Strategies for Sustainable Development, Kars, Turkey · Kars, Turkey Prepared by: Institute for International Urban Development Cambridge, MA Sponsored by: The Christensen Fund September

Strategies for Sustainable Development, Kars, Turkey

Prepared by:

Institute for International Urban Development Cambridge, MA

Sponsored by:

The Christensen Fund

September 2006

Province of Kars

Municipality of Kars

Report for The Christensen Fund: Strategies for Sustainable Development in Kars, Turkey


- 2 -



- 3 -

STUDY TEAM

Mona Serageldin, Team Leader

Beti Minkin

Berhan Ipek

Mustafa Gönen

Christa Lee-Chuvala

Felicity Chan

The Institute would like to acknowledge the excellent assistance received from Ceren Özgen of Istanbul Technical University and Ihsan Karayazi of Kars

Municipality in the preparation of this report. We also wish to recognize the contribution of Turan Atalay of Kars Municipality and Yusuf Yurdalan and

Medet Özeri of Kars Province.

This study is sponsored by the Christensen Fund.



- 5 -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF MEETINGS................................................................................................................... 7 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 9 2 THE ROLE OF KARS PROVINCE IN THE EASTERN ANATOLIA REGION ...... 11 2.1 Socio-economic Development .................................................................................... 11

2.1.1 Turkey State Planning Organization’s Socio-economic Development Index ......... 11 2.1.2 Priority Development Regions Program.................................................................. 14

2.2 Major energy and transportation projects affecting the region ............................ 15 2.2.1 The TRACECA Transit Corridors........................................................................... 15 2.2.2 The Baku-Ceyhan-Tiblisi Pipeline .......................................................................... 17

2.3 Preserving biodiversity in the Kars region .............................................................. 19 2.3.1 Irano-Anatolian Biodiversity Hotspot ..................................................................... 20 2.3.2 The World Wildlife Fund’s Global 200................................................................... 20 2.3.3 Ecoregions in Kars Province ................................................................................... 21 2.3.4 Internationally Important Bird Areas in the Kars Region........................................ 22 2.3.5 The Coruh River Hydroelectric Project ................................................................... 23

2.4 Regional rural settlement patterns ........................................................................... 24 2.4.1 Distribution of Rural Settlements ............................................................................ 24 2.4.2 Water infrastructure in villages in the Kars region.................................................. 26

2.5 Migration .................................................................................................................... 26 2.5.1 Migratory Movements in Eastern Anatolia and the Kars Region............................ 26 2.5.2 Survey on Rural-Urban Linkages ............................................................................ 27 2.5.3 The Emergence of Hometown Associations............................................................ 34

3 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF VILLAGES IN KARS PROVINCE .............. 37 3.1 Interviews of village households ............................................................................... 38

3.1.1 Profile of Rural Households .................................................................................... 38 3.1.2 Livelihoods .............................................................................................................. 39 3.1.3 Rural standards of living.......................................................................................... 41 3.1.4 Challenges facing rural households ......................................................................... 42 3.1.5 Links between rural and urban economies .............................................................. 43 3.1.6 Case studies: Links between village households and migrants in Kars................... 47

3.2 Villages affected by the BTC Pipeline ...................................................................... 49 3.2.1 BTC’s Sustainable Rural Development Projects implemented in Kars Province by

SÜRKAL ................................................................................................................. 49 3.3 Assessing rural development potential..................................................................... 53

3.3.1 Animal Husbandry................................................................................................... 53 3.3.2 Comparative analysis of the experience of three villages: Azat, Borluk and

Bulanik..................................................................................................................... 55 3.3.3 Selected villages with high development potential in key areas.............................. 57

3.4 Meetings with women, youth and children in the villages...................................... 63 3.4.1 Pilot session with youth in Akcakale Village .......................................................... 64

3.5 Summary of recommendations for village development ........................................ 65 4 INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN KARS MUNICIPALITY............................. 67 4.1 Improving access to donor grants and other funding opportunities ..................... 67 4.2 Development of Urban Agriculture in Kars ............................................................ 68



- 6 -

4.3 Preparation of a Development Plan for the Municipality through a TESEV-led participatory process ................................................................................................. 72

5 TOURISM IN KARS PROVINCE ................................................................................... 75 5.1 Visitors to Kars Province .......................................................................................... 75 5.2 Major eco-tourism potential in Kars........................................................................ 78

5.2.1 The Ministry of Tourism Regional Development Plan ........................................... 79 5.2.2 Tours that offer visits to Northeast Anatolia ........................................................... 79 5.2.3 Major eco-tourism assets in Kars ............................................................................ 80 5.2.4 Potential thematic tourism routes ............................................................................ 83 5.2.5 Summary of recommendations for tourism development........................................ 88

6 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................... 91 7 ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................... 95



- 7 -

LIST OF MEETINGS

Province ERDEN, Mehmet Ufuk Governor of Kars Province BEKİS, Kenan Province Directorate of Culture and Tourism, Ministry

of Culture and Tourism of the Central Government YURDALAN, Yusuf Director, Department of Agriculture ÖZERI, Medet Department of Agriculture

Municipality ALİBEYOĞLU, Naif Mayor of Kars; President, Turkish Association of Local

Authorities ERDEM, Funda Consultant to the Mayor KARAYAZI, İhsan Project Coordinator ATALAY, Turan Directorate of Public Works – Kars Municipality ŞAMİLOĞLU, Nihal Director of Women’s Commission, Kars City Council International Organizations INNES, John Principal Social Sector Specialist, World Bank, Ankara

Office ÇAĞLAYAN, Şükran CIP/Social Coordinator, The Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan

Pipeline Company (BTC) DENIAU, Laurent Embassy of France, Bilateral Program Coordinator with

the Ministry of Agriculture National Organizations KAVALA, Osman Anadolu Kültür PAŞAOĞLU, Serbülent Project Manager, SÜRKAL AYTAR, Volkan TESEV TOKSÖZ, Fikret Director, TESEV ASLAN, Meltem TESEV Local Organizations YAZICI, Sezai Secretary General of Kars City Council SEZER, Erhan Member of Commission of Trans-border Economic and

Trade Relations with Caucasian Countries

GÜVENSOY, Ali Head of Chamber of Commerce and Industry ZAMAN, Ali Head of Council, Chamber of Commerce and Industry DANYILDIZ, Mustafa Board Member, Chamber of Commerce and Industry KOCABIÇAK, Yasemin Professor of the EU Tourism Training Course,

Department of Tourism and Hotel Management, Kafkas University

AKAT, Soner Head of the Kars Bee-Breeders Union KIZIR, İsmail Assistant to the Head of the Kars Bee-Breeders Union



- 9 -

1 INTRODUCTION This report presents the findings and recommendations of a project undertaken in close collaboration with the Provincial Administration and the Municipality of Kars to formulate guidelines for local development that integrate environmental sustainability and the protection of biodiversity. The guidelines take into account the effect of migration, trends in tourism development and the impact of energy projects affecting the natural assets and environment of the region and its ecosystems. The convergence of climatic zones and the physical geography of the Kars region account for its rich biodiversity. This unique asset is today threatened by development ranging from large-scale infrastructure projects to uncontrolled urbanization. While economic development is badly needed in an area suffering from high unemployment, rural depopulation and poverty, the challenge is to enhance agricultural productivity and promote tourism through environmentally sound policies and programs. Building an outreach to local communities is a priority for sound management. At the Provincial scale it is a prerequisite to policy implementation and action on the ground in an ethnically diverse and sparsely populated area. Similarly nurturing the region’s human resources is a precondition to the successful implementation of sustainable development strategies and must constitute an integral component of policies and action plans. The team assessed the dynamics of rural-urban linkages and the socio-economic impacts of migration and remittances by conducting meetings and interviews in Kars city and selected villages experiencing different levels of outmigration. Special emphasis was placed on documenting the changes induced in rural living practices and lifestyles, as the rate of change has accelerated in an age of increasing mobility. In the 22 villages visited by the teams, meetings were held with villagers including women and youth and interviews conducted with some households in their homes. Pressures leading to the conversion of traditional agriculture to more intensive and inappropriate methods of cultivation and food processing were identified. Specifically the team documented conditions in the villages, observed farming and stockbreeding practices and identified traditional farming methods still in use and categories of handicrafts still produced in each village. We elicited farmers’ perceptions of the present situation, the challenges they face and their outlook to the future. With inappropriate stockbreeding and farming practices that degrade the environment and destroy the biodiversity of meadows and perpetuate low productivity, rural households subsist in poverty, rural development lags and rural depopulation continues unabated. The harsh climate and the high cost of energy preclude many of the conventional methods of rural development and demand a more creative approach to this challenging task. Five key policies were addressed:

1. Diversifying production 2. Promoting high quality food products and improving marketing channels 3. Fostering the development of organic farming and products 4. Supporting the revival of traditional handicrafts and in particular the distinctive

handwoven wool carpets for which a “niche” market can be promoted 5. Developing the potential for agri-eco-tourism in the longer term.



- 10 -

The team noted that the villagers didn’t know how to access information, and as a result were unable to improve their productivity. It seems they still have a tendency to shy away from officials and therefore missed benefiting from programs that would help them. The efforts by the Stockbreeder’s Union and the Beekeeper’s Union are first steps in this direction. Out of the 22 villages visited, eight villages with the highest development potential were selected to demonstrate the effectiveness of recommended strategies. Each village shows outstanding potential in one of the five policy areas:

• Animal Husbandry: Karaurgan, Sarikamiş and Bulanik, Kars • Dairy Production: Çakmak, Kars, and Boğatepe, Susuz • Organic Farming: Büyük Çatma, Arpacay and possibly Derinöz, Digor • Carpet weaving: Kocköyü, Arpaçay and Yolboyu, Susuz • Eco-tourism: Çilehane, Kağizman

Northeast Anatolia has not been able to capture a share of tourism in Turkey commensurate with the assets it has to offer. Inadequate marketing and perceptions of remoteness and lack of appropriate facilities hinder the development of both cultural and eco-tourism in the region. Despite its unique natural assets, including pristine landscapes, mountains, lakes and wetlands and the rich biodiversity of its flora and fauna, the potential for ecotourism remains largely unrealized. A discussion of policies and opportunities that enhance the development of thematic eco-tourism is given in Section 5 of the report. The concept of urban agriculture was introduced to the Municipality as an effective strategy to protect the Greenbelt designated in the Master Plan from encroachment while simultaneously alleviating poverty and supplying locally grown produce on the market. Information on a number of Best Practices from around the world prompted the Municipality to take a more realistic approach. We are working with the Department of Public Works to develop a pragmatic operational strategy based on urban agriculture as well as open space for active and passive recreation. The project interlinked activities undertaken with the Provincial and Municipal Governments in order to further the key strategic objective of mainstreaming conservation and sound management of the natural environment in all its dimensions at a time of change and promote biodiverse agriculture in the strategic plans mandated by the 2005 Municipal Law. Recommendations for developing an outreach program, structuring of a productive interface between local authorities and village communities, fostering community organization by encouraging villagers to form associations and cooperatives and delivery of awareness building and skill development programs are discussed in Section 6 of this report. They were discussed with the Governor and the Mayor and senior officials in the Provincial Department of Agriculture and the Municipal Department of Public Works. Furthermore, the issues raised in the assessment of rural development potential were discussed with NGOs active in Kars.



- 11 -

2 THE ROLE OF KARS PROVINCE IN THE EASTERN ANATOLIA REGION

Illustration 2.1: Rural landscape in Kars Province, gateway to the Southern Caucasus. 2.1 Socio-economic Development The Northeast Anatolian region has suffered from economic recession caused in large part by a lack of affordable fuel sources. Despite the fact that the region is crossed by major oil and gas pipelines (see Map 2.1), the topography, altitude, climate and sparsely populated settlement patterns make it difficult and costly to service. High operation costs create challenges for those trying to develop successful manufacturing operations in the area.1 The region has wonderful cultural and natural assets and valuable human resources derived from its ethnically diverse population reflected in the rich tradition handicrafts, food, music, and dance. Its archeological sites go back to prehistoric times and its architectural heritage testifies to its long history as the gateway to the Caucasus and Central Asia. However, the remoteness, harsh climate and lack of investment coupled with political instability, border closures and wars and civil strife in neighboring Middle Eastern countries are hindering the ability of the Northeast Anatolian provinces to realize their development potential. 2.1.1 Turkey State Planning Organization’s Socio-economic Development Index In 2003 Turkey’s State Planning Organization (SPO) prepared a study to evaluate the socio-economic development level of Turkey’s 81 provinces aggregated into seven geographical regions based on indicators for 10 different categories, including demography, employment,

Source: Mona Serageldin



- 12 -

education, health, industry, agriculture, infrastructure, construction, finance and other welfare. The primary objective was to determine the performance of the provinces in meeting the needs of their populations and assessing the impact on this performance of key factors including of demographic structure, labor demand, the sectoral distribution of employment, education and health services, physical and social infrastructure, and production and income level. The study groups the provinces into five categories, with Category One representing those with the highest development index and Category five representing the lowest. The fifth category consists of 16 provinces in the Eastern and Southeastern regions, including Kars and several of the surrounding provinces. (Table 2.1). All 16 are also are covered under the State Planning Organization’s Priority Development Regions Program, discussed in section 2.1.2. Table 2.1: Socio-economic Development Index Values for Provinces in Kars Region Province Rank (out of 81) Index Value Erzurum 60 -0.53286 Kars 67 -0.81944 Iğdir 69 -0.89089 Ardahan 74 -1.07318 Ağri 80 -1.28116

Source: State Planning Organization, 2003 In the Category-five provinces, 69.3% of the active population works in agriculture and within that sector the primary economic activity is stockbreeding. With the GDP per capita of Turkey indexed to 100, the GDP per capita in the Category Five provinces was 38. Household incomes in these provinces are less than half the national average, and the total amount of bank credits issued in the provinces constitutes only 1.2% of the total issued in Turkey. Migration from Category five provinces to larger urban centers is quite high and contributes to challenges these provinces face in meeting their potential. There is an urgent need for the creation of policies that address regional inequalities. Migration is a critical issue affecting the rural economy and is discussed in further detail in section 2.4.



- 13 -

Directorate General of BOTAŞ

Natural Gas and Oil Pipelines

current natural gas pipelines

Map 2.1: Turkey’s natural gas and oil pipelines

Source: Botaş



- 14 -

Map 2.2: The Categorization of Provinces According to the Socio-economic Development Index

Source: State Planning Organization, 2003

2.1.2 Priority Development Regions Program A program to support Priority Development Regions was introduced by the State Planning Organization in 1968 to address regional inequalities. The program was instituted by an official decree of Parliament and over time its objectives and methods have been revised and adjusted according to changing socio-economic conditions. Provinces covered by this program are identified according to objective criteria developed by the SPO, including socio-economic development indicators. 49 provinces were covered by the program in 2004 (Map 2.3), and Kars has been under the program since its inception. The area of the selected provinces is about 55% of the entire area of Turkey and comprises 36% of the population. The GDP per capita in the Priority Development Regions is 56% of the national average. Law 5068/2004 was approved in order to support job creation and economic investment in these provinces, offering financial incentives to investors and employers. The government encourages investment through both fiscal incentives (investment credits, tax relief, postponement of the VAT, subsidies, relief from customs tax, tax and fee exceptions) and direct public investment. For example, 10% of the investments of the Public Fund (Kamu Ortaklığı Fonu) must be earmarked for employment generation, and tax reductions are given on labor salaries.

1st level developed provinces 2nd level developed provinces 3rd level developed provinces 4th level developed provinces 5th level developed provinces



- 15 -

Map 2.3: Provinces included in the Priority Development Regions Program, 2003

Source: http://www.dpt.gov.tr/bgyu/koy/koy68-99.html#koy68-73 2.2 Major energy and transportation projects affecting the region 2.2.1 The TRACECA Transit Corridors To strengthen links between Europe and Asia, the European Union has launched a program known as TRACECA providing for the development of transport corridors from Europe through the Caucasus to Asia. (See map 2.4). Anticipating ever faster and more fuel efficient rail systems, the ultimate objective of the East-West Transport Corridor is to link major EU railway networks to the networks of Turkey, South Caucasus, Central Asia and China. A Multilateral Agreement between the ten initial participating countries was signed in 1998 and the remaining three countries, including Turkey, applied to be included in 2000. Since then, the project has become a symbol of cooperation between Europe, Caucasian and Central Asian countries. The governments of the 13 participating countries with the help of the European Union have collaborated to identify obstacles to smooth transport along the route and implement projects mitigating these constraints. The TRACECA program funds technical assistance studies and Investment Projects along the corridor. The TRACECA railway corridor Istanbul/Sivas/Kars/Gumri with an extension to Tiblisi under construction will put Kars Municipality on the TRACECA network. A major connector road links it to the TRACECA highway corridor Istanbul/Batum/Vale/Gumri. These corridors will bring substantial change to the region. As more projects are undertaken, the development impacts, both positive and negative, on Kars Province will be significant. In particular the new line Kars-Akhalkalaki-Tiblisi-Baku international railway corridor will provide Kars with a badly needed crossborder rail link since the crossing to Armenia at Akyaka/Gumri was closed in May 1992. Most of the 258 km line is already in place, following an existing railway from Akhalkalaki to Baku. The only missing portion is a 98 kilometer connection between Kars and Akhalkalaki. The projected cost of this section ranges from $300 million to $500 million, and funding could come from a range of sources including the European Union, the United States, or Japan. The plans for the rail link have drawn significant attention from the international community. The corridor will provide a badly needed connection between the Turkish and Georgian rail systems, facilitating the expansion of East-West trade and eventually linking the railway



- 16 -

Map 2.4: The TRACECA Transport Corridor.

Source: TRACECA, www.traceca-org.org



- 17 -

networks of China, Central Asia, South Caucasus, Turkey and the European Union. However, Armenia is protesting the construction of the new railway, suggesting that an existing century-old right-of-way from Kars to Tiblisi through the Armenian cities of Gumri and Vanazador be used instead. Map 2.5: Proposed routing of Kars-Akhakalaki section of Kars-Akhakalaki-Tiblisi-Baku railway line

Source : www.traceca.org Most projections estimating the potential cargo volume along the East-West Transport Corridor indicate that the transport volume in the first two years of operation will be about two million tons and will reach eight to ten million tons in the following three years. The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) has placed this corridor on a list of Priority 1 projects that could be completed by 2010. 2 Although the alignment to the border crossing is not yet finalized, the potential impact of the connection is significant. It will affect future development in and around the nodes where stops are placed and generate economic activity at the border crossing and along access roads leading to the crossing. It will also further develop the synergies between border provinces in Turkey and Georgia. The environmental impacts of the project have yet to be studied. 2.2.2 The Baku-Ceyhan-Tiblisi Pipeline A second key regional development project is the Baku-Tiblesi-Ceyhan oil Pipeline, set for completion at the end of 2006. This pipeline transports crude oil over 1,000 miles from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean and is the second longest oil pipeline in the world. The BTC pipeline was carried out by a consortium of 11 energy companies led by BP (formerly British Petroleum) and opened officially in May of 2005. The new pipeline will allow boosting Caspian



- 18 -

Sea oil production to about 1.5 million barrels per day, increasing the revenues accruing to Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan. The consortium is sponsoring ‘sustainable development’ in affected villages within a 300-meter corridor along the pipeline’s alignment and has also developed “Environmental Investment” and “Community Investment” Programs. i. Community Investment Program The objectives of BTC’s Community Investment Program are to:

• Improve livelihoods and economic opportunities (using microcredit, enterprise development opportunities, training and capacity building, and other income-generating activities)

• Support access to improved social infrastructure (clean water, schools, health care, irrigation systems, sanitation)

• Support the development of the agricultural and service sectors3. About 300 villages are affected by the pipeline. BTC is building partnerships with a range of organizations – national and international NGOs, civil society groups, and the communities themselves – to assist in implementing and managing the Community Investment Program. Individual projects will be selected through the RFP process and will aim to foster local business development, develop effective civil society institutions, enhance educational capacity, assist

vulnerable groups, and promote local culture. The Program plans to address the limited availability of energy in communities along the pipeline route due to a lack of infrastructure, interrupted supply, and severe poverty. The Winter Heat Program focuses on tree planting, small-scale energy projects and more efficient use of wood for fuel. In Southeast Anatolia, a region plagued by conflict from 1984 to 1999, a program has been launched to encourage a return to villages that have been restored by the Government. This program should be monitored to assess its success.

ii. Environmental Investment Plan Along with its community programs, the BTC consortium claims that it has taken measures to mitigate the project’s adverse environmental impacts, including:

• Avoidance of all IUCN Category I-V sites, Ramsar wetland sites of international importance and globally Important Bird Areas (IBAs), including the Ardahan Forest in Turkey;

• Narrowing the pipeline right-of-way in forested areas; • Translocation of rare species;

Illustration 2.2: The BTC pipeline running through eastern Turkey.



- 19 -

• Erosion control and adoption of bio-restoration standards; • Development of an Environmental Investment Program and a regional Biodiversity

Action Plan to implement environmental projects and enhance biodiversity In addition, the head of the consortium, BP, will fund the development of biodiversity mapping, support research and education programs, and contribute to projects protecting biodiversity. Map 2.6: The BTC Pipeline shown on the region’s unique topography.

Source: BTC Consortium 2.3 Preserving biodiversity in the Kars region Turkey’s economic boom in the last 15 years has led to increased concern over the emerging environmental issues associated with economic growth. The country’s urban population has increased substantially in the last decade as rural inhabitants have migrated to cities in search of employment. Although that rate has now declined from 4.5% to 2.5%, in 2004, it is estimated that 67% of Turkey’s population now live in urban areas.4 Urbanization has brought an escalation of environmental problems associated with urban centers. Air pollution has increased in Northeastern Anatolian towns due to particulate matter caused by coal stoves used for heating during the long, frigid winters. Land degradation from poor agricultural practices, overgrazing, over-fertilization and deforestation has led to significant soil erosion on 60% of Turkey’s land surface.5 In terms of water pollution, the Black Sea in the east has been damaged by severe overfishing and pollution from surrounding countries. Increasingly, Turkey’s extraordinary biodiversity is under threat. Turkey and the southern Caucasus region are in fact world-renowned for biodiversity. The country’s position between Asia, Europe and Africa has led to a unique commingling of species representing all three continents6. It is also home to a substantial number of endemic species. More than 30% of the almost 8,650 plant species found in Turkey and 3.5% of its wildlife species are unique to the country7. Scientists believe this phenomenon is partially due to the four converging climate zones in the region and extremes of topography that have combined to isolate



- 20 -

various plants and animals leading to the evolution of new species.8 As development occurs in remote or untouched areas throughout Turkey, however, the undisturbed ecosystems harboring unique species are threatened. 2.3.1 Irano-Anatolian Biodiversity Hotspot Particularly important to the biodiversity of Turkey is the Irano-Anatolian biodiversity hotspot, designated as such by the Center for Applied Biodiversity Science Conservation International. The 34 hotspots identified worldwide have been defined as areas whose ecosystems represent a substantial percentage of global biodiversity but face tremendous development pressure. The criteria for the “hotspot” designation include two factors: the area must contain at least 1,500 endemic plant species and must also have lost at least 70% of its original habitat.9 The Irano-Anatolian hotspot, which includes parts of Kars Province, covers almost 900,000 km2 and extends through a substantial portion of Turkey as well as parts of Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Iraq, Iran and Turkmenistan. 85% of the vegetation in this region has been lost to development, while several unique species face possible extinction. Map 2.7: Irano-Anatolian Biodiversity Hotspot. Conservation International.

Source: http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/Hotspots/irano_anatolian/ 2.3.2 The World Wildlife Fund’s Global 200 The Global 200, a World Wildlife Fund initiative, is a scientific global ranking of the Earth’s most biologically important land and water habitats. Started in the late 1990s, this program covers every major habitat type on five continents and in all oceans, and is used to focus conservation efforts toward protecting key ecosystems. The unit of measurement used to identify the Global 200 is the “ecoregion”, large areas that maintain a consistent climate, similar ecological features and characteristic plant and animal species. Two of the Global 200 regions fall in Eastern Turkey:

Kars Province



- 21 -

• The Caucasus-Anatolian Hyrcanian Temperate Forests, a 200,000 square mile region replete with temperate rain forests, ecological gems that occur in only seven regions in the world, comprises part of Kars Province. Many plant species and several animal species in these forests are found nowhere else.

• The Anatolian Freshwater region, an area of 193,000 square miles containing Lake Van at its easternmost point.

Map 2.8: Eastern Turkey’s Global 200 regions

Source: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/wildworld/global.html 2.3.3 Ecoregions in Kars Province Eastern Anatolia provides a home for species representing the three biological sub-areas of Central/Northern Europe, Central Asia, and the Middle East/North Africa. Kars Province contains part of two distinct World Wildlife Fund ecoregions: the Caucasus Mixed Forests to the north and the Eastern Anatolian Montane Steppe to the south. Both showcase large numbers of endemic plants and some endemic animal species. Very little of Turkey’s land in these ecoregions is protected due in part to a lack of national regulations. In 1998 Turkey developed a 20-year National Environmental Action Plan with technical and financial support from the World Bank, but the document focuses primarily on identifying environmental problems with significant negative impacts on the economy. While Georgia and Armenia have developed national Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans to protect their fragile ecosystems, Turkey has yet to adopt plans of its own. However, the UN Global Environmental Facility is currently supporting a Biodiversity and Natural Resource Management Project in the Camili Region on the Turkish/Georgian border in Artvín Province, and it is possible that the strategies developed during this initiative could be expanded into a nationwide plan.10 The Allahüekber Mountains in Kars were designated as a national park in 2004, but surrounding

Caucasus-Anatolian Hyrcanian Temperate Forests (yellow)

Anatolian Freshwater region (blue)

Kars Province



- 22 -

land is currently threatened by inappropriate agricultural use, overgrazing and deforestation for construction materials and fuel. In fact, the overall deforestation rate in Turkey has increased by 31.9% since the end of the 1990s and from 1990 to 2005 Turkey lost 2.2% of its forest and woodland habitat.11 Growing use and a lag in supply of electricity and gas have pushed the poor to resort to wood for cooking and heating. Map 2.9: Eastern Anatolia ecoregions designated by the World Wildlife Fund.

Source: www.worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/ 2.3.4 Internationally Important Bird Areas in the Kars Region Eastern Anatolia is a well-known haven for birds migrating between Asia and Europe. There are 56 Internationally Important Bird Areas (IBA) in the region, areas that have been designated by the Audubon Society as critical to birds during parts of their life cycle. Kars Province is home to part of five IBAs. Cagan Sekercioglu of Stanford University indicated that the grounds of Kafkas University, while not technically an IBA, are nonetheless important as a migratory bird stopover area and a breeding area for some birds. In three weeks, he recorded 105 different bird species on Kafkas University lands and forecasts that the number will eventually exceed one-third of Turkey’s 465 bird species. The following map shows a preliminary delineation of the most important bird areas in the region, areas that should be completely protected against development. Unfortunately, one of these areas is the Coruh River Gorge which has already been affected by the dam at Artvín and will continue to be impacted by plans for other hydroelectric projects.

Caucasus Mixed Forests

Eastern Anatolian Montane Steppe

Lake Van

Kars Province



- 23 -

Map 2.10: Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in the Kars Region.

Source: Cagan Sekercioglu 2.3.5 The Coruh River Hydroelectric Project A major hydroelectric development project has been initiated by the Turkish Government to be constructed on the Coruh River running through the Province of Artvín to the Black Sea. Three dams, including the Artvín dam closest to the Black Sea, are under construction or have been completed, and seven others are planned for completion by 201012. The forecasted outputs of the project are 10,474 million kilowatt hours of electric power and irrigation water for 260,000 hectares of agricultural land.



- 24 -

However, the damming of rivers often takes a severe toll on surrounding villages and on local ecosystems. Most notably, the Yusufeli dam, currently under negotiation, would completely or partially submerge 18 towns and villages, displacing 15,000 people and destroying archeologically important structures. The proposed project also seriously threatens the undisturbed wildlife habitats surrounding the river, most of which have not be properly documented. Dr. Cagan Sekercioglu of Stanford University indicated that migrating birds will lose stopover points and breeding grounds, and

in particular riverine birds along this fast moving river will be threatened. While the full impact of the dam has yet to be assessed, some impact on climate can be expected because of the size of this dam and could irreversibly damage the habitats of certain plant and animal species. The project is understandably controversial and made headlines at the end of 2002 when the lead contractor, French company SPIE, withdrew from the deal along with Spanish and Belgian companies under pressure from human rights and environmental conservation NGOs as well as other civil society groups. 2.4 Regional rural settlement patterns In the late 1990s the State Planning Organization prepared a regional plan targeting the development of the Eastern Anatolia Region covering 16 provinces. We have focused on the five provinces of Kars, Ardahan, Iğdir, Ağri and Erzurum. Available statistics for Artvín (which is not included in the EAP Master Plan) have been displayed on several of the maps that follow. In the course of preparing the Eastern Anatolia Project Master Plan (EAP), an analysis of the region’s rural settlement patterns was undertaken and provides information relevant to understanding the area’s rural development potential. 2.4.1 Distribution of Rural Settlements The EAP Project region is home to 18.8 percent of Turkey’s villages with 6,556 village administration units in 16 cities. However, a number of other smaller settlements exist where legally designated lands are held in common by the village residents, usually under a usufruct tenure system. These hamlets are legally tied to administrations in their vicinity. Taking these into account, the total number of permanent settlements in the region reaches as many as 14,500. Together, the five provinces have a total of 3,403 permanent settlements. Ağri and Iğdir are the densest, with 62.5 and 66.4 villages per 1000 km2 while Kars is the most sparsely populated with 455 settlements and a density of 44.2 villages per 1000 km2.

Illustration 2.6: The Artvín Dam on the Coruh River.


Illustration 2.3: One of the dams under construction on the Coruh River at Artvin



- 25 -

Map 2.11: Provinces of the Eastern Anatolian Region

Source: Eastern Anatolia Project Master Plan Table 2.2: Distribution of Rural Settlements by Province Provinces Number of

Villages Population Smaller

Settlements Population Total Total

Population Ağri 570 242,585 359 33,813 929 276,398 Ardahan 239 115,635 45 8,855 284 124,490 Erzurum 1,035 362,808 486 42,328 1,521 405,136 Iğdir 158 73,500 56 8,637 214 82,137 Kars 383 212,455 72 7,997 455 220,452 Total 2,385 1,006,983 1,018 101,630 3,403 1,108,613 Total for Turkey

34,962 12,699,434 41,495 3,554,223 76,457 16,253,657

Percentage 18.8% 18.3% 15.9% 13.7% 17.4% 17.3% Source: SIS 1997 Census Results and 1998 GDRA Planning and Research Division Table 2.3: Density of Rural Settlements by Province Provinces Total Number of

Villages Total Surface area of Villages (km2)

Number of Villages per 1000 km2

Ağri 570 9,124 62.5 Ardahan 243 4,364 55.7 Erzurum 1,058 22,526 47.0 Iğdir 161 2,426 66.4 Kars 384 8,679 44.2 Total 2,416 47,119 55.2

Source: Calculated from SIS 1997 Census Results



- 26 -

2.4.2 Water infrastructure in villages in the Kars region. Access to potable water is a concern for many villages in Eastern Anatolia. In the EAP region as a whole, 15% of villages have insufficient potable water supply, while 11% have no access to potable water. In Kars Province, 19% lack an adequate supply of potable water and 13% have no potable water. Of the four provinces surrounding Kars, Erzurum has the highest percentage of villages with sufficient access to potable water at 82%. Table 2.4: Villages with access to potable water by province Provinces Sufficient

Potable Water

% Insufficient Potable Water

% No Potable Water

% Total %

Ağri 468 51% 254 28% 197 21% 919 100%Ardahan 218 76% 25 9% 42 15% 285 100%Erzurum 1,252 82% 129 8% 161 10% 1,542 100%Iğdir 115 54% 80 37% 19 9% 214 100%Kars 308 68% 86 19% 61 13% 455 100%

Source: GDRA-Planning and Research Division’s Service Applications Inventory, Ankara, January 1999 2.5 Migration 2.5.1 Migratory Movements in Eastern Anatolia and the Kars Region Globalization of the world economy has negatively affected Turkey’s rural sectors, hitting the Eastern Anatolian region particularly hard. As a result, Eastern Anatolia is experiencing significant out-migration as rural inhabitants seek employment in more prosperous provinces or larger urban centers. Migratory movements in Eastern Anatolia generally take two forms: migration from rural areas to urban centers within the same province, and migration from poorer provinces to richer provinces within the country. The growth in the region’s urban population demonstrates the large-scale rural-urban movements. From 1960 to 1997, the provinces’ cities grew from 324,654 persons, or 9.6 percent of the population, to 2,379,134 persons, or 40.5 percent of the population. Regarding population movements outside of the region, the fertility rate in the Eastern Anatolian provinces is twice the country’s average while the population growth rate is lower than the national rate, indicating that a substantial number of the inhabitants are leaving the area. This is confirmed by the migration data given below. Kars and its surrounding provinces exhibit the migratory patterns common to the region: A growing proportion of the population living in urban centers and a negative net migration balance. Map 2.12 shows the rising growth rate of urban populations in Kars and five of

Map 2.12: Growth rate of urban population by Province, 1975-2000. Source: Turkish Statistical Institute, 2000



- 27 -

its surrounding provinces. Between 1975 and 2000, Erzurum’s urban population grew by over 50 percent, while all of the other provinces except Ardahan showed a 35 to 50 percent growth rate in the same year. Erzurum has also experienced the most out-migration with up to 100,000 people

leaving the province between 1995 and 2000, followed by Ağri with less than 75,000 and Kars and Artvín in the 25,000 to 50,000 range (See Map 2.13) Overall, Northeast Anatolia has suffered from negative net migration rates since 1975. This phenomenon peaked from 1985 to 1990, when net migration rates in Kars, Ardahan and Iğdir peaked at -150% (See Map 2.16). In Kars itself, significant migratory movements occurred in two specific periods. In the 1960s and 1970s, rural dwellers moved to the larger centers within the Province and elsewhere in Turkey. The second substantial shift came in the 1990s during a redistricting that separated Ardahan and Iğdir, once a part of Kars Province, into separate entities. During this period urban and rural populations headed for Turkey’s major urban centers or emigrated to

Germany (where a large Turkish community was already well-established) or to other E.U. countries. Maps 2.14, 2.15, 2.16 and 2.17 on the following page show the net migration prior to the redistricting and therefore grouping the three provinces together, and Map 2.17 shows the figures after the redistricting with separate statistics for the three provinces. Ardahan has the highest negative migration balance and Iğdir the lowest while Kars is in the middle range. 2.5.2 Survey on Rural-Urban Linkages The Institute team conducted meetings and interviews in Kars city and undertook a survey of 50 households who had migrated to Kars from villages in the region to assess the dynamics of rural/urban linkages and the socio-economic impacts of migration. During visits to Kaleiçi and several gecekondu neighborhoods within the Kars city boundaries, the responses received centered around lack of employment opportunities, reliance on government to provide jobs and assistance and disappointment in the fact that it is not forthcoming. Women were skilled in weaving and handicrafts but lacked organization and markets for their goods. Those interviewed migrated primarily from surrounding villages but still felt they lacked stability. Some wished they had stayed in their villages as their expenses went up considerably with city living. Most were happy at the prospect of being moved to better accommodations by the Municipality but wondered how they would pay their utility bills. Because of the poverty levels prevailing among rural migrants to Kars, dwellers in the gecekondu were unable to send remittances to their relatives back in the village. In fact most were receiving food products from their relatives in the villages.

Map 2.13: Emigration by Province, 1995-2000 Source: Turkish Statistical Institute, 2000



- 28 -

Maps 2.14, 2.15, 2.16, 2.17: Rate of net migration from Kars and surrounding provinces

Source: Turkish Statistical Institute, 2000 i. Socio-economic profiles of migrants to Kars The survey comprises interviews of 47 men and 3 women of whom 66% are in the 20 to 40 age bracket. The average household size is 5.6 members per household, as several of the migrants interviewed come from large families with about 10 members and may have elderly parents or younger siblings living with them. Nuclear families are usually composed of two adults in their late twenties to early forties and either young children or teenagers. In 86% of the households, decisions on financial matters are made by male members, mostly fathers in their late 50s or older. The other 12% of households have joint decision-making between husbands and wives or shared with other adult family members. Only one family headed by a single mother reported herself as the key decision-maker for her two sons aged 21 and 19 years old respectively.

Map 2.14 Map 2.15

Map 2.17 Map 2.16



- 29 -

Education presents a bipolar distribution: 48% of the interviewees claim to have at least 11 or more years of education, and 36% report 5 or less years of education (see Table 2.5). The three female migrants interviewed have 15 years of education each. Table 2.5: Number of Years of Education of Migrants to Kars Education Years No. of migrants (%) 5 and below 18 (36%) 6 to 10 8 (16%) 11 to 15 23 (46%) 15 and above 1 (2%) Total 50 (100%)

Prior to coming to Kars, 82% of the migrants and their families worked in agriculture and/or stockbreeding (see Table 2.6). Following the move to Kars, more than half hold jobs in the service industries. The rest, mostly the younger adults, are in technical or clerical jobs. Migrants’ expectations reflected in their desired first job do not match the realities of employment opportunities in Kars or the jobs they are presently holding. Only 20% are actually working in the type of occupation they looked for when they first moved to Kars. Table 2.6: Past and Present Occupations Employment Sectors Past Present PRIMARY Agriculture, Stockbreeding, Farming 41 1 SECONDARY Construction 1 1

TERTIARY – TECHNICAL/PROFESSIONAL 1 10 TERTIARY – ENTREPRENEURIAL/SERVICE-BASED Retail, personal services, small and microbusinesses 0 24

TERTIARY – GOVERNMENT 0 2 OTHER Student, no job preference, unemployed 0 2 N/A 7 0

*The number listed in each column may not refer to the same respondents. 76% of the migrants interviewed spend 1000 YTL or less on monthly household expenditure13 (see Table 2.7). When asked if their monthly income covers their expenses, 72% of the interviewees reported their income as insufficient to meet the expenses they incur. But it is unclear whether the reference to income includes anything beyond earned wages and salaries or pensions and most probably excludes all forms of in-kind assistance received from relatives and friends.



- 30 -

Table 2.7: Monthly Household Expenditure Monthly Household Expenditure (YTL) No. of Men No. of Women Total (%)

500 YTL or less 18 18 (36%) 501 to 800 15 15 (30%) 801 to 1000 5 5 (10%) 1001-1500 6 1 7 (14%) 1501 and above 2 2 4 (8%) N/A 1 1 (2%) Total 47 3 50 (100%)

ii. Rural-Urban Linkages Rural-urban migration to Kars began in the 1950s. However, the bulk of the influx occurred in the 1970s and 1980s (see Table 2.8). On average, the migrants come from villages about 40 to 45 km away from Kars. 40% come from villages around Kars including Boğatepe and Çakmak, 36% come from the southern rural regions of Kağizman, Digor, Selim and Sarikamiş. Migrants from the Kağizman region typically travel about 70 km to come to Kars. The three most popular destination mahalles are Yusufpasa, Halitpasa and Bulbul. Unlike in many larger cities, migrants from the same village do not congregate in the same mahalle. However, Yusufpasa mahalle appears to be popular among migrants from the rural areas of Boğatepe, while Bulbul mahalle attracts migrants from the Kağizman area. Table 2.8: Number of years in Kars

County of Origin

Years

No. of migrants

(%) Kars-

Merkez Kağizman Selim Sarikamiş Digor Akyaka Susuz Arpaçay Gole

5 and below 5 (10%)

2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

6-10 9 (18%) 5 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 11-20 14 (28%) 7 3 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 21-30 18 (36%) 4 2 2 0 2 0 3 4 1 31 and more 4 (8%)

2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

Total 50

(100%) 20

(40%) 9

(18%) 2

(4%) 2

(4%) 5

(10%)2

(4%) 4

(8%) 5

(10%) 1

(2%) A major cause of rural-urban migration is poverty and lack of opportunity in the villages. 64% of the migrants have come “to earn income” in order to send money back to their families or in search of stable jobs, while the rest have come to Kars to seek a better standard of living (see Table 2.9). Almost all of the 13 migrants who have come to look for employment are now working the service industries: Nine have found jobs as “workers” in hotels, cafés, shops, etc, while the rest are working as taxi drivers, in marketing and two in the Municipality. A migrant who expressed the specific desire to find work in Kars as a photographer/journalist did not find the job he came for. He is now a folk-dance trainer.



- 31 -

Table 2.9: Reasons for Migrating Reasons No. of migrants (%) Send funds back to village 12 (24%) Earn income* 6 (12%) Find job* 14 (28%) Get an education 4 (8%) Achieve a better living standard* 11 (22%) Secure future for children and individual 2 (4%) Other reasons 1 (2%) Total 50 (100%)

* The 4 migrants (who gave ‘N/A’ in the Qn24 that the above data is based on) have answered in another question (Qn15) that they would only return to the villages under the circumstances of job opportunities (2 migrants), better living standards (1 migrant) higher value harvest (1 migrant) and availability of water (1 migrant). Only 30% of the households surveyed still have immediate family living in the rural areas i.e. parents, siblings and in-laws. The rest have extended family members, i.e. uncles, aunts and cousins. Frequency of visits between the migrants and their relatives in the villages is determined more by distance and family relations than the length of time the migrants have left their villages. Of the 20 migrants from Kars County, 55% visit their relatives frequently while only about 28% of the 18 migrants from Kağizman, Selim, Sarikamiş and Digor do so as frequently (see Table 2.10). The survey results show that 74% of all migrants are still in frequent contact (several times a year) with their relatives in the villages, traveling to the villages for major occasions and receiving visiting relatives in their city homes. Even among migrants who left their villages over ten years ago, family connections remain strong. This strong link can be an asset in promoting sustainable rural development in the region. Table 2.10: Frequency of returning to village for visits

Location of villages

Frequency

No. of migrants

(%) Kars-

Merkez Kağizman Selim Sarikamiş Digor Akyaka Susuz Arpaçay Gole

Everyday 1 (2%) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weekly 5 (10%) 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 At least once a month 7 (14%)

3 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0

Several times a year 7 (14%)

5 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

Subtotal 20 11 2 1 0 2 0 3 1 0 Twice a year 4 (8%)

0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0

Once a year 7 (14%)

1 4 0 0 0 0 1 1 0

Sometimes 3 (6%) 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rarely 15 (30%) 4 2 1 2 2 1 0 2 1 Not at all 1 (2%) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 30 9 7 1 2 3 2 1 4 1

Total 50

(100%)

20 (40%)

9 (18%)

2 (4%)

2 (4%)

5 (10%

)

2 (4%)

4 (8%)

5 (10%)

1 (2%)



- 32 -

Over 60% of the migrants who have immediate family still living in the villages visit their family regularly. Only two migrants, one from a village in Arpaçay and one from Sarikamiş, have ‘rarely’ any contact with their fathers. However, the Sarikamiş migrant intends to bring his father to live with him in Kars, a common practice when parents are too old to be on their own without assistance from children or relatives. Even among migrants who have extended family in the villages, only 20% have little regular contact with their relatives in the villages. Yet almost all of them stated their intention to bring some of their relatives to Kars. Despite the strong links between migrants and their families, only 30% send financial or in-kind remittances back to their villages. Of these, 80% send remittances on a regular basis, mostly during the planting and harvesting seasons. 24% of the migrants interviewed reported that they migrated to Kars for the specific purpose of sending remittances back to their villages. Only half of these have managed to do so. It is typical that relatives bring agricultural and animal products as well as handicrafts from the village as presents or to have them sold in the city. 34% of the migrants reported that they obtain part of their food provision from the villages (e.g. cheese and honey) and 66% report that they sell village products in the city. iii. Village Life The villages the migrants come from range in size from 30 to 450 households. Over 76% reported that their villages have experienced a loss of population in the previous five to ten years. Only four reported an increase in the number of households in their villages. Three of these four migrants come from the village of Akyayla in Kağizman County and report that the village has grown from about 45 to 65 households. The other place that is increasing in size is the village of Akyaka where 300 households presently live. In eight cases the number of households has not changed but the village may have still experienced a loss of population. When asked under what circumstances the migrants would consider returning to their village, 22% said they do not want to return at all. Only one migrant would like to return to the village regardless of circumstances. The remainder offered specific conditions necessary to motivate their return to the village. These responses, shown in Table 2.11 below, clearly indicate the need for income supplementation through non-farm income-generating activities or financial support and training to improve agriculture and stockbreeding practices. Table 2.11: Conditions necessary for migrants to return to villages Conditions stated by migrants No. of responses (%) Subsidy for agriculture and/or stock breeding 18 (36%) Financial support to farmers 3 (6%) Subsidy for investments (e.g. tractor) 2 (4%) Job and income generation opportunities 5 (10%) Organic agriculture opportunities 1 (2%) Better living standards 4 (8%) Infrastructure: roads, water, education 4 (8%) N/A 1 (2%) Total 38 (100%)

Most migrants have little knowledge concerning organic agriculture and little understanding of the connection between infrastructure, productivity and marketing. Yet close to half of the



- 33 -

migrants surveyed dream of returning to their villages stating that they miss the contact with nature, working in the fields, close relations with family members and friends, and the sense of solidarity and community that prevails in the village. Table 2.12: Valued features of village life Village qualities mentioned by migrants* No. of responses (%) Stock breeding 6 (9%) Agriculture 10 (16%) Relationships and family 8 (13%) Nature (Fresh air, green fields, stream) 25 (37%) Solidarity among village residents 4 (6%) Peaceful and restful environment 3 (4%) Village food 2 (3%) Animals 2 (3%) Everything 2 (3%) N/A 6 (9%) Total 68 (100%)

* Some respondents mentioned several valued qualities of village life. All responses are shown here. iv. Urban Living Conditions Despite their longing for some aspects of village life, 58% of migrants expressed satisfaction with living conditions in the city (see Table 2.13). Of the 21 who said that they were not happy in the urban environment, five did not want to return to their villages. 68% of the migrants surveyed own their houses in Kars and overwhelmingly feel that the house they have in the city is of the same quality or better than their village home. Yet some of the houses in the gecekondus are not connected to the water supply network. Residents have to carry water up the slopes, buy water or wait for the fire department to bring water to the area. 38.2% of the underserviced families stated that they are unhappy with their living environment. Even among tenants, 68.8% feel that their rented house in Kars is better than their village home. Except for one household who depends on the river as its source of water supply, the rest get their water from the city network. Paradoxically 50% of renters are unhappy with life in the urban environment. Table 2.13: Urban Living Conditions

Better House Quality Access to Water Happy in Kars Ownership type

No. of migrants City/

Same Village N/A City

Network Others Yes No

Owners 34 (68%)

31 (91.2%)

1 (3%)

2 (5.8%)

29 (85.3%)

5 (14.7%)

21 (61.8%)

13 (38.2%)

Renters 16 (32%)

11 (68.8%)

4 (25%)

1 (6.2%)

15 (93.8%)

1 (6.2%)

8 (50%)

8 (50%)



- 34 -

v. Alternatives for the Future 82% of the migrants interviewed stated that they have some knowledge of traditional culinary and medicinal plants and affirmed that they know of elders who have good knowledge of herbal medicinal formulas. Half of the migrants interviewed stated that they are familiar with wild animals or birds in the Province. In terms of available skills and preferences, 74% of migrants reported agriculture and stockbreeding as their preferred areas of expertise if opportunities existed to engage in these activities and earn a decent income. When asked what should be done to improve conditions in their villages so that they can become a sustainable and attractive living environment for future generations, the predominant recommendations were financial assistance and education (see Table 2.14). 20% were unable to make any suggestions, a reflection of economic distress in the villages and lack of awareness of the potential contribution of improved practices. Similarly, information regarding organic agriculture and non-farm opportunities in rural areas is sorely lacking. Table 2.14: Suggestions to improve village life Suggestions No. of responses (%) Financial Support and/or Fuel Oil 14 (28%) Information and Awareness 8 (16%) Education, training, coordination 10 (20%) Subsidy with training 4 (8%) Organic agriculture training 1 (2%) Entrepreneurship 1 (2%) Others 2 (4%) N/A 10 (20%) Total 50 (100%)

2.5.3 The Emergence of Hometown Associations Hometown Associations (HTAs) are organizations of migrants from the same rural towns or villages that group themselves to provide social support or to raise money to fund projects in their home towns. This concept is still at an embryonic stage among migrants from Kars Ankara is home to 50 Associations of migrants from Kars and the surrounding provinces. Of these, 30 are active and 20 exist on paper only. The active associations primarily serve a social function, providing opportunities to meet and engage in social activities such as card playing. Of the 30 active associations, only three or four have a formal organizational structure and have taken on projects to benefit their members. i. Kars-Ardahan-Igdir Karslılar Federasyonu

The precursor to the Kars-Ardahan-Iğdir Karslilar Federation was founded as an Association in 1994 but merged with four other organizations to form the Federation in 2005. This Federation is dedicated to supporting immigrants to Ankara from the Kars region. The five associations involved are:

• Kars-Ardahan-Iğdir Serhatlilar Cultural and Solidarity Association, • Promotion of Sarikamiş and Solidarity Association,



- 35 -

• Kars Kağizman Association, • The Association of Youth Born in Kars and Sarikamiş Living in Ankara, • Ardahan (Bagdat) Ovapinar Village Association.

The Federation has a formalized organizational structure. The organization’s first Chairman was chosen from among the members of the founding associations. Within six months, the Federation held meetings to determine its governing boards which then elected their own leaders. The Federation will not be able to add more associations to its membership as a new law regulating federations and foundations limits membership to founding associations only. The Federation and all of its members do not hold regular meetings, though they do try to assemble fairly frequently. Some of the group’s leaders come together each weekend to meet in the Federation’s office in Ankara. According to the group’s constitution, it is requested that members pay annual dues but contributions are more or less voluntary. These dues are then used to sponsor the Federation’s projects in Ankara. The Federation does not restrict itself to particular types of projects but is willing to undertake a range of initiatives depending on cost. Their most recent projects have been purchasing new toys and folkloric dresses for the Atatürk Day-Care Center and providing food subsidies to members of their organization living in Ankara. They also offer low-cost language and music classes to the public. The director of the Managing Board generally selects the projects the group will fund. The group has not funded any projects in Kars, largely due to their recent establishment, limited funds and lack of information on current projects. Leaders of the Federation state that members might be interested in partnering with the Municipality or NGOs on projects designed to generate employment or advance touristic activities, but securing contributions for these types of projects might prove difficult. Eventually the Federation would like to see all associations interested in promoting Kars residents’ well-being come under one umbrella, an achievement that would enable them to secure more funding and leverage their resources. Kars Cultural and Solidarity Association

The Kars Cultural and Solidarity Association was founded as an Association in 1990 and is open to anyone from Kars Province. The 60 member group elects the association’s chair and board, and meets primarily on weekends. As with the Kars-Ardahan-Iğdir Karslilar Federation, members contribute voluntary dues which are used for a variety of projects. So far, the group has been interested primarily in finding jobs for unemployed members in Ankara and in giving musical instrument lessons. They have very little revenue from members’ dues and have found it difficult to start other projects. However, they would be interested in partnering with other organizations on projects in Kars depending on their financial situation. It is evident from the survey that many migrants from villages to the Kars area have not succeeded in saving enough money to send significant amounts as remittances to their families in the villages. It is unlikely that they will be able to donate to projects that are not profitable in some form.



- 36 -

Tourism is an exceptionally good sector in which to initiate both small and large financially viable and civic-minded projects which may be of interest to migrants. In many countries in Latin America, migrants abroad are investing in hotels and other touristic projects that promise a fairly large return while also benefiting the home towns. However, to generate the funds needed for such investments would require that hometown associations be more fully developed and as entrepreneurial as their Latin American counterparts are today. Proactive outreach from the Governor, the Mayor, council members and senior officials in Kars will help existing associations move in this direction. Their leaders must be presented with projects that can meet their expectations financially and socially. The Kars region can develop tourism-based profit-making ventures in pilot villages and create a marketing strategy and project information packages to attract private investors. These packages could also be distributed among Kars migrants through the hometown associations in the different cities.



- 37 -

3 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF VILLAGES IN KARS PROVINCE

The assessment of rural development potential in Kars Province is based on an analysis of:

• The links between the rural and urban economies; • The prevailing conditions in the villages based on field visits to 22 villages and

discussions with the Kars Province Department of Agriculture. • Programs initiated by the Province’s Department of Agriculture regarding the restoration

of the natural vegetation of the region and the improvement of livestock breeding. The livestock issues were also discussed with the Union of Stockbreeders.

• Discussion with SÜRKAL and visits to villages affected by the BTC Rural Development Program to assess the impact of the activities implemented by SÜRKAL in the most promising villages.

To complete this assessment, eight villages having a high development potential were selected as sites for pilot projects and activities specific to each village in order to realize this potential.

Illustration 3.1: Children in Ali Sofu Village




- 38 -

Map 3.1: Villages visited in Kars

3.1 Interviews of village households The second section of this report addressed rural-urban linkages by describing and analyzing data gathered from interviews of 50 migrants from nearby villages living in Kars municipality. To complete the analysis, 47 village households were also surveyed to gather detailed information on the challenges rural households face and the economic and social links between villages and urban centers. The households interviewed were asked a set of basic questions and were then divided into two subsets of 25 and 22. The first group responded to specific questions on village life and rural practices (subset 1), while the second gave information related to the links between rural and urban economies (subset 2). 3.1.1 Profile of Rural Households The team interviewed 46 men and 1 woman in the course of this survey. 49% of the heads of household were in the 25 to 45 age bracket. The average household size was six members, although some families reported their children who had migrated to Kars as part of their households. The number of small families was offset by larger households of up to 15 members.



- 39 -

Table 3.1: Ages of Heads of Household Age Groups No. of villagers (%) 25 to 35 11 (23%) 36 to 45 12 (26%) 46 to 55 9 (19%) 56 to 65 5 (11%) 65+ 9 (19%) n/a 1 (2%) Total 47 (100%)

In subset 1, educational experience was closely divided between elementary and secondary schooling. 44% of respondents reported that they had completed some secondary education, while the rest indicated they had finished only primary school. Many villages have elementary schools, but children must often be transported to high schools in neighboring towns to continue their education. Adequate health care is another concern for village dwellers. Only 32% of villagers in subset 1 reported having a health clinic in their village, and 80% stated that they do not have any form of health insurance. Table 3.2: Educational and Health Care Facilities by Village Villages Elementary School Secondary School Health Clinic Çakmak Yes No Yes Çilehane Yes, with 50-60 students* No Yes Yolboyu Yes, with 100 students No No* Handere Yes No No Koçköyü Yes, with 120 students No Yes Lehimli Yes No No Subatan Yes No No Tasbasi Yes, with 22 students No No Turkgozu Yes, with 14 students No No

*These responses were reported by the villagers interviewed. In a few cases, respondents gave conflicting answers regarding the number of students in the school or the existence of a health clinic. 3.1.2 Livelihoods As in most villages in the region, villagers’ primary occupations were agriculture, stockbreeding and dairy production. 89% were involved in crop-cultivation, primarily of wheat, oats, and barley. Other crops cited included corn, beans, clover, flaxseed, and canola. 63% also reported sowing high protein animal feed such as yonca, korunga and fig. Of those who raise crops, 36% indicated that they use chemical fertilizers to increase production, and one individual declared that nothing would grow on his

Illustration 3.2: Typical village in Kars Province




- 40 -

land without them. Interestingly, 17% said they use only natural fertilizers, and almost 10% reported using organic farming practices. The villagers growing organic crops were all from Büyük Çatma, a community which prides itself on its farming methods. Two other individuals expressed interest in learning organic farming techniques, while one villager claimed to have knowledge of organic farming but not the budget to afford the expensive registration and certification processes required for produce to bear the “certified organic” label. Table 3.3: Fertilization Methods Fertilization No. of villagers who raise crops (%) Chemical fertilizers 15 (36%) Natural fertilizers alone 3 (7%) Natural fertilizers and organic farming methods 4 (10%) Fallowing land alone 1 (2%) Using higher quality seed 2 (5%) n/a 17 (40%) Total 42 (100%)

Every household in subset 2 practiced animal husbandry, and all except one reported taking measures to improve their stockbreeding. These activities ranged from keeping a close watch on the health of the animals to practicing artificial insemination, and the responses demonstrated differences in opinion on optimal methods of maintaining their herds. Villagers in Kars have had varying degrees of success when taking part in projects to advance stockbreeding. These experiences are discussed in section 3.3.1. Table 3.4: Methods of Improving Stockbreeding (Subset 2) Measures taken* No. of villagers (%) Monitoring animal health 14 (42%) Artificial insemination 5 (15%) Maintaining one species 3 (9%) Growing high protein animal feed 3 (9%) Crossbreeding 2 (6%) Improving fertility of blood 2 (6%) Maintaining the number of cattle 2 (6%) Proper hygiene 1 (3%) n/a 1 (3%) Total 33 (100%)

*Some respondents gave more than one answer. 79% of the villagers reported producing dairy products including milk, yogurt, butter and cheese, either for their families or to sell in town. Goods produced by villagers to sell in the city are discussed in more detail in section 3.1.5.

Illustration 3.3: Many families continue to raise sheep and use sheepskin and wool.




- 41 -

Carpet-weaving and crafting of traditional goods such as tablecloths, socks, slippers and bedding are skills that village women have passed down through generations. In the past, women would weave not only for their families but also to sell their products for a decent price in town. However, as the number of Turkish-made machine-woven carpets has rapidly increased, the market for the more expensive handmade ones has dwindled. As a result, many women no longer weave, and their daughters have become less interested in learning the craft.

