Technical Assistance on Economic Analyses Within River Basin Management Plans and Water Efficiency Aspects in 3 Pilot River Basins in Turkey

National Programme for Turkey 2013 – Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance This project is co-financed by the European Union and the Republic of Turkey

Technical Assistance on Economic Analyses within River Basin Management Plans and Water Efficiency Aspects in 3 Pilot River Basins in Turkey

Project Identification No: EuropeAid/136659/IH/SER/TR

Contract No: TR2013/0327.07.01-01/001

TECHNICAL REPORT 0201. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WATER USES Draft 04

Project Title: Technical Assistance on Economic Analyses within River Basin Management Plans and Water Efficiency Aspects in 3 Pilot River Basins in Turkey Contract Number: TR2013/0327.07.01-01/001 Project Value: 4.092.125,00 € Starting Date: 29/05/2017 End Date / Duration: 29/05/2020 / 36 months

Contracting Authority: CFCU (Central Finance and Contracts Unit, Ministry of Treasury and Finance) CFCU Project Manager: Mr. M. Selim Uslu, PAO- CFCU Director CFCU Contract Manager: Ms. Cemile Akıllı

Address: T.C. Hazine ve Maliye Bakanlığı Kampüsü E Blok Inönü Bulvarı No: 36, 06510, Emek / Ankara, Turkey Telephone: + 90 312 295 49 00 Fax: + 90 312 286 70 72 e-mail: [email protected]

Beneficiary: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Address: Beştepe Mahallesi Alparslan Türkeş Caddesi No: 71, 06510, Yenimahalle, Ankara, Turkey Telephone: + 90 312 207 62 53 Fax: + 90 312 207 63 03

Consultant: Técnica y Proyectos S.A. (TYPSA)

Project Director: Mr Rafael LÓPEZ MANZANO Address: Calle Gomera 9, San Sebastian de los Reyes, 28703, Madrid, Spain Telephone/Fax: +34 91 722 73 00 / +34 91 651 75 88

Project Team Leader: Rosa MONZÓ ENGUIX Address (Project Office): Mustafa Kemal Mah. 2139.Sokak No. 19 / 9-10, Reyhan Plaza, 06520 Çankaya - Ankara Cel.: +(90) 535 045 63 08 e-mail: [email protected]

Report: TECHNICAL REPORT 0201. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WATER USES Date of Report: 11.02.2019 (Draft04)

Developed By: Maria del Transito SANCHEZ TAMARIT Emre KÖKEN Nazlı PALAMUT Çağdaş ŞİMŞEK Oytun ARIKAN Onur ARI İlker KALEM

Checked By: Rosa MONZÓ ENGUIX

This project is co-financed by the European Union and the Republic of Turkey Technical Assistance on Economic Analyses within River Basin Management Plans and Water Efficiency Aspects in 3 Pilot River Basins in Turkey (TR2013/0327.07.01-01/001). TECHNICAL REPORT 0201. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WATER USES

LIST OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2. METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH AND DATA ...... 2 2.1. The socio-economic profile of the river basins ...... 2 2.2. Current water use ...... 6 2.2.1. Municipal use ...... 6 2.2.2. Livestock use ...... 8 2.2.3. Irrigational use ...... 8 2.2.4. Industrial use ...... 12 2.3. Water demand forecasting ...... 14 2.3.1. Municipal demand ...... 14 2.3.2. Livestock demand ...... 18 2.3.3. Irrigational demand ...... 18 2.3.4. Industrial demand ...... 20 2.4. Tariff analysis and the role of pricing in water planning ...... 22 2.4.1. The provision of water services in Turkey ...... 22 2.4.2. Tariffs structure and price levels ...... 25 3. AKARÇAY RIVER BASIN ...... 28 3.1. Socio-economic profile ...... 28 3.2. Current water use ...... 32 3.2.1. Municipal use ...... 32 3.2.2. Livestock use ...... 34 3.2.3. Irrigational use ...... 34 3.2.4. Industrial use ...... 42 3.2.5. Summary overview ...... 45 3.3. Water demand forecast ...... 46 3.3.1. Municipal demand ...... 46 3.3.2. Livestock demand ...... 50 3.3.3. Irrigational demand ...... 51 3.3.4. Industrial demand ...... 55

3.3.5. Summary overview ...... 55 3.4. Water tariffs structure and price levels ...... 57 3.4.1. Municipal sector ...... 57 3.4.2. Industrial sector ...... 62 3.4.3. Agricultural sector ...... 62 4. BATI AKDENIZ RIVER BASIN ...... 64 4.1. Socio-economic profile ...... 64 4.2. Current water use ...... 68 4.2.1. Municipal use ...... 68 4.2.2. Livestock use ...... 71 4.2.3. Irrigational use ...... 71 4.2.4. Industrial use ...... 78 4.2.5. Summary overview ...... 81 4.3. Water demand forecast ...... 83 4.3.1. Municipal demand ...... 83 4.3.2. Livestock demand ...... 89 4.3.3. Irrigational demand ...... 90 4.3.4. Industrial demand ...... 94 4.3.5. Summary overview ...... 94 4.4. Water tariffs structure and price levels ...... 96 4.4.1. Municipal sector ...... 96 4.4.2. Industrial sector ...... 100 4.4.3. Agricultural sector ...... 101 5. YEŞILIRMAK RIVER BASIN ...... 103 5.1. Socio-economic profile ...... 103 5.2. Current water use ...... 107 5.2.1. Municipal use ...... 107 5.2.2. Livestock use ...... 109 5.2.3. Irrigational use ...... 110 5.2.4. Industrial use ...... 117 5.2.5. Summary overview ...... 122

5.3. Water demand forecast ...... 124 5.3.1. Municipal demand ...... 124 5.3.2. Livestock demand ...... 131 5.3.3. Irrigational demand ...... 133 5.3.4. Industrial demand ...... 137 5.3.5. Summary overview ...... 138 5.4. Water tariffs structure and price levels ...... 139 5.4.1. Municipal sector ...... 139 5.4.2. Industrial sector ...... 148 5.4.3. Agricultural sector ...... 148 6. GENERAL OUTLINE ...... 150 7. CONCLUSIONS ...... 161

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Provincial share of the agricultural area, all basins...... 3 Table 2. Population weight per province, Akarçay river basin...... 3 Table 3. Population weight per province, Batı Akdeniz river basin...... 4 Table 4. Population weight per province, Yeşilırmak river basin...... 4 Table 5. Gross domestic product, 1998 - 2015 (in purchasers' value; based on 1998)...... 5 Table 6. Classification of irrigation facilities per investing institution and water resource...... 9 Table 7. Annual water used based on NACE code...... 13 Table 8. Non-revenue water forecast for the optimistic scenario...... 17 Table 9. Non-revenue water forecast for the realistic scenario...... 17 Table 10. Number and types of settlements per river basin (2016)...... 23 Table 11. Distribution of household-size categories per province, all basins...... 25 Table 12. Monthly water consumption of an average household, all basins...... 26 Table 13. Population trends, Akarçay basin...... 29 Table 14. Turnover and labour force, Akarçay basin and Turkey (2004-2014)...... 30 Table 15. Current population (including immigrants) summary results, Akarçay basin (2016)...... 33 Table 16. Current population and municipal gross water demand, Akarçay basin (2016)...... 34 Table 17. Livestock: number and water uses, Akarçay basin (2016)...... 34 Table 18. Land classification surveys, Akarçay basin...... 35 Table 19. Current water demands of irrigation projects, Akarçay basin...... 37 Table 20. Main outcomes of the irrigational water use, Akarçay basin (2016)...... 41 Table 21. Industrial water use, Akarçay basin (2016)...... 43 Table 22. Hydropower plants, Akarçay basin...... 44 Table 23. Geothermal plants, Akarçay basin...... 44 Table 24. Population forecast (including immigrants), Akarçay basin...... 46 Table 25. Population forecast (including immigrants) and variation per size and type of settlement, Akarçay basin...... 46 Table 26. Population and water demands forecasts in the trend scenario, Akarçay basin...... 48 Table 27. Population and water demands forecasts in the optimistic scenario, Akarçay basin...... 48 Table 28. Population and water demands forecasts in the realistic scenario, Akarçay basin...... 49 Table 29. Livestock future water demands, Akarçay basin...... 50 Table 30. Distribution of the irrigated surface per efficiency method, Akarçay basin...... 52 Table 31. Irrigational water demands forecasts per type of investor Akarçay basin...... 52 Table 32. Projections for the consumptive–industrial water use, Akarçay basin...... 55 Table 33. Water uses projections results for optimistic and realistic scenarios, Akarçay basin...... 56 Table 34. Average price of and payment for municipal water services, Akarçay basin...... 59 Table 35. Industrial tariffs, Akarçay basin...... 62 Table 36. Typology of applied tariffs in surveyed irrigation areas, Akarçay basin...... 62 Table 37. Tariffs applied in surveyed irrigation areas, Akarçay basin...... 62 Table 38. Tariffs as per the crops in surveyed irrigation areas, Akarçay basin...... 63 Table 39. Population trends, Batı Akdeniz basin...... 65

Table 40. Turnover and labour force, Batı Akdeniz basin and Turkey (2004-2014)...... 66 Table 41. Current population (including immigrants) summary results, Batı Akdeniz basin (2016)...... 69 Table 42. Current population and municipal gross water demands, Batı Akdeniz basin (2016)...... 70 Table 43. Livestock: number and water demands, Batı Akdeniz basin (2016)...... 71 Table 44. Current Irrigation areas per type of investor and source of water, Batı Akdeniz basin...... 73 Table 45. Main outcomes of the irrigational water use, Batı Akdeniz basin (2016)...... 77 Table 46. Hydropower plants, Batı Akdeniz basin...... 80 Table 47. Population forecast (including immigrants), Batı Akdeniz basin...... 83 Table 48. Population forecast (including immigrants) and variation per size of settlement, Batı Akdeniz basin...... 83 Table 49. Population and water demands forecasts in the trend scenario, Batı Akdeniz basin...... 85 Table 50. Population and water demands forecasts in the optimistic scenario, Batı Akdeniz basin...... 86 Table 51. Population and water demands forecasts in the realistic scenario, Batı Akdeniz basin...... 87 Table 52. Livestock future water demands, Batı Akdeniz basin...... 89 Table 53. Scenarios for rehabilitation of irrigation areas, Batı Akdeniz...... 91 Table 54. Scenarios for rehabilitation of irrigation areas per type of investor, Batı Akdeniz basin...... 91 Table 55. Agriculture water demands forecasts per type of investor, Batı Akdeniz basin...... 92 Table 56. Projections for the consumptive industrial water use, Batı Akdeniz basin...... 94 Table 57. Water uses projections, results for both scenarios and Batı Akdeniz basin...... 96 Table 58. Average price of and payment for municipal water services, Batı Akdeniz basin...... 98 Table 59. Typology of applied tariffs in surveyed irrigation areas in Batı Akdeniz basin...... 101 Table 60. Tariffs applied in surveyed irrigation areas in Batı Akdeniz basin...... 101 Table 61. Tariffs as per the crops in surveyed irrigation areas in Batı Akdeniz basin...... 101 Table 62. Population trends, Yeşilırmak river basin...... 104 Table 63. Turnover and labour force in Yeşilırmak river basin and Turkey (2004-2014)...... 105 Table 64. Current population (including immigrants), Yeşilırmak basin (2016)...... 107 Table 65. Current population and municipal water demands, Yeşilırmak basin (2016)...... 109 Table 66. Livestock: number and water demands, Yeşilırmak (2016)...... 109 Table 67. Current Irrigation areas per type of investor and source of water in Yeşilırmak...... 112 Table 68. Main outcomes of the irrigational water use, Yeşilırmak basin (2016)...... 116 Table 69. Consumptive–industry water use, Yeşilırmak basin (2016)...... 119 Table 70. Hydropower plants, Yeşilırmak basin...... 119 Table 71. Population forecast (including immigrants), Yeşilırmak basin...... 124 Table 72. Population forecast (including immigrants) and variation per size of settlement, Yeşilırmak basin...... 124 Table 73. Population and water demands forecasts in the trend scenario, Yeşilırmak basin...... 126 Table 74. Population and water demands forecasts in the optimistic scenario, Yeşilırmak basin...... 127 Table 75. Population and water demands forecasts in the realistic scenario, Yeşilırmak basin...... 129 Table 76. Livestock water demands forecasts, Yeşilırmak basin...... 131 Table 77. Proposed scenarios for rehabilitation of irrigation areas, Yeşilırmak basin...... 134 Table 78. Scenarios for rehabilitation of irrigation areas per investor, Yeşilırmak basin...... 134 Table 79. Irrigational demands forecasts per investor type, Yeşilırmak basin...... 135

