (v) review procurement and subcontracting material and

documentation of processes and obtain internal approvals; (vi) be responsible for the management

of project resources and all aspects in the agreements between FAO and the various executing

partners; (vii) provide operational oversight of activities to be carried out by project partners;

(viii) monitor all areas of work and suggest corrective measures as required; (ix) submit to the

GEF Coordination Unit, the TCID Budget Group and the LTO semi-annual financial reports on

the use of the GEF resources (due 31 July and 31 January). These reports will show the amount

budgeted for the year, amount expended since the beginning of the year, including un-liquidated

obligations (commitments), and details of project expenditures on an output-by-output basis,

reported in line with project budget lines as set out in the project budget included in the Project

Document; (x) be accountable for safeguarding resources from inappropriate use, loss, or damage;

(xi) be responsible for addressing recommendations from oversight offices, such as Audit and

Evaluation; and (xii) establish a multi-disciplinary FAO Project Task Force to support the project.

232. The FAO overall technical support through HQ. The Forest Assessment Management and

Conservation Division (FOM) of FAO’s Forestry Division will be the HQ Technical Unit for this

project and will provide overall technical guidance to its implementation. FOM will delegate the

responsibility for direct technical supervision to the SEC Office in Ankara.

233. FAO Lead Technical Officer (LTO). The Senior Forestry Officer in the SEC Office will be

the LTO for the project. Under the general technical oversight of FOM, the LTO will provide

technical guidance to the project team to ensure delivery of quality technical outputs. The LTO

will coordinate the provision of appropriate technical backstopping from all the concerned FAO

units represented in the Project Task Force. The Project Task Force is thus composed of technical

officers from the participating units (see below), operations officers, the Investment Centre

Division/GEF Coordination Unit and is chaired by the BH. The primary areas of LTO support to

the project include:

(i) review and ensure clearance by the relevant FAO technical officers of all the technical

Terms of Reference (TOR) of the project team and consultants;

(ii) preparation of terms of reference of the LoAs and contracts;

(iii) lead the selection of technical project staff, consultants and other institutions to be

contracted or with whom an LoA will be signed in consultation with MoE;

(iv) review and clear technically reports, publications, papers, training material, manuals,

etc.;


(v) guide and monitor technical implementation as established in the project RF;

(vi) review and finalize the Project Progress Reports (PPRs) and the annual Project

Implementation Review (PIR).

234. A multidisciplinary Project Task Force will be established by the Budget Holder and

comprised of technical units in the Country Office and FAO Headquarters, the Subregional office

for Central Asia (SEC), and the GEF Coordination Unit. Participating units from across FAO will

be involved in supporting the project’s work and in ensuring that the project stays on track to

achieve its overall objectives and indicators of success. When appropriate, these units within SEC

and HQ will provide technical support in areas such as: forest and sustainable land management,

climate smart agriculture, gender, climate change vulnerability assessment and adaptation. The

Asia and Pacific Service (TCIB) of the FAO Investment Centre Division will provide adaptive

management support and results-based management oversight and guidance to the LTO and the

participating units.

235. Oversight: The FAO GEF Coordination Unit (funding liaison unit) in Investment Centre

Division will provide donor coordination and accordingly review and approve PPRs, annual PIRs

and results-based financial reports and budget revisions. The GEF Coordination Unit will organize

annual independent supervision missions, in consultation with the concerned HQ Technical Unit,

LTO, the BH and TCIB. The PIRs will be included in the FAO GEF Annual Monitoring Review

submitted to GEF by the GEF Coordination Unit. The GEF Coordination Unit will work closely

with the FAO Evaluation Office (OEDD) to ensure that the project’s mid-term review and final

evaluations meet GEF requirements by reviewing evaluation ToRs and draft evaluation reports.

Should the PIRs or mid-term review highlight risks affecting the timely and effective

implementation of the project, the GEF Coordination Unit will work closely with the BH and

LTO to make the needed adjustments in the project’s implementation strategy.

236. The Investment Centre Division Budget Group (TCID) will provide final clearance of any

budget revisions.

237. The FAO Finance Division will provide annual Financial Reports to the GEF Trustee and,

in collaboration with the GEF Coordination Unit and the TCID Budget Group, call for project

funds on a six-monthly basis from the GEF Trustee.

c. Project technical, coordination and steering committees

Steering Committee

238. A Project Steering Committee (PSC) will be established and co-chaired by MFWA and

MFAL. A deputy general director from relevant general directorates will be members of the PSC

(see the table below) with the participation of the FAO representative and observers from NGOs

and the Private Sector when needed.

239. The Committee will be led by MFWA with other participants from key organizations such

as MFAL, the Ministry of Development, relevant universities, NGOs and other key organizations.

Chair of the steering committee will be from MoFWA level of Undersecretary and co- chair will

be from MoFAL.

240. The PSC will meet at least two times per year and its specific responsibilities will be: (i)

overall oversight of project progress and achievement of planned results as presented in six-

monthly Project Progress Reports; (ii) take decisions in the course of the practical organization,

coordination and implementation of the project; (iii) facilitate cooperation between NPIU/MFWA

and project participating partners and project support at the local level; (iv) advise the NPIU on

other on-going and planned activities facilitating collaboration between the Project and other


programs, projects and initiatives in Turkey; (v) facilitate that co-financing support is provided in

a timely and effective manner; and (vi) review six-monthly Project Progress and Financial Reports

and approve AWP/B.

PSC Member Organization

Organization Representative to PSC

Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs (MFWA) Deputy Undersecretary- Chairman

Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock (MFAL) Deputy Undersecretary- Co-chair

Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs (MFWA) General Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Parks

- General Director and/or Deputy General Director

- National Park Department Director

- Wildlife Department Director

- Sensitive Areas Department Director

Şanlıurfa Regional Director

EU and Foreign Relations Department

General Directorate of Forestry

General Directorate of Combating Desertification and Erosion

Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock (MFAL) General Directorate of Plant Production

General Directorate of Agricultural Research and Policies

(TAGEM), TIGEM

Şanlıurfa Province Director

Şanlıurfa Governorship One representative from Governorship

FAO One representative from FAO

National Project Implementation Unit and Field Office

241. The National Project Implementation Unit (NPIU), which is composed of staff from

MFWA and MFAL, and hosted by the General Directorate of Nature Conservation and National

Parks (GDNCNP) under MFWA in Ankara as a central office from where the project will be

implemented and coordinated. It will be responsible for day-to-day project operations. GDNCNP

and GDPP from MFAL will be beneficiaries and responsible for carrying out all project activities

together. The office will be equipped with adequate computer facilities to enable project

implementation. The NPIU will coordinate its activities with the Field Office in Sanliurfa and

other relevant stakeholders to ensure effective co-ordination. Both, the NPIU and the Field Office

shall be established and operationalized within the first two months of the project.

242. A full-time National Project Director shall be assigned by GDNCNP to head the NPIU and

a Deputy Director shall be assigned by GDPP. The National Project Director will be responsible

to coordinate MFWA and MFAL activities related to the project, support the reporting progress

among project partners and work closely with the National Project Coordinator and the Project

Management Team at FAO.

243. The role of the NPIU will be, in close consultation with the PSC and Independent Expert

Group (IEG) members (see below), to ensure the coordination and execution of the Project

through the timely and efficient implementation of annual work plans. It will coordinate work and

follow closely the implementation of project activities, coordinate project interventions with other

on-going activities and ensure a high degree of provincial and local inter-institutional

collaboration.

244. The Field Office in Sanliurfa shall consist of a Field-based Implementation Specialist

funded by the project and staff from the Şanlıurfa Division Directorate of MFWA and the


Provincial Directorate of Food, Agriculture and Livestock. Staff of the Field Office will take

necessary actions within their areas of responsibility, under the guidance of the NPIU and the

Project Management Team. The Field Office will also be instrumental in consulting and working

with local stakeholders on specific issues in the project areas. Staff of the Field Office shall

continuously work together, while including local stakeholders for periodical meetings to review

and evaluate collaborative management and to exchange information. The Field Office, on request

of the committees or for its own purposes, can invite any expert or authority member to participate

in the meetings. The Field Office will be responsible for coordination with relevant local

government institutions and stakeholders at field level and report to the NPIU. Field Office will be

equipped with adequate computer facilities and other field equipment.

245. The NPIU will consist of the following staff based on co-financing contributions: (i) a full-

time National Project Director (funded by MFWA) in charge of overall coordination and

supervision of the NPIU and coordination with other sector departments; (ii) a full-time Deputy

Director (funded by MFAL) to support coordination and supervision of the project and

coordination with other sector departments; (iii) two full-time Technical Officers (funded by

MFWA); (iv) a full-time Technical Officer (funded by MFAL), (v) five part-time Technical

Officers (funded by MFWA); and (vi) three part-time Technical Officers (funded by MFAL)

managing project information and documentation, and distribution of project reports, newsletters

and training materials to relevant stakeholders; conducting regular field visits to project sites, and

assisting the National Project Coordinator (see below) in preparing necessary reports. MFWA will

also provide office space, equipment and utilities and part of travel as co-financing contribution to

project implementation.

Project Management Team

246. To further strengthen the NPIU the GEF resources will finance (i) a full-time National

Technical Coordinator (NTC) at FAO in charge of technical supervision including, preparing

“Annual Work Plan and Budget (AWP/B)” and allocating tasks to the Field Office, preparing

TORs and technical requirements for consultancy services, contracting documents and material,

and equipment procurement documents, providing technical supervision and guidance to the Field

Office in implementing project activities, conducting regular field supervision visits and provide

on-site guidance to technical staff, day-to-day coordination and communication with the Field

Office staff, and preparing the Project Progress Reports, monitor project progress and ensure the

timely delivery of inputs and outputs; (ii) an Operations Officer (based in the FAO SEC Office) in

charge of providing support for day-to-day activities in project implementation; and (iii)

Procurement and Financial Associates (based in the FAO SEC Office) in charge of preparing

detailed budgets for payment requests based on the AWP/B and project account cash balance,

keeping the financial records and regular review of the project account, reviewing the receipts and

financial reports submitted by field office and sub-contractors and preparing six-monthly financial

statement of expenditures, preparing the personnel and services contracting and procurement

documents and participate in contracting and procurement processes including of submission of

documentation to FAO for ex-antes clearances, and preparing relevant documents for internal and

external financial audits. The Project Management Team at FAO will support the NPIU in Ankara

and the Field Office in Sanliurfa. It will organize workshops and annual meetings in order to

monitor the project progress and develop work plans with detailed budget for the next year to be

approved by the PSC. It will be responsible for implementing the project’s M&E plan, managing

its monitoring system and communication programme, the elaboration of six-monthly Project

Progress and Financial reports and assist in the preparation of the annual Project Implementation

Review (PIR) and midterm and final evaluations. The Project Progress Reports on implemented

activities and progress in achieving project outputs and outcomes, and financial statements of

expenditures and status for the previous year will be submitted together with the Annual Work

Plan and detailed Budget (AWP/B) to the PSC and FAO via the NTC for finalization by LTO and


clearance of BH. The Project Management Team will work closely with all project partners and

other stakeholders.

Local Stakeholder Board

247. The Local Stakeholder Board will: (i) provide advice on relevant policies, actions and

measures in particular related to participation of local communities in the pilot sites; (ii) provide

new ideas and thinking on conflict resolution over management of natural resources, options for

sustainable use, and creative initiatives on how to increase public awareness of socio-economic

and global environmental benefits generated by sustainable management of steppe ecosystems;

and (iii) promote communication between the government agencies and local communities and

the private sector. The composition of the Local Stakeholder Board will include representatives

from local farming and herding communities, municipalities, universities, NGOs involved in

pasture management and conservation, and other key stakeholders at national level. The Local

Stakeholder Board will meet back-to-back with the PSC to provide consolidated advice on

stakeholder participation and engagement.

Independent Expert Group

248. An Independent Expert Group (IEG) will be established to provide technical advice on

specific project components and outputs and may among others be composed of MFWA and

MFAL technical staff representing all departments participating in the Project, technical staff from

other sector departments of the project area involved in the management and/or use of the land

and forest resources at the pilot sites, Sanliurfa and other research institutions, and FAO. The

main tasks of the IEG will be to provide technical advice to the PSC, backstop the NPIU on

request, advise the NPIU on other on-going and planned activities and facilitate collaboration

between the Project and other programs, projects, and initiatives of sector agencies and research

institutions. The IEG may also be involved in technical evaluation of project progress and outputs,

and identification of possible solutions and/or changes in project activities when technical issues

arise in the course of project implementation.


d. Organizational chart

Project Steering Committee

National Project Implementation Unit

(GDNCNP Ankara)

• GDNCNP

- National Project Director

- 2 full-time staff

- 5 part-time staff

• GDPP

- Deputy-Director

- 1 full-time staff

- 3 part-time staff

Field Office

(Şanlıurfa Division Directorate of MFWA)

Field-based Implementation

Specialist

Şanlıurfa Division Directorate of

MFWA

Provincial Directorate of Food,

Agriculture and Livestock

Local

Stakeholder

Board

Independent

Expert

Group

Project Management Team

(FAO)

- National Project Coordinator

- Technical Experts

- FAO GEF Unit


4.3 Financial Planning and Management

4.3.1 Financial plan (by component and co-financier)

Component MFWA MFAL FAO Total Co-

financing

% Co-

financing GEF

%

GEF Total

Component 1: Effectiveness of

protected area system to conserve

steppe biodiversity increased

1,803,000 900,000 150,000 2,853,000 81 688,500 19 3,541,500

Component 2: Steppe biodiversity

conservation mainstreamed into

production landscapes

1,923,200 960,000 160,000 3,043,200 80 744,500 20 3,793,700

Component 3: Enabling

environment established for the

effective conservation of steppe

biodiversity across large landscapes

1,983,300 990,000 165,000 3,138,300 80 784,967 20 3,917,267

Project Management

300,500 150,000 25,000 475,500 81 110,800 19 586,300

Total Project 6,010,000 3,000,000 500,000 9,510,000 80 2,328,767 20 11,838,767

Project Document: Conservation and Sustainable Management of Turkey’s Steppelands Page 68

Sources of Co-financing for baseline project Name of Co-financier Type of Co-financing Amount ($)

National Government The Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs

(MFWA) In-kind 2,700,000

National Government MFWA Grant 3,310,000

National Government The Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock

(MFAL) In-kind 1,200,000

National Government MFAL Grant 1,800,000

GEF Agency FAO In-kind 150,000

GEF Agency FAO Grant 350,000

Total Co-financing 9,510,000

GEF Agency Type of Trust

Funds Focal Area

Country Name/

Global

(in $)

Project

amount (a) Agency Fee (b) Total c=a+b

FAO GEF TF BD Turkey 2,328,767 221,233 2,550,000

Total GEF Resources (excluding project preparation) 2,328,767 221,233 2,550,000


4.3.2 GEF/LDCF/SCCF inputs

249. The GEF funds will finance inputs needed to generate the outputs and outcomes under the

Project. These include: (i) local and international consultants for technical support and Project

management; (ii) support to designing and piloting SLM/SFM activities; (iii) support to direct

monitoring and conservation activities; (vi) LoA/contracts with technical institutions and service

providers supporting the delivery of specific Project activities on the ground; (v) international

flights and local transport and minor office equipment; and (vi) training and awareness raising

material.

4.3.3 Government inputs

250. Government in-kind co-financing will mainly consist in staff time, office space and utilities,

and support for local travel.

4.3.4 FAO inputs

251. FAO co-financing will be used to support technical assistance. FAO will provide the

following co-financing: US$ 350,000 cash and US$ 150,000 in-kind.

4.3.5 Other co-financiers inputs

252. Private enterprises, and particularly farmers and ranchers, participating in the co-

management models will contribute with parallel financing in terms of their time and experience.

They will also provide inputs by supporting much of the financial risk associated with shifting

from land degrading to SLM supportive practices.

4.4 Financial Management and Reporting

253. Financial Records: FAO shall maintain a separate account in United States dollars for the

Project’s GEF resources showing all income and expenditures. Expenditures incurred in a

currency other than United States dollars shall be converted into United States dollars at the

United Nations operational rate of exchange on the date of the transaction. FAO shall administer

the Project in accordance with its regulations, rules and directives.

254. Financial Reports: The BH shall prepare six-monthly project expenditure accounts and

final accounts for the project, showing amount budgeted for the year, amount expended since the

beginning of the year, and separately, the un-liquidated obligations as follows:

Details of project expenditures on a component-by-component and output-by-output basis,

reported in line with project budget codes as set out in the Project document, as at 30 June and

31 December each year.

Final accounts on completion of the Project on a component-by-component and output-by-

output basis, reported in line with project budget codes as set out in the Project document.

A final statement of account in line with FAO Oracle Project budget codes, reflecting actual

final expenditures under the Project, when all obligations have been liquidated.

255. The BH will submit the above financial reports for review and monitoring by the LTO and

the FAO GCU. Financial reports for submission to the donor (GEF) will be prepared in


accordance with the provisions in the GEF Financial Procedures Agreement and submitted by the

FAO Finance Division.

256. Budget Revisions: Semi-annual budget revisions will be prepared by the BH in accordance

with FAO standard guidelines and procedures.

257. Responsibility for Cost Overruns: The BH is authorized to enter into commitments or incur

expenditures up to a maximum of 20 percent over the annual amount foreseen in the Project

budget under any budget sub-line provided that the total annual budget is not exceeded.

258. Any cost overrun (expenditure in excess of the budgeted amount) on a specific budget sub-

line over the 20 percent flexibility should be discussed with the GCU/TCIB with a view to

ascertaining whether it will involve a major change in Project scope or design. If it is deemed to

be a minor change, the BH shall prepare a budget revision in accordance with FAO standard

procedures. If it involves a major change in the Project’s objectives or scope, a budget revision

and justification should be prepared by the BH for discussion with the GEF Secretariat.

259. Savings in one budget sub-line may not be applied to overruns of more than 20 percent in

other sub-lines even if the total cost remains unchanged, unless this is specifically authorized by

the GCU upon presentation of the request. In such a case, the BH will prepare revisions to the

Project document.

260. Under no circumstances can expenditures exceed the approved total Project budget or be

approved beyond the NTE date of the project. Any over-expenditure is the responsibility of the

BH.

261. Audit: The Project shall be subject to the internal and external auditing procedures provided

for in FAO financial regulations, rules and directives and in keeping with the Financial

Procedures Agreement between the GEF Trustee and FAO. The audit regime at FAO consists of

an external audit provided by the Auditor-General (or persons exercising an equivalent function)

of a member nation appointed by the Governing Bodies of the Organization and reporting directly

to them, and an internal audit function headed by the FAO Inspector-General who reports directly

to the Director-General. This function operates as an integral part of the Organization under

policies established by senior management, and furthermore has a reporting line to the governing

bodies. Both functions are required under the Basic Texts of FAO that establish a framework for

the terms of reference of each. Internal audits of accounts, records, bank reconciliation and asset

verification take place at FAO field and liaison offices on a cyclical basis.

4.5 Procurement

262. Careful procurement planning is necessary for securing goods, services and works in a

timely manner, on a “Best Value for Money” basis, and in accordance with the Rules and

Regulations of FAO. It requires analysis of needs and constraints, including forecast of the

reasonable timeframe required to execute the procurement process. Procurement and delivery of

inputs in technical cooperation projects follow FAO’s rules and regulations for the procurement of

supplies, equipment and services (i.e. Manual Sections 502 and 507). Manual Section 502:

“Procurement of Goods, Works and Services” establishes the principles and procedures that apply

to procurement of all goods, works and services on behalf of the Organization, in all offices and in

all locations, with the exception of the procurement actions described in Appendix A –

Procurement Not Governed by Manual Section 502. Manual Section 507 establishes the principles

and rules that govern the use of Letters of Agreement (LoA) by FAO for the timely acquisition of

services from eligible entities in a transparent and impartial manner, taking into consideration

economy and efficiency to achieve an optimum combination of expected whole life costs and

benefits (“Best Value for Money”).


263. As per the guidance in FAO’s Project Cycle Guide, the BH will draw up an annual

procurement plan for major items which will be the basis of requests for procurement actions

during implementation. The plan will include descriptions and specifications of the goods, works,

or services to be procured, estimated budget and source of funding, schedule of procurement

activities and proposed method of procurement. In situations where exact information is not yet

available, the procurement plan should at least contain reasonable projections that will be

corrected as information becomes available.

4.6 Monitoring and Evaluation

4.6.1 Oversight and monitoring responsibilities

264. Monitoring and evaluation of progress in achieving project results and objectives will be

done based on the targets and indicators established in the Project Results Framework.

Monitoring and evaluation activities will follow FAO and GEF monitoring and evaluation policies

and guidelines. The project Monitoring and Evaluation Plan has been budgeted at US$184,500.

265. At the initiation of implementation of the GEF Project, the NPIU will set up a project

progress monitoring system. Participatory mechanisms and methodologies for systematic data

collection and recording will be developed in support of outcome and output indicator monitoring

and evaluation. During the inception workshop M&E related tasks to be addressed will include:

(i) presentation and clarification (if needed) of the project’s Results framework with all project

stakeholders; (ii) review of the M&E indicators and their baseline; (iii) drafting the required

clauses to include in consultants’ contracts to ensure they complete their M&E reporting functions

(if relevant); and (iv) clarification of the respective M&E tasks among the Project’s different

stakeholders. One of the main outputs of the workshop will be a detailed monitoring plan agreed

to by all stakeholders based on the monitoring and evaluation plan summary.

266. The day-to-day monitoring of the Project implementation will be the responsibility of the

Project Management Team driven by the preparation and implementation of an AWP/B followed

up through six-monthly PPRs and in close collaboration with the NPIU. The preparation of the

AWP/B and six-monthly PPRs will represent the product of a unified planning process between

main project partners. As tools for results-based-management (RBM), the AWP/B will identify

the actions proposed for the coming project year and provide the necessary details on output

targets to be achieved, and the PPRs will report on the monitoring of the implementation of

actions and the achievement of output targets. NR-specific inputs to the AWP/B and the PPRs will

be prepared based on participatory planning and progress review with local stakeholders and

coordinated through the Project Management Team and facilitated through project planning and

progress review workshops. An annual project progress review and planning meeting should be

held. Subsequently the AWP/B and PPRs are submitted to the PSC for approval (AWP/B) and

Review (PPRs) and to FAO for approval. The AWP/B will be developed in a manner consistent

with the project’s Results Framework to ensure adequate fulfillment and monitoring of project

outputs and outcomes.

267. Following the approval of the Project, the project’s first year AWP/B will be adjusted

(either reduced or expanded in time) to synchronize it with an annual reporting calendar. In

subsequent years, the FSP work plan and budget will follow an annual preparation and reporting

cycle.

4.6.2 Indicators and information sources


268. To monitor project outputs and outcomes including contributions to global environmental

benefits specific indicators have been established in the Results Framework. The framework’s

indicators and means of verification will be applied to monitor both project performance and

impact. Following FAO’s logical framework monitoring tool via Field Program Management

Information Systems (FPMIS)and progress reporting formats data collected will be of sufficient

detail to be able to track specific outputs and outcomes and flag project risks early on. Output

target indicators will be monitored on a six-monthly basis and outcome target indicators will be

monitored on an annual basis if possible or as part of the mid-term and final evaluations. The

project output and outcome indicators have been designed to monitor on-the-ground impacts and

progress in building and consolidating capacities.