However, the skills have not altogether disappeared. 68% of the villagers in subset 1 stated that they have knowledge of weaving carpets and making other traditional handicrafts and several expressed eager interest in producing these goods once again for a revitalized market. 3.1.3 Rural standards of living The majority of villagers interviewed in subset 1 indicated that their income was insufficient. While 28% could not calculate their income or did not answer the question, the incomes of those who responded ranged from 100 to 600 YTL per month. 24% stated that their earnings did not cover their expenses or covered the costs of food only. Surprisingly, 32% of respondents reported having a bank account. Generally, those who had determined their monthly income were more likely to place their money in the bank (see table 3.5). One individual with a bank account who stated that the household generated no monthly income received remittances from a family member in the city. Remittances are addressed in more detail in section 3.1.5. Despite low income levels, 94% of the villagers surveyed (both subsets) owned their houses. Of those, 38% inherited their homes, 17% built them, and 10% bought them from others. When subset 2 was asked if they had repaired their homes in the last five years, 64% responded affirmatively. Only two households indicated that they rent their dwellings: the first, a migrant worker living in Subatan, and the second, a family of five with young children in Borluk. Table 3.5: Knowledge of Income with Number of Bank Accounts by Village Knowledge of Income No. of Villagers (%) Bank Account Village 100-200 YTL/month 2 (8%) 0 (0%) - 200-300 YTL/month 1 (4%) 1 (4%) Koçköyü

300-500 YTL/month 3 (12%)

3 (12%) Çakmak, Çilehane, Handere

500-600 YTL/month 1 (4%) 1 (4%) Yolboyu No income 1 (4%) 1 (4%) Turkgozu Does not cover expenses 3 (12%) 0 (0%) - Covers food only 3 (12%) 0 (0%) - No idea 4 (16%) 0 (0%) - n/a 7 (28%) 2 (8%) Yolboyu Total 25 (100%) 8 (32%)

Illustration 3.4: Older woman in Ali Sofu shows the beautiful carpet she has woven for her family’s guestroom.




- 42 -

3.1.4 Challenges facing rural households Residents of villages in Kars face some challenges common to rural dwellers around the world and other difficulties unique to the region. Creative solutions to the most pressing of these obstacles are a necessary part of any rural development strategy. i. Migration Nearly every village in Kars has seen a decline in its population as individuals and families leave rural areas to seek employment in the cities. The majority of villagers interviewed claimed to know at least 100 people who had migrated, and one stated he knew of 500 households who had left their villages. In interviews of subset 1 almost every villager described their community’s dramatic loss of households and population. Some rural families have been hard hit by the loss of able-bodied family members. While migration has not affected every family equally, 7 households interviewed responded that their workload had significantly increased when family members left for the city. Some households hired workers to manage the activities, but others who could not afford to pay for labor have divided the additional workload among themselves. ii. Diversification of income-generating activities

Most rural inhabitants are farmers, making a living by cultivating crops and practicing animal husbandry. Unfortunately, the region’s long harsh winters limit the diversity and yield of crops, and animals are often susceptible to a range of diseases. In fact, five families interviewed stated that they were negatively impacted by the Avian Flu which raged through Eastern Turkey and led to the culling of thousands of geese and chickens. 80% of villagers in subset 1 reported seeking supplementary sources of income. When asked for examples of

projects in which they would be interested, villagers suggested the income-generating or income-enhancing activities listed in Table 3.6.

Illustration 3.5: Some households raise bees in hives as pictured here as a supplementary source of income.




- 43 -

Table 3.6: Ideas for Income Generating Projects Activities* Responses from villagers (%) Carpet-weaving 7 (20%) Dairy compound 5 (14%) Associations/cooperatives 5 (14%) Better marketing of existing products 4 (11%) Alternative crops 3 (9%) Eco-tourism 2 (6%) Guesthouse 2 (6%) Subsidies 2 (6%) Beekeeping 1 (3%) Trout farms 1 (3%) n/a 3 (9%) Total 35 (100%)

*Most respondents gave more than one answer. iii. Services and village access Road access to many villages is inadequate at best and dangerous at worst. Few roads are paved and dirt roads are full of potholes and washed out of sections. In general, villages are only accessible by four wheel drives particularly in the winter time. Steady source of water supply is crucial for irrigation. Subset 1 responded to questions concerning the village’s water supply. Although 92% of villagers affirmed that they had access to potable water, 56% said that no water was available for irrigation. One villager in Yolboyu mentioned that he was interested in planting more trees in his village but the lack of water for irrigation made this idea impossible. iv. Lack of support Village dwellers avail themselves of very few opportunities to better their living conditions, although capacity building, educational initiatives and direct aid programs exist. Even in cases where such programs are available, many villagers are unaware of their existence. While eight families in subset 1 reported receiving some form of aid from government grants, SYDF, or the Ministry of Agriculture, the majority stated they had not received any outside support. 3.1.5 Links between rural and urban economies The extensive outmigration from villages in the region to Kars and larger cities over the last decade has hurt some households economically, but it has also created new social and economic links and strengthened existing connections between rural and urban areas. Even those who prefer to live in villages go to the city often to acquire products and visit relatives, often bringing food products to sell and village goods for family members living in the city. Some village households are receiving remittances from relatives in urban areas and using these funds to cover daily needs. Initiatives aimed at enhancing these associations between urban and rural economies and creating a marketing program for rural products in urban centers have the potential to contribute significantly to rural development and improve the living conditions of village dwellers.



- 44 -

i. Familial connections and perceptions of the city 96% of the villagers surveyed reported having relatives that had moved to the city. Istanbul was cited as a destination city by 71% of those interviewed, while Kars, Ankara and Izmir were also mentioned frequently (see Table 3.7). While most of the migrants from Kars remained in Turkey, one villager had children living as far away as Belgium and France. In the majority of cases, villagers had at least one immediate family member who had migrated (i.e. children or siblings) and one or more extended family members who had left the village (i.e aunts, uncles, nephews and cousins). Communication links between the village households and their migrant family members remain strong. All of the villagers interviewed maintain contact with their relatives in the city either by phone or through visits. Among those who reported communicating by phone, the frequency of calls ranged from twice per month to once a year. 60% reported visiting their relatives in the city at least once, while 56% indicated that their visits were more regular, some as often as once a month. The length of visits varied from a few days when traveling to see relatives in Kars to two weeks when visiting Istanbul or Izmir. Several villagers indicated that they were only able to visit their relatives in Kars as it was too difficult to travel greater distances. Surprisingly, only one person cited lack of funds as a reason for not visiting the city. Table 3.7: Frequency of Visiting Relatives by City

City No. of villagers with relatives in that city

Ability to visit relatives in the city*

Istanbul 32 (71%) 20 (63%) Ankara 7 (14%) 2 (28%) Kars 14 (31%) 9 (64%) Izmir 8 (16%) 6 (75%) Izmit 3 (12%) 1 (33%) Bursa 3 (12%) 2 (67%) Erzurum 1 (2%) 1 (100%) Eskisehir 2 (4%) 1 (50%)

*Percentage of the number who indicated they had relatives in a particular city 83% of villagers had migrant family members who returned to the village to visit. The frequency of these visits varied widely. In some cases in which the relative had relocated to Istanbul or Izmir, visits would occur only once over several years. Other households with family members in Kars stated that their relatives would return to the village quite often. One 55-year-old man reported that his family members in Kars visited his village, Yolboyu, every day. These responses are corroborated by information gathered in the previous survey of migrants in Kars which indicated that although most migrants like living in the city, some miss the close relationships with family and friends and the sense of community that life in the village provides.

Illustration 3.6: Migrants to the city frequently miss the beautiful landscapes surrounding their villages.




- 45 -

The survey showed evenly divided preferences for rural versus urban life. Over half of the villagers indicated that they liked the city, but 6% of those noted that they preferred life in the village although they enjoyed their city experiences. Over half of those who had family members in urban areas expressed interest in moving to live with their relatives in the city. Interestingly, age was not a strong determinant of preference for urban or rural areas. While a majority of those in the 25 to 35 age bracket liked the city and were considering relocating, 7 out of 9 individuals over 65 also indicated that they liked the city and four had thought of migrating. Those in the middle age groups were more resistant to the idea of moving to an urban area. Table 3.8: Preference for Urban Life and Desire to Migrate by Age Bracket Age Bracket Likes the City Would like to move Total % Yes No Yes No

25 to 35 7 (15%)

4 (9%)

7 (15%)

3 (6%)

11* (26%)

36 to 45 7 (15%)

5 (11%)

6 (13%)

6 (13%)

12 (24%)

46 to 55 4 (9%)

5 (11%)

3 (6%)

6 (13%)

9 (20%)

56 to 65 1 (2%)

4 (9%)

2 (4%)

3 (6%)

5 (10%)

65+ 7 (15%)

2 (4%)

4 (9%)

4 (9%)

9* (18%)

n/a 1 (2%)

0 (0%)

1 (2%)

0 (0%)

1 (2%)

Total 27 (57%)

20 (43%)

23* (49%)

22* (47%)

47 (100%)

*One respondent in this age bracket did not answer the second question. *Percentages are rounded off to the nearest whole number. ii. Economic links The economic links between rural and urban areas covered in the survey can be divided into three categories:

• Purchases made by villagers in the city. • Products marketed and sold in the city by villagers and the uses to which earnings are

allocated • Remittances sent by migrants in the city to their families in the village.

Purchases made in the city Apart from visiting relatives, villagers reported participating in other primarily economic activities in the urban areas. 64% cited shopping or “household requirements” as key pursuits when visiting urban centers. Others used their time in the city for health care, trade or work. Several villagers indicated that they travel to Kars every day for shopping or other needs. As links between villages and cities have strengthened, village households have begun to rely on products acquired in town. When subset 2 was asked about the goods they buy during trips to the city, about half cited clothes and food as their primary purchases, while 45% reported buying products to meet “daily needs”.



- 46 -

Products sold in the city 83% of the villagers surveyed sell one or more village products in Kars. Dairy products dominate the list, with 72% selling milk, butter, cheese, yogurt or some combination of these goods. 24% reported selling bulls or heifers, especially when money was needed. Four individuals mentioned selling animals including cattle and lambs. Noticeably absent in this list of goods were carpets and traditional handicrafts, as the market for these products has all but disappeared. A portion of the money earned from the sale of products in the city goes toward some form of investment. Villagers interviewed in subset 2 selected categories on which they were likely to spend part of their earnings. While 82% stated they used some of the money to purchase clothing, 77% also said they spent earnings on seed and equipment for improving agricultural production. Purchasing livestock, reinvesting income into the production of saleable goods, and home improvement were other investment related categories on which a significant number of villagers spent part of their income. 77% acknowledged that they used a portion of their earnings to pay off debts. Table 3.9: Uses of Income Generated by the Sale of Products in the City (Subset 2) Uses Yes No Total %

Seed or equipment for agricultural production 17

(77%) 5

(23%) 22

(100%)

Livestock 17

(77%) 5

(23%) 22

(100%) Invested back into the production of saleable goods

11 (50%)

11 (50%)

22 (100%)

Land 9

(41%) 13

(59%) 22

(100%)

Improve housing 13

(59%) 9

(41%) 22

(100%)

Clothing 18

(82%) 4

(18%) 22

(100%)

Pay debts 17

(77%) 5

(23%) 22

(100%)

Medical expenses 11

(50%) 11

(50%) 22

(100%)

Fruit trees or honeybees to diversify production 2

(9%) 20

(91%) 22

(100%)

Cooperative dues 2

(9%) 20

(91%) 22

(100%) As is typical in rural areas, male heads of household determine the family’s needs and expenditures. The only exception among those interviewed was a household headed by a 68-

Illustration 3.7: Livestock is frequently sold in the city when money is needed.




- 47 -

year-old woman who indicated that financial decisions were made jointly among family members. Remittances sent to village households Migrants to the city often attempt to secure employment that will generate enough income to send a portion to their families in the villages. However, the results of the survey indicate that this goal is rarely achieved in Kars. Only 10% of the villagers interviewed reported receiving any form of financial assistance from their relatives Kars, and only one indicated that he received these remittances on a monthly basis. Interestingly, two of the five households that received remittances stated that the funds were transferred to them through their bank account, a rare occurrence in villages in the region. 3.1.6 Case studies: Links between village households and migrants in Kars Four of the interviews conducted in the villages were undertaken with relatives of migrants in Kars who had previously been interviewed and their responses noted in the first interim report. Three of these four cases have been selected to show the challenges facing both rural dwellers and urban migrants and the connections between rural and urban economies. i. Father and son from Boğatepe In Boğatepe, the team interviewed a 55-year-old man with one son living with him in the village and another son who had migrated to the Yusufpasa mahalle in Kars. One of the villager’s children, the spouse and child lived with him and his wife in the village. His son in Kars had found a job in marketing but was not earning enough to cover his expenses of 600 YTL per month. He was unable to send money back to his family in the village, but he did bring food and other goods from the city when he returned to the village once a week. In return, his father brought milk and cheese to his son’s family when he visited Kars each month. In addition to the food products for his son, this villager also produced cheese to sell in Kars during his visits. He used the income from the sales to improve and increase production of his cheese, purchase equipment or seed to increase the yield from his wheat and oat fields, repair and improve his house that he inherited, buy clothing and cover medical expenses. Although he said he preferred the village and would not like to move to Kars, he acknowledged that the household’s lives were altered when his son and other family members migrated. He was forced to hire more workers to meet the demands of the farming, cheese production and stockbreeding.

Illustration 3.8: Cheese production in Boğatepe.

Source:Mustafa Gönen



- 48 -

ii. Cousins from Gunindi Another interview was conducted with a villager from Gunindi, a man of 57 years who reported having a number of relatives in Erzurum, Istanbul, Ankara and Kars. This villager had little liking for the city and his visits were short and infrequent, although he did report selling milk and cheese there. The earnings generated were used to purchase agriculture related products, buy

livestock, improve the home he had built and diversify the goods he was able to produce and sell. He indicated that he was a member of the village’s stockbreeding cooperative and grew yonca, korunga and fig to improve the diets of his cattle. He also has had to hire workers to compensate for the loss of migrating family members. His cousin, a migrant to the Bulbul mahalle of Kars, was also interviewed. He had relocated his entire immediate family of fourteen members with him to the city and had only cousins remaining in Gunindi, but he reported visiting the village once a month. Because of his

large family, his household faced monthly expenses of 2500 YTL. Although he had secured employment as a construction worker his wages could not come close to covering his expenses. He was unhappy in Kars and dreamed of returning to his village to practice stockbreeding, his former occupation. He was interested in participating in projects aimed at improving living conditions in his village and commented that he would return to Gunindi if a subsidy for stockbreeding was made available. iii. Cousins from Mescitli In the third case three cousins were interviewed. One had remained with his family in the village of Mescitli in Arpaçay but the other two had migrated to the Halitpasa mahalle of Kars. The cousin in the village was in his mid-thirties with four children 10 years of age and under. He expressed a liking for the city but preferred to remain in the village. The products he sold in Kars were butter, cheese and yogurt, and he reported using the income from the sales of these products to improve his barley and wheat crops, repair and add to the house he had built, purchase clothing and pay off debts. He would bring butter and cheese to his relatives when visiting them in Istanbul and Kars. The older of the two cousins in Kars, a 35-year-old father of four, kept in close communication with his relatives in Mescitli. Besides visiting the village once a week, he continued to practice stockbreeding in addition to working as a taxi driver. He indicated that he would be interested in participating in projects to enhance agricultural production and stockbreeding in his village, and stated that he would consider moving back to Mescitli if he could receive a stockbreeding subsidy The younger cousin, in contrast, was not interested in returning to the village under any circumstances. He had moved to the city to secure a better future for his two young children and

Illustration 3.9: A field of korunga, a plant used as high protein animal feed.




- 49 -

enjoyed urban life. He reported visiting his relatives in Mescitli only on religious holidays and they rarely visited him in the city. He had also found employment as a taxi driver in Kars and, unlike his cousin, he found that this job generated enough income to cover his family’s living expenditures of 900 YTL per month. 3.2 Villages affected by the BTC Pipeline 3.2.1 BTC’s Sustainable Rural Development Projects implemented in Kars Province by

SÜRKAL Under its Community Investment Program (CIP), BTC has initiated projects promoting “sustainable” rural development in villages affected by the pipeline including villages in Kars Province. One of the implementation strategies of the CIP is to form partnerships with national or local NGOs to facilitate completion of the projects. SÜRKAL (The Sustainable Urban and Rural Development Association) has been overseeing the rural development projects in Kars using USD$825,000 contributed by BTC. SÜRKAL also has received funding from several other donors in support of these efforts. The projects to be implemented fall into four categories:

• Capacity Building: Improving the technical capacity of institutions and employees • Income Generating Activities: Support for greenhouse activities and vaccination of more

than 100,000 animals. • Social Infrastructure: Small infrastructure projects, potable water supply and repairing of

storage facilities. • Agricultural Education: Introduction of the nutritious corn pickle, instruction in

greenhouse growing techniques.

BTC’s CIP project area covers four kilometers on both sides of the pipeline. In Kars Province, there are 24 villages within this band in which SÜRKAL is implementing projects. BTC has committed funds towards the improvement of infrastructure for all of the villages along the pipeline. In addition, 21 Quick Impact Projects (QIPs), initiatives designed to respond to an immediate community need, have been completed in Kars. Below are several examples of these smaller-scale projects:

• Bridge construction in Sarıgül village • Construction of an eight-kilometer potable water pipeline in Sırataşlar village • Construction of a five-kilometer potable water pipeline in Kurmançayı village • Kaptaj construction in Yalak village • Repair of storage facilities in Karaurgan village • Reforestation in Darboğaz village • Reforestation in Balyama village • Construction of water infrastructure in Başköy village

3.2.2 Assessment of program initiatives in villages with high development potential Of the 16 villages in Kars Province affected by BTC’s Community Investment Program, Karaurgan, Karakale, Hasbey, Darboğaz and Boğatepe were highlighted by SÜRKAL as having



- 50 -

the highest development potential. The team visited these five villages to assess the impact of SÜRKAL’s projects. BTC is conducting training programs and funding and implementing infrastructure projects in these five villages. This has caused many villagers some confusion over which organization is responsible for particular initiatives. SÜRKAL has been spending too little money on marketing and advertising and is therefore not well-known to local people. The NGO has included advertising funds in its budget for the coming year. Map 3.2: Kars Villages along the BTC Pipeline

* Villages in bold lettering were visited by the team. The alignment of the Pipeline on the map is approximate. i. Karaurgan This village of about 1400 residents is a successful example of organization and cooperation. In August of 2005 under the direction of SÜRKAL the village established an effective 40 member association that is currently implementing a project to construct a village sewage system with $90,000 donated in part by UNDP and SÜRKAL. The NGO has held two training sessions in the village, one focused on improving conditions at 30 dairy farms and the other aimed at teaching 15 women about environmental pollution and wastewater. At the end of the training session the experts distributed detergent, toothpaste and toothbrushes. SÜRKAL has also helped the villagers to prepare and submit an application for EU funding for qualifying projects under the various EU programs.



- 51 -

The NGO’s other activities in the village have been less successful. From 2003 to 2005 SÜRKAL had offered artificial insemination services to villagers at a price of 10 YTL per plant. This project was discontinued when private providers where retrained by the department of agriculture to offer this as a free service to farmers. In December of 2005, SÜRKAL’s project manager signed a document promising a contribution of $10,000 to the village association. Eight months have passed and that commitment has not been materialized. BTC’s involvement in the village has been less pronounced. They held a training session for 50 villagers on the subject of animal health, and also donated $21,535 to the village association. With these funds the association purchased 3,000 meters of pipe, 300 packs of cement and 1,200 cords of lumber for use in future projects. BTC also promised to purchase a slaj machine for the village but has not yet fulfilled this pledge. Overall, Karaurgan’s residents are industrious, capable, and able to understand and learn from SÜRKAL’s project development and management training. They take responsibility to improve their village’s living conditions and demonstrate innovation and openness to new ideas. ii. Karakale After Karaurgan, Karakale is the second most productive and well-organized village. At the request of SÜRKAL, in April 2005 120 villagers established the Karakale Development and Improvement Association which is now seeking funding to purchase a fertilizer top-dressing machine (gübre serpme makinası) to support farmers in their agricultural activities. In addition the association is planning to rent the machine to farmers from other villages in order to generate income for the association. SÜRKAL’s activities received mixed reviews in Karakale. The village association is still waiting for a pledged donation of $4,000 from the NGO, as well as a slaj machine that was promised in 2005. The artificial insemination project was also initiated in Karakale and terminated when private companies began to offer the service with an overall success rate of about 60%. Village women have also complained that the training sessions on animal health, infant care and hygiene were not satisfactory. However, SÜRKAL has improved three kilometers of road in the village and has partially completed construction of a water pipeline and a water storage tank. The organization also sold seed plants and seeds to local farmers, after which the production of seed plants increased from eleven tons in 2005 to twenty-five tons in 2006. BTC’s work is regarded with similar skepticism. They had committed to improve the village’s internal road network and began construction on this project. However, the villagers are not happy with these new roads as animals are not able to walk on them and have stated that they prefer the older roads. BTC also gave 4,000 meters of pipeline to construct a water channel

Illustration 3.10: Education in maintaining animal health is vital for families engaged in stockbreeding.




- 52 -

which has not yet been completed, and promised the village a fertilizer top-dressing machine and a drinking fountain which have not materialized. The association is currently awaiting the results of a project proposal on natural fertilizers and environmental protection in Karakale that was submitted to UNDP in April 2006. Karakale also has one of the most capable groups of residents who are able to make use of the project development and management training and work together with SÜRKAL to implement projects. iii. Hasbey SÜRKAL’s staff describes Hasbey as a village with an efficient women’s association that helped bring about the construction of a potable water pipeline. However, the perception in the village is very different. A women’s association exists and the leader of that organization has been chosen by SÜRKAL, but participants have not understood the content of the two organizational meetings and the association is essentially non-functioning. As for the water pipeline, it was ultimately constructed poorly by SÜRKAL and its impact is limited. Training courses on human and animal health in Hasbey have also been relatively ineffective. Women participating in the course indicated that SÜRKAL’s presentation was not clear and the information was hard to understand. SÜRKAL has successfully repaired three kilometers of gravel road, delivered 20 packages of cement, and 30 seedlings to a number of households. They oversaw the construction of seven greenhouses which were poorly built and have become rather dilapidated, and from 2004 to 2005 the NGO ran the artificial insemination program for 10 YTL per plant. SÜRKAL has received $1,353,000 to implement the above projects. The villagers are aware that BTC has contributed $850,000 to SÜRKAL and are quite critical of how the funding has been spent. BTC is not currently active in Hasbey except for the funding channeled through SURKAL. iv. Darboğaz In terms of productivity this village is also a successful case. Although the village does not yet have an association, they plan to establish one in the near future. The villagers demonstrate competence in project development and management. SÜRKAL has had somewhat more success in Darboğaz than in Hasbey. They initiated the planting of 2000 saplings and 95% of them have survived. Seven newly built greenhouses, though poorly constructed, have provided villagers with space to grow vegetables for their families, and SÜRKAL has made some contributions for seeds and animal feed. BTC’s only activity in Darboğaz has been to repair three kilometers of gravel road. Training sessions in animal health and artificial seed insemination were offered by a veterinarian to 15 people, and meetings on avian flu were held for village women. Toothpaste, toothbrushes and detergent were distributed following the meetings. Villagers complained that they did not understand the sessions. In general, residents of Darboğaz seem less flexible and less eager to improve their village than residents of Karaurgan or Karakale.



- 53 -

v. Boğatepe This village is known for its dairy products. The residents would like to pool their resources to establish a big dairy farm (mandıra) and continue their production at a larger scale, an effort which SÜRKAL supports. In addition, Boğatepe’s stockbreeding has potential but more resources are needed to expand this sector. Boğatepe is covered in more detail in section 4.3. as it is included among the villages selected by this study for their high development potential. 3.3 Assessing rural development potential A reconnaissance survey of villages in the Kars region showed that communities that offer the greatest potential for sustainability in a region suffering from rapid rural depopulation and the growing disaffection of youth for village life fall into four broad categories:

• Villages close to Kars and/or to centers of historic, environmental or cultural interests; • Villages offering climatic and vegetative variations and/or diversity; • Villages presenting cultural, biological, occupational and agricultural diversity; • Villages with unique characteristics giving them a special development potential (specific

products, pool of skills, or multi-sectoral potential); All of the villages discussed in section 4.3 fall into one or more of these categories. More specifically, the villages were selected for their high development potential in one of the following key areas:

• Marketing of dairy products particular to the region; • The practice of organic farming methods; • Picturesque landscapes and natural features that could attract eco-tourism; • A significant number of skilled weavers interested in carpet production.

Stockbreeding is also an area of prospective growth as most village dwellers are eager to raise cattle or expand their herds. However, programs to improve stockbreeding are urgently needed to improve inadequate and enhance productivity. 3.3.1 Animal Husbandry The government is eager to expand stock breeding in the Kars region and to promote cooperatives in the villages as a key mechanism to raise living standards in the rural areas. This effort has met with mixed results. To benefit from the government program farmers had to form cooperatives having a minimum of 100 members where each member owned 5 heads of cattle. The program offered 2 cows on credit to each member who owned only 3. The price was payable in installments on subsidized financing terms. Understandably the program was very popular with poor farmers who used it as a mechanism to acquire 2 cows on very advantageous terms. Unfortunately establishment of cooperatives became a vehicle to obtain the animals rather than a means of foster the cooperative spirit and spread an understanding of the advantages of cooperative action in production and transactions. It is a fact that cooperatives are often dissolved after the delivery of the animals as the farmers failed to see their usefulness and did not want to pay membership fees to participate in an organization that did



- 54 -

not offer them any tangible benefits. It is indicative that the union of cooperatives practically inactive while the union of stockbreeders is growing in importance and visibility. Providing poor farmers with a means to boost their incomes is a laudable goal. However the granting of animals does not improve stockbreeding practices where such practices are wanting as is the case in Kars. In the absence of training, monitoring and increased awareness of defective practices, the health and productivity of cattle suffer. The first shipment of cattle (from the Netherlands) was decimated by a combination of inadequate transport conditions, difficulties in adapting to the harsh climate and bad animal husbandry practices. On arrival the dehydrated animals were allowed to drink freely. They then had to walk for 1 to 2 hours on rough terrain to reach their grazing grounds which exhausted them and damaged their hoofs. They were kept in overcrowded unsanitary barns that fostered the spread of disease. The response to this disaster was to discontinue the delivery of imported animals and only provide Kars farmers with sturdy animals raised in Turkey. While this decision does help ensure the survival of animals, it does little to improve stockbreeding practices. Among these practices are the early separation of calves from their mothers and the early mating of young cows which stunts their growth and decreases their milk production. The need for awareness and training is underscored by the fact that farmers give higher priority to buying good furniture and appliances over the improvement of their barns. There is little understanding of the contribution to their incomes could help them buy the items they are keen on acquiring much sooner than they can manage at present. The Province Department of Agriculture offers many supportive programs to cattle farmers ranging from vaccination to artificial insemination. The need for training is clearly demonstrated by the issue related to vaccination. Farmers complain their vaccinated animals catch the diseases again. However the real issue is farmers do not understand that the animals need 2 injections for the vaccine to become effective and do not bother to have the animals receive the second injection. An EU team is offering technical assistance and training to promote improved stockbreeding practices. This project is funded by the EU. Since the province is not eligible to receive funding under the EU regulations for this small grants program, the municipality who is eligible has submitted the application together with the union of stockbreeders. Of special interest is the program to restore indigenous plants that provide animals with high protein. Paralleling the expansion of cattle raising, farmers have expanded the planting of wheat, barley and oats to use as animal feed. This left animals lacking in protein and therefore anemic and prone to disease. The department has been promoting the planting of korunga, fig and yonca to supplement the feed. There are now farmers who do not raise cattle but plant these species for sale to stockbreeders. The department also launched a program to restore the biodiversity of indigenous flora on land converted to agriculture but no longer in use through soil enrichment and planting of high protein species at first, them letting the other species spread naturally in the

Illustration 3.11: A field of Korunga mixed with other indigenous flora.




- 55 -

fields. This process takes some years but eventually restores the rich biodiversity of the area. The experimental projects have been successful but scaling up requires special attention to land tenure and an implementation strategy that will ensure community rights to use and safeguard the restored meadows. This is a topic that deserves to be studied in depth jointly with the Province Department of agriculture. A program could be developed to promote this approach through culturally adapted forms of collaboration and partnership between the province department of agriculture and county administration and village residents. 3.3.2 Comparative analysis of the experience of three villages: Azat, Borluk and Bulanik i. Azat The village is five kilometers away from the main road and eight kilometers from Kars city centre. The infrastructure in general is of an average level, but the quality of the drinking water has been a perennial problem for decades. The village has a primary school (5 years) but

secondary school students are transported to a school in the neighboring town. The village participated in the government supported program for stockbreeding cooperatives and each of the 100 members received two Simental cows. However, bad animal husbandry practices and in particular crowded, unsanitary barns led to the loss of a large percentage of the animals. Farmers sold the surviving ones to pay off their debts and the cooperative was dissolved. They Wilaya Agriculture Department had vaccinated the animals

but farmers kept both sick and healthy animals in the same quarters, making it difficult to check the spread of disease. A subdued but perceptible tension prevails between the few families, including the Muhtar’s, who do breed and sell cattle for meat production and those who keep a few cows for milk production. The stockbreeders practice artificial insemination and state that the animals they have cannot be used for milk production since cows barely give six liters per day. The other villagers have a milk tank and sell milk to middlemen who supply dairy businesses. ii. Borluk Even though the village is not so far from Kars city centre, the access to the village is quite difficult. The road off the main highway is in bad condition. To participate in the government program, the villagers established a cooperative. The cattle they received (Simental cows) fared badly and they lost close to 90 percent of the animals. The animal husbandry practices are deplorable and only sturdy local cows manage to survive in these tough conditions. The village lacks energetic leadership and collaborative spirit. The dairy they had

Illustration 3.12: A village household in Azat.

Source: Mustafa Gönen



- 56 -

was closed and the building used for storage. Villagers who produce milk sell individually to dairy businesses in Kars. It is indicative that the houses in the village are generally ill-maintained and in bad condition. iii. Bulanik Bulanik is a village quite close to Kars city centre. It is set in a nice natural landscape. The Directorate of Agriculture runs a project there in growing indigenous species that provide high protein animal feed such as korunga and fig. Like most other villages in the Kars Province, Bulanik households formed a cooperative to benefit from the government’s support program which provides two cows per member for a total of 200 animals. However, unlike most other villages, Bulanik residents did not lose their animals to disease. As a matter of fact this village is remarkable in having the best animal husbandry practices observed among the 22 villages visited and was often referred to as a model precisely on that account. The cooperative was dissolved but farmers paid back the outstanding debt they owed to the government for the animals. Currently the village boasts 300 Simental cows and 250 bulls. Farmers sell bulls regularly for meat production and their cows produce 25 to 30 kg of milk per day each. They take pride in their cattle. The barns are well-ventilated and have good lighting. They grow wheat, barley and oats for feed and add high protein plants to the mix so the animals are well-fed and healthy. Women and girls pay special attention to tending the animals and ensuring the survival of calves. Compared to other villages, the infrastructure in Bulanik is good but the village is organizing to request improved services. It is a productive, socially cohesive settlement that should be able to establish an association and manage projects to improve living conditions, agriculture and stockbreeding and diversify income generating opportunities.

Illustration 3.13: Houses in Bulanik




- 57 -

3.3.3 Selected villages with high development potential in key areas Map 3.3: The eight villages selected for pilot projects.



- 58 -

i. Animal Husbandry Bulanik described in section 4.2.3 and Karaurgan described in section 3.2.1

ii. Dairy Production Boğatepe This village is close to Kars Province’s western border. It is included in the BTC delineated corridor for the promotion of sustainable rural development and community investment projects. The access road to the village is relatively good and infrastructure in the region itself is reasonable. In comparison with other villages in the region, stockbreeding is quite successful. The villages have inherited and improved stables dating from the Russian period. The stables are well-built and well-ventilated. The lighting is good and the barns clean. The animals are not crowded and have space to move. There are several active dairies and the village is known for its dairy products. Three of the dairies are registered with the Ministry of Agriculture and produce Kars cheese. The BTC program implemented by SURKAL supported the dairies. However, at this time market demand is low and the dairies are operating at reduced capacity (50 percent in one, 40 percent in another and 35 percent in the third). Boğatepe households benefit from strong rural-urban links. Many families have members living in Kars and operating shops in the city center. They sell their products through these outlets (milk principally, butter and cheese). The villagers are industrious, productive and entrepreneurial. They are open to new ideas. There is excellent potential to increase productivity and rural incomes through improvement in animal husbandry and dairy farming practices and marketing of products. Çakmak Çakmak is an old, well-established agro-dairy farming community of about 250 households seven kilometers to the west of Kars. The cheese the villagers produce is internationally known and available for purchase in Europe and the U.S. under the name “Kars Cheese”. The environment is still unspoiled. Many locals have moved to Kars or commute daily to sell their famous cheese for a disappointingly low price. They spoke of the difficulties of the trade and their dissatisfaction with the lack of marketing efforts. The team discussed with them the possibility of establishing a communal dairy compound for the production and marketing of high quality Çakmak cheese that meets European food standards.


Illustration 3.14: Cheesemaker in Boğatepe



- 59 -

The first household interviewed in Çakmak was a family of five with three children aged 19, 15 and 7. The household’s sole occupation was cheese production. Despite the broad international market for the product, this family’s income is 350 YTL per month. The household head emphasized the need for “better quality production and marketing” to increase revenues. Regardless, he stated that he was happy to live in the village and much preferred village life to city life. The family keeps in touch by phone with relatives who migrated to Istanbul, but they have never visited that city. Another household of seven the team interviewed is more diversified in its production. In addition to selling Kars Cheese, they also grow wheat and raise geese. Unfortunately, they were adversely affected by the 2005 outbreak of avian flu, which may partially explain their lower income of 200 to 300 YTL per month. The head of the household indicated that he visited the city quite often and was interested in moving to an urban area. As in the first interview in Çakmak, he also suggested that the primary way to keep young people from leaving the village is to focus on improving the production and marketing of Kars Cheese. iii. Organic Farming Büyük Çatma Büyük Çatma, located on the road to Akyaka, has easy access to Kars and a decent infrastructure. This village presents interesting contrasts. It has had limited success with stockbreeding. The cooperative established to benefit from the government program was dissolved. Despite the financial burden of losing cattle, there are still some families engaged in stockbreeding. The villagers have purchased modern agricultural equipment but do not use chemicals, preferring to rely on organic farming. Their crops are diversified: flaxseed, linseed and several wheat species. Some families are engaged in beekeeping. Many households produce good artisanal cheese and honey. The premises visited were clean and the process was done under hygienic conditions. The village has interesting development potential as a source of organic products. The villagers are hard workers, open to new ideas and ready to adapt to practices that will improve their products, enhance their productivity and diversify their production. They could benefit from establishing a village association to help them better deal with government institutions, learn about new practices and opportunities and sharpen their ability to market their products.

Illustration 3.15: Men having a discussion in Büyük Çatma




- 60 -

The team visited a family in this orderly-looking community. Their house is located at the far corner of the village and showcases a surprisingly forested backyard. The head of the family is a young man who spent eight years in Istanbul in the hospitality sector but opted to return to his village when his father died. He then continued his father’s tradition of environmentally conscious approaches to business. He now runs a cottage dairy industry and also practices organic farming, still planting an almost extinct heirloom grain called kavılca. His leadership is such that most of the progressive entrepreneurial activities of the village are run out of his home. Derinöz This beautiful village with about 100 households and a population of 740 is located in Digor, 20 minutes drive along a windy dirt road from the center of town. The road is being resurfaced to make it safer for driving, especially during the winter months. The village has its own elementary school and older children are bussed to Digor to attend high school. There are a good number of educated youth willing to learn new skills. In fact, a few asked for capacity building workshops to be brought to the village. According to the muhtar, 90% of young people graduate from high school, and most would stay in the village if they could support themselves. The area is of special interest because the flora comprises a wide variety of wild and medicinal plants, including some endemic species. In fact, a self educated village botanist takes pleasure in guiding visitors in plant identification walks around the pastures and gorges. There is a protected meadow which the team was unable to visit. Down a very deep gorge there is a mineral spring. Improved access would allow a spa to be developed in the area. The Muhtar of this village is an entrepreneurial and progressive man. He runs his own business in town as a representative of John Deere tractors. He is interested in traditional / organic farming/product development ventures, capacity building workshops for village youth, the creation of a spa, a picnic area and a conservation park. There are some historical buildings in the vicinity. iv. Eco-tourism Çilehane Çilehane is a picturesque village of 100 households located along the road to Kağizman with

reasonably good access to the highway. The village has a significant population of young people. Flora is plentiful, and individual gardens are overflowing with fruit trees. Services including electricity and telephone are available in all households and the villagers have access to spring water flowing from the surrounding mountains. A new project is also in place to bring potable water to the village. There is one elementary school with 50-60 students, as well as a health clinic. In the summer, domestic tourists stop in the village to enjoy the beautiful landscape.

Illustration 3.16: The village of Çilehane.




- 61 -

In contrast to many other villages in Kars, Çilehane’s population is growing. Only ten years ago the village comprised 50 to 60 households, while it now boasts 100. Villagers’ primary occupations are agriculture-related but they are open to new ideas such as fish farming and eco-tourism. Two households were interviewed in Çilehane. The first, a young family of four, have their own fields and produce wheat, barley and fig, some of which they sell. Although the head of the household had worked in Izmir for three months as a construction worker, he preferred life in the village to that in the city and did not want to move to an urban center. However, he did state that the family income barely covers expenses and that he is seeking other sources of income. He also mentioned that women in his village no longer weave carpets but that several have well-developed weaving skills. The second interview was with a 67-year-old man with five children. He owns land but as it is not fertile he has moved into dairy production. The family markets both cheese and heifers in Kars and earns an average of 480 YTL per month. Regardless of income this villager also preferred the village to the city and expressed a desire to develop alternative sources of income to support living in the village. Both of the men interviewed believed that Çilehane would be a good candidate for an eco-tourism project and were interested in participating in such an initiative. v. Carpet weaving Yolboyu Yolboyu is a village of 140 households situated on the road to Arpaçay along a meandering river with peaceful rolling hills on the opposite bank. Access is good and the village gives the impression of a more organized settlement. Houses are better built; villagers welcome novelty and seem to maintain a community spirit. The village is connected to a potable water supply and villagers state that the water is clean. The team interviewed six households in Yolboyu. Family size ranged from two to six members and each family reported growing crops, primarily wheat, barley and clover. Two respondents complained that they were unable to earn a profit from the sale of their harvest, as their grain and animal feed are purchased at below market price by middlemen. The village’s milk and cheese are also sold for less than market value. Yolboyu residents are concerned that these financial difficulties will induce more families to leave the village for opportunities in the city. Five respondents expressed a strong need for projects to improve dairy production and increase revenues. Half of Yolboyu’s population has already migrated to the city, and the villagers maintain very good ties with their relatives in urban centers. Most of those interviewed travel to Kars weekly or daily for shopping, work or selling products. While one father expressed concern over the future of his children in terms of education and employment and said he wants to move to the city for their sake, several others were content to visit the city and enjoy village life. One household was one of the few involved in the survey who receive monthly remittances from family members in Kars. The couple, aged 72 and 67, has two children who had migrated to the city and were sending 100-150 YTL to their parents each month. Interestingly, this respondent was also one of the few who reported recently repairing his home, demonstrating the strong link between remittances and an increased standard of living.



