evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Turkey's Watershed Rehabilitation Programme — Anatolia Watershed Rehabilitation Project to TULIP

Türkiye · Ankara · See the Türkiye profile · See the Ankara profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 81% 33/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Turkey's forestry ministry, with World Bank/GEF financing, has supported watershed communities since 2004 with saplings, irrigation tech and solar heaters; the first phase raised vegetation cover 77% and incomes 53%, and a $135M second phase (TULIP) now covers over 1M hectares.

~45.4 US$ million
AWRP total financing (loan + grant + co-financing) (2004-2012/13)
15.7 US$ million
World Bank loan (AWRP) (2004-2012/13)
7 US$ million
GEF grant (AWRP) (2004-2012/13)
~28 microcatchments
Microcatchments covered (AWRP) (2004-2012/13)
77 %
Vegetation cover increase above baseline (AWRP, 2004-2012/13)
>20 %
Soil fertility gains on sloping land (AWRP, 2004-2012/13)
53 %
Average household income increase (AWRP, 2004-2012/13)
>30 (60 for manure management) %
Farmers adopting improved practices (AWRP, 2004-2012/13)
135 US$ million
TULIP financing (signed 2021)
158,000 ha
Bolaman river basin area (TULIP) (2021-present)
876,000 ha
Cekerek river basin area (TULIP) (2021-present)
~90,000 people
TULIP direct beneficiaries target (2021-present)
Turkey's Watershed Rehabilitation Programme — Anatolia Watershed Rehabilitation Project to TULIP

Details

Maturity
Scaling
Promoter
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry / General Directorate of Forestry (Orman Genel Müdürlüğü, OGM)
Period
2004-present
Region (NUTS)
TR51
Keywords
watershed rehabilitation, erosion control, agroforestry, rural livelihoods, World Bank co-financing

Context

Turkey's Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, through its General Directorate of Forestry (OGM), has run watershed rehabilitation support to rural communities since 2004 under the World Bank/GEF-financed Anatolia Watershed Rehabilitation Project (AWRP, 2004-2012/13, following an earlier 1993-2001 Eastern Anatolia precursor), and continues today under the Turkey Resilient Landscape Integration Project (TULIP, 2021-present). Rather than cash-per-hectare payments, the programme delivers in-kind and technical support - tree saplings, irrigation and cultivation technology, solar water heaters to reduce fuelwood demand, and financing for community-designed 'micro-catchment investment plans' - to farming households in erosion-prone Black Sea and Central Anatolian catchments.

Results

AWRP combined a US$15.7 million World Bank loan with a US$7 million GEF grant (about US$45.4 million total with co-financing) across roughly 28 microcatchments. World Bank results reporting attributes to the project a 77% increase in vegetation cover above baseline, soil fertility gains of over 20% on sloping land, average household income increases of 53% in target areas, and adoption of improved practices by over 30% of farmers (60% for manure management), alongside measurable nutrient-load reductions into Black Sea tributaries. TULIP, a $135 million World Bank credit signed in 2021, extends the model to the Bolaman river basin (158,000 ha) and Cekerek river basin (876,000 ha), targeting roughly 90,000 direct beneficiaries including 13,000 forest-village households and 20,000 farmers receiving support for sustainable agriculture, afforestation and erosion control.

Conclusions

No independent, peer-reviewed evaluation of either project phase was located - the quantitative outcome figures come from World Bank/GEF self-reporting rather than third-party academic assessment, a bias worth noting explicitly. The support model is also in-kind/technical rather than a strict output-based cash PES contract, so it sits at the looser end of what 'payment for ecosystem services' typically means, and exact per-household disbursement rules were not confirmed in available sources. The programme's main documented strength is its participatory, community-level micro-catchment planning model, explicitly credited by Turkish officials as a 'key success factor' and carried forward from AWRP into the newer TULIP phase.

Implementation

Indicative cost
High (€500k–€5M) — AWRP: about US$45.4 million total (US$15.7M World Bank loan plus US$7M GEF grant plus co-financing) across roughly 28 microcatchments; TULIP: US$135 million World Bank credit (2021) across 1.03 million ha (158,000 plus 876,000 ha basins).
Time to results
Long (> 3 years) — AWRP ran 2004-2012/13 (preceded by a 1993-2001 Eastern Anatolia precursor); TULIP began in 2021 and is ongoing.
Staffing & skills
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry / General Directorate of Forestry (OGM) - lead implementer, World Bank - financier/loan and credit, Global Environment Facility (GEF) - grant co-financier

Conditions for success

  • Participatory, community-designed 'micro-catchment investment plans' explicitly credited by Turkish officials as a key success factor
  • Continuity and institutional learning carried from AWRP (2004-2012) into TULIP (2021-present)
  • Blended concessional financing (World Bank loan plus GEF grant) enabling in-kind support (saplings, irrigation technology, solar heaters) rather than requiring farmers to have upfront capital

Common failure modes

  • No independent, peer-reviewed evaluation of either phase exists; all outcome figures are World Bank/GEF self-reported, a known bias
  • The in-kind/technical support model is looser than a strict output-based cash PES contract, so per-household disbursement rules and additionality are not fully verifiable from available sources

Where it fits

Governance type
state forestry agency with World Bank/GEF concessional financing
Scale
multiple river basins/microcatchments, over 1,000,000 ha under TULIP
Income level
upper-middle income (Turkey)

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful