Executive Summary Report No. 110547-TR Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Reaching Compliance with the European Union’s Water Framework Directive in a Sustainable Way – Challenges and Opportunities for Turkey’s Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Updated Report GWA03 Europe and Central Asia November 2016 This work was made possible by the financial contribution of the Water Partnership Program (WPP) http://water.worldbank.org/water/wpp. This paper is available online at http://www.worldbank.org/water. Authors may also be contacted through the Water Help Desk at whelpdesk@worldbank.org. 1 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Standard Disclaimer: This volume is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Copyright Statement: The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly. For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA, telephone 978-750-8400, fax 978-750-4470, http://www.copyright.com/. All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA, fax 202-522-2422, e-mail pubrights@worldbank.org. 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary................................................................................................................................. 9 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 13 Chapter 1 - Turkey’s Experience in Water and Wastewater Services Management.............................. 15 1.1. ................................................................................................. 15 A Long and Rich Experience. 1.2. Overview of Institutional Arrangements.............................................................................. 16 Chapter 2 – Water Sector Status in Turkey Shows Good Coverage and Service Levels ........................ 17 2.1. A Quick Overview of WSS Services in Turkey........................................................................ 17 2.1.1. Water Supply almost Universal, with Uneven Performance .......................................... 17 2.1.2. Sanitation and Wastewater Treatment: An Ongoing Effort............................................. 20 2.1.3. Some Data on Tariffs and Sector Investments................................................................ 21 2.1.4. The Financial Situation of most SKIs is Challenging........................................................ 23 2.2. Some Issues Hinder the Implementation of EU Directives:.................................................. 27 .................................... 27 2.2.1. Overlap and Conflicts in Regulations, Planning and Institutions. 2.2.2. Completing Investments is a Beginning, not an End....................................................... 30 2.2.3. Monitoring & Benchmarking Invaluable Regulation Tools.............................................. 30 2.3. Main Issues Affecting the Sustainability of Service.............................................................. 31 2.3.1. Training and Capacity Building DeserveIimmediate Attention........................................ 31 2.3.2. Non-revenue Water Reduction is Often an Untapped Resource.................................... 31 Chapter 3 – Comparison of EU and Turkish regulations ....................................................................... 33 ................................... 33 3.1. Turkey Drinking Water Standards Slightly Lower than EU standards. 3.2. Turkey Wastewater Standards More Stringent than EU’s..................................................... 33 Chapter 4 - Cost of compliance with EU regulation on wastewater collection and treatment ............ 35 4.1. Methodology and assumptions ........................................................................................... 35 4.2. Results and Analysis ............................................................................................................ 37 4.3. Financial Implication of SKIs’ Balance Sheet . ...................................................................... 40 4.3.1. Cost Recovery Tariffs, Affordability ................................................................................ 41 4.4. Implementation Challenges of the 2014 SKI Reform ........................................................... 41 Chapter 5 – Sector Issues can Turn into Opportunities for Turkey - Questions for Discussion and Areas for Further Analysis . ............................................................................................... 44 5.1. Why Questions for Discussion? ........................................................................................... 44 5.2. Which Criteria for Actions? . ................................................................................................ 44 5.3. Opportunities Related to Institutional Issues ...................................................................... 45 5.4. Questions on Sanitation Technical Solutions ....................................................................... 46 5.5. Financing and Management Options for Service Delivery Improvement . .......................... 48 5.6. Can Integrated Urban Water Management Help? ............................................................... 49 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 50 References ........................................................................................................................................ 51 3 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Appendixes ........................................................................................................................................ 53 Appendix A: Maps and Population Breakdown .................................................................................... 54 Appendix B: Main sector indicators from 2006-2012 ........................................................................... 56 Appendix C: Water and Wastewater Expenditures 2007 - 2013 .......................................................... 58 Appendix D: Provincial Population Figures for Metropolitan Municipalities . ...................................... 59 Appendix E: Detailed Methodology for Cost Calculations .................................................................... 60 Appendix F: EU and Turkish Drinking Water and Sanitation Standards . .............................................. 73 Appendix G: Results of Cost Estimates and Tariff Impacts . .................................................................. 80 Appendix H: Results of Cost Estimates in River Basins and Financial Impacts per Person ................. 101 Appendix I: Summary of the High-Level Workshop . .......................................................................... 110 List of Tables Table 2.1: Water and Wastewater Indicators in Turkey and Danube Basin Countries (EU Members and All)........................................................................................................................... 20 .......... 22 Table 2.2: Applied Household Tariff Rates by SKIs for Water and Wastewater Services in 2016. Table 2.3: Main Financial Indicators of SKIs in 2015.............................................................................. 24 Table 2.4: Indicators and Thresholds Used to Organize the SKIs into Groups....................................... 25 Table 2.5: Affordable Household Tariff Rates versus Applied Tariff Rates by SKIs for Water and Wastewater Services in 2016. ............................................................................................... 26 Table 4.1: Description of Scenarios Used in the Assessment................................................................ 36 Table 4.2: Additional Investment and O&M costs for All Scenarios at the National Level.................... 38 Table 4.3: Disaggregated Total Costs for Senarios S1A and S3A at the National Level.......................... 39 Table 4.4: Incremental Investments and O&M Costs for All Scenarios per Type of Municipality.......... 40 Table 4.5: Main Financial Indicators for SKIs for Scenarios S1A and S3A . ............................................ 41 .......... 55 Table A.1: Distribution of Number of Different Service Providers and their Service Population. Table B.1: Main Drinking Water Indicators for Municipalities in Turkey between 2006 and 2014........ 56 Table B.2: Results of Life Satisfaction Survey regarding Municipal WSS Network Services................... 56 Table B.3: Main Wastewater Indicators for Municipalities in Turkey between 2006 and 2014............. 57 Table C.1: Capital and Operational Investments of Municipalities, Government Organizations and Special Provincial Administrations regarding Water Service and Wastewater Management Services between 2007 and 2013, Million TL................................................. 58 Table D.1: Provincial Population Figures for Metropolitan municipalities between 2007 and 2014..... 59 Table E.1: Indicators Used in RBPAP Reports for Wastewater Treatment plant (WWTP) Status........... 61 Table E.2: Existing WWTP Status Information from Draft By-law and Code Used in the Assessment... 61 Table E.3: Description of Scenarios Used in the Assessment................................................................ 65 Table E.4: Treatment Requirements for the Scenarios.......................................................................... 66 Table E.5: Cost Functions to Calculate Capital Expenditure of WWTP Investments.............................. 67 Table E.6: Coefficients for Converting FEASIBLE Model Cost Estimations to Turkish Market Level....... 67 Table E.7: Sewage Network Distribution of Length on Diameter Groups and Indicative Costs............. 68 Table E.8: Calculation of Operational Expenditure of WWTP Investments........................................... 68 Table E.9: Calculation of Operational Expenditure of Wastewater Collection Network Investments... 68 4 Table E.10: Unit Costs Used in the Calculation of Operational Expenditure of WWTP Investments..... 68 Table E.11: Sea Outfall Pipe Diameter for Different Population Ranges................................................ 69 Table E.12: Sea Outfall Investment Costs in EUR for Different Receiving Bodies and Population Ranges.............................................................................................................. 69 Table E.13: Sea Outfall Investment Costs for Urban Centres with Population over 500,000 Inhabitants............................................................................................................ 70 ..................................................................... 70 Table E.14: Main Assumptions for Sludge Disposal Costs. ...................................................... 70 Table E.15: Sludge Production Rate for Different Treatment Types. Table E.16: Wastewater Generation for Different Population Ranges................................................... 71 ............................................... 71 Table E.17: Assumptions for O&M and Amortization Cost Calculations. Table E.18: Deciding the Required or Existing Investment and O&M Costs for WWTP Facilities.......... 71 Table E.19: Deciding the Required or Existing Investment and O&M Costs for Wastewater Collection Network......................................................................................... 72 Table E.20: Deciding the Required or Existing Investment and O&M costs for Sea Outfall Facilities.... 72 .................................... 73 Table F.1: Summary of EU and Turkish Drinking Water Treatment Parameters. Table F.2: Product Specified Parameters Acrylamide, Epichlorohydrin and Vinylchloride.................... 74 Table F.3: Comparison of Treatment Requirements by EU and TR Legislation and Common Practice.. 75 Table G.1: Aggregated Total Costs for All Scenarios at the National Level............................................ 80 ...................................... 81 Table G.2: Aggregated Total Costs for All Scenarios per Type of Municipality. Table G.3: Summary of Results for All Scenarios Representing the Additional Investments Required in Metropolitan Municipalities (EUR).................................................................... 82 Table G.4: Summary of Results for All Scenarios Representing the Incremental O&M Costs in Metropolitan Municipalities (EUR/year).............................................................................. 84 Table G.5: Summary of Results for All Scenarios Representing the Cumulative Incremental O&M Costs Projected Over the Useful Life of Investments in Metropolitan Municipalities (EUR)............................................................................................................. 85 Table G.6: Amortization Costs for Required Investments in MMs for All Scenarios (EUR).................... 86 Table G.7: Total Incremental Costs, Composed of Incremental Investments, Lifetime O&M and Amortization Costs for Metropolitan Municipalities for Scenarios S1A, S3A and S1B (in EUR million)..................................................................................................................... 87 Table G.8: Main Financial Indicators for SKIs for Scenario 1A, 2A and 3A............................................. 89 ............................................. 90 Table G.9: Main Financial Indicators for SKIs for Scenario 1B, 2B and 3B. Table G.10: Tariff Increase Margin and Additional Unit Operation Costs to be Covered for All Scenarios................................................................................................................. 91 Table G.11: Additional Investment Required in Provinces Outside of MMs for All Scenarios (EUR)..... 93 Table G.12: Yearly O&M Costs in Provinces Outside of MMs for All Scenarios (EUR/year)................... 97 Table G.13: Incremental O&M Costs Projected over the Useful Life of Investments in Provinces Outside of Metropolitan Municipalities for All Scenarios (EUR)......................................... 98 Table G.14: Summary of Results for All Scenarios Representing the Amortization Costs i Provinces Outside of Metropolitan Municipalities (EUR)................................................... 99 Table G.15: Total Additional Costs and Breakdown by Incremental Investments, Total O&M and Amortization Costs for Provinces Outside MMs for Scenarios S1A, S3A and S1B (in EUR Million)................................................................................................................ 100 Table H.1: Summary of Results for Scenario S1A in River Basins......................................................... 101 Table H.2: Summary of Results for Scenario S2A in River Basins......................................................... 102 5 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Table H.3: Summary of Results for Scenario S3A in River Basins......................................................... 103 Table H.4: Summary of Results for Scenario S1B in River Basins......................................................... 104 Table H.5: Summary of Results for Scenario S2B in River Basins......................................................... 105 Table H.6: Summary of Results for Scenario S3B in River Basins......................................................... 106 Table H.7: Total Incremental Costs including Incremental Investment, Cumulated O&M during Lifetime of the Investments and Amortization Costs for River Basins for Scenarios S1A, S3A and S1B (EUR Million).................................................................................................. 108 List of Figures Figure 2.1: Water Supply Access Rates and Demographic Growth in Turkey from 2001 to 2014 and Comparison with Selected EU Member States and Countries in the Danube River Basin............................................................................................................ 17 Figure 2.2: Non-Revenue Water Level and Yearly Loss Per Capita and Demographic Growth in Turkey from 2004 to 2014 and Comparison with Selected Countries in the Danube River Basin............................................................................................................ 19 Figure 2.3: Access to Wastewater Collection and Treatment Relation to Demographic Growth in Turkey from 2001 to 2014 and Comparison with Selected Countries in the Danube River Basin.................................................................................................. 21 Figure A.1: Map of Metropolitan Municipalities in Turkey.................................................................... 54 Figure A.2: Map of River Basins in Turkey............................................................................................. 54 Figure A.3: Institutional Set-up of the Water Sector in Turkey.............................................................. 55 Figure G.1: Comparison of Existing and Incremental Investments in Metropolitan Municipalities according to Scenarios S1A, S1B and S3A.......................................................................... 83 Figure G.2: Comparison of Total Incremental Costs in MMs under Scenarios S1A, S1B and S3A......... 88 Figure G.3: Existing versus Required Investment Costs in Provinces outside Metropolitan Municipalities in accordance with Scenario S1A................................................................ 94 Figure G.4: Existing versus Required Investment Costs in Provinces Outside Metropolitan Municipalities in accordance with Scenario S3A................................................................ 95 Figure G.5: Existing versus Required Investment Costs in Provinces Outside Metropolitan Municipalities in accordance with Scenario S1B................................................................ 96 Figure H.1: Comparison of Existing and Incremental Investments in River Basins according to Scenarios S1A, S1B and S3A............................................................................................. 107 Figure H.2: Comparison of Total Incremental Costs in River Basins according to Scenarios S1A, S1B and S3A............................................................................................................. 109 List of Boxes Box 5.1. Other Potential Areas where WFD Implementation could be Improved.............................. 47 Box E.1. “Sensitive Areas” as defined in the communique in Force - Option A in the Model............ 62 Box E.2. “Sensitive Areas” according to the Draft by-law - Option B in the Model............................ 64 6 List of Acronyms BOT Build, Operate and Transfer (a type of PPP arrangement) CAPEX Capital Expenditures DBO Design, Build, Operate (a type of PPP arrangement) DSI See GDSHW DWD EU Drinking Water Directive EIA Environmental Impacts Assessment EU European Union GDSHW General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works GDWM General Directorate for Water Management of the MoFWA GoT Government of Turkey IUWM Integrated Urban Water Management IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management LCC Life Cycle Cost MM Metropolitan Municipality MoEU Ministry of Environment and Urbanization MoFWA Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs NRW Non-Revenue Water O&M Operation and Maintenance PPP Public-Private Partnership RBPAP River Basin Protection Action Plans SKI General Directorates for Water and Wastewater Administration SPA Special Provincial Administration SUEN Turkish Water Institute TL New Turkish Lira (TRY) TurkStat /TUIK Turkish Statistical Institute UWWD EU Urban Wastewater Directive WFD EU Water Framework Directive WPP Water Partnership Program of the World Bank WSS Water Supply and Sanitation WUD Water Utility Departments of municipalities (not MMs) WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant 7 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation 8 Executive Summary Executive Summary O bjective. The main objective of this report is to identify and analyze key issues faced by the Water Supply and Sanitation (WSS) services in Turkey, as Turkey works to reach compliance with the European Union (EU) Drinking Water Directive (DWD) and Urban Wastewater Directive (UWWD), the WSS-related aspects of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD), and to initiate a dialog with authorities on opportunities to enhance the sustainability (technical and financial) and affordability of service provision, consistent with these Directives. This objective is consistent with Turkey’s focus on reaching the Sustainable Development Goals. The report identifies questions which were discussed at a high level workshop on the subject and hopes to generate interest for further analysis and support from the World Bank. Turkey’s Rich Experience in WSS Services Management. The Turkish Republic has a long and rich experience in the water sector. The 1926 Water Law places the overall responsibility for water resources management at the state level. This was confirmed in the Constitution of 1982 that provided that the state owns the right to explore and operate these natural resources, but can transfer this right to private institutions for a defined period. Municipalities are responsible for WSS services in their respective areas. In 1981, as a pragmatic response to water shortages and sewage problems in İstanbul, the government of Turkey introduced a new service provision model in Istanbul’s municipality. It established a dedicated Water and Sewage Administration (SKI), called “ISKI” in Istanbul, as a public utility owned by the municipality but with an independent budget. ISKI was entrusted to finance large WSS investments through international loans under the Treasury Guarantee Scheme. Turkey thereafter created 16 “metropolitan municipalities” (MM) by consolidating the municipalities in the main urban areas and by equipping each with an SKI. The March 31, 2014, law created 14 new metropolitan municipalities and SKIs and extended the service area of all metropolitan municipalities to cover the entire province. As a result, there are 30 SKIs responsible for providing WSS services to 77 percent of the population (62 million in 2014). Other municipalities provide WSS services through a municipal department. Special provincial administrations (SPA) provide services in non-municipal areas. Turkey Has Made Significant Progress Towards Compliance with EU Directives. The accession process of the Turkish Republic to the EU led to a major effort to harmonize its legislation with the EU’s overarching WFD and with WSS-related DWD and UWWD. Consistent with the WFD principles of “good ecological status,” integrated water resources management and holistic approaches to protect and control water resources (in both quantity and quality), Turkey defined 25 river basins and prepared River Basin Protection Action Plans for each of them. It entrusted the Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs (MoFWA) to coordinate WFD compliance and coordination of the preparation of river basin management plans, both centrally through the Water Management Coordination Board, and locally through basin management committees. Turkey also made great progress towards compliance with the DWD and the UWWD, which is the focus of this report. It entrusted institutions, established service providers and developed regulations, standards, programs, and action plans for sector investments and management of WSS. Reshuffling in the government in 2011 resulted in modifications of Turkey’s institutional arrangements that conferred most of the WSS mandates on MoFWA and on the Ministry of Environment and Urbanization (MoEU). Funding responsibilities rely on the General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works (GDSHW or DSI) and on IlBank. The latter, which is Turkey’s development Bank, also assesses municipalities’ creditworthiness and funds and channels international funding to the WSS sector. 9 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation MoFWA, through its General Directorate for Water Management (GDWM), is in charge of preparing river basins management plans. GDWM is attempting, through a draft by-law, to redefine the “sensitive water bodies and the drainage areas of these water bodies as urban sensitive areas and/or nitrate sensitive areas.” It also determines the environmental quality standards which are to be used for improvement of surface and groundwater protection and associated threshold values. MoEU assesses environmental impacts, determines wastewater treatment standards, issues discharge permits, and monitors the performance of wastewater treatment plants. It also prepares the EU compliance operational program, creates financial agreement frameworks and sets priority levels for projects. Turkey’ WSS Sector Status Shows Good Coverage and Service Levels. In 2014, Turkey’s efforts in WSS resulted in reaching 97 percent access rates to piped water supply and 90 percent connection rates to the sewage network for populations living in municipalities, and respectively 91 percent and 84 percent nationally. The Turkish Statistical Institute, TurkStat, reported access levels to treated water at 58 percent in municipalities and 54 percent nationally. Considering that the customer satisfaction rate with the water supply service was 79 percent in 2012 and above 76 percent since 2009, it is assumed that the rest of the supplied water is mostly in a good enough condition that it does not require complex treatment methods and can be distributed after a simple disinfection. In 2014, despite increasing population, access, and per capita consumption levels, Turkey decreased the ratio of wastewater discharged without treatment from 36 percent (1,226 million m3) in 2006 to 19 percent (813 million m3) in 2014 and lowered the level of non- revenue water (NRW) from 54 percent to 35 percent in the same period. These levels match those of EU member states in the Danube River Basin. WSS Debt-Funded Investments Efforts Limit SKIs’ Creditworthiness. 2014 and 2015 data on payables shows that the total debt levels of most SKIs exceed budget revenues. The majority of SKIs, most of which were established in 2014, operate at a loss, despite reasonable tariff levels, and have low creditworthiness. This shows that better financing and efficiency improvements are needed to improve SKI operational and investment capacity. There are issues hindering implementation of EU Directives: Excessive standards. If Turkey’s drinking water standards are mostly consistent with those set by the DWD, its two wastewater standards1are more stringent than those of the UWWD, and are applied in an even stricter fashion. Areas labeled as “sensitive” appear to differ from the EU’s recommended linkage of sensitivity to eutrophication or to an actual and worsening environmental threat. A new draft by-law may harmonize standards to align them with those of the EU, but may augment the list of areas set as “sensitive areas”. Incremental costs of compliance. The report includes an analysis of the estimated costs of reaching compliance in three scenarios: (i) under UWWD standards; (ii) under Turkish standards for nutrient removal in sensitive areas; and (iii) under Turkish standards of scenario (ii) plus additional nitrogen removal for all cities above 50,000 people. For each scenario two options for “sensitive areas” are considered: (i) as currently defined; and (ii) as set in the draft new by-law. Resulting estimated costs of compliance range between 5.2 and 6.3 billion Euros for additional investments (4 billion Euros more if funded through debt) and 844 million to 1.4 billion Euros per year for related operation and maintenance (O&M), which represent between 116 and 186 billion Euros considering O&M and amortization over the lifetime of the investment. The least-cost scenario on investments and O&M is to apply EU standards and current sensitive areas. These costs are only partial costs, focused only on wastewater. As publicly available data 1 Regulation on Urban Wastewater Treatment and Regulation on Water Pollution Protection 10 Executive Summary and benchmarks did not allow including the cost of pumping stations, deep sea outfalls and sludge treatment, transport and disposal, assumptions were made that estimated some of these costs. Nevertheless, considering Turkish versus EU standards with the current “sensitive areas” is estimated to cost 17 percent more in investments and 59 percent more in yearly O&M costs. Applying EU standards with new “sensitive areas” would add costs of 15 percent more in investments and 52 percent more in yearly O&M. Few SKIs can afford such additional costs. Scattered responsibilities. The multiplicity of institutions with shared responsibilities for the water sector, whether on resources management or WSS, and the overlapping of numerous action plans and investment programs, limits Turkey’s efficiency in compliance and complicates monitoring. It also hinders Turkey’s capacity to have a real vision of the “big picture” of sector and progress. Need for utilities to improve their operational and financial performance. Increasing demographic and economic demand for water combined with resources reduction due to the impact of climate change make NRW reduction a top priority. Better energy efficiency and capacity building are also critical to operating wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) and managing sludge to meet discharge targets in a sustainable manner. Insufficient publicly-available data on WSS utilities. There is currently no benchmarking system for the provision of WSS services in Turkey. MoFWA/GDWM created one on NRW, but the guideline document has proven insufficient to obtain reliable and comparable data, and it is not in electronic form. This affects the capacity to effectively monitor utilities’ performance, to make informed strategic decisions, and to improve the incentive framework to encourage efficiency and financial sustainability. MoFWA/GDWM is providing training in order to improve reporting on NRW. These Issues can be Turned into Opportunities. It is well known in the EU that, of all environmental directives, the UWWD is one of the most expensive to comply with. As a basic measure (Annex VI part B) of the WFD, the implementation of the UWWD has not yet generated the expected improvements of the “good ecological status” in EU Member States. This represents an opportunity for Turkey to focus on the core principles of the WFD, improve and apply water-related regulations accordingly, and then retrofit to the EU. Other countries have obtained compliance, and their experience could benefit Turkey. Key aspects to reach sustainability include (i) ensuring the efficiency of new investment, taking into account the total cost for optimized O&M costs over the lifetime of the investments; (ii) improving the efficiency and performance of existing infrastructure; and (iii) providing adapted support to improve SKI creditworthiness. Setting treatment standards based on expected environmental impacts rather than only on effluents? Consistent with the WFD, a first question worth asking is whether investment decisions and standards-setting should be determined on the basis of the expected impacts of the treated wastewater discharges on the ecological status, taking into consideration its actual water quality, its documented evolution, and its planned uses in the discharge area and downstream in the river basin. Setting “sensitive” and “less-sensitive” areas for impact? The designation limits and geographical extent of “sensitive areas” determine wastewater treatment standards and costs, but will they have the expected impacts? Is the assessment of “sensitivity” of receiving bodies adequately based on reliable water quality monitoring and related to the actual economic impact of the discharge? 11 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation The WFD links the sensitivity of the receiving environment mostly to its level of eutrophication. Does it make sense to require stringent and expensive nutrient removal technology in small cities in Turkey’s river basins when the pollution they generate is only minimal and presumably negligible in comparison to larger untreated point or non-point pollution sources? Implementing incrementally-phased approaches? There is strong evidence in support of phased approaches, with increasingly stringent requirements implemented over time, based on the extent to which prior actions actually contributed to the “good ecological status” of the receiving environment. Such phased approaches optimize environmental and sustainability objectives. Implemented both in space and time, they entail a holistic approach at the scale of the water body and river basin to respond to river basin objectives rather than applying fixed effluent standards at the scale of each urban area. They also allow for adapting the approach over time if the monitoring of the ecological status demonstrates that objectives are not being met. If EU members adopted this approach, why not Turkey? Utilizing Integrated Urban Water Management (IUWM)? IUWM is widely recognized as a way to make decisions on water and wastewater management and reuse to optimize resources and funding through a holistic approach at the city level. IUWM utilizes a holistic, integrated, and sustainable management of increasingly scarce water resources at the scale of urban areas.2 It links infrastructure options to urban planning and considers the whole “water cycle” in the solution-seeking process. Questions worth analyzing in Turkey include: To what extent are utilities’ plans for infrastructure development integrated into urban plans? Is their implementation coordinated? Which incentives and mechanisms would make sense to facilitate IUWM approaches as urban centers develop plans to comply with EU Directives and ensure water security? 2 Chapter 5.6 presents a more detailed definition of IUWM and a description of aspects of what it can encompass in the Turkish context. 12 Introduction Introduction Background and Objectives B ackground. The Government of Turkey (GoT) and the World Bank have a long history of collaboration through project financing in the water supply and sanitation (WSS) sector. As part of this collaboration, and in order to inform a broader sector dialogue, the World Bank secured a grant from the Water Partnership Program (WPP) to conduct an analytical work entitled “Sustainable Urban Water and Wastewater Services in Turkey,” which is the basis for this report. Study and Report Objectives. The main objective of this report is to identify and analyze the main issues faced by the WSS services in Turkey and to initiate a dialog with authorities on opportunities to enhance the quality, sustainability (technical and financial), and affordability of service provision as Turkey works to reach compliance with the European Union (EU) Drinking Water Directive (DWD) and the Urban Wastewater Directive (UWWD) and with WSS related aspects of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD). This objective is also very consistent with Turkey’s focus on reaching the recently established Sustainable Development Goals. The report identifies questions which were discussed at a high level workshop and related inputs subsequently received. Data limitations. Collecting and organizing the data necessary to perform in-depth analysis has proven a challenge that could not be overcome in the timeframe of this study. The report therefore relies solely on publicly available data and studies and on information collected through meetings with Turkish counterparts and EU colleagues and disseminated or validated at the workshop. Structure of the Report This report is designed and written for high-level officials and authorities in central and local governments. Chapter 1, which presents the sector’s main objectives, institutional arrangements, and regulatory framework, is kept short, as these are well-known to the target audience of this report. Chapter 2 presents an overview of the technical and financial status of the WSS. Chapter 3 compares the requirements of the EU Drinking Water and Urban Wastewater Directives with Turkish regulations and presents a short overview of the current compliance levels. Chapter 4 estimates the cost of reaching compliance with regulations related to wastewater collection and treatment and service provisions in three scenarios: (i) under EU Urban Wastewater Directive requirements; (ii) under Turkish standards for nutrient removal in sensitive areas; and (iii) under Turkish standards of scenario 2, plus compulsory nitrogen removal treatment for cities of more than 50,000 people. It estimates the costs and operation and maintenance (O&M) requirements of existing infrastructure (per available data), incremental costs needed to comply with the regulations in each scenario, and where data is available, the related impact on O&M and tariffs for utilities. Chapter 5 proposes questions worthy of further analysis which were discussed at a high-level workshop. Project team and Acknowledgements This analytical work was led by Xavier Chauvot de Beauchêne (Senior WSS Specialist and Task Team Leader), with support from Manuel Mariño (Lead Technical Consultant), Emre Tokcaer (Technical Consultant), Isik Kocaman (Financial Consultant) and the World Bank Country Office in Turkey. The team acknowledges and thanks the General Directorate for Water Management (GDWM) of the Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs (MoFWA), and the institutions which participated in the October 18, 2016 high-level workshop held in Ankara, with special thanks to presenters and panelists. 