- 62 -

Each household interviewed indicated that they have the skills to produce traditional carpets, kilims, or handicrafts. Four respondents stated that they had stopped weaving as the market for carpets had died out but were eager to begin again, and five said they would participate in projects promoting carpet production and marketing. Koçköyü Koçköyü, a village located between Arpaçay and Akyaka in the Çildir Lake area, is known internationally for the quality of its traditional carpets. They were marketed until recently by a local enterprise which closed down, mainly due to the shrinking market for hand made carpets versus cheaper machine made ones, of which Turkey has become a major exporter. Women showed the carpets they had woven from natural multicolor local wool. The quality was remarkable. They also produced wool garments including slippers with traditional carpet designs. These highly skilled women are now unemployed and interested in the revival of the weaving traditions which kept them occupied during the long winter season. The three families interviewed in Koçköyü were from different age brackets but shared similar characteristics. The first was a young couple in their mid-twenties with three children under eight years old, while the second, a couple in their thirties, had four children between nine and sixteen. The last family was older, with parents in their sixties and four children ranging from 30 to 46. All three households raised crops, including wheat, barley and animal feed. Each household also practiced animal husbandry and dairy production, with cheese, heifers and bulls as their primary marketable goods. As expected from the village’s history, the women in each household were skilled in weaving carpets and crafting tablecloths, socks and slippers, and bedding, but two respondents acknowledged that they had stopped weaving due to the disappearing market for their goods. In terms of earnings, the three respondents stated they had “no idea” how much monthly income they generated. One commented that when the family needs money, they sell a heifer. This was in contrast to interviews in other villages where individuals had simply stated their monthly income did not cover their expenses. Two of the household heads also mentioned that they were hurt economically by the Avian flu as the government culled their flocks of geese and chickens. Koçköyü is still a fairly large village with 400 households although it has lost one-third of its families to urban migration. All three respondents indicated that they liked the city and would like to move to an urban area, although one qualified his statement by saying he would move if he had a job in a government office. The links between Koçköyü and urban areas do not seem as strong as in other villages. The villagers interviewed reported that they sell products in the city,

Illustration 3.17: An excellent example of traditional carpet weaving in Kocköyü.

Source: Beti MInkin



- 63 -

but they do not visit as often for supplies nor do they maintain as close connections with their relatives in urban areas. 3.4 Meetings with women, youth and children in the villages In every village visited, as well as in the gecekondu, there was a natural leader among the women, a special woman who stood out with her ideas, contributions or the variety of her skills. Women’s more active role in village/urban affairs would make a big difference in the improvement of socio-economic structure of the region. In contrast to the widespread belief that most young villagers prefer to live in big cities, many young men and women in villages visited are very actively involved with the chores of rural life and would rather stay where they are. A few young men at Çilehane go away during the summer months to work in manual labor or tourism in other parts of Turkey. They were very keen to hear about possibilities of village-based activities including fish farming/restaurant complexes and agro-eco-tourism. One of them insisted in taking the team all over the village to show the beautiful environment and the peaceful rural environment. He was interested in improving conditions to attract tourism to his village. He said he had some money to invest if an environmentally sound village development project were to be initiated. Another young man didn’t have the means but he was interested in helping start an organic food business marketing his village’s products. At Tasbasi, the children of the village were highly opinionated about village living/versus city living. Some “hated” their village because of its dirt road, its stones and its harsh living conditions. Those were mainly children who had visited relatives in big cities. Others “loved” their village because of its dirt road, its stones, and its living conditions which to them meant its fresh air and beautiful views! The daughter of the muhtar has 2 rooms in their house that could be used to accommodate tourists. She has become the team’s female “entrepreneurial” contact in the village. A young man in his early twenties who has already moved to organic farming will act as an organizer for the reintroduction and propagation of heirloom varieties of flax seed and cereal grains. At Yolboyu, two young teen-agers showed the same kind of enthusiasm in showing the team their village’s main features, which ranged from mysterious underground caves, to varieties of fascinating big river fish, to village legends involving tragic love stories. In particular, Beti Minkin noted a 14-year-old Kurdish girl in a village on the way to Ani. She was the crafter of the best wool slipper the team had ever seen. When asked what grade she was in, her brother answered that the whole family was illiterate as they couldn’t go to school during the political problems they faced in their village.

Illustration 3.18: The inside of the muhtar’s house in Tasbasi.

Source: Beti Minkin



- 64 -

These and other positive discussions with village youth strengthened our belief that with a little attention, young village men and women constitute the foremost community partners to help create environmentally sound sustainable village projects. They are keen and energetic, and know the environment better than anyone to become protectors of cultural and biological-diversity. They need educational opportunities to learn how to build businesses or organizations in the fields of agriculture, handicrafts, agro-eco-tourism, as well as skills in communications to connect them with the outside world. 3.4.1 Pilot session with youth in Akcakale Village During the spring and summer months, young men often travel to other parts of the country in search of employment in tourism or building industries. Those who stay on the farm are busy with work in the field. Some of those will come back specifically at harvest time. Young women are busy, helping refresh the house, the bedding and furniture from the long damp winter damage. They also assist with animal husbandry and harvest activities. During fall and winter village activities wind down and villagers have ample time to engage in other activities. They are easier to reach and often more receptive to new ideas. In particular, young men returning from military service, and teen-age girls whose parents don’t allow them to leave the village to continue their education complain about lack of activity. Boredom fuels village youth dreams of migrating to a big city. A pilot workshop session was conducted with village youth in Akcakale Village in Çıldır Ardahan to find out what kind of educational opportunities would be of interest to them. The village is located on Çildir Lake, right on the land linking the shoreline to the “island”, a bird sanctuary as well as the side of a lake settlement dating back to the Urartu period. Development in this village will affect the archeological side. Households are mainly engaged in animal husbandry. Hygiene in barns is poor; affecting milk output and quality. Families know how to produce different types of dairy products but cannot market them. No other products are available. Young people don’t have much knowledge of the region’s flora and fauna, nor of its history, culture and archeology. The Muhtar of the village gathered 8 to10 young men with whom Berhan Ipek conducted a three-hour session. Follow up discussions were held with the muhtar and one of the young man as most villagers and instead had left for their summer settlement (yayla). The topics discussed were: the efficient utilization of present resources, the creation of alternative sources of income, the formation of village based NGOs, and the presentation of all of the above in an organized workshop context. Villagers are unaware of project funding possibilities from governmental or European sources. Information on these subjects were given and received with enthusiasm. No cooperatives or other village associations exist at this time which limits their eligibility to benefit from many programs. Workshops in the following subjects would be of interest to youth: agriculture, ecological fish-farming, cottage industries and small businesses, environmental studies, local history and archeology, eco-tourism services, marketing of traditional products, hospitality and restaurant operation. The consensus was that the best period for workshops is after harvest, starting in late September and throughout the winter months.



- 65 -

3.5 Summary of recommendations for village development Circumstances in the rural areas of Kars are challenging. Farmers are subsisting but rural development is lagging. The expansion of cattle-breeding, considered the primary source of income, wealth and status, is spreading at the expense of the more traditional sheep and goat herding and raising of geese, all better adapted to the climate, terrain and vegetation. It is clear that even with proper training and improved practices, stockbreeding alone will not suffice to raise rural incomes. Other sources of income from agriculture and agriculture products as well as alternative non-agricultural rural-based activities do exist. The region’s assets can be tapped and its development potential realized in a manner that promotes sustainability through sound management of environmental resources, safeguards the region’s biodiversity, and nurtures its human resources. The recommendations detailed in Section 6 cover five key policies and propose pilots in the selected villages in order to assess the effectiveness of these policies:

• Diversifying production • Promoting high quality food products • Fostering the development of organic farming and products • Supporting the revival of traditional handicrafts and in particular the distinctive

handwoven wool carpets • Developing the potential for agri-eco-tourism in the longer term.

Implementation of these programs will require partnership between local authorities, national and local NGOs, CBOs and associations of producers and villagers. Such partnerships could also bring to the villages additional resources, namely access to microcredit and skill development programs that can assist the more entrepreneurial in starting new projects and expanding the scale of their operations.



- 67 -

4 INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN KARS MUNICIPALITY

Illustration 4.1: Commercial street, Kars City Center 4.1 Improving access to donor grants and other funding opportunities For the past several years, major donors and in particular the EU have been targeting the Northeast Anatolia region in addition to the World Bank and UNDP. Despite the profusion of funding opportunities, limited technical and managerial capabilities have constrained the absorptive capacity of the region hindering its ability to benefit from the availability of earmarked funds. In order to enhance its capacity to receive donor funds, the Municipality has retained a consultant in Ankara to prepare applications for grants for which it is eligible. The EU funds a grant program fostering development in the Northeast Anatolian region. The program offers three “grant schemes”:

• Small-scale infrastructure • Local development initiatives • Small and medium-sized enterprises

Municipalities, Provincial Special Administrations, NGOs and formal civic associations are eligible to receive grants. The Municipality selected four projects that met the qualifying criteria and sent the information to the consultant in Ankara who prepared the applications and submitted them for EU funding in July 2006. The selected projects are:

Source: Ihsan Karayazi



- 68 -

a. Infrastructure in Lower Kaleiçi, b. A new municipal slaughterhouse c. Training for the members of the Union of Stockbreeders d. City workshops and youth training programs in the renovation of old buildings.

The application for the new slaughterhouse was completed last and was not submitted on time to be considered for this round of EU grants. The proposals are being evaluated and grant awards will be announced in October. The Municipality hopes that the Kaleiçi project will be among the projects selected for grant awards. Urban agriculture projects can qualify for EU grants. The Municipality needs to work jointly with local communities in order to develop projects that can be submitted for donor funding. 4.2 Development of Urban Agriculture in Kars

Kars is expanding along the major transport corridors, particularly towards the airport and along the ring road. To the east of the ringroad and within a 300 meter corridor along its alignment, urban development is authorized. This outlying area is urbanizing rapidly fueled by the transfer of major traffic generators out of the city center, including the wholesale market, the intercity bus terminal and their ancillary uses. The area contains a range of disparate elements:

• Public housing projects constructed by the national Mass Housing Corporation.

• Some factories, industrial plants and warehouses • Housing projects by cooperative associations, a popular program among middle income

groups and salaried employees, including government officials. • Rural settlements engulfed by urbanization. • The municipal dump in bad need of remediation and transformation into a sanitary

landfill • An open area to the north that the Municipality has designated for animal husbandry in

the Master Plan. To the west of the ring road, there is an agricultural fringe that the Municipality would like to preserve as a greenbelt around the city and has included this open space greenbelt in its Master Plan (shown below). This fringe varies in depth from under one kilometer to over three kilometers and contains villages surrounded by fields.

Illustration 4.2: Small farms in the greenbelt area surrounding the Municipality




- 69 -

Map 4.1: Kars Municipality Master Plan

Source: Kars Municipality However, urbanization is spreading chaotically consuming fields and orchards and the villages are being transformed by informal housing and unauthorized construction. This haphazard urbanization is threatening the sustainability of the environmentally sensitive greenbelt area. An updated map of the existing land uses has been prepared by the Municipality’s Public Works Department for the purposes of this study. The map illustrates the gradual encroachments on the farmland, but the Municipality’s inspectional services cannot keep up with unauthorized construction activities.



- 70 -

Map 4.2: Development in greenbelt surrounding Kars Municipality

Source: Kars Municipality



- 71 -

It is obviously difficult for the municipality to control illegal building activities and subdivisions of fields in an area of the size designated for the greenbelt unless the land is put to a productive use that is competitive with the income that owners can derive from selling it to informal developers. It is therefore suggested that the Municipality consider designating fertile land within the greenbelt suitable for environmentally sound urban agriculture. Bringing agriculture to urban areas in order to provide food security and establish much needed green space is a fairly recent trend that is taking hold across the globe in countries from Vietnam to Senegal. Governments have begun to recognize the unique role that agriculture can play in both providing food for low-income communities and preserving open green spaces in urban centers and on the urban fringe. Urban agriculture is not seen as an alternative to rural food production but is rather an adaptation of the rural agricultural system that can be employed in urban centers to supplement the food supply of the urban poor and provide meaningful work to the unemployed while drawing communities together toward a common objective. Modern urban agricultural practices include rooftop, hydroponic and community gardens; cultivation on the peri-urban fringe; direct-sale farmers’ markets; and “garden parks”. In the case of Kars, cultivation on the peri-urban fringe is the practice of interest that has to be explored. Some outstanding examples for the Mayor and the Municipal Council to consider are described in Annex 1. The Institute team and the head of the Public Works Department visited the greenbelt area to look at farming activities, existing projects and uncontrolled urbanization. The farmland is too close to the ring road to be suitable for organic agriculture but could be developed as traditional farming areas and dairy farms. The team noted that the Landscaping Architecture Department of Ataturk University, Erzurum, has prepared a Landscaping Project for Kars in 2001 that could be revised to include urban agriculture. Furthermore, the Municipality can be a partner and catalyst by providing facilities for direct-sale markets at several points in the city for farmers from the surrounding villages and those engaged in urban agriculture. These facilities can group farm stands, flower shops and houseplant nurseries. It is also possible to add restaurants as this will have the advantage of extending the active season. Beti Minkin and Berhan Ipek surveyed the products sold in Kars markets and ascertained that some of the cheese and other goods as well as almost all fruits and vegetables sold in Kars come from other regions of Turkey. Turan Atalay, the director of the Municipality’s Public Works Department, has identified the publicly owned sites within the greenbelt zone. Vacant sites should be assessed in terms of their potential to serve as catalysts for urban agriculture development.

Illustration 4.3: Unauthorized development occurring in the greenbelt.



- 72 -

4.3 Preparation of a Development Plan for the Municipality through a TESEV-led participatory process

TESEV received a World Bank grant to prepare a manual to guide localities in the implementation of the 2005 Municipal Law based on the experience of six pilot municipalities and provinces including Kars. TESEV started its work with the Municipality in March 2006 but the Governor decided not to implement this approach in the Province. However he did attend some meetings at the Municipality and senior officials of the Province participated in most of the sessions including the review session when the plan was presented. In accordance with the terms of its World Bank contract, TESEV’s approach focused primarily on the participatory process per se: establishing modalities for the participation of stakeholders and citizens. The resultant plan lacks the technical components for the formulation of development strategies and the criteria for assessing options and prioritizing projects needed to make it a strategic planning document. In June 2006, we discussed with TESEV the effectiveness of this approach as a strategic planning methodology and sent them a list of strategic objectives and priority actions derived from our work with the Municipality to date and previously discussed with the Mayor. The list given below took into consideration the projects that the Municipality intended to submit for EU funding. Strategic Objectives

• Preserve and enhance Kars’ rich cultural and natural heritage • Develop tourism • Improve the quality of the urban environment • Expand employment opportunities for young people • Develop the region human resource potential • Promote sustainable development • Strengthen and diversify the city’s economic base • Leverage local resources through partnerships with NGOs • Maximize positive impacts of the large transport projects that will benefit Kars

Priority actions

• Revitalize the city centre and upgrade its infrastructure • Build the capacity of local organizations and their managerial skills • Provide vocational training in selected occupations starting with tourism services • Provide outlets to market the region’s products (agriculture and handicrafts) in the city

and at touristic sites. • Improve public hygiene and move animal bazaars to the outskirts of the city • Attract private enterprise to invest in developing the city’s touristic infrastructure • Organize training programs to develop entrepreneurship and small business management

skills • Create a new multimodal station in the Kars – Tblisi – Baku railroad. • Develop new light industry zone around the planned international airport improve access

roads to transportation nodes (intercity bus station, railroad station etc) • Clean and landscape the river banks • Develop environmentally friendly urban agriculture in the green belt zone as outlined in

the city’s master plan The extent to which this input was taken into consideration by TESEV is unclear.



- 73 -

The results of the TESEV-led participatory process were compiled into a proposed plan including a vision statement, objectives and activities. The July 14th deadline for the submission of plans was not met, but the Interior Ministry officials indicated that since the mandates of the 2005 Municipal Law were new to Turkish local authorities, late submissions will be accepted this year. The Municipality’s development plan was finally presented to the City Council on September 4th and adopted, and will be submitted to the Ministry. TESEV plans to set up an observatory managed by an NGO to monitor plan implementation. The activities proposed in the plan drafted by TESEV are a compilation of stakeholder and participant requests. The Municipality is now faced with the difficult mandate of operationalizing the plan. This task demands that a budget envelope be determined and the activities detailed, costed and prioritized, a task involving politically sensitive decisions. An investment program and a management plan (including operation and management costs) will have to be prepared and the priority activities selected for implementation in 2007 entered in the Municipal Budget. We need to review the plan’s full text in order to assess the difficulties involved in this task. TESEV has also announced that it will hold meetings in villages and towns in the Province since their World Bank contract covers pilots at both the Municipal and Provincial levels. They will send the proposed plan developed through this process to the Governor and the Provincial Council with the hope that it will be integrated in the Province’s own plan.



- 75 -

5 TOURISM IN KARS PROVINCE

Illustration 5.1: Mt. Ararat, one of the region’s key tourist attractions. Turkey’s tourism sector is developing rapidly as more and more visitors are attracted by the country’s unique natural and cultural features. In 2005, the number of tourists to Turkey reached over 21 million, an increase of 22% over the previous year, and the tourism industry generated $18 billion in earnings. However, the Eastern Anatolia region, despite its rich assets, receives only a small share of the influx of visitors and the economic benefits that come with them. Turkey’s Minister of Culture and Tourism told reporters in early 2006 that only 2% of tourists visiting the country went to Eastern Anatolia, and that they were aiming to attract more tourists to this region. 5.1 Visitors to Kars Province Examining data for five provinces, namely Kars, Ardahan, Iğdir, Ağri and Erzurum gives a better understanding tourism of in Kars and its surrounding area. The Province of Artvín, shown on the map below, borders the Black Sea and therefore receives a far greater number of tourists than its neighbors to the south. In fact, the number of tourist nights spent in Artvín were almost equal to the number spent in the five provinces combined.

203292 764348

Map 5.1: The number of nights spent by tourists in the provinces surrounding Kars. Source: Turkish Ministry of Tourism, 2001




- 76 -

Tourists spent a total of 544,090 nights in the five provinces in 2001. Although the fewest nights were in Ardahan (less than 0.5% of all nights spent), Kars also lagged significantly behind its counterparts. In all, tourists spent about 66,000 nights in Kars, or only 12% of the total nights spent in all five provinces. Nevertheless, the number of tourists visiting Kars has risen significantly over the past decade although not in line with the overall number of tourists coming to Turkey. In 1992, Kars hosted less than 7000 tourists while by 2000 that number had risen by more than 600% to 49,600 (See Illustration 5.5). It is likely that as migration from the Province increased throughout the 1990s, migrants made more frequent trips to visit their friends and family back home.