269. The main sources of information to support the M&E program will be: (i) participative

progress monitoring and workshops with beneficiaries; (ii) on-site monitoring of implementation;

(iii) project progress reports prepared by the Project Management Team; (iv) consultants reports;

(v) participants training tests and evaluations; (vi) mid-term and final evaluations completed by

independent consultants; (vii) financial reports and budget revisions; (viii) Project Implementation

Reviews prepared by the LTO supported by the Project Management Team; (viii) FAO

supervision mission reports; and (ix) post project impact and evaluation studies.

4.6.3 Reports and their schedule

270. Reporting: Specific reports that will be prepared under the M&E program are: (i) Project

inception report; (ii) project implementation strategy; (iii) Annual Work Plan and Budget

(AWP/B); (iv) Project Progress Reports (PPRs); (v) annual Project Implementation Review (PIR);

(vi) Technical Reports; (vii) co-financing Reports; and (viii) Terminal Report. In addition,

assessment of the GEF Monitoring Evaluation Tracking Tools (METTs) against the baseline

(completed during project preparation) will be required at midterm and final project evaluation.

271. Project Inception Report: After FAO approval of the project an inception workshop will be

held. Immediately after the workshop, the Project Management Team will prepare a project

inception report in consultation with the LTO and other project partners. The report will include a

narrative on the institutional roles and responsibilities and coordinating action of project partners,

progress to date on project establishment and start-up activities and an update of any changed

external conditions that may affect project implementation. It will also include a detailed first year

AWP/B, a detailed project monitoring plan based on the monitoring and evaluation plan summery

presented in section 4.6.4 below, and a progress and completion report on all actions agreed in the

mitigation plan of fiduciary risks (as referred to in section 3.2.2). The draft inception report will

be circulated to FAO and the PSC for review and comments before its finalization, no later than

three months after project start-up. The report should be cleared by the BH, LTO, and the FAO

GEF Coordination Unit and uploaded in FPMIS by the responsible project assistant.

272. Project Implementation Workplan: For the inception workshop, the project will be tasked

with generating a strategic workplan. The workplan will outline the general timeframe for

completion of key project outputs and achievement of outcomes. The workplan will map and help

guide project activity from inception to completion. To ensure smooth transition between project

design and inception, the inception workshop and work planning process will benefit from the

input of parties responsible for the design of the original project, including as appropriate relevant

technical advisors.

273. Annual Work Plan and Budget (AWP/B): The NTC will submit to FAO SEC a draft Annual

Work Plan and Budget no later than 10 January. The AWP/B should include detailed activities to

be implemented by project outputs and divided into monthly timeframes and targets and milestone

dates for output indicators to be achieved during the year. A detailed project budget for the

activities to be implemented during the year should also be included together with all monitoring


and supervision activities required during the year. The draft AWP/B is circulated to and reviewed

by the FAO Project Task Force, the NTC incorporates eventual comments and the final AWP/B is

send to the PSC for approval and to FAO for final no-objection and upload in FPMIS by the GEF

Coordination Unit. (See AWP/B format in Execution Agreement Annex 4.B)

274. Project Progress Reports (PPR): The NPC will prepare six-monthly PPRs and submit them

to FAO SEC no later than July 15 (covering the period January through June) and 15 January

(covering the period July through December). The 1st semester six months report should be

accompanied by the updated AWP/B, for review and no-objection by FAO. The PPR are used to

identify constraints, problems or bottlenecks that impede timely implementation and take

appropriate remedial action. PPRs will be prepared based on the systematic monitoring of output

and outcome indicators identified in the project’s Results Framework Appendix 1). The

Operations Officer will review the progress reports and collect and consolidates eventual FAO

comments from the LTO, HQ Technical Unit, the GEF Coordination Unit, and the Budget Holder

Office and provide these comments to the NPC. When comments have been duly incorporated,

the LTO will give final approval and submit the final PPR to the GEF coordination Unit for final

clearance and upload in FPMIS.

275. Annual Project Implementation Review (PIR): The LTO supported by the HQ Technical

Unit and the NPC and with further inputs from the Project Management Team, will prepare an

annual PIR covering the period July (the previous year) through June (current year) to be

submitted to the GEF Coordination Unit for review and approval no later than 31 July. The GEF

Coordination Unit will upload the final report in FPMIS and submit it to the GEF Secretariat and

Evaluation Office as part of the Annual Monitoring Review report of the FAO-GEF portfolio. The

GEF Coordination Unit will provide the updated format when the first PIR is due.

276. Technical Reports: Technical reports will be prepared as part of project outputs and to

document and share project outcomes and lessons learned. The drafts of any technical reports

must be submitted by the NTC to the LTO for review and clearance and to the GEF Coordination

Unit for information and eventual comments, prior to finalization and publication. Copies of the

technical reports will be distributed to the PSC and other project partners as appropriate. The final

reports will be posted in FPMIS by the project assistant.

277. Co-financing Report: The Project Management Team will be responsible for collecting the

required information and reporting on in-kind and cash co-financing provided. The Project

Management Team will submit the report to the FAO Representation in Turkey in a timely

manner on or before 31 July covering the period July (the previous year) through June (current

year).

278. GEF Tracking Tools: Following the GEF policies and procedures, necessary tracking tools

will be submitted at three moments: (i) with the project document at CEO endorsement; (ii) at the

project’s mid-term evaluation; and (iii) with the project’s final evaluation or final completion

report.

279. Terminal Report: Within two months before the end date of the Execution Agreement, the

NTC will submit to FAO SEC a draft Terminal Report. The main purpose of the final report is to

give guidance at ministerial or senior government level on the policy decisions required for the

follow-up of the Project, and to provide the donor with information on how the funds were

utilized. The terminal report is accordingly a concise account of the main products, results,

conclusions and recommendations of the Project, without unnecessary background, narrative or

technical details. The target readership consists of persons who are not necessarily technical

specialists but who need to understand the policy implications of technical findings and needs for

insuring sustainability of project results. Work is assessed, lessons learned are summarized, and

recommendations are expressed in terms of their application of best principles and practices


within the context of national priorities as well as in practical execution terms. This report will

specifically include the findings of the final evaluation. A final project review meeting should be

held to discuss the draft terminal report before it is finalized by the NTC and approved by the

FAO BH, LTO and the GEF Coordination Unit.

4.6.4 Monitoring and evaluation plan summary

Table: Summary Primary M&E Reports, Responsible Parties and Timeframe

Type of M&E Activity Responsible Parties Time-frame Budgeted costs

Inception Workshop

Project Management Team supported

by the FAO LTO, BH, and the GEF

Coordination Unit

Within two months of

project start up

US$ 7,500

Project Inception Report Project Management Team, cleared by

FAO LTO and the GEF Coordination

Unit

Immediately after

workshop

Covered under NTC

responsibilities, valued at

$ 2,000

Field based impact monitoring Project Management Team, NPIU and

relevant line agencies.

Continually US$ 35,000, for national

consultant

Supervision visits and rating of

progress in PPRs and PIRs

Project Management Team, FAO LTO

and GEF Coordination Unit

Annual or as required The visits of the FAO HQ

Technical Unit and the

GEF Coordination Unit

will be paid by GEF

agency fee. The visits of

the Project Management

Team will be paid from

the project travel budget

Project Progress Reports NPC, with inputs from project partners Six-monthly Covered under NTC


US$ 5,000

Project Implementation Review

report

Project Management Team, LTO and

project partners and cleared and

submitted by the GEF Coordination

Unit to the GEF Secretariat

Annual Covered under Project

Management Team


US$ 10,000.

FAO officers’ time

covered by GEF agency

fee

Co-financing Reports Project Management Team Annual Covered under Project

Management Team


US$ 5,000

Technical reports Project Management Team As appropriate

Mid-term Evaluation External Consultant, FAO independent

evaluation unit in consultation with the

project team including the GEF

Coordination Unit and other partners

Conducted and

completed during

project months 23 and

24

US$ 40,000 for external

consultant. In addition,

either FAO staff time and

travel or an additional

consultant will be paid

through the agency fee

Final evaluation External Consultant, FAO independent

evaluation unit in consultation with the

project team including the GEF

Coordination Unit and other partners

Conducted and

completed during

project months 45 and

46

US$ 40,000 for external

consultant. In addition,

either FAO staff time and

travel or an additional

consultant will be paid

through the agency fee

Terminal Report NPC Completed by project

month 47

US$ 10,000 for national

consultant

Total Budget US$ 154,500


4.7 Provision for Evaluations

280. Mid-Term: An independent Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE) will be undertaken during project

months 23 and 24. The MTE will review progress and effectiveness of implementation in terms

of achieving project objective, outcomes and outputs. Findings and recommendations of this

evaluation will be instrumental for bringing improvement in the overall project design and

execution strategy for the remaining period of the project’s term if necessary. FAO will arrange

for the MTE in consultation with project management.

281. The evaluation will, inter alia: (i) review the effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of

project implementation; (ii) analyse effectiveness of partnership arrangements; (iii) identify issues

requiring decisions and remedial actions; (iv) propose any mid-course corrections and/or

adjustments to the implementation strategy as necessary; and (v) highlight technical achievements

and lessons learned derived from project design, implementation and management.

282. Final: An independent Final Evaluation (FE) will be completed by project month 46. The

FE will identify the project impacts and sustainability of project results and the degree of

achievement of long-term results. This Evaluation will indicate future actions needed to sustain

project results, expand on the existing Project in subsequent phases, mainstream and up-scale its

products and practices, and disseminate information to responsible management authorities to

assure continuity of the processes initiated by the Project.

283. The FAO Project Task Manager will prepare the first draft of the Terms of Reference for

the mid-term and the final evaluations and consult with and incorporate comments from key

project partners, including the FAO budget holder, the FAO Lead Technical Unit and Officer, and

the FAO GEF Coordination Unit. Subsequently the TORs will be sent to the FAO Office of

Evaluation for finalization, in accordance with FAO evaluation procedures and taking into

consideration evolving guidance from the GEF Evaluation Office.

4.8 Communications and Visibility

284. Giving high visibility to the project and ensuring effective communications in support of the

project’s message has been addressed in a number of activities that have been incorporated into its

design. The project will sponsor a series of quarterly workshops in the project area to discuss on-

going project activities. During these workshops, key stakeholders from both the private and

public sector will report on their personal involvement with project related activities. Members of

the press will be invited to key events such as workshops, field trips, and monitoring programs.

The project will be creating farmer field schools through the pilot areas. Each of these schools

will be using project generated information materials, further enhancing project visibility within

Sanliurfa province and greater Turkey. The project will launch a website. The site will be

designed as an information and learning portal. The project will sponsor several national and

regional policy meetings and workshops. The project will have inception, mid-term and final

results meetings at the pilot site, Sanliurfa city, and Ankara levels. These events will expose mid

and high-level decision makers to the project activities and results.


Section 5 Sustainability of Results

5.1 Social Sustainability

285. Grazers are generally poorer women and men who rely upon access to government owned

pasturelands for survival. As detailed throughout this project document, the investment is

designed to promote social sustainability. This includes making certain that more vulnerable

groups of society, such as women and the rural poor, benefit directly from project activities. The

project will help rural communities work in a more cooperative manner to understand and identify

environmental issues that might cause social instability. For instance, land degradation and

climate change both increase economic risks and decrease social cohesion. By working to reduce

land degradation and minimize the impacts of climate change, the project will be promoting social

sustainability. This will also be improved by creating opportunities for stakeholder engagement

and discussion, such as capacity building functions.

5.2 Environmental Sustainability

286. The project in its entirety is designed to promote environmental sustainability. The project

will result in both on-the-ground improvements that will be carried forward as well as policy

improvements. This will have positive ramifications in terms of climate change

mitigation/adaptation, SLM, and biodiversity conservation. All project activity is directed

towards achieving improvements in ecosystem integrity and making certain that these

improvements are supported and progress over time. This includes setting in place a

comprehensive monitoring system linked to decision-making frameworks to make certain

environmental sustainability is achieved.

5.3 Financial and Economic Sustainability

287. Each component has integrated within it a hand-over plan. This hand-over plan will specify

the financial and economic factors required to carry forward project-initiated activities. The

Government of Turkey and other stakeholders have shown a willingness to co-finance the project

and a desire to fully absorb and continue identified best practices.

5.4 Sustainability of Capacities Developed

288. The project at all levels is designed to set in place not only mechanisms to support the

sustainability of capacities developed but to continue to improve those capacities. This is

particularly the case in terms of the improving management, monitoring programs, and land use

planning initiatives. Each of these activities and all others are designed to grow, evolve and

improve over time, all the while building and supporting capacities within the private and public

sector to support biodiversity conservation.

5.5 Appropriateness of Technology Introduced

289. The project design benefited from the inputs of numerous national experts, government

staff, and private stakeholders. Each of these parties had a hand in helping to define the types of

technology that the project will support and introduce. This applies to sophisticated technologies

such as improved agriculture and grazing techniques. Each technology has been scaled to match

the technical and financial capacities of the participating stakeholder group.

5.6 Replicability and scaling up


290. This is fundamentally a demonstration project. Every element of this project is designed to

create models that are appropriate for replication and pathways to facilitate replication and scaling

up. At both the provincial and national level, representatives of both the MFAL and MFWA

throughout the project design process have repeatedly expressed their desire to use this project to

identify best practices and broadly apply lessons learned. These agencies stand ready provide the

financial and technical support required to support replication and upscaling. This will be

enhanced by decision-making and policy structures designed to encourage and facilitate

replication and upscaling.


Appendix 1: FAO/GEF Strategic Results Matrix

Objective/Outcome Indicator Start of Project Baseline End of Project Target Means of Verification Assumptions

Project Objective:

Improve the conservation

of Turkey’s steppe

ecosystems through

effective protected area

management and

mainstreaming steppe

biodiversity conservation

into production

landscapes.

Total hectares of national

and regional steppe

ecosystems strategically

managed for improved

conservation

Total hectares national

steppe strategically

managed for conservation:

South Eastern Anatolian

Region:

0 hectares

National Steppe:

0 million hectares

Total hectares national steppe

strategically managed for

conservation:


Region:

200,000 hectares

National Steppe:

8 million hectares

National steppe

conservation strategy

adopted, operational, and

monitored

Protected area management

plans reviewed and

reported upon by

GDNCNP

MFAL annual reports

Project reports and

evaluations

Project emplaced steppe

monitoring and reporting

systems

Level of national

and provincial

support for steppe

conservation is

sustained

Timely delivery of

project results

Number of national

protected areas with

updated management

plans that reflect

improved steppe

conservation strategies

Number of national

protected areas with

updated management plans

that reflect improved

steppe conservation

strategies: 0

Number of national protected

areas with updated

management plans that reflect

improved steppe conservation

strategies: 20*

** There are currently 4

“steppe” protected areas

nationally and 15 protected

areas partially containing

steppe ecosystems. The “new”

Karacadag will make 20.

Number of Provincial

Level Pastureland

Commissions adopting

improved steppe

conservation

recommendations based

upon project outputs

Number of Pastureland

Commissions

mainstreaming steppe

conservation

recommendations: 0

Number of Pastureland

Commissions mainstreaming

steppe conservation

recommendations: 40*

* Turkey has a total of 81

provincial level Pastureland

Commissions



Objective/Outcome Indicator Start of Project Baseline End of Project Target Means of

Verification Assumptions

Outcome 1: Effectiveness of

protected area system to

conserve steppe biodiversity

increased

Management

effectiveness of

protected areas increased

according to total score

of GEF5-BD monitoring

effectiveness tracking

tool (METT) Objective

One

METT score

TekTek: 64

Kizilkuyu: 68

Karacadag: 51

METT score

TekTek: 80

Kizilkuyu: 85

Karacadag: 70

GEF5-BD METT

Protected area

management plans

reviewed and

reported upon by

GDNCNP

Project reports and

evaluations

Project emplaced

steppe monitoring

and reporting systems

Level of

GDNCNP support

for steppe

conservation is

sustained

Timely delivery

of project results

Total hectares of steppe

area contained within

core protected areas of

Sanliurfa Province

Total hectares: 40,000

hectares

TekTek: 20,000

Kizilkuyu: 20,000

Karacadag: 0

Total hectares: 50,000 hectares

TekTek: 20,000

Kizilkuyu: 20,000

Karacadag: 10,000


area conserved within

protected area buffer

zones of Sanliurfa

Province

Total hectares: 0 hectares

TekTek: 0

Kizilkuyu: 0

Karacadag: 0

Total hectares: 60,000 hectares

TekTek: 5,000

Kizilkuyu: 5,000

Karacadag: 50,000

Output 1.1 New steppe protected area established and operational

Output 1.2 Effective management plans for three steppe protected areas created and implemented

Output 1.3 Rigorous monitoring program for three steppe protected areas established




Outcome 2: Steppe

biodiversity

conservation

mainstreamed into

production landscapes

Total hectares managed according to

improved sustainable grazing

management program.

Total hectares with sustainable

grazing management program: 0

hectares

TekTek: 0

Kizilkuyu: 0

Karacadag: 0

Total hectares with

sustainable grazing

management program:

110,000 hectares

TekTek: 25,000

Kizilkuyu: 25,000

Karacadag: 60,000

Grazing

management

program

reviewed and

reported upon by

GDNCNP

Project reports

and evaluations

Project emplaced

steppe

monitoring and

reporting systems

Level of

GDNCNP

support for steppe

conservation is

sustained

Pastoralist

engagement level

is maintained

Timely delivery

of project results

Number of pastoralists with enhanced

steppe conservation knowledge

participating in sustainable grazing

management programs.

Total pastoralists with enhanced

steppe conservation capacity: 0

TekTek: 0

Kizilkuyu: 0

Karacadag: 0

Total pastoralists with

enhanced steppe

conservation capacity:

500

TekTek: 200

Kizilkuyu: 100

Karacadag: 200

Total number of free ranging gazelle in

Sanliurfa Province

Total free-roaming gazelle:

200 individuals

Total free-roaming

gazelle:

300 individuals

Number of hectares within and proximate

to protected areas that are less severely

overgrazed.

Number of overgrazed hectares:

TekTek: 17,000

Kizilkuyu: 15,000

Karacadag: 60,000

Number of overgrazed

hectares:

TekTek: 5,000

Kizilkuyu: 5,000

Karacadag: 20,000

Output 2.1 Sustainable grazing management program operational across three steppe protected areas and associated buffer zones

Output 2.2 Sustainable grazing management program impacts monitored at three steppe protected areas


Output 2.3 Model steppe conservation training program for pastoralists emplaced



Outcome 3: Enabling

environment established for the

effective conservation of steppe

biodiversity across large

landscapes

Total government annual

investment in steppe area

conservation


investment in steppe

conservation:

Sanliurfa Province:

US$ 100,000 *

National:

MFAL: US$ 1 million *

MFWA: US$ 250,000 *

*Total investment is

determined by Division

Directorate of National Parks

and the Province Directorate of

Food, Agriculture and

Livestock.


investment in steppe

conservation:

Sanliurfa Province:

US$ 250,000

National:

MFAL: US$ 1,5 million

MFWA: US$ 500,000

National and

provincial steppe

conservation

strategies

reviewed and

reported upon by

GDNCNP

Project reports

and evaluations

Project emplaced

steppe

monitoring and

reporting systems

Level of national

and provincial

support for steppe

conservation is

sustained

Timely delivery

of project results


ecosystems strategically

managed for improved

conservation

Total hectares national steppe

strategically managed for

conservation:

Sanliurfa Province: 0 ha


Region:

0 ha

National Steppe:

0 ha

Total hectares national

steppe strategically

managed for

conservation:

Sanliurfa Province:

40,000 ha


Region:

200,000 ha

National Steppe:

8,000,000 hectares


Total number of hectares of

steppe ecosystems outside of

protected areas conserved from

future agricultural and urban

expansion as indicated within

the GAP strategy.

Total hectares planned for

cultivation within SE Anatolia:

3.3 million ha *

*According to Gap Region

Agriculture Master Plan

Total hectares planned for

cultivation within SE

Anatolia:

3.7 million ha

Number of government policies

fully integrating steppe

conservation principles and

practices

Government policies

integrating improved steppe

conservation:

GDNCNP National

Biodiversity Strategy and

Action Plan: 0

National MFWA Annual

Strategic Performance

Document: 0

Sanliurfa Governor’s 5-year

development plan: 0

Government policies

integrating improved

steppe conservation:

GDNCNP National

Biodiversity Strategy and

Action Plan: 1

National MFWA Annual

Strategic Performance

Document: 1

Sanliurfa Governor’s 5-

year development plan :

1

Output 3.1 Sanliurfa Province steppe conservation strategy and associated enabling environment improvements implemented

Output 3.2 National steppe conservation strategy and associated enabling environment improvements established

Output 3.3 National steppe conservation training and awareness program for decision-makers and resource managers



Appendix 2: Work plan

To be completed during project inception period.


Appendix 3: Results budget

Oracle code and

BUDGET in USD

Unit No. of Unit Component 1: Component 2: Component 3: PM Total

description

units Cost 1.1 1.2 1.3 Total 2.1 2.2 2.3 Total 3.1 3.2 3.3 Total

GEF

5300 Salaries professionals

Operations officer Weeks 60 1,000 - - - - -

- - -

- 60,000 60,000

Procurement Associate Weeks 64 400 - - - -

- -

- 25,400 25,400

Financial associate Weeks 64 400

25,400 25,400

5300 Sub-total salaries professionals

- - - - - - - - - - - - 110,800 110,800

5570 International Consultants

-

1 Protected Area Management Specialist

Weeks 15 3,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 30,000

- 7,000 7,000 7,000 21,000

51,000

1 Sustainable Grazing and Grassland Biodiversity Specialist

Weeks 15 3,000

- 10,000 10,000 10,000 30,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 21,000

51,000

1 Large Landscape Conservation Policy Specialist

Weeks 14 3,000

-

- 20,000 20,000 2,000 42,000

42,000

Sub-total international Consultants

- - - 30,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 30,000 34,000 34,000 16,000 84,000 - 144,000

National consultants

1 Protected Area Management Specialist

Weeks 80 750 15,000 15,000 15,000 45,000

- 5,000 5,000 5,000 15,000

60,000

1 Field-based Implementation Specialist

Weeks 224 200 5,000 5,000 5,000 15,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 15,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 15,000

45,000

1 Sustainable Grazing and Grassland Biodiversity Specialist

Weeks 80 750

- 15,000 15,000 15,000 45,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 15,000

60,000

1 Large Landscape Conservation Policy Specialist

Weeks 80 750

-

- 20,000 20,000 20,000 60,000

60,000

1 Field-based Impact Monitoring Specialist

Weeks

11,000

12,000

12,000

35,000


Oracle code and

BUDGET in USD


description


GEF

1 Specialist to prepare Terminal Report

Weeks

3,000

3,000

4,000

10,000

National Technical Advisor/Coordinator

Weeks 224 1,000

50,000

50,000

100,000

200,000

Sub-total national Consultants

20,000 20,000 20,000 124,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 125,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 221,000 - 470,000

5570 Sub-total consultants

20,000 20,000 20,000 154,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 155,000 69,000 69,000 51,000 305,000 - 614,000

5650 Contracts

-

Assessment and PA Proposal for Karacadag (Output 1.1)

Lump sum

75,000

75,000

-

-

75,000

Stakeholder Engagement Strategy & Implementation with National Guidelines, including translation of relevant material (Output 1.1)

Lump sum

72,000

72,000

-

-

72,000

3 Steppe PA Management Plans (Output 1.2)

Lump sum

90,000

90,000

-

-

90,000

Steppe PA Monitoring System (Output 1.3)

Lump sum

-

80,000 80,000

-

-

80,000

Grazing Management Planning (Output 2.1)

Lump sum

- 97,000

97,000

-

97,000

Grassland monitoring (Output 2.2)

Lump sum

-

80,000

80,000

-

80,000

Livestock monitoring (Output 2.2)

Lump sum

-

80,000

80,000

-

80,000

Grazing steppe conservation training programme, including translation of relevant material (Output 2.3)

Lump sum

-

100,000 100,000

-

100,000

Provincial Steppe Conservation Strategy Development & Implementation (Output 3.1)

Lump sum

95,000

95,000

95,000


Oracle code and

BUDGET in USD


description


GEF

National Steppe Conservation Strategy Development & Implementation (Output 3.2)

Lump sum

90,000

90,000

90,000

National Steppe Conservation Training & Awareness Programme, including translation of relevant material (Output 3.3)

Lump sum

96,000 96,000

96,000

Midterm and final evaluation independent consultants

Lump sum

30,000

25,000

25,000 - 80,000

5650 Sub-total Contracts

147,000 90,000 80,000 347,000 97,000 160,000 100,000 382,000 95,000 90,000 96,000 306,000 - 1,035,000

5900 Travel

Field work Lump

sum 15,000

15,000

15,000

45,000

Local travel Lump

sum 5,000

5,000

5,000

15,000

International travel Lump

sum 10,000

10,000

10,000

30,000

5900 Sub-total travel

- - - 30,000 - - - 30,000 - - - 30,000 - 90,000

5020 Training and workshops

Inception Workshop Lump

sum 2,500

2,500

2,500

7,500

Final workshop Lump

sum 5,000

5,000

5,000

15,000

Workshops/meetings Lump

sum 10,000

20,000

19,000 - 49,000

Trainings / site demonstrations

Lump sum

10,000

20,000

19,000

49,000

5020 Sub-total training

- - - 27,500 - - - 47,500 - - - 45,500 - 120,500

6000 Expendable procurement


Oracle code and

BUDGET in USD


description


GEF

Public Awareness & Education materials: Best practices, lessons learned, guidelines

Lump sum

10,000

10,000 -

40,000

60,000

Demonstration inputs (e.g. seeds, monitoring collars)

Lump sum

15,000

15,000

5,000

35,000

6000 Sub-total expendable procurement

- - - 25,000 - - - 25,000 - - - 45,000 - 95,000

6100 Non-expendable procurement

-

PA Strategic Management design & implementation support

Lump sum

100,000

-

-

100,000

Grazing management plan strategic implementation support (e.g. exclosures, grassland monitoring equipment, livestock monitoring equipment)

Lump sum

-

100,000

-

100,000

Strategy development support equipment (e.g. computers/tablets, projectors)

Lump sum

-

-

35,000

35,000

6100 Sub-total non-expendable procurement

- - - 100,000 - - - 100,000 - - - 35,000 - 235,000

6300 GOE budget

-

Miscellaneous including contingencies

Lump sum

5,000

5,000

18,467 - 28,467

6300 Sub-total GOE budget

- - - 5,000 - - - 5,000 - - - 18,467 - 28,467

TOTAL 167,000 110,000 100,000 688,500 127,000 190,000 130,000 744,500 164,000 159,000 147,000 784,967 110,800 2,328,767


Oracle code and description

Unit No. of units

Unit cost

BUDGET in USD Expenditures by year

Component 1:

Component 2:

Component 3:

PM Total GEF

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year4

Total Total Total

5300 Salaries professionals

Operations officer Weeks 60 1,000 - - - 60,000 60,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000

Procurement Associate Weeks 64 400 - - - 25,400 25,400 6,350 6,350 6,350 6,350

Financial associate Weeks 64 400

25,400 25,400 6,350 6,350 6,350 6,350

5300 Sub-total salaries professionals

- - - 110,800 110,800 27,700 27,700 27,700 27,700

5570 International Consultants

-

1 Protected Area Management Specialist Weeks

15 3,000 30,000 - 21,000

51,000 25,500 25,500 - -

1 Sustainable Grazing and Grassland Biodiversity Specialist Weeks

15 3,000 - 30,000 21,000

51,000 25,500 25,500 - -

1 Large Landscape Conservation Policy Specialist Weeks

14 3,000 - - 42,000

42,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 -

Sub-total international Consultants

30,000 30,000 84,000 - 144,000 65,000 65,000 14,000 -

National consultants 1 Protected Area Management Specialist Weeks

80 750 45,000 - 15,000

60,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000

1 Field-based Implementation Specialist Weeks

224 200 15,000 15,000 15,000

45,000 11,250 11,250 11,250 11,250

1 Sustainable Grazing and Grassland Biodiversity Specialist Weeks

80 750 - 45,000 15,000

60,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000

1 Large Landscape Conservation Policy Specialist Weeks

80 750 - - 60,000

60,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000

1 Field-based Impact Monitoring Specialist Weeks

11,000 12,000 12,000

35,000 8,750 8,750 8,750 8,750

1 Specialist to prepare Weeks 3,000 3,000 4,000

10,000

10,000



Unit No. of units

Unit cost


Component 1:

Component 2:

Component 3:

PM Total GEF


Total Total Total

Terminal Report

National Technical Coordinator/Advisor Weeks

224 1,000 50,000 50,000 100,000

200,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000

Sub-total national Consultants

124,000 125,000 221,000 - 470,000 115,000 115,000 115,000 125,000

5570 Sub-total consultants 154,000 155,000 305,000 - 614,000 180,000 180,000 129,000 125,000

5650 Contracts -

Assessment and PA Proposal for Karacadag

Lump sum

75,000 - -

75,000 18,750 18,750 18,750 18,750

Stakeholder Engagement Strategy & Implementation with National Guidelines, including translation of relevant material

Lump sum

72,000 - -

72,000 36,000 36,000

3 Steppe PA Management Plans

Lump sum

90,000 - -

90,000 45,000 45,000

Steppe PA Monitoring System

Lump sum

80,000 - -

80,000

40,000 40,000

Grazing Management Planning

Lump sum

- 97,000 -

97,000 24,250 24,250 24,250 24,250

Grassland monitoring Lump sum

- 80,000 -

80,000

40,000 40,000

Livestock monitoring Lump sum

- 80,000 -

80,000

40,000 40,000

Grazing steppe conservation training programme, including translation of relevant material

Lump sum

- 100,000 -

100,000

50,000 50,000

Provincial Steppe Conservation Strategy Development & Implementation

Lump sum

95,000

95,000

47,500 47,500

National Steppe Conservation Strategy

Lump sum

90,000

90,000

45,000 45,000



Unit No. of units

Unit cost


Component 1:

Component 2:

Component 3:

PM Total GEF


Total Total Total

Development & Implementation

National Steppe Conservation Training & Awareness Programme, including translation of relevant material

Lump sum

96,000

96,000

48,000 48,000

Midterm and final evaluation independent consultants

Lump sum

30,000 25,000 25,000 - 80,000

40,000

40,000

5650 Sub-total Contracts 347,000 382,000 306,000 - 1,035,000 124,000 334,000 353,500 223,500

5900 Travel

Field work Lump sum

15,000 15,000 15,000

45,000 11,250 11,250 11,250 11,250

Local travel Lump sum

5,000 5,000 5,000

15,000 3,750 3,750 3,750 3,750

International travel Lump sum

10,000 10,000 10,000

30,000 10,000 10,000 10,000

5900 Sub-total travel 30,000 30,000 30,000 - 90,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 15,000

5020 Training and workshops

Inception Workshop Lump sum

2,500 2,500 2,500

7,500 7,500

Final workshop Lump sum

5,000 5,000 5,000

15,000

15,000

Workshops/meetings Lump sum

10,000 20,000 19,000 - 49,000 12,250 12,250 12,250 12,250

Trainings / site demonstrations

Lump sum

10,000 20,000 19,000

49,000 16,333 16,333 16,333

5020 Sub-total training 27,500 47,500 45,500 - 120,500 36,083 28,583 28,583 27,250

6000 Expendable procurement

Public Awareness & Education materials: Best practices, lessons learned,

Lump sum

10,000 10,000 40,000

60,000

20,000 20,000 20,000



Unit No. of units

Unit cost


Component 1:

Component 2:

Component 3:

PM Total GEF


Total Total Total

guidelines

Demonstration inputs (e.g. seeds, monitoring collars)

Lump sum

15,000 15,000 5,000

35,000 17,500 17,500

6000 Sub-total expendable procurement

25,000 25,000 45,000 - 95,000 17,500 37,500 20,000 20,000

6100 Non-expendable procurement

-

PA Strategic Management design & implementation support

Lump sum

100,000 - -

100,000 100,000

Grazing management plan strategic implementation support (e.g. exclosures, grassland monitoring equipment, livestock monitoring equipment)

Lump sum

- 100,000 -

100,000

100,000

Strategy development support equipment (e.g. computers/tablets, projectors)

Lump sum

- - 35,000

35,000 35,000

6100 Sub-total non-expendable procurement

100,000 100,000 35,000 - 235,000 135,000 100,000 - -

6300 GOE budget -

Miscellaneous including contingencies

Lump sum

5,000 5,000 18,467 - 28,467

14,234 14,234

6300 Sub-total GOE budget

5,000 5,000 18,467 - 28,467 - - 14,234 14,234

TOTAL 688,500 744,500 784,967 110,800 2,328,767 545,283 732,783 598,017 452,684


Summary by Component USD Percentage

SUBTOTAL Comp 1 688,500 29.57%



Subtotal Comp 1 to 3 2,217,967

SUBTOTAL Project Management 110,800 5.00%

TOTAL GEF 2,328,767 100.24%


Appendix 4: Risk Matrix

See table in Section 3.2.1


Appendix 5: Procurement Plan (To be defined during project inception)

DATE:

PROJECT TITLE AND SYMBOL:

Ref. No. Requirem

ent

Unit Estimated

Quantities

Estimate

d Cost

Unit

Price

Solicitatio

n Method

Procurem

ent Method

Buyer Targeted

Tender

Launch Date

Targeted

Contract

Award Date

Targeted

Delivery Date

Final

Destination

and Delivery

Terms

Status Other

Constraints/Considerations


Appendix 6: Key Positions and Tasks

Position Titles $/Person

Week

Estimated

Person

Weeks

Tasks to be Performed

For Project Management

Local

National Project

Director

- - Full time position. The National Project Director is

funded by the government and ensures country

ownership of the project by carrying out the following

activities:

Assume overall responsibility for the successful

execution and implementation of the project,

accountability to the Government for the proper

and effective use of co-financing resources;

Serve as a focal point for the coordination of

projects with other Government agencies, FAO and

outside implementing agencies;

Ensure that all Government inputs committed to

the project are made available;

Ensure that the National Project Coordinator is

empowered to effectively manage the project and

other project staff to perform their duties

effectively;

Represent the Government institution (national

counterpart) at the tripartite review project

meetings, and other stakeholder meetings.

National Project

Coordinator

1,000 224 Full-time position. The National Project Coordinator

(NTC) will be responsible for overall coordination of

the project to ensure the achievement of project results.

The NTC will be responsible for overall management

and implementation of the project on a day-to-day basis

and for effective and efficient use of resources, as well

as for facilitating information to the stakeholders and

steering committee.

The NTC will be responsible from delivering techical

support to the project team and project consultants in

order to achieve project outputs.

The NTC will have responsibility on management of

project budget and fulfillment of all project reporting

according to the GEF and FAO principles. The NTC

prepares the AWP/B as well as ToR for all inputs.

The NTC will establish the links between project focal

points at Ministerial level, the Project Steering

Committee and the National Stakeholder Board and

lead interactions with stakeholders.


The NTC will be ensuring that desions are made in an

informative way across all levels.

This person is expected to have extensive experience

with biodiversity conservation, planning of protected

areas, and natural resource management ideally with

grasslands conservation and large landscapes. A high

university or PhD degree in natural resources

management or a related field is required.

Operations Officer 400 64 The Operations Officer will provide support to the

National Project Director and NPC to ensure that day to

day activities are carried out in time, particularly in

DEX projects where FAO is providing the government

additional support services (operational support,

procurement, financial management, contracting). This

will be a shared position under the FAO SEC

programmatic approach to GEF implementation.

Ensure all project staff and consultants fully

understand their role and their tasks, and support

them in their work;

Oversee day-to-day implementation of the project

in line with the work plans;

Assure quality of project activities and project

outputs;

Organize regular planning and communication

events, starting with inception mission and

inception workshop;

Oversee preparation and implementation of M&E

framework;

Oversee preparation and implementation of project

communication and knowledge management

frameworks;

Support preparation of progress reports and all

monitoring reports.

Liaise with government agencies and regularly

advocate on behalf of the project;

Coordinate project interventions with other

ongoing activities, especially those of co-financers

and other GEF projects;

Regularly promote the project and its outputs and

findings on a national, and where appropriate,

regional stage.

Procurement and

Financial Associates

400 64 The Procurement and Financial Associates will support

National Project Director and NPC in managing the

administrative and financial issues of the project. This

will be a shared position under the FAO SEC

programmatic approach to GEF implementation.

He/she will be ensuring that all information is accurate,

relevant books are kept; reports are prepared and

payments are done according to the FAO/GEF


standards.

In addition, the Associate will ensure that all

procurement activities are in line with FAO’s

procurement rules and will be responsible for

supporting the NPC in the preparation and

implementation of the project’s annual procurement

plans.

These persons will be monitoring the project activities,

budgets and financial expenditures and come up with

standards for all project counterparts on applicable

administrative procedures. This person will be

responsible for preparation of procurement and

recruitment processes. He/she will be assisting the

project team in terms of logistic issues as well as

preparations for meetings, training and workshops.

International

N/A

Justification for travel, if any: Project staff will be required to complete occasional field work support.

For Technical Assistance

Local

Protected Area

Management

Specialist

750 80 Responsible for supporting achievement of Outcome 1

activities.

Will have extensive expertise in protected area

management and biodiversity conservation. Particular

emphasis upon management of multiple use grasslands.

Field-based

Implementation

Specialist

200 224 The Field-based Implementation Specialist will

contribute to the effective work of the Field Office in

Sanliurfa. Furthermore, s/he will:

Support the monitoring of project impact

indicators, identify mechanisms for systematic

data collection and recording of project

activities in close collaboration with local

stakeholders;

Monitor and report project activities and

outcomes, progress and achievements on a

monthly basis to the Project Management

Team;

Provide efficient communication and

coordination between central project bodies in

Ankara (i.e. Project Management Team and

NPIU) and the local units of executing partners

and other stakeholders on project-related

activities;

Assist national and international consultants as

well as project partners in planning and

implementing project activities (e.g.

biodiversity monitoring) and facilitate visits


and missions of project staff and consultants to

the project site;

Support project staff in preparing necessary

project reports;

Facilitate organization of workshops, trainings,

seminars or other project-related events in the

project area;

This person is expected to be a Junior Expert with

experience in biodiversity conservation or protected

areas management. A university in the field of natural

resources management is required.

Sustainable Grazing

and Grasslands

Biodiversity

Specialist

750 80 Responsible for supporting achievement of Outcome 2

activities.

Will have extensive expertise in grazing management

and biodiversity conservation. Particular emphasis

upon management of multiple use grasslands.

Large Landscape

Conservation Policy

Specialist

750 80

Responsible for supporting achievement of Outcome 3

activities.

Will have extensive knowledge and experience with the

development and implementation of provincial and

national level policy and planning mechanisms.

International

Protected Area

Management

Specialist

3,000 15

Responsible for providing technical support necessary

for the achievement of Outcome 1 activities.

Will have extensive expertise in protected area

management and biodiversity conservation. Particular

emphasis upon management of multiple use grasslands.

Sustainable Grazing

and Grasslands

Biodiversity

Specialist

3,000 15



Will have extensive expertise in grazing management

and biodiversity conservation. Particular emphasis

upon management of multiple use grasslands.

Strategic Large

Landscape

Conservation Policy

Specialist

3,000 14



Will have extensive knowledge and experience with the

development and implementation of provincial and

national level policy and planning mechanisms.

Justification for travel, if any:

Project staff will be required to complete occasional field work support.


Appendix 7: Environmental Screening and Environmental Management Plan






Appendix 8: Extended Summary of Institutional, Policy and Regulatory Context

Project Relevant Institutional Management/Decision-Making Framework

Institution

Responsibilities

National

Ministry of Forestry and

Water Affairs (MFWA)

MFWA is responsible for the declaration and management of protected

areas, ecological construction, preparing management plans for those sites,

conservation of species of special concern and critical habitats, preparing

development strategy, planning and drafting relevant laws and regulations,

and supervising the implementation of the organization to carry out

investigation, monitoring of wildlife and ecosystems. Moreover, MFWA is

responsible for rational development and utilization of water resources, to

develop the water conservancy strategic planning and policy, and the

drafting of relevant laws and regulations, the preparation of the state for the

important rivers and lakes, flood control planning, protection of water

resources, water function zoning, organizational preparation of water

conservation planning for the major rivers, lakes, and supervise the

implementation of the approved waters assimilative capacity, proposed to

limit the total amount of emissions, to guide the protection of drinking

water sources, groundwater exploitation and urban planning area protection

of groundwater resources management. The Ministry is organizing,

coordinating and guiding national wetland conservation, making wetland

conservation planning, and national standards and regulations about

wetland protection, organization and implementation of the establishment

of wetland protection district, the wetland park protection and management,

supervising the rational use of wetlands, to coordinate the relevant

international Convention on Wetlands compliance work.

The Ministry of Food,

Agriculture and Livestock

(MFAL)

MFAL is responsible from organization of agricultural resources, pasture

management and improvement, organic agriculture and agricultural

sustainable development, guide for protection and management of

agricultural land and fishing waters, rangelands, and agricultural biological

species resources. Responsible for the development of animal husbandry,

protection of fishery waters ecological environment and provide good

conditions to develop the food safety regulations and control all stage of

food production. The Ministry is the body for drafting laws and regulations

about plant and animal epidemic prevention and quarantine, signing

intergovernmental agreements, agreements to develop standards,

organization, supervision of domestic animals and plants epidemic

prevention and quarantine work, publishing the epidemic and responsible

for the organization of extinguishing.

Ministry of Development Formulating and organizing the implementation of national economic and

social development strategies, medium-and long-term plans and annual

plans, co-ordination of economic and social development, put forward the

national economic development objectives, policies and responsible for

planning major construction projects and distribution of productive forces.

Also, promoting the sustainable development strategy, making the plans

and policy of resource conservation and utilization, coordinating the


implementation of these plans participating in the major issues including

preparation of plans of ecological construction and environment protection,

coordinating ecological construction, resource conservation and

comprehensive utilization.

Regional (Provincial)

XV. Regional Directorate

of Forestry and Water

Affairs (RDoM) (Malatya)

RDoM is responsible for the supervision and management of the regional

and province's ecological construction, and organize the survey, monitoring

and evaluation of provincial terrestrial wildlife resources, and the wetland

resources. The RDoM ensures the management of wildlife development

areas, preparing management plans for those areas and implementing the

plans. Moreover, RDoM is responsible for the supervision and management

of nature reserves, responsible for the protection of biodiversity, and

undertake to carry out teaching and research into the provincial nature

reserve buffer, enter the provincial nature reserves experimental area to

visit and approval tourism.

The RDoM ensures the organization, coordination, guidance, and oversight

of the province's wetland conservation work, development of province-

wide, regional wetland conservation planning, and provincial standards and

regulations, organization and implementation of the establishment of the

province's wetland reserve wetland park protection and management

oversight rational use of wetlands; organization, guidance terrestrial

wildlife resources protection and rational utilization.

Provincial Directorates of

MFAL (Diyarbakır and

Şanlıurfa)

The PDAs are the organizations to guide the protection and management of

agricultural lands and pasturelands. PDAs are responsible for the

development of arable land and basic farmland quality protection and

improvement of policies and guide the implementation and management of

the quality of arable land in accordance with the law. They ensure the use

of engineering facilities, agronomy, agricultural, biological, and other

measures to develop crop and livestock development.

PDAs are also responsible from development and implementation of agro-

ecological activities planning, guidance to improve of rural livelihood, to

guide the development of agricultural biomass industry and agriculture and

energy saving in rural areas, undertake guidance related to agricultural

nonpoint source pollution control work. Delineation of the prohibited

agricultural production area, guiding ecological agriculture cycle

development of agriculture. They plan for the protection of the ecological

environment of the fishing waters.

PDAs are also responsible for dissemination of information about

improving the conservation of natural resources and sustainability; improve

of agricultural practices and farmers training activities.

GAP

Karacadağ Development

Agency (Diyarbakır and

Şanlıurfa)

The development agencies are responsible for contribution to regional and

rural development studies by the way of capacity development and support

those projects.


Project Relevant Policy and Planning Framework

Policy, Strategy, or

Plan

Adoption

Date Description/Assessment of relevant strategy, policy or plan

National

National Biodiversity

Strategy and Action

Plan

2007 This Strategy is Turkey’s response to the Convention on Biological

Diversity. The Strategy aims to identify and assess Turkey’s biological

diversity, to determine a generally agreed strategy for conservation and to

propose the actions required for achieving the goals of biological diversity

conservation in Turkey. The Strategy is intended “to create a society that

lives as part of nature that values biological diversity that does not consume

more than what nature is capable of replacing, and that leaves to future

generations a nature rich in biological diversity.

National Strategy and

Action Plan on

Combating

Desertification (2015-

2023) (2015-2018)

2015 The mission of this strategy and action plan is to implement policy and

programs, which are developed in order to reduce to the negative impact of

the drought and desertification and rehabilitate degraded lands. Participation

of local people, contribution for rural development and international

dialogue are the main elements of the Strategy and NAP. The Strategy will

be in place till 2023 whereas the action plan shall be revised in 2018

following the revision foreseen for 10-year strategy of UNCCD.

Climate Change Action

Plan 2011-2023

2011 Turkey’s national vision within the scope of “climate change” is to become

a country fully integrating climate change-related objectives into its

development policies, disseminating energy efficiency, increasing the use of

clean and renewable energy resources, actively participating in the efforts

for tackling climate change within its “special circumstances”, and

providing its citizens with a high quality of life and welfare with low-carbon

intensity.

National Climate

Change Strategy

2010 This strategy gives priority to conservation of habitats including steppe

ecosystems. The plan searches fro methods of identifying and then

addressing the adaption needs of steppe habitats as well as mitigation

approach through using steppe habitats as carbon stocks.

National Rural

Development Plan

(2009-2013)

2009 Plan targets the conservation of agricultural areas, pastures and forests,

including soil and water resources in areas that will be integrated into forest

regimes. The Rural Development Plan underscores the relationship between

rural poverty and natural resource degradation, recognizing a significant

increase in recent years in erosion and degradation of land and water

resources in the country.

National

Environmental Action

Plan

1998 Turkey’s Seventh Five Year Development Plan (1996 - 2000) called for

development of a national environmental strategy as the main instrument for

coordinating government policies, including those for environmental

management. The National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) responds to

the need for a strategy and can supplement the existing Development Plan

with concrete actions for integrating environment and development. The

goals of the NEAP are; better quality of life; increased environmental

awareness; improved environmental management; and sustainable

economic, social and cultural development.


Project Relevant Legal/Regulatory Framework

Law or Regulation Title Adoption

Date

Description/Assessment of Law/Regulation

National

National Parks Law (2873) 1983, rev.

2011

This Law sets forth the rules and procedures of the selection of

national parks, natural monuments, nature parks, and nature reserve

areas. The Law defines the rules and approaches on the

management, protection and development of those protected areas.

The law also defines the duties and responsibilities of each ministry

and the Council of Ministers concerning the designation and

nationalization of National Parks. It outlines the duties and

responsibilities of the Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs

concerning the management and protection of national parks and

granting permissions. The Law further covers rules to the protect

the ecosystem and wildlife and to prevent soil, water or air pollution

and prohibits construction of any building or facility as well as the

production of forest products, pasturage and hunting that might

harm the ecosystem and or biological diversity.

The Terrestrial Hunting Law

(4915)

1937, rev.

2003

The Law defines relevant measures, rules and approaches regarding

the species and habitats. The wildlife development areas that are to

protect and develop wildlife species of special concern are declared

and managed under this law. The law ensures the sustainable

hunting, protection of hunting and wild animals with their natural

living environment, development, control of hunting, evaluate

hunting resources for the benefit of the national economy and

provide coordination between the related institution and the private

corporate individuals. Under this law, each year Hunting

Commission gathers and identifies the hunting limits as well as

areas open or closed for hunting for that season.

Forestry Law (6831) 1956 This Law sets forth the basic forestry legislation. The boundaries of

protection forest are determined and declared to the surrounding

villages. The conditions, principles and periods of designation of

such forests and management, development, improvement and

utilization principles and decisions are decided by the Ministry of

Forestry and Water Affairs.

Environmental Law (2872)

1983 The objective of this Law is to protect and improve the

environment. The Law includes approaches for preserving land and

natural resources in rural and urban areas as well as preventing

pollution. Through preserving the country's vegetative and livestock

assets and natural and historical richness, the Law defines all

arrangements and precautions for improving and securing health,

civilization and life conditions of present and future generations in

conformity with economical and social development objectives and

based on certain legal and technical principles.

Agricultural Law (5488) 2006 The purpose of this Law is to set the principles, rules and

approaches regarding the agricultural sector. The law has a strong


rural development approach through plans and strategies in line

with the policies and regulations supporting agricultural

development. The Law defines the principles, objectives and

priorities of agricultural policies, training and advisory services for

farmers, protection of biodiversity and genetic resources; and

ensuring biosecurity and biosafety.

Pasture Law (4342)

1998

This Law defines the fundamental procedures and rules regarding

the management of pasturelands. With this law, the pasturelands

can be allocated villages and municipalities. The Ministry of

Agriculture and Rural Affairs is authorized to determine the

boundaries of pastures and their allocation to relevant entities

according to the principles defined in the Law. Allocation process is

renewed every five years. Areas that are defined as pasturelands

under this Law cannot be used for any other purposes unless a

written consent is obtained from the Ministry of Agriculture, and

this consent can only be given under specific conditions that are set

in the Law.

Soil Conservation and Land Use

Law (5403/ 5578)

2005, rev.

2007

This Law sets forth the rules and principles for determining land

and soil resources and their classification, preparing land utilization

plans, preventing non-purpose utilization, and defining the tasks

and obligations to ensure land and soil preservation. Soil

Preservation Boards are established in each province to examine,

assess and monitor the activities related to the preservation,

development and productive utilization of lands. Lands are

classified as absolute farming lands, special croplands, cultivated

farming lands and marginal farming lands. Except for objectives

and circumstances clearly defined in the Law, farming lands cannot

be used for any purpose other than the one defined in the utilization

plans. These exceptions are specified in the Law.

Organic Farming Law (5262)

2004 The purpose of this Law is to support organic farming and maintain

consumer safety. The Law sets up the principles and procedures of

organic farming and defines the rules and procedures of inspection

and control; and certification. The Law further covers provisions

on duties and obligations of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural

Affairs on supervision of organic farming and of organic products.

By-law on Protection of Wetlands

(25818)

2005 The Law regulates the identification of internationally and

nationally important wetlands, defines protection zones, prepares

management plans and declares Ramsar sites.

Law on the Protection of Natural

and Cultural Entities (2863)

1983 This law aims to define the measures to be taken to conserve

cultural and natural entities.

Regulation on wildlife

preservation and wildlife

development areas

2004 The objective of this regulation is to define the procedures and

principles regarding the establishment, management, inspection and

permitted activities of wildlife development areas. Areas chosen

for wildlife development should be large enough to accommodate

large population of migrating animals. Areas that could be

proclaimed as wildlife development areas are proposed by the

regional directorate of MFWA. Areas found appropriate by the


General Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Parks are

proclaimed as wildlife development area by the Ministry. Wildlife

development areas are managed by the regional directorate of the

Ministry, in accordance to management and development plans.

These plans are prepared by the General Directorate of Nature

Conservation and National Parks. Activities other than specified in

the management plans are not allowed in those areas, and

constructions of any kind that could damage the ecosystem and

objectives of the areas are prohibited. Hunting is not allowed until

the holding capacity of the area is exceeded. Gaming rules and

timing are determined by the General Directorate.

Regulation on Forestation 2012 Regulation includes main procedures and principles for forestation,

erosion control, pasture improvement, seed production, seedling

tree nursery and energy forestry.

Regulation amending the technical

regulation on groundwater

2011 This Regulation sets forth the technical rules and procedures of

management of groundwater. The Regulation covers provisions on

hydro geological research, application and issuing of permits for

groundwater research and water treatment facilities. The

Regulation also covers rules and procedures on preparation of

irrigation plans and projects and preparing maps of groundwater

systems as well as rules and provisions on the establishment of

groundwater irrigation systems such as well, canal and tunnels.

Regulation on Good Agricultural

Practices

2010 Regulation includes main procedures and principles for agricultural

production, which does not give any damage to environment,

human being and animal health as well as protection of natural

resources. Moreover, the regulation defines the traceability and

sustainability principles in agricultural production.

Regulation

On Soil Pollution Control

2010 This Regulation includes technical and administrative

procedures and principles for preventing of soil pollution,

determination of polluted and possibly polluted lands, monitoring

and cleaning of polluted soil and lands.

Regulation on the Principles and

Implementation of Organic

Farming

2005 This Regulation defines the principles, implementation

arrangements for organic agriculture especially those for the

certification procedures.


Appendix 9: Baseline Investments

Title Donor or

Agency

Dates

Budget

US$

Project Objective and

Primary Activities

Project Coordination

Measures

Summary of Relevant Government Projects

National Parks

Program

MFWA Annua

l

800,000

(US$

40,000,000

since 2009)

Planning and management of

the protected areas in

Turkey. The results of the

program are used to assess

the effectiveness of the

protected areas and

conserving biodiversity in

the country

Enhancing of

National

Protected Area

System Project

MFWA 2014-

2016

1,000,000 The objectives/goals of the

program are: (i) preparation

a national strategy and action

plan for protected areas,

including strategies, policies

and management objectives

for both existing and new

protected areas, (ii) raising

awareness on protected areas

and biodiversity

conservation, and (iii)

increasing the effectiveness

of current protected areas

management system.

National

Biodiversity

Research Project

MFWA Augus

t 2013

- 2018

US$

10,000,000

National

Identification of biodiversity

of all provinces. The

biodiversity inventory

project is carried out in 32

provinces of Turkey in 2013

including Sanliurfa.

The results of the

inventory in Şanlıurfa and

Diyarbakır can feed into

the project.

Kızılkuyu

Wildlife

Development

Area Program

MFWA Annua

l

$75,000 and

$120,000

per annum

Strengthening

the national

nature protection

system for

implementation

of Natura 2000

requirements

project

MFWA 2013-

2015

$9,300.000

(EU

Funded)

The project is directly related

with biodiversity

conservation and

strengthening the

institutional and technical

capacity related with Natura

2000. The project will be

funded by European

Commission. Under this

project, the technical

structure for Natura 2000

will be established and

potential areas to be

protected will be identified.

Range Reform

Program

MFAL 2005

onwar

US$ 10-15

million

Program is taking into

consideration degradation of

The project activities

should benefit from the


Title Donor or

Agency

Dates

Budget

US$


Primary Activities

Project Coordination

Measures

ds National rangelands and associated

food security problem of

increasing population. The

reform program covers

several measures including

comprehensive legal

framework, demarcation of

range areas and regulation of

use rights, allocation and use

rules, increasing productivity

through rehabilitation and

maintenance, continuous

surveillance, and protection.

existing experience of the

program.

IPARD MFAL,

supported by

EU

2015

onwar

ds

NA Conservation of Great

Bustards in Polatlı TİGEM

and in the surrounding

villages. Subsidizing the

farmers for the conservation

of species.

The results of the program

can feed into Great

Bustard conservation in

Kızılkuyu Wildlife

Development Area.

ÇATAK MFAL 2006-

2013

US$

17,665,000

National

US$

7,000,000

KCB

Supporting agricultural

practices and techniques that

will contribute to the

protection of soil and water

quality, enhance the

sustainability of renewable

natural resources, combat

erosion and reduce the

negative effects of

agriculture. Up to now the

program was implemented in

60,000 ha with more than

20,000 farmers benefiting.

Lessons learned from

ÇATAK can feed into the

project activities especially

in Karacadağ region.

Summary of Relevant NGO and Private Sector Projects

Şanlıurfa

Program

Nature

Association

2004

onwar

ds

350,000 TL The organization has been

actively working in the

region towards the

conservation of steppe

habitats including Kızılkuyu

Wildlife Development Area

and species like Bald Ibis,

Gazelle, Striped Hyena and

Desert Monitor. The

organization has played and

active role in preparation of

the management plan of

Kızılkuyu Wildlife

Development Area.

The existing knowledge of

the organization shall be

transferred to the project.


Appendix 10: Summary of Relevant GEF Activities

Title Agency Dates GEF Grant

US$


Primary Activities

4th Operational Phase of

the GEF Small Grants

Programme

UNDP/GEF 2009 -

2010

US$

42,714,

900 Global

Global Environmental Benefits in biodiversity and

climate change focal areas secured through

community-based initiatives and actions.

Strengthening Protected

Area Network of Turkey -

Catalyzing Sustainability

of Marine and Coastal

Protected Areas

UNDP/GEF 2009 -

2014

US$

2,300,000

National

To facilitate expansion of the national system of

marine and coastal protected areas and improve its

management effectiveness.

Market Transformation of

Energy Efficient

Appliances in Turkey

UNDP/GEF 2009 -

2014

US$

2,710,000

National

To reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of Turkey

by accelerating the market transformation towards

more energy efficient building appliances.

Promoting Replication of

Good Practices for Nutrient

Reduction and Joint

Collaboration in Central

and Eastern Europe

UNDP/GEF 2008-

2010

US$

974,816

Regional

To codify existing knowledge and experience

through identifying, capturing, analyzing,

displaying, and promoting replication of good

practices International Waters and Transboundary

Water Governance- related projects.

National Capacity Self

Assessment for Global

Environmental

Management (NCSA)

UNEP/GEF 2008-

2009

US$

199,500

National

The primary objective of the NCSA was to identify

country level priorities and needs for capacity

building to address global environmental issues.

Enhancing Coverage and

Management Effectiveness

of the Subsystem of Forest

Protected Areas in

Turkey’s National System

of Protected Areas

UNDP/GEF 2008 -

2012

US$

972,000

National

The overall objective of the project is to conserve

biodiversity and ensure sustainable use of natural

resources in Kure Mountains as a contribution to the

objectives of Turkey’s National Biodiversity

Strategy and towards global biodiversity

conservation.

Strategic Partnership for

the Mediterranean Large

Marine Ecosystem-

Regional Component:

Implemen. of Agreed

Actions for the Protection

of the Environ. Resources

of the Mediterr. Sea and Its

Coastal Areas

UNEP/GEF 2008 -

2013

US$

12,891,

000

Regional

To (i) ensure the overall coordination of the

Strategic Partnership; (ii) to facilitate policy, legal

and institutional reforms; (iii) to promote the

regional dissemination of new approaches; (iv) to

monitor the progress of the Strategic Partnership and

the effectiveness of the stress reduction measures

being promoted; and (v) to contribute to the

implementation of the Stockholm NIPs.

Building Partnerships to

Assist Developing

Countries to Reduce the

Transfer of Harmful

Aquatic Organisms in

Ships' Ballast Water

UNDP/GEF 2007 -

2010

US$

5,688,000

Global

To promote the development of regional

partnerships that will implement coordinated long-

term measures to minimize the adverse impacts of

aquatic invasive species transferred through ships’

ballast water on coastal and marine ecosystems,

economy, human health and well-being.

Enhancing Conservation of

the Critical Network of

Sites of Wetlands Required

by Migratory Waterbirds

on the African/ Eurasian

Flyways.

UNEP/GEF 2006-

2010

US$

6,000,000

Regional

This project aims to improve the conservation status

of African/Eurasian migratory waterbirds, by

enhancing and coordinating the measures taken to

conserve key critical wetland areas that these birds

require to complete their annual cycle, including

their stop-over sites during migration and their stay


in their "wintering grounds".

Control of Eutrophication,

Hazardous Substances and

Related Measures for

Rehabilitating the Black

Sea Ecosystem: Tranche 2

UNDP/GEF 2005-

2008

US$

6,000,000

Regional

To support participating countries in the

development of national policies and legislation and

the definition of priority actions to avoid discharge

of nitrogen and phosphorus to the Black Sea.

Consultation for National

Reporting, Participation in

the National Clearing

House Mechanism and

Further Development of

the National Biodiversity

Strategy and Action Plan

UNEP/GEF 2005-

2007

US$

365,300

National

A. To prepare Second and Third National Reports to

the Conference of the Parties of the CBD.

B. To further develop the national Clearing House

Mechanism, plus technical and scientific

cooperation.

C. To better incorporate the decisions and work

programmes of the Conference of the Parties of the

CBD into the National Biodiversity Action Plan.

Enabling activities to

facilitate early action on

the implementation of the

Stockholm Convention on

POPs in the Republic of

Turkey

UNIDO/GE

F

2003 -

ongoing

US$

469,700

National

The overall objective of the proposed Enabling

Activities is to strengthen national capacity and

capability to prepare a National Implementation

Plan for the management of POPs.

Control of Eutrophication,

Hazardous Substances and

Related Measures for

Rehabilitating the Black

Sea Ecosystem

UNDP/GEF 2002-

2004

US$

4,000,000

Regional

To prevent and remediate nutrient releases by

evaluating the use of economic instruments,

environmental regulations, strengthening public

participation, monitoring of trends and compliance.

Biodiversity and Natural

Resources Management

Project

IBRD/GEF 2000-

2008

US$

8,190,000

National

The project will support the establishment of

effective management for biodiversity conservation

and sustainable use in, and around, four priority

protected areas.

Determination of Priority

Actions for the Further

Elaboration and

Implementation of the

Strategic Action

Programme for the

Mediterranean Sea

UNEP/GEF 2000-

2006

US$

5,950,000

Regional

The Strategic Action Programme to Address

Pollution from Land-Based Activities in the

Mediterranean Region provides a broad framework

for the implementation of mechanisms and measures

that will lead to the protection of the marine

environment, including its biological resources and

diversity, from the effects of harmful land-based

activities.

Developing the

Implementation of the

Black Sea Strategic Action

Plan

UNDP/GEF 1997-

2000

US$

1,790,000

Regional

To foster sustainable institutional and financial

arrangements for effective management and

protection of the Black Sea.

In-Situ Conservation of

Genetic Biodiversity IBRD/GEF

1993-

1998

US$

5,100,000

National

To identify and establish in-situ conservation areas

for the protection of genetic resources and wild

relatives of important crops and forest tree species

that originated in Turkey.

Black Sea Environmental

Management UNDP/GEF

1992-

1996

US$

693,750

Regional

To train officers in ODS monitoring and control, as

well as establishment, operation and enforcement of

licensing systems.

Sustainable Land

Management and Climate-

Friendly Agriculture

Project

FAO/GEF 2015-

2019

US$5,750,

000

Project aims to improve sustainability of agriculture

and forest land use management through the

diffusion and adoption of low-carbon technologies

with win-win benefits in land degradation, climate

change, and biodiversity conservation and increase


farm profitability and forest.

Both projects will be implemented by FAO SEC at

the same time. The findings of SLM Project

regarding steppe ecosystems as well as biodiversity

mainstreaming into production landscapes should be

integrated into the project. Moreover, the lessons

learned from Great Bustard conservation program

shall be transferred to Kızılkuyu Wildlife

Development Area. productivity.

Alignment of Turkey's

National Action Plan with

UNCCD 10-Year Strategy

and reporting process

FAO/GEF 2014 US$

136,986

National

The objective of the project is to assist Turkey in

aligning its National Action Programme (NAP)

under the UN Convention to Combat Desertification

(UNCCD) with the UNCCD 10-year strategy and

facilitate review and reporting processes for

UNCCD.

The project will contribute to the strategic goals of

the action plan as well as benefit from the strategic

directions set in the NAP.


Appendix 11: Letters of Co-Financing

(see attached files)


Appendix 12: Tracking Tools

Please complete any necessary scorecards and/or tracking tools.

The following scorecards will be required for completion by FAO and/or GEF. Please

download these and be familiar with them.

GEF Biodiversity Tracking Tool;

The tracking tools may be found at:

https://www.thegef.org/gef/BD_tracking_tool

https://www.thegef.org/gef/BD_tracking_tool


Appendix 13: Selected Indicators of Project Site2

ŞANLIURFA PROVINCE AND ITS DISTRICTS

Basic Indicators:

According to the address-based population registration system, total population of Şanlıurfa was

1.801.980 people in 2013. Şanlıurfa has 13 districts and municipalities. In terms of population,

Şanlıurfa is the 9th biggest city in Turkey.

Young population rate in Şanlıurfa is remarkably high. According to the 2013 birth statistics, with

4.31 fertility rate, Şanlıurfa is in the first place. Although the population growth rate was 13.7%

in Turkey, Şanlıurfa had a rate of 22.4%.

With the 6.4% female labor force participation rate in between region women (Diyarbakır and

Şanlıurfa), the rate was one of the lowest when compared to other regions.

Due to the young population, seasonal agriculture worker sector is the highest when compared

with other cities. The city satisfies the need of seasonal agricultural workers of other regions. Big

amount of small cattle has been bred in Şanlıurfa. The industry in Şanlıurfa is mainly based on

agricultural industry.

When net immigration rate was examined between the years of 2012-2013 in Şanlıurfa, with the

value of -7.8 per thousand, Şanlıurfa is considered an emigration city.

In 2013, with 3.832 Million TL vegetative production value, Şanlıurfa was in 4th place. Again in

2013, with 1.353 Million TL livestock value, Şanlıurfa was in 7th place.

With 16.3% unemployment rate in 2013, Şanlıurfa was in 6th place regarding the highest

unemployment rate in Turkey.

2 Reference: Development Agency Strategic Plan, TUIK Şanlıurfa with Selected Indicators


Districts:

Population according to district, age group and gender (left to right: District – Age Group – Total

– Male – Female):


Births per district and gender (left to right: Total – Boy – Girl):


The rate of employed people per sector (left to right: Total – Agriculture – Industry):

When looking at total production amount of grain and other vegetative products in Şanlıurfa, a

23.3% of increase had occurred between the years of 2009-2013. In 2013, grain production share

was 65.1% in total grain and other vegetative products production.


Livestock status in the province can be found in the table below (left to right: Cattle, Water

Buffalo, Sheep, Goat, Poultry, Horse, Donkey, Camel, Pork):


Milk and Honey Production (left to right: Cow Milk, Water Buffalo Milk, Sheep Milk, Honey):

In 2013, Şanlıurfa’s vegetative production value was 4.1% in Turkey’s total vegetative

production value share. Livestock and animal products value in Turkey’s total share is 2.4% and

0.9% respectively. Total agricultural product value of Şanlıurfa has been increased starting from

2009, and in 2013 the value has reached to 5.5 billion TL.


Animal products in accordance with the districts (left to right: Number of Cattle, Number of

Sheep, Number of Goats, Milk production, Honey Production, Number of Poultry):


POPULATION IN PROJECT AREA3

1. Şanlıurfa Central District

1.1 Kızılkuyu Village

Distance to the province centre: 38 km

Distance to the district centre: 15 km

Village Headman (mukhtar) information: N/A

Population Information

Year Total Woman Man

2012 139 69 70

2011 129 61 68

2000 123 55 68

1990 285 138 147

1985 273 128 145

Sanitarium: None

Community Clinic: Exists / Not active

Primary School: Exists/ Not active

Mobile Education: none

Post Office (PTT): None

Water Supply Network: none

Sewer System: None

2. Şanlıurfa Harran District (Tek Tek Mountains National Park)

2.1 Başkaragöz Village



Altitude: 500m

Village Headman (mukhtar) information: İsmail TAŞ BAŞKARAGÖZ

Phone: 0532 175 00 06



2012 264 136 128

2011 250 128 122

2000 79 36 43

3 www.yerelnet.net


Sanitarium: None

Community Clinic: Exists / Not active

Primary School: Available

Mobile Education: Available


Water Supply Network: Available

Sewer System: None

2.2 Göktaş Village



Altitude: 500m

Village Headman (mukhtar) information: Abdullah Ay

Phone: 0542 519 64 94



2012 1.099 573 526

2011 980 512 468

2000 192 100 92

1990 295 124 171

Sanitarium: None

Community Clinic: None


Mobile Education: None



Sewer System: None

2.3 Karataş Village



Altitude: 465m

Village Headman (mukhtar) information: Kasım Bayramhan

Phone: 0544 522 94 95

Population Data


2012 506 252 254

2011 504 251 253

2000 135 71 64


Sanitarium: None

Community Clinic: None





Sewer System: None

3. Şanlıurfa Siverek District

3.1 Karacadağ-Bucak Village

Distance to the province: 126 km

Distance to the district: 33 km

Village Headman (mukhtar) information: N/A

Population Data: N/A

Sanitarium: None

Community Clinic: Available




Water Supply Network: None

Sewer System: None