Table 80. Projections for the consumptive industrial water use (out-of-network), Yeşilirmak basin...... 137 Table 81. Water uses projections, results for both scenarios and Yeşilirmak basin...... 139 Table 82. Average price of and payment for municipal water services, Yeşilirmak basin...... 143 Table 83. Industrial tariffs in Yeşilirmak river basin...... 148 Table 84. Typology of applied tariffs in surveyed irrigation areas in Yeşilirmak river basin...... 148 Table 85. Tariffs applied in surveyed irrigation areas in Yeşilirmak river basin...... 148 Table 86. Tariffs as per the crops in surveyed irrigation areas in Yeşilirmak river basin...... 149 Table 87. Gross water uses and water sources, all basins (2016)...... 151 Table 88. Gross water uses, production, population/ labour force and apparent value of water, all basins (2016)...... 151 Table 89. Water demand forecasts (municipal optimistic scenario), all basins...... 155 Table 89. Municipal water demands forecasts, all scenarios and all basins...... 156 Table 90. Irrigational water demands, all basins...... 157 Table 91. Industrial water demands, all basins...... 158 Table 92. Livestock water demands, all basins...... 159 Table 93. Price and payments for water services, all basins...... 160 Table 94. Over abstracted ground water bodies, Akarçay (2016)...... 163 Table 95. Excess abstraction in over abstracted ground water bodies by sector, Akarçay (2016)...... 164 Table 96. Apparent value of water by sector, Akarçay (2016)...... 165 Table 97. Resource costs of over abstraction by sector, Akarçay (2016)...... 165 Table 98. Summary of resource costs of over abstraction, Akarçay (2016)...... 166

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Example output graph for methods used in population projections for settlements with populations over 25,000...... 15 Figure 2. Variation of NRW percentage by timeline for a settlement with a population over 25,000...... 18 Figure 3. Akarçay river basin area, provinces and districts...... 28 Figure 4. Population (immigrants included), Akarçay basin (2016)...... 29 Figure 5. Population trends: full provinces and basin population, Akarçay basin (2007-2016)...... 30 Figure 6. Gross domestic product, Akarçay basin (2004-2014)...... 31 Figure 7. Labour force and labour productivity, Akarçay basin (2004-2014)...... 31 Figure 8. Industrial sector per facility sizes, Akarçay river basin...... 32 Figure 9. Population distribution per type and size of settlement, Akarçay basin (2016)...... 33 Figure 10. Spatial distribution of population, Akarçay basin (2016)...... 33 Figure 11. Spatial distribution of ground and surface water irrigation areas, Akarçay basin (2016)...... 35 Figure 12. Distribution of irrigation areas per investor, Akarçay basin...... 36 Figure 13. Cultivated crops in irrigation fields in Akarçay basin...... 36 Figure 14. Average crop pattern in the last decade, Akarçay basin...... 37 Figure 15. Distribution of irrigated areas per crops, Akarçay basin (2016)...... 38 Figure 16. Crops water needs and annual consumption per crop, Akarçay basin (2016)...... 39 Figure 17. Crops net margin per hectare and per cubic metre, Akarçay basin (2016)...... 39 Figure 18. Crop net margin per cubic meter by GWB (left map); crop net margin per cubic meter by SWB (right map), Akarçay basin (2016)...... 40 Figure 19. Annual net margin per crops, Akarçay basin (2016)...... 41 Figure 20. Annual water use per crop and apparent value of water, Akarçay basin (2016)...... 42 Figure 21. Annual net margin per crop and apparent value of water, Akarçay basin (2016)...... 42 Figure 22. Industrial water use by province and location, Akarçay (2016)...... 43 Figure 23. Industrial water consumption, Akarçay (2016)...... 44 Figure 24. Current water uses, Akarçay basin (2016)...... 45 Figure 25. Annual net margin and water use per crops, Akarçay basin (2016)...... 45 Figure 26. Population variation per size of settlement and planning cycle, Akarçay basin...... 47 Figure 27. Spatial distribution of population variation, Akarçay basin (2016-2038)...... 47 Figure 28. Municipal scenarios, population and gross water use, Akarçay basin...... 50 Figure 29. Changes in annual irrigated and cultivated lands in Akarçay...... 51 Figure 30. Agriculture baseline scenario: irrigated surface and water use per crop, Akarçay basin...... 53 Figure 31. Cultivated crop surface, Akarçay basin (2032)...... 54 Figure 32. Irrigational water demand per crop, Akarçay basin (2038)...... 54 Figure 33. Consumptive–industry water use projections by province, Akarçay basin...... 55 Figure 34. Water uses projections in the optimistic scenario, Akarçay basin...... 56 Figure 35. Water uses projections in the realistic scenario, Akarçay basin...... 56 Figure 36. Meters reading periodicity, Akarçay basin...... 57 Figure 37. Water services tariff structure, Akarçay basin...... 58 Figure 38. Payment for water services by consumption ranges, Akarçay (2016)...... 60 Figure 39. Payment for water services by water service, Akarçay (2016)...... 61

Figure 40. Batı Akdeniz basin area, provinces and districts...... 64 Figure 41. Population (immigrants included), Batı Akdeniz basin (2016)...... 65 Figure 42. Population trends: full provinces and basin population, Batı Akdeniz basin (2007-2016)...... 66 Figure 43. Gross domestic product, Batı Akdeniz basin (2004-2014)...... 67 Figure 44. Labour force and labour productivity, Batı Akdeniz basin (2004-2014)...... 67 Figure 45. Industrial sector per facility sizes, Batı Akdeniz basin...... 68 Figure 46. Population distribution per type and size of settlement, Batı Akdeniz basin (2016)...... 69 Figure 47. Spatial distribution of population, Batı Akdeniz basin (2016)...... 70 Figure 48. Distribution of irrigation areas per investor, Batı Akdeniz basin...... 71 Figure 49. Current irrigation areas, Batı Akdeniz basin...... 72 Figure 50. Cultivated crops in irrigation fields in Batı Akdeniz basin...... 72 Figure 51. Average crop pattern in the last decade, Batı Akdeniz...... 73 Figure 52. Distribution of irrigated areas per crops, Batı Akdeniz basin (2016)...... 74 Figure 53. Crops water needs and annual water use per crop, Batı Akdeniz basin (2016)...... 75 Figure 54. Crops net margin per hectare and per cubic metre, Batı Akdeniz basin (2016)...... 75 Figure 55. Crop net margin per cubic meter by GWB (left map); crop net margin per cubic meter by SWB (right map), Batı Akdeniz basin (2016)...... 76 Figure 56. Annual net margin per crops, Batı Akdeniz basin (2016)...... 77 Figure 57. Annual water use per crop and apparent value of water, Batı Akdeniz basin (2016)...... 78 Figure 58. Annual net margin per crop and apparent value of water, Batı Akdeniz basin (2016)...... 78 Figure 59. Industrial water use by province, Batı Akdeniz basin (2016)...... 79 Figure 60. Industrial consumption, Batı Akdeniz basin (2016)...... 79 Figure 61. Current water uses, Batı Akdeniz basin (2016)...... 82 Figure 62. Annual net margin and water use per crops, Batı Akdeniz basin (2016)...... 82 Figure 63. Population variation per size of settlement and planning cycle, Batı Akdeniz basin...... 84 Figure 64. Spatial distribution of population variation, Batı Akdeniz basin (2016-2038)...... 84 Figure 65. Municipal scenarios, population and gross water use...... 88 Figure 66. Changes in annual irrigated and cultivated lands in Batı Akdeniz...... 90 Figure 67. Agriculture baseline scenario: irrigated surface and water use per crop, Batı Akdeniz...... 92 Figure 68. Cultivated crop surface, Batı Akdeniz basin (2032)...... 93 Figure 69. Irrigational water demand per crop, Batı Akdeniz basin (2038)...... 93 Figure 70. Consumptive industry water use projections by province, Batı Akdeniz...... 94 Figure 71. Water uses projections in the optimistic scenario, Batı Akdeniz basin...... 95 Figure 72. Water uses projections in the realistic scenario, Batı Akdeniz basin...... 95 Figure 73. Meters reading periodicity in Batı Akdeniz basin...... 96 Figure 74. Water services tariff structure, Batı Akdeniz basin...... 97 Figure 75. Payment for water services by consumption ranges, Batı Akdeniz (2016)...... 99 Figure 76. Payment for water services by water service, Batı Akdeniz (2016)...... 100 Figure 77. Yeşilırmak basin area, provinces and districts...... 103 Figure 78. Population (immigrants included), Yeşilırmak basin (2016)...... 104 Figure 79. Population trends: full provinces and basin population, Yeşilırmak (2007-2016)...... 105 Figure 80. Gross domestic product, Yeşilırmak basin (2004-2014)...... 106