13 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation 14 Chapter 1 Chapter 1 - Turkey’s Experience in Water and Wastewater Services Managenment 1.1. A Long and Rich Experience T he Turkish Republic has a long and rich experience in the water sector, starting from the 1926 Water Law (No 831), which set the overall responsibility for water resources management at the state level. The Constitution of 1982 confirmed that all natural resources, including water, are under the state’s trusteeship. The state owns the rights for exploring and operating these natural resources. However, the state can transfer this right to private institutions for a defined period. The state has supported water resources development while adopting liberalization policies as part of the economic transformation program. In the 1980s, population increases in cities, especially in İstanbul and Ankara, resulted in depletion of available water sources followed by water shortages and serious sewage problems. In response to these crises, in 1981 Turkey introduced a new model for water service provision, piloted in İstanbul, by establishing a Water and Sewage Administration, called ISKI, that was subordinated to the municipality as a public body but with an independent budget. The so-called “ISKI Law” did not only result in autonomy of WSS services but also encouraged ISKI to finance large-scale WSS investments through international loans under the Treasury Guarantee Scheme. As it became clear that the sensible scale for the provision of WSS and other services in large urban areas is the metropolitan area and not individual municipalities, in 1984 Turkey consolidated the municipalities forming Ankara, Istanbul, and Izmir into “Metropolitan Municipalities” (MM). In 1986, a decision was made to implement the ISKI Law in all MMs. Between 1986 and 1993, the thirteen largest cities in the country were restructured in the same way3 and a General Directorate for Water and Sewage Administration (SKI) was established in each of them to provide WSS services within their provincial borders. In other municipalities, WSS services are provided by different departments of the municipality. Special Provincial Administrations provide WSS services in non-municipal areas. In 2014, Turkey consolidated the municipalities forming the main metropolitan areas into MMs and expanded ISKI Law to all 30 MMs, covering 77 percent of the population, or about 62 million people. “SKIs” are responsible for WSS services within MM borders, which correspond to provincial borders. In smaller municipalities, different departments of each municipality provide WSS services. Appendix A, “Maps and Population Breakdown,” shows a map of the 30 metropolitan municipalities in Turkey. The accession process of the Turkish Republic to the EU became a major influence on the development of the WSS regulatory framework as Turkey began to harmonize its legislation in accordance with EU legislation, particularly the Water Framework Directive (WFD), which aims at protecting and improving all types of European waters. The directive introduced an ecological and integrated (holistic) approach in a number of areas, including: river basin planning; programs of measures; strategies for elimination of pollution by dangerous substances (in a related directive on priority substances); public information and consultation; and application of economic incentives (cost recovery and adequate pricing). To be consistent with the WFD principles of protection and control of water resources, both in quantitative and qualitative terms, and in order to achieve “integrated water resources management,” Turkey identified 25 3 Adana (1986), Bursa, Gaziantep, Konya (1987), Kayseri (1988), Antalya, Mersin, Diyarbakır, Erzurum, Eskişehir, Izmit (changed into “Kocaeli” in 2014), Sakarya and Samsun (1993). 15 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation hydrologic basins, defined “sensitive water bodies, urban sensitive areas and nitrate sensitive areas”, and completed twenty-five river basin protection action plans. (See Appendix A, “Maps and Population Breakdown”, for a map of river basins). 1.2. Overview of Institutional Arrangements The roles and responsibilities of different ministries related to the water sector were reshuffled in 2011. As a result the Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs (MoFWA) and the Ministry of Environment and Urbanization (MoEU) were established. At the central level, MoFWA and MoEU share most of the water sector mandates. The primary mandates of MoFWA in relation to water issues are to develop policies on protection of water resources and their sustainable use and to coordinate national water management. The General Directorate for Water Management (GDWM) is in charge of delivering on these mandates, particularly: (i) preparing River Basins Management Plans; (ii) identifying and monitoring urban sensitive areas and nitrate sensitive areas; and (iii) together with related agencies and ministries, identifying targets, principles and receiving body standards for surface and groundwater protection, and monitoring water quality or having it monitored. MoEU also has responsibilities regarding water governance, especially related to environmental protection and rehabilitation, and is charged with assessing and monitoring environmental impacts of projects and activities. As such, it determines treatment standards for wastewater treatment plants, issues discharge permits, and is in charge of monitoring performance of wastewater facilities. MoEU is also in charge, through its EU Investments Department, of preparing and implementing the operational program in accordance with the legislation, EU directives, and international agreements, in particular the financial agreement frameworks with the EU. As such, it sets projects’ priority levels. IlBank is the development and investment Bank of Turkey. It has a major influence on municipal investments, a large share of which is in WSS. It establishes the creditworthiness and therefore the acceptable debt level of all local governments in Turkey, provides loans (grants for small municipalities and local governments) and guarantees, channels funding from international finance institutions (IFI), and carries out all aspects of related due diligence. The General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works (GDSHW) also known as DSİ, is mandated to develop all water and land resources in Turkey. It also undertakes investments in the supply of potable and industrial water, and if required, invests in wastewater treatment plants for municipal settlements (Article 10 of the law No 1053 as revised in 2007). Because a number of ministries and institutions are involved in different aspects of water sector management, a Water Management Coordination Board was created in 2012. Its primary objective is to foster cooperation and coordination among all ministries, institutions, and organizations in accordance with a common strategy framework in order to increase potable water quality and quantity and to ensure the sustainability of water protection and usage balance. Water sector management and monitoring at the decentralized level is carried out by a Local Environment Board at the provincial level, and by the recently created Basin Management Committees. A General Directorate of Water and Wastewater Administration “SKI” is established in every metropolitan municipality to carry out the WSS in accordance with the provisions of Law No 2560. SKIs are public entities that are affiliated with the metropolitan municipality and have an autonomous budget. According to Law No 2560, SKIs are also responsible for drainage and for ensuring protection of the water basins, even those located outside the boundaries of their service area. The governance structures of SKIs include a General Board, a Management Board, and auditors. The Metropolitan Municipality Council serves as the General Board of an SKI. Key responsibilities of the General Board include: (i) to decide on the five year investment plan; and (ii) to review and decide on annual investment programs. 16 Chapter 2 Chapter 2 - Water Sector Status in Turkey Shows Good Coverage and Service Levels 2.1. A Quick Overview of WSS Services in Turkey 2.1.1. Water Supply almost Universal, with Uneven Performance A ccess to water supply: According to TurkStat data - “Main Sector Indicators from 2006 to 2014” (see Appendix B), for 2014, out of the 84 percent of the population living in municipalities, 97 percent had access to piped water supply, but only 58 percent were served by a drinking water treatment plant. These ratios drop to 91 percent and 54 percent respectively when considering the whole population, including rural non-municipal areas. Considering that the rate of customer satisfaction with the water supply service was 79 percent in 2012 and above 76 percent since 2009, it is assumed that the rest of the supplied water is mostly in good enough condition, and therefore does not require complex treatment methods and can be distributed after a simple disinfection. Turkey’s rate is slightly higher than the 90 percent access rate to piped water supply in EU member states in the Danube river basin.4 As illustrated by Figure 2.1, from 2001 to 2014, when the population increased by 10 million people, WSS utilities provided access to water to 20 million people. Figure 2.1: Water Supply Access Rates and Demographic Growth in Turkey from 2001 to 2014 and Comparison with Selected EU Member States and Countries in the Danube River Basin. 80 100 Milyonlar 99 98 99 98 98 95 78 97 97 97 Hungary – 94% 95 91 76 90 85 74 83 82 82 82 Croatia-81% 80 Population 72 % Access 78 76 77 75 70 75 70 68 65 Ukraine-65% 66 60 Romania-62% BiH-58% 64 55 62 50 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Population WS access - municipal (%) WS access - national (%) 4 For comparison purposes, all data from EU-member countries mentioned in this chapter refer to countries belonging to the Danube river basin, as these are currently considered more relevant to Turkey. (ref: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/327761467999140967/pdf/96396- REVISED-WP-P146139-PUBLIC-Box391472B-SoS-Report-150610.pdf) 17 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Quality and reliability of service provision. There is no centralized data collection system capturing information on continuity, reliability, or quality of water service provision in Turkey. However, TurkStat conducts surveys on population well-being, which determine, inter alia, the level of satisfaction of the people with the network water services they receive, and these can be used as a proxy. The results of the latest population well-being surveys carried out between 2004 and 2012 show that 79 percent of the customers expressed satisfaction with the water supply service in 2012. This is consistent with surveys in EU-member states from the Danube basin, where only Romania and Bulgaria, with roughly 70 percent and 60 percent respectively, show levels of satisfaction lower than this figure, and where only Slovenia and Austria with levels of satisfaction close to 95 percent, show higher levels. This is understood as anecdotal evidence of safety and reliability of the service provided, because no information on water quality was published (see Appendix B, Main Sector Indicators from 2006- 2014.). Service performance including Non-Revenue Water (NRW). Service performance that includes NRW is not measured in the TurkStat survey. NRW is also not measured by most municipalities. In the “Main Sector Indicators table” presented in Appendix B, the term “water distribution” corresponds to the amount of water consumed by customers, or water sold. This is measured by water meters, which are believed to equip 95 percent of households. However, some municipalities also have some bulk consumers or supply the military for a lump sum without using metering. District metering and metering at reservoirs and water sources generally does not exist, except in the case of pumping. Assuming that all of the water distribution by municipal water supply networks is the total billed water and that the rest of water abstraction for the municipal water supply network is not billed, the NRW values can be calculated as the rate of “difference between water abstracted and distributed” to “water abstracted”. Calculating in this fashion results in an NRW decrease from 60 percent in 2004 to 35 percent in 2014, which corresponds to almost halving the yearly water losses per capita, from 43.7 m3 in 2004 (3 billion m3) to 23.7 m3 in 2014. This, combined with the sharp increase of the population, demonstrates a significant effort to decrease physical losses, to disconnect illegal connections and unbilled authorized water, and to replace customer meters. This remains higher than the average in EU member states. Data from EU-member states in the Danube river basin show NRW levels consistently lower, in the order of 30 percent or less. Only Croatia, Romania (both with about 45 percent), and Bulgaria (with over 60 percent) have higher NRW levels. (See Figure 2.2). Nevertheless, water losses in Turkey represent about 1.84 billion m3 per year, which corresponds to the volume needed to supply the average water consumption of 133 l/day to 38 million people. As demand for water increases due to demographic and economic growth while available resources are decreasing due to the impacts of climate change, efficiency improvements such as NRW reduction appear to be of critical importance to guarantee adequate water resources and to improve the financial sustainability of WSS service provision. However, the optimal target level for NRW reduction depends on the specific case of each service provider, both in terms of availability of water resources and the costs of improving and maintaining water network efficiency. Yet, investing in performance improvement is a “no-regret” solution in most places in Turkey, and it is increasingly understood that the optimum is evolving to lower NRW as demands get closer to the water resources available. A MoFWA climate change models’ worst-case scenario estimated that water availability in Turkey could drop from the current yearly 112 billion m3 to around 50 billion m3 by 2100 5 or even below 5 -Presentation of Prof Dr, İzzet Öztürk on the Hydrological Modelling and Assessment within the scope of Climate Changes Impact on Water Resources Project, General Directorate of Water Management, Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs. The presentation was downloaded from the below link on November 1st, 2016: http://iklim.ormansu.gov.tr/ckfinder/userfiles/files/2_Hidrolojik%20Modelleme%20ve%20De%C4%9Ferlendirme.pdf 18 Chapter 2 40 billion m3 depending on the models. In the meantime, the cumulative water demand for domestic, industrial, and irrigation uses is expected to increase from 43 billion m3 in 2015 to 54 billion m3 by 2020 and to 62 billion m3 by 2100. This means that the overall demand is expected to exceed the water available before the end of the century. Models predict that the water availability decrease is expected to be more severe in central provinces and provinces located on the southern and western shores of Turkey. Obviously, the effort to improve water efficiency should include irrigation and industrial water as well as domestic water supply. Figure 2.2: Non-Revenue Water Level and Yearly Loss Per Capita Relative to Demographic Growth in Turkey from 2004 to 2014 and Comparison with Selected Countries in the Danube River Basin. 80.000.000 100,00 78.000.000 90,00 76.000.000 80,00 74.000.000 70,00 72.000.000 60,00 70.000.000 59,87 BiH-55% NRW 54,00 50,00 68.000.000 Romania-45% NRW 47,20 46,09 Croatia-44% NRW 43,74 43,24 40,00 66.000.000 39,50 35,19 30,00 Ukraine-30% NRW 64.000.000 30,40 29,91 28,22 Hungary-24% NRW 62.000.000 23,72 20,00 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Years Population NRW % Volume loss (m3/cap/year) 19 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Table 2.1: Water and Wastewater Indicators in Turkey and Danube Basin Countries (EU Members and All). In Danube basin In Turkey countries (2012) Item Unit EU Member All 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 States States Rate of population served by a % 82 82 82 83 91 90 83 water supply network in total pop Water abstraction per capita in l/cap/day 245 215 216 216 203 n/a n/a municipalities Water consumption per capita l/cap/day 113 113 116 123 133 100 - 150 122 Non-Revenue Water (NRW) % 54 47 46 43 35 < 30 35 Rate of population served by a % 72 73 73 78 84 90 66 sewerage system in total pop. Rate of population served by a % 42 46 52 58 64 67 45 WWTP in total population Amount of wastewater (1000 m3) 1,226.4 1,009.9 863.0 815.6 813.1 n/a n/a discharged without treatment Source: Calculations of authors based on TurkStat data for Turkey’s indicators; “Water and wastewater services in the Danube Region – A state of the Sector, WB and Danube Partnership, May 2015” for Danube Basin countries. Per Capita water consumption. Although the water abstracted per capita has decreased from 2006 to 2014, during the same period there was an eight percent increase in water consumption per capita6 from the distribution network, from 113 l/cap/day in 2006 to 133 l/cap/day in 2014 (Table 2.1). This has been consistently increasing since 2006 and may therefore continue to increase in the future, putting additional pressure on the water resources and delivery systems. These levels are comparable to international standards. By means of comparison, consumption in EU member states from the Danube basin have been declining in recent years and are currently in the 100-150 l/cap/day range, with consumption in Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Hungary already below 100 l/cap/day. 2.1.2. Sanitation and Wastewater Treatment: An Ongoing Effort Turkey has made significant efforts to increase wastewater collection and treatment in municipalities, which has resulted in making strong progress in wastewater indicators. Connection rates to wastewater services increased. In the “Main Wastewater Indicators for Municipalities” table (Table B.3) in Appendix B (“Main Sector Indicators for 2006-20014”), the “population served” indicates the connection rate. The analysis of this data shows a remarkable effort to increase wastewater collection and treatment in Turkey. Indeed, while municipal areas recorded a 14 million increase in population between 2006 and 2014, the connection rate in these service areas remained the same for water supply, connection rate to sewage networks increased from 87 percent in 2006 to 90 percent in 2014, and the municipal population served with wastewater treatment plants increased from 51 percent in 2006 to 68 percent in 2014 (Figure 2.3). This means that between 2006 and 2014, while the Turkish population increased by 7 million people, WSS municipal service extended sewer access to 14 million people and access to wastewater treatment to 20 million people. In other words, on a daily basis for the past eight years, Turkish water utilities connected an average of 4,800 people to a sewer and provided wastewater treatment to an additional 6,850 people. 6 Water consumption per capita figures are calculated by dividing the amount of water distributed through the municipal water supply network by the municipal population served by the water supply network. 20 Chapter 2 Figure 2.3: Access to Wastewater Collection and Treatment Relative to Demographic Growth in Turkey from 2001 to 2014 and Comparison with Selected Countries in the Danube Basin. 80 100 Milyonlar 78 90 92 90 76 87 88 88 85 86 80 83 81 74 Hungary – 72% WWTP 68 70 68 Population 72 % Access 62 60 70 56 51 50 68 45 Romania-41% WWTP 40 66 38 Ukraine-37% WWTP 35 35 64 30 Croatia-28% WWTP 62 20 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Population Municipal access to WWTP (%) National access to WWTP (%) Municipal access to WW collection (%) National access to WW collection (%) These rates are comparable to that of EU-member countries in the Danube river basin, both for connection and treatment rates. Connection rates in urban areas reach over 90 percent in most countries, with only Bulgaria and Romania in the 80-90 percent range. Regarding treatment, the rates range from a low of 28 percent in the case of Croatia to close to 95 percent in Austria, with an average of 67 percent. The latest life satisfaction survey results, used as a proxy for service performance, shows that 71.5 percent of customers were satisfied with their sanitation services in 2012. Biogas digestion, sludge composting or reuse, and treated wastewater reuse remain anecdotal. Few municipalities in Turkey have piloted biogas digestion, composting, and reuse, as was done in Ankara, or treated wastewater reuse, as was done in Konya. The most common practice seems to be to dispose of sludge in solid waste landfills or to incinerate them, but both are very expensive solutions. Although possible, the use of sludge in agriculture is not a common practice in Turkey, as it is in most EU countries. The impacts of climate changes on resources and energy costs should encourage policies in favor of treated wastewater reuse and biodigestion wherever it makes economic sense, because it serves both economic and environmental agendas. The EU is working on a new directive aiming at encouraging treated wastewater reuse, Turkey could benefit from increasing such practices. 2.1.3. Some Data on Tariffs and Sector Investments Tariffs. There is no WSS sector regulator in Turkey. Water and wastewater tariffs set and charged by municipalities in Turkey are not available as a whole, and they need to be checked separately for each municipality or service provider. Each SKI applies different water and wastewater tariffs depending on customer groups. Household rates can differ as well depending on the service area and/or level of consumption. A discounted household tariff of up to 50 percent is applied under the law to customers with disabilities and to customers having a martyr or veteran household member. Customers located in a new service area of an SKI or a former rural area are charged 25 percent of the regular WSS household tariff. The household tariff rates applied by SKIs as of the end of October 2016 are presented in Table 2.2 below showing the highest and lowest household tariff rates per cubic meter. The highest total WSS tariff is shown in Denizli for the 21 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation highest block above 251 m3 of consumption monthly, whereas the Mardin SKI provides this service to household customers at the lowest reduced tariff among listed SKIs. The relative tariff charged for water and for wastewater compared to the total tariff also varies from one SKI to another. Wastewater service represents 15 percent to 30 percent of the total tariff applied, with the highest being in Mardin at 50 percent. Noteworthy: In comparison, the EU reports an evolution of tariffs that breakdown in EU member states from a balanced (50/50 percent) status towards a 30 percent/70 percent breakdown in favor of wastewater. This means that complying with the UWWD should result in wastewater representing a higher share of the overall water tariff. This calls for a policy review of how tariffs are used as an incentive to achieve more water efficiency, consistent with the provisions of WFD’s article 9. Table 2.2: Applied Household Tariff Rates by SKIs for Water and Wastewater Services in 2016. Household Tariff in TL/m3 Household Tariff in EUR/m3 Municipality SKİ Highest Lowest Highest Lowest Adana ASKİ 3,18 0,95 0,98 0,29 Ankara ASKİ 5,10 1,28 1,56 0,39 Antalya ASAT 3,17 0,35 0,97 0,11 Aydın ASKİ 4,20 0,88 1,29 0,27 Balıkesir BASKİ 4,28 1,07 1,31 0,33 Bursa BUSKİ 5,95 1,32 1,83 0,40 Denizli DESKİ 13,25 0,39 4,06 0,12 Diyarbakır DİSKİ 2,56 0,18 0,79 0,05 Erzurum ESKİ 1,87 0,75 0,57 0,23 Eskişehir ESKİ 2,76 0,69 0,85 0,21 Gaziantep GASKİ 11,55 0,41 3,54 0,13 Hatay HATSU 4,75 0,50 1,46 0,15 İstanbul İSKİ 8,69 1,02 2,67 0,31 İzmir İZSU 8,44 0,90 2,59 0,28 Kahramanmaraş KASKİ 1,83 0,51 0,56 0,16 Kayseri KASKİ 4,38 0,34 1,34 0,10 Kocaeli İSU 5,19 0,72 1,59 0,22 Konya KOSKİ 3,11 1,24 0,95 0,38 Malatya MASKİ 3,09 0,58 0,95 0,18 Manisa* MASKİ - - - - Mardin MARSU 2,00 0,02 0,61 0,01 Mersin MESKİ 7,65 0,54 2,35 0,17 Muğla MUSKİ 4,04 1,01 1,24 0,31 Ordu OSKİ 4,09 0,41 1,25 0,13 Sakarya SASKİ 3,25 0,95 1,00 0,29 Samsun SASKİ 3,13 0,78 0,96 0,24 Şanlıurfa ŞUSKİ 4,00 0,88 1,23 0,27 Tekirdağ TESKİ 3,00 0,75 0,92 0,23 Trabzon TİSKİ 2,65 0,27 0,81 0,08 Van VASKİ 2,20 0,55 0,67 0,17 Source: Web-pages of each SKI, * WSS tariff for Manisa SKI was not available. 22 Chapter 2 As observed in Appendix C, “Water and Wastewater Expenditures 2007 – 2013,” Table C.1 shows that from 2007-2013 the total amount of public sector operational and capital investments was 35 billion Turkish Lira (TL). Of this amount, 79 percent (27.8 billion TL7) was invested in water and wastewater services, with operational and capital municipal investments representing equal shares, each being 14 billion TL. This demonstrates the high priority given to the sector, which led to the improvements presented above. There is little information and data on investments in water and wastewater financed by commercial loans or bilateral aid without a state guarantee. While large SKIs may have mobilized such financing, they are expected to be very limited. To what extent this situation could be related to a lack of interest from the banking sector, presumed low creditworthiness levels of most utilities, or the terms and conditions proposed to them is unknown. 2.1.4. The Financial Situation of most SKIs8 is Challenging The final assessment of the financial health of a municipal utility or, in this case, SKIs, is based on the indicators of total debt/total budget revenues, debt service/total budget revenues, and operating budget surplus/deficit. In general practice – though this is not defined in Turkish law – a municipal utility may be considered financially sound if its total debts do not exceed 60 percent of its total budget revenues, if its total debt service (interest payments and debt repayments in a given year) does not exceed 15 percent of total budget revenues, and if the municipality has an operating surplus (its operating revenues exceed its operating costs). Thus, the purpose of assessing SKIs’ finances and creditworthiness is to get a general impression of their financial situation, to check whether they appear to be well managed and are reasonably sound financially, and to determine whether SKIs have room to take on further investments. 2.1.4.1. Revenues and Expenditures of SKIs are Uneven As Table 2.3 illustrates, ten SKIs had budget deficits in 2015, while twenty had budget surpluses, some up to 89 percent. A closer look at the SKIs with a budget deficit reveals that most of them are newly established SKIs which in 2014 took over all liabilities of the sub-province municipal utilities into their balance sheet, and in 2015 continued with investments for rehabilitation of existing infrastructure (mostly network) in the new service area. Also, some may not have been very successful in billing and collecting revenues in their first year of operation as an SKI. Two of the SKIs established in 2014, Kahramanmaraş and Malatya, have not made their 2015 annual activity reports publicly available. The structure of the budget expenditures shows that operational expenditures, such as salaries, social security premiums, and purchases of goods and services, range in 2015 from 36 percent to 89 percent in SKIs established before 2014 and from 31 percent to 80 percent in SKIs established in 2014. However, the financial data available for SKIs is not detailed enough to be able to determine whether the SKIs are running operating deficits. Some de facto capital expenditures (CAPEX) may have been categorized under purchases of goods and services (operating expenditures). The share of capital expenditures in the budgets of newly established SKIs is low (29 percent on average), whereas it is 40 percent in other SKIs. It should be also noted that the data available aggregates all lines of businesses in SKIs. It therefore does not allow for distinguishing whether the accounts also include some expenditures and revenues which are not directly linked to provision of urban water and wastewater services. Some of the MM are active in the production and sale of bottled water and it is not clear in these cases whether this financial information is also included in SKI’s account. 7 Table C.1 did not provide data for 2011, so this figure represents capital investments for years 2007 to 2010, 2012 and 2013. 8 The following sections deals more specifically with SKIs as they are the largest utilities and publish data allowing the analysis. 23 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Table 2.3: Main Financial Indicators of SKIs in 2015. Annual Cost Short term Long-term Total Non- CAPEX/ Municipality SKİ Result Coverage liabilities/ liabilities/ Debt/ Revenue Total (MTL) Ratio Revenues Revenues Revenues Water (%) Costs Adana ASKİ -30,14 92% 33% 52% 85% 47% 25% Ankara * ASKİ 463,59 145% 32% 21% 53% 42% 54% Antalya ASAT 193,63 143% 17% 132% 148% 33% 34% Aydın ASKİ 1,17 101% 276% 122% 398% 66% 21% Balıkesir BASKİ -6,90 71% 34% 223% 256% 60% 31% Bursa BUSKİ 10,44 120% 61% 93% 154% 23% 47% Denizli DESKİ -103,42 63% 29% 121% 150% 39% 64% Diyarbakır DİSKİ 55,05 129% 35% 76% 111% 51% 31% Erzurum * ESKİ -16,52 87% 343% 271% 614% 50% 35% Eskişehir ESKİ 13,06 110% 33% 53% 86% 35% 51% Gaziantep GASKİ 45,31 113% 72% 135% 206% 47% 38% Hatay HATSU -41,04 84% 81% 94% 176% 58% 41% İstanbul İSKİ 80,42 102% 9% 36% 45% 24% 69% İzmir İZSU 74,41 108% 35% 33% 68% 34% 38% Kahramanmaraş KASKİ           40%   Kayseri KASKİ 1,54 101% 34% 70% 104% 34% 41% Kocaeli İSU 127,15 131% 30% 84% 114% 38% 20% Konya KOSKİ 46,10 116% 27% 101% 128% 28% 33% Malatya ** MASKİ           38%   Manisa MASKİ 20,09 111% 25% 61% 87% 41% 26% Mardin MARSU -9,93 89% 38% 86% 124% 63% 11% Mersin MESKİ 42,81 113% 23% 117% 130% 39% 32% Muğla MUSKİ 24,30 113% 40% 489% 529% 29% 15% Ordu OSKİ 56,28 189% 42% 33% 75% 69% 17% Sakarya SASKİ 6,24 103% 24% 391% 415% 39% 41% Samsun SASKİ -39,51 85% 33% 184% 217% 40% 51% Şanlıurfa ŞUSKİ -327,88 33% 60% 229% 289% 57% 17% Tekirdağ TESKİ -36,59 83% 44% 27% 71% 17% 52% Trabzon * TİSKİ 10,52 122% 65% 152% 218% 45% 23% Van VASKİ -26,25 75% 93% 144% 238% 47% 27% Source: Data: Published Annual financial reports for fiscal year 2015; Calculations: Authors. * 2014 data as 2015 reports were not available. ** No data available for Kahramanmaraş and Malatya The data presented in Table 2.3 enables the categorizing of the SKI in four main groups, based on the analysis of their financial health (working ratio and debt coverage ratio) and using NRW as a proxy to determine the operational performance of the SKI and its capacity to improve cost recovery. Table 2.4 presents the indicators and respective thresholds used for defining the groups. 24 Chapter 2 Table 2.4: Indicators and Thresholds Used to Organize the SKIs into Groups. Indicator Green (3 points) Yellow (2 points) Red (1 point) Dark Red (0 point) Non-revenue water ≤ 40% 40% - 50% 51% - 60% > 60% Revenues/Expenditures ≥ 100% 75% - 100% 55% - 75% < 55% Total Debt/Revenues ≤ 100% 100% - 150% 150% - 200% > 200% Result 2,5 – 3 points 2 – 2,5 points 1,5 – 2 points 0 – 1,5 points Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Note: In activity reports of some of the SKIs, non-revenue water (NRW) assessment was only given for the service area before 2014, although financial accounts cover the entire service area, as the process of compiling the technical records for the new service area is ongoing. NRW was nevertheless used as a proxy for the efficiency of service provision, since it represents the standing point of the SKI to improve and/or to apply similar efficiency to the entire service area. Accordingly, 28 SKIs could be grouped as follows: • Group 1 – Healthy SKIs (11): Ankara, Antalya, Eskişehir, İstanbul, İzmir, Kayseri, Kocaeli, Konya, Manisa, Mersin, and Tekirdağ. Among these SKIs Eskişehir, İstanbul and İzmir got full points for all indicators. It is also noteworthy that except for Manisa and Tekirdağ, all SKIs in this group were established before 2014. • Group 2 – Moderately healthy SKIs (7): Adana, Bursa, Denizli, Diyarbakır, Muğla, Ordu, and Sakarya. Among these SKIs Denizli and Ordu SKIs are newly established SKIs. • Group 3 – SKIs in difficult situations (3): Gaziantep, Samsun, and Trabzon. Among these SKIs, Trabzon is a new SKI, but Gaziantep and Samsun were established before 2014. • Group 4 – SKIs in a critical situation (7): Aydın, Balıkesir, Erzurum, Hatay, Mardin, Şanlıurfa, and Van. Except for Erzurum, all these SKIs were established in 2014. The publicly available data was not sufficient to classify the Kahramanmaraş and Malatya SKIs. Noteworthy: Two-thirds of the SKIs (Groups 1 and 2) appear healthy enough to sustain themselves. Although their creditworthiness levels would need to be carefully evaluated, they may be able to support some of the additional investments and O&M costs expected of them. The remaining ten (Groups 3 and 4) – eight of which are newly established SKIs - are in difficult or critical situations. These SKIs require dedicated support to help improve their situation and work towards cost recovery before they can support additional investments. 2.1.4.2. Liabilities of SKIs are High for Most The payables of the SKIs can be divided into two groups: long-term liabilities (investment credits - primarily from IlBank and/or other financial institutions) and short-term liabilities (taxes, social security premiums, power bills, and so forth). As was presented earlier in Table 2.3, the data on payables illustrates that the total debts of the majority of the SKIs exceed 100 percent of budget revenues in 2015. These SKIs will not be able to support any major investment program solely based on internally generated funds because it would add a new financial burden to the repayment of their substantial existing debt. In conclusion, the creditworthiness of more than half of the SKIs, mostly those established in 2014, is low: budget deficits are common, capital expenditures are low, and total debt as a percentage of total revenues is in excess of commonly accepted limits. Thus, the SKI investments are likely to be limited to minor replacement investments of existing assets and to some additional operational expenditures, unless they improve their financial management. 2.1.4.3. Cost Recovery Tariffs and Affordability The principle of cost recovery holds that the users of municipal services should pay the full cost of service provision. Thus, a full cost recovery tariff should allow the utility to generate sufficient revenues through sales to cover all costs associated with service delivery, including operation and maintenance, debt repayment, and amortization of capital investments. In theory, the 25 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation capital investments of utility services are supposed to be financed from the depreciation of its fixed assets and from profit which represents a return on invested capital. In practice, however, the funds generated from depreciation and profits are often insufficient to finance the large investment needs of a municipality or municipal utility, and external sources of finance are often needed to undertake large investment programs. When a municipality or municipal utility uses a loan to finance its capital investments, the full cost recovery tariff should include a provision for debt service, including both payment of principal and interest. Additionally, to ensure capacity to pay, the tariff level should be set taking into consideration the affordability of the customers. In Turkey, the threshold used for calculation of the affordable tariff per cubic meter is 2.5 percent of the household income of the lowest quintile in the SKI service area (See Table 2.5). While social considerations motivating the affordable tariff are commendable, they introduce a pervasive incentive when such tariff represents the tariff charged to all domestic customers irrespective of their consumption and income levels. There are numerous international experiences of tariffs and mechanisms being set to guarantee affordability to the lowest quintiles, while at the same time maintaining proper demand management incentives and cost recovery capacity. Most international organizations, including the World Bank, recommend a threshold of 4 or 5 percent of household’s revenue. Table 2.5: Affordable Household Tariff Rates versus Applied Tariff Rates by SKIs for Water and Wastewater Services in 2016 Affordable Household Tariff Affordable Household Tariff Applied Municipality SKİ Household Tariff Applied by SKİ in city Household Tariff by SKİ in city center (TL/m3) center (TL/m3) (EUR/m3) (EUR/m3) Adana ASKİ 2,35 3,18 0,72 0,98 Ankara ASKİ 3,88 5,10 1,19 1,56 Antalya ASAT 2,95 3,17 0,91 0,97 Aydın ASKİ 3,37 2,45 1,03 0,75 Balıkesir BASKİ 2,48 4,28 0,76 1,31 Bursa BUSKİ 3,49 5,95 1,07 1,83 Denizli DESKİ 3,37 5,55 1,03 1,70 Diyarbakır DİSKİ 1,28 2,56 0,39 0,79 Erzurum ESKİ 2,47 1,87 0,76 0,57 Eskişehir ESKİ 3,49 2,76 1,07 0,85 Gaziantep GASKİ 2,28 6,58 0,70 2,02 Hatay HATSU 2,01 2,75 0,62 0,84 İstanbul İSKİ 3,72 5,96 1,14 1,83 İzmir İZSU 3,30 3,60 1,01 1,10 Kahramanmaraş KASKİ 2,01 1,83 0,62 0,56 Kayseri KASKİ 2,76 4,38 0,85 1,34 Kocaeli İSU 3,71 5,19 1,14 1,59 Konya KOSKİ 2,91 3,11 0,89 0,95 Malatya MASKİ 2,26 2,65 0,69 0,81 Manisa MASKİ 3,15 NA 0,97 NA Mardin MARSU 1,60 2,00 0,49 0,61 Mersin MESKİ 2,35 4,08 0,72 1,25 Muğla MUSKİ 3,37 4,04 1,03 1,24 Ordu OSKİ 2,95 4,09 0,90 1,25 Sakarya SASKİ 3,71 3,25 1,14 1,00 Samsun SASKİ 2,52 3,13 0,77 0,96 Şanlıurfa ŞUSKİ 1,28 1,63 0,39 0,50 Tekirdağ TESKİ 3,58 3,00 1,10 0,92 Trabzon TİSKİ 2,95 2,65 0,90 0,81 Van VASKİ 1,75 2,20 0,54 0,67 Source: Web-pages of each SKI and TurkStat data: Income and Living Conditions Survey, Distribution of annual equalized household disposable income by quintiles ordered by equalized household disposable income, - Turkey, SR, Level 2, 2014-2015; Calculations: Authors * WSS tariff for Manisa SKI was not available; ** For affordable tariff calculation, the household size is taken as 4 and the daily water consumption per capita is 133 l/day; *** The tariff applied by SKI is the block tariff charged to customers located in the city center of relevant SKI. 26 Chapter 2 Table 2.5 shows that only seven SKIs apply a tariff below the affordable WSS tariff and would have a margin for a tariff increase to finance the new investment requirements, whereas the rest of the SKIs would have to improve the efficiency of their operations to be able to finance further investments and apply an improved tariff scheme to support the households of poorest quintile. Noteworthy: Article 9 of the EU WFD recommends that the tariff be set to allow having a transparent vision of the cost recovery level (preferably as high as possible, but giving some room to the subsidiarity of Member States to integrate social considerations) and providing adequate incentives. In this context, Member States have the flexibility to determine if they wish to finance a portion of the costs (typically debt repayment and or amortization) through other sources. Nevertheless, minimal financial sustainability of the utility requires revenues from tariffs to cover at least the operating costs. 