Source: Turkish Ministry of Tourism, 2001 Tourism in Kars is primarily domestic, with less than 10% coming from outside of the country. Of the foreign tourists, the largest percentage comes from Germany, likely because of the fairly large migrant community from Kars that resides in that country. Tourists from other countries of Europe, as well as from North America and Japan also visit Kars. The border closure between Armenia and Turkey significantly affects the number of visitors entering Kars from bordering countries as Kars shares its entire eastern border with Armenia. Ağri, on the border with Iran, received more than 227,000 Iranians over its border in 2004, and Artvín and Ardahan, who share a border with Georgia, received more than 180,000 Georgians into the country in the same year. The Armenian visitors that come have to go through the Nakhitchevan enclave or Georgia. Table 5.1: Border entrances into Turkey from Armenia, Georgia and Iran, 2004

Armenians Georgians Iranians Ağrı 31 87 227345Artvín 4926 176371 221Ardahan 950 9587 103Iğdır - 376 634Regional Sum 5907 186421 228303

Source: Turkish Ministry of Tourism, 2001

Germany27%

Belgium2%

Holland9%

Spain4%

Georgia14%

Iran5%

Other countries15%

England10%Italy

4%USA2%

Japan3%

Canada1%

Azerbaijan4%

KARS12%

ARDAHAN1%

IĞDIR 25%

AĞRI34%

ERZURUM28%

Illustration 5.2: The percentage of nights spent by tourists in Kars and surrounding provinces, 2001

Illustration 5.3: The percentage of foreign tourists to Kars by nationality, 2001



- 77 -

Table 5.2: The number of nights spent by tourists according to the purpose of the visit (2001)

Purpose of Visit Kars Ardahan Iğdir Ağri Erzurum Total

Travel/Entertainment 15,027 370 10,323 43,844 22,409 91,973Culture 3,916 - 8,664 19,011 11,084 42,675Sporting events - - - - 3,568 3,568Visiting relatives 17,546 - 31,837 47,123 85,816 182,322Health reasons - - 198 - - 198Religious reasons - - - 2,069 - 2,069Shopping 9,097 1,807 18,796 3,414 2,887 36,001Meeting/Conference/Training - - 893 - - 893Job 10,892 - 5,323 3,124 8,768 28,107Commercial relations and exhibitions 8,942 562 52,385 19,675 4,122 85,686Transit - - 4,298 35,401 1,899 41,598Other 293 - 2,125 16,606 9,979 29,003Total 65,713 2,738 134,841 190,267 150,531 544,090

Source: Turkish Ministry of Tourism Visitors come to these five provinces for various reasons including entertainment, shopping and employment-related opportunities. However, the primary reason by far for visiting the area is to spend time with relatives (See Table 5.2). In fact, the largest percentage of nights spent by tourists in Kars in 2001 (27%) was for that purpose. The other primary touristic draw is entertainment, a category that includes winter sports, with 23% of tourist nights spent in Kars for that purpose in 2001. In general, when visiting Kars tourists stay in a hotel or with a friend or relative. (See Illustration 5.4) The data underlines the importance of migration and seasonal activities and shows that Kars is not realizing its cultural and eco-tourism potential. Illustration 5.4: The number of nights spent by tourists in Kars according to accommodation type, 2001

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

Hotel

Motel

Holiday

villa

ge

Pensio

n

Camping/C

arava

n

Hostel/y

outh

camp

Own hou

se

Rented h

ouse

House of fr

iend/r

elative

In mode

of tra

nporta

tion

Other

Source: Ministry of Tourism, 2001



- 78 -

The State Planning Organization (SPO) considers the number of the listed cultural sites and some natural features as the indicators of touristic significance in the analysis and evaluation of the current state of tourism in Eastern Anatolia. The SPO deplores the fact that despite the region’s rich touristic potential tourism has not grown in line with the growing importance of Turkey as a tourism destination. The only exception noted is winter sports, especially in Sarikamiş with its large ski resort described in more detail in section 5.2.4. Illustration 5.5: Tourists visiting Kars Province, 1992-2000

Years Domestic Tourist

Foreign Tourist Total

1992 3.212 3.720 6.932 1993 2.450 3.980 6,430 1994 5.370 8.010 13.380

1995 12.560 8.750 7.842

1996 25.600 7.842 33.442

1997 32.000 8.719 40.719

1998 34.000 9.550 43.550

2000 42.863 6.742 49.605Source: State Statistics Organization, 2000 5.2 Major eco-tourism potential in Kars Developing the eco-tourism potential of Kars will bring badly-needed income to the Province and the city as well as those of its villages whose location or natural setting can allow them to benefit from the new tourist facilities in their vicinity. The preservation of the area’s natural sites and the protection of its ecosystems should be given urgent priority. Already there has been some unfortunate degradation of wetlands while others are threatened by transnational and national transportation and energy projects. These projects are needed for the Turkish economy but as pointed out in Section 2 they will have adverse impacts on the ecosystems in their paths. Channeled by topographical features, the alignment of the oil and gas pipelines, and the regional transportation corridors pass through Kars giving it a special importance that the Province and the city have yet to capitalize on. Conversely measures must be urgently taken to protect threatened ecosystems, restore degraded wetlands and meadows and safeguard biodiversity. Awareness of the importance of these unique assets in any strategy aiming to promote tourism will provide an incentive for local authorities to make preservation an issue of concern in any development plan. Grasping the potential of eco-tourism in the region and the synergies between cultural and eco-tourism are the first steps required in making it a strategic objective of development.

Domestic Foreign



- 79 -

5.2.1 The Ministry of Tourism Regional Development Plan

The Ministry of Tourism has prepared a Tourism Development Plan for the seven regions of Turkey. It also established the parameters of tourism planning at the sub-regional level. The plan should identify assets and take into consideration tourism infrastructure and facilities. The objectives to be achieved are the following:

• Extending the season • Providing multi-functional facilities to optimize economic use • Offering alternative types of tourism to diversify supply and enhance attractiveness • Ensuring the harmony of touristic facilities with the surrounding environment • Preparing site management and protection plans for natural and cultural sites as an

intrinsic component of the tourism development plan The proposed method is sound although a greater emphasis should be placed on the protection of environmentally sensitive sites and the interface between different thematic tourism categories. The Ministry of Tourism Plan identifies a Tourism inventory of Assets in the Kars Province covering the following categories grouped under headline themes:

• Cultural Tourism o Ancient Cities: Ani o The Silk Route: Ani

• Religious tourism: Historic churches and mosques • Eco-tourism • Botanical study: Rural areas • Photography: Archeological sites • Sport activities: Line fishing at Cengelli Lake, Kağizman and Aygir Lake, Susuz

o Trekking: Sarikamiş o Thermal stations: Kötek, Kağizman, Akyaka o Winter sports: Sarikamiş ski resorts

Interestingly, the eco-tourism category does not include birdwatching or nature photography, nor does it identify the best locations for the observation of different plant species and flowering plants despite the spectacular seasonal bird migrations and magnificent landscapes and color displays that can be viewed during the height of the blooming season in May/June. Increased awareness of the diversity and potential of eco-tourism is badly needed not only to enhance tourism but even more importantly to foster the preservation of fragile environmentally sensitive areas and safeguarding of ecosystems. 5.2.2 Tours that offer visits to Northeast Anatolia The Eastern Anatolia Master Plan developed by the SPO made a distinction between tours of three to five days for which demand is higher than for longer tours. The short tours go through Kars and are essentially for visiting Ani. The longer tours visit Ani but also other sites.



- 80 -

A thorough search on the Internet yielded fifteen tours to the region that pass through Kars. Cultural heritage-oriented tours dominate the offers. However, there are two eco-tourism trips among the listed tours that focus on Lake Van, and one also visits Ani. The routing of the tours is shown on Map 5.2 and clearly demonstrates the mutually reinforcing links between cultural and natural sites and the potential of cross-border tourism. Of the two UK-based travel agencies which offer tours in Eastern Turkey with a clear ecological orientation, only one passes through Kars. The first, Greentours Natural History Holidays, visits some archeological sites but states its focus as “flowers, birds and superb landscapes.” The small group of five to fifteen tour participants walk up to four miles in a day at a relaxed pace suitable for photography, and spend the majority of time on the tour exploring the mountains, forests and lakes of the region. The tour begins with a visit to the area around Mt. Ararat including the Ishak Pasha palace before moving on to volcanoes and waterfalls near Tatvan and the sacred site of Nemrut Dag. It then proceeds to Tatvan’s oak woodlands before heading to the Lake Van area, where participants visit the Hosap Castle and Akdamar Island. Upon leaving Lake Van, the tour continues on to the Karabet pass, the volcanoes and waterfalls at Bendimahi, and the lake at Erçek Golu, an excellent birdwatching area. Participants generally stay in moderately priced hotels in Doğubeyazit, Tatvan, and Van. The second tour, though more culturally oriented, gives ample time to the natural environment. Gorges, valleys, birds and wildflowers are emphasized along with the areas’ cultural sites. The tour begins at Trabzon and spends some time along the Black Sea coast before progressing through the Pontic Alps to Artvín, viewing churches and monasteries along the way. Lake Çilder is the next destination after which participants spend time in Kars and take a day trip to Ani before heading to Mr. Ararat and Doğubeyazit. The tour ends in Van with a day trip to the Lake and a visit to Akdamar Island. Crossborder tourism is another area of unexplored potential. We located one tour given by the Armenia-based Hyur Service in conjunction with Ani Tour, a Turkish company. The tour begins in Yerevan and crosses into Georgia for a stop in Tiblisi. From there, it crosses the Turkish border and includes some time in Kars and a visit to Ani, a climb up Mr. Ararat, a day trip to Lake Van, and stops in the cities of Bitlis, Muş, Malatya, and Erzurum before crossing back over the Georgian and Armenian borders to end with a day at Lake Sevan in Armenia. Tours such as this one are not common, but participation among travel agencies could be encouraged to develop similar cross-border tours with an ecological focus. 5.2.3 Major eco-tourism assets in Kars Eco-tourism opens up many more avenues for the development of thematic tours than any other category of tourism. It is habitat-oriented focusing on ecosystems to observe the geology, the flora and the fauna. It is explorative in character seeking to find and observe rocks, plants, birds and animals and spot particular species. The region’s natural features outlined in Section 2 give Kars a unique variety of ecosystems and rich biodiversity. These assets can generate significant eco-tourism but this is a potential that is still largely unrealized. Most of the tourists that currently pass through Kars are visitors to cultural sites, Ani being the major attraction. Indeed some tour organizers that offer tours



- 81 -

Map 5.2: Tour routings through Eastern Anatolia



- 82 -

focusing on Byzantine, Armenian, Seljuk and Ottoman cultural sites in Northeast Anatolia plan the tours in late May-early June when the landscape is enhanced by the blooming wildflowers. i. Wetlands, Lakes and Rivers

The Province’s lakes, rivers and wetlands are key assets. They support an impressive number of indigenous bird species in addition to providing stopover points for migratory species in this major flyway for bird migration. Dr. Sean Anderson of California State University who visited Kars in April 2006 with the Stanford team noted that despite severe degredation due in part to overgrazing and sedimentation/erosion, “wetland and riparian improvements hold great promise for improving biological diversity” and the prospects for their restoration were quite good. Of area’s lakes, the most

well-known is Lake Çildir, an established bird habitat and migratory stopover. Located in Ardahan at the border between the two provinces, the lake is part of a nature preserve that provides an excellent area for outdoor activities. It is one of the largest lakes in Eastern Anatolia, second in size only to Lake Van which together with Ani and Mt. Ararat are the major tourist destinations in the region. While neither Lake Van nor Lake Çildir fall within the boundaries of Kars Province, they nevertheless constitute major regional draws that can bring tourists to Kars for one or two nights. In addition to its magnificent landscapes, flora and fauna, Lake Van has unique species of fish, birds, flowering plants and of course the famous Van cat. Both lakes have cultural sites in the lake itself, on the lakeshore, and in the vicinity: an archeological site 4000 years old in Çildir and in Van a tenth century Armenian church on Akdamar Island and a twelfth-century church on Çarpanak as well as the ancient Urartian citadel. As noted in Section 5.2.2, the tours that go to Van do not necessarily go to Kars, but visits to Lake Çilder are invariably associated with stays in Kars to visit Ani. ii. Indigenous Flora The short growing season that is so limiting to agricultural production paradoxically enhances the area’s eco-tourism potential. It makes for a concentrated plant cycle whereby the large variety of indigenous plants in the region’s grass and steppe communities flower at the same time in May and June all over the landscape. It can be a major attraction in its own right. In the northwest part of South Africa a similar phenomenon occurs in the Cederberg

Illustration 5.6: The stunning Lake Van area.

Source: Cagan Sekercioglu

Illustration 5.7: Beautiful wildflowers in Kars Province.




- 83 -

mountain range. Well-marketed, it is a major draw attracting a substantial number of domestic and foreign tourists to the area every year. The same could be achieved in Kars. From the mountains to the lakeshores an impressive array of blooming flowers make for a wonderful display of color and smell attracting insects and birds. It is a show that can be enjoyed by all those interested in nature and not just naturalists and ecologists. Unfortunately, overgrazing and unrestricted development are threatening the region’s flora and fauna. iii. Links to passive and active recreation

By its very nature, eco-tourism can also be easily linked to both active and passive recreation. Hiking is an integral component of nature walks. Nature photography and wildflower and rock collecting entail long walks at a slow pace. Birdwatching can be an activity by itself in special observation stations or can be combined in a more leisurely manner with nature walks. Horseback riding and cross-country skiing require trails that can be integrated with the development of eco-tourism facilities. Other outdoor destinations drawing local and regional tourists are the

Sarikamiş Forests, Susuz Waterfalls, the Kars Telsizler Resort Park, and the Ataturk and Iskan Parks. The Kars River, which begins in the mountains in Sarikamiş, bisects Kars Municipality and is used as a picnicking area by the population in the valley north of the City’s citadel. Kars Province also boasts a number of thermal and mineral springs, most notably Akyaka Thermal Springs located 1 km east of the Akyaka district, Susuz Thermal Springs located in the river 2 km east of the center of Susuz, Kağizman Thermal Springs, located on the road to Kağizman, and the Thermal Spring of Selim Dolbentli Village, located in the Dolbentli Village of Selim District. The cultural diversity of Kars enriches its folklore (traditional music, dances and song) as well as handicrafts, food products and cookery. This living heritage constitutes added attractions that can keep tourists a day longer in the region if properly integrated in a tourism development strategy. At this time, the Traditional Caucasian Cultures Festival held in Kars in September is the only event giving international visibility to the region’s touristic assets. 5.2.4 Potential thematic tourism routes The seven major transportation corridors starting from Kars Municipality and going through the Province form the background of routes for both cultural and natural thematic tourism. The primary cultural and ecological attractions are located either on or just off of these roads, and are shown on Map 5.3 below.

Illustration 5.8: The Kars River running through the City.




- 84 -

i. Road to Lake Çildir

The route to Lake Çildir in the north runs through the wetlands and passes over the Arpaçay River, one of the large rivers of the Province. The road offers spectacular views of rich pastures on rolling hills fed by brooks connecting the surrounding mountains to the Lake. Within the lake the artificial island of Akcakale houses a village of the same name. At the tip of the island there is an archeological site of a 4,000-year-old lake settlement. Lake Çildir is second only to Lake Van for the viewing of pristine landscapes, birds and wildflowers. It is a designated Important Bird Area site.

ii. Road to Akyaka The route to Akyaka towards the Armenia border is one of the best locations to view the stunning array of wildflowers blooming in May and June and rolling hills dotted with grazing animals. The road passes by Başsüregel Kalesi, a historic fortress near Kalkankale village. Along the border there are villages and the reservoir of the Arpaçay River dam, a joint project built some time ago by the two countries. Some of the sites for the experimental meadow restoration program are located near villages off this main road.

Illustration 5.9: Wetlands on the road to Lake Çilder.

Illustration 5.10: Village by Arpaçay River dam Illustration 5.11: Wildflowers on the route to Akyaka.

Source: Mona Serageldin Source: Mona Serageldin


Illustration 5.10: View of Lake Çilder.



- 85 -

iii. Road to Ani The archeological site of Ani is about 45 kilometers from Kars, on the banks of the Arpaçay River. This site draws most of the tourists who spend the night in the City. The road passes through several small villages en route, but the village of Ocakli very close to the site seems to hold the most potential for the location of tourism facilities outside the boundaries of the Ani ecological site as listed with UNESCO/World Heritage. Furthermore, the village activities have to be reorganized so that they do not encroach on the site itself.

iv. Road through Digor to Doğubeyazit passing Mt. Ararat This route runs fairly close to the Armenian border most closely, passing through meadow and mountainous terrain with several ancient fortresses and churches embedded in the landscape. It offers excellent perspectives of Mt. Ararat. In particular the small village of Karabulac boasts a magnificent view of the mountain and its foothills just before entering the town of Doğubeyazit where the larger hotels are located. The combination of two major tourist attractions: spectacular views of Mt. Ararat and Ishak Pasa palace, an impressive fortress/palace perched on top of a steep hill overlooking the routes crossing the mountain passes and intersecting in this location have made Doğubeyazit an important tourism center in Northeast Anatolia. As noted earlier, some tours that do not go to Kars stop at Van and Doğubeyazit.

Illustration 5.12: The archeological site of Ani.

Illustration 5.14: The Ishak Pasa Palace.


Illustration 5.15: Village near Mt. Ararat.


Illustration 5.13: The bridge at Ani.



- 86 -

v. Road to Kağizman The eastern Kars-Kağizman region is shielded from the north winds by high mountains and therefore enjoys a milder climate giving the area a longer planting season and allowing villagers to plant orchards. The mountains in view on the road to Kağizman offer a stunning backdrop to the already beautiful rural landscape and feed small rivers and brooks. This route passes through Çilehane, a village the Institute has chosen as one of the few villages that do possess development potential in the area of eco-tourism because of the setting and the brook running from the mountain through the village as well as the hospitality of its inhabitants. Villagers stated that some Turkish tourists do stop there in the summer. Unfortunately, other picturesque villages on the mountain slopes that benefit from springs and mountain brooks are only accessible by four-wheel drive vehicles.

vi. Road to Sarikamiş The route to Sarikamiş passes through Kars Municipality’s industrial zone and the Municipality of Selim as well as several small villages as it winds its way through rolling hills and pastureland. It is an excellent wide road aimed at giving easy access to tourists from Kars airport to the winter sports resorts. The topography of Kars Province’s mountain ranges has led to the development of an important winter sports center in Sarikamiş. Situated in a forest of giant pines 54 km southwest of Kars, this ski center has long courses and trails as well as ideal snow conditions which are at their best from December until April. It has a capacity of 15,000 skiers per day and boasts two five-star ski lodges. Proximity to the Kars airport has helped increase its popularity and the Center’s capacity is being increased. Unfortunately, the development associated with the expansion of the winter sport resort is leading to significant logging of the surrounding pine forests.

Illustration 5.16: Village on the road to Kağizman Illustration 5.17: Small brook in Kağizman




- 87 -

vii. Road to Artvín The corridor to Artvín has particular significance in terms of eco-tourism because of its stunning landscape and transition through several climatic zones. As the route heads toward Susuz from Kars Municipality, it crosses wetlands with interesting bird populations. From Susuz to Ardahan, the alignment of the BTC pipeline parallels the road for some kilometers at a few locations across a landscape of meadows and villages. From Ardahan to Savşat, the road follows hairpin turns up a high mountain range covered with alpine forest vegetation and villages where the traditional timber log vernacular architecture is being replaced by concrete and cement block houses. From October to May, snow-covered landscapes are prominent. The route continues through the spectacular deep gorges of the river before ascending toward Artvin. There are the ruins of ancient fortresses that controlled the mountain passes at strategic points along the road. The town of Artvín built on terraces in the mountain slopes has spectacular views although the view today is the construction of the large dam on the Coruh River. Unfortunately this beautiful area which attracts tourists today extending all the way to the gorge will be flooded by the reservoir with adverse impacts on its diverse ecosystems. This scenic route is ideal for tourists, and particularly eco-tours that usually involve groups of 15 persons. However it is far too slow with its two-lane hairpin curves for commercial trucks going to the crossing at Batum to use. It would be time-consuming and costly. Truck drivers prefer to take the longer route going to the coast and the follow the coastal road to Batum. Although it is 100 km longer, going through Erzurum County to Tortum then north to rejoin the road towards the coast at the foothills of Artvín then along the coast to Batum is safer, faster and easier on the vehicle.

Illustration 5.19: The logging of the pine forests in Sarikamiş.


Illustration 5.18: The ski lodge at Sarikamiş.




- 88 -

5.2.5 Summary of recommendations for tourism development It is important for Kars to capture a share of tourism in Turkey commensurate with the assets it has to offer: Distinctive cultural heritage, ethnic diversity and folklore, and most importantly the attractiveness of its natural environment, the variety of its ecosystems and the rich biodiversity of its flora and fauna. Enhancing tourism in Kars will require that action plans and pilot initiatives be developed to achieve five key policy objectives:

• Fostering the development of thematic eco-tourism; • Linking cultural and eco-tourism routes; • Exploring regional themes and cross-border tours; • Developing an appropriate tourism infrastructure; • Initiating an effective marketing strategy.

Current policies must be reconsidered to place on the protection of natural assets equal importance to that given to the conservation of cultural sites. These assets are not only needed for the promotion of eco-tourism. If their degradation is not reversed the sustainability of development in Kars will be eroded.

Illustration 5.20, 5.21, 5.22, 5.23: Scenic views along the route to Artvín: Crossing wetlands, hairpin curves through the mountains, a village in the snow, and a farm in the river gorge.





- 89 -

Map 5.3: Major transportation corridors through Kars Province with their cultural and ecological attractions.



- 91 -

6 RECOMMENDATIONS Two strategic objectives underpin the recommendations presented in this section to foster environmentally sustainable development in Kars.

• Safeguarding the region’s rich biodiversity; • Nurturing its human resources.

A development strategy solidly grounded in these objectives includes six interlinked components:

1. Formulating a strategy framework and a coordinated action plan. Policies promoting sustainable rural development and ecotourism and sound urban management must be coordinated to shape a coherent integrated strategy framework leading to mutually reinforcing action on the ground.

2. Creating a productive interface between local authorities and village communities.

The Provincial administration and the Municipality have initiated programs that can make a significant contribution to the two headline strategic objectives mentioned above. The effectiveness of these efforts can be enhanced by structuring a culturally adapted interface between communities and local authorities. The objectives and outputs of each program will shape the structure of this interface. It can range from supportive initiatives to collaboration on specific activities to partnerships in order to achieve a particular objective or reach a performance target. Fostering the establishment of CBOs, unions, cooperatives and associations in the villages and the urban neighborhoods will facilitate this interface as well as promote community organization and collaborative action and marketing of products.

3. Actively promoting sustainable rural development through five policies and

associated action programs:

• Diversifying production with a focus on market-oriented “niche” products in both the agriculture and the non-agriculture sectors to expand the sources of income to the villagers.

• Promoting high quality food products. Kars is already reputed for its Çakmak

cheese. With proper animal husbandry practices and improvements in quality control (including hygiene) during the production process, Kars cheeses can command higher prices and eventually earn a recognized label.

• Fostering the development of organic farming and products. The market for organic

food products has expanded rapidly in the West with growing awareness and concern about the health impact of chemicals and additives in food. Despite their higher price, organic foods have benefited from growing demand. Today in Kars Province the use of fertilizers and pest-control chemicals is widespread. However, there are still areas where for different reasons traditional practices are still in use. These farms and villages should form the springboard for a program to foster the development of organic farming.

• Supporting the revival of traditional handicrafts and carpets. Traditional handicrafts

are on the verge of being lost. Already in most villages, the beautiful hand-woven



- 92 -

carpets that line the floor of guest rooms in the homes are the work of the older generation of women (45 years and older). Younger women no longer want to learn the skill since there is no market for the carpets beyond their use in their own homes. High quality handicrafts cannot be marketed in competition with factory-made products. They are special artifacts that have to be marketed as such: handmade North East Anatolian carpets from the Kars region. The Kockoyu carpets made from natural, non-dyed wool testify to the enduring beauty of this art form. The Provincial administration should put in place a marketing strategy for the Province’s traditional “ouya” handicrafts, its kilims and in particular, its carpets. This will help revive the traditional handicrafts, provide non-agricultural rural-based jobs and enhance opportunities for women to generate an independent source of income for their priority expenditures in the household.

• Initiating outreach and education programs in the villages. There is an urgent need to

introduce information technology in the villages, upgrade skills, improve practices and build entrepreneurship and marketing capabilities. Disseminating good practices through exchanges among villages must be an integral component of these programs. Fostering awareness and appreciation of the region’s rich biodiversity and its natural and cultural assets must be a cross-cutting theme in all the programs. Special programs must be directed at women who play a key role in all aspects of production in the household and the village. In this respect, SÜRKAL’s experience in Hasbey is instructive. It demonstrates the importance of such a program and the difficulties encountered in its implementation.

Youth are ready to move in search of more remunerative jobs, more exciting surroundings and new lifestyles. Education programs oriented at youth must include computer training and open up new perspectives on rural development and highlight the potential of new income-generation opportunities in the rural areas brought about by the development of tourism and the stewardship of the natural environment. This is needed to slow the rate of outmigration and engage youth who can bring to the depressed rural economy their energy and enthusiasm and an optimistic outlook to the future.

4. Promoting eco-tourism. The region’s magnificent natural features and its rich

biodiversity particularly as regards its flora and its wetlands that support an impressive number of resident and migratory bird species are key regional assets that can generate eco-tourism bringing badly needed income to the Province and those of its villages whose location or natural setting allows them to benefit from the development of this sector. This requires first and foremost the preservation of these sensitive assets. Two opportunities exist to initiate immediate action on this front:

• Preserving biodiversity and restoring degraded wetlands and meadows. Lakes, rivers

and wetlands must be protected and their further degradation prevented. Dr. Cagan Sekercioglu and Dr. Sean Anderson indicated that despite pollution and eutrophication many sites could be improved and their degradation reversed if urgent measures are adopted and implemented. Access to the range of specialization provided by the Stanford University team is a unique opportunity for the Province and the Municipality to benefit from this expertise in order to put in place a program to protect these valuable assets.

• Scaling up the Provincial administration’s experimental program to restore the

indigenous flora in the degraded meadows. This program will have to be based on a



- 93 -

study of land tenure and property rights in the Province as well as on environmentally sound techniques of restoration.

The Province and the Municipality in collaboration with the Kars Chamber of Industry and trade as well as the travel and hospitality business sectors should initiate a program and hold events that give visibility and build the reputation of Kars as a tourism destination in its own right. At present, the Traditional Caucasian Cultures Festival is the only event giving the city international exposure.

Cultural tourism benefits from having unique assets to help promote it. Mt. Ararat is known worldwide, Ani is a World Heritage Site and the proximity of the Ishak Pasa palace to these landmarks as well as the medieval churches in Lake Van encourage visitors. Aside from Lake Van, most of the other ecological resources of the region are not marketed and its magnificent landscapes are hardly known outside Turkey.

An eco-tourism strategy must be complemented by:

• A proper interpretation at the sites to be visited; • The establishment of tourist service stations at strategic locations, landscape

viewing points and places where hiking, riding and walking trails would offer the best opportunities to explore the richness of the area’s ecosystems, its spectacular flora blooming season and its bird migration flyways.

The Province and the Municipality can work in partnership with NGOs and the private sector to provide these facilities that will bring new employment opportunities to the rural areas as well as to the City.

In the longer term the potential of agri-eco-tourism should be explored. Throughout the region, there are villages that have a unique vernacular character, are located in spectacular settings, produce specialized products or simply offer a possibility to explore traditional hospitality in an attractive natural environment. At present, with few exceptions, difficult access, inadequate water supply and lack of sanitation hinder the development of this category of thematic tourism. Finally, capitalizing on the synergies between cultural and eco-tourism allows the adoption of mutually reinforcing policies and action plans and opens up opportunities for public/private partnerships, greater involvement of NGOs and joint financing of projects.

5. Providing incentives for the development of urban agriculture. In a city where the economy is lagging, jobs are scarce and the food products come from elsewhere in Turkey, measures that foster urban agriculture can create income-generating opportunities and bring to the market local produce. Furthermore, in some parts of the greenbelt conditions are adequate to experiment with more intensive but environmentally sound agriculture.

Kars Municipality should consider structuring partnerships with NGOs and the private business sector to:

• Work with residents living within the designated beltway to form cooperatives,

unions and associations to facilitate the marketing of their products. These



- 94 -

associations should be open to producers in other sites within the Municipal boundaries where urban agriculture is established.

• Encourage the development of urban agriculture in the wide corridor designated as a greenbelt on the City’s Master Plan.

• Launch a program to better manage solid waste, clean up the riverbank and support the production of cloth shopping bags to replace plastic bags.

• Establish a permanent women’s carpet and handicraft workshop and store in town which would sell articles produced by women in the villages and the rural migrants in the City. This project has already been recommended to the Municipality as part of the Institutional Assessment in the section regarding the advancement of opportunities for women.

• Encourage the development of farms, dairies and market stands for the products along the ringroad preferably in association with restaurants and shopping facilities.

6. Concentrating on areas with high development potential in a first phase. The magnitude of the challenge and the scarcity of local resources entail a strategy of concentration rather than thinly spread dispersion. Resources must be directed at areas where development potential is highest and concentrated in those sectors and products where Kars has a competitive advantage.

Having surveyed 22 villages and reviewed the experience of the BTC Sustainable Rural Development Project implemented by SÜRKAL in Kars as well as the programs of the Kars Province Department of Agriculture, eight villages were identified for their particularly high development potential in the following sectors:

• Animal Husbandry: Karaurgan, Sarikamiş and Bulanik, Kars • Dairy Production: Çakmak, Kars, and Boğatepe, Susuz • Organic Farming: Büyük Çatma, Arpaçay and possibly Derinöz, Digor • Carpet weaving: Kocköyü, Arpaçay and Yolboyu, Susuz • Eco-tourism: Çilehane, Kağizman

The selected villages provide a good geographic coverage of the Province. They will form a network for the preparation of an action plan that simultaneously responds to community needs and is designed to promote environmentally sustainable development. The action plan should introduce environmentally sound methods to enhance productivity and include:

• Projects to upgrade infrastructure with special attention to access roads, water

supply for domestic use and irrigation, and appropriate sanitation options; • Training in health, hygiene and entrepreneurship; • Measures to encourage villagers to form associations and cooperatives to

organize the community and engage villagers in joint action; • Opportunities to disseminate the pilot experiences to other villages.

It is essential that an adequate framework for monitoring and performance assessment be put in place to ensure a timely review and evaluation of the adopted strategies. This is especially important in order to assess the effectiveness of the rural development strategies in the pilot villages, a prerequisite to scaling up from project to strategy.



- 95 -

7 ANNEXES 7.1 Annex 1: Successful examples of Urban Agriculture for Kars to consider Following an extensive review of 15 successful urban agricultural projects, the following examples are selected to present to the Kars Municipality as potential models to follow in initiating a similar program in the designated greenbelt around the urbanized area. Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture in Russia Despite Russia’s harsh climate, the cultivation of land in urban areas produces 30% of all the food grown in the country and 80% of all vegetables14. Peri-urban agriculture is promoted, and generally consists of three types of agricultural plots. Dachas are gardening blocks of up to 0.15 hectares with one-story cottages. They are usually owned privately and are located within 50 kilometers of older city centers. Sadovodstos are gardening communities of up to 600 plots with common infrastructure and small houses, located primarily in the peri-urban areas of new or industrial cities and towns. Finally, Ogorods are informal, sometimes illegal community plots that are often established in or on the outskirts of small towns on either municipal or privately owned land.15 Most often the funding for urban agriculture comes from loans from friends or relatives. However, some international organizations such as Fund Eurasia and the Centre of Civil Initiatives have sponsored programs offering microcredit loans of up to USD$2000 to peri-urban farmers for the purchase of small tractors, cattle or seeds.16 St. Petersburg, Russia, is a city with a long history of successful urban and peri-urban agriculture. Within the city, gardening takes place almost everywhere, including backyards, vacant land, rooftops, public land, rooftops, and basements. On the urban fringe, there are approximately 150,000 dachas, 2,800 sadovodstos, and 180,000 ogorods in the metropolitan region.17 Russia does not stand alone in its urban agricultural traditions and success; in most Eastern European countries similar in climate to Russia, particularly Poland, there is a long tradition of peri-urban gardening by urban households. Programa de Agricultura Urbana (PAU) in Rosario, Argentina

A striking example of the success of urban agriculture is the Programa de Agricultura Urbana (PAU) in Rosario, Argentina (population 910,000), which received worldwide praise and many awards. Launched in 2002 as a means of supplementing the city’s food donation programs in the midst of the severe financial crisis that led to the devaluation of the peso to one-third of its former value and pushed the majority of the population below the poverty line, the program started with a pilot giving gardening tools, materials and seeds to 20 impoverished groups as a way to

supplement their food sources. Based on the success of this experience, Rosario extended the

Illustration 4.3: Programa de Agricultural Urbana, Rosario, Argentina

Source: IDRC, http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-32860-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html



- 96 -

program to a city-wide scale putting all vacant land within jurisdictional boundaries in temporary agricultural use. The national assistance initiative referred to as the “Unemployed Heads of Households Program” further increased demand by promising $50 per month to participants engaged in labor, community work, employment training or schooling. In Rosario, most chose urban agriculture. As the program picked up speed, in 2002-2003 the municipality worked with the National University of Rosario and a local NGO to identify and analyze available vacant land in the city limits that could be used for urban agriculture and initiated measures to formalize the temporary ceding of property for urban agriculture. The new regulations established in 2004 exempted owners of ceded land from paying municipal taxes on the land for two years, with the option of renewing the contract for a longer time if desired. In contrast, public land used for the urban agriculture program was pledged for agricultural use for 10 years. The Municipality realized the advantages to temporarily cede the vacant land it owned to farmers who would care for the land and prevent the spread of informal subdivisions. As of 2006, the Programa de Agricultura Urbana comprises over 600 community gardens on formerly vacant private or publicly owned land, involves 7000 Rosario residents, and provides food to an estimated 40,000 people living below the poverty line. The municipal government covers the costs of transporting the produce, the stalls and awnings set up for the seven city-wide farmers’ markets, the baskets for the merchandise and the uniforms and gloves to meet hygiene standards. One important unintended benefit of the program is its role in empowering women. Of the participants, 63% are women. In many cases, women are making key decisions, performing tasks similar to those of men and being recognized by the community for their role. 18 The latest development in Rosario’s program is the development of “garden parks”, or productive gardens with a landscaped design that are planted along major roads and on tracts of land that are unsuitable for housing. Rosario is part of a network of cities exploring the concept of urban agriculture, supported in part by the Resource Center for Urban Agriculture and Forestry in the Netherlands. Allotment Gardens in Cagayan de Oro, Philippines Cagayan de Oro (population 470,000) in the Philippines launched a model urban agriculture program to promote urban environmental management and food security. A pilot project that has received international recognition concerns allotment gardens, large gardens on peri-urban private land with six to twenty 300 m2 land parcels farmed by individual families. The produce from these gardens provides supplements of both food and income. Participants’ income has grown by 20% because of the gardens, while many of the families’ vegetable intake has doubled. Another benefit of the program is its use of biodegradable household waste as compost, significantly

Illustration 4.4: Women selling their produce at one of the markets set up around Rosario.

Source: IDRC, http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-32860-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html



- 97 -

improving sanitary conditions in the neighborhoods surrounding the gardens. To date five allotment gardens have been established providing agricultural opportunities to 50 families, but the municipal government is currently integrating the concept of allotment gardens into future city planning and development. GIS and participatory activities will be used to locate new garden sites, and taxes will be reduced for landowners who allow their property to be used for this purpose.19 Greenbelt Agriculture in Ottowa, Canada Agricultural preservation in greenbelts surrounding urban areas is also a popular concept. Throughout Canada, municipal governments are establishing greenbelts devoted to or partially devoted to agriculture. The greenbelt surrounding Ottowa, Canada is considered one of the largest urban parks in the world. One quarter of this large peri-urban greenspace has been devoted to agriculture to reflect Canada’s commitment to preserving agricultural land. 65 farms are leased to private farmers by the National Capital Commission (NCC), the organization in charge of promoting and programming the greenbelt.



- 98 -

ENDNOTES 1 Serageldin, M. et al. Institutional Assessment of Kars Municipality. Study sponsored by the Christensen Fund, September 2005 2 Ziyadov, Taleh. “The Kars-Akhalkalaki Railroad: a missing link between Europe and Asia.” http://acturca.wordpress.com/2006, August 30, 2006 3 Regional Review: Economic, Social and Environmental overview of the ACG, BTC and Shah Deniz/SCP Projects in the National and Regional Context of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey. Environment Section., p.119. 4 UNICEF Turkey Statistics, http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/Turkey_statistics.html 5 Turkey National Environmental Action Plan 1998, quoted in BTC regional review, 2004 6 Nigros, J.E., “Turkey: May Our Forests Never Thin Out”. www.islamonline.net, health and science section, 2003. 7“Turkey Deforestation Rates and Related Forestry Figures”. http://rainforests.mongabay.com/deforestation/2000/Turkey.htm 8 BTC Regional Review, 2004, p 177. 9 Roach, John. “Conservationists Name Nine New ‘Biodiversity Hotspots’”. National Geographic News, February 2005. 10 Descriptions of Turkey eco-regions, World Wildlife Fund, www.worldwildlife.org. 11“Turkey Deforestation Rates and Related Forestry Figures”. http://rainforests.mongabay.com/deforestation/2000/Turkey.htm 12 Kupatadze, Giorgy. “Turkey’s Black Sea Dams Anger Georgia”. Environment News Service, www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2005/2005-0506-02.asp. May 2005. 13 It is common that women migrants do not report the entire household expenditure. As such, the expenditures reported by the women interviewees were doubled to maintain consistency in comparison and analysis. 14 United Nations Sustainable Development Success Stories. Volume 4, quoted in Urban Agriculture and Food Security in the United States: Farming from City Center to Urban Fringe. Prepared by the Community Food Security Coalition’s North American Urban Agriculture Committee. October 2003. 15 Moldakov, Oleg. “The Urban Farmers of St. Petersburg.” Urban Agriculture Magazine, Resource Centers on Urban Agriculture and Food Security (RUAF) Foundation, July 2000. 16 Moldakov, Oleg. “Microcredit and Investment for Urban Gardening in St. Petersburg, Russia.” Urban Agriculture Magazine, Resource Centers on Urban Agriculture and Food Security (RUAF) Foundation, April 2003. 17 Moldakov, Oleg. “The Urban Farmers of St. Petersburg.” Urban Agriculture Magazine, Resource Centers on Urban Agriculture and Food Security (RUAF) Foundation, July 2000 18 Merzthal, Gunther. “Urban Agriculture in Rosario: An opportunity for Gender Equality”. Urban Agriculture Magazine, Resource Centres on Urban Agriculture 19 Holmer, Robert J. and Axel Drescher. “Building Food Secure Neighborhoods: the Role of Allotment Gardens.” Urban Agriculture Magazine, Resource Centers on Urban Agriculture and Food Security (RUAF) Foundation, December 2005.

Documents

Strategies for Sustainable Development, Kars, Turkey · Kars, Turkey Prepared by: Institute for International Urban Development Cambridge, MA Sponsored by: The Christensen Fund September