2.2. Some Issues Hinder the Implementation of EU Directives: This section focuses on the primary sector issues which affect the implementation of the DWD and UWWD. Additional analysis on all of these issues would need to be carried out in order to propose actionable solutions, but this was not possible in the framework of this assignment. Chapter 5 proposes areas for further analysis to consider in this regard. Key issues relating to EU Directive implementation include: 2.2.1. Overlap and Conflicts in regulations, planning and institutions 2.2.1.1. Regulations: Two regulations in force, other standards applied in practice, all more stringent than EU requirements Wastewater treatment standards in Turkey are regulated by two by-laws, both of which are in force: the By-law on Water Pollution Control; and the By-law on Urban Wastewater Treatment. These by-laws set inconsistent treatment target requirements, which creates confusion. The common practice has been to pick from each by-law the most stringent treatment target for each parameter and to request municipalities to comply with the resulting and de facto new treatment standard, which does not correspond to either of the regulations in force in Turkey. (These regulations are compared in Chapter 3). As a result, the wastewater treatment levels are planned according to standards higher than those of both published regulations and much higher than those of the UWWD. This appears to be linked to the designation in the regulation of many of the inland and coastal areas as “sensitive areas” and the introduction of a notion of “potentially sensitive area”, which in practice is considered as if it requires applying the treatment standards for “sensitive areas”. The EU regulation makes a direct link between sensitivity of the receiving environment, and either eutrophication or a rigorous analysis demonstrating the actual and specific sensitivity. With these criteria, it would appear that very few, and only geographically selected areas, would qualify as sensitive in Turkey, with the exception of the Black and Marmara Seas (see more on this in Chapter 5), which have eutrophication issues and a few hotspots. Although these conservative approaches can be perceived as putting Turkey on the safe side, they have direct implications which may represent a much greater risk than is thought to be achieved through perceived additional safety measures: - Higher treatment requirements increase investment costs, have lasting consequences on O&M costs, and usually involve more complex treatment systems which require highly specialized capacities. - If the capacity is not in place from the beginning and does not operate in the long run, the probability that the treatment system performs correctly becomes low, challenging the environmental objective. 27 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation - Critical costs are often omitted in the plans. Adding a nutrient removal treatment can drive the operating costs up by more than 40 percent, mostly related to the cost of electricity and chemicals. It also generates about 30 percent more sludge, which can become a big and costly problem to handle. Long-term costs of sludge transportation and disposal (for instance, landfills) are rarely quantified. These have been identified as key aspects worth addressing in the River Basins Management Plans, as it sets the basis for significant wastewater collection and treatment investments. Noteworthy: Experience from EU Member States shows that the UWWD is by far the costliest part of reaching compliance with the WFD. It is also the one for which actual environmental benefits and related contributions to the “good ecological status” principle of the WFD have been lower than anticipated and are, in places, insufficiently monitored. Consistent with the spirit of the Directives and the holistic approach they promote, treating first major sources, and taking into consideration the pollution dilution and absorption capacity of the sea for coastal cities, seems reasonable. 2.2.1.2. Institutions: many deal with aspects of the sector, which has the big picture? Responsibilities for the water sector, whether in resources management or WSS, are shared among multiple ministries, departments, and agencies. Following the June 2011 government reshuffling, responsibility sharing between the main sectors ministries - MoFWA and MoEU - has often been either unclear or redundant. This was noted during the stages of design review, standards setting, investment financing, and investment approval. This leads to confusion, inefficiencies and delays. A few examples are presented below. With respect to water supply, GDSHW under MoFWA is responsible for supplying water from the source to the city, GDWM is responsible for determining the type of drinking water treatment plant needed, while IlBank under MoEU is responsible for making investments regarding the reservoirs and water distribution within the city. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Health is responsible for analyzing and monitoring water quality at the tap, and the Ministry of Interior regulates the subscription of customers to access water and sewerage services. The service provider is left to struggle to get projects moving. A wastewater collection and treatment project requires the approval of the General Directorate for Environmental Management in MoEU and of MoFWA for the treatment plant. The level of treatment should be decided by MoEU, based on the sensitivity of the receiving body, and the sensitivity is determined by MoFWA. If funded through debt, IlBank would need to review and approve the design. The MoEU reviews and approves the Environmental Impacts Assessment (EIA) and issues the discharge permit for the treated wastewater, because it is responsible for the protection of environment; but it also is under the responsibility of MoFWA regarding the protection of surface and groundwater. Discharges are the responsibility of MoEU to monitor, while discharges into bathing waters also involve the responsibility of the Ministry of Health. In addition it should be also mentioned that:  The General Directorate of EIA, which handles permitting and licensing under MoEU is also responsible for the operation of treatment facilities;  The Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock is responsible for water resources protection, wastewater discharges at fisheries locations, and implementing the Nitrate Directive;  The Ministry of Culture and Tourism is responsible for all public tourism investments including environmental infrastructure in touristic cities;  The General Directorate of Natural Resource Protection of the MoEU is also authorized to carry out and/or support local authorities for required projects and investments regarding the protection of these areas and for avoiding their pollution; and 28 Chapter 2  The General Directorate of Local Administration of the Ministry of Interior has responsibilities regarding the functioning of WSS service providers. Having to deal with so many institutions in decision making on wastewater collection and/or treatment investments makes it very challenging for utilities to get projects approved. It also requires utilities to manage situations of contradicting conclusions or requirements among institutions. This is likely to encourage overdesign in order to avoid having to go through the process multiple times. This results in potentially detrimental consequences on the technical and financial capacity to maintain the facilities in the long run, and can defeat the environmental protection objective which motivated it in the first place. Despite so many institutions involved, there is still a lack of an institution which has responsibility for the “big picture” and can ensure that Turkey’s overall vision for the water sector is actually being delivered for water management aspects, whether at the national level or at the level of each river basin. There is neither a centralized benchmarking system collecting data on WSS providers’ technical and financial performance, nor a clear economic regulation for quality and sustainability of WSS service provision (technical and financial). Establishing a clear institutional framework with clear roles and responsibilities is important to ensure integrated planning and accountability in implementation. These are also key steps for setting Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) and Integrated Urban Water Management (IUWM) approaches. 2.2.1.3. Planning: Numerous action plans and investment programs overlap As a logical consequence of the multiplicity of institutions and the absence of an overall vision for the sector, many of these institutions and agencies involved in the sector have developed their own strategy, program, or plan to support WSS development. Documents, such as the 10th Development Plan, the National Basin Management Strategy, Basin Protection Action Plans, the National Climate Change Strategy, and the National Climate Change Action Plan, largely overlap. Most of these propose funding for infrastructure development. Although they all promote integrated approaches and share the broader sector objectives, each developed its own set of criteria to allocate funding. Harmonization of approaches is warranted to avoid defeating the stated purposes of the activities. The abundance of top-down plans contrasts with the relative absence of planning at the local levels, both municipal and service provider, for WSS development and management. There is a strong need to support the harmonization of such planning with the priorities set through the river basin planning, and to ensure that their implementation is integrated with other relevant local plans, to ensure integrated approaches at the local level as well. Through the Sustainable Cities Project, the World Bank and the EU (with Instrument for Pre- Accession Assistance (IPA) II grant funding) are jointly providing support to Turkey in order to assist selected metropolitan municipalities in developing critical local planning and integrated approaches for infrastructure development and management. This is achieved through the combination of technical assistance and investment funding for infrastructure development. The project includes a sizeable technical assistance component that provides MMs and SKIs with grant funding to prepare or update city or utility planning, to develop tariff and cost recovery studies, and to provide training and capacity building, all critical elements for achieving long-term technical and financial sustainability in the provision of services. The project also encourages establishing mechanisms for improved coordination of project implementation and for the integration of project-funded investments with urban development plans and other infrastructure development projects. These are fundamental elements of efficient and integrated project implementation, which are the core principles of IUWM approaches. Moreover, the project is structured as a “series of project” model, which allows using the first project to inform the preparation of others, and makes possible adding other MMs and SKIs as needs and priorities evolve. 29 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation 2.2.2. Completing investments is a beginning, not an end Finishing the investment (that is, construction works) does not mean that desired objectives are achieved. In order to meet their objectives, the SKIs and/or Municipal Water Utility Departments (WUDs) must ensure that the facilities constructed are operated successfully. Normal practice requires careful and integrated project design, close supervision to ensure quality of construction works and monitoring equipment, embedding in construction contracts the training of staff who will use the facilities and equipment, and working during the construction phase to establish an inventory of assets and accordingly prepare its maintenance plan. Supply of equipment for water- leak detection, monitoring systems, computer-based supervisory control and data acquisition systems (SCADA systems), and preventive maintenance systems are often considered by WUDs as extra and luxury costs, and thus managers do not invest in them. As a result, new investments may not fulfill their objectives when problems of overdesign and lack of proper maintenance result in high operational costs. Close supervision during construction is also essential to ensure quality of works and to limit problems and breakdowns during operation. The SCADA systems and monitoring equipment allow better management of facilities and more effective operation. Many WUDs and some SKIs do not have proper as-built drawings for their water and wastewater network, and those who have them often only have hard copies. Lack of information about pipe material, diameter, depth, and so forth creates operational difficulties for WUD staff and hinders preventive maintenance and purchase of materials. When there is a problem, for example a pipe breakdown, WUD staff determines the pipe material, diameter, and depth only after excavating, which delays procurement until this technical information becomes known. This is likely to result in higher prices. WUDs would benefit by recording information gained during breakdowns or replacements of new pipelines in a digital database and by also recording technical knowledge from its staff, so that the information is not lost when experienced staff retire or leave. Such a digital database should be linked to digital maps, preferably through Geographic Information System (GIS) software, and should be continuously updated, and information made accessible. 2.2.3. Monitoring & benchmarking invaluable regulation tools There is currently no benchmarking system for the provision of WSS services in Turkey that allows monitoring of the actual performance of the WSS facilities and of the services provided. Performance improvements can only be achieved when managers can rely on monitored, compiled, and available data obtained over time. Without proper information, planners and authorities cannot credibly assess whether objectives are adequate, investment plans are efficiently implemented, and expected results are actually achieved. These are critical to be able to evaluate sector policies and programs, and to keep people aware of the results achieved through additional tariffs and public funding investments. Without benchmarking, the comprehensive sector programs Turkey is implementing cannot be assessed and deviations cannot be corrected in time, which could translate into increased costs, lower sustainability, and missed opportunities. The GDWM of MoFWA initiated a benchmarking system, but it is not in digital form, and guideline documents proved insufficient for getting reliable and comparable data without workers having first received prior training. The by-law that requests municipalities’ WUDs and SKIs to report to MoFWA on a yearly basis on water losses, and to publish these reports on the Internet for one year, is a step in the right direction. However, designing a system requiring service providers to monitor and regularly report on key indicators of technical performance (for example, NRW and coverage) and financial performance (for example collection and cost recovery), and which makes the information available to the public (for example online), would create a friendly competition for good service and increase accountability of mayors and service providers to their constituents. 30 Chapter 2 In addition, as indicated before, in Turkey there is no institution in charge of regulating, monitoring, and reviewing the economic aspects of WSS service provision, such as structure and tariff levels, standards and quality of services, and the performance of WSS service. A regulator could manage a national benchmark system and issue best practices, guidelines, and procedures to improve WSS services. This would contribute to improve the sector performance and increase the homogeneity of service quality across the country. 2.3. Main Issues Affecting the Sustainability of Service This section lists sector issues that have been identified as critical to the efficiency and long term technical and financial sustainability of service provision. Although not directly related to implementation of EU directives, these issues have an impact on the capacity of service providers to reach and maintain the WFD’s key principles of GES, sustainability, and cost recovery. 2.3.1. Training and capacity building deserve immediate attention While the importance of training and capacity building is well understood and acknowledged, the establishment of a comprehensive program to build capacity of staff and institutions in the long term management of WSS service provision is yet to be delivered. Some of the sixteen “old” MMs and SKIs have developed their own training and capacity building activities. It could form the basis for the preparation of a national program. With the enforcement of Law No 6360, the “old” SKIs (Istanbul and Kocaeli excluded) and the newly established ones have seen their service areas expand to reach the provincial administrative boundaries. As a result, the utility of the major provincial municipality “absorbed” all the other service providers which existed in the province. This means that the personnel, assets, investments, liabilities, and receivables related to the provision of water, wastewater, and solid waste disposal services carried out by the sub-provincial municipalities, the Special Provincial Administration (SPA) and other service providers within the provincial boundaries, were transferred to the metropolitan municipalities or its SKI (Transitory Article 1/8 of Law No 6360). Such a profound change requires adjustments to build the capacity of the SKI institutions themselves. Specifically, it needs to consolidate technical information, customer databases, and billing and collection systems, and then carry out the analysis necessary to understand the realities of their situation as a service provider and to plan the reforms they need to implement to improve technical and financial performance. These are prerequisites for developing a service development plan and engaging in a tariff discussion with its shareholders. 2.3.2. Non-revenue water reduction is often an untapped resource NRW levels in Turkey are estimated at 35 percent on average in 2014. Although technical information gathered for all SKIs shows that NRW levels for SKIs in 2014 are close to the national average, with 38 percent on average, it varies greatly, from 12 percent in Malatya to 60 percent in Balikesir and 80 percent in Hatay. There are very few quantified and recent good practice examples of NRW improvements in Turkey. Although the reduction of NRW from 54 percent in 2006 to 35 percent in 2014 illustrate that a lot has been done, much more could be accomplished, not only to further reduce NRW, but also to document good practices and to facilitate knowledge- and experience- sharing among services providers for faster and more efficient NRW reduction. The GDWM recently published the Regulation on Control of Water Losses in Drinking Water Supply and Distribution Networks. This regulation imposes various responsibilities on utilities such as digitizing the existing water systems and forming a GIS database, establishing monitoring systems, establishing teams for determining physical losses, and requiring continuous measurement of water input to the system at the sources and at certain points. It also sets targets for NRW in metropolitan municipalities and province municipalities that have less than 30 percent losses within 5 years and 31 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation less than 25 percent losses within the following 4 years. Other municipalities need to reach the same target values within 9 years and the following 5 years, respectively. Consistent with the regulation on NRW reduction, the benefits of NRW reduction would certainly be an economic option for increasing water supply production in many places. A NRW reduction program, eventually considering performance-based contracts where it makes economic sense, is likely to compare favorably to the cost of expansion of water supply production in many places. Moreover, the impacts of climate change, which are increasingly affecting the availability and reliability of water resources, also are a reason to push for NRW reduction and an optimal use of water resources. 32 Chapter 3 Chapter 3 - Comparison of EU and Turkish Regulations 3.1. Turkey Drinking Water Standards Slightly Lower than EU standards E U standards for drinking water are set within EU Directive 98/83/EC on the quality of water intended for human consumption, and these standards were incorporated into Turkish legislation under Turkish law “Water intended for Human Consumption Regulation: Official gazette 25730, published 17 February 2005”. The standards published in the Turkish Law are the same as that of the EU directive except for three parameters (‘Bromates’, ‘Lead’, and ‘ Trihalomethanes’), which are included with more relaxed target values (see tables in Appendix F – “EU and Turkish Drinking Water Standards”). As a result, the drinking water standards in Turkey are very consistent with the standards of the DWD. Although the difference in the three parameters for which treatment values differ would have an impact in the treatment level and costs, it is not believed to be very significant relative to the overall cost of investments or operation of facilities ensuring full compliance with the EU Directive. 3.2. Turkey wastewater standards more stringent than EU’s EU standards for urban wastewaters are defined in Directive 91/271/CEE on collection and treatment of urban wastewaters. Turkey addressees urban wastewater treatment requirements in two by-laws: the 2006 Urban Wastewater Treatment Regulation No. 26047, amended by the 2009 Urban Wastewater Treatment Regulation – Sensitive and Less Sensitive Areas Notification No. 27271; and the 2008 Water Pollution Control Regulation No. 26786. Appendix F summarizes and compares these standards with those of the EU UWWD. Unlike in the case of drinking water, there are significant differences between the Turkish and EU wastewater standards. The Turkish regulation is more stringent that the EU standards in terms of: - Higher treatment standards for most parameters - Applicability of strict treatment standards to small settlements (less than 2,000) - Sensitive areas defined in places without environmental degradation or eutrophication - Application of discharge standards for fresh waters also to discharges into coastal waters Moreover, discrepancies between the two regulations with regard to defining treatment standards lead to a practice of applying both standards simultaneously and picking, for each parameter, the most stringent requirement of each regulation. This results in applying a third standard combining the most stringent parameters of both regulations, thereby de facto creating a new regulation. Furthermore, it is common practice in Turkey that the MoEU conditions the issuance of its discharge permit to the addition of a Nitrogen removal treatment and the acquisition of the land necessary for the construction of Phosphorus removal (should it be required at a later stage). These requirement, albeit stricter than the published Turkish regulations, have therefore become common practice in the design of wastewater treatment plants, even when discharging in the Sea. The combination of these with various standards applying to settlements based on its size makes the resulting combination quite complex, as is illustrated in details in Tables F-1 through F-3 of Appendix F – “EU and Turkish Drinking Water Standards”. 33 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation In general, the Turkish standards are higher than that of the EU on all parameters (except for BOD5 limits in non-sensitive areas), and they are applied in an even more stringent fashion. This results in much higher investments needed to meet these national standards than it would be for Turkey to just meet the UWWD standards. In a Technical Review Note dated 2009, the EU recommended that Turkey “harmonize its standards to UWWD standards in order to reduce the cost of investments and avoid investments in urban wastewaters that would generate little to no social or environmental benefit. If Turkey harmonized its standards to UWWD standards it would avoid the diversion of valuable funds away from other priority investments that would yield higher social and/or environmental benefits.” A new draft water law, under preparation since 2011, and new draft by-law may harmonize the Turkish standards and make them more compliant with UWWD standards. It would however also increase the list of areas determined as environmentally sensitive by Turkey. The UWWD distinguishes treated wastewater discharges into coastal waters, with more relaxed treatment standards, a distinction which Turkish regulation does not make. For discharges in coastal waters in less sensitive areas, the EU sets much lower treatment standards than for freshwater discharges because it takes into consideration the dilution and absorption capacity of the sea. It also applies relaxed standards to up to 150,000 population equivalent (PE), as opposed to 100,000 PE for discharges in fresh waters. These differences are significant for Turkey because the majority of the population is located in coastal areas, which makes a big difference in the cost of treatment. 34 Chapter 4 Chapter 4 - Cost of compliance with EU wastewater collection and treatment standards T his chapter presents the results of a cost-modeling exercise relying on data available to the team. It presents the methodologies, scenarios and key assumptions made, and the criteria and hypotheses used to estimate the costs. These results aim at providing information on their magnitude of the costs of compliance with the EU requirements in Turkey and of the incremental costs related to the current practices of application of treatment standards in Turkey. It also analyzes the impacts of the estimated costs related to the 30 SKIs with respect to their respective financial situations. The objective is to trigger a discussion on standard setting, the related costs of investments and operations costs, and their impacts on the financial and technical situations of the 30 SKIs. 4.1. Methodology and assumptions The purpose of the modeling exercise was to estimate the investment and O&M costs of bringing wastewater collection and treatment in Turkey into compliance with standards under different scenarios. This section presents the methodology used to build the model and carry out the cost-estimate calculations. Appendix E – “Detailed Methodology for Cost Calculations” - presents more detailed and documented information about this methodology.  The 2014 population data was used to ensure consistency with use of financial information from published 2014 annual reports for the SKIs of metropolitan municipalities.  Wastewater networks and coverage data were taken from the River Basin Protection Action Plans (RBPAP). If plans do not include coverage data, it was assumed that no wastewater collection network exists.  Data on the existence and treatment level of wastewater treatment plants by municipality was derived from the draft By-law on Sensitive Water Bodies. If that data was not available, RBPAP data was used. If RBPAP had no data, it was assumed that the municipality did not have a wastewater treatment plant.  Data from the Communiqué on Sensitive and Less Sensitive Water Areas related to the By- law on Urban Wastewater Treatment informed option A for Sensitive areas in the model.  “Urban sensitive areas” defined in the draft by-law on Sensitive Water Bodies proposed by GDWM in May 2016 (pending approval) informed option B for Sensitive areas in the model.  A Google map was used to identify likely treated wastewater discharge sites for each municipality. This determined treatment levels required in option A Sensitive areas, using Appendix E tables.  A specific analysis was carried out for municipalities with populations of both less than 10,000 and less than 2,000 to determine which municipalities of less than 2,000 people are likely to discharge into estuaries and which municipalities with a population of less than 10,000 are likely to discharge into coastal waters. These are critical drivers to define level and costs of treatment.  Google maps was used to identify municipalities discharging into “sensitive areas”, in accordance with option A. For option B, the detailed list provided by the draft By-law was used, see Appendix E). 35 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation  Acknowledging that wastewater treatment levels are defined based on the size of urban areas and not on municipal administrative boundaries, the team analyzed which municipalities belong to a larger urban settlement and assigned them the name of a Metropolitan Area (MA). This concerned only municipalities consolidated into MMs as part of the March 2014 reform.  Population data for municipalities now belonging to MMs was adjusted by multiplying the urban population percentage from 2012 with the population figures in 2014. The treatment level required was determined according to the adjusted population estimate. See Appendix D – “Provincial Population Figures for Metropolitan Municipalities.”  For municipalities outside MM borders, the population is concentrated in urban areas. Thus, the entire municipal population was used to determine the treatment levels in each scenario.  The calculation was made on the basis of three main scenarios and two options for “sensitive area” (A or B), resulting in cost calculations in six different scenarios, described in Table 4.1. Table 4.1: Description of Scenarios Used in the Assessment Scenario Scenario Name Scenario Description S1A EU-UWWD Requirements Treatment level determined in accordance with the requirements of the EU- Urban Wastewater Directive. (sensitive areas as in Communique) S2A Turkish regulation-1 Both the By-law on Urban Wastewater Treatment and By-law on Water Pollution Control are considered, and treatment (sensitive areas as in Communique) level is determined considering whichever is more stringent for each parameter. No additional Nitrogen removal assumed, if the discharge location is not in a sensitive area. S3A Turkish regulation-2 As for S2, both the By-law on Urban Wastewater Treatment and the By-law on Water Pollution Control are considered, (sensitive areas as in Communique) and the treatment level is determined considering whichever is more stringent for each parameter. In this scenario, Nitrogen removal imposed in addition to secondary treatment for any discharge, even outside sensitive areas, for settlements having a population above 50,000. S1B EU-UWWD Requirements Same treatment levels as above for each scenario. (urban sensitive areas: draft By-law) The urban sensitive areas are as defined in the draft by-law prepared by GDWM MoFWA and pending approval. S2B Turkish regulation -1 (urban sensitive areas: draft By-law) S3B Turkish regulation -2 (urban sensitive areas: draft By-law) 36 Chapter 4  The treatment level required for each scenario was decided based on the population of the metropolitan areas or municipalities, as relevant, and the sensitivity of the discharge location. In metropolitan municipalities, a correcting factor was introduced to account for the share of the population living in rural areas, so that only the population located in an urban area was considered in the determination of the treatment level and the collection and treatment costs.  To estimate the costs, the team compared three sets of benchmarks of unit costs. It decided to use the cost functions provided by the FEASIBLE9 model because they provide differentiated costs per treatment levels and costs for sewerage. See Appendix E for cost functions and assumptions details.  Tests performed on the benchmarks of unit costs concluded that the FEASIBLE cost functions resulted in higher costs than the costs experienced in Turkey. This is most likely due to their establishment on the basis of unit cost databases of early EU member states. The team therefore developed an adjustments coefficient based on a sample of contract data and recent feasibility studies for wastewater collection and treatment investments in Turkey.  Investment and O&M costs for urban centers were estimated after assessing the existing infrastructure to determine whether it met treatment level requirements for each scenario.  Sunken costs related to existing infrastructure were deducted to present only the incremental costs of reaching compliance with treatment or collection requirements in each scenario.  The estimated lifetime of the collection and treatment infrastructure was estimated at 30 years.  The costs of treated wastewater discharge (submarine outfall or discharge pipe) and of sludge management, transport, and disposal were estimated based on anecdotal evidence and the author’s calculation. What was not assessed? The costs of pumping stations, decentralized or on-site sanitation in rural areas, were not estimated. The cost of wastewater collection was not corrected based on lower density of population in medium- and small-size cities. The costs and benefits related to biogas digestion, where it makes sense, were also not estimated. The estimates did not include the cost of debt and therefore worked under the assumption that the investments are self- funded by SKIs. The scenarios did not take into consideration the population increase or phased approaches in developing compliance and related timeframe at the scale of urban areas or per river basins (holistic approach of the WFD). As a result the estimates represent only a portion of the costs. 4.2. Results and Analysis The existing wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure is estimated to have cost about EUR8.7 billion to build, and the associated yearly O&M costs amounts to about EUR762 million. Table 4.2 below presents incremental investments and O&M costs of wastewater infrastructure needed to comply with the six scenarios described above. It provides the total investment cost of additional infrastructure and the O&M costs of running the upgraded systems, considering both wastewater collection networks and treatment plants. Scenario S1A standards (compliance with UWWD) is used as the reference to compare incremental costs of reaching higher standards. 9 http://www.oecd.org/env/outreach/methodologyandfeasiblecomputermodel.htm 37 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Table 4.2: Additional Investment and O&M costs for All Scenarios at the National Level. Total Value Variation to Sensitivity Scenario Item (million EUR) S1A Additional Investment Required (EUR) 5,229 - S1A O&M required (EUR/year) 844 - Additional Investment Required (EUR) 5,432 4% A S2A O&M required (EUR/year) 875 4% Additional Investment Required (EUR) 6,111 17% S3A O&M required (EUR/year) 1,341 59% Additional Investment Required (EUR) 6,006 15% S1B O&M required (EUR/year) 1,283 52% Additional Investment Required (EUR) 6,139 17% B S2B O&M required (EUR/year) 1,303 54% Additional Investment Required (EUR) 6,323 21% S3B O&M required (EUR/year) 1,415 68% As can be seen in Table 4.2, the scenario with the lowest incremental cost is S1A (compliance with UWWD with current sensitive areas), while the one with the highest cost is S3B. The difference of additional investments required between S1A and S2A is low (4 percent). This means that the impact of applying EU or TR legislation is limited if the regulation is applied as published with the current sensitive areas. It is however much higher (17 percent) for S3A, which goes beyond EU requirements and treats all cities above 50,000 PE at a level close to that of a sensitive area. The impact is significantly higher on O&M costs, which are 59 percent higher under S3A compared to S1A. The treatment standard is therefore a major driver of increased costs, with relative impacts on construction costs, but with a much greater and lasting impact due to increased O&M costs. Similarly, the impacts related to the proposed change of sensitive areas on additional investment costs are moderate, with increases of 15 percent for scenario S1, 13 percent for S2, and 4 percent for S3. They are significantly larger for incremental O&M, namely 52 percent for S1B compared to S1A, 50 percent for S2B compared to S2A, and 11 percent for S3B compared to S3A. The smaller difference for scenario 3 means that requesting nitrogen removal for settlements with a population of more than 50,000 minimizes the change in the number of sensitive areas, because the way the Turkish regulation is applied (S3) on a de facto basis sets the standards very close to that of sensitive areas in most urban areas. It is important to note that the impact on additional investments is comparatively much lower than the associated impact on yearly incremental O&M. The Iceberg effect: the importance of considering the total cost It is common knowledge that investments generally capture more attention. They are usually implemented as part of large and visible programs, often with concessional loans or grants, and are procured on the basis of the lowest cost of construction, without consideration of O&M costs. Yet, whether the utility will be able to sustain the additional investments over time depends on its capacity to recover the O&M costs during the useful life of the investments, and their cumulated amount is allegedly greatly superior to that of the investment cost. This has direct impacts on the tariff levels that will need to be charged to customers and has consequences in terms of political and social sensitivities, which in essence drive decision-making. The paradox, illustrated by the image of the iceberg, is that infrastructure development decisions are made on the basis of the cost of investments alone (the top of the iceberg), while the cumulated O&M costs (the part of the iceberg which is under water) is usually not considered in the decision- making process, although it represents a much greater share of the total cost of investment. 38 Chapter 4 Further analysis of the data available was performed to quantify cumulated O&M costs, amortization costs, and the cost of debt (using IlBank loan terms). Table 4.3 shows the results for scenarios S1A and S3A It documents that the additional EUR900 million in investments costs needed to reach the standards applied in Turkey (S3A) translates into an additional EUR56 billion in O&M over the lifetime of the investment. (See Appendix G – “Results of Cost Estimates and Tariff Impacts” – for the results in all scenarios. Appendix H describes the “Results of Cost Estimates in River Basins and Financial Impacts per Person”). Table 4.3: Disaggregated Total Costs for Scenarios S1A and S3A at the National Level Total Value Variation to Sensitivity Scenario Item (million EUR) S1A Existing infrastructure 8,710 - Estimated O&M of existing infrastructure 762 - Additional Investment Required 5,229 0% Incremental O&M required per year 844 0% Cumulative O&M of required investments for the S1A 95,216 0% useful life Amortization costs of required investments 15,930 0% If Ilbank Finances Required Investments 8,761 0% A Additional Investment Required 6,111 17% Incremental O&M required per year 1,341 59% Cumulative O&M of required investments for the S3A 151,250 59% useful life Amortization costs of required investments 19,007 19% If Ilbank Finances Required Investments 10,238 18% The analysis also allows quantifying the “iceberg effect”. The cumulated O&M of the required investments represents over 18 times the cost of investments for scenario S1A. The ratio reaches 25 times for scenario S3A. While the additional investment cost represents EUR5.2 billion, the related incremental O&M costs over the lifetime of the investment represents EUR95 billion. Considering amortization and the cost of debt (IlBank loan terms), the total cost reaches EUR120 billion, of which the additional investment represents only 4.2 percent for scenario S1A. For scenario S3A, the total cost reaches EUR180 billion of which the additional investment represents only 3.5 percent. This means that the total cost of reaching Turkish standards would cost EUR60 billion (50 percent) more than just complying with EU requirements, which affects sustainability and tariff levels by just as much. Table 4.4 presents the distribution of the total additional investments and O&M per category of service provider. Results in Table 4.2 show that the costs distribution between metropolitan municipalities and other settlements do not follow the same pattern as the population distribution (77 percent for MMs). 39 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Table 4.4: Incremental Investments and O&M Costs for All Scenarios per Type of Municipality Other Municipalities Municipalities Total Metropolitan Areas Sensitivity SUB-PROVINCE Scenario Municipalities Metropolitan Metropolitan Item Total Results Subprovince PROVINCE Results BELDE Existing infrastructure 6,328 3,590 2,739 2,384 250 1,042 1,092 Additional Investment Required 3,335 1,280 2,055 1,894 326 744 824 S1A Incremental O&M required per year 715 565 150 129 10 69 50 Additional Investment Required 3,372 1,280 2,091 2,061 409 744 907 A S2A Incremental O&M required per year 721 565 156 154 22 69 63 Additional Investment Required 3,888 1,631 2,258 2,223 409 874 940 S3A Incremental O&M required per year 1,111 890 221 230 22 132 75 Additional Investment Required 3,873 1,572 2,301 2,133 348 820 964 S1B Incremental O&M required per year 1,075 843 232 207 14 106 88 Additional Investment Required 3,896 1,572 2,323 2,244 409 820 1,015 B S2B Incremental O&M required per year 1,079 843 236 224 22 106 96 Additional Investment Required 4,009 1,631 2,379 2,314 409 882 1,023 S3B Incremental O&M required per year 1,157 899 258 258 22 137 99 Appendix G presents additional data and analysis, including incremental costs and their financial impact per capita for each scenario, disaggregated by category of service provider, by MM or SKI, and by river basin. The results are presented in table and graphs format. The disaggregated analysis shows that: - Additional investment requirements per capita are comparatively lower in SKI service areas than for other service providers, which presumably makes the challenges of service extension and sustainability much more difficult for those other non-SKI service providers which are not structured as a utility with autonomous budget and management; - The additional investments and O&M costs vary greatly between service providers and amongst SKIs. The incremental investments are the highest in Istanbul and Şanlıurfa MM, and the lowest in Kayseri (see Table G.1 in Appendix G for details); - The incremental costs per river basin vary widely, from EUR15 million in Burdur River Basin to EUR1.9 billion in the Marmara River Basin, as do the related costs per capita that range from EUR3 or 4 per capita in the Kucuk, Menderes, Sakarya, Seyhan, and Antalya river basins to EUR79 in the Van Golu river basin. 4.3. Financial implication of SKIs’ balance sheets This section analyzes the impacts of incremental costs required to comply with scenarios S1A and S3A on SKIs’ financial situations, using the following assumptions:10 • The revenues and costs are assumed to remain at their 2015 levels.11 • Incremental investments under each scenario are funded by IlBank credits with current conditions, namely a repayment period of 15 years and a 7 percent interest rate per annum.12 40 Chapter 4 • The liabilities related to the required investments are added to the total liabilities as reported in the SKI balance sheet for 2015 and are compared to 2015 revenues. • The impact analysis on annual result of SKIs includes the amortization of assets and yearly incremental O&M costs in addition to the 2015 costs as a benchmark of upcoming burden of these investments on SKIs financial situation.13 Table 4.5: Main Financial Indicators for SKIs for Scenarios S1A and S3A.14 Annual Cost Annual Cost Total Total Result (Costs- Coverage Result (Costs- Coverage Debt/ Debt/ Municipality SKİ Revenues) Ratio S1A Revenues) Ratio S3A Revenues Revenues S1A (Revenues/ S3A (Revenues/ S1A S3A (€ million) Cost) (€ million) Cost) Adana ASKİ -19,260 86% 117% -84,504 58% 168% Ankara ASKİ 147,674 144% 56% -29,833 96% 87% Antalya ASAT 53,275 133% 183% 52,831 133% 184% Aydın ASKİ -11,738 84% 504% -23,874 72% 542% Balıkesir BASKİ -19,177 59% 352% -26,600 55% 375% Bursa BUSKİ -10,540 111% 176% -17,805 107% 184% Denizli DESKİ -56,785 51% 248% -57,739 50% 253% Diyarbakır DİSKİ -49,706 62% 409% -51,881 61% 414% Erzurum ESKİ -35,981 51% 1098% -40,161 48% 1117% Eskişehir ESKİ -0,124 100% 143% -1,322 97% 151% Gaziantep GASKİ -17,102 89% 361% -74,814 64% 400% Hatay HATSU -56,341 56% 502% -64,195 52% 521% İstanbul İSKİ -511,429 76% 83% -513,923 76% 84% İzmir İZSU 14,195 105% 83% 7,954 103% 87% Kahramanmaraş KASKİ -15,162 - - -23,717 - - Kayseri KASKİ -2,363 97% 121% -41,144 63% 175% Kocaeli İSU -2,255 67% 151% -2,255 67% 151% Konya KOSKİ -8,453 93% 199% -8,795 93% 200% Malatya MASKİ -27,822 - - -34,865 - - Manisa MASKİ -5,224 59% 177% -18,657 53% 212% Mardin MARSU -28,776 48% 658% -34,571 43% 696% Mersin MESKİ -2,511 55% 356% -8,074 53% 377% Muğla MUSKİ -1,088 98% 611% -5,570 92% 626% Ordu OSKİ 5,800 117% 238% 3,884 111% 250% Sakarya SASKİ -4,058 95% 459% -8,615 89% 474% Samsun SASKİ -35,380 67% 288% -40,922 64% 304% Şanlıurfa ŞUSKİ -161,034 25% 812% -175,630 23% 853% Tekirdağ TESKİ -31,857 65% 247% -37,378 62% 261% Trabzon TİSKİ -14,189 43% 660% -19,171 39% 709% Van VASKİ -39,685 40% 699% -39,898 40% 702% 10 Impacts of all scenarios are presented in Appendix G. 11 For Ankara, Erzurum, and Trabzon SKIs, 2014 data has been used, since 2015 data was not available. 12 http://www.ilbank.gov.tr/index.php?Sayfa=iceriksayfa&icId=340 13 The economic life of civil works assets and electromechanical assets were taken as 50 years and 15 years respectively. 14 No cost, revenues and debt data were available for SKIs of Kahramanmaraş and Malatya and therefore the calculations above include only the scenarios, not an addition to the current situation. 41 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Table 4.5 reveals that the SKIs which are already facing a budget deficit will have to cover a much higher deficit if the investment scenarios are implemented. For the SKIs which had a modest budget surplus (4 to 20 percent), new investments and related O&M costs are likely to generate a deficit, depending on the selected scenario. Although the budget could be balanced with an improved revenue policy, the debt ratios of these SKIs are already too high to allow further debts. The SKIs, which have a budget surplus of 20 percent or more, on the other hand, are able to cover additional O&M and operate with a budget surplus in all scenarios. However, their debt ratios, and thus their capacity to absorb additional investments, vary due to their current high liabilities levels. Considering all parameters, only the largest SKIs of Antalya, Izmir, and Ordu appear to be able to carry out additional investments without major consequences on their finances. Moreover, if one adds the existing total liabilities of these SKIs to the new debt burden of the scenario investments, almost none of these SKIs could implement such investments, regardless of the scenario. The cases of Balikesir and Hatay, which showed the highest NRW levels, noticeably stand out as particularly unable to absorb the required investments in their current situation. 4.3.1. Cost Recovery Tariffs, Affordability Cost recovery and affordable tariffs are essential for the sustainability of an SKI, because it directly affects its ability to make and sustain new investments. While Turkey’s sector policy with respect to standard setting will determine the incremental investment and O&M costs, its policy with respect to infrastructure financing and tariff setting will influence the capacity of SKIs and other utilities to bear all or a share of these costs, while keeping the tariff in keeping with affordability levels. Appendix G shows to what extent SKIs could transfer the incremental costs on household tariffs, as households represent the greatest highest share of the water consumed and wastewater generated. 4.4. Implementation Challenges of the 2014 SKI reform In March 2014, the government implemented the consolidation of municipalities into MM in provinces with a population or 750,000 people of more. As part of this process, the different water utilities within each MM have been aggregated and merged into the larger municipality, consistent with the model initially developed in Istanbul and later extended to Ankara and other provinces. All SKIs, except Istanbul and Kocaeli, have therefore taken responsibility for a large number of additional systems. Many of them did not have the same level of infrastructure, maintenance, and capacity as they had previously, and in some cases there were important differences among them. The purpose of this reform was to take advantage of the capacity of the SKI operating in the larger municipality to expand capacity, infrastructure quality, and operations of the smaller ones, in an effort to bridge the gap of service provision and quality among them. Although this objective was in line with logical sector development objectives, the reform put a large additional responsibility onto the larger utilities of each province, which in effect formed the core of the newly created SKIs. In terms of scale, the smaller municipalities that were aggregated and merged into the larger SKI represent about 19.8 million people, of which about 14.1 million live in urban centers. In comparison, larger municipalities have a total population of 40.1 million, of which 35.2 live in the urban center. In their new aggregated form, SKIs have to serve about 50 percent more people. Although 41 percent of the people are in urban areas, the additional population is spread out over a much larger area than the service area that the SKIs were previously managing. This introduced tremendous technical, financial, and managerial challenges. 42 Chapter 4 There is little information available that allows assessing the scope of these additional demands and the challenges facing the newly formed SKIs, which makes it difficult to precisely assess the issue. Using the assessment of existing infrastructure, an attempt was made to quantify the investments needed to update and expand the wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure to bring all municipalities into compliance with the adopted norms, and the related O&M costs. As an example, for the scenario S1A, the total investment needed to upgrade existing wastewater management infrastructure in these smaller systems is estimated to be EUR4.3 billion, with a total O&M cost of about EUR390 million per year. This represents EUR306 per capita for investment and EUR28 per capita per year for O&M. In comparison, the average cost of coming into compliance with scenario S1A for the population served by an SKI represents EUR85 per capita for investments (3.6 times less) and EUR13.6 per capita per year for O&M (50 percent). This represents a total cost of about EUR14 billion over a 25 year period just for wastewater management. If we add to these figures the required additional investments and O&M that will be also necessary to upgrade water supply systems, reduce NRW, and pay for the increased costs of managing and ensuring the sustainability of a much larger system, the challenges faced by the newly created SKIs are without doubt very significant. The decision to charge newly consolidated areas a lower tariff, sometimes 50 percent lower than was charged in the pre-2014 SKI service area, generates an additional stress on the balance sheet of the SKIs. Indeed, it reduces their revenues from areas which are likely to cost comparatively more to manage (expected lower density of customers, network length per customer and therefore NRW per km of network likely to be higher, and so forth). In short, the result was more investment and O&M, more management costs, a staff spread thinner, and less revenue. It is therefore critical to guarantee efficient investments and efficiency in the operation of these utilities so that the benefits of synergies and scale derived from consolidation can be better used and applied. It is also critical to put in place mechanisms to support the transition with concrete measures to avoid a loss of service sustainability by the utility in the process. Conclusion: The cost assessment of the proposed scenario and its analysis in the context of the technical and financial situation of each of the 30 SKIs is proving a powerful tool to initiate a discussion within the government, and with the metropolitan municipalities and the SKIs, on many fundamental aspects of utility management, service provision, and capacity and performance improvement. It also is fostering a comparative analysis of capital expenditures (CAPEX versus O&M costs during the useful life of the infrastructure. The public private partnership (PPP) approach promoted by Turkey appears to be an interesting avenue to explore as its combines optimizing CAPEX and O&M costs, capacity performance and sustainability improvements, and leveraging private sector financing, so that additional costs could be offset by resulting improvement in performance. 43 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Chapter 5 - Sector issues can turn into opportunities for Turkey - Questions for discussion and areas for further analysis 5.1. Why Questions for Discussion? T he ultimate objective of this work is to contribute to Turkey’s efforts to make the country’s actions on water infrastructure and environmental protection consistent with the WFD, (which is also consistent with its overall goal of meeting the SDGs), especially on aspects related to potable water and sanitation. This EU directive has been a driving force for the EU water legislation around the key principle that all EU water-related directives should be coordinated to contribute to the goal of reaching EU “good ecological status” in each river basin, a principle to which Turkey adheres. Adopting a single system of water management at the river basin level and achieving “good” status in all waters within a given timeline are also keystones of this spirit. Previous chapters analyzed the institutional setting currently in place in Turkey to address this challenge and the differences between the Turkish and EU regulations that determine the actions needed and their costs. The report has shown the relative impact on costs and affordability of applying one set of regulations or another, as modeled by the scenarios (see Appendix G for detailed results). Moreover, with respect to MMs,15 the report evaluated and quantified potential financial impacts of the required investments in each scenario on SKIs, now provincial utilities, and on other operators country-wide. Yet, a number of areas could be further analyzed. The analysis has also shown that, in the process of implementing the aspects of the WFD dealing with WSS (DWD and more importantly UWWD) and assessing the relative contribution they make to reaching the “good ecological status” of the environment, Turkey has the opportunity to further develop the “spirit” of these directives and thus expand and improve water related regulations and directives.16 This chapter also identifies areas that could expand the initial scope of the assessment, and thus contribute to Turkey’s effort to reach the “Good Ecological Status” for each river basin efficiently and in a sustainable manner. Box 5.1 lists a number of potential areas where WFD implementation could be improved. 5.2. Which Criteria for Actions? In previous chapters, where the regulations have been compared and scenarios for action have been analyzed, two points come out clearly: (i) investment decisions are based on effluent standards/treatment options; and (ii), the criteria for selection takes into consideration individual requirements of particular urban areas on the basis of their population, with more or less stringent requirements depending on whether the area where treated wastewater is discharged is considered “sensitive” or “less sensitive.” Consistent with the spirit of the WFD, sanitation is important and the improvements it brings have to be documented. Thus, initial questions worth asking include: whether investment decisions should take into consideration the actual ecological status and water quality in rivers, lakes, or shores receiving the treated wastewater; to what extent the ecological status, water quality objectives, and planned uses in the treated wastewater discharge area would be or are impacted by such discharges in the corresponding river basin; and which monitoring system should be put in place to adequately measure the environmental benefits achieved. 15 Available financial data is only limited to these utilities, thus limiting the scope of this analysis. 16 One example could be incorporating into water-related regulations the recommendations contained in the EU guidance on water scarcity and drought allocation, which is left to Member States to regulate on, consistent with the principle of subsidiarity. (This principle of subsidiarity becomes a difficult issue since according to the EU treaty all quantitative issues have to be agreed to unanimously by the all Member States, and is also a reason why the WFD is not strong on quantitative issues). 44 Chüptar 5 With regard to criteria for setting “sensitive” and “less-sensitive” areas, a related immediate question refers to the current way sensitive areas are selected and their geographical extent and borders are set: is the assessment of “sensitivity” of the receiving bodies, which determines wastewater treatment standards, related to a rigorous assessment and monitoring of water quality over time and to the actual economic impact of the pollution discharged? The EU directive links the sensitivity of the receiving environment mostly to its level of eutrophication. The Aegean and Mediterranean Seas are not eutrophic, except in very specific and identified areas, even when most wastewaters were discharged without treatment. Does it make economic and environmental sense to impose nutrient removal on most of Turkey’s coastline along those seas? The Marmara and Black Seas have eutrophication problems, but are all the rivers and lakes of Turkey’s river basin discharging into these seas eutrophic or polluted? Are the main sources of pollution identified, the related pollution known, and their corresponding impact quantified? Is it clear and documented that the pollution leading to eutrophication is primarily attributable to point sources (municipal wastewater, industrial wastewater) versus non-point sources (agricultural run-off, large river inputs)? What is the comparative impact of agricultural and industrial sources of pollution in comparison to municipal contributions? In light of these questions, to what extent does it make economic and environmental sense to require small communities to install and sustain complex and expensive nutrient removal technology when the pollution that is generated is presumably negligible in comparison to larger pollution sources which remain untreated, and that even when the pollution is treated, it will most probably remain minimal at the scale of the river basins? Often the definition of sensitive areas is too broad, resulting in the generation of additional investments and operations costs. Interestingly enough, the WFD foresees this issue.17 It states the following: “Uses or objectives for which water is protected apply in specific areas, not everywhere. Therefore, the obvious way to incorporate them is to designate specific protection zones within the river basin, which must meet these different objectives. The overall objectives planning for the river basin will define minimal ecological and chemical protection requirements everywhere, but where more stringent requirements are needed for particular uses, zones will be established and higher objectives set within them.” One way to do this is to take into consideration differences among regions in terms, inter alia, of challenges, demands, environmental constraints, environmental capacity,18 and potential for economic development by sectors.19 Turkey is a large country with noticeable differences among its regions, thus the approach could not be the same everywhere. 5.3. Opportunities related to Institutional Issues Earlier chapters underlined issues of duplication and competency and different interpretations of regulations and requirements. This section identifies possible improvements to increase the efficiency of the actions Turkey undertakes to achieve the “good ecological status” of its waters. Focusing on investments rather than on operations costs can jeopardize the long-term sustainability of operations. It is clear that the actions contributing to achieve the “good ecological status” in all river basins need to be part of an integrated plan which looks at the investments, but also which considers modernizing the institutions responsible for implementing such plan, as well as the utilities responsible for operating the new wastewater infrastructure, so as to increase efficiency. Turkey has made significant improvements in this respect in recent years, 17 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/info/intro_en.htm 18 Environmental capacity is a term developed and used as part of the Mediterranean Action Plan to define the capacity a certain area has to receive degradable pollutants without losing its good ecological status 19 Another important step in this direction could be the use of the economic analysis of pollution, measured as the reduction of beneficial uses. In other words, could the uses assigned to a river basin district, or a particular area within it, be used to assess the need and justification for water pollution control investments? 45 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation particularly with the creation of provincial utilities for the major 30 metropolitan areas and the municipalities that form their respective province. Nonetheless, further reform could be carried out to provide more incentives for the provincial utilities to operate more efficiently and ensure sustainability of infrastructure and associated environmental benefits. Bringing about proper management responsibilities, particularly in terms of WWTP design, financing, and operation decisions, is the logical next step for all of the new utilities under the SKI model. Incorporating proper project design and contractual incentives are keys for reaching the economic optimum for the utility over the infrastructure’s useful life and for ensuring that its operation does not represent a challenge for SKI staff. It is therefore important to assess whether management and technical capacities are consistent with the complexity of the proposed designs and whether a utilities’ staff is provided with adequate training on how to run the facilities. How should the utility’s capacity (or limitation thereof) be weighed in the decision process of setting treatment requirements, contractual arrangements, or deciding on a phased approach? Are proposed designs, standardized or not, adapted enough to the local context, in terms of phased investments opportunity, embedding capacity building in works contracts, sludge management options, and energy efficiency potential? Which institutional arrangements are best suited to develop large-scale infrastructure or ensure quality operation for long-term technical and financial sustainability? Turkey announced a large PPP program on water and sanitation, but which arrangements would make sense and where? How do one put in place an efficient incentives framework and ensure a proper balance between public and private interests? How do one empower basin committees and authorities to undertake key investments, in, for instance, bulk water supply, wastewater planning, management, and financing? Would it make sense to consider in Turkey a system similar to the one used in EU countries like Spain whereby municipalities can delegate a large part of the management and responsibility for wastewater treatment infrastructure to the river basin authorities, recognizing the public and regional nature of their function (benefits are received often by those who do not generate the effluent, and impacts have a regional scope)? All these questions relate directly to the spirit of the WFD. They are known by sector specialists and most authorities with responsibilities over the sector, and so are the benefits and added sustainability they could represent. The challenge is to identify what the constraints are that prevent investments from being applied and to determine how to develop the right set of incentives in the action plans to promote reforms. Turkey could not only benefit, but also make a substantial contribution to improving EU directives by incorporating these principles in the next phases of its actions in this field. 5.4. Questions on Sanitation Technical Solutions The science and practice of wastewater treatment has advanced significantly in recent years. Technology has contributed to this advance by providing better monitoring and management tools, and the science behind treatment processes has also improved considerably. Several of these advances could have direct impact on the implementation of the WFD in Turkey. Sanitation in Tourist Areas. Touristic areas represent an important case on their own for two main reasons: (i) the direct link between the uses that make such areas viable and so important from an economic point of view and the ecological status of rivers and coastal waters; (ii) the seasonality of the flows and demands, which exert significantly larger peak demands in limited periods of the year, when local permanent population figures increase due to the influx of tourists. 46 Chüptar 5 Box 5.1: Other Potential Areas where WFD Implementation could be Improved Other set of questions could also be put forward on aspects that could benefit Turkey’s actions to improve its water’s quality and achieve good ecological status, which are also consistent with related EU directives. The most important among these are: • Are holistic river basin districts approaches, such as grouping treatment plants for economies of scale or setting treatment priorities (and requirements) on the basis of water quality modeling at the river basin district level, being analyzed? • Which are the criteria for decision-making, particularly in setting priority among different investments in the same river basin district? • Are design alternatives analyzed and are public stakeholders’ consultations sufficient? • Is performance monitoring of existing infrastructure or utility performance adequate? • Are climate smart investments (NRW reduction, biogas generation, composting, reuse, energy efficiency improvement, and micro-hydroelectricity) adequately considered? What are the constraints or minimal scale for such investments to make sense? • Are centralized versus decentralized approaches for wastewater collection and treatment systematically analyzed? Is the new organizational structure which gives SKI utilities the overall responsibility over both urban and rural areas of a province effectively conducive to integrate piped and on-site sanitation approaches? • Is the potential for treated wastewater reuse and the seasonality of demand by irrigation considered in the decision process? Is reuse properly considered in tourist areas, where water demand peaks (as well as wastewater flows) in the periods of lowest availability of the resources? Several EU countries (for instance Croatia) adopted a gradual approach to address the urgency of securing the “good ecological status” of their inland waters and coastal waters (EU marine strategy). The key element of this approach consists of reserving land for upper levels of treatment that the directives could require, but designing and implementing the wastewater management system in phases. The objective is to adapt the wastewater treatment option based on demographic and economic growth, and seasonal variations, by using modular solutions allowing winter flows to be treated by a dedicated treatment, to limit fixed costs, and introduce re-use as much as possible. Turkey could follow a similar approach. It could even incorporate a next step that could, in line with what has been underlined before, adopt discharge options and treatment requirement adapted to the different sensitivity of the different areas of the receiving environment, recognizing that “uses or objectives for which water is protected apply in specific areas, not everywhere.” It could, for instance, adopt different “sensitivity” levels for different parts of the same coastal area, designating as “sensitive” the first nautical mile from the shoreline, and “less-sensitive” areas beyond that line. Therefore different treatment standards would be required for WWTPs which discharge treated wastewater within this limit and for WWTPs discharging further away from the shore (less stringent), as long as good dispersion is guaranteed through properly designed and constructed discharge systems and no other specific uses are present. This could greatly reduce costs without jeopardizing the achievement of the desired ecological status. Complementing this approach with state-of-the-art modeling and monitoring to guarantee that quality objectives are achieved and maintained (and taking additional steps if they are not), such phased approach could have a significant impact on costs and sustainability, while ensuring compliance with the “spirit” and objectives of the EU directives. 47 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation 5.5. Financing and Management Options for Service Delivery Improvement The traditional approach for building new wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) is to use standard construction contracts and to transfer the plant, once commissioned, to the utility to operate. This approach has several shortcomings: − Tendering is usually based on the lowest construction cost. In practice capital expenditures (CAPEX) represent only about one-third of the life cycle cost (LCC) of a WWTP. The other two-thirds correspond to the cumulated O&M costs (without amortization). While projected O&M costs based on various technical options are usually analyzed during design, there are no real incentives to minimize them. Therefore, selecting bidders based on lowest CAPEX cost without considering the LLC may not lead to the optimal economic choice for the utility. − Standard construction contracts are often subject to construction delays and cost overruns, which are usually borne by the contracting public agency. The actual CAPEX ends up being much higher than planned and environmental benefits materialize later because of delays. − The utility which takes over the plant may not have the capacity to operate it efficiently (especially for cost-saving technologies such as cogeneration). It may not have included the training of its staff in the construction contract and there is no guarantee that it will be able to set aside sufficient funds to properly carry out O&M over the plant’s useful life. While managing these shortcomings can very well be done in the context of a publicly managed utility, international experience shows that, in addition to technical capacity and expertise, it requires strong leadership by the utility senior management, continuous support from the municipality and central government to the utility management to mature and implement such reforms, and significant time to implement reforms. Experience shows that such reforms usually take a long time to translate into measurable results, and that ensuring that these factors will all be met is usually a major challenge. In an attempt to mitigate these shortcomings, many countries around the world have relied on a combination of public utility management and partnering with the private sector through “design, build and operate (DBO) and “build, operate, and transfer” (BOT) approaches for the development of new WWTPs, in areas where it makes sense from a practical and economic viewpoint. Under these approaches, the private sector is contracted under a turnkey contract to build and operate the new plant (usually for 20 to 30 years), with a contractual commitment to deliver treated wastewater according to a fixed standard, and where payment is based on a tariff per m3 of treated wastewater. Under a BOT scheme the financing comes from the private sector, whereas under a DBO scheme the financing comes from public funds. The BOT approach puts more risks on the private sector, and conversely fewer risks on the public counterpart, and holds several advantages: − The choice of the private contractor is based on the lowest LCC, instead of lowest CAPEX, resulting in a more economical proposition for the government. The private sector has the flexibility to choose (at its own risk) the best technological option to reduce LCC (that is, the combination of CAPEX and cumulated O&M costs) over the duration of the contract; − The private sector takes on the risks related to delays, costs overruns, and non-compliance of treatment infrastructure. − The private sector remains in place to operate the plant at its own risk, being liable for compliance with discharge standards. The contractual obligation of the utility to pay the tariff per m3 of treated wastewater usually result in the public contracting agency making sure that sufficient funds are set aside for this (usually setting tariff at sufficient level), as opposed to cutting necessary maintenance expenditures. 48 Chüptar 5 DBO-BOTs have been used with success in several large countries embarked on national WWTP investment programs – such as in Brazil, Mexico, China, and India – as well as countries in Europe (France, Belgium and Slovenia) and the Mediterranean (Jordan). This usually resulted in developing a new business line for national construction companies who became BOT operators. There is an opportunity in exploring the DBO-BOT options for the implementation of a portion of Turkey’s investment program in WWTP, as discussed at the workshop (see Appendix I – “Summary of the High-Level Workshop”). 5.6. Can Integrated Urban Water Management help manage costs and water quality and quantity constraints? One main approach stands out as potentially having a significant impact on the costs and benefits of more integrated approaches for water quality and quantity constraints management, if properly implemented. It is called Integrated Urban Water Management (IUWM). The IUWM approach is based on the widely-recognized theory that the management of wastewaters could be greatly optimized and costs reduced through a holistic approach at the city level. IUWM consists of the holistic, integrated and sustainable management of urban and water resources at the scale of urban areas. It is not a new concept, but rather a set of principles to better integrate the multisectoral aspects related to water resources and management in an urban area, which face the impacts of broader issues related to water scarcity and security and/ or flood management. It links infrastructure solution to urban planning and regulations, and considers the whole “water cycle” in the solution finding process. IUWM deals not only with planning, design, and construction, but also with efficiency improvement. In practice, it usually achieves positive specific results, including: better adequation of capacity increase with spatial demand growth; closer linkages with drainage and solid waste management; finding opportunities to turn waste into products by reusing treated wastewater, biodigesting and composting sludge; and determining and working to achieve an economic optimum of water losses. For instance this could include working to figure out what level makes it more beneficial to invest in NRW reduction versus investing in new costly mechanisms to increase production capacity which is likely to involve more and more desalination. In Turkey, the reform leading to the creation of the SKIs was derived from a water crisis and the March 2014 directive seems motivated in part by the need to harmonize water service levels and to improve management at the scale of major urban centers and their surrounding areas. Large urban centers are growing fast, both demographically and economically. Istanbul and Ankara alone represent about 30 percent of the Turkish population and most likely a larger share of the country GDP. In the meantime water resources are becoming increasingly scarce and expensive to mobilize. This trend is expected to worsen with the impacts of climate change. A water crisis would have dramatic social and economic consequences. Because this places water security at the top of municipal and government priorities, it should also make IUWM approaches for optimized solutions a priority. Therefore, related questions worth analyzing include: to what extent are water and wastewater facilities development embedded into the master plans and strategic plans of utilities integrated into urban plans? Are these investments implemented in an integrated or coordinated fashion? What incentives and mechanisms can be put in place to facilitate the adoption of IUWM approaches in major urban centers throughout Turkey as part of the plans to implement actions coherent with EU directives related to water?20 20 Although storm water management, flood management and perimeter of protection of water catchment areas are important aspects related to urban planning and river basin planning within IUWM, this report does not analyze in more detail its relations to the objective of achieving good ecological status because of time constraints. It could be the focus of another phase of this assessment, pending the conclusions of the proposed workshop 49 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation The ideas presented above were illustrated at the workshop by presentations of selected good practice examples in areas where Turkey’s utilities have done particularly well, such as design and operation, phasing of investments, quality of operations, climate smart investments, biogas digestion, reuse of treated wastewater and allocation mechanisms between uses (primarily agriculture versus water supply), and identifying those “no regret” measures that could have a systematic application. Appendix I presents a short summary of the highlights of the workshop. Conclusion: Turkey has a long history in dealing with water supply and sanitation, and has set a clear and ambitious roadmap for the sector. The considerable efforts and investments made in the last 15 years to expand access to water supply, wastewater collection, and treatment has placed Turkey at a level equivalent to or above that of EU member states in the Danube River Basin. However, this has impacted the balance sheet of most SKIs, both in terms of debt levels and increased O&M costs. As a result, tariff levels set to cover expenditures are close to or above the tariff level defined as affordable. Yet, additional investments are needed to bring about compliance with the standards set in Turkey. These will result in debt repayment and additional incremental O&M costs that could result in tariff increases which will challenge the limit of affordable tariffs. This is a real challenge on the sustainability of a WSS service provider. It will become an even greater challenge as demographic and economic growths increase demand and as climate changes negatively affects the resources available to meet the demand. This situation calls for more investment efficiency for new infrastructure and operations performance improvement for existing facilities. The above section presents fundamental questions worth further analysis, so that the great efforts being undertaken in the water supply and sanitation sector can lead to provision of sustainable service to the entire population in order to support Turkey’s efforts to bring about a better environmental and economic future. The World Bank has provided support to help countries tackle these challenges all over the world, and stands ready to support Turkey in its endeavor. 50 References List of documents reviewed: 1. 2013 Annual Report of Ministry of Development, April 2014 2. 2013 Annual Report of IlBank, May 2014 3. 2014 Annual Program and Annual Investment Program 4. Booklet, Republic of Turkey Ministry of Development, July 2013 5. Capacity Development for Drinking Water Loss Reduction: Challenges and Experiences, UN Water Decade Program on Capacity Development, August 2011 (Section 8: Monitoring and Management of Water Distribution Network in Antalya City – Turkey using SCADA system) 6. Characteristics of Well-Performing Public Water Utilities, World Bank Water Supply and Sanita- tion Working Notes No 9, Aldo Baietti, William Kingdom and Meike van Ginneken, May 2006 7. Climate Change Action Plan, (IDEP), Ministry of Environment and Urbanization, 2012 8. Environment Operational Program (EOP), Ministry of Environment and Forestry, September 2007 9. Environment Policies in Turkey within EU Adaptation Period, Nuran Talu, November 2006 10. Environment Policy, Ruşen Keleş-Can Hamamcı-Aykut Çoban, April 2012 11. Environment Politics in GNAT (TBMM), Nuran Talu, December 2004 12. EU Integrated Environmental Approximation Strategy, Ministry of Environment and Forestry, 2006 13. Institutional Set-up and Stakeholder Analysis, Technical Assistance for Environmental Heavy- Cost Investment Planning, Turkey, Envest Planners, March 2004 14. Losses in the drinking water distribution systems and PROWAT project, 5th Urban Infrastructure National Symposium, Selçuk Toprak, A. Cem Koç, Ü. Güner Bacanlı, Fatih Dikbaş, Mahmut Fırat, Altan Dizdar, November 2007 15. National Climate Change Strategy Document, Ministry of Environment and Forestry, May 2010 16. Preliminary Report, Turkish Water Sector, Ogün Çiçek, May 2012 17. Report on Current Status of Water and Wastewater Services in Turkey: Legislative, Institutional and Technical Aspects, Canan Yıldız, September 2013 18. Strategic Coherence Framework, State Planning Organization 19. Template for Assessing the Governance of Public Water Supply and Sanitation Service Provid- ers, World Bank Water Working Notes No 23, Alain Locussol and Meike van Ginneken, January 2010 20. Tenth Development Plan, Ministry of Development, July 2013 21. Turkey’s Sustainable Development Report, Claiming the Future, June 2012 22. Technical Review Note: Water Utilities Service Organizational Structures in the Republic of Tur- key for Compliance Investment Planning and Cost Effective Service Provision, John MAGUIRE, November 2009 23. Feasibility Study of Denizli 24. Feasibility Study of Muğla 25. Feasibility Study of Balıkesir 26. Water and wastewater services in the Danube Region – A state of the Sector, Regional Report, WB and Danube Partnership, May 2015 27. Annual Activity Reports of Metropolitan Municipalities for 2015 51 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation List of websites consulted 1. http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/instruments/funding-by-country/turkey/index_en.htm 2. http://suyonetimi2.ormansu.gov.tr/su/AnaSayfa/Havza_Yonetimi_Planlamasi_Daire-Bas- kanligi/HavzaKoruma.aspx?sflang=tr 3. http://tuikapp.tuik.gov.tr/cevredagitimapp/belediyeatiksu_ing.zul 4. http://tuikapp.tuik.gov.tr/cevredagitimapp/belediyeicme_ing.zul 5. http://www.ebrd.com/pages/project/psd/2009/40028.shtml 6. http://www.ebrd.com/pages/project/psd/2011/41222.shtml 7. http://www.ebrd.com/pages/project/psd/2012/43170.shtml 8. http://www.jica.go.jp/turkey/english/ 9. www.csb.gov.tr 10. www.ebrd.com 11. www.ilbank.gov.tr 12. www.kalkinma.gov.tr 13. www.mevzuat.gov.tr 14. www.ormansu.gov.tr 15. www.pro-wat.com 16. www.resmigazete.gov.tr 17. www.suyonetimi.ormansu.gov.tr/AnaSayfa.aspx?sflang=tr 18. Annual Activity Reports of SKIs for 2014 (downloaded from relevant SKIs web-page) 19. Tariff tables of SKIs for 2014 (downloaded from relevant SKIs web-page) 20. Audit Reports of Selected SKIs for 2014 by Court of Account (downloaded from web-page of Court of Accounts, http://www.sayistay.gov.tr/rapor/sayrapor2.asp?id=20164 ) 21. TURKSTAT’s data for population and total system input (m3) in 2014 22. Projected Water Demand for Istanbul and Ankara, Turkey, published in Political ecology of inter-basin water transfers in Turkish water governance, December 2014, https://www.re- searchgate.net/figure/274138081_fig1_Fig-1-Projected-water-demand-for-Istanbul-and- Ankara-Turkey 23. http://iklim.ormansu.gov.tr/ckfinder/userfiles/files/2_Hidrolojik%20Modelleme%20 ve%20De%C4%9Ferlendirme.pdf 52 Appendixes Appendixes Appendix A: Maps and Population Breakdown............................................................................54 Appendix B: Main Sector Indicators from 2006 to 2014..............................................................56 Appendix C: Water and Wastewater Expenditures 2007 - 2013..................................................58 ...............................59 Appendix D: Provincial Population Figures for Metropolitan Municipalities. Appendix E: Detailed Methodology for Cost Calculations............................................................60 Appendix F: EU and Turkish Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Standards............................73 Appendix G: Results of Cost Estimates and Tariff Impacts...........................................................80 Appendix H: Results of Cost Estimates in River Basins and Financial Impacts per Person.........101 Appendix I: Summary of the High-Level Workshop....................................................................110 53 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Appendix A: Maps and Population Breakdown Figure A.1. Map of Metropolitan Municipalities in Turkey Source: http://emlakansiklopedisi.com/wiki/buyuksehir-belediyesi (modified to include Ordu MM) Note: The Metropolitan Municipalities created before 1993 are in blue color, those created in 2014 in red. Figure A.2. Map of River Basins in Turkey Source: National Basin Management Strategy Document, MoFWA, 2014. 54 Appendixes Figure A.3. Institutional Set-up of the Water Sector in Turkey *SUEN (the Turkish Water Institute) and TÜBİTAK do not have regional or provincial directorates. Table A.1: Distribution of Number of Different Service Providers and their Service Population Serviced Population Percentage of total population WSS Service Provider Number in 2014 (inhabitants) of Turkey** Metropolitan Municipality / SKI 30 59,968,496 77 Other Municipalities* 847 12,538,736 16 Special Provincial Administrations 51 5,188,672 7 Source: Consultant calculation based on data from www.migm.gov.tr/Dokumanlar/belediye_listesi_2014.xlsx (October 2016). * The sub-province municipalities within the borders of metropolitan municipalities are not included. ** Total population of Turkey in 2014 was 77,695,904 according to TURKSTAT data. 55 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Appendix B: Main Sector Indicators from 2006 to 2014 Table B.1: Main Drinking Water Indicators for Municipalities in Turkey between 2006 and 2014 Source: http://tuikapp.tuik.gov.tr/cevredagitimapp/belediyeicme_ing.zul Table B.2: Results of Life Satisfaction Survey regarding Municipal WSS Network Services Satisfaction from network water services of the Satisfaction from sewer services of the municipality municipality ( % ) (%) Year No such No such Satisfied Not satisfied No idea Satisfied Not satisfied No idea service service 2012 79.32 19.33 0.86 0.49 71.51 20.02 3.91 4.56 2011 78.26 19.49 1.76 0.48 73.01 19.27 4.53 3.18 2010 77.56 20.55 1.52 0.38 71.59 21.91 3.58 2.93 2009 76.82 21.2 0.93 1.05 69.54 21.14 3.45 5.88 2008 66.35 31.12 1.32 1.21 71.07 22.47 3.05 3.41 2007 73.74 23.81 0.95 1.5 67.74 22.77 2.82 6.68 2006 69.81 25.58 1.55 3.07 63.35 24.68 3.02 8.95 2005 75.06 21.46 1.5 1.98 68.13 19.02 3.46 9.39 2004 74.63 21.72 1.76 1.9 69.03 20.11 4.16 6.7 56 Source: http://tuikapp.tuik.gov.tr/yasamapp/yasam_ing.zul, downloaded on 12.08.2014 Appendixes Table B.3: Main Wastewater Indicators for Municipalities in Turkey between 2006 and 2014 Source: http://tuikapp.tuik.gov.tr/cevredagitimapp/belediyeatiksu_ing.zul 57 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Appendix C: Water and Wastewater Expenditures 2007 - 2013 Water and Wastewater expenditures. Table C.1 shows the capital and operational expenditures by public institutions (that is, municipalities, government organizations, and SPA) between 2007 and 2013. Table C.1: Capital and Operational Investments of Municipalities, Government Organizations and Special Provincial Administrations regarding Water Service and Wastewater Management Services between 2007 and 2013, Million TL21 Institution Type of expenditure 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 2013 Total Operational 1,474 2,101 2,062 2,016 2,737 3,558 13,949 Total water & Capital 2,733 1,984 1,658 1,942 2,269 3,222 13,808 wastewater TOTAL 4,207 4,086 3,721 3,958 5,006 6,780 27,757 MUNICIPALITY Operational 1,253 1,770 1,499 1,472 2,192 2,858 11,044 Water services Capital 1,724 1,465 882 1,100 1,341 1,852 8,363 TOTAL 2,978 3,235 2,380 2,572 3,533 4,709 19,407 Operational 221 332 563 544 545 701 2,905 Wastewater management Capital 1,009 519 777 842 929 1,370 5,445 services TOTAL 1,229 850 1,340 1,386 1,473 2,071 8,349 Operational 15 67 18 17 54 72 242 GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS Total water & Capital 713 741 795 879 1,348 1,556 6,032 wastewater TOTAL 728 808 813 896 1,401 1,628 6,274 Operational 5 11 6 10 33 47 112 Water services Capital 332 471 617 533 887 1,057 3,896 TOTAL 337 482 623 543 920 1,103 4,008 Operational 9 56 12 7 20 25 130 Wastewater management Capital 382 270 179 346 461 499 2,136 services TOTAL 391 326 190 353 481 524 2,266 Operational 63 45 45 43 52 63 312 Total water & Capital 108 68 103 130 181 217 807 wastewater SPECIAL PROVINCIAL TOTAL 172 113 148 173 233 280 1,119 ADMINISTRATIONS Operational 43 36 34 33 32 38 218 Water services Capital 62 43 71 79 105 111 472 TOTAL 106 79 106 112 138 150 689 Operational 20 9 11 10 19 25 95 Wastewater management Capital 46 26 31 51 76 106 335 services TOTAL 66 35 42 61 95 131 430 Operational 1,553 2,213 2,125 2,077 2,842 3,693 14,503 Total water & Capital 3,554 2,793 2,556 2,950 3,798 4,995 20,647 wastewater TOTAL PUBLIC SECTOR TOTAL 5,107 5,007 4,682 5,027 6,640 8,688 35,150 Operational 1,302 1,816 1,539 1,516 2,258 2,943 11,374 Water services Capital 2,118 1,979 1,570 1,711 2,333 3,020 12,731 TOTAL 3,420 3,796 3,109 3,227 4,591 5,962 24,105 Operational 250 397 586 561 585 751 3,129 Wastewater management Capital 1,436 814 987 1,239 1,465 1,975 7,916 services TOTAL 1,687 1,211 1,573 1,800 2,049 2,726 11,045 Source: http://tuikapp.tuik.gov.tr/cevredagitimapp/cevreselharcama_ing.zul 21 The investment values for 2011 are not included because they are not publicly available. 58 Appendixes Appendix D: Provincial Population Figures for Metropolitan Municipalities Table D.1 below shows provincial population of metropolitan municipality provinces. The values for 2013 and 2014 also represent the service population as of March 31, 2014. Table D.1: Provincial Population Figures for Metropolitan Municipalities between 2007 and 2014. Metropolitan No 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Municipality 1 İstanbul 12,573,836 12,697,164 12,915,158 13,255,685 13,624,240 13,854,740 14,160,467 14,377018 2 Ankara 4,466,756 4,548,939 4,650,802 4,771,716 4,890,893 4,965,542 5,045,083 5,150,072 3 İzmir 3,739,353 3,795,978 3,868,308 3,948,848 3,965,232 4,005,459 4,061,074 4,113,072 4 Bursa 1,760,022 1,819,470 1,854,285 1,905,970 1,948,744 1,983,880 2,740,970 2,787,539 5 Antalya 1,789,295 1,859,275 1,919,729 1,978,333 2,043,482 2,092,537 2,158,265 2,222,562 6 Adana 2,006,650 2,026,319 2,062,226 2,085,225 2,108,805 2,125,635 2,149,260 2,165,595 7 Konya 1,959,082 1,969,868 1,992,675 2,013,845 2,038,555 2,052,281 2,079,225 2,108,808 8 Gaziantep 1,560,023 1,612,223 1,653,670 1,700,763 1,753,596 1,799,558 1,844,438 1,889,466 9 Şanlıurfa 1,523,099 1,574,224 1,613,737 1,663,371 1,716,254 1,762,075 1,801,980 1,845,667 10 Mersin 1,595,938 1,602,908 1,640,888 1,647,899 1,667,939 1,682,848 1,705,774 1,727,255 11 Kocaeli 1,437,926 1,490,358 1,522,408 1,560,138 1,601,720 1,634,691 1,676,202 1,722,795 12 Diyarbakır 1,460,714 1,492,828 1,515,011 1,528,958 1,570,943 1,592,167 1,607,437 1,635,048 13 Hatay 1,386,224 1,413,287 1,448,418 1,480,571 1,474,223 1,483,674 1,503,066 1,519,836 14 Manisa 1,319,920 1,316,750 1,331,957 1,379,484 1,340,074 1,346,162 1,359,463 1,367,905 15 Kayseri 1,165,088 1,184,386 1,205,872 1,234,651 1,255,349 1,274,968 1,295,355 1,322,376 16 Samsun 1,228,959 1,233,677 1,250,076 1,252,693 1,251,729 1,251,722 1,261,810 1,269,989 17 Balıkesir 1,118,313 1,130,276 1,140,085 1,152,323 1,154,314 1,160,731 1,162,761 1,189,057 18 Kahramanmaraş 1,004,414 1,029,298 1,037,491 1,044,816 1,054,210 1,063,174 1,075,706 1,089,038 19 Van 979,671 1,004,369 1,022,310 1,035,418 1,022,532 1,051,975 1,070,113 1,085,542 20 Aydın 946,971 965,500 979,155 989,862 999,163 1,006,541 1,020,957 1,041,979 21 Denizli 907,325 917,836 926,362 931,823 942,278 950,557 963,464 978,700 22 Sakarya 835,222 851,292 861,570 872,872 888,556 902,267 917,373 932,706 23 Tekirdağ 728,396 770,772 783,310 798,109 829,873 852,321 874,475 906,732 24 Muğla 766,156 791,424 802,381 817,503 838,324 851,145 866,665 894,509 25 Eskişehir 724,849 741,739 755,427 764,584 781,247 789,750 799,724 812,320 26 Mardin 745,778 750,697 737,852 744,606 764,033 773,026 779,738 788,996 27 Erzurum 784,941 774,967 774,207 769,085 780,847 778,195 766,729 763,320 28 Malatya 722,065 733,789 736,884 740,643 757,930 762,366 762,538 769,544 29 Trabzon 740,569 748,982 765,127 763,714 757,353 757,898 758,237 766,782 30 Ordu 715,409 719,278 723,507 719,183 714,390 741,371 731,452 724,268 Source: http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BCrkiye%27deki_b%C3%BCy%C3%BCk%C5%9Fehir_ belediyelerinin_n%C3%BCfuslar%C4%B1 59 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Appendix E: Detailed Methodology for Cost Calculations Purpose The purpose of the modeling exercise is to estimate the investments and O&M costs of bringing wastewater collection and treatment in Turkey into compliance with standards under different scenarios. This section presents the detailed methodology used to build the model and carry out the cost estimate calculations, and it documents the origin of the data. Data used The data used for the cost assessment was drawn from publicly available sources documented below. List of Municipalities and Population Data Data from the General Directorate of Local Administration (GDLA) of the Ministry of Interior (MoI) was downloaded on March 24, 2016, from the following website: http://www.migm.gov.tr/kurumlar/migm.gov.tr/BELED%C4%B0YELER/Belediye_listesi_2015.xlsx The data includes a list of Municipalities in Turkey with a breakdown of different types (Metropolitan Municipality, Metropolitan Sub-Province, Province, Sub-Province, and Belde) together with population figures for 2015 published by TURKSTAT. The data also provides information on the Geographical Region where each municipality is located and the names of mayors and political parties. 2013 and 2014 Municipal population data was downloaded from the GDLA website on May 27, 2015: http://www.migm.gov.tr/kurumlar/migm.gov.tr/BELED%C4%B0YELER/belediye_listesi_2014_site.xlsx The 2014 population data was used for the assessments to ensure consistency with the use of financial information from published 2014 annual reports of General Directorates of Water and Sewage Administrations (SKIs) of Metropolitan Municipalities and to insure comparability of the ratios calculated. Existing Infrastructure The existing infrastructure data was collected mainly from two sources: - The River Basin Protection Action Plans (RBPAP) reports; and - The draft By-law on Sensitive Water Bodies (hereinafter referred to as “draft By-law”). RBPAP reports: Only 20 of the 25 RBPAP reports were publicly available on the website of the General Directorate of Water Management (GDWM) of the MoFWA: http://www.suyonetimi.gov.tr/AnaSayfa/eylemplanlari/eylem_planlari.aspx?sflang=tr RBPAPs were not available online for the Meriç-Ergene, Asi, Dicle-Fırat, Çoruh, and Aras river basins. The reports provide information on existing infrastructure for wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) and wastewater collection networks. On WWTPs, they provide the status and the treatment level as defined in Table E.1 below. They also present if wastewater networks exist and the coverage rate. 60 Appendixes Table E.1: Indicators Used in RBPAP Reports for Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Status WWTP Status Description 0 No WWTP 1 Primary Treatment (Physical / Natural treatment) 2 Secondary Treatment (Carbon Removal) 3 Tertiary Treatment (N, P Removal) Draft By-law: Announced by GDWM-MoFWA on May 4, 2016, it is publicly available at the link: http://www.suyonetimi.gov.tr/Libraries/su/Hassas_Alan_Yc3b6netmelik__Taslac49fc4b1_3.sflb.ashx The draft By-law proposes a revised list of “sensitive water bodies”. Annex 7 of the draft (see below) provides data on existing WWTP and level of treatment for each municipality. It also suggests treatment levels and protection measures for areas identified as “Urban Vulnerable Zones” in all 25 river basins. For the purpose of the assessment: - WWTP treatment levels were coded as presented in Table E.2. Table E.2: Existing WWTP Status Information from Draft By-law and Code Used in the Assessment Draft By-law classification of Code used for the Process Description WWTP treatment levels cost assessment Advanced WWTP 3 Tertiary Treatment (N, P Removal) Con. stage, N & P removal 3 Tertiary Treatment (N, P Removal) Construction stage 0 No WWTP N & P removal 3 Tertiary Treatment (N, P Removal) No WWTP 0 No WWTP Primary 1 Primary Treatment (Physical / Natural treatment) Secondary WWTP 2 Secondary Treatment (Carbon Removal) - Existing wastewater collection network and coverage data is taken from the published RBPAPs. If plans do not include coverage data, it is assumed that there is no wastewater collection network in place. - Data on existence and treatment levels of wastewater treatment plants by municipality is derived from the draft By-law on Sensitive Water Bodies. If not available, RBPAP data is used. If there is no RBPAP data, it is assumed that the municipality has no wastewater treatment plant in place. Data on Sensitive Areas Data on “Sensitive Areas” is based on 2 sources, which are included as two options in the model: - The “Communiqué on Sensitive and Less Sensitive Water Areas” related to the By-law on Urban Wastewater Treatment (published on Official Journal dated 27 June 2009 and No. 27271), which informs option A for Sensitive areas in the model; and - The revised “sensitive areas” defined in the draft By-law on “Sensitive Water Bodies” announced by GDWM on May 4, 2016, (pending approval), which informs option B for Sensitive areas in the model. 61 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation The list of areas defined as “Sensitive” in each document is presented in the boxes below, Box E-1 for Option A and Box E.2 for Option B. Determination of Discharge Location for Municipalities Google map was used to identify the likely treated wastewater discharge sites for each municipality and the urban population connected to a WWTP. This enabled determination of the required treatment level. A specific analysis was carried out for municipalities with populations of less than 10,000 and less than 2,000 to determine which municipalities of less than 2,000 are likely to discharge into estuaries and which municipalities with populations of less than 10,000 are likely to discharge into coastal waters. These are important drivers to define their level and costs of treatment. The results are described below. Estuaries: In order to locate municipalities with populations of less than 2000 and discharging to estuaries: - A filter was used to isolate municipalities with populations of less than 2,000 and located in coastal areas. Five met these criteria: Bartın (Kurucaşile municipality), Giresun (Çavuşlu municipality); Kastamonu (Doğanyurt municipality); Kırklareli (Kıyıköy municipality) and Zonguldak (Gümeli municipality). - Out of the five, four are located at estuaries: Giresun; Kastamonu; Kırklareli, and Zonguldak. Coastal Waters: Municipalities with populations of less than 10,000 and discharging into coastal waters - A filter was used which isolated 37 such municipalities, including those with less than 2,000. Box E.1: “Sensitive Areas” as Defined in the Communiqué in Force – Option A in the Model Annex 1A Sensitive Basins All municipalities within Akarçay, Burdur, Konya, and Van Lake river basins are defined as “Sensi- tive” Using the Ilısu dam reservoir figure from ENCON archives and checking from Google Earth; Batman (Beşiri, İkiköprü, Hasankeyf, Balpınar, Batman municipalities), Diyarbakır (Bağlar, Bismil, Kayapınar, Silvan, Sur, Yenişehir municipalities), Mardin (Dargeçit municipality), Siirt (Kayabağlar, Kurtalan, Si- irt, and Gökçebağ municipalities) are assigned as “Sensitive Area”. Annex 1B Sensitive Drinking water A list of dams constructed by DSI between 1936 and 2014 are publicly available on the DSI webpage. http://www.dsi.gov.tr/docs/resmi-i-statistikler/2-3-1-illere-g%C3%B6reyap%C4%B1m%C4%B1- tamamlanan-barajlar-ve-faydalar%C4%B1-1936-2014.xls?sfvrsn=4 Using Google map, the list of municipalities potentially discharging into dam reservoirs used for drinking water purposes and therefore identified as “Sensitive Drinking Water” are as follows, per province: - In the province of İstanbul, Alibey, Büyükçekmece, Sazlıdere, and Ömerli dams provide drinking water. İstanbul (Arnavutköy, Büyükçekmece, Çatalca Çekmeköy, and Pendik municipalities) are thus “Sensitive”. - In Diyarbakır, Dicle Dam provides drinking water, and Diyarbakır (Dicle and Eğil municipalities) are “Sensitive”. - Şanlıurfa - Atatürk Dam; Diyarbakır (Çüngüş Municipality), Şanlıurfa (Hilvan, Bozova municipali- ties), Adıyaman (Gerger, Akıncılar, Kahta, Adıyaman, and Samsat municipalities) are assigned as “Sensitive”. 62 Appendixes - Samsun - Suat Uğurlu Dam; Samsun (Ayvacık municipality) is assigned as “Sensitive Drinking Wa- ter”. - Kırıkkale - Kapulukaya Dam; Kırıkkale (Hacılar and Karakeçili municipalities) are assigned as “Sensi- tive”. - Kahramanmaraş - Kartalkaya Dam; Kahramanmaraş (Pazarcık municipality) is assigned as “Sensi- tive”. - Afyon - Akdeğirmen Dam; Afyon (Düzağaç municipality) is assigned as “Sensitive Drinking Water”. - Yalova - Gökçe Dam; Yalova (Termal municipality) is assigned as “Sensitive Drinking Water”. - İzmir - Tahtalı Dam; İzmir (Menderes municipality) is assigned as “Sensitive Drinking Water”. - Denizli - Gökpınar Dam; Denizli (Pamukkale, Merkezefendi municipalities) are assigned as “Sensi- tive”. Annex 1C –Bay, Gulf and Coasts and related municipalities identified as “Sensitive Coastal areas” - İskenderun – Mersin – Mezitli: Hatay (İskenderun and Dörtyol municipalities), Adana (Karataş, Yumurtalık municipalities), Mersin (Akdeniz, Mezitli, Toroslar, and Yenişehir municipalities); - Mersin Kızkalesi – Taşucu Burnu: No specific municipality; - Fethiye Bay: Muğla (Fethiye municipality); - Marmaris Bay: Muğla (Marmaris municipality); - Güvercinlik Didim: Aydın (Didim municipality); - Karaburun – İzmir Gulf (Foça): İzmir (Balçova, Bayraklı, Bornova, Buca, Çiğli, Gaziemir, Güzelbahçe, Karabağlar, Karşıyaka, Konak, Narlıdere, and Urla municipalities); - Aliağa Bay: İzmir (Dikili municipality); - Ayvalık – Altınoluk: Balıkesir (Ayvalık, Burhaniye, and Edremit municipalities); - Bandırma Gulf: Balıkesir (Bandırma municipality); - Gemlik Gulf – İstanbul Bosphorus East entrance: Bursa (Gemlik and Mudanya municipalities), Yalova (Armutlu, Çınarcık, Esenköy, Koru, Yalova, Kadıköy, Çiftlikköy, Taşköprü, Altınova, Kaytazdere, Subaşı, and Tavşanlı municipalities), Kocaeli (Başiskele, Çayırova, Darıca, Derince, Dilovası, Gebze, Gölcük, İzmit, Kandıra, Karamürsel, Kartepe, and Körfez municipalities), İstanbul (Ataşehir, Beykoz, Çekmeköy, Sancaktepe, Sultanbeyli, Ümraniye, Üsküdar, Kadıköy, Kartal, Maltepe, Pendik, and Tuzla municipalities); - İstanbul Bosphorus West entrance – Büyükçekmece: İstanbul (Avcılar, Arnavutköy, Bağcılar, Bahçe- lievler, Bakırköy, Başakşehir, Bayrampaşa, Beylikdüzü, Büyükçekmece, Çatalca, Esenler, Esenyurt, Fatih, Güngören, Küçükçekmece, and Zeytinburnu); - Between Ünye – Samsun – Bafra: Ordu (Ünye municipality), Samsun (Ondokuzmayıs, Atakum, Canik, İlkadım, and Tekkeköy municipalities); - Haliç Gulf: İstanbul (Beşiktaş, Beyoğlu, Gaziosmanpaşa, Sarıyer, Sultangazi, Şişli, Kağıthane, Eyüp, and Fatih municipalities); 1-Other Are assigned as “1-Other” all municipalities which have: - A population of less than 2,000 but NOT discharging to an estuary - A population of less than 10,000 but NOT discharging to coastal water - A population of more than 10,000 but NOT identified in any of the above Annex 1A, 1B and 1C 1,062 municipalities are in this category, which means that they discharge in a non-sensitive area. 63 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Box E.2. “Sensitive Areas” according to the Draft By-law – Option B in the Model The draft By-law includes in its Annex 7 a comprehensive list of areas defined for each river basin as “Urban Vulnerable Zones”. The Annex defines vulnerability according to three main criteria: - Urban Wastewater Management Measures - Industrial Wastewater Management - Solid Waste Management For the purpose of the assessment, urban zones listed as vulnerable because they need “Urban Wastewater Management Measures” were considered as “Sensitive areas”. For each municipality listed in the “Urban Vulnerable Zone” table, Annex 7 also presents in- formation regarding “Existing Status,” “WWTP name,” and “Measure required.” The mea- sures required suggest the treatment system to implement including “Secondary treat- ment,” “N&P removal,” “Monitoring & Audit” or “Sea Outfall.” This data was entered into the model to define the “Sensitive Areas” and the respective treatment levels. Determination of Urban Centers (MAs) In order to be able to determine the required level of treatment, it is necessary to determine the population that will be connected to a treatment plant. It is known that in metropolitan sub-province municipalities, the address-based population figures from TURKSTAT represent the entire population living in the sub-province. However, a portion of this population is living in smaller and dispersed settlements, which may be subject to less stringent treatment requirements than larger and densely populated urban settlements. The latter urban settlements often cover more than one metropolitan sub-province municipality, yet it may make sense to channel their wastewater to a common WWTP. Therefore, the appropriate approach to determine wastewater treatment is to define the “Metropolitan Areas” (MA) which will share the same WWTP in each MM. This concerned only municipalities consolidated into MMs as part of the March 2014 reform. Population data for municipalities now belonging to MMs was adjusted by multiplying the urban population percentage from 2012 with the population figures in 2014. The address-based population data in 2012 for the 30 provinces, where metropolitan municipalities exist, was obtained from TURKSTAT (source: https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/medas/?kn=95&locale=en). The treatment level required is determined according to the adjusted population estimate. Furthermore, in order not to overestimate the investment requirements in metropolitan municipalities, a correcting factor was introduced to account for the share of the population living in smaller and dispersed settlements and in rural areas, so that only the population located in an urban area is considered in the determination of the treatment level and the collection and treatment costs. This calculation was made using TURKSTAT population data for 2012 includes percentages of urban versus rural population, adjusted to account for 2014 population figures. For municipalities outside MM borders, it is known that the municipal population represents the urban settlement around a nucleus and the population is considered concentrated. Thus, the entire municipal population was used to determine the treatment levels in each scenario. 64 Appendixes Scenarios and the Required Treatment Levels The calculation was made based on three main scenarios and two options for “sensitive area” (A or B), resulting in cost calculations in six different scenarios. These are shown in Table E.3 below. Table E.3: Description of Scenarios Used in the Assessment Scenario No Scenario Name Scenario Description S1A EU-UWWD Requirements Treatment level determined in accordance with the (sensitive areas as in Communique) requirements of the EU- Urban Wastewater Directive S2A Turkish regulation-1 Both By-law on Urban Wastewater Treatment and By-law on Water Pollution Control are considered, and treatment level (sensitive areas as in Communique) is determined considering whichever is more stringent. In this scenario, no additional Nitrogen removal is assumed if the discharge location is not in a sensitive area. S3A Turkish regulation-2 As for S2, both the By-law on Urban Wastewater Treatment and the By-law on Water Pollution Control are considered, (sensitive areas as in Communique) and treatment level is determined considering whichever is more stringent for each parameter. In this scenario, Nitrogen removal is imposed in addition to secondary treatment for any discharge, even outside sensitive areas, for settlements having a population above 50,000. S1B EU-UWWD Requirements Same treatment levels as above for each scenario. (urban sensitive areas: draft By-law) S2B Turkish regulation -1 The sensitivity areas are as defined in the draft By-law prepared by GDWM MoFWA and pending approval. (urban sensitive areas: draft By-law) S3B Turkish regulation -2 (urban sensitive areas: draft By-law) The difference between scenarios S1A & S1B, S2A & S2B, and S3A & S3B is the determination of sensitive areas. In Option A, sensitive areas are determined according to the communiqué in force. In Option B, sensitive areas correspond to the draft-By-law published as described above. The S1 group mainly considers the EU UWWD requirements for wastewater treatment levels, whereas S2 and S3 correspond to published and applied Turkish regulations, respectively. The main difference between S2 and S3 groups is the practice of requiring that Nitrogen removal be added to secondary treatment for all settlements with populations above 50,000; even if not within a sensitive area. The treatment level required for each scenario was decided based on the population of the Metropolitan Areas or Municipalities, as relevant, and the sensitivity of the discharge location. (See Table E.4) 65 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Table E.4: Treatment Requirements for the Scenarios SCENARIO 1A & 1B SCENARIO 2A & 2B SCENARIO 3A & 3B Population Discharge location EU requirements TR requirements 1 TR requirement 2 < 2,000 Fresh water / estuary Primary treatment Secondary treatment Secondary treatment < 2,000 Coastal water Primary treatment Secondary treatment Secondary treatment < 2,000 Sensitive area Secondary treatment Secondary treatment Secondary treatment < 2,000 Other Secondary treatment Secondary treatment 2,000 – 10,000 Fresh water / estuary Secondary treatment Secondary treatment Secondary treatment 2,000 – 10,000 Coastal water Primary treatment Secondary treatment Secondary treatment 2,000 – 10,000 Sensitive area Secondary treatment Secondary treatment Secondary treatment 2,000 – 10,000 Other Secondary treatment Secondary treatment 10,000 – 50,000 Fresh water / estuary Secondary treatment Secondary treatment Secondary treatment 10,000 – 50,000 Coastal water Secondary treatment Secondary treatment Secondary treatment 10,000 – 50,000 Sensitive area Tertiary treatment Tertiary treatment Tertiary treatment 10,000 – 50,000 Other Secondary treatment Secondary treatment Secondary treatment 50,000 – 100,000 Fresh water / estuary Secondary treatment Secondary treatment Secondary treatment + Nitrogen Removal 50,000 – 100,000 Coastal water Secondary treatment Secondary treatment Secondary treatment + Nitrogen Removal 50,000 – 100,000 Sensitive area Tertiary treatment Tertiary treatment Tertiary treatment 50,000 – 100,000 Other Secondary treatment Secondary treatment Secondary treatment + Nitrogen Removal > 100,000 Fresh water / estuary Secondary treatment Secondary treatment Secondary treatment + Nitrogen Removal > 100,000 Coastal water Secondary treatment Secondary treatment Secondary treatment + Nitrogen Removal > 100,000 Sensitive area Tertiary treatment Tertiary treatment Tertiary treatment > 100,000 Other Secondary treatment Secondary treatment Secondary treatment + Nitrogen Removal Cost Calculations The cost calculations consider both investment costs and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for WWTP and wastewater collection networks facilities. For the calculations FEASIBLE22 model cost functions and the cost functions used in RBPAP reports23 were evaluated. It was decided to use the cost functions from the FEASIBLE model as they provide differentiated costs per treatment levels for WWTPs; allow estimating the wastewater collection network investments and evaluate O&M costs. FEASIBLE Cost Functions Used The following cost functions listed in Table E.5 were used to calculate the new WWTP investment costs. Noteworthy: The FEASIBLE model assumes the same investment cost for treatment levels 3 (tertiary treatment) and 4 (nitrogen removal added to secondary treatment). 22 http://www.oecd.org/env/outreach/methodologyandfeasiblecomputermodel.htm FEASIBLE is a software tool developed to support the preparation of environmental financing strategies for water, wastewater, and municipal solid waste services. The name FEASIBLE stands for: Financing for Environmental, Affordable and Strategic Investments that Bring on Large-scale Expenditure. The FEASIBLE model is freeware and can be obtained through the web pages of the OECD, DEPA/DANCEE and COWI. FEASIBLE can be used to facilitate the iterative process of balancing the required financing with the available financing. It provides a systematic, consistent, and quantitative framework for analyzing feasibility of financing environmental targets. Being a computerized model, FEASIBLE may be used to analyze “what if” a certain policy is changed and to document its financial impacts in a systematic and transparent manner. 23 Annex 5 of the Marmara Basin Protection Action Plan Report, describing the methodology of WWTP cost calculations. 66 Appendixes Table E.5: Cost functions to Calculate Capital Expenditure of WWTP Investments Treatment Treatment type Population range Function level 1 Primary Treatment 400 - 2,000 EUR/cap. = 10^(-0.2745*log(PE)+3.8605)/7.44 1 Primary Treatment 2,000 – 100,000 EUR/cap. = 10^(-0.2073*log(PE)+3.6385)/7.44 2 Secondary Treatment 400 - 2,000 EUR/cap. = 10^(-0.4307*log(PE)+4.6769)/7.44 2 Secondary Treatment 2,000 – 100,000 EUR/cap. = 10^(-0.2808*log(PE)+4.1823)/7.44 2 Secondary Treatment > 100,000 EUR/cap. = 80,6 3 Tertiary Treatment 400 - 2,000 EUR/cap. = 10^(-0.5015*log(PE)+5.1178)/7.44 3 Tertiary Treatment 2,000 – 100,000 EUR/cap. = 10^(-0.2722*log(PE)+4.3608)/7.44 3 Tertiary Treatment > 100,000 EUR/cap. = 134,4 4 N removal in addition to 400 - 2,000 EUR/cap. = 10^(-0.5015*log(PE)+5.1178)/7.44 Secondary Treatment 4 N removal in addition to 2,000 – 100,000 EUR/cap. = 10^(-0.2722*log(PE)+4.3608)/7.44 Secondary Treatment 4 N removal in addition to > 100,000 EUR/cap. = 134,4 Secondary Treatment Source: FEASIBLE Model, version 2, User Manual and Documentation Appendix 3: Documentation of Expenditure Functions- Wastewater Since the FEASIBLE model uses international unit prices, the estimates using the above cost functions in Table E.5 results in higher investments costs compared to the WWTP costs known to the team. In order to better align price levels with those of the Turkish market, FEASIBLE unit costs were compared to benchmarks from previous WB and EU feasibility studies and to publicly available award values for recent WWTP contracts. On the other hand, calculated O&M costs were much lower in comparison with the experience of the team as well as the values published by TUIK for environmental expenditure and the values provided in annual reports of SKIs for expenditures. This analysis allowed developing the adjustments coefficient presented in Table E.6 below. Table E.6: Coefficients for Converting FEASIBLE Model Cost Estimates to Turkish Market Level Population range Investment Coefficients O&M Coefficients < 10,000 0.50 2,50 100,000 – 250,000 0.40 3,00 250,000 – 500,000 0.33 3,50 >500,000 0.25 5,00 Investment costs in new wastewater collection networks were estimated based on the total length and distribution of pipe diameter within the network, using the following functions: • If Pop. < 50 000 then L = Pop.*(-0.00005833*Pop+4.92) • If 50 001 < Pop. < 500 000 then L = Pop.*(-0.000000278*Pop+2.14) • If Pop. > 500 001 then L = 0.75*Pop. Depending on the network size, pipe diameter distribution is given as follows in Table E.7: 67 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Table E.7: Sewage Network Distribution of Length on Diameter Groups and Indicative Costs Distribution of length on diameter groups (%) Pop. Length (m) Total (%) ≤ 500 501-1000 1001-1500 >1500 < 1,000 ≤ 5,000 100 0 0 0 100 1,000 – 12,000 5,001 – 50,000 100 0 0 0 100 12,000 – 666,000 50,001 – 500,000 90 7 3 0 100 >666,000 > 500,000 88 8 3,5 0,5 100 Source: FEASIBLE Model, version 2, User Manual and Documentation Appendix 3: Documentation of Expenditure Functions- Wastewater & Consultant’s experience The O&M costs for WWTP and wastewater collection networks were estimated using the functions and estimations shown below in Tables E.8, E.9, and E.10. Table E.8: Calculation of Operational Expenditure of WWTP Investments Treatment level Treatment type Function 1 Primary Treatment 15 kWh/year/cap. + 3% of CAPEX 2 Secondary Treatment 25 kWh/year/cap. + 3% of CAPEX 3 Tertiary Treatment 40 kWh/year/cap. + 3% of CAPEX 4 N removal in addition to 40 kWh/year/cap. + 3% of CAPEX Secondary Treatment Source: FEASIBLE Model, version 2, User Manual Appendix 3: Documentation of Expenditure Functions-Wastewater Table E.9: Calculation of Operational Expenditure of Wastewater Collection Network Investments Item Function Wastewater collection system (for agglomerations ≤ 10,000 ) 2% of CAPEX Wastewater collection system (for agglomerations > 10,000 ) 1% of CAPEX Source: FEASIBLE Model, version 2, User Manual Appendix 3: Documentation of Expenditure Functions-Wastewater Unit Costs and Other Assumptions Table E.10: Unit Costs Used in the Calculation of Operational Expenditure of WWTP investments Item Unit Value Wastewater collection pipe D<500 mm EUR/m 90 Wastewater collection pipe 501 < D < 1000 mm EUR/m 175 Wastewater collection pipe 1001 < D < 1500 mm EUR/m 400 Wastewater collection pipe D> 1500 mm EUR/m 700 Useful life of a WWTP Years 30 Unit cost of electricity EUR/kWh 0.100 Source: Consultant’s estimation based on recent WB & EU feasibility studies and RBPAP reports 68 Appendixes The following aspects were not assessed or estimated in the calculations: - Topographical and geotechnical aspects, due to the lack of data - The costs of discharge (submarine outfall or discharge pipe) and the costs of sludge management transport and disposal that were not included, due to a lack of benchmarks (estimates were proposed) - The cost of decentralized or on-site sanitation in rural areas that could not be estimated - The costs and benefits related to biogas digestion where it makes sense that could not be estimated. Calculating Costs for Sea Outfalls All municipalities located at the coastline were screened using Google Earth and the Internet to assess if there is an existing sea outfall used by the municipality and also to decide if the receiving body for wastewater discharge is either a sea or a river. To calculate the costs related to sea outfall investment and operation the team used pipe diameters listed in Table E.11 below for settlements with populations of up to 500,000 inhabitants. Table E.11: Sea Outfall Pipe Diameter for Different Population Ranges Population range Sea outfall pipe diameter (mm) <20,000 250 20,000 - 50,000 400 50,000 - 100,000 600 100,000 - 500,000 1,000 Source: Consultant’s estimation Then for each sea surrounding the coasts of Turkey, a unique sea outfall length was estimated. The investment cost of the sea outfall was finally determined according to the determined pipe diameter and sea outfall length for each population range as shown in Table E.12 below. Table E.12: Sea Outfall Investment Costs in EUR for Different Receiving Bodies and Population Ranges Length of Sea Population range Receiving Body Outfall (m) <20k 20-50k 50-100k 100-500k Black Sea 1500 680,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 3,500,000 Marmara Sea 1000 630,000 880,000 1,300,000 3,000,000 Aegean Sea 1000 630,000 880,000 1,300,000 3,000,000 Mediterranean Sea 2000 730,000 1,150,000 1,800,000 4,200,000 Source: Consultant’s estimations and calculation based on market prices In eight urban centers with populations of more than 500,000 inhabitants, a calculation was made for those separately and the following costs were used, as shown in Table E.13. 69 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Table E.13: Sea Outfall Investment Costs for Urban Centers with Populations over 500,000 Inhabitants Population in Urban Centre Metro Urban Centre Receiving Sea Water Name Outfall Cost (EUR) (2014) Antalya 858,848 Mediterranean Sea 6,000,000 Istanbul W 6,846,458 Marmara Sea 12,000,000 Istanbul S 2,212,156 Marmara Sea 6,000,000 Istanbul ES 1,102,470 Marmara Sea 5,500,000 Istanbul E 2,768,992 Marmara Sea 7,500,000 İzmit 889,898 Marmara Sea 4,500,000 Darica 580,477 Marmara Sea 3,500,000 Mersin 623,893 Mediterranean Sea 4,500,000 Source: Consultant’s estimations and calculation based on market prices The O&M costs for sea outfalls are estimated as 3 percent of the investment costs. Sludge Disposal Costs For ease of calculation, it is assumed that the sludge generated in WWTP facilities meets the regulatory requirements for final disposal to landfills. Then the O&M costs for the disposal of sludge will include transport of sludge to landfill and the price for final disposal. The following assumptions shown in Table E.14 were made for cost calculation. Table E.14: Main Assumptions for Sludge Disposal Costs Item Unit Value Distance to landfill Km 20 Unit cost for transportation EUR/ton/km 15 Unit cost for final disposal EUR/ton 75 Source: Consultant’s estimation based on market prices In order to calculate the sludge disposal costs, the sludge production rates that were used for different treatment methods are listed in Table E.15, and the wastewater generation rates that were used for different population ranges are listed in Table E.16. Table E.15: Sludge Production Rate for Different Treatment Types Sludge produced Treatment level Treatment type (kg/1000 m3 of wastewater) 0 No Treatment 0 1 Primary Treatment 150 2 Secondary Treatment 100* 3 Tertiary Treatment 400 4 N removal in addition to Secondary Treatment 350 Source: Tchobanoglous, Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse * Assuming that extended aeration is used for secondary treatment purposes 70 Appendixes Table E.16: Wastewater Generation for Different Population Ranges Population range Wastewater generation (l/cap/day) <20,000 120 20,000 - 50,000 140 50,000 - 100,000 160 100,000 - 500,000 180 >500,000 200 Source: Consultant’s estimation Calculations of Costs during Useful Life of Required Investments To assess the financial impacts, incremental O&M and investment amortization cost calculations were made over the useful life of these investments using the assumptions shown in Table E.17. Table E.17: Assumptions for O&M and Amortization Cost Calculations Item Unit Value Inflation rate % 3 Projection period years 50 Useful life of civil works years 50 Useful life of equipment works years 15 Percentage of civil work in WWTP investments % 60 Percentage of civil work in WW collector investments % 80 Percentage of civil work in sea outfall investments % 80 Percentage of equipment in WWTP investments % 40 Percentage of equipment in WW collector investments % 20 Percentage of equipment in sea outfall investments % 20 Source: Consultant’s estimation Required Investment and O&M Costs Investment and O&M costs for urban centers were estimated after assessing the existing infrastructure to determine whether it meets treatment level requirements for each scenario, as is shown in Tables E.18 through E.20 below. Table E.18: Deciding the Required or Existing Investment and O&M Costs for WWTP Facilities Is WWTP investment Is there an required according to existing WWTP Item Investment Cost O&M cost the scenario sufficient for the considered? requirement? WWTP investment YES YES Calculated as existing Calculated as existing investment O&M YES NO Calculated as required Calculated as required investment O&M NO YES Calculated as existing Calculated as existing investment O&M NO NO Not Calculated Not Calculated 71 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Table E.19: Deciding the Required or Existing Investment and O&M Costs for Wastewater Collection Network 1-Is there an Item Investment cost O&M cost existing network The covered % is calculated as Existing O&M calculated for cov- existing investment ered % YES Not covered % is calculated as Required O&M calculated for not WW collection network required investment covered % Calculated as required invest- NO Calculated as required O&M cost ment Table E.20: Deciding the Required or Existing Investment and O&M Costs for Sea Outfall Facilities Is the receiving Is the existing WWTP Item body seawater sufficient to meet the Investment Cost O&M cost or not? standard? Calculated as Calculated as existing YES YES existing investment O&M Calculated as Calculated as required Sea Outfall Investment YES NO required investment O&M NO YES Not Calculated Not Calculated NO NO Not Calculated Not Calculated 72 Appendixes Appendix F: EU and Turkish Water and Sanitation Standards Table F.1: Summary of EU and Turkish Drinking Water Treatment Parameters Parameter (see Note 1) Parameter Value Unit EU Drinking Water Turkish Regulation Directive No. 25730 Microbiological Parameters Escherichia coli (E.coli) 0 0 (number/100 ml) Enterococci 0 0 (number/100 ml) Chemical Parameters Antimony 5.0 5.0 µg/l Arsenic 10 10 µg/l Benzene 1.0 1.0 µg/l Benzo(a)pyrene 0.010 0.010 µg/l Boron 1.0 1.0 mg/l Bromate 10 25 µg/l Cadmium 5.0 5.0 µg/l Chromium 50 50 µg/l Copper 2.0 2.0 mg/l Cyanide 50 50 µg/l 1.2-dichloroethane 3.0 3.0 µg/l Fluoride 1.5 1.5 mg/l Lead 10 25 µg/l Mercury 1.0 1.0 µg/l Nickel 20 20 µg/l Nitrate 50 50 mg/l Nitrite 0.50 0.50 mg/l Pesticides-individual 0.10 0.10 µg/l Pesticides – Total 0.50 0.50 µg/l Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 0.10 0.10 µg/l Selenium 10 10 µg/l Tetrachloroethene and Trichloroethene 10 10 µg/l Trihalomethanes – Total 100 150 µg/l Indicator Parameters Aluminium 200 200 µg/l Ammonium 0.50 0.50 mg/l Chloride 250 250 mg/l Clostridium perfringens (including spores) 0 0 (number/100 ml) Colour Acceptable - - Conductivity 2 500 2 500 µS/ cm at 20 °C Hydrogen Ion Concentration >6.5 and < 9.5 >6.5 and < 9.5 pH units Iron 200 200 µg/l Manganese 50 50 µg/l Odour Acceptable - - 73 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Oxidisability 5.0 5.0 mg/l O2 Sulphate 250 250 mg/l Sodium 200 200 mg/l Taste Acceptable - - Colony count 22 Deg. C No abnormal change - Coliform bacteria 0 0 number/100 ml Total organic carbon (TOC) No abnormal change - mg/l Turbidity Acceptable (not exceed- NTU ing 1.0 NTU for surface - water treatment) Free Residual Chlorine - 0.5 mg/l Radioactivity Parameters Tritium 100 Bq/l Total Indicative Dose 0.10 mSv/year Table F.2: Product Specified Parameters Acrylamide. Epichlorohydrin and Vinylchloride EU Drinking Water Directive Parameter Turkey Regulation Parameter Value Acrylamide 0.10 µg/l 0.10 µg/l Epichlorohydrin 0.10 µg/l 0.10 µg/l Vinylchloride 0.50 µg/l 0.50 µg/l 74 Population Discharge location EU Urban Wastewater By-law No. 26047 By-law No. 27271 By-law No. 26786 Most stringent Most stringent (population Directive Requirements on Urban WW on Sensitive Areas on Water Pollution requirements of requirements of equivalent) (Base Standard for Treatment (2006) (2009) Control (2008) By-law UWWT-1 and By-law UWWT-2 and Scenario 1 in chapter 4) By-law UWWT-1 By-law UWWT-224 By-law WPC By-law WPC By-law WPC (Base for Scenario 2) (Base for Scenario 3) < 84 Fresh water / Primary treatment Decided by relevant Decided by relevant Decided by relevant Decided by relevant estuary BOD5: min 20% removal administration administration administration administration COD: TSS: min 50% removal TN: TP: < 84 Coastal water Primary treatment Decided by relevant Decided by relevant Decided by relevant Decided by relevant BOD5: min 20% removal administration administration administration administration COD: TSS: min 50% removal TN: TP: < 84 Sensitive area Secondary treatment* Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary BOD5: 25 mg/l treatment* treatment* treatment* treatment* COD: 125 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l TSS: COD: 125 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l TN: No set standard TSS: TSS: TSS: TSS: TP: No set standard TN: TN: TN: TN: TP: TP: TP: TP: < 84 Less Sensitive N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Common Practice Area 84 – 2,000 Fresh water / Primary treatment Decided by relevant Decided by relevant Secondary treatment Secondary treatment Secondary treatment estuary BOD5: min 20% removal administration administration BOD5: 45 mg/l BOD5: 45 mg/l BOD5: 45 mg/l COD: COD: 120 mg/l COD: 120 mg/l COD: 120 mg/l TSS: min 50% removal TSS: 45 mg/l TSS: 45 mg/l TSS: 45 mg/l TN: TN: TN: TN: TP: TP: TP: TP: 84 – 2,000 Coastal water Primary treatment Decided by relevant Decided by relevant Secondary treatment Secondary treatment Secondary treatment BOD5: min 20% removal administration administration BOD5: 45 mg/l BOD5: 45 mg/l BOD5: 45 mg/l COD: COD: 120 mg/l COD: 120 mg/l COD: 120 mg/l TSS: min 50% removal TSS: 45 mg/l TSS: 45 mg/l TSS: 45 mg/l TN: TN: TN: TN: TP: TP: TP: TP: 84 – 2,000 Sensitive area Secondary treatment*2 Secondary Secondary Secondary treatment Secondary treatment Secondary treatment BOD5: 25 mg/l treatment* treatment* BOD5: 45 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l Table F.3. Comparison of Treatment Requirements by EU and TR Legislation and COD: 125 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l COD: 120 mg/l COD: 120 mg/l COD: 120 mg/l TSS: COD: 125 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l TSS: 45 mg/l TSS: 45 mg/l TSS: 45 mg/l Appendixes TN: No set standard TSS: TSS: TN: TN: TN: TP: No set standard TN: TN: TP: TP: TP: TP: TP: 75 24 In practice, Turkish authorities request Nitrogen removal in addition to secondary treatment for any discharge, even outside sensitive areas, for settlements having a population above 50,000. * Consultant interpretation of the treatment level required, based on the BOD5 abatement level required in the EU Urban Wastewater Directive. 76 Population Discharge location EU Urban Wastewater By-law No. 26047 By-law No. 27271 By-law No. 26786 Most stringent Most stringent (population Directive Requirements on Urban WW on Sensitive Areas on Water Pollution requirements of requirements of equivalent) (Base Standard for Treatment (2006) (2009) Control (2008) By-law UWWT-1 and By-law UWWT-2 and Scenario 1 in chapter 4) By-law UWWT-1 By-law UWWT-21 By-law WPC By-law WPC By-law WPC (Base for Scenario 2) (Base for Scenario 3) 84 – 2,000 Less Sensitive Secondary treatment Secondary treatment Secondary treatment Area BOD5: 45 mg/l BOD5: 45 mg/l BOD5: 45 mg/l COD: 120 mg/l COD: 120 mg/l COD: 120 mg/l TSS: 45 mg/l TSS: 45 mg/l TSS: 45 mg/l TN: TN: TN: TP: TP: TP: 2,000 – Fresh water / Secondary treatment Secondary Secondary Secondary treatment Secondary treatment Secondary treatment 10,000 estuary BOD5: 25 mg/l treatment treatment BOD5: 45 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l COD: 110 mg/l COD: 110 mg/l COD: 110 mg/l TSS: 60 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l TSS: 30 mg/l TSS: 30 mg/l TSS: 30 mg/l TN: TSS: 60 mg/l TSS: 60 mg/l TN: TN: TN: TP: TN: TN: TP: TP: TP: TP: TP: 2,000 – Coastal water Primary treatment Decided by relevant Decided by relevant Secondary treatment Secondary treatment Secondary treatment 10,000 BOD5: min 20% removal administration administration BOD5: 45 mg/l BOD5: 45 mg/l BOD5: 45 mg/l COD: COD: 110 mg/l COD: 110 mg/l COD: 110 mg/l TSS: min 50% removal TSS: 30 mg/l TSS: 30 mg/l TSS: 30 mg/l TN: TN: TN: TN: Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation TP: TP: TP: TP: 2,000 – Sensitive area Secondary treatment*3 Secondary Secondary Secondary treatment Secondary treatment Secondary treatment 10,000 BOD5: 25 mg/l treatment* treatment* BOD5: 45 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l COD: 110 mg/l COD: 110 mg/l COD: 110 mg/l TSS: 60 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l TSS: 30 mg/l TSS: 30 mg/l TSS: 30 mg/l TN: No set standard TSS: 60 mg/l TSS: 60 mg/l TN: TN: TN: TP: No set standard TN: TN: TP: TP: TP: TP: TP: 2,000 – Less Sensitive Secondary treatment Secondary treatment Secondary treatment 10,000 Area BOD5: 45 mg/l BOD5: 45 mg/l BOD5: 45 mg/l COD: 110 mg/l COD: 110 mg/l COD: 110 mg/l TSS: 30 mg/l TSS: 30 mg/l TSS: 30 mg/l TN: TN: TN: TP: TP: TP: * Consultant interpretation of the treatment level required, based on the BOD5 abatement level required in the EU Urban Wastewater Directive. Population Discharge location EU Urban Wastewater By-law No. 26047 By-law No. 27271 By-law No. 26786 Most stringent Most stringent (population Directive Requirements on Urban WW on Sensitive Areas on Water Pollution requirements of requirements of equivalent) (Base Standard for Treatment (2006) (2009) Control (2008) By-law UWWT-1 and By-law UWWT-2 and Scenario 1 in chapter 4) By-law UWWT-1 By-law UWWT-21 By-law WPC By-law WPC By-law WPC (Base for Scenario 2) (Base for Scenario 3) 10,000 – Fresh water / Secondary treatment Secondary Secondary Secondary treatment Secondary treatment Secondary treatment 50,000 estuary BOD5: 25 mg/l treatment treatment BOD5: 45 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l COD: 100 mg/l COD: 100 mg/l COD: 100 mg/l TSS: 35 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l TSS: 30 mg/l TSS: 30 mg/l TSS: 30 mg/l TN: TSS: 35 mg/l TSS: 35 mg/l TN: TN: TN: TP: TN: TN: TP: TP: TP: TP: TP: 10,000 – Coastal water Secondary treatment Secondary Secondary Secondary treatment Secondary treatment Secondary treatment 50,000 BOD5: 25 mg/l treatment treatment BOD5: 45 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l COD: 100 mg/l COD: 100 mg/l COD: 100 mg/l TSS: 35 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l TSS: 30 mg/l TSS: 30 mg/l TSS: 30 mg/l TN: TSS: 35 mg/l TSS: 35 mg/l TN: TN: TN: TP: TN: TN: TP: TP: TP: TP: TP: 10,000 – Sensitive area Tertiary treatment Tertiary treatment Tertiary treatment Secondary treatment Tertiary treatment Tertiary treatment 50,000 BOD5: 25 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l BOD5: 45 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l COD: 100 mg/l COD: 100 mg/l COD: 100 mg/l TSS: 35 mg/l TSS: 35 mg/l TSS: 35 mg/l TSS: 30 mg/l TSS: 30 mg/l TSS: 30 mg/l TN: 15 mg/l TN: 15 mg/l TN: 15 mg/l TN: TN: 15 mg/l TN: 15 mg/l TP: 2 mg/l TP: 2 mg/l TP: 2 mg/l TP: TP: 2 mg/l TP: 2 mg/l 10,000 – Less Sensitive Secondary treatment Secondary Secondary Secondary treatment Secondary treatment Secondary treatment 50,000 Area BOD5: 25 mg/l treatment treatment BOD5: 45 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l COD: 100 mg/l COD: 100 mg/l COD: 100 mg/l TSS: 35 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l TSS: 30 mg/l TSS: 30 mg/l TSS: 30 mg/l TN: TSS: 35 mg/l TSS: 35 mg/l TN: TN: TN: TP: TN: TN: TP: TP: TP: TP: TP: 50,000 – Fresh water / Secondary treatment Secondary Secondary Secondary treatment Secondary treatment Secondary treatment 100,000 estuary treatment treatment + + Nitrogen removal BOD5: 25 mg/l Nitrogen removal BOD5: 45 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l COD: 100 mg/l COD: 100 mg/l COD: 100 mg/l TSS: 35 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l TSS: 30 mg/l TSS: 30 mg/l TSS: 30 mg/l TN: TSS: 35 mg/l TSS: 35 mg/l TN: TN: TN: 15 mg/l TP: TN: TN: 15 mg/l TP: TP: TP: TP: TP: * Consultant interpretation of the treatment level required, based on the BOD5 abatement level required in the EU Urban Wastewater Directive. Appendixes 77 78 Population Discharge location EU Urban Wastewater By-law No. 26047 By-law No. 27271 By-law No. 26786 Most stringent Most stringent (population Directive Requirements on Urban WW on Sensitive Areas on Water Pollution requirements of requirements of equivalent) (Base Standard for Treatment (2006) (2009) Control (2008) By-law UWWT-1 and By-law UWWT-2 and Scenario 1 in chapter 4) By-law UWWT-1 By-law UWWT-21 By-law WPC By-law WPC By-law WPC (Base for Scenario 2) (Base for Scenario 3) 50,000 – Coastal water Secondary treatment Secondary Secondary Secondary treatment Secondary treatment Secondary treatment 100,000 treatment treatment + + Nitrogen removal BOD5: 25 mg/l Nitrogen removal BOD5: 45 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l COD: 100 mg/l COD: 100 mg/l COD: 100 mg/l TSS: 35 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l TSS: 30 mg/l TSS: 30 mg/l TSS: 30 mg/l TN: TSS: 35 mg/l TSS: 35 mg/l TN: TN: TN: 15 mg/l TP: TN: TN: 15 mg/l TP: TP: TP: TP: TP: 50,000 – Sensitive area Tertiary treatment Tertiary treatment Tertiary treatment Secondary treatment Tertiary treatment Tertiary treatment 100,000 BOD5: 25 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l BOD5: 45 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l COD: 100 mg/l COD: 100 mg/l COD: 100 mg/l TSS: 35 mg/l TSS: 35 mg/l TSS: 35 mg/l TSS: 30 mg/l TSS: 30 mg/l TSS: 30 mg/l TN: 15 mg/l TN: 15 mg/l TN: 15 mg/l TN: TN: 15 mg/l TN: 15 mg/l TP: 2 mg/l TP: 2 mg/l TP: 2 mg/l TP: TP: 2 mg/l TP: 2 mg/l 50,000 – Less Sensitive Secondary treatment Secondary Secondary Secondary treatment Secondary treatment Secondary treatment 100,000 Area treatment treatment + + Nitrogen removal BOD5: 25 mg/l Nitrogen removal BOD5: 45 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l COD: 100 mg/l COD: 100 mg/l COD: 100 mg/l TSS: 35 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l TSS: 30 mg/l TSS: 30 mg/l TSS: 30 mg/l Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation TN: TSS: 35 mg/l TSS: 35 mg/l TN: TN: TN: 15 mg/l TP: TN: TN: 15 mg/l TP: TP: TP: TP: TP: > 100,000 Fresh water / Secondary treatment Secondary Secondary Secondary treatment Secondary treatment Secondary treatment estuary treatment treatment + + Nitrogen removal BOD5: 25 mg/l Nitrogen removal BOD5: 35 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l COD: 90 mg/l COD: 90 mg/l COD: 90 mg/l TSS: 35 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l TSS: 25 mg/l TSS: 25 mg/l TSS: 25 mg/l TN: TSS: 35 mg/l TSS: 35 mg/l TN: TN: TN: 15 mg/l TP: TN: TN: 15 mg/l TP: TP: TP: TP: TP: > 100,000 Coastal water Secondary treatment Secondary Secondary Secondary treatment Secondary treatment Secondary treatment treatment treatment + + Nitrogen removal BOD5: 25 mg/l Nitrogen removal BOD5: 35 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l COD: 90 mg/l COD: 90 mg/l COD: 90 mg/l TSS: 35 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l TSS: 25 mg/l TSS: 25 mg/l TSS: 25 mg/l TN: TSS: 35 mg/l TSS: 35 mg/l TN: TN: TN: 15 mg/l TP: TN: TN: 15 mg/l TP: TP: TP: TP: TP: Population Discharge location EU Urban Wastewater By-law No. 26047 By-law No. 27271 By-law No. 26786 Most stringent Most stringent (population Directive Requirements on Urban WW on Sensitive Areas on Water Pollution requirements of requirements of equivalent) (Base Standard for Treatment (2006) (2009) Control (2008) By-law UWWT-1 and By-law UWWT-2 and Scenario 1 in chapter 4) By-law UWWT-1 By-law UWWT-21 By-law WPC By-law WPC By-law WPC (Base for Scenario 2) (Base for Scenario 3) > 100,000 Sensitive area Tertiary treatment Tertiary treatment Tertiary treatment Secondary treatment Tertiary treatment Tertiary treatment BOD5: 25 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l BOD5: 35 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l COD: 90 mg/l COD: 90 mg/l COD: 90 mg/l TSS: 35 mg/l TSS: 35 mg/l TSS: 35 mg/l TSS: 25 mg/l TSS: 25 mg/l TSS: 25 mg/l TN: 10 mg/l TN: 10 mg/l TN: 10 mg/l TN: TN: 10 mg/l TN: 10 mg/l TP: 1 mg/l TP: 1 mg/l TP: 1 mg/l TP: TP: 1 mg/l TP: 1 mg/l > 100,000 Less Sensitive Secondary treatment Secondary Secondary Secondary treatment Secondary treatment Secondary treatment Area treatment treatment + + Nitrogen removal BOD5: 25 mg/l Nitrogen removal BOD5: 35 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l BOD5: 25 mg/l COD: 90 mg/l COD: 90 mg/l COD: 90 mg/l TSS: 35 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l COD: 125 mg/l TSS: 25 mg/l TSS: 25 mg/l TSS: 25 mg/l TN: TSS: 35 mg/l TSS: 35 mg/l TN: TN: TN: 15 mg/l TP: TN: TN: 15 mg/l TP: TP: TP: TP: TP: Source: Referred regulations documents, compilation: team Highlighted in blue are the differences between the standard Turkey set for itself (in practice) and the EU standards Appendixes 79 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Appendix G: Results of Cost Estimates and Tariff Impacts Results of Scenarios Aggregated at the National Level: Table G.1: Aggregated Total Costs for All Scenarios at the National Level Total Value Variation to Sensitivity Scenario Item (million EUR) S1A Existing infrastructure 8,710 - Estimated O&M of existing infrastructure 762 - Additional Investment Required 5,229 0% Incremental O&M required per year 844 0% Cumulative O&M of required investments for the S1A 95,216 0% useful life Amortization costs of required investments 15,930 0% If IlBank Finances required Investments 8,761 0% Additional Investment Required 5,432 4% Incremental O&M required per year 875 4% Cumulative O&M of required investments for the A S2A 98,672 4% useful life Amortization costs of required investments 16,636 4% If IlBank Finances required Investments 9,101 4% Additional Investment Required 6,111 17% Incremental O&M required per year 1,341 59% Cumulative O&M of required investments for the S3A 151,250 59% useful life Amortization costs of required investments 19,007 19% If IlBank Finances required Investments 10,238 17% Additional Investment Required 6,006 15% Incremental O&M required per year 1,283 52% Cumulative O&M of required investments for the S1B 144,687 52% useful life Amortization costs of required investments 18,643 17% If IlBank Finances required Investments 10,062 15% Additional Investment Required 6,139 17% Incremental O&M required per year 1,303 54% Cumulative O&M of required investments for the B S2B 146,920 54% useful life Amortization costs of required investments 19,105 20% If IlBank Finances required Investments 10,285 17% Additional Investment Required 6,323 21% Incremental O&M required per year 1,415 68% Cumulative O&M of required investments for the S3B 159,659 68% useful life Amortization costs of required investments 19,745 24% If IlBank Finances required Investments 10,593 21% 80 Appendixes Table G.2: Aggregated Total Costs for All Scenarios per Type of Municipality Municipalities Total Municipalities Total Metropolitan Areas SUB-PROVINCE SUBPROVINCE Municipalities Metropolitan Metropolitan Sensitivity PROVINCE Scenario Results Results BELDE Other Item Existing infrastructure 6,328 3,590 2,739 2,384 250 1,042 1,092 Additional Investment Required 3,335 1,280 2,055 1,894 326 744 824 Incremental O&M required per year 715 565 150 129 10 69 50 S1A Cumulative O&M of required 80,627 63,718 16,910 14,589 1,169 7,768 5,652 investments for the useful life Amortization costs for the required 10,259 4,048 6,211 5,672 956 2,233 2,482 investments Existing infrastructure 6,328 3,590 2,739 2,384 250 1,042 1,092 Additional Investment Required 3,372 1,280 2,091 2,061 409 744 907 Incremental O&M required per year 721 565 156 154 22 69 63 A S2A Cumulative O&M of required 81,278 63,718 17,561 17,393 2,532 7,768 7,093 investments for the useful life Amortization costs for the required 10,384 4,048 6,336 6,252 1,245 2,233 2,774 investments Existing infrastructure 6,325 3,588 2,737 2,380 250 1,042 1,088 Additional Investment Required 3,888 1,631 2,258 2,223 409 874 940 Incremental O&M required per year 1,111 890 221 230 22 132 75 S3A Cumulative O&M of required 125,304 100,345 24,959 25,946 2,532 14,945 8,470 investments for the useful life Amortization costs for the required 12,189 5,272 6,917 6,817 1,245 2,689 2,884 investments Existing infrastructure 6,324 3,588 2,736 2,381 250 1,042 1,089 Additional Investment Required 3,873 1,572 2,301 2,133 348 820 964 Incremental O&M required per year 1,075 843 232 207 14 106 88 S1B Cumulative O&M of required 121,284 95,105 26,179 23,403 1,528 11,924 9,951 investments for the useful life Amortization costs for the required 12,138 5,068 7,070 6,505 1,033 2,500 2,972 investments Existing infrastructure 6,324 3,588 2,736 2,381 250 1,042 1,089 Additional Investment Required 3,896 1,572 2,323 2,244 409 820 1,015 Incremental O&M required per year 1,079 843 236 224 22 106 96 B S2B Cumulative O&M of required 121,679 95,105 26,574 25,241 2,518 11,924 10,799 investments for the useful life Amortization costs for the required 12,214 5,068 7,146 6,890 1,243 2,500 3,147 investments Existing infrastructure 6,323 3,588 2,735 2,381 250 1,042 1,089 Additional Investment Required 4,009 1,631 2,379 2,314 409 882 1,023 Incremental O&M required per year 1,157 899 258 258 22 137 99 S3B Cumulative O&M of required 130,549 101,410 29,139 29,110 2,518 15,427 11,165 investments for the useful life Amortization costs for the required 12,611 5,272 7,339 7,134 1,243 2,715 3,176 investments A comparison of existing assets and required assets in accordance with EU Standards (S1A) and TR standards (S3A) is provided in below. 81 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Disaggregated Results: Results of Scenarios on MMs and Financial Impacts on SKIs Table G.3: Summary of Results for All Scenarios Representing the Additional Investments Required in Metropolitan Municipalities (EUR) Sensitivity A B Scenario S1A S2A S3A S1B S2B S3B Total Values 3,335,241,862 3,371,540,575 3,888,287,870 3,873,450,549 3,895,624,770 4,009,293,966 Adana 38,347,818 38,347,818 98,112,612 103,528,095 103,528,095 103,528,095 Ankara 18,590,083 19,270,023 174,501,080 175,274,843 175,954,783 175,954,783 Antalya 74,875,831 76,328,530 76,328,530 89,309,919 90,762,618 90,762,618 Aydın 64,382,364 65,611,863 87,822,967 97,664,069 97,664,069 99,542,299 Balıkesir 54,272,153 56,109,308 67,409,620 69,051,563 70,201,872 70,201,872 Bursa 47,186,598 47,728,870 62,510,193 70,288,429 70,288,429 70,288,429 Denizli 56,823,215 59,948,245 59,948,245 69,373,003 71,034,539 71,034,539 Diyarbakır 244,782,553 244,782,553 248,870,445 250,183,629 250,917,671 250,917,671 Erzurum 176,859,746 178,877,873 183,781,895 191,809,360 192,756,037 192,756,037 Eskişehir 27,569,341 31,511,133 31,511,133 31,973,485 32,823,911 32,823,911 Gaziantep 207,603,572 208,334,940 259,400,438 261,706,974 262,438,342 262,438,342 Hatay 229,940,798 230,516,824 243,585,080 247,467,694 248,043,720 248,043,720 İstanbul 609,743,918 609,743,918 613,176,084 561,911,149 561,911,149 613,176,084 İzmir 49,439,118 49,439,118 60,148,475 61,097,674 61,097,674 63,292,287 Kahramanmaraş 40,773,797 42,100,927 52,964,546 55,600,078 56,273,750 56,273,750 Kayseri 11,722,828 13,815,726 49,132,155 54,961,818 55,319,599 55,319,599 Kocaeli 64,020,989 64,020,989 64,020,989 62,511,918 62,511,918 62,511,918 Konya 79,763,696 80,877,202 80,877,202 74,116,129 77,174,080 84,730,083 Malatya 151,792,499 154,834,620 161,764,257 153,065,115 155,605,729 162,535,366 Manisa 59,211,467 59,955,568 82,636,408 91,655,489 92,399,590 92,399,590 Mardin 140,825,628 141,517,417 150,885,991 146,276,320 146,968,109 150,893,910 Mersin 86,147,253 88,168,694 100,358,928 95,298,522 97,319,962 103,625,423 Muğla 55,777,371 55,777,371 66,624,215 67,428,760 67,428,760 67,428,760 Ordu 64,762,774 67,784,057 69,664,566 63,375,925 64,555,304 71,122,877 Sakarya 31,648,204 32,867,074 42,231,782 46,042,185 46,528,295 46,528,295 Samsun 51,514,422 51,514,422 62,539,344 62,088,198 62,088,198 69,740,497 Şanlıurfa 278,009,252 278,009,252 299,830,291 290,857,537 290,857,537 299,253,711 Tekirdağ 105,456,198 105,456,198 113,594,179 111,675,257 111,675,257 113,594,179 Trabzon 89,543,714 93,758,794 99,524,971 104,451,480 105,413,251 105,413,251 Van 123,854,661 124,531,251 124,531,251 113,405,932 114,082,522 123,162,069 In the case of Istanbul, although the numbers are presented as aggregated, the analysis has considered six separated metropolitan urban areas to replicate the sanitation/wastewater management areas into which the city can be divided for efficient operation. Figure G.1 below shows existing versus additional investments that were required in SKI-served MMs for scenarios S1A, S1B, and S3A. These scenarios were selected because S1A means reaching EU standards, S3A represents standards as applied in Turkey (‘business as usual’) with current ‘sensitive areas’, while S1B illustrates the new standards and sensitive areas set in the draft by-laws currently circulated for approval. 82 Appendixes Figure G.1: Comparison of Existing and Incremental Investments in Metropolitan Municipalities according to Scenarios S1A, S1B and S3A Adana-S1A Adana-S1B Adana-S3A Ankara-S1A Ankara-S1B Ankara-S3A Antalya-S1A Antalya-S1B Antalya-S3A Aydı n-S1A Aydı n-S1B Aydı n-S3A Bal ıkesir-S1A Bal ıkesir-S1B Bal ıkesir-S3A Bursa-S1A Bursa-S1B Bursa-S3A Denizli-S1A Denizli-S1B Denizli-S3A Diyarbakır-S1A Diyarbakır-S1B Diyarbakır-S3A Erzurum-S1A Erzurum-S1B Erzurum-S3A Eskişehir-S1A Eskişehir-S1B Eskişehir-S3A Gaziantep-S1A Gaziantep-S1B Gaziantep-S3A Hatay-S1A Hatay-S1B Hatay-S3A İstanbul-S1A İstanbul-S1B İstanbul-S3A İzmir-S1A İzmir-S1B İzmir-S3A Kahramanmaraş-S1A Kahramanmaraş-S1B Kahramanmaraş-S3A Kayseri-S1A Kayseri-S1B Kayseri-S3A Kocaeli-S1A Kocaeli-S1B Kocaeli-S3A Konya-S1A Konya-S1B Konya-S3A Malatya-S1A Malatya-S1B Malatya-S3A Manisa-S1A Manisa-S1B Manisa-S3A Mardin-S1A Mardin-S1B Mardin-S3A Mersin-S1A Mersin-S1B Mersin-S3A Muğla-S1A Muğla-S1B Muğla-S3A Ordu-S1A Ordu-S1B Ordu-S3A Sakarya-S1A Sakarya-S1B Sakarya-S3A Samsun-S1A Samsun-S1B Samsun-S3A Şanlı urfa-S1A Şanlı urfa-S1B Şanlı urfa-S3A Tekirdağ-S1A Tekirdağ-S1B Tekirdağ-S3A Trabzon-S1A Trabzon-S1B Trabzon-S3A Van-S1A Van-S1B Van-S3A 0 200 400 600 800 1.000 1.200 1.400 1.600 1.800 2.000 million Euros 83 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Table G.4: Summary of Results for All Scenarios Representing the Incremental O&M Costs in Metropolitan Municipalities (EUR/year) Sensitivity A B Scenario S1A S2A S3A S1B S2B S3B Total Values 714,801,404 720,571,925 1,110,880,776 1,075,242,385 1,078,747,320 1,157,378,767 Adana 4,120,458 4,120,458 60,921,978 64,651,432 64,651,432 64,651,432 Ankara 3,903,534 4,020,919 159,384,702 166,220,425 166,337,809 166,337,809 Antalya 1,419,933 1,658,391 1,658,391 4,776,876 5,015,335 5,015,335 Aydın 3,671,456 3,879,104 12,496,421 15,230,901 15,230,901 15,941,607 Balıkesir 9,469,899 9,692,427 15,044,420 16,187,124 16,290,810 16,290,810 Bursa 7,613,058 7,702,199 12,713,115 15,452,102 15,452,102 15,452,102 Denizli 14,691,981 15,204,323 15,204,323 18,247,979 18,524,248 18,524,248 Diyarbakır 35,796,538 35,796,538 37,394,008 38,002,250 38,131,149 38,131,149 Erzurum 7,431,070 7,762,142 10,632,584 13,243,210 13,394,544 13,394,544 Eskişehir 877,697 1,519,102 1,519,102 1,743,408 1,880,082 1,880,082 Gaziantep 5,274,778 5,403,102 55,668,889 58,636,771 58,765,095 58,765,095 Hatay 12,663,618 12,759,536 18,589,946 20,344,085 20,440,003 20,440,003 İstanbul 454,025,126 454,025,126 456,034,056 402,624,686 402,624,686 451,943,487 İzmir 3,999,788 3,999,788 8,727,171 8,870,080 8,870,080 9,737,770 Kahramanmaraş 9,579,123 9,807,019 16,411,417 18,024,083 18,140,148 18,140,148 Kayseri 1,289,599 1,634,182 34,785,653 37,835,215 37,889,236 37,889,236 Kocaeli 35,768,715 35,768,715 35,768,715 35,218,840 35,218,840 35,218,840 Konya 12,980,436 13,165,161 13,165,161 10,339,222 10,837,631 13,835,775 Malatya 8,061,043 8,559,435 13,695,755 8,361,194 8,778,493 13,914,813 Manisa 4,106,671 4,237,736 14,229,867 17,389,081 17,520,145 17,520,145 Mardin 7,065,734 7,185,621 11,439,667 10,086,227 10,206,114 11,710,491 Mersin 5,494,464 5,737,097 9,081,614 7,910,341 8,152,973 10,245,289 Muğla 1,908,227 1,908,227 4,874,187 5,242,305 5,242,305 5,242,305 Ordu 4,387,613 4,899,054 5,610,864 4,188,942 4,388,255 6,012,656 Sakarya 1,959,233 2,165,950 5,020,811 6,506,534 6,584,628 6,584,628 Samsun 15,152,553 15,152,553 19,137,230 15,887,235 15,887,235 20,864,114 Şanlıurfa 15,728,187 15,728,187 27,241,552 23,545,754 23,545,754 27,722,557 Tekirdağ 5,925,667 5,925,667 10,296,317 9,921,832 9,921,832 10,652,316 Trabzon 5,925,704 6,527,988 9,506,679 11,347,625 11,502,149 11,502,149 Van 14,509,499 14,626,178 14,626,178 9,206,627 9,323,306 13,817,832 84 Appendixes Table G.5: Summary of Results for All Scenarios Representing the Cumulative Incremental O&M Costs Projected over the Useful Life of Investments in Metropolitan Municipalities (EUR) Sensitivity A B Scenario S1A S2A S3A S1B S2B S3B Total Values 80,627,359,054 81,278,255,790 125,303,871,475 121,283,972,652 121,679,318,322 130,548,699,233 Adana 464,774,797 464,774,797 6,871,808,278 7,292,478,956 7,292,478,956 7,292,478,956 Ankara 440,306,441 453,547,014 17,978,095,127 18,749,143,210 18,762,383,784 18,762,383,784 Antalya 160,163,951 187,061,348 187,061,348 538,816,655 565,714,052 565,714,052 Aydın 414,128,728 437,550,753 1,409,557,176 1,717,997,913 1,717,997,913 1,798,163,318 Balıkesir 1,068,174,965 1,093,275,371 1,696,963,474 1,825,856,879 1,837,552,349 1,837,552,349 Bursa 858,729,093 868,783,927 1,433,999,557 1,742,948,646 1,742,948,646 1,742,948,646 Denizli 1,657,209,411 1,714,999,999 1,714,999,999 2,058,314,872 2,089,477,136 2,089,477,136 Diyarbakır 4,037,737,303 4,037,737,303 4,217,926,966 4,286,534,695 4,301,074,099 4,301,074,099 Erzurum 838,201,428 875,545,287 1,199,322,207 1,493,792,634 1,510,862,630 1,510,862,630 Eskişehir 99,001,493 171,349,935 171,349,935 196,650,940 212,067,345 212,067,345 Gaziantep 594,978,401 609,453,035 6,279,276,285 6,614,044,041 6,628,518,675 6,628,518,675 Hatay 1,428,416,444 1,439,235,709 2,096,887,702 2,294,749,025 2,305,568,290 2,305,568,290 İstanbul 51,212,611,892 51,212,611,892 51,439,212,854 45,414,803,271 45,414,803,271 50,977,809,547 İzmir 451,163,528 451,163,528 984,397,574 1,000,517,280 1,000,517,280 1,098,389,933 Kahramanmaraş 1,080,495,118 1,106,200,974 1,851,156,451 2,033,060,090 2,046,151,828 2,046,151,828 Kayseri 145,462,694 184,330,638 3,923,712,693 4,267,693,768 4,273,787,155 4,273,787,155 Kocaeli 4,034,598,965 4,034,598,965 4,034,598,965 3,972,574,878 3,972,574,878 3,972,574,878 Konya 1,464,152,493 1,484,988,964 1,484,988,964 1,166,231,896 1,222,450,843 1,560,632,104 Malatya 909,260,398 965,477,500 1,544,838,267 943,116,482 990,186,566 1,569,547,334 Manisa 463,219,670 478,003,303 1,605,084,458 1,961,433,879 1,976,217,512 1,976,217,512 Mardin 796,992,704 810,515,576 1,290,358,608 1,137,694,836 1,151,217,708 1,320,906,746 Mersin 619,758,334 647,126,520 1,024,377,606 892,261,674 919,629,860 1,155,636,474 Muğla 215,242,073 215,242,073 549,792,983 591,315,527 591,315,527 591,315,527 Ordu 494,909,002 552,597,920 632,887,925 472,499,506 494,981,439 678,208,708 Sakarya 220,995,401 244,312,397 566,331,705 733,916,701 742,725,379 742,725,379 Samsun 1,709,160,486 1,709,160,486 2,158,619,628 1,792,030,350 1,792,030,350 2,353,406,738 Şanlıurfa 1,774,090,215 1,774,090,215 3,072,761,772 2,655,887,283 2,655,887,283 3,127,017,610 Tekirdağ 668,396,686 668,396,686 1,161,392,316 1,119,151,519 1,119,151,519 1,201,547,913 Trabzon 668,400,890 736,336,649 1,072,323,622 1,279,976,534 1,297,406,358 1,297,406,358 Van 1,636,626,051 1,649,787,028 1,649,787,028 1,038,478,714 1,051,639,692 1,558,608,208 85 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Table G.6: Amortization Costs for Required Investments in MMs for All Scenarios (EUR) Sensitivity A B Scenarios S1A S2A S3A S1B S2B S3B Total Values 10,258,514,068 10,384,181,407 12,189,273,777 12,137,736,555 12,214,433,830 12,610,993,411 Adana 119,121,976 119,121,976 328,113,743 347,051,168 347,051,168 347,051,168 Ankara 61,962,421 64,340,106 607,168,268 609,874,042 612,251,727 612,251,727 Antalya 217,258,542 222,338,491 222,338,491 266,306,058 271,386,007 271,386,007 Aydın 193,084,788 197,384,230 275,054,334 309,467,728 309,467,728 316,035,718 Balıkesir 177,038,461 183,071,910 222,588,020 228,720,642 232,352,260 232,352,260 Bursa 151,622,863 153,519,136 205,208,011 232,407,759 232,407,759 232,407,759 Denizli 182,590,094 193,518,023 193,518,023 226,475,500 232,285,732 232,285,732 Diyarbakır 737,650,854 737,650,854 751,945,821 756,537,901 759,104,774 759,104,774 Erzurum 522,108,502 529,165,698 546,314,595 574,385,872 577,696,312 577,696,312 Eskişehir 81,147,338 94,931,406 94,931,406 96,548,205 99,522,064 99,522,064 Gaziantep 604,209,282 606,766,805 785,337,970 793,403,704 795,961,228 795,961,228 Hatay 681,551,408 683,565,716 729,264,156 742,841,286 744,855,595 744,855,595 İstanbul 2,032,367,851 2,032,367,851 2,044,369,807 1,865,101,233 1,865,101,233 2,044,369,807 İzmir 151,028,416 151,028,416 188,478,014 191,797,275 191,797,275 199,471,626 Kahramanmaraş 133,733,387 138,374,234 176,363,270 185,579,474 187,935,241 187,935,241 Kayseri 37,466,811 44,785,476 168,283,650 188,669,423 189,920,548 189,920,548 Kocaeli 209,856,957 209,856,957 209,856,957 204,579,882 204,579,882 204,579,882 Konya 255,582,092 259,475,917 259,475,917 235,833,090 246,526,453 272,949,074 Malatya 446,640,335 457,278,341 481,510,619 451,090,553 459,974,837 484,207,114 Manisa 178,703,560 181,305,608 260,618,338 292,157,202 294,759,250 294,759,250 Mardin 418,158,548 420,577,667 453,338,673 437,219,096 439,638,215 453,366,366 Mersin 255,247,199 261,863,029 303,374,244 286,131,441 292,747,271 314,796,864 Muğla 163,978,179 163,978,179 201,101,929 203,915,344 203,915,344 203,915,344 Ordu 195,336,144 205,901,282 212,477,243 191,417,191 195,541,368 217,576,816 Sakarya 95,828,526 100,090,794 132,838,284 146,162,898 147,862,780 147,862,780 Samsun 170,858,226 170,858,226 209,411,324 207,833,707 207,833,707 234,593,068 Şanlıurfa 822,805,507 822,805,507 899,111,591 867,734,729 867,734,729 897,095,348 Tekirdağ 312,215,245 312,215,245 340,672,987 333,962,700 333,962,700 340,672,987 Trabzon 268,649,316 282,967,116 303,130,886 320,358,418 323,721,638 323,721,638 Van 380,711,240 383,077,209 383,077,209 344,173,034 346,539,004 378,289,313 86 Appendixes Table G.7: Total Incremental Costs, Composed of Incremental Investments, Lifetime O&M and Amortization Costs for Metropolitan Municipalities for Scenarios S1A, S3A and S1B (in EUR million). S1A S3A S1B Amortization Amortization Amortization O&M during O&M during Investments O&M during Investments Investments Required Required Required lifetime lifetime lifetime Province Total Total Total cost cost cost Adana 622 38 465 119 7,298 98 6,872 328 7,743 104 7,292 347 Ankara 521 19 440 62 18,760 175 17,978 607 19,534 175 18,749 610 Antalya 452 75 160 217 486 76 187 222 894 89 539 266 Aydın 672 64 414 193 1,772 88 1,410 275 2,125 98 1,718 309 Balıkesir 1,299 54 1,068 177 1,987 67 1,697 223 2,124 69 1,826 229 Bursa 1,058 47 859 152 1,702 63 1,434 205 2,046 70 1,743 232 Denizli 1,897 57 1,657 183 1,968 60 1,715 194 2,354 69 2,058 226 Diyarbakır 5,020 245 4,038 738 5,219 249 4,218 752 5,293 250 4,287 757 Erzurum 1,537 177 838 522 1,929 184 1,199 546 2,260 192 1,494 574 Eskişehir 208 28 99 81 298 32 171 95 325 32 197 97 Gaziantep 1,407 208 595 604 7,324 259 6,279 785 7,669 262 6,614 793 Hatay 2,340 230 1,428 682 3,070 244 2,097 729 3,285 247 2,295 743 İstanbul 53,855 610 51,213 2,032 54,097 613 51,439 2,044 47,842 562 45,415 1,865 İzmir 652 49 451 151 1,233 60 984 188 1,253 61 1,001 192 Kahramanmaraş 1,255 41 1,080 134 2,080 53 1,851 176 2,274 56 2,033 186 Kayseri 195 12 145 37 4,141 49 3,924 168 4,511 55 4,268 189 Kocaeli 4,308 64 4,035 210 4,308 64 4,035 210 4,240 63 3,973 205 Konya 1,799 80 1,464 256 1,825 81 1,485 259 1,476 74 1,166 236 Malatya 1,508 152 909 447 2,188 162 1,545 482 1,547 153 943 451 Manisa 701 59 463 179 1,948 83 1,605 261 2,345 92 1,961 292 Mardin 1,356 141 797 418 1,895 151 1,290 453 1,721 146 1,138 437 Mersin 961 86 620 255 1,428 100 1,024 303 1,274 95 892 286 Muğla 435 56 215 164 818 67 550 201 863 67 591 204 Ordu 755 65 495 195 915 70 633 212 727 63 472 191 Sakarya 348 32 221 96 741 42 566 133 926 46 734 146 Samsun 1,932 52 1,709 171 2,431 63 2,159 209 2,062 62 1,792 208 Şanlıurfa 2,875 278 1,774 823 4,272 300 3,073 899 3,814 291 2,656 868 Tekirdağ 1,086 105 668 312 1,616 114 1,161 341 1,565 112 1,119 334 Trabzon 1,027 90 668 269 1,475 100 1,072 303 1,705 104 1,280 320 Van 2,141 124 1,637 381 2,157 125 1,650 383 1,496 113 1,038 344 The following Figure G.2 shows the compared total costs and relative share represented by the sum of additional investments required, the cumulated incremental O&M for the lifetime of the investments and the amortization costs in provinces of Metropolitan Municipalities for scenario S1A, S1B, and S3A. 87 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Figure G.2. Comparison of Total Incremental Costs in MMs under Scenarios S1A, S1B, and S3A. Adana-S1A Adana-S1B Adana-S3A Ankara-S1A Ankara-S1B Ankara-S3A Antalya-S1A Ankara-S1B Antalya-S1B 19,534 mill EUR Antalya-S3A Ankara-S3A Aydı n-S1A 18,760 mill EUR Aydı n-S1B Aydı n-S3A Bal ıkesir-S1A Bal ıkesir-S1B Bal ıkesir-S3A Bursa-S1A Bursa-S1B Bursa-S3A Denizli-S1A Denizli-S1B Denizli-S3A Diyarbakır-S1A Diyarbakır-S1B Diyarbakır-S3A Erzurum-S1A Erzurum-S1B Erzurum-S3A Eskişehir-S1A Eskişehir-S1B Eskişehir-S3A Gaziantep-S1A Gaziantep-S1B Gaziantep-S3A Hatay-S1A Hatay-S1B İstanbul-S1A Hatay-S3A 53,855 mill EUR İstanbul-S1A İstanbul-S1B İstanbul-S3A İzmir-S1A İstanbul-S1B İzmir-S1B 47,842 mill EUR İzmir-S3A İstanbul-S3A Kahramanmaraş-S1A 54,097 mill EUR Kahramanmaraş-S1B Kahramanmaraş-S3A Kayseri-S1A Kayseri-S1B Kayseri-S3A Kocaeli-S1A Kocaeli-S1B Kocaeli-S3A Konya-S1A Konya-S1B Konya-S3A Malatya-S1A Malatya-S1B Malatya-S3A Manisa-S1A Manisa-S1B Manisa-S3A Mardin-S1A Mardin-S1B Mardin-S3A Mersin-S1A Mersin-S1B Mersin-S3A Muğla-S1A Muğla-S1B Muğla-S3A Ordu-S1A Ordu-S1B Ordu-S3A Sakarya-S1A Sakarya-S1B Sakarya-S3A Samsun-S1A Samsun-S1B Samsun-S3A Şanlı urfa-S1A Şanlı urfa-S1B Şanlı urfa-S3A Tekirdağ-S1A Tekirdağ-S1B Tekirdağ-S3A Trabzon-S1A Trabzon-S1B Trabzon-S3A Van-S1A Van-S1B Van-S3A 0 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000 million Euros 88 Annual Result S1A Cost Coverage Total Debt/ Annual Result S2A Cost Coverage Total Debt/ Annual Result S3A Cost Coverage Total Debt/ Municipality SKİ (Revenues- Costs) Ratio S1A Revenues (Revenues- Costs) Ratio S2A Revenues (Revenues- Costs) Ratio S3A Revenues (mil €) (Revenues/Cost) S1A (mil €) (Revenues/Cost) S2A (mil €) (Revenues/Cost) S3A Adana ASKİ -19,260 86% 117% -19,260 86% 117% -84,504 58% 168% Ankara ASKİ 147,674 144% 56% 147,460 144% 56% -29,833 96% 87% Antalya ASAT 53,275 133% 183% 52,831 133% 184% 52,831 133% 184% Aydın ASKİ -11,738 84% 504% -12,119 83% 506% -23,874 72% 542% Balıkesir BASKİ -19,177 59% 352% -19,652 58% 355% -26,600 55% 375% Bursa BUSKİ -10,540 111% 176% -10,706 111% 176% -17,805 107% 184% Denizli DESKİ -56,785 51% 248% -57,739 50% 253% -57,739 50% 253% Diyarbakır DİSKİ -49,706 62% 409% -49,706 62% 409% -51,881 61% 414% Erzurum ESKİ -35,981 51% 1098% -36,598 51% 1103% -40,161 48% 1117% Eskişehir ESKİ -0,124 100% 143% -1,322 97% 151% -1,322 97% 151% Gaziantep GASKİ -17,102 89% 361% -17,334 89% 362% -74,814 64% 400% Hatay HATSU -56,341 56% 502% -56,519 56% 502% -64,195 52% 521% İstanbul İSKİ -511,429 76% 83% -511,429 76% 83% -513,923 76% 84% İzmir İZSU 14,195 105% 83% 14,195 105% 83% 7,954 103% 87% Kahramanmaraş KASKİ -15,162 - - -15,578 - - -23,717 - - Kayseri KASKİ -2,363 97% 121% -3,003 96% 124% -41,144 63% 175% Kocaeli İSU -2,255 67% 151% -2,255 67% 151% -2,255 67% 151% Konya KOSKİ -8,453 93% 199% -8,795 93% 200% -8,795 93% 200% Malatya MASKİ -27,822 - - -28,750 - - -34,865 - - Manisa MASKİ -5,224 59% 177% -5,460 59% 178% -18,657 53% 212% Mardin MARSU -28,776 48% 658% -28,994 48% 660% -34,571 43% 696% Mersin MESKİ -2,511 55% 356% -3,030 55% 359% -8,074 53% 377% Muğla MUSKİ -1,088 98% 611% -1,088 98% 611% -5,570 92% 626% Ordu OSKİ 5,800 117% 238% 4,862 114% 245% 3,884 111% 250% Sakarya SASKİ -4,058 95% 459% -4,437 94% 461% -8,615 89% 474% Table G.8: Main Financial Indicators for SKIs for Scenarios 1A, 2A, and 3A Samsun SASKİ -35,380 67% 288% -35,380 67% 288% -40,922 64% 304% Şanlıurfa ŞUSKİ -161,034 25% 812% -161,034 25% 812% -175,630 23% 853% Tekirdağ TESKİ -31,857 65% 247% -31,857 65% 247% -37,378 62% 261% Appendixes Trabzon TİSKİ -14,189 43% 660% -15,378 42% 681% -19,171 39% 709% Van VASKİ -39,685 40% 699% -39,898 40% 702% -39,898 40% 702% 89 90 Annual Result S1B Cost Coverage Total Debt/ Annual Result S2B Cost Coverage Total Debt/ Annual Result S3B Cost Coverage Total Debt/ Municipality SKİ (Revenues- Costs) Ratio S1B Revenues (Revenues- Costs) Ratio S2B Revenues (Revenues- Costs) Ratio S3b Revenues (mil €) (Revenues/Cost) S1B (mil €) (Revenues/Cost) S2B (mil €) (Revenues/Cost) S3B Adana ASKİ -88,999 57% 173% -88,999 57% 173% -88,999 57% 173% Ankara ASKİ -36,778 95% 87% -36,992 95% 87% -36,992 95% 87% Antalya ASAT 47,907 129% 190% 47,463 128% 191% 47,463 128% 191% Aydın ASKİ -27,999 68% 559% -27,999 68% 559% -28,975 68% 562% Balıkesir BASKİ -27,983 54% 378% -28,241 54% 380% -28,241 54% 380% Bursa BUSKİ -21,643 105% 187% -21,643 105% 187% -21,643 105% 187% Denizli DESKİ -62,114 48% 269% -62,625 48% 272% -62,625 48% 272% Diyarbakır DİSKİ -52,675 61% 415% -52,907 61% 416% -52,907 61% 416% Erzurum ESKİ -43,906 46% 1139% -44,191 46% 1141% -44,191 46% 1141% Eskişehir ESKİ -1,612 97% 152% -1,869 96% 154% -1,869 96% 154% Gaziantep GASKİ -78,107 63% 401% -78,339 63% 402% -78,339 63% 402% Hatay HATSU -66,498 51% 526% -66,675 51% 527% -66,675 51% 527% İstanbul İSKİ -453,272 78% 80% -453,272 78% 80% -509,833 76% 84% İzmir İZSU 7,677 102% 87% 7,677 102% 87% 6,500 102% 88% Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Kahramanmaraş KASKİ -25,702 -   -25,913 -   -25,913 -   Kayseri KASKİ -45,017 60% 184% -45,122 60% 184% -45,122 60% 184% Kocaeli İSU -1,492 67% 150% -1,492 67% 150% -1,492 67% 150% Konya KOSKİ -5,014 96% 194% -5,944 95% 197% -10,010 92% 204% Malatya MASKİ -28,302 -   -29,078 -   -35,193 -   Manisa MASKİ -23,090 51% 226% -23,326 51% 227% -23,326 51% 227% Mardin MARSU -32,567 45% 678% -32,784 45% 681% -34,843 43% 696% Mersin MESKİ -6,197 54% 369% -6,716 54% 372% -9,699 52% 382% Muğla MUSKİ -6,052 92% 628% -6,052 92% 628% -6,052 92% 628% Ordu OSKİ 6,176 118% 234% 5,810 117% 237% 3,277 109% 254% Sakarya SASKİ -10,639 87% 479% -10,786 87% 480% -10,786 87% 480% Table G.9: Main Financial Indicators for SKIs for Scenarios 1B, 2B, and 3B Samsun SASKİ -37,608 66% 303% -37,608 66% 303% -43,666 62% 313% Şanlıurfa ŞUSKİ -170,667 24% 836% -170,667 24% 836% -176,030 23% 852% Tekirdağ TESKİ -36,732 62% 257% -36,732 62% 257% -37,734 61% 261% Trabzon TİSKİ -21,708 37% 733% -21,999 37% 738% -21,999 37% 738% Van VASKİ -32,906 45% 660% -33,119 45% 663% -38,896 41% 696% Appendixes Table G.10: Tariff Increase Margin and Additional Unit Operation Costs to be Covered for All Scenarios Affordable HH Additional Unit Operational Cost (€/m3) Municipality SKİ Tariff – HH Tariff Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Applied (€/m3) S1A S2A S3A S1B S2B S3B Adana ASKİ -0.256 0.029 0.029 0.432 0.459 0.459 0.459 Ankara ASKİ -0.374 0.010 0.010 0.407 0.425 0.425 0.425 Antalya ASAT -0.068 0.006 0.007 0.007 0.021 0.022 0.022 Aydın ASKİ 0.281 0.041 0.044 0.140 0.171 0.171 0.179 Balıkesir BASKİ -0.551 0.065 0.067 0.104 0.112 0.112 0.112 Bursa BUSKİ -0.755 0.071 0.072 0.119 0.144 0.144 0.144 Denizli DESKİ -0.670 0.179 0.186 0.186 0.223 0.226 0.226 Diyarbakır DİSKİ -0.392 0.469 0.469 0.490 0.498 0.500 0.500 Erzurum ESKİ 0.185 0.153 0.159 0.218 0.272 0.275 0.275 Eskişehir ESKİ 0.224 0.020 0.035 0.035 0.040 0.043 0.043 Gaziantep GASKİ -1.318 0.035 0.036 0.367 0.386 0.387 0.387 Hatay HATSU -0.228 0.089 0.090 0.130 0.143 0.143 0.143 İstanbul İSKİ -0.687 0.470 0.470 0.472 0.417 0.417 0.468 İzmir İZSU -0.091 0.020 0.020 0.043 0.043 0.043 0.048 Kahramanmaraş KASKİ 0.054 0.121 0.124 0.208 0.228 0.229 0.229 Kayseri KASKİ -0.496 0.014 0.018 0.376 0.409 0.409 0.409 Kocaeli İSU -0.454 0.233 0.233 0.233 0.229 0.229 0.229 Konya KOSKİ -0.061 0.155 0.157 0.157 0.123 0.129 0.165 Malatya MASKİ -0.120 0.201 0.214 0.342 0.209 0.219 0.347 Manisa MASKİ 0.055 0.057 0.191 0.234 0.236 0.236 Mardin MARSU -0.122 0.102 0.103 0.165 0.145 0.147 0.168 Mersin MESKİ -0.531 0.044 0.046 0.072 0.063 0.065 0.081 Muğla MUSKİ -0.207 0.021 0.021 0.054 0.059 0.059 0.059 Ordu OSKİ -0.351 0.063 0.070 0.080 0.060 0.063 0.086 Sakarya SASKİ 0.141 0.024 0.027 0.062 0.080 0.081 0.081 Samsun SASKİ -0.185 0.270 0.270 0.341 0.283 0.283 0.372 Şanlıurfa ŞUSKİ -0.106 0.141 0.141 0.244 0.211 0.211 0.248 Tekirdağ TESKİ 0.178 0.124 0.124 0.216 0.208 0.208 0.224 Trabzon TİSKİ 0.091 0.093 0.102 0.149 0.177 0.180 0.180 Van VASKİ -0.138 0.152 0.154 0.154 0.097 0.098 0.145 Source: Web-pages of each SKI; TURKSTAT Data: Income and Living Conditions Survey, Distribution of annual equalized household disposable income by quintiles ordered by equalized household disposable income, - Turkey, SR, Level 2, 2014-2015; Exchange rates: http://ec.europa.eu/budget/ inforeuro/index.cfm?fuseaction=currency_historique¤cy=504&Language=en Calculations: Authors * WSS tariff for Manisa SKI was not available; ** For affordable tariff calculation, the household size is set at 4 people and the water consumption is 133 l/cap./day; *** The tariff applied by SKI is the respective block tariff charged to customers located in the city center of relevant SKIs in 2016. 91 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation As seen in Table G.10 above, for the SKIs or MMs that apply a household tariff below the affordability level, it is possible to increase tariffs to cover some of the additional operational cost. It is however preferable to first look into the potential for performance improvement of existing assets because increasing tariffs may lead to aggravating existing inefficiencies and reducing the capacity to increase tariffs in the future. For the SKIs charging household tariffs above the affordable rate, further actions should be taken to improve the revenues, such as improving the revenue collection rate, improving operational efficiency (network efficiency, water loss reduction, energy efficiency, and so forth). There may be options to explore an alternative well-defined tariff scheme, which could combine the need to support the poor and to meet the cost-recovery tariff level. Such actions are likely to incur costs, which would further aggravate the situation of the less performing SKIs, and could in turn translate into a degradation of the service provision. 92 Appendixes Disaggregated Results: Results of Scenarios on the 51 Provinces not Structured as MMs Table G.11: Additional Investment Required in Provinces Outside of MMs for All Scenarios (EUR) Sensitivity A B Scenarios S1A S2A S3A S1B S2B S3B Total Values 1,894,006,914 2,060,851,799 2,223,147,566 2,132,938,841 2,243,748,439 2,313,602,173 Adıyaman 122,023,087 127,105,858 127,105,858 118,189,789 122,234,848 129,266,893 Afyonkarahisar 32,809,091 36,134,825 36,134,825 31,739,189 38,597,897 38,597,897 Ağrı 91,713,724 94,423,693 100,955,848 100,073,292 100,073,292 102,286,284 Aksaray 60,702,713 61,394,278 61,394,278 44,541,710 50,415,859 60,952,282 Amasya 8,731,612 9,696,515 14,069,065 19,353,943 19,353,943 19,353,943 Ardahan 17,126,139 19,121,004 19,121,004 18,719,379 19,925,012 19,925,012 Artvin 34,809,469 36,280,445 36,280,445 38,740,187 39,252,712 39,252,712 Bartın 5,988,964 8,084,837 9,996,346 9,653,455 9,996,346 9,996,346 Batman 132,966,746 134,265,461 134,265,461 135,172,866 135,729,743 135,729,743 Bayburt 17,703,029 18,938,073 18,938,073 19,025,238 20,260,282 20,260,282 Bilecik 7,122,363 9,459,256 13,133,973 13,968,951 15,415,364 15,415,364 Bingöl 50,478,157 53,057,553 58,618,541 56,731,969 58,618,541 58,618,541 Bitlis 56,152,751 57,892,077 57,892,077 54,316,754 56,441,588 58,461,821 Bolu 5,036,657 7,709,953 15,497,841 7,759,720 10,122,006 17,909,895 Burdur 21,314,076 23,562,489 23,562,489 20,312,772 21,338,531 26,811,202 Çanakkale 21,064,330 23,868,242 26,446,467 23,677,427 26,222,349 28,800,574 Çankırı 7,010,197 9,306,883 11,507,335 12,038,255 12,038,255 12,038,255 Çorum 9,643,316 11,808,628 24,909,832 29,338,103 30,021,578 30,021,578 Düzce 6,851,859 10,879,467 10,879,467 13,268,533 13,268,533 13,268,533 Edirne 83,101,743 86,306,866 89,591,421 87,690,180 89,591,421 89,591,421 Elazığ 136,800,832 143,866,262 150,169,900 136,800,832 143,866,262 150,169,900 Erzincan 56,514,569 64,206,195 66,845,212 58,691,225 64,206,195 66,845,212 Giresun 52,827,437 58,889,519 61,165,216 57,762,276 61,708,108 63,983,805 Gümüşhane 6,784,861 10,485,978 10,485,978 9,377,475 11,322,649 11,322,649 Hakkari 53,130,272 55,614,758 59,431,227 56,626,225 58,079,705 60,113,098 Iğdır 36,361,379 39,295,610 41,707,333 36,361,379 39,295,610 41,707,333 Isparta 9,344,856 12,697,807 23,840,427 22,547,648 27,861,582 27,861,582 Karabük 5,806,947 7,743,219 13,832,990 6,540,624 7,743,219 13,832,990 Karaman 22,303,555 23,572,954 23,572,954 19,621,519 21,757,164 24,949,914 Kars 46,262,042 48,239,581 50,499,404 50,048,560 52,026,098 52,026,098 Kastamonu 12,256,180 18,191,167 20,423,308 19,818,819 23,272,656 23,272,656 Kırıkkale 8,364,094 10,854,628 10,854,628 11,221,591 11,606,778 11,606,778 Kırklareli 75,620,460 79,341,046 79,341,046 78,182,859 79,341,046 79,341,046 Kırşehir 10,590,465 12,466,929 12,466,929 13,058,493 13,921,162 13,921,162 Kilis 25,633,526 26,211,854 28,700,744 25,802,840 26,211,854 28,700,744 Kütahya 7,293,000 13,983,560 16,005,088 16,427,114 19,797,800 19,797,800 Muş 76,335,049 81,848,839 84,298,472 80,932,488 84,141,404 86,591,037 Nevşehir 8,957,307 13,652,917 20,147,692 24,164,356 24,779,869 24,779,869 Niğde 38,402,701 40,731,242 40,731,242 34,069,594 40,731,242 40,731,242 Osmaniye 39,492,849 42,610,460 56,770,265 59,598,458 60,353,911 60,353,911 Rize 39,951,472 43,848,915 46,160,271 46,152,510 49,352,868 49,352,868 Siirt 71,831,243 75,492,820 75,492,820 73,591,146 75,492,820 75,492,820 Sinop 15,622,895 16,986,749 16,986,749 18,403,391 18,610,505 18,610,505 Sivas 25,967,417 30,020,312 44,335,346 47,969,228 49,366,877 49,366,877 Şırnak 106,493,454 112,642,796 119,418,794 115,480,448 120,420,723 120,420,723 Tokat 15,980,037 21,993,251 23,887,336 25,172,831 26,892,336 26,892,336 Tunceli 20,870,472 23,467,620 23,467,620 24,227,485 26,483,035 26,483,035 Uşak 9,146,048 12,168,021 12,168,021 13,173,358 13,495,961 13,495,961 Yalova 7,205,424 7,205,424 7,205,424 3,589,493 3,833,335 3,833,335 Yozgat 23,169,401 29,073,947 36,376,456 39,368,404 40,867,256 40,867,256 Zonguldak 36,336,648 44,151,015 56,058,026 53,844,457 57,990,311 60,319,055 93 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Figure G.3. Existing versus Required Investment Costs in Provinces Outside Metropolitan Municipalities in accordance with Scenario S1A Zonguldak S1A Yalova Tunceli Şırnak Sinop Rize Niğde Muş Kilis Kırklareli Kastamonu Karaman Isparta Hakkari Giresun Elazığ Düzce Çankır ı Burdur Bitlis Bilecik Batman Artvin Amasya Ağrı Adıyaman 0 50 100 150 200 250 million EUR 94 Appendixes Figure G.4. Existing versus Required Investment Costs in Provinces Outside Metropolitan Municipalities in accordance with Scenario S3A Zonguldak S3A Yalova Tunceli Şırnak Sinop Rize Niğde Muş Kilis Kırklareli Kastamonu Karaman Isparta Hakkari Giresun Elazığ Düzce Çankır ı Burdur Bitlis Bilecik Batman Artvin Amasya Ağrı Adıyaman 0 50 100 150 200 250 million EUR 95 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Figure G.5. Existing versus Required Investment Costs in Provinces Outside Metropolitan Municipalities in accordance with Scenario S1B Zonguldak S1B Yalova Tunceli Şırnak Sinop Rize Niğde Muş Kilis Kırklareli Kastamonu Karaman Isparta Hakkari Giresun Elazığ Düzce Çankır ı Burdur Bitlis Bilecik Batman Artvin Amasya Ağrı Adıyaman 0 50 100 150 200 250 million EUR 96 Appendixes Table G.12: Yearly O&M Costs in Provinces Outside of MMs for All Scenarios (EUR/year) Sensitivity A B Scenarios S1A S2A S3A S1B S2B S3B Total Values 129,339,890 154,201,044 230,026,610 207,477,521 223,771,273 258,074,916 Adıyaman 9,980,834 10,741,213 10,741,213 6,776,189 7,389,065 11,098,561 Afyonkarahisar 3,510,938 3,999,819 3,999,819 3,606,413 4,632,322 4,632,322 Ağrı 4,412,372 4,834,124 7,848,256 7,563,236 7,563,236 8,440,264 Aksaray 7,512,183 7,616,007 7,616,007 1,402,042 2,277,173 7,267,377 Amasya 1,988,617 2,131,939 3,874,626 5,410,726 5,410,726 5,410,726 Ardahan 488,456 788,573 788,573 843,044 1,019,447 1,019,447 Artvin 1,532,974 1,771,448 1,771,448 2,552,432 2,635,685 2,635,685 Bartın 903,850 1,207,660 1,934,532 1,952,451 2,003,794 2,003,794 Batman 12,876,003 13,069,584 13,069,584 13,423,478 13,503,680 13,503,680 Bayburt 671,390 853,495 853,495 1,135,896 1,318,002 1,318,002 Bilecik 1,627,840 1,983,442 3,365,705 3,806,087 4,031,906 4,031,906 Bingöl 1,050,456 1,436,653 4,070,419 3,915,621 4,197,845 4,197,845 Bitlis 4,221,687 4,484,762 4,484,762 3,567,080 3,889,517 4,669,783 Bolu 94,330 496,512 4,184,971 753,392 1,109,873 4,798,332 Burdur 2,778,394 3,113,265 3,113,265 2,047,811 2,214,457 3,957,908 Çanakkale 3,190,124 3,519,916 5,029,013 3,931,317 4,224,338 5,733,435 Çankırı 1,086,255 1,429,545 2,300,199 2,521,223 2,521,223 2,521,223 Çorum 1,047,072 1,378,622 7,583,545 9,263,053 9,366,538 9,366,538 Düzce 128,110 807,742 807,742 1,413,726 1,413,726 1,413,726 Edirne 3,008,386 3,490,391 5,412,920 5,328,459 5,600,939 5,600,939 Elazığ 6,966,788 8,087,986 12,760,309 6,966,788 8,087,986 12,760,309 Erzincan 1,956,249 3,127,963 4,227,716 2,289,669 3,127,963 4,227,716 Giresun 3,721,052 4,586,014 5,918,035 4,862,023 5,389,115 6,721,135 Gümüşhane 506,962 1,064,856 1,064,856 1,033,811 1,324,630 1,324,630 Hakkari 2,281,954 2,690,181 4,141,921 3,368,411 3,605,904 4,392,692 Iğdır 1,465,054 1,945,835 2,925,294 1,465,054 1,945,835 2,925,294 Isparta 697,759 1,214,094 6,491,403 6,885,866 7,703,290 7,703,290 Karabük 60,412 370,578 3,254,783 189,233 370,578 3,254,783 Karaman 4,324,285 4,513,663 4,513,663 2,438,093 2,753,149 4,621,943 Kars 1,877,149 2,172,943 3,073,871 3,297,491 3,593,286 3,593,286 Kastamonu 2,005,665 2,750,658 4,057,184 4,505,682 4,938,247 4,938,247 Kırıkkale 428,865 817,143 817,143 970,439 1,029,454 1,029,454 Kırklareli 945,306 1,488,600 1,488,600 1,328,374 1,488,600 1,488,600 Kırşehir 573,888 853,523 853,523 1,156,062 1,281,139 1,281,139 Kilis 1,280,167 1,355,799 2,375,732 1,301,303 1,355,799 2,375,732 Kütahya 1,316,900 2,314,838 3,095,746 3,698,768 4,196,884 4,196,884 Muş 2,815,278 3,628,102 4,627,398 3,845,423 4,323,317 5,322,613 Nevşehir 472,505 1,192,135 3,365,827 4,423,446 4,514,187 4,514,187 Niğde 5,841,972 6,200,863 6,200,863 5,192,339 6,200,863 6,200,863 Osmaniye 2,145,287 2,619,356 9,162,873 10,440,897 10,547,562 10,547,562 Rize 3,073,382 3,639,838 4,992,730 5,611,825 6,090,364 6,090,364 Siirt 5,432,283 6,021,473 6,021,473 5,725,070 6,021,473 6,021,473 Sinop 1,430,624 1,639,951 1,639,951 2,106,658 2,134,212 2,134,212 Sivas 1,351,317 1,958,672 10,690,563 12,177,959 12,379,292 12,379,292 Şırnak 4,765,353 5,730,632 8,871,444 8,714,428 9,502,248 9,502,248 Tokat 1,907,167 2,816,689 3,535,086 4,335,135 4,593,243 4,593,243 Tunceli 313,082 703,318 703,318 1,178,065 1,517,189 1,517,189 Uşak 483,013 940,872 940,872 1,256,343 1,304,081 1,304,081 Yalova 1,137,289 1,137,289 1,137,289 443,357 471,688 471,688 Yozgat 2,235,880 3,113,100 5,530,857 6,778,149 6,999,266 6,999,266 Zonguldak 3,416,731 4,349,369 8,696,195 8,277,680 8,656,938 10,020,008 97 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Table G.13: Incremental O&M Costs Projected over the Useful Life of Investments in Provinces Outside of Metropolitan Municipalities for All Scenarios (EUR) Sensitivity A B Scenarios S1A S2A S3A S1B S2B S3B Total Values 14,589,134,425 17,393,394,728 25,946,281,048 23,402,814,358 25,240,698,582 29,110,042,059 Adıyaman 1,125,806,761 1,211,575,171 1,211,575,171 764,332,882 833,463,366 1,251,882,930 Afyonkarahisar 396,022,843 451,167,043 451,167,043 406,792,133 522,511,358 522,511,358 Ağrı 497,701,742 545,274,000 885,258,714 853,109,353 853,109,353 952,035,387 Aksaray 847,350,726 859,061,711 859,061,711 158,145,992 256,857,929 819,737,340 Amasya 224,309,822 240,476,012 437,045,681 610,312,957 610,312,957 610,312,957 Ardahan 55,096,320 88,948,579 88,948,579 95,092,718 114,990,467 114,990,467 Artvin 172,914,671 199,813,763 199,813,763 287,906,302 297,296,972 297,296,972 Bartın 101,951,497 136,220,295 218,209,189 220,230,319 226,021,729 226,021,729 Batman 1,452,372,758 1,474,208,160 1,474,208,160 1,514,126,261 1,523,172,832 1,523,172,832 Bayburt 75,730,647 96,271,580 96,271,580 128,125,532 148,666,466 148,666,466 Bilecik 183,615,219 223,726,093 379,640,969 429,314,716 454,786,366 454,786,366 Bingöl 118,488,138 162,050,004 459,130,514 441,669,813 473,503,811 473,503,811 Bitlis 476,193,012 505,867,055 505,867,055 402,355,461 438,725,384 526,736,919 Bolu 10,640,158 56,005,040 472,051,588 84,980,265 125,190,225 541,236,773 Burdur 313,394,153 351,166,522 351,166,522 230,986,660 249,783,802 446,439,641 Çanakkale 359,835,953 397,035,472 567,256,925 443,440,296 476,492,051 646,713,503 Çankırı 122,526,136 161,248,153 259,455,218 284,386,015 284,386,015 284,386,015 Çorum 118,106,398 155,504,252 855,400,096 1,044,843,338 1,056,516,157 1,056,516,157 Düzce 14,450,371 91,110,737 91,110,737 159,463,833 159,463,833 159,463,833 Edirne 339,336,527 393,705,203 610,560,452 601,033,482 631,768,363 631,768,363 Elazığ 785,831,886 912,299,452 1,439,322,847 785,831,886 912,299,452 1,439,322,847 Erzincan 220,658,795 352,824,449 476,873,150 258,267,458 352,824,449 476,873,150 Giresun 419,722,959 517,288,049 667,535,768 548,420,954 607,875,300 758,123,018 Gümüşhane 57,183,758 120,112,434 120,112,434 116,610,697 149,414,059 149,414,059 Hakkari 257,397,314 303,443,948 467,195,685 379,946,213 406,734,681 495,481,880 Iğdır 165,253,543 219,484,057 329,964,054 165,253,543 219,484,057 329,964,054 Isparta 78,704,975 136,946,029 732,209,889 776,704,124 868,906,957 868,906,957 Karabük 6,814,306 41,800,027 367,129,334 21,344,870 41,800,027 367,129,334 Karaman 487,765,781 509,127,056 509,127,056 275,009,296 310,546,603 521,340,680 Kars 211,736,473 245,101,179 346,723,013 371,946,647 405,311,353 405,311,353 Kastamonu 226,232,715 310,265,594 457,637,595 508,226,860 557,018,769 557,018,769 Kırıkkale 48,374,643 92,171,148 92,171,148 109,462,516 116,119,189 116,119,189 Kırklareli 106,627,527 167,909,400 167,909,400 149,836,387 167,909,400 167,909,400 Kırşehir 64,732,770 96,274,717 96,274,717 130,400,128 144,508,507 144,508,507 Kilis 144,398,863 152,929,833 267,975,118 146,782,901 152,929,833 267,975,118 Kütahya 148,542,212 261,106,516 349,190,402 417,209,424 473,395,366 473,395,366 Muş 317,554,573 409,238,542 521,955,945 433,751,719 487,656,615 600,374,018 Nevşehir 53,297,137 134,469,125 379,654,731 498,950,882 509,186,103 509,186,103 Niğde 658,956,140 699,437,913 699,437,913 585,679,557 699,437,913 699,437,913 Osmaniye 241,981,688 295,455,134 1,033,543,343 1,177,700,418 1,189,731,991 1,189,731,991 Rize 346,667,855 410,562,289 563,164,288 632,996,332 686,973,940 686,973,940 Siirt 612,744,557 679,203,305 679,203,305 645,769,977 679,203,305 679,203,305 Sinop 161,369,884 184,981,322 184,981,322 237,624,471 240,732,452 240,732,452 Sivas 152,424,362 220,932,086 1,205,862,026 1,373,635,624 1,396,345,371 1,396,345,371 Şırnak 537,516,914 646,397,339 1,000,671,143 982,960,137 1,071,823,850 1,071,823,850 Tokat 215,122,459 317,713,651 398,746,635 488,989,630 518,103,381 518,103,381 Tunceli 35,314,682 79,332,078 79,332,078 132,882,091 171,134,141 171,134,141 Uşak 54,482,407 106,127,443 106,127,443 141,711,549 147,096,304 147,096,304 Yalova 128,282,660 128,282,660 128,282,660 50,009,334 53,204,917 53,204,917 Yozgat 252,200,224 351,147,937 623,863,383 764,553,984 789,495,326 789,495,326 Zonguldak 385,396,509 490,595,169 980,903,557 933,696,420 976,475,536 1,130,225,549 98 Appendixes Table G.14: Summary of Results for All Scenarios Representing the Amortization Costs in Provinces Outside of Metropolitan Municipalities (EUR) Sensitivity A B Scenarios S1A S2A S3A S1B S2B S3B Total Values 5,671,610,720 6,252,128,849 6,817,489,934 6,505,085,223 6,890,075,240 7,134,347,069 Adıyaman 364,577,616 382,351,583 382,351,583 351,172,940 365,318,125 389,908,513 Afyonkarahisar 105,369,792 116,999,566 116,999,566 101,628,445 125,612,692 125,612,692 Ağrı 271,212,885 280,689,390 303,531,708 300,445,496 300,445,496 308,184,118 Aksaray 187,034,526 189,452,861 189,452,861 130,521,044 151,062,382 187,907,244 Amasya 29,832,083 33,206,255 48,496,647 66,977,359 66,977,359 66,977,359 Ardahan 50,038,811 57,014,665 57,014,665 55,610,220 59,826,204 59,826,204 Artvin 103,789,483 108,933,347 108,933,347 117,534,830 119,327,078 119,327,078 Bartın 19,294,352 26,623,421 33,307,784 32,108,730 33,307,784 33,307,784 Batman 395,556,471 400,097,954 400,097,954 403,271,059 405,218,408 405,218,408 Bayburt 52,180,237 56,499,066 56,499,066 56,803,874 61,122,703 61,122,703 Bilecik 24,564,405 32,736,297 45,586,431 48,506,266 53,564,234 53,564,234 Bingöl 146,669,423 155,689,326 175,135,570 168,538,405 175,135,570 175,135,570 Bitlis 170,385,614 176,467,873 176,467,873 163,965,310 171,395,650 178,460,210 Bolu 14,487,546 23,835,805 51,069,307 24,009,836 32,270,525 59,504,027 Burdur 67,154,287 75,016,773 75,016,773 63,652,823 67,239,803 86,377,211 Çanakkale 67,457,631 76,871,739 85,887,546 76,595,382 85,103,826 94,119,633 Çankırı 22,747,655 30,778,947 38,473,719 40,330,294 40,330,294 40,330,294 Çorum 30,611,291 38,183,180 83,996,839 99,482,079 101,872,126 101,872,126 Düzce 19,708,829 33,792,990 33,792,990 42,147,325 42,147,325 42,147,325 Edirne 242,346,716 253,554,724 265,040,497 258,392,041 265,040,497 265,040,497 Elazığ 400,826,398 425,533,528 447,576,748 400,826,398 425,533,528 447,576,748 Erzincan 165,022,025 191,918,905 201,147,295 172,633,583 191,918,905 201,147,295 Giresun 159,063,948 179,840,540 187,798,435 176,320,608 189,696,877 197,654,772 Gümüşhane 20,867,748 33,810,201 33,810,201 29,933,872 36,735,959 36,735,959 Hakkari 157,081,638 165,769,648 179,115,474 169,306,652 174,389,333 181,499,913 Iğdır 106,846,795 117,107,522 125,541,086 106,846,795 117,107,522 125,541,086 Isparta 29,210,295 40,935,244 79,899,921 75,379,195 93,961,514 93,961,514 Karabük 16,703,225 23,474,181 44,769,529 19,268,822 23,474,181 44,769,529 Karaman 69,814,179 74,253,147 74,253,147 60,435,356 67,903,503 79,068,245 Kars 136,664,532 143,579,794 151,482,181 149,905,621 156,820,883 156,820,883 Kastamonu 39,037,237 58,947,463 66,753,045 65,061,134 76,716,944 76,716,944 Kırıkkale 25,241,305 33,950,464 33,950,464 35,233,699 36,580,661 36,580,661 Kırklareli 217,590,420 230,600,953 230,600,953 226,550,883 230,600,953 230,600,953 Kırşehir 31,871,131 38,432,949 38,432,949 40,501,591 43,518,260 43,518,260 Kilis 76,059,030 78,081,389 86,784,799 76,651,107 78,081,389 86,784,799 Kütahya 24,339,049 47,735,297 54,804,387 56,280,172 68,067,140 68,067,140 Muş 224,657,131 243,938,328 252,504,461 240,733,937 251,955,209 260,521,341 Nevşehir 26,821,450 43,241,551 65,953,156 79,999,047 82,151,436 82,151,436 Niğde 121,061,746 129,204,428 129,204,428 105,909,284 129,204,428 129,204,428 Osmaniye 117,765,678 128,667,666 178,183,150 188,073,072 190,714,818 190,714,818 Rize 120,430,038 134,059,022 142,141,611 142,114,475 153,305,820 153,305,820 Siirt 213,545,597 226,349,783 226,349,783 219,699,812 226,349,783 226,349,783 Sinop 48,696,614 53,465,878 53,465,878 58,419,742 59,143,998 59,143,998 Sivas 78,268,248 92,440,835 142,499,139 155,206,479 160,093,922 160,093,922 Şırnak 313,617,842 335,121,502 358,816,518 345,044,501 362,320,169 362,320,169 Tokat 50,629,491 71,657,126 78,280,560 82,775,815 88,788,757 88,788,757 Tunceli 60,032,260 69,114,238 69,114,238 71,771,414 79,658,856 79,658,856 Uşak 27,598,222 38,165,774 38,165,774 41,681,340 42,809,450 42,809,450 Yalova 23,563,444 23,563,444 23,563,444 11,464,906 12,317,598 12,317,598 Yozgat 72,514,728 93,162,357 118,698,534 129,161,090 134,402,434 134,402,434 Zonguldak 111,149,622 137,209,932 176,675,918 170,201,064 183,432,932 191,576,327 99 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Table G.15: Total Additional Costs and Breakdown by Incremental Investments, Total O&M and Amortization Costs for Provinces Outside MMs for Scenarios S1A, S3A and S1B (in EUR million) S1A S3A S1B Amortization cost Amortization cost Amortization cost Cumulated O&M Cumulated O&M Cumulated O&M during lifetime during lifetime during lifetime Investments Investments Investments Required Required Required  Province Total Total Total cost cost cost Adıyaman 1,612 122 1,126 365 1,721 127 1,212 382 1,234 118 764 351 Afyonkarahisar 534 33 396 105 604 36 451 117 540 32 407 102 Ağrı 861 92 498 271 1,290 101 885 304 1,254 100 853 300 Aksaray 1,095 61 847 187 1,110 61 859 189 333 45 158 131 Amasya 263 9 224 30 500 14 437 48 697 19 610 67 Ardahan 122 17 55 50 165 19 89 57 169 19 95 56 Artvin 312 35 173 104 345 36 200 109 444 39 288 118 Bartın 127 6 102 19 262 10 218 33 262 10 220 32 Batman 1,981 133 1,452 396 2,009 134 1,474 400 2,053 135 1,514 403 Bayburt 146 18 76 52 172 19 96 56 204 19 128 57 Bilecik 215 7 184 25 438 13 380 46 492 14 429 49 Bingöl 316 50 118 147 693 59 459 175 667 57 442 169 Bitlis 703 56 476 170 740 58 506 176 621 54 402 164 Bolu 30 5 11 14 539 15 472 51 117 8 85 24 Burdur 402 21 313 67 450 24 351 75 315 20 231 64 Çanakkale 448 21 360 67 680 26 567 86 544 24 443 77 Çankırı 152 7 123 23 309 12 259 38 337 12 284 40 Çorum 158 10 118 31 964 25 855 84 1,174 29 1,045 99 Düzce 41 7 14 20 136 11 91 34 215 13 159 42 Edirne 665 83 339 242 965 90 611 265 947 88 601 258 Elazığ 1,323 137 786 401 2,037 150 1,439 448 1,323 137 786 401 Erzincan 442 57 221 165 745 67 477 201 490 59 258 173 Giresun 632 53 420 159 916 61 668 188 783 58 548 176 Gümüşhane 85 7 57 21 164 10 120 34 156 9 117 30 Hakkari 468 53 257 157 706 59 467 179 606 57 380 169 Iğdır 308 36 165 107 497 42 330 126 308 36 165 107 Isparta 117 9 79 29 836 24 732 80 875 23 777 75 Karabük 29 6 7 17 426 14 367 45 47 7 21 19 Karaman 580 22 488 70 607 24 509 74 355 20 275 60 Kars 395 46 212 137 549 50 347 151 572 50 372 150 Kastamonu 278 12 226 39 545 20 458 67 593 20 508 65 Kırıkkale 82 8 48 25 137 11 92 34 156 11 109 35 Kırklareli 400 76 107 218 478 79 168 231 455 78 150 227 Kırşehir 107 11 65 32 147 12 96 38 184 13 130 41 Kilis 246 26 144 76 383 29 268 87 249 26 147 77 Kütahya 180 7 149 24 420 16 349 55 490 16 417 56 Muş 619 76 318 225 859 84 522 253 755 81 434 241 Nevşehir 89 9 53 27 466 20 380 66 603 24 499 80 Niğde 818 38 659 121 869 41 699 129 726 34 586 106 Osmaniye 399 39 242 118 1,268 57 1,034 178 1,425 60 1,178 188 Rize 507 40 347 120 751 46 563 142 821 46 633 142 Siirt 898 72 613 214 981 75 679 226 939 74 646 220 Sinop 226 16 161 49 255 17 185 53 314 18 238 58 Sivas 257 26 152 78 1,393 44 1,206 142 1,577 48 1,374 155 Şırnak 958 106 538 314 1,479 119 1,001 359 1,443 115 983 345 Tokat 282 16 215 51 501 24 399 78 597 25 489 83 Tunceli 116 21 35 60 172 23 79 69 229 24 133 72 Uşak 91 9 54 28 156 12 106 38 197 13 142 42 Yalova 159 7 128 24 159 7 128 24 65 4 50 11 Yozgat 348 23 252 73 779 36 624 119 933 39 765 129 Zonguldak 533 36 385 111 1,214 56 981 177 1,158 54 934 170 100 Appendixes Appendix H: Results of Cost Estimates in River Basins and Financial Impacts per Person The following Tables H.1 through H.7 and Figures H.1 and H.2 show the existing assets, incremental required investments, incremental O&M costs, amortization of incremental assets, and financial impact per capita for each river basin according to the six scenarios assessed. It should be mentioned again that for the Meriç-Ergene, Asi, Dicle-Fırat, Çoruh, and Aras river basins there was no publicly available data from RBPAPs. This means the existing infrastructure for settlements within these basins are potentially underestimated due to lack of data. The repayment for loans in the below tables show the amount of money to be paid back, assuming all the required investments (incremental assets) are financed by a loan. For the purposes of this calculation it is assumed that; an IlBank loan with an interest rate of 7 percent and a 15-year repayment period was used for the financing of new investment, and that the replacement costs for equipment in future are to be covered by the relevant SKI or its Metropolitan Municipality using its own resources. Finally, the financial impact of the additional investments per person is calculated by taking into account the incremental O&M costs, amortization costs for incremental investments, and repayment for loans over the useful life of investments, which is 50 years. Table H.1: Summary of Results for Scenario S1A in River Basins O&M (EUR/year) in Urban Centers Financial Impact Total Population Existing Assets for loans (EUR (EUR million) (EUR/cap/yr) (EUR million) (EUR million) Amortization (EUR million) Incremental Incremental Incremental Incremental O&M for 50 Repayment per person million) Assets assets Basin years AKARÇAY 476.293 152 32 5 528 104 53 29 ANTALYA 1.686.696 304 50 1 118 144 83 4 ARAS 477.903 1 168 7 740 495 281 63 ASİ 855.285 15 259 14 1.583 768 434 65 BATI AKDENİZ 584.660 138 79 3 375 235 133 25 BATI KARADENİZ 1.097.059 315 76 6 683 231 127 19 BURDUR 136.265 42 15 3 317 51 25 58 BÜYÜK MENDERES 1.618.944 419 127 18 2.015 392 214 32 CEYHAN 1.422.466 309 99 15 1.662 310 165 30 ÇORUH 180.480 0 75 3 287 222 126 70 DICLE-FIRAT 8.253.383 57 2.085 131 14.722 6.162 3.493 59 DOĞU AKDENİZ 1.441.182 238 93 6 645 276 156 15 DOĞU KARADENİZ 1.580.805 335 255 17 1.966 768 428 40 GEDİZ 1.109.908 282 57 3 331 169 96 11 KIZILIRMAK 3.103.800 751 94 10 1.156 296 157 10 KONYA CLOSED 2.120.197 364 182 29 3.275 575 305 39 KUZEY EGE 588.204 159 51 8 959 165 85 41 KÜÇÜK MENDERES 3.334.304 505 56 3 308 166 93 3 MARMARA 16.991.655 1.898 746 503 56.788 2.475 1.249 71 MERİÇ-ERGENE 863.380 43 242 6 660 702 406 41 SAKARYA 7.201.109 1.124 112 9 992 342 187 4 SEYHAN 1.685.613 213 27 2 233 84 46 4 SUSURLUK 2.580.204 463 37 7 821 124 62 8 VAN GÖLÜ 627.806 87 124 17 1.872 386 208 79 YEŞİLIRMAK 1.780.457 500 88 19 2.179 287 148 29 101 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Table H.2: Summary of Results for Scenario S2A in River Basins O&M (EUR/year) in Urban Centers Financial Impact Total Population Repayment for Existing Assets (EUR million) (EUR million) (EUR million) Amortization (EUR million) (EUR million) Incremental Incremental Incremental Incremental O&M for 50 per person (EUR/cap) Assets assets Basin loans years AKARÇAY 152 32 5 528 104 53 29 152 ANTALYA 304 56 2 222 165 93 6 304 ARAS 1 175 8 861 519 293 70 1 ASİ 15 260 14 1.599 772 436 66 15 BATI AKDENİZ 138 80 3 395 239 135 26 138 BATI KARADENİZ 314 99 9 1.032 308 165 27 314 BURDUR 42 15 3 317 51 25 58 42 BÜYÜK MENDERES 419 137 19 2.180 425 229 35 419 CEYHAN 309 103 15 1.740 326 173 31 309 ÇORUH 0 80 3 372 238 134 83 0 DICLE-FIRAT 57 2.139 139 15.677 6.351 3.584 62 57 DOĞU AKDENİZ 238 97 6 702 289 162 16 238 DOĞU KARADENİZ 335 274 20 2.274 831 459 45 335 GEDİZ 282 59 3 367 176 99 12 282 KIZILIRMAK 751 117 14 1.549 376 196 14 751 KONYA CLOSED 364 182 29 3.275 575 305 39 364 KUZEY EGE 159 51 9 960 166 85 41 159 KÜÇÜK MENDERES 505 56 3 308 166 93 3 505 MARMARA 1.898 750 504 56.843 2.489 1.257 71 1.898 MERİÇ-ERGENE 43 249 7 769 725 416 44 43 SAKARYA 1.124 125 11 1.223 387 209 5 1.124 SEYHAN 213 29 2 263 90 49 5 213 SUSURLUK 463 43 8 917 144 71 9 463 VAN GÖLÜ 87 124 17 1.872 386 208 79 87 YEŞİLIRMAK 500 103 22 2.427 338 172 33 500 102 Appendixes Table H.3: Summary of Results for Scenario S3A in River Basins Repayment for Existing Assets Urban Centers person (EUR/ Population in (EUR million) (EUR million) (EUR million) Amortization (EUR million) (EUR million) Incremental Incremental Incremental Incremental O&M (EUR/ O&M for 50 Impact per Financial Assets assets Basin loans years year) Total cap) AKARÇAY 152 32 5 528 104 53 29 152 ANTALYA 304 67 7 817 204 112 13 304 ARAS 1 182 10 1.172 543 304 85 1 ASİ 15 275 21 2.333 824 461 85 15 BATI AKDENİZ 137 91 6 729 276 153 40 137 BATI KARADENİZ 311 118 17 1.930 375 198 46 311 BURDUR 42 15 3 317 51 25 58 42 BÜYÜK MENDERES 419 157 27 3.072 496 263 47 419 CEYHAN 309 137 33 3.753 446 230 62 309 ÇORUH 0 80 3 372 238 134 83 0 DICLE-FIRAT 57 2.270 231 26.067 6.809 3.803 89 57 DOĞU AKDENİZ 236 109 10 1.079 330 183 22 236 DOĞU KARADENİZ 335 294 30 3.409 901 492 61 335 GEDİZ 282 80 12 1.402 248 133 32 282 KIZILIRMAK 751 193 65 7.370 643 324 54 751 KONYA CLOSED 364 182 29 3.275 575 305 39 364 KUZEY EGE 159 55 10 1.150 181 93 48 159 KÜÇÜK MENDERES 505 66 7 824 202 111 7 505 MARMARA 1.898 764 512 57.738 2.539 1.280 72 1.898 MERİÇ-ERGENE 43 254 9 1.068 743 425 52 43 SAKARYA 1.124 293 170 19.226 975 491 57 1.124 SEYHAN 213 80 54 6.140 267 133 78 213 SUSURLUK 463 69 18 2.086 235 115 19 463 VAN GÖLÜ 87 124 17 1.872 386 208 79 87 YEŞİLIRMAK 500 125 31 3.521 414 209 47 500 103 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Table H.4: Summary of Results for Scenario S1B in River Basins Repayment for Existing Assets Urban Centers person (EUR/ Population in (EUR million) (EUR million) (EUR million) Amortization (EUR million) (EUR million) Incremental Incremental Incremental Incremental O&M (EUR/ O&M for 50 Impact per Financial Assets assets Basin loans years year) Total cap) AKARÇAY 152 21 2 217 67 36 13 152 ANTALYA 304 73 9 1.062 224 122 17 304 ARAS 1 176 9 1.039 525 295 78 1 ASİ 15 280 23 2.582 841 469 91 15 BATI AKDENİZ 134 107 10 1.152 328 178 57 134 BATI KARADENİZ 311 111 15 1.664 352 186 40 311 BURDUR 42 5 0 20 14 8 6 42 BÜYÜK MENDERES 419 181 34 3.889 579 303 59 419 CEYHAN 309 144 37 4.170 469 242 69 309 ÇORUH 0 82 4 473 244 137 95 0 DICLE-FIRAT 57 2.213 213 23.989 6.609 3.707 83 57 DOĞU AKDENİZ 236 104 8 955 312 174 20 236 DOĞU KARADENİZ 337 281 27 3.008 859 471 55 337 GEDİZ 282 89 16 1.756 281 149 39 282 KIZILIRMAK 751 214 74 8.353 715 358 61 751 KONYA CLOSED 364 142 15 1.744 436 238 23 364 KUZEY EGE 159 51 9 984 166 85 42 159 KÜÇÜK MENDERES 505 68 8 874 208 113 7 505 MARMARA 1.899 705 457 51.555 2.334 1.181 65 1.899 MERİÇ-ERGENE 43 249 9 965 727 417 49 43 SAKARYA 1.124 306 182 20.528 1.020 512 61 1.124 SEYHAN 213 86 58 6.572 291 145 83 213 SUSURLUK 463 79 22 2.530 272 133 23 463 VAN GÖLÜ 87 108 10 1.074 331 182 51 87 YEŞİLIRMAK 500 132 31 3.531 440 221 47 500 104 Appendixes Table H.5: Summary of Results for Scenario S2B in River Basins Repayment for Existing Assets Urban Centers person (EUR/ Population in (EUR million) (EUR million) (EUR million) Amortization (EUR million) (EUR million) Incremental Incremental Incremental Incremental O&M (EUR/ O&M for 50 Impact per Financial Assets assets Basin loans years year) Total cap) AKARÇAY 152 25 3 288 82 43 17 152 ANTALYA 304 76 10 1.115 235 127 18 304 ARAS 1 182 10 1.146 547 306 84 1 ASİ 15 281 23 2.595 843 470 91 15 BATI AKDENİZ 134 107 10 1.152 328 178 57 134 BATI KARADENİZ 311 120 16 1.779 382 201 43 311 BURDUR 42 10 1 111 32 16 23 42 BÜYÜK MENDERES 419 183 35 3.931 587 307 60 419 CEYHAN 309 146 37 4.194 475 244 69 309 ÇORUH 0 84 5 520 253 141 101 0 DICLE-FIRAT 57 2.252 219 24.686 6.746 3.773 85 57 DOĞU AKDENİZ 236 107 9 1.008 324 180 21 236 DOĞU KARADENİZ 337 291 28 3.176 894 488 58 337 GEDİZ 282 91 16 1.787 287 152 40 282 KIZILIRMAK 751 219 75 8.445 734 367 62 751 KONYA CLOSED 364 157 18 2.006 489 263 26 364 KUZEY EGE 159 51 9 986 166 86 42 159 KÜÇÜK MENDERES 505 68 8 874 208 113 7 505 MARMARA 1.899 709 458 51.608 2.348 1.189 65 1.899 MERİÇ-ERGENE 43 252 9 1.007 736 422 50 43 SAKARYA 1.124 314 183 20.665 1.048 525 62 1.124 SEYHAN 213 86 58 6.572 291 145 83 213 SUSURLUK 463 80 23 2.550 276 135 23 463 VAN GÖLÜ 87 109 10 1.085 333 183 51 87 YEŞİLIRMAK 500 138 32 3.634 461 231 49 500 105 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Table H.6: Summary of Results for Scenario S3B in River Basins Repayment for Existing Assets Urban Centers person (EUR/ Population in (EUR million) (EUR million) (EUR million) Amortization (EUR million) (EUR million) Incremental Incremental Incremental Incremental O&M (EUR/ O&M for 50 Impact per Financial Assets assets Basin loans years year) Total cap) AKARÇAY 152 31 4 476 100 51 26 152 ANTALYA 304 76 10 1.115 235 127 18 304 ARAS 1 187 12 1.355 563 313 93 1 ASİ 15 281 23 2.595 843 470 91 15 BATI AKDENİZ 134 107 10 1.152 328 178 57 134 BATI KARADENİZ 311 129 20 2.258 411 215 53 311 BURDUR 42 15 3 308 51 25 56 42 BÜYÜK MENDERES 419 183 35 3.931 587 307 60 419 CEYHAN 309 146 37 4.194 475 244 69 309 ÇORUH 0 84 5 520 253 141 101 0 DICLE-FIRAT 57 2.294 242 27.292 6.894 3.844 92 57 DOĞU AKDENİZ 236 114 11 1.244 346 191 25 236 DOĞU KARADENİZ 335 308 35 3.925 951 516 68 335 GEDİZ 282 91 16 1.787 287 152 40 282 KIZILIRMAK 751 219 75 8.445 734 367 62 751 KONYA CLOSED 364 173 26 2.930 545 290 36 364 KUZEY EGE 159 53 10 1.084 174 89 46 159 KÜÇÜK MENDERES 505 70 8 954 214 117 8 505 MARMARA 1.899 763 508 57.342 2.536 1.279 72 1.899 MERİÇ-ERGENE 43 254 10 1.089 743 425 52 43 SAKARYA 1.124 314 183 20.665 1.048 525 62 1.124 SEYHAN 213 86 58 6.572 291 145 83 213 SUSURLUK 463 80 23 2.550 276 135 23 463 VAN GÖLÜ 87 120 15 1.680 372 201 72 87 YEŞİLIRMAK 500 146 37 4.196 488 244 55 500 106 Appendixes Figure H.1: Comparison of Existing and Incremental Investments in River Basins according to Scenarios S1A, S1B, and S3A AKARÇAY-S1A AKARÇAY-S1B AKARÇAY-S3A ANTALYA-S1A ANTALYA-S1B ANTALYA-S3A ARAS-S1A ARAS-S1B ARAS-S3A ASİ-S1A ASİ-S1B ASİ-S3A BATI AKDENİZ-S1A BATI AKDENİZ-S1B BATI AKDENİZ-S3A BATI KARADENİZ-S1A BATI KARADENİZ-S1B BATI KARADENİZ-S3A BURDUR-S1A BURDUR-S1B BURDUR-S3A BÜYÜK MENDERES-S1A BÜYÜK MENDERES-S1B BÜYÜK MENDERES-S3A CEYHAN-S1A CEYHAN-S1B CEYHAN-S3A ÇORUH-S1A ÇORUH-S1B ÇORUH-S3A DICLE-FIRAT-S1A DICLE-FIRAT-S1B DICLE-FIRAT-S3A DOĞ U AKDENİZ-S1A DOĞ U AKDENİZ-S1B DOĞ U AKDENİZ-S3A DOĞ U KARADENİZ-S1A DOĞ U KARADENİZ-S1B DOĞ U KARADENİZ-S3A GEDİZ-S1A GEDİZ-S1B GEDİZ-S3A KIZILIRMAK-S1A KIZILIRMAK-S1B KIZILIRMAK-S3A KONYA CLOSED-S1A KONYA CLOSED-S1B KONYA CLOSED-S3A KUZEY EGE-S1A KUZEY EGE-S1B KUZEY EGE-S3A KÜÇÜK MENDERES-S1A KÜÇÜK MENDERES-S1B KÜÇÜK MENDERES-S3A MARMARA-S1A MARMARA-S1B MARMARA-S3A MERİÇ-ERGENE-S1A MERİÇ-ERGENE-S1B MERİÇ-ERGENE-S3A SAKARYA-S1A SAKARYA-S1B SAKARYA-S3A SEYHAN-S1A SEYHAN-S1B SEYHAN-S3A SUSURLUK-S1A SUSURLUK-S1B SUSURLUK-S3A VAN GÖLÜ-S1A VAN GÖLÜ-S1B VAN GÖLÜ-S3A YE ŞİLIRMAK-S1A YE ŞİLIRMAK-S1B YE ŞİLIRMAK-S3A 0 500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 million Euros 107 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Table H.7: Total Incremental Costs including Incremental Investment, Cumulated O&M during Lifetime of the Investments and Amortization Costs for River Basins for Scenarios S1A, S3A, and S1B (EUR million). S1A S3A S1B Amortization Amortization Amortization O&M during O&M during O&M during Investments Investments Investments Cumulated Cumulated Cumulated Required Required Required lifetime lifetime lifetime River Basin Total Total Total costs costs costs costs costs costs AKARÇAY 664 32 528 104 664 32 528 104 306 21 217 67 ANTALYA 312 50 118 144 1,088 67 817 204 1,359 73 1,062 224 ARAS 1,403 168 740 495 1,897 182 1,172 543 1,740 176 1,039 525 ASİ 2,610 259 1,583 768 3,431 275 2,333 824 3,702 280 2,582 841 BATI AKDENİZ 690 79 375 235 1,096 91 729 276 1,587 107 1,152 328 BATI 990 76 683 231 2,423 118 1,930 375 2,127 111 1,664 352 KARADENİZ BURDUR 383 15 317 51 383 15 317 51 38 5 20 14 BÜYÜK 2,535 127 2,015 392 3,726 157 3,072 496 4,650 181 3,889 579 MENDERES CEYHAN 2,071 99 1,662 310 4,336 137 3,753 446 4,784 144 4,170 469 ÇORUH 585 75 287 222 691 80 372 238 798 82 473 244 DICLE-FIRAT 22,969 2,085 14,722 6,162 35,145 2,270 26,067 6,809 32,810 2,213 23,989 6,609 DOĞU 1,014 93 645 276 1,519 109 1,079 330 1,371 104 955 312 AKDENİZ DOĞU 2,989 255 1,966 768 4,605 294 3,409 901 4,149 281 3,008 859 KARADENİZ GEDİZ 557 57 331 169 1,730 80 1,402 248 2,125 89 1,756 281 KIZILIRMAK 1,545 94 1,156 296 8,206 193 7,370 643 9,281 214 8,353 715 KONYA 4,032 182 3,275 575 4,032 182 3,275 575 2,322 142 1,744 436 CLOSED KUZEY EGE 1,175 51 959 165 1,386 55 1,150 181 1,201 51 984 166 KÜÇÜK 530 56 308 166 1,092 66 824 202 1,149 68 874 208 MENDERES MARMARA 60,009 746 56,788 2,475 61,042 764 57,738 2,539 54,594 705 51,555 2,334 MERİÇ- 1,605 242 660 702 2,065 254 1,068 743 1,942 249 965 727 ERGENE SAKARYA 1,446 112 992 342 20,494 293 19,226 975 21,854 306 20,528 1,020 SEYHAN 344 27 233 84 6,486 80 6,140 267 6,949 86 6,572 291 SUSURLUK 983 37 821 124 2,389 69 2,086 235 2,881 79 2,530 272 VAN GÖLÜ 2,383 124 1,872 386 2,383 124 1,872 386 1,513 108 1,074 331 YEŞİLIRMAK 2,554 88 2,179 287 4,060 125 3,521 414 4,103 132 3,531 440 108 Appendixes Figure H.2: Comparison of Total Incremental Costs in River Basins according to Scenarios S1A, S1B, and S3A AKARÇAY-S1A AKARÇAY-S1B AKARÇAY-S3A ANTALYA-S1A ANTALYA-S1B ANTALYA-S3A ARAS-S1A ARAS-S1B ARAS-S3A ASİ-S1A ASİ-S1B ASİ-S3A BATI AKDENİZ-S1A BATI AKDENİZ-S1B BATI AKDENİZ-S3A BATI KARADENİZ-S1A BATI KARADENİZ-S1B BATI KARADENİZ-S3A BURDUR-S1A BURDUR-S1B BURDUR-S3A BÜYÜK MENDERES-S1A BÜYÜK MENDERES-S1B BÜYÜK MENDERES-S3A CEYHAN-S1A CEYHAN-S1B CEYHAN-S3A ÇORUH-S1A ÇORUH-S1B DICLE-FIRAT-S1B ÇORUH-S3A 32,811 mill EUR DICLE-FIRAT-S1A DICLE-FIRAT-S1B DICLE-FIRAT-S3A DOĞ U AKDENİZ-S1A DICLE-FIRAT-S3A DOĞ U AKDENİZ-S1B 35,146 mill EUR DOĞ U AKDENİZ-S3A DOĞ U KARADENİZ-S1A DOĞ U KARADENİZ-S1B DOĞ U KARADENİZ-S3A GEDİZ-S1A GEDİZ-S1B GEDİZ-S3A KIZILIRMAK-S1A KIZILIRMAK-S1B KIZILIRMAK-S3A KONYA CLOSED-S1A KONYA CLOSED-S1B KONYA CLOSED-S3A KUZEY EGE-S1A KUZEY EGE-S1B MARMARA-S1A KUZEY EGE-S3A 60,009 mill EUR KÜÇÜK MENDERES-S1A KÜÇÜK MENDERES-S1B MARMARA-S1B KÜÇÜK MENDERES-S3A 54,594 mill EUR MARMARA-S1A MARMARA-S1B MARMARA-S3A MERİÇ-ERGENE-S1A MERİÇ-ERGENE-S1B MARMARA-S3A MERİÇ-ERGENE-S3A 61,041 mill EUR SAKARYA-S1A SAKARYA-S1B SAKARYA-S3A SEYHAN-S1A SEYHAN-S1B SEYHAN-S3A SUSURLUK-S1A SUSURLUK-S1B SUSURLUK-S3A VAN GÖLÜ-S1A VAN GÖLÜ-S1B VAN GÖLÜ-S3A YE ŞİLIRMAK-S1A YE ŞİLIRMAK-S1B YE ŞİLIRMAK-S3A 0 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 million Euros 109 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Appendix I: Summary of the High-Level Workshop A high-level workshop entitled “Reaching Compliance with EU Requirements on Water Supply and Sanitation in a Sustainable Way: Challenges and Opportunities for Turkey” took place on October 18, 2016 in Ankara, Turkey. Organized jointly by the World Bank (WB) and the General Directorate for Water Management (GDWM) of the Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs (MoFWA), the workshop was funded by the Water Partnership Program. It built on a Preliminary Report independently carried out by the World Bank, which was disseminated by the GDWM of the MoFWA in the letter of invitation to the workshop. The workshop was made up of 97 participants, of which 78 were from Turkish key sector institutions, four officials were from Croatia, and one attendee from France, and seven World Bank and organizing team staff. Twenty-four of the 30 SKIs were represented at the workshop, 15 of them by their General Director and 5 by their Deputy General Director. The workshop was designed to be a platform to discuss and analyze the challenges and opportunities linked to providing water supply and sanitation services in a sustainable way to the entire population in Turkey. The workshop was opened by the Country Director for Turkey Johannes Zutt and by the Deputy General Director for Water Management of the MoFWA, Abdurrahman Uluirmak. Mr. Xavier Chauvot de Beauchene, from the World Bank, presented the main findings of the Preliminary Report and set the stage for a broad discussion of sustainable service provision in Turkey. The main point of the presentation was to demonstrate that developing sustainable access and service provision requires efficient investment, which entails not only considering the investment cost, but also considering the total cost, including costs of operations performance and of improvement of existing infrastructure. National good practices The workshop showcased three cases of good WSS management practices in Turkey: The water efficiency improvement in Konya; treated wastewater reuse for green areas irrigation in Konya; and highly integrated sludge drying and co-generation in Antalya. KOSKI (Konya) officials reported on two good practices: (i) the use of an advanced SCADA system for the improvement of the company’s efficiency, with significant results on staff use, energy consumption, and reduction of Non-Revenue Water (NRW); and (ii) the treated wastewater reuse system, currently at a pilot scale, for the watering of vegetation along main roads and streets in the city as well as reforested areas. Konya Efficiency Improvement Konya is in the driest part of Turkey and only receives 250 mm of precipitation a year. This places Konya at the limit between the commonly accepted definitions of semi-arid and desert land. The combination of population growth, rapid urbanization, and economic growth increased industrial and agricultural water demand much beyond the forecasted demand. This translated into high overconsumption of the scarce water resources available to supply Konya, way beyond the renewable water levels. Three different resources are used for domestic and industrial water demand: surface water, groundwater, and spring water. 90 percent of water demand is supplied from groundwater. Predicted groundwater regeneration was 2.4 billion m3/year in 2010 while water withdrawal was 3.83 billion m3/year. The 1.43 billion m3 yearly deficit caused a 27 m decrease in groundwater level over 30 years. High water losses are a paradox in a place where water is so scarce. It worsens groundwater overexploitation. Aiming for more sustainable water management practices is an absolute necessity for KOSKİ. It requires achieving more efficiency in water resources and distribution management and raising awareness of the public on the need to save water and promote rainwater harvesting. 110 Appendixes To develop more sustainable water management practices in Konya requires that KOSKI must be able to improve its monitoring of its large water supply network and facilities. Therefore, a SCADA system was established in 2007 for more efficient use of water resources. KOSKI used SCADA to identify where leaks were occurring. KOSKI worked on network repair and renewal activities, from big diameters to house connections. It created pressure zones, replaced pumps to ensure they worked close to peak efficiency, and optimized pressure management to save energy and reduce leakages. In the process, KOSKI recorded relevant information in its SCADA and linked it to its GIS system, which allowed officials to both improve current service quality and efficiency and allow for future preventative maintenance. Konya has managed to use SCADA as a powerful management tool to improve the overall efficiency of KOSKI, not only in terms of NRW reduction, but also in terms of energy efficiency, staffing efficiency, customer management improvement, and preventive maintenance development. As a result, KOSKI generated significant efficiency gains that allowed them to recover the cost of the SCADA system within 6 months and make it a profitable tool for KOSKI thereafter. KOSKI exceeded the targeted savings achievements and efficient use of resources faster than anticipated and has thrived in maintaining this good performance over time, in spite of the demographic, economic, and perimeter extension evolution. One of the most striking achievements is the reduction of Non-Revenue Water (NRW) from 66 percent in 2001 to 27 percent in 2015, despite the demographic increase and urban/economic development of Konya during that period. Supplied and billed amounts of water delivered to the city in 2015 were respectively 86 million m3 and 63 million m3, corresponding to 27 percent NRW. Following the March 2014 reform, KOSKI is now responsible for service provision to a much larger service area. It expanded from the urban center (previously defined as the Metropolitan Municipality) to the scale of the entire Konya province. This means that KOSKI is expected to deliver the same quality of service to its extended service area. This represents an unprecedented challenge. As it consolidates the service provision at the scale of the entire province, KOSKI is rolling out the SCADA system to replicate the same approach to its enlarged service area, using its own funds. Konya Treated Wastewater Reuse Konya WWTP has been operating since 2009. The treated wastewater is discharged to an irrigation canal in the catchment area of the salt lake, a closed basin defined as a sensitive area. KOSKI therefore has to treat the wastewater to remove nutrients. The plant is designed for Carbon (C) and partial Nitrogen (N) removal. The WWTP is also equipped with a biogas system, which is used to generate energy. In its effort to optimize its operations, KOSKI created a subsidiary to manage its electricity generation (biogas digestion) and to explore avenues for more renewable energy development. In the second stage, P removal is also targeted in addition to C and N removal, in compliance with EU standards. Konya WWTP discharge is introduced to tertiary treatment before irrigation of limited urban green areas (purple network project). Treated wastewater effluent is used in irrigation of urban green areas (parks, pavements, and so forth) after being tertiary treated in a pilot plant having 150 m3/h capacity. Tertiary treatment is composed of multimedia filtration (MMF), microfiltration (MF), Ultrafiltration (UF) and pre-chlorination-ultraviolet disinfection (UV). In addition, post chlorination systems are used as tertiary treatment. The system has a 24 km long drip irrigation system. Before the project, commenced, KOSKI did not collect revenue from the downstream use of the treated wastewater in irrigation, and the municipality used to water its green areas using drinking water delivered by trucks. The project built a win-win situation: the municipality got its green and forested areas irrigated through modern water efficient drip irrigation systems, saving the cost of truck and staff who were watering ‘manually’; while KOSKI got revenue from the 111 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation treated wastewater reused by the municipality and could allocate the drinking water previously used for watering to supply more people. The treated wastewater reuse is overall very positive for the municipality, for KOSKI, and for the environment because it allows mitigating the pressure on already threatened resources. The pilot plant with a capacity of 150 m3/hour has been operated since 2012 and 3.2 million m2 green area has been irrigated for four years. The amount of wastewater reused in irrigation is around 400.000 m3/year, which corresponds to the monthly drinking water consumption of about 6,700 people (5m3 /cap. /month). Optimized Sludge Management and Disposal in Antalya ASAT (Antalya) officials made a presentation on their experience in resource recovery through: (i) biogas generation from sludge and (ii) its pragmatic win-win dried sludge disposal arrangement. Antalya sludge management is an example of an integrated and optimized system. It combines sludge dewatering with a cogeneration installation that uses a combination of biogas, natural gas, and heating oil, and the innovative and pragmatic final reuse of the sludge as fuel in a cement factory located 360km away in Konya province. Biogas generation using anaerobic sludge digestion is a very common method widely used in domestic WWTP’s to use sludge as a resource not as a waste to be disposed of. What is not so common is the level of integration which ASAT has put in place and the win-win solution it developed for sludge disposal. Antalya WWTP (Hurma) is equipped with 4 anaerobic digesters (each 9.000 m3) generating 12.000 m3/day biogas. Electricity generation from biogas in the cogeneration plant is 45 MW/day. Due to high electricity tariffs, ASAT officials considered generating electricity with a cogeneration plant using biogas produced in anaerobic digesters. Electricity is generated in a cogeneration plant with a Natural-gas/Biogas gas engine having 1950 kW power  together with 2 MW heat-energy produced from the hot water generated during engine cooling and the gas engine exhaust gas. 2MW energy is also produced from a thermal oil circuit. The cogeneration plant is operated in a way that optimizes the electricity production by adjusting the operation times according to the hours of the day, charging the cheapest electricity tariffs, and by using natural gas or biogas when electricity tariffs are high, based on the relative price of natural gas versus biogas, so as to seek maximum financial efficiency from the drying and cogeneration plant. As a result, ASAT supplies 40 percent of the WWTP’s electricity requirement from its biogas generation. Sustainable sludge management was a priority issue in the ASAT agenda because Antalya is one of the most attractive touristic cities, having 200 blue flag beaches out of the total of 436 blue flag beaches in Turkey. Before the sludge drying facility began operations, the treatment sludge disposal method was the open dump, which created a very unpleasant situation among the citizens. This solution was not sustainable and, in order to prevent health risks to people and livestock because of the contaminants, pathogens, and fecal origin of sludge, legislation was enacted to tighten procedures about land application of sludge. ASAT has looked for ways to dispose of the sludge generated in its WWTP in a more sustainable and environmentally friendly manner. The most common disposal method for wastewater sludge in Turkey is storage in landfills, but there is no appropriate and socially acceptable site for sludge disposal around Antalya and the disposal costs related to disposing of the sludge in a landfill far from the city would have significantly increased the disposal costs. Therefore, ASAT decided to apply sludge drying as a sustainable and effective sludge management method. The sludge generated in WWTP is dried in a sludge drying plant with 150 ton/day drying capacity. The final product has 20 percent dry solids, which is transferred to a KONYA cement factory located in Konya over 360 km away free of charge with the trucks carrying several goods to Antalya harbor and then returning empty. It is this approach and the constant efforts to further optimize its system that makes ASAT one of the pioneering and leading water utility in terms of sludge management in Turkey. 112 Appendixes International Case Studies: Feedback from French and Croatian experiences Two international case studies were presented at the workshop dealing respectively with the Croatian and French experiences in implementing the EU Urban Waste Water Directive (UWWD) and Drinking Water Directive (DWD). De facto, the work was more focused on the UWWD, since compliance with DWD seems much less challenging for Turkey. These two countries were selected for the following reasons: - Croatia, which joined the EU in 2013, will have to comply fully with the ‘acquis communautaire’ in the field of water in 2023 for the UWWD, and in 2019 for the DWD. Croatia is therefore adopting regulatory and implementation support measures and is finalizing investments necessary for compliance, with the support of EU and IFIs funding, a situation similar with Turkey’s situation. - France is at a much more advanced stage of compliance with both directives, but the process to reach compliance proved challenging. Turkey could benefit from this experience and be interested or inspired by France’s methods to move towards full compliance with the directives, and monitoring the progress, taking into account measures taken when the European Commission took France to the European Court of Justice. - In addition, both Croatia and France are parties to the Barcelona Convention (and its Protocol on Pollution from Land Based Source), as well as Turkey Croatia international case study: The Croatia case study was structured in two presentations. First, a presentation of the Croatian Context was delivered by Dinko Polic and Vesna Grizelj Simic (respectively Deputy General Manager and Sector Head at Hrvatske Vode - HV). First, information was given on institutional aspects and on the main actors responsible for the implementation of the Water Management Strategy (2008/2038), the Implementation Plan for Water Utility Directives, and the River Basin Management Plan. Among a description of the main challenges for Croatia’s good implementation of the two EU directives at stake, the presentation singled out several topics of potential relevance for Turkey: • The delimitation of sensitive areas based on documented studies of existing or potential environmental degradation • The preparation of planning documents giving a framework for investment projects • The identification of priority investments • The funding of a total initial investment in water utility projects of €3.8 billion (62 percent by EU operative programs from 2007 onwards; 13 percent by state budget; 13 percent by Hrvatske Vode, 9 percent by Water service providers and 3 percent by IFIs) • The challenge of affordability since the water price in Croatia is currently of €2/m3 • The need to adapt water utility management and to involve local authorities in the implementation effort • The key issue of investments sustainability, which depends on technical capacities and the funding of operational costs and maintenance (O&M) A second presentation, delivered by Robert Kartelo, Head of Sector at HV, described the involvement of HV in the preparation of projects from 2010 onwards for a total value of about €1.8 bn. He provided feedback on average duration of projects (23.7 months for networks, 32.7months for WWTPs) and respective cost (189 €/ m for networks and 221 €/ p.e. for treatment plants). Feedback from the Croatian experience showed that due attention has to be 113 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation paid to proper planning, to project quality, and to technical aspects, such as design, technology, and demand analysis. The presentation concluded that “knowledge and experience exchange was not sufficient to allow new member states to learn from those who had gone through the process before them, at least not in an institutionalized way.” France international case study: The presentation on the implementation on the UWWD in France was delivered by Bruno Rakedjian, of the French Ministry of Environment, currently seconded to the European Commission (DG ENV). Bruno first discussed the 2007 situation of non-compliance of 20 percent of treatments plants, with a corresponding risk for France to be fined about €400 million. Bruno explained the measures that were taken and implemented at the various administrative levels (Ministry of Environment, National Water Agency, and River Basin agencies and municipalities) to cope with the French implementation deficit regarding the UWWTD. He underlined the importance placed by French authorities to define sensitive areas, set clear priorities, and provide advice and guidance to local authorities / municipalities (for example, training support, advice on the best sanitation system, best location of UWWTP, and technological options) to support them in reaching compliance in an efficient way. He also outlined associated measures that were put in place to monitor progress and make the information available to all. These included: dashboards with priorities; transparency policy (website); implementation progress; and monitoring of treatments in line with the definition of sensitive areas. Statistics were presented about the situation in 2014, showing inter alia that the volume of urban waste water in France was €5 billion m3 a year, the total cost (investment + O&M) of compliance amounted to about €11 billion, and the average water price was €3.85/m3 (€2/m3 for water supply and €1.85/m3 for wastewater. The sanitation assets in France corresponds to an investment of €2,600/ person/40 years, or €65/citizen/year). Results obtained thru the EU Directive implementation can be illustrated by a remarkable Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) reduction in rivers in France, in the EU territory, but also in other Member States, such as for instance, Ireland or Scotland. Some lessons from the French experience may be of relevance for Turkey: • Reaching compliance takes a lot of time. • Transparency (national database and website) contributes to good implementation as well as to dissemination of good practices. • Implementation action plans, indicators, and clear priorities are critical to success. • Appropriate funding is needed for investments (€4.3 billion) and even more for operation costs (€6.6 billion). Investment efficiency is warranted to optimize operations costs. • National / local organizations must be in place, with strong political support being a strong catalyst; • Cooperation between national and local authorities is important, • A comprehensive capacity-building program is useful, • Alternatives must be compared to single out cost efficient solutions. At this point, the audience was invited to discuss how these case studies may be interesting for Turkey. The conversation focused on issues such as responsibility sharing between national and local authorities, the most accurate type of treatment depending on the size of settlements, the funding of investments, and the energy efficiency of UWWTP. In the afternoon, World Bank experts made two presentations: one on the concept of integrated 114 Appendixes urban water management, including examples of its application in Latin America and Korea; and the other on the new generation of public-private partnerships (PPP) in the water and wastewater sector, the opportunity that they may represent, and where using them makes sense. The PPP presentation underlined that BOT approaches have the advantage of considering the total cost of investment, which may not be the cheapest to construct, allowing them to implement optimized solutions and to hold the private sector accountable for operating efficiently. A panel discussion followed, chaired and moderated by Dr. Yakup Karaaslan, Deputy General Director, GDWM. Discussants were Mr. Recep Şahin, Deputy General Secretary of Union of Municipalities in Turkey); Mr. Recep Akdeniz, Deputy General Director, General Directorate of Environmental Management, Ministry of Environment and Urbanization; and Mr. Taner Kimençe, Head of Department, Department of Basin Management, GDWM, MoFWA. The main points raised by the panelists during the panel discussion session are summarized below: • The establishment of new SKIs and the extension of the service area to the current ones under the Law No 6360 brought both technical and financial challenges, since SKIs also took over water- and wastewater-related liabilities of the new service area. This, however, could be an opportunity for the population served, since SKIs’ expertise on urban areas would benefit to the new areas as well. This should be supported by both technical and financial assistance. • The Law No 6360 also delegated to SKIs the responsibility of service provision and flood management in rural areas, but did not provide financial resources for these activities. • Implementation of regulations on urban transformation and renewal should be integrated with water management planning. • Implementation of the existing regulation on water loss management is of utmost importance for the sustainability of the services. Several trainings were carried out by the Ministry on the implementation of this regulation. Further workshops and trainings to SKI officials are needed on the subjects of monitoring, reporting, and minimizing water losses. • Projects on efficient use of water as well as reuse of wastewater should be developed. • Using PPPs with build-operate-transfer and performance-based contracts could present a good model to increase the efficiency of service provision. However, the contractual conditions should be defined very carefully to achieve the utmost benefit for the SKI and the population served. SKIs need assistance in this subject. • The regulation on water losses in irrigation is under discussion at the prime minister level. • SKIs serving populations where refugees are located face special technical and financial challenges to provide water and wastewater services, and that these SKIs need more assistance. • SKIs established after 2014 have a period of 4-5 years to overcome their institutional, operational, and technical issues. • Integrated urban water and wastewater planning should also take socioeconomic impact analysis into consideration. Although implementation of a “polluter-pays” principle and cost-recovery tariff is crucial for sustainability of the services, affordability of the population should also be taken into consideration. A staged approach could be implemented where investments are realized following a prioritized plan in stages, with gradual tariff adjustments made up to the cost-recovery level within affordability constraints. These plans should be monitored on an annual basis and be revised if necessary. Some SKIs would need assistance in this regard. 115 Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation • Tariff-setting procedures of SKIs should be transparent to obtain public acceptance and willingness-to-pay. Especially in new metropolitan areas, SKIs should be engaged in awareness-raising activities to explain the need for water and wastewater tariffs and infrastructure investment contribution fees paid by customers for the sustainability of the services. • A revision of the EU DWD is underway. It will cover reporting requirements on drinking water from source to tap. SKIs should anticipate and build necessary data management mechanisms. During the discussion, officials of the SKIs stressed the new challenges related to the extension of their service areas from the densely populated urban areas to the boundaries of the province. They stressed that their increased responsibilities have not been matched with additional funding. They said that these unprecedented expectations of service extensions and improvements represent a direct risk on already challenged balance sheets and have not been matched by corresponding staffing and capacity strengthening policies. The workshop concluded with a discussion on areas where the Bank could provide additional support to Turkey and how the new financial instrument “Program for Results” could be of interest. 116