Figure 81. Labour force and labour productivity, Yeşilırmak basin (2004-2014)...... 106 Figure 82. Industrial sector per facility sizes, Yeşilırmak basin...... 106 Figure 83. Population distribution per type and size of settlement, Yeşilırmak basin (2016)...... 108 Figure 84. Spatial distribution of population, Yeşilırmak basin (2016)...... 108 Figure 85. Current irrigation areas in Yeşilırmak...... 110 Figure 86. Distribution of irrigation areas per investor, Yeşilırmak basin...... 111 Figure 87. Cultivated crops in irrigation fields in Yeşilırmak basin...... 111 Figure 88. Average crop pattern in the last decade, Akarçay basin...... 112 Figure 89. Distribution of irrigated areas per crops, Yeşilırmak basin (2016)...... 113 Figure 90. Crops water needs and annual water use per crop, Yeşilırmak basin (2016)...... 114 Figure 91. Current net margin per hectare and crop, Yeşilırmak basin (2016)...... 114 Figure 92. Crop net margin per cubic meter by GWB (left map); crop net margin per cubic meter by SWB (right map), Yeşilırmak basin (2016)...... 115 Figure 93. Annual net margin per crops, Yeşilırmak basin (2016)...... 116 Figure 94. Annual water use per crop and apparent value of water, Yeşilırmak basin (2016)...... 117 Figure 95. Annual net margin per crop and apparent value of water, Yeşilırmak basin (2016)...... 117 Figure 96. Industrial consumption, Yeşilirmak basin (2016)...... 118 Figure 97. Industrial water use by province and location, Yeşilirmak basin (2016)...... 118 Figure 98. Current water uses, Yeşilirmak basin (2016)...... 123 Figure 99. Annual net margin and water use per crops, Yeşilirmak basin (2016)...... 123 Figure 100. Population variation per size of settlement and planning cycle, Yeşilırmak basin...... 125 Figure 101. Spatial distribution of population variation, Yeşilırmak basin (2016-2038)...... 125 Figure 102. Municipal scenarios, population and gross water use, Yeşilırmak basin...... 131 Figure 103. Changes in annual irrigated and cultivated lands, Yeşilırmak basin...... 133 Figure 104. Agricultural baseline scenario: Irrigated surface and water use per crop, Yeşilırmak basin...... 135 Figure 105. Cultivated crop surface, Yeşilırmak basin (2032)...... 136 Figure 106. Irrigational water demand per crop, Yeşilırmak basin (2038)...... 136 Figure 107. Consumptive industry water use projections by province, Yeşilirmak basin...... 137 Figure 108. Water uses projections in the optimistic scenario, Yeşilirmak basin...... 138 Figure 109. Water uses projections in the realistic scenario, Yeşilirmak basin...... 138 Figure 110. Meters reading periodicity, Yeşilirmak basin...... 139 Figure 111. Water services tariff structure, Yeşilirmak basin...... 140 Figure 112. Payment for water services by consumption ranges, Yeşilirmak (2016)...... 144 Figure 113. Payment for water services by water service, Yeşilirmak (2016)...... 146 Figure 114. Gross domestic product distribution, Turkey and the three pilot basins (2014)...... 150 Figure 115. Labour force distribution, Turkey and the three pilot basins (2014)...... 150 Figure 116. Water uses distribution, all basins (2016)...... 151 Figure 117. Human and industrial water use from GW and GW irrigation areas (left map); human and industrial water use from SW and surface SW areas (right map), Akarçay basin (2016)...... 152 Figure 118. Human and industrial water use from GW and GW areas (left map); human and industrial water use from SW and SW areas (right map), Batı Akdeniz basin (2016)...... 153

Figure 119. Human and industrial water use from GW and GW areas (left map), human and industrial water use from SW and SW areas (right map), Yeşilirmak basin (2016)...... 154 Figure 120. Water demand forecasts (municipal optimistic scenario), all basins...... 155 Figure 121. Municipal water demands forecasts in the realistic scenario, all basins...... 156 Figure 122. Irrigational water demands forecasts, all basins...... 157 Figure 123. Industrial water demand forecast, all basins...... 158 Figure 124. Livestock water demand forecast, all basins...... 159 Figure 125. Spatial distribution of population in groundwater bodies, Akarçay basin (2016)...... 162 Figure 126. Spatial distribution of human and industrial water use from ground waters, Akarçay basin (2016)...... 162

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

GDP: Gross Domestic Product DGRA: Directorate General of Rural Affairs (former) DGAR: Directorate General of Agricultural Reform DSI: State Hydraulic Works GVA: Gross Value Added ETc: Crop water demand ETP: Potential Evapotranspiration ETS: Exponential Triple Smoothing FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization GW: Ground water HPP: Hydropower Plant MoAF: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (former MoFWA) MoD: Ministry of Development

MoENR: Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources MoEU: Ministry of Environment and Urbanisation MoFAL: Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock MoFWA: Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs (previous Beneficiary, currently MoAF) MoIT: Ministry of Industry and Technology MW: Municipal Water NRW: Non-Revenue Water OIZ: Organised Industrial Zone PDSIT: Provincial Directorates of Science, Industry and Technology RB: River Basin SIZ: Small Industrial Zone SPAs: Special Provincial Administrations SW: Surface water TURKSTAT: Turkish Statistical Institute

1. INTRODUCTION

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) aims to protect ground and surface waters and their depending ecosystems following natural geographical and hydrological units, which are the water bodies. In the same vein, water economics seeks to provide adequate data to systematically incorporate economic rationale into water planning in the search for a sustainable growth, therefore compatible with the improvement and protection of the water resources.

The present document constitutes the economic characterization study. It comprises, on the one hand, the socio-economic relevance of the river basins; and on the other, the assessment of the water consumption, current and forecast, for the significant uses. The balance or unbalance between the estimated future water needs and the available resources reveals the compatibility between the foreseeable trend in demand for water services and the preservation or improvement of the ecological status of water ecosystems. The study includes also an analysis of the water tariffs in the municipal and agricultural sectors, which has been extracted from the “Current situation report”1.

Reference year or base year of the present planning cycle is 2016. The first planning cycle covers from 2016 to 2026, the subsequent cycles are 2027-2032 and 2033-2038. The climate change impact is taking into consideration in the long-term timeline (2033-2038 projections).

1 Component 3

Page 1 of 167

2. METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH AND DATA

2.1. THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF THE RIVER BASINS

This chapter deals with the portrayal of the socio-economic weight of the river basins. This is done in terms of population, labour force and production value of the different economic sector activities and future trends of these variables. This information will serve subsequently to develop the baseline scenario; this is to say, the expected projection (over the next water planning cycles) of a selected group of indicators on water use and therefore the expected projection of the water demands.

Output or turnover is measured with Gross Value Added (GVA) and Gross Domestic Product (GDP). GVA measures the value of goods and services produced in an area, industry or sector of an economy. Over- simplistically, gross value added is the grand total of all revenues from final sales and (net) subsidies; which are incomes into businesses. Those incomes are used to cover expenses (wages and salaries, investment, dividends), savings (profits, depreciation) and (indirect) taxes. The relationship between GVA and GDP is defined as:

GVA + taxes on products - subsidies on products = GDP

Regarding the turnover, GVA data is available from TurkStat at regional scale (level2) until and including the year 2011, GDP data is available at provincial scale until and including the year 2014. Therefore, turnover has been assessed via GDP data as follows:

. Downsizing it to basin level o Through the relative weight of the basin population in each of the provinces (average 2013-2016), for the industrial and services sectors. o Through the relative weight of the agricultural area in each of the provinces (STATIP data), for the agricultural sector. . Converting current values into constant values through the GDP deflator2. Monetary values are expressed in Turkish Liras at constant values of 2014.

2 The GDP deflator is a measure of general price inflation. It is calculated by dividing nominal GDP by real GDP and then multiplying by 100. Nominal GDP is the market value of goods and services produced in an economy, unadjusted for inflation (it is the GDP measured at current prices). Real GDP is nominal GDP, adjusted for inflation to reflect changes in real output (it is the GDP measured at constant prices). There are other measures of inflation too like Consumer Price Index (CPI) and Wholesale Price Index (or WPI); however GDP deflator is a much broader and comprehensive measure. Since GDP is an aggregate measure of production, being the sum of all final uses of goods and services (less imports), GDP deflator reflects the prices of all domestically produced goods and services in the economy; whereas other measures like CPI and WPI are based on a limited basket of goods and services, thereby not representing the entire economy (the basket of goods is changed to accommodate changes in consumption patterns, but after a considerable period of time). The GDP deflator also includes the prices of investment goods, government services and exports and excludes the price of imports.

Page 2 of 167

Table 1. Provincial share of the agricultural area, all basins.

Percent of the agricultural area Basin Province within the basin (%) Afyonkarahisar 41.1% Akarçay Konya 4.9% Antalya 48.7% Aydın 0.2% Batı Akdeniz Burdur 17.6% Denizli 16.4% Muğla 83.3% Amasya 92.9% Bayburt 1.2% Çorum 43.3% Erzincan 8.7% Giresun 21.5% Yeşilırmak Gümüşhane 65.5% Ordu 12.6% Samsun 54.4% Sivas 11.4% Tokat 99.6% Yozgat 19.6% Source: Authors based on STATIP database.

Table 2. Population weight per province, Akarçay river basin.

2013 2014 2015 2016 Average 2013-2016 Total population of the provinces Afyonkarahisar 707,123 706,371 709,015 714,523 709,258 Konya 2,079,225 2,108,808 2,130,544 2,161,303 2,119,970 Population % within the Population within the basin (without immigrants) province (2013-2016) Afyonkarahisar 485,486 488,110 494,964 501,950 492,628 69% Konya 104,997 104,562 104,210 103,011 104,195 5% Source: Authors based on (Address-Based Population Registration System)

Page 3 of 167

Table 3. Population weight per province, Batı Akdeniz river basin.

2013 2014 2015 2016 Average 2013-2016 Total population of the provinces Aydın 1,020,957 1,041,979 1,053,506 1,068,260 1,046,176 Denizli 963,464 978,700 993,442 1,005,687 985,323 Muğla 866,665 894,509 908,877 923,773 898,456 Antalya 2,158,265 2,222,562 2,288,456 2,328,555 2,249,460 Burdur 257,267 256,898 258,339 261,401 258,476 Population % within the Population within the basin (without immigrants) province (2013-2016) Aydın 4,402 5,664 5,529 5,612 5,302 1% Denizli 89,466 88,717 87,787 87,507 88,369 9% Muğla 775,575 805,936 820,738 833,842 809,287 90% Antalya 279,648 280,105 282,272 282,666 281,173 12% Burdur 44,988 44,080 43,783 44,251 44,276 17% Source: Authors based on (Address-Based Population Registration System) Table 4. Population weight per province, Yeşilırmak river basin.

2013 2014 2015 2016 Average 2013-2016 Total population of the provinces Sivas 623,824 623,116 618,617 621,224 621,695 Yozgat 444,211 432,560 419,440 421,041 429,313 Samsun 1,261,810 1,269,989 1,279,884 1,295,927 1,276,903 Tokat 598,708 597,920 593,990 602,662 598,320 Çorum 532,080 527,220 525,180 527,863 528,086 Amasya 321,977 321,913 322,167 326,351 323,102 Ordu 731,452 724,268 728,949 750,588 733,814 Giresun 425,007 429,984 426,686 444,467 431,536 Gümüşhane 141,412 146,353 151,449 172,034 152,812 Erzincan 219,996 223,633 222,918 226,032 223,145 Bayburt 75,620 80,607 78,550 90,154 81,233 Pop. % within the Population within the basin (without immigrants) province (2013-2016) Sivas 62,063 60,082 57,676 56,699 59,130 10% Yozgat 123,667 117,160 109,540 107,877 114,561 27% Samsun 926,026 936,601 950,595 967,456 945,170 74% Tokat 596,777 597,368 593,710 602,473 597,582 100% Çorum 323,580 326,721 330,969 337,234 329,626 62% Amasya 311,787 312,207 312,869 317,255 313,530 97% Ordu 19,147 17,856 16,867 18,492 18,091 2% Giresun 39,339 40,810 35,715 40,516 39,095 9% Gümüşhane 65,425 69,086 73,737 85,690 73,485 48% Erzincan 9,175 9,701 9,113 9,081 9,268 4% Bayburt 153 125 97 97 118 0% Source: Authors based on (Address-Based Population Registration System)

Page 4 of 167

Table 5. Gross domestic product, 1998 - 2015 (in purchasers' value; based on 1998).

GDP in current prices GDP in constant (1998) prices Deflator GDP in constant Year Value Variation rate Value Variation rate Gap Value prices (2014) 000,000 TL % 000,000 TL % % 2014=100 1998 70,203 70,203 1,466 1,029,523 1999 104,596 49% 67,841 -3% 52.4% 963 1,006,782 2000 166,658 59% 72,436 7% 52.6% 631 1,051,488 2001 240,224 44% 68,309 -6% 49.8% 421 1,011,506 2002 350,476 46% 72,520 6% 39.7% 301 1,056,126 2003 454,781 30% 76,338 5% 24.5% 242 1,100,792 2004 559,033 23% 83,486 9% 13.6% 213 1,191,550 2005 648,932 16% 90,50 8% 7.7% 198 1,284,520 2006 758,391 17% 96,738 7% 10.0% 180 1,365,037 2007 843,178 11% 101,255 5% 6.5% 169 1,424,869 2008 950,534 13% 101,922 1% 12.1% 151 1,433,246 2009 952,559 0% 97,003 -5% 5.0% 144 1,367,397 2010 1,098,799 15% 105,886 9% 6.2% 135 1,485,304 2011 1,297,713 18% 115,175 9% 9.3% 124 1,604,486 2012 1,416,798 9% 117,625 2% 7.0% 115 1,636,373 2013 1,567,289 11% 122,556 4% 6.4% 109 1,700,834 2014 1,748,168 12% 126,258 3% 8.5% 100 1,748,168 2015 1,952,638 12% 131,273 4% 7.7% 92 1,801,810 Source: Authors based on TurkStat data (OECD, September 2016)

As for population trends, the analysis shows the last ten years (2007-2016) variation of the basin population and the one of entire provinces partially included in the river basins. Changes in administrative boundaries of the settlements have been considered.

Concerning the employment, data is available at provincial level; the analysis covers the trend for the period between 2004 and 2014.

In sum, the information used in the analysis of the socio-economic profile of the river basins is:

 Gross value added, at regional scale level (level2) and national level, per economic sector, 2004-2011, in current prices. Turkish Statistical Institute (TurkStat).  Employment, at provincial level and national level per economic sector, 2004-2014. TurkStat.  Gross domestic product, at provincial level, 2004 – 2014, in current prices. TurkStat.  Population of municipalities and provinces, 2007 – 2016. Address Based Population Registration System. Turkish Statistical Institute.

Furthermore, the main economic activities in agriculture and industry are described based on information collected from Ministry of Industry and Technology (MoIT) and Master Plans.

Page 5 of 167

2.2. CURRENT WATER USE

Water uses are water services together with any other activity identified under Article 5 and Annex II having a significant impact on the status of water (WFD article 39). Those will then be: the municipal water use (which comprises the domestic, commercial and institutional water use connected to the municipal networks); irrigational; livestock; and lastly, the industrial water use (not connected to the municipal networks). These water uses shall be characterised, as they have a different impact on the water environment depending on either their quantitative significance or the relevance of their effect on the water quality and/or the hydro-morphological characteristics of the water bodies.

Therefore, municipal water use, irrigational, livestock and industrial water use are assessed. This means assessing the water consumptions in each of the sectors for the current scenario, the year 2016; and it means assessing the apparent value of water for the economic activities, what allows weighing the significance of water for the socio-economic wealth of the basin.

2.2.1. MUNICIPAL USE

Municipal water uses are determined by settlement using as a basis the methodology proposed in the “State Hydraulic Works (DSI) Guidance: Population and Water Demand Estimation Principles”. The document guidance includes a methodological proposal for the domestic water use and for the commercial and institutional users connected to the municipal networks. The following type of settlements shall be analysed: metropolitan municipalities, district municipalities, town municipalities, neighbourhoods and villages.

Annex I includes a list of settlements by provinces, districts and river basin showing the data obtained from the following sources, by preference order:  Field visit (municipal level) and further calls made to complete the data not provided through the survey.  TurkStat data (district level), provided directly by the same entity.  Data obtained from Master Plans for municipalities not covered by the field surveys.  TurkStat data from the website (provincial level) for the settlements without any other source of data available.

Changes in administrative boundaries

In 2013, some administrative changes took place in Turkey (Law No 6360). Accordingly, the status of villages changed to neighbourhoods, town municipalities were abolished and became neighbourhoods within all metropolitan provinces.

From a methodological point of view, population data obtained from TurkStat (census data) can be used as they are before 2012; but from 2013 to 2016, for district municipalities in metropolitan areas, the following procedure is applied in order to ensure comparison of homogeneous data for population forecasts: neighbourhoods located inside the borders of the district centre and existing before 2013 are extracted and their population is summed up as the total for the district municipality to be compared with the ones of the previous years.

Page 6 of 167

As an example, Elmalı municipality of Antalya consisted of 10 neighbourhoods until 2012; when the system changed and the former villages became neighbourhoods, 60 neighbourhoods became part of Elmalı (50 former villages were added that had their own population before). So within one year the census population more than doubled for Elmalı municipality only due to the administrative change. Hence, we shall extract these 10 neighbourhoods from the total 60 and sum the population of only these 10 villages in order to find the “real” population of Elmalı from 2013 and onwards.

Population data

Detailed population information for each municipality (district centres and other towns), neighbourhood and village is obtained from TurkStat database (Address Based Population Registration System). As aforementioned, population projections are determined by settlement using as a basis the methodology proposed in the DSI Guidance. The guide proposes using:

 Census values from 1965 (included) for municipalities with above 25,000 inhabitants.  Census values from 1975 (incl.) for municipalities with a population 5,000-25,000 inhabitants.  Census values from 1985 (included) for municipalities with population below 5,000.  For the villages, values from 1985.

The data concerning immigrants for the year 2016 have been obtained separately from the Directorate General of Immigration. They have been considered within the population of the appropriate settlement; therefore, the population forecasts include also the immigrants.

Water usage per type of subscriber: domestic, public and commercial

Domestic water uses are estimated according to two types of subscriber: domestic, on the one hand; and public + commercial (connected to the municipal networks), on the other.

In municipalities with a population below 2,000 inhabitants, a per capita gross water consumption of 150 litres per day has been set (as per DSI Guidance).

In the municipalities above 2,000 inhabitants, water consumption data was requested in the field survey distinguishing between domestic (residents) and public + commercial (commercial, official, green area, factory and construction). The data is then used to calculate the net water consumption ratio of public + commercial to residential. Details for each basin are given in Annex 01.

Water abstracted, water distributed, losses and non-revenue water

Non-revenue water (NRW) is the part of the water produced and “lost” throughout the system before it reaches the customer. Losses can be real losses (through leaks, sometimes also referred to as physical losses) or apparent losses (for example through unauthorized use or metering inaccuracies). Non- revenue water is the relation between the water abstracted and the portion that fails to be distributed.

Water abstracted = Water distributed + Water abstracted * Non-revenue water (expressed in percentage terms)

For the year 2016, water abstracted and non-revenue water are not estimated but obtained directly from the different sources of information.

Page 7 of 167

Other consumptions

Water consumption of administrations is also taken into account in the assessment of the current water use. Administrations refer to large troops, factories, large commercial facilities, touristic facilities as well as summer houses, which might cause inward population movements and populations located in the settlements. The assumptions proposed by the DSI Guidance document are: water consumption per person for troops (per soldier), for tourism (per tourist, per tourist yachting-day-trip), for students and for thermal complexes (per thermal visitor); namely, gross amounts are:

 Troops (per soldier): 100 l/capita/day.  Tourism (with accommodation, summer houses, second houses…): 200 l/c/d; 6 months/year.  Tourism yachting-day-trip (per user): 75 l/c/d.  Boarding school (per student): 100 l/c/d.  Thermal complex (per visitor): 400 l/c/d.

The list of tourism facilities in the basins has been obtained from the Provincial Directorates of Culture and Tourism or from the related Master Plans and the Water Allocation Plan for Akarçay (when the former were not available). The number of secondary houses (mostly related with Bati Akdeniz) is taken from the Master Plans.

2.2.2. LIVESTOCK USE

The number of livestock in the settlements was obtained from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MoAF; former Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock).

As per DSI Guidance, the water consumption is 50 litres/day for bovine and 15 litres/day for ovine.

The same Guidance document proposes an average water consumption of 15 litres/day for poultry (chickens, ducks and turkeys), although usual values in the European Union countries are comparably lower. In Ireland, for instance, values are under 0.5 l/day, in Spain values range between 0.2-0.33 l/day. According to the Ilbank Technical Specification for Preparation of Etude, Feasibility and Projects of Drinking Water Facilities, a daily water consumption of 0.25 l/day is adequate for poultry. Therefore, 0.25 l/day is adopted for the daily water consumption of poultry in the scope of the current study.

2.2.3. IRRIGATIONAL USE

Agriculture is the major water user in all the river basins of Turkey. Municipal and industrial water demands are inferior to irrigational water demand particularly in inland river basins, such as Akarçay, due to the lower degree of industrialization and urbanization.

Turkey has a variety of irrigation facilities. These vary depending on the administrative, technical, economical, physical and social conditions. In order to make a clear distinction between the irrigation facilities, these projects are grouped as per the table below.

Page 8 of 167

Table 6. Classification of irrigation facilities per investing institution and water resource.

Class code Explanation of the irrigation class 1.0.0 Irrigation projects invested by DSI 1.1.0 SW (*) irrigation projects that are operated or transferred by DSI 1.1.1 Large-scale irrigation projects (1000+ ha) 1.1.2 Small-scale irrigation projects (1000- ha) 1.2.1 GW (**) irrigation projects that are transferred or operated by DSI 2.0.0 Irrigation projects invested, operated or transferred by other institutions than DSI 2.1.1 GW irrigation projects invested by SPAs 2.2.0 SW irrigation projects invested by SPAs 2.2.1 Small dam irrigation projects 2.2.2 SW irrigation projects 3.0.0 Farmer Irrigations 3.1.0 SW farmer irrigations 3.1.1 SW farmer irrigations preserved under HEPP downstream water rights 3.1.2 SW other farmer irrigations 3.1.3 SW farmer irrigations inspected by field surveys 3.2.0 GW Farmer Irrigations 3.2.1 GW farmer irrigations with authorized groundwater wells 3.2.2 GW farmer irrigations with unauthorized groundwater wells Note: (*) SW: surface waters; (**) GW: ground waters.

Inventory of irrigation facilities

The irrigational water use assessment has been initiated by preparing inventories of irrigation projects. Information such as location, net surface area, irrigation ratio, crop pattern, water resource, abstraction amount, operational status, operational date, operating institution, transmission and irrigation techniques that characterize an irrigation area are inventoried. Information resources used are:

 Master Plans are used as elemental basis. Particularly, information available in chapters of hydrology, hydrogeology, agro-economics, water uses and inventory of water structures are incorporated and first draft of inventory is prepared.  This draft is updated with the inventories delivered by SPAs and metropolitan municipalities.  The National Irrigation Inventory of Directorate General of Agricultural Reform (DGAR) is used as an auxiliary dataset to include missing irrigation facilities developed by the former Directorate General of Rural Affairs (DGRA).  The latest status or operational dates of DSI irrigation projects are extracted from websites of Regional Directorates of DSI.  GIS datasets of irrigation projects (both surface and groundwater) are delivered by DSI. Geographical information and IDs are extracted from these datasets. The geographical information is then used to assign the waterbody code that the water is abstracted. Besides, overlapping irrigations are also investigated using GIS tools.  Annual statistics of large-scale irrigation facilities that are invested and operated by DSİ are also utilized. These data are available for the period 1991-2016. However, since it represents very small number of irrigations in three basins, this information is mostly kept as auxiliary data.  The irrigation unions and cooperatives have also been surveyed in scope of this project. The survey results are used to validate the information available in the inventories.

Page 9 of 167

 In scope of Master Plan studies, farmer irrigations that abstract either surface or groundwater are surveyed in the field. These studies are the most recent database available for farmer irrigations. Therefore, master plans are used as sole resource for farmer irrigations. However, there might be additional farmer irrigations that were not noticed and surveyed in master plan.  District-based agricultural production datasets for the period 2004-2017 are downloaded from TurkStat website. District-based agricultural production datasets per crop are grouped as per their species (such as cereals, legumes, oilseeds, vegetables, fruit trees, forage crops, etc.) and only basin-specific crops (such as opium in Akarçay, olive in Batı Akdeniz and sunflower in Yeşilırmak) are not grouped and analysed individually. The agricultural practice of crops is also studied and crops are grouped under either irrigated or rainfed considering the crop characteristics. District-based agricultural production datasets are then adapted to basin-based datasets using the methodology explained in the following bullet.  GIS datasets of “Project on Determination and Reclamation of Problematic Arable Lands (aka STATIP)” are also used. Although STATIP datasets are produced in 2009, it has been the only high-resolution land cover map available for this study. GDAR has produced more recent and accurate land cover maps (e.g. Land Parcel Identification System, 2017); however, those maps were not made available. STATIP datasets are used for three purposes: 1. Agricultural production datasets delivered by TurkStat are district basis. However, basin boundaries do not match with the district boundaries. In order to adapt district- based values into basin-based values, a factor is required. The cultivation area within the basin-boundaries per district is calculated using GIS tools. 2. Despite all efforts to create a full inventory of irrigation projects, the total inventoried cultivation area did not match with the cultivation area declared by TurkStat. Further investigations portrayed that this might be due to lack of inventories for farmer irrigations and utilization of non-allocated water resources for irrigation purposes. In order to double-check TurkStat data, STATIP data has been used; STATIP and TurkStat datasets perfectly match. The correlation coefficients are almost 100% for three of the basins; not only for irrigated, but also for rainfed area. 3. In order to discard the difference between the Turkstat cultivation area and inventoried cultivation area, the difference is included as “Farmer Irrigations that utilizes non-allocated groundwater resources” as per district. This hypothesis is legitimate, considering that the evaluated crops cannot be cultivated without irrigation and groundwater is more accessible than surface water in the basins, particularly during the growth season.

Crop water demand

The inventory is then used as basis to calculate irrigational water demands based on the methodology currently in use in Turkey, applied in the Master Plans, although with the following changes:

 The method to calculate the monthly average Potential Evapotranspiration (ETP).  The water demands are obtained per crop; that enables to assess the net margin per crop.

A vast number of empirical methods are available in literature to calculate potential evapotranspiration. Among these, Penman-Monteith is considered to offer the best results with minimum possible error. The use of Penman-Monteith is encouraged by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and recommended as the sole standard method for computation of reference evapotranspiration.

Page 10 of 167

Blaney-Criddle method was previously used in Turkey due to the constraints of climatological data. However, nowadays the meteorological network of the country has been developed and the gauged parameters are much more advanced. Besides, a reference document that covers the cultivated crops was not previously available. Consequently, DSI, GDARP, academicians and consultants have joined their knowledge to develop a reference document to implement Penman-Monteith method in Turkey.

Penman-Monteith method is used to calculate the potential evapotranspiration and the irrigation net demand in scope of this project. The calculations are performed as per the instructions and information available in the “Reference Document on Plant Water Use (MoFAL, 2017)”. This document covers all necessary inputs to calculate crop water demands and irrigational water demands.

In the reference document, the authors evaluated all (~1600) weather observation stations in the nation and concluded that only 259 of them are convenient to be used for Penman-Monteith computations. They shortlisted total number of 85 main crops cultivated in Turkey. Finally, according to the geographical location and domain of the selected 259 weather observation stations, related crops are filtered and crop water demands (ETc) are calculated for decadal days (consecutive 10-days period for 12 months) considering all relevant climatological and agrological aspects. The cultivated crops are grouped as per their species (such as cereals, legumes, oilseeds, vegetables, fruit trees, forage crops, etc.) and only basin-specific crops (such as opium in Akarçay, olive in Batı Akdeniz and sunflower in Yeşilırmak) are not grouped and analysed individually. As per instructions in the reference document, the net irrigational water demand is calculated by subtracting effective rainfall (80% of the rainfall) from the crop water demands (ETc) given in the reference document.

The weather observation stations inside or on the periphery of three river basins are extracted from the reference document. The domains of weather observation stations are then delineated by using GIS tools, based on Thiessen Polygons. Spatial analyses are conducted to couple weather observation stations and irrigation areas. Consequently, agricultural water use (net demand) is calculated by multiplying the cultivated surface area by the net irrigational water demand.

The difference between gross and net water demand corresponds to the efficiency of the irrigation systems. Field and conveyance efficiencies are estimated using coefficients determined for sprinkle and drip irrigation methods; soil texture is considered for the surface irrigation method.

As a result, gross and net demands are obtained per crop and irrigated unit.

Net margin

Incomes and expenses for cultivated crops are available per district in the “Agricultural Expenses Database (aka TAMSIS)”. Datasets are delivered by Provincial Directorates of Agriculture and Forestry. Net margin of cultivated crops is a dataset available in TAMSIS.

District-based net margin prices are grouped as per their species (such as cereals, legumes, oilseeds, vegetables, fruit trees, forage crops, etc.) and only basin-specific crops (such as opium in Akarçay, olive in Batı Akdeniz and sunflower in Yeşilırmak) are not grouped and analysed individually. For each species of crop, averaged net margin per unit area (TL/da) are then used to calculate net margin per unit water use (TL/m³). Calculation can be expressed as follows: [Net margin per cultivation Area (TL/ha)] x [Net cultivated area (ha)] / [Total water demand (m³)]

Page 11 of 167

2.2.4. INDUSTRIAL USE

Consumptive industrial water use

The present analysis deals solely with the industrial water use not connected to the municipal networks in the current situation scenario (2016). Therefore, industries that use municipal water supply network are not part of the analysis (their water usage is assessed as part of the municipal sector).

Field surveys have been the primary source of data for the current (2016) water use assessment. Web sites of relevant entities and pertinent publications have also been consulted in order to develop an inventory with additional information besides the water use; these secondary sources of data are:

 Master Plans of the three river basins.  Akarçay Water Allocation Plan, 2016 (on-going).  Industry inventory of the Ministry of Industry and Technology, headquarters and provincial directorates of Industry and Technology (PDIT).  Web sites of the Organized Industrial Zones (OIZ).

The river basins industries inventory was prepared using as a base the MoIT inventory. As data from MoIT are provided per province, the location of each company was set through its address and only the industries within the 3 pilot basins were selected. Using the data from the Ministry of Environment and Urbanisation (MoEU) and the location of each company, the industries were classified as follows:

 Individual industries 1. Located in rural areas; some of them identified as discharging directly to a specific water body, as per discharges permits allocated by the MoEU. 2. Located in urban areas, which fall outside the scope of the analysis as they use the municipal water networks.  Organized industrial zones.  Small industrial zones, located in in urban areas; which also fall outside the analysis scope.

The inventory also includes added data such as the industry scale depending on the number of employees (micro, less than 10 employees; small, between 10 and 50; medium, 50 to 250; and large, above 250 employees), whether there is a wastewater treatment plant or not; annual turnover; type of activity per NACE code (statistical classification of economic activities in the European Union); etc.

The different sources of data taken into account are listed below in order of preference3:

 Water demands obtained in the field surveys.  Master Plans; such as the Yeşilırmak Basin Master Plan (2014 data), which covers the industrial water consumption of large-scale facilities, including organized industrial zones, small industrial zones and high water-consuming individual facilities.  The Akarçay Water Allocation Plan, which also analyses large-scale facilities.

Field surveys and aforementioned sources of information provide water consumptions for all of the organized industrial zones and the high-water consumer companies.

3 Data prior to 2016 has been updated by applying the annual growth ratio of the industrial gross domestic product (in Batı Akdeniz 2.7% in 2009-2014 and 0.8% in 2014-2016, and in Yeşilırmak 3.9% in the period 2014-2016).

Page 12 of 167

For the individual industries with no data available, the approach used is explained hereafter. Field surveys data allows deducting daily water usage ratios per employee for some NACE codes. These ratios have been applied to other industries with no data and common NACE codes; so to extend the analysis to the rest of the industries, other NACE codes are considered to have similar water demands (by expert criteria). The next table shows the daily water usage ratios per employee resulted from the analysis.

Table 7. Annual water used based on NACE code.

Field survey Similar NACE codes NACE Water use NACE Description Description code (l/c/d) codes Quarrying of ornamental and building Operation of gravel and sand pits; 08.11 1,216 08.12 stone, limestone, gypsum and slate mining of clays and kaolin Processing and preserving of poultry 10.11 Processing and preserving of meat 950 10.12 meat 10.13 Production of meat and poultry meat 2,153

10.41 Manufacture of oils and fats 542

Operation of dairies and cheese 10.51 2,012 making 10.61 Manufacture of grain mill products 903

Manufacture of bread; manufacture of 10.71 12,978 fresh pastry goods and cakes 10.81 Manufacture of sugar 8,438

16.21 Manufacture related with wood 129 16.24 Manufacture of wooden containers Manufacture of fertilisers and nitrogen 20.15 4,903 compounds 22.19 Manufacture of other rubber products Manufacture of fabricated metal 23.52 Manufacture of lime and plaster 25.99 products, except machinery and 68 23.70 Cutting, shaping and finishing of stone equipment 24.45 Other non-ferrous metal production Manufacture of metal forming 28.41 37 machinery Waste collection, treatment and 38.32 6,229 disposal activities; materials recovery Source: Authors based on field surveys data

For the remaining cases, where there is no NACE codes coincidence, water needs were determined by using the relevant specifications of the MoIT designs criteria (Etude-Project Engineering Services Specifications, quoted in the Water Allocation Plan of Akarçay basin). The study proposes average water needs per employee depending on the company size:

 120 l/capita/day for large companies.  100 l/capita/day for medium companies.  50 l/capita/day for small companies.  30 l/capita/day for micro companies.

The information about the water source (surface or groundwater), is available only in the field surveys:

 In Akarçay, all industries (either individual or OIZ) use groundwater resources.  In Batı Akdeniz there are no OIZ. Individual industries in rural areas use 40% of groundwater resources and 60% of surface waters.  In Yeşilırmak, industries use 45% of groundwater resources and 55% of surface waters.

Page 13 of 167

Non-consumptive industrial water use

As non-consumptive industrial water use, the analysis comprises the list of Hydroelectric Power Plants (HPPs): the installed power, the stage, the dam, the type of user and the river, when available; along with the list of geothermal plants.

Hydroelectric Power Plants data have been collected from the DSI, the Electricity Generation Company (Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources), the Energy Markets Regulatory Authority and the Master Plans. Geothermal plants data have been obtained from governorships and Investing Monitoring Departments in metropolitan municipalities.

The water usage by thermal complexes has been included as part of the municipal water use (tourism).

2.3. WATER DEMAND FORECASTING

Future water demands have been estimated for each of the planning cycles (2016-2026, 2027-2032, 2033-2038), namely:

 Planning cycle I: year 2026.  Planning cycle II: year 2032.  Planning cycle III: year 2038.

2.3.1. MUNICIPAL DEMAND

Forecasts of future water demands (net and gross) have been obtained for:

 Municipalities with a population above 2,000 inhabitants.  Municipalities with population below 2,000 and villages.  Neighbourhoods and villages within metropolitan cities and provinces.

The forecast scenarios for domestic water use are based on the projections of:

 Population.  Per capita net water consumption.  Ratio of public and commercial to the residential water consumption.  Non-revenue water, where 3 scenarios are developed: 1. Trend scenario, based on past trends of the NRW ratios calculated with water abstraction and water consumed (billed) data obtained throughout field surveys and from TurkStat. NRW is the water produced but “lost” before reaching the subscriber4. 2. Optimistic scenario, based on the assumption of full compliance of the “By-law on the Control of Water Losses in Drinking Water Supply and Distribution Systems”. 3. Realistic scenario, based on the assumption that water service providers will require double the time set in the By-law to achieve the NRW targets.

4 Losses can be real losses or apparent losses. Real losses are the physical losses of water from the distribution system, including leakage and storage overflows. Apparent losses are the non-physical losses that occur in utility operations due to customer meter inaccuracies, systematic data handling errors in customer billing systems and unauthorized consumption; id est, water consumed but not properly measured, accounted or paid for.

Page 14 of 167

Forecast of population

Population forecast calculations are made in compliance with DSİ Population and Water Demand Estimation Principles. In light of the historical population censuses, projections are performed using the mathematical methods listed below depending on the current population of the settlement:

 İlbank method, arithmetic increase method and logistic curve method are applicable for settlements with populations above 25,000.  İlbank method and arithmetic increase method are applicable for settlements with populations between 5,000 and 25,000.  İlbank method is applicable for settlements with populations below 5,000.

The aforementioned methods are applied and the one which complies most with the trend of the previous censuses is selected. The figure below illustrates an example where the results of Arithmetic Increase method is selected, as its forecast values form a line which fits best to the population trend.

İlbank Method İlbank Method (stepwise) Arithmetic Increase Method Arithmetic Increase Method (stepwise) Logistic Curve Method (L1) Logistic Curve Method (L2)

Census Results

Population

Years

Figure 1. Example output graph for methods used in population projections for settlements with populations over 25,000.

Source: Authors based on (Address-Based Population Registration System)

As different projection methods are applicable depending on the population ranges, the results are classified in 3 categories for the municipalities according to their population sizes. A fourth category is also formed for villages and neighbourhoods at the peripheries of the metropolitan municipalities, central districts and town municipalities; and their population forecasts are summed up according to the municipalities they are affiliated to. The settlement categories used for the population forecast are:

 Above 25,000 population.  Between 2,000 and 5,000 population.  Below 2,000 population.

Commerce and public services connected to the municipal networks

 Future sectoral water consumptions were calculated by using past years’ data to create a trend analysis for the target year (2038). In case past years’ data could not be obtained from the field, the trend analysis was based on TURKSTAT data per districts.

Page 15 of 167

Forecast of net water demand per capita

DSI Guidance Population and Water Demand Estimation Principles have been considered on the forecast of the water demand per capita. Besides, after further research, the following methodology is proposed:

 In non-municipal settlements with populations below 2,000 inhabitants, increase of the per capita gross water consumption from 150 litres capita-day at the current year (2016) to 170 litres capita-day at the end of the last planning cycle (2038).  In municipalities with populations above 2,000 inhabitants, trend variation of the per capita net water consumption was calculated. For those years with no data obtained from the field (at settlement level), the trend analysis was based on TURKSTAT data, at district level. Minimum and maximum per capita net water consumption was set at 50 l/capita/day and 250 l/capita/day, respectively.  In all cases, the intermediate years were calculated by logarithmic interpolation.

Forecast of non-revenue water

Three scenarios are considered for the variation of NRW ratios: the trend scenario, the optimistic and realistic scenario. The trend scenario is based on past trends and an annual variation rate is presumed for all municipalities using logarithmic estimation method. Two additional scenarios, namely optimistic and realistic scenarios, have been designed considering efficiency improvements in the water supply distribution networks as per the “By-law on the Control of Water Losses in Drinking Water Supply and Distribution Systems”; Official Gazette (O.G.) 28994, 08.05.2014. As the By-law refers to physical losses rather than non-revenue water; an additional ratio of 5% apparent losses has been added to the real loss figures presented in the law (so as to calculate the water abstracted/distributed ratio).

Trend scenario

The non-revenue water ratios past trends were projected by applying a logarithmic projection to the 2006-2016 trend considering a minimum NRW ratio of 28% and maximum NRW ratio of 65%. When past years’ data could not be obtained from the field, the gaps have been covered using either TurkStat data per districts or network data obtained from formal or approved documents such as Master Plan Reports or Activity Reports for the basins or that specific settlement.

Optimistic scenario

Article 9 of the aforementioned By-law on water losses, published by the Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs (MoFWA), currently the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MoAF), states the following:

Administrations shall be subject to reduce water loss rates from the effective date of this Regulation; in metropolitan and provincial municipalities maximum 30% within 5 years, and maximum 25% during the following 4 years; in other municipalities maximum 30% within 9 years, and maximum 25% during the following 5 years. In this context, necessary activities shall be performed within the framework of the methods provided in the Communiqué on Technical Procedures to be issued pursuant to this Regulation.

Page 16 of 167

The optimistic scenario reflects the full compliance with the By-law on water losses and so, different target NRW ratios and timeline goals are established per type of settlement, also adding 5% apparent loss share to the defined physical loss percentages.

 In the Metropolitan Municipalities and the Central Districts, NRW ratios will be brought down to 35% (30% + 5%) within the first 5 years (after the adoption of the aforesaid by-law) and to 30% (25% + 5%) within the subsequent 4 years.  In town municipalities, the rates will be cut down to 35% (30% + 5%) within the first 9 years (after the adoption of the by-law) and to 30% (25% + 5%) in the succeeding 5 years.  The networks of the municipalities already fulfilling these criteria are assumed to stay in their present condition; this is to say that, as the scenario assumes an optimistic view, investments will be undertaken to preserve the proper functioning and status of the infrastructures.  Interim years are calculated by means of linear interpolation. The table for the representation of the optimistic scenario is given below.

Table 8. Non-revenue water forecast for the optimistic scenario.

Optimistic scenario – Non-revenue water percentages (adding 5% apparent losses to the by-law physical losses) Category 2016 2019 2023 2026 2028 2032 2038 District or Current NRW > 35.0 35.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 metropolitan Current NRW ≤ 35.0 2016 rates (≤ 35.0) Linear interpolation Other Current NRW > 35.0 between 2016 rates 35.0 32.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 municipalities and 2023 rates (35.0) Current NRW ≤ 35.0 2016 rates (≤ 35.0) Source: Authors based on (Official Gazette No 28994, 2014)

Realistic scenario

It is assumed that water service providers will require double the time set in the By-law to achieve the NRW targets. Accordingly, NRW rates in the Metropolitan municipalities and the Central Districts will be reduced to 35% within the first 10 years (after the approval of the by-law) and to 30% within the next 8 years. In town municipalities the rates will be reduced to 35% within the first 18 years and to 30% within the next 10 years. As for the networks of the municipalities already fulfilling these criteria, as the scenario assumes a more realistic view, no further investments are presumed and NRW performance will worsen up to the limit of compliance with the By-law. Interim years will be calculated by linear interpolation. The tabular representation of the scenario is presented below. The figure thereafter illustrates the example of Samsun Atakum district.

Table 9. Non-revenue water forecast for the realistic scenario.

Realistic scenario – Non-revenue water percentages (including 5% apparent losses to the by-law physical losses) Category 2016 2024 2026 2032 2038 Current NRW > 35.0 35.0 33.8 30.0 30.0 District or metropolitan Current NRW ≤ 35.0 35.0 33.8 30.0 30.0 Current NRW > 35.0 35.0 33.8 30.0 30.0 Other municipalities Current NRW ≤ 35.0 35.0 33.8 30.0 30.0 Source: Authors based on (Official Gazette No 28994, 2014)

Page 17 of 167

Non-Revenue Water Rates, Samsun, Atakum, Yeşilırmak 70

30 NRW (%)

0 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 Years

Trend scenario Optimistic scenario Realistic scenario

Figure 2. Variation of NRW percentage by timeline for a settlement with a population over 25,000.

Source: Authors

2.3.2. LIVESTOCK DEMAND

Although no changes are considered in the livestock water uses as per DSI Guidance, a baseline scenario has been created. For determining the livestock trends for the future, TurkStat data for the past 10 years were used at district level. The average increase rate of bovine, ovine and poultry were calculated by applying a logarithmic projection to the period 2006-2016 trend. Minimum increase ratio is taken as 0.5% and expected to reach maximum 3%.

2.3.3. IRRIGATIONAL DEMAND

The forecast scenarios for irrigational water demands are based on the projections of:

 New irrigation projects commenced by institutions  Agricultural practices: Increasing trends in irrigation areas  Changes in rates of conveyance efficiency (efficiency of water transmission in channels/conduits) and in-field application efficiency (efficiency of irrigation practices in the field), due to rehabilitation of infrastructure or different cultivation practices.  Changes in crop pattern.

New irrigation projects commenced by institutions DSI is the main institution that invests in irrigation projects. DSI has developed many irrigation projects that will be implemented in either near or far future. While some of these projects have been under construction, some of them have been under planning stage. Since their implementation (operational) dates are not known, following assumptions have been made:

 Irrigation projects that are either under construction or final design will be operational by 2026.  Irrigation projects that are under planning will be operational by 2032.  Irrigation projects that are under feasibility will be operational by 2038.

Page 18 of 167

Changes in agricultural practices: increasing trends in irrigated areas

TurkStat has been publishing annual cultivation area per district since 2004 as a dataset of “Agricultural Production Database”. Annual cultivation area per district is available for the period 2004-2017. The record length (14-years) is long enough to assess trends in cultivation area. District-based cultivation area per crop is grouped as per their species. The agricultural practice of crops is also studied and crops are grouped under either irrigated or rainfed considering the crop characteristics. District-based cultivation area is then adapted to basin-based cultivation area.

Aside from TurkStat datasets, the possibility of using annual statistics of large-scale irrigation facilities invested and operated by DSİ for future forecasts was assessed. Although the timespan of the available DSI dataset (1991-2016) is longer than TurkStat dataset (2004-2017), DSI dataset represents very limited area compared to TurkStat data. Therefore, TurkStat dataset is chosen for the trend scenario.

Exponential triple smoothing (ETS) algorithm of advanced machine learning techniques is utilized to predict future values (2026, 2032 & 2038) based on historical data (2004-2017). Thereby, district-based future cultivation area is computed.

District-based forecasted cultivation area is then distributed among the classified irrigation facilities by either tuning irrigation ratio or converting rainfed lands into irrigated lands; and also considering the new projects to be developed by DSI. The operational dates of future projects are either extracted from websites of Regional Directorates of DSI or assumed. This assumption was necessary as DSI foreseen implementation dates of future projects are tentative or confidential.

Changes in conveyance and in-field efficiency rates due to rehabilitation of infrastructure or different cultivation practices

As per Master Plans, it is assumed that all irrigations (DSI large-scale, DSI small-scale, DSI GW, SPA GW and SPA small dam irrigation projects) except farmer irrigations, will be converted to pressurized irrigation system and drip and sprinkle irrigation method will be practiced in the field.

While in the Master Plans there is only one future scenario without specifying the timeline, in scope of RBMPs baseline scenario is set along the three planning cycles. Tentative implementation timetable of foreseen rehabilitation projects is requested from DSI, but this data could not be shared by the institution due to the confidentiality issues. Therefore, a methodology was developed to forecast the implementation year of the proposed rehabilitation project, based on the surface of irrigation areas.

The forecast is based on annual irrigation network construction capacity. Annual thresholds were assigned considering the technical development of the investing institutions (either DSI or SPA). This threshold values are 5,000 ha and 1,000 ha.

Rehabilitation steps for each type of irrigated areas have been proposed considering the total estimated area to be rehabilitated. First the smallest irrigated units will be rehabilitated, then the medium ones and finally the biggest ones. Reasonable percentiles based on groups according to the size of the irrigation unit, the number of projects for each of the groups, the total rehabilitated surface per group and the total yearly rehabilitated surface per group are obtained.

As the irrigated surfaces are rehabilitated, the irrigation ratios will also increase to 100%.

Page 19 of 167

Changes in crop pattern

Crop pattern of each irrigation project (either DSI or SPA or farmer) is analysed in detail in master plans. Current crop pattern and the foreseen changes are portrayed in the reports. In scope of this study, it is assumed that the crop pattern will remain as current until a rehabilitation project is executed. Following to the rehabilitation, designated future crop pattern will be implemented in the field.

2.3.4. INDUSTRIAL DEMAND

Estimation of future water demand of industries is assumed to be correlated with the expected increase in the capacity and future industrialization forecasts within the basins. The correlation also includes the region-specific conditions and expert judgements, as each type of industry has unique water demands.

In order to estimate the capacity increase and future industrialization forecast, the following documentation has been considered as the primary data sources:

 Reports related with regional industrial development published by Development agencies.  Plans and forecasts of OIZs (where available).  Various reports of Yeşilırmak Union of Development.

According to TurkStat, in Turkey between 2010 and 2016, the percent increase of industrial capacity is around 4%. Hence, considering the socio-economic status of the basins, the highest expected capacity increase and industrialization is taken as 3%. In light of this official data, three levels of estimated capacity increase and industrialization have been introduced. These levels are:

 Low: 1% annual increase.  Medium: 2% annual increase.  High: 3% annual increase.

These levels of estimated capacity increase and industrialization have been applied to both OIZs and individual industries. Basin-specific estimations are summarized below. Also, as response to the climate change impact, innovation in the manufacturing processes is expected resulting in resource efficiency achievements and consequently projected as minimization of future water demand. The expected decrease in the water demand due to innovation in process is accepted as 1% per year in the third cycle.

Akarçay river basin

Afyonkarahisar OIZ (connected to the municipal network, out of the scope of the analysis of the industrial water use) and Akşehir OIZ are considered as developed stage and thus their estimated capacity increase and industrialization levels are considered as “high” and “medium”, respectively. As for the OIZs under development, they are summarized below considering the occupied lots:

 İscehisar Mermer OIZ was established in 1997 and currently half of the lots are either active or in planning stage. The estimated capacity increase and industrialization level is “medium”.  Şuhut OIZ was established in 2004. Around 10% of the lots are occupied; the infrastructure works are still not completed, therefore the estimated capacity increase is “low”

Individual industries are generally well developed. Considering the future demand to the specialized products of these industries, estimated capacity increase and industrialization level is “medium”.

Page 20 of 167

Batı Akdeniz river basin

Consistent with the reports of GEKA (Güney Ege Development Agency), the capacity increase of individual industries is below the expectations; therefore, the estimated capacity increase and industrialization level is “low”. Planned OIZs at Batı Akdeniz river basin are still under development with 0% occupied lots.

Yeşilırmak river basin

The western part of Yeşilırmak basin is more developed compared to the eastern part of the basin. The main reason is that although the provinces at the eastern part of the basin are industrialized, the parts of these provinces within the basin are mostly rural areas and settlements. As a result, capacity increase and industrialization level for individual industries have been estimated as either “medium” or “low”.

As regards the OIZs, the more advanced their state of development the more capacity increase and industrialization level is estimated.

Capacity increase and industrialization level is estimated as “high” for the following developed OIZs (not connected to the municipal network):

 Amasya OIZ  Çorum OIZ  Tokat Merkez OIZ

The following OIZs are considered as developing OIZs and their estimated capacity increase and industrialization level is “medium”:

 Tokat Erbaa OIZ  Tokat Niksar OIZ  Tokat Zile OIZ  Tokat Turhal OIZ

Estimated capacity increase and industrialization level of the individual industries located in the provinces listed below has been set as “medium”.

 Samsun  Amasya  Çorum  Tokat

The estimated capacity increase and industrialization level for individual industries of the provinces listed below is “low”:

 Ordu  Sivas  Giresun  Erzincan  Gümüşhane

Page 21 of 167

2.4. TARIFF ANALYSIS AND THE ROLE OF PRICING IN WATER PLANNING

The price of water is an important variable that influences the amount of water demanded by the users and/or the amount of pollution that they discharge. Consequently, pricing and tariff structures are economic instruments to be considered as potential measures to meet the objectives of the Directive:

 Pricing policies can incentivize users to be more efficient in their use of water resources, to shift to technologies and practices that ensure a better use of resources or act to reduce leakage.  Similarly, on the wastewater services, pricing can incentivize users to shift to less polluting input or processes, eliminate highly polluting practices or install treatment facilities to treat polluted water before discharging it into the environment.

2.4.1. THE PROVISION OF WATER SERVICES IN TURKEY

The Republic of Turkey has a unitary structure in terms of administration: the provinces are subordinate to the central government in Ankara while local administrations were established to provide neighbourhood services.

Administrative divisions at municipal level in Turkey

Turkey is divided into 81 Provinces. Each province is administered by an appointed governor from the Ministry of Interior. The 81 provinces are divided into 957 districts. One district of each province is designated the central district from which the province is administered.

Among the 81 provinces, 30 are designated metropolitan municipalities. All provinces with a population over 750,000 became metropolitan municipalities. Metropolitan municipalities are also divided in districts. Accordingly, there are also 30 water and sewerage administrations in Turkey, one per metropolitan municipality.

A district covers both rural and urban areas. Each district has at least one municipality in the district centre from which, both the municipal government for that municipality and the district government, are administered. Towns outside district centres have municipalities as well, usually because their population (above 2,000 people) requires it. According to Act No. 6360, towns within the metropolitan municipalities were abolished in 2014 and became neighbourhoods.

Villages outside municipalities and neighbourhoods within municipalities are the lowest level of local government.

Municipal water services operation

Metropolitan municipalities have legally separate and financially autonomous municipal water and sanitation companies called Water and Sewerage Administration. Among these, MUSKİ (Muğla), DESKİ (Denizli) and ASAT (Antalya) are in Batı Akdeniz river basin; SASKİ (Samsun) and OSKİ (Ordu) are in Yeşilırmak river basin; Konya is in Akarçay river basin. Metropolitan municipalities and their utilities have been encouraged to mobilize their own resources beyond the Bank of Provinces mechanism.

Page 22 of 167

District municipalities, central district municipalities and municipal towns manage their own waste and wastewater services. Villages’ water and wastewater services are provided by prefectures depending of the governorships or by Special Province Administrations (SPA) depending of the Ministry of Interior.

Where the population is less than 10,000, the municipal public works department is responsible for water supply, which is financed from its own budget. In this case, both water supply and sanitation services are grouped with other public services.

In municipalities with a population range of 10,000–50,000, it is common to have a directorate or “water office” that is responsible for water supply.

In municipalities with a population higher than 50,000, water supply is generally combined with other municipal services in a separate operating unit established by the municipal council as a legal entity. These service providers have budgets assigned to them.

The table below shows the number of settlements by types in the basins, in the current scenario (2016).

Table 10. Number and types of settlements per river basin (2016).

Other town River basin District centres Neighbourhoods Villages Total municipalities Akarçay 10 33 48 154 245 Batı Akdeniz 23 1 619 36 679 Yeşilırmak 52 44 624 2,086 2,806 Source: Authors

Municipal water investors

The Directorate General of State Hydraulic Works (DSI) is the primary executive agency of the state responsible for the planning, implementation and management of hydraulic works. It is organised along the 25 river basins in the country with regional directorates being responsible for preparing master plans which set priorities for the development of water resources in the respective basins.

As the licensing authority, it approves both the use and the extraction rate of water for different purposes including groundwater resources more than 10 meters deep. Thus, any agency and private party is obliged to cooperate with DSI and must obtain prior DSI approval for the source and volume of water to be used by each project and individual.

The Law No. 6200 establishing DSI defines it as the main state agency to develop surface and groundwater resources, to make optimal use of them and to develop them in such a way as to achieve optimum benefit.

DSİ is responsible for bulk water supply and the execution of the works for drinking water distribution and sanitation infrastructures. It is also entrusted with the provision of water supply for cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants (Act number 1053). Once the facilities come into operation they are transferred to the municipalities and irrigation unions, which bear the operation and maintenance as well as the capital cost of the infrastructures (at different repayment periods depending on the investments type and productivity). The Bank of Provinces occasionally provides credits to the investments. Special Provincial Administrations invest in rural areas.

Page 23 of 167

Finally, the Directorate General of the Bank of Provinces was established with a mandate to allocate funds and loans to local governments (municipalities) irrespective of size, in the financing and construction of infrastructure for water supply (drinking water), sewerage and wastewater treatment. Financing is largely provided by the central government through the municipalities’ fund of the Bank. Hence, the Bank was structured to be a financing institution without the responsibility of implementing the projects yet providing technical support to local governments.

Water services for irrigation

Turkey has a variety of irrigation organizations. They differ depending on social, economic, administrative and physical conditions. These organizations can be classified as: public irrigations, irrigation unions, local administration irrigations, irrigation cooperatives and farmer irrigations.

Almost all public irrigations are invested by DSI. Each of these facilities supply irrigation water over 1,000 ha of arable lands. With this respect, these projects are usually called “Large (scale) irrigations”.

Irrigation unions are intentionally established to hand over public irrigations to water users. Not only operation and maintenance services of public irrigation facilities have reached high cost, but also reimbursement fees and water use expenses could not be collected from farmers. As a measure, facilities are handed over to water users and financial burden on the state's budget is alleviated.

Local administration irrigations are built for legal entities of either villages or municipalities by public institutions (either DSİ or former Directorate General of Rural Affairs). These facilities supply water to irrigation areas under 1,000 ha of arable lands. Therefore, these projects are usually called “Small (scale) irrigations”. The facilities are immediately handed over to local administrations after construction. When local administrations take over operation of facilities, they also take over maintenance. They meet expenses through revenues on water costs. However, they can get technical consultancy from the public institutions mentioned above, whenever it is required.

Irrigation cooperatives are ruled according to the Cooperatives Law No. 1163. They are established in coordination of either former Directorate General of Rural Affairs or DSİ for agricultural purposes. The main objective of establishment of irrigation cooperatives is based on the principle that "the operation, maintenance and repair expenses of small-scale irrigation facilities, which are usually invested by state or developed by group of farmers with their own capabilities, should be met by water users”. Through irrigation cooperatives, there will be no more financial burdens on the state's budget and the facilities will be operated more efficiently.

Farmer irrigations are small and medium-sized irrigation facilities implemented by farmers with their own resources, with or without technical assistance. These facilities are usually developed near water resources like streams, lakes and ponds or wells. They may have a private ownership or partnership.

Page 24 of 167

2.4.2. TARIFFS STRUCTURE AND PRICE LEVELS

Municipal water sector

In order to assess adequacy of the current water pricing policies for efficient use of water resources in the basin, analyses to reveal tariff structures, average price of water services and average household payment allocated to water services are undertaken.

There is a big diversity in the tariffs applied for each municipality, varying the type of subscribers, the types of tariffs used, as well as the definition of the blocks and the unitary prices applied.

As for the types of subscribers, there are many different types, the most typical ones being: households, mercantile establishments/ workplaces, state offices, schools/ dormitories/ health centres and construction sites.

The assessment of the types of tariffs considers 4 basic types of tariffs, generally used all around the world: fixed tariffs, variable tariffs, fixed + variable tariffs and volume blocks within the variable component of the tariff. Some municipalities charge a fee for new drinking water connections and new wastewater connections.

In order to calculate the average household payment for water services, water consumed in a typical household in each basin is calculated. Based on the “Average size of households by provinces” dataset released by TurkStat (website) on an annual basis, percentages of household-size types in the basin are calculated for the year 2016. Accordingly, the percentages of the one-person households (small families), one family or multi-person no-family households (medium-size families) and extended-family households (big families) are designated, as presented in the following table.

Table 11. Distribution of household-size categories per province, all basins.

Household size categories (%) One-family or Extended- Person per Basin Province Population One-person Multi-person no- family household households family households households

Afyonkarahisar 506,344 16 63 21 3.5 Konya 103,366 13 71 16 3.5

Akarçay Akarçay 609,710 16 65 20 3.5 Antalya 282,726 17 70 13 3.2

Burdur 44,653 21 67 12 2.9 Denizli 87,693 17 70 13 3.1 Muğla 841,684 21 66 13 2.9

Batı AkdenizBatı Batı Akdeniz 1,256,756 20 67 13 3.0

Page 25 of 167

Household size categories (%) One-family or Extended- Person per Basin Province Population One-person Multi-person no- family household households family households households Amasya 317,816 16 67 17 3.2 Çorum 339,445 18 67 15 3.1 Erzincan 9,085 20 67 12 3.6 Giresun 40,574 23 62 15 2.9 Gümüşhane 85,709 23 62 15 3.5 Ordu 18,492 19 65 16 3.1

Yeşilırmak Samsun 967,966 14 65 20 3.4 Sivas 56,754 16 67 17 3.4 Tokat 603,544 17 65 17 3.3 Yozgat 108,053 18 67 16 3.3 Yeşilırmak 2,547,438 16 66 18 3.3 Source: TurkStat

Subsequently, basin monthly average water consumption of a typical household is calculated based on: . The number of people per house given by TurkStat and the assumptions that small family, medium-size and big family households comprise 1.5, 4 and 6 persons, respectively; . Net water consumption in each basin calculated by using net water consumptions per municipal settlements weighted by their corresponding populations.

Table 12. Monthly water consumption of an average household, all basins.

Persons per Consumption Consumption Family size Average hh Basin Household type household per capita per household distribution consumption (p/hh) (l/c/d) (m³/hh/month) (%) (m³/hh/month)

Small family 1.5 4.8 16 Medium-size family 4.0 106 12.9 65 12.9

Akarçay Big family 6.0 19.3 20

Small family 1.5 4.7 20

Medium-size family 4.0 104 12.6 67 11.9

Batı Batı

Akdeniz Big family 6.0 19.0 13 Small family 1.5 5.2 16 Medium-size family 4.0 114 13.8 66 13.7

Yeşilırmak Big family 6.0 20.8 18 Source: Authors, TurkStat, Field survey

The share of the average household budget spent on water services is of particular interest. TurkStat provides annual household disposable incomes by province (“Distribution of annual household disposable incomes by quintiles ordered by household disposable income, 2016”). The basin average (mean) monthly household disposable income for the year 2016 is calculated by weighing the provincial disposable income values according to the basin provincial populations. The average monthly payment to water services by a typical household in each basin is calculated according to the monthly water consumptions obtained above.

Page 26 of 167

The industrial water sector

The water used in the organized industrial zones can be provided by the corresponding municipality or self-produced, generally by abstracting groundwater from wells. In both cases, the OIZ itself may be the one providing water and wastewater services to all the facilities within its boundaries or, in some other cases, these water services can be directly provided to the facilities by the municipality. When the municipality provides the water services to the facilities, the industries are just one of the subscriber types of the municipal tariff.

For the individual industries the source of water can also be the municipal water supply services or their own water sources, generally groundwater from wells.

Agricultural water sector

Among the different types of irrigation areas (irrigation unions, irrigation cooperatives, DSI managed irrigation areas, municipal irrigation areas, SPA irrigation areas, village managed irrigation areas, etc.) the type of tariffs vary. The different types are described hereafter, but the dominant pricing practice is a charge per hectare differentiated according to the crop and water supply system to the irrigated area (gravity and pumping).

 Hourly tariff (TL/hour). This charge can be different depending on the water supply system to the irrigated area, gravity or pumped.  Volumetric tariff (TL/m3). In this tariff no surface or crop type is considered. This is the less frequently used tariff because counters are very rare in the irrigation areas.  Surface tariff (TL/ha): charge only related with the irrigated surface and not the irrigated crops.  Crop surface tariff (TL/ha of each crop): charge based on the surface of each irrigated crop.

Every year after the approval of the Council of Ministers and publication on the Official Gazette, the DSI defines irrigation tariffs for the facilities operated by them and determines minimum values for tariffs set by irrigation unions. The irrigation tariffs have the following general rules:

 If there were more than one crop per year, service charges shall be collected for each crop separately.  In parcels with more than one type of crop, tariffs are considered according to the most expensive one.  For parcels in which landowners use their own wells for irrigation, the irrigation water charge will be 2 TL/da for all types of crops.  If, for any reason, irrigation requirements cannot be satisfied during the irrigation season, tariffs shall be discounted depending on the benefit ratio.

Page 27 of 167

3. AKARÇAY RIVER BASIN

3.1. SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE

This chapter contains general socio-economic features of the river basin.

 The current population and the trend of the last ten years.  The current scenario and future trends of the economic weight in terms of turnover and employment, per economic sector.

The next map shows the provinces and districts in the river basin.

Figure 3. Akarçay river basin area, provinces and districts.

Source: Authors

The current population (2016) and its trend during the last ten years

Akarçay river basin is mostly within the provinces of Afyonkarahisar and Konya. A small part of Isparta is also part of the basin; likewise, Uşak and Kütahya contribute to the basin surface with less than 2 km². The total area of the river basin amounts to 7,996 km2.

Basin population in 2016 is 604,961 inhabitants (without immigrants); population density is relatively high (76 inhabitants per square kilometre). Population is concentrated in Afyonkarahisar (70%), as more than 2/3 of the province population is within the basin. The remaining population is located in Konya.

Page 28 of 167

Basin settlements are 245 among which 10 districts, 33 other towns’ municipalities, 48 neighbourhoods and 154 villages. The figure below reveals extent of villages and the low number of large cities.

Figure 4. Population (immigrants included), Akarçay basin (2016).

Source: Authors based on (Address-Based Population Registration System) and GSI tools

Globally, the population growth rate of the river basin is slightly rising 0.79% per year (in average for the last ten years) slightly above the trend on the overall of the two provinces (0.78%). In the population past trends assessment, the data for immigrants are not considered as historical data are not available.

Table 13. Population trends, Akarçay basin.

Entire province Within the river basin No of inhabitants No of inhabitants Annual rate (without immigrants) Annual rate 2007/2016 2007/2016 2007 2016 2007 2016 Konya 1,959,082 2,161,303 0.99 % 112,922 103,011 -0.83 % Afyonkarahisar 701,572 714,523 0.18 % 447,516 501,950 1.15 % Total 2,660,654 2,875,826 0.78 % 559,438 604,961 0.79 % Source: Authors based on (Address-Based Population Registration System) and GSI tools

Page 29 of 167

3,500,000

3,000,000

2,500,000

2,000,000

1,500,000 Inhabitants 1,000,000

500,000

0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Population within basin Total population of provinces in the basin

Figure 5. Population trends: full provinces and basin population, Akarçay basin (2007-2016).

Source: Authors based on (Address-Based Population Registration System) and GSI tools

Turnover and employment by economic sector

In 2016, Akarçay gross domestic product (8.95 billion TL) represents 0.4% of the national GDP and it shows a similar trend (5.3% annual rate) than the country’ average (5.6% annual rate) for the period 2004-2014. The labour force of the river basin (221,486 persons) accounts for 0.9% of Turkey.

Regarding the production structure by economic sector in 2014, the relative weight of the agriculture (18%) is well above the country (7%) and has also grown faster in the decade (3.9% against 1.7%). The importance of the agricultural sector explains why the labour productivity (40,386 TL/person) and labour force growth (1.7%) in the basin are below the national values (78,839 TL/person and 3.1%). At the same time, the contribution of the agriculture to the total turnover has slightly decreased from 2004 (21%) to 2014 (18%) while the industry has gained significance (from 20% to 26%).

Table 14. Turnover and labour force, Akarçay basin and Turkey (2004-2014).

Productivi Annual rate 2004/2014 GDP 2014 Labour force 2014 ty 2014 Labour Producti Relative Persons Relative GDP Billion TL TL/person force vity weight (%) (15+ age) weight (%) Agriculture 3.9% -1.2% 5.1% 1.643 18% 82,232 37% 19,984 Industry 7.9% 4.3% 3.6% 2.290 26% 52,279 24% 43,805 Services 4.8% 3.7% 1.1% 5.012 56% 86,975 39% 57,622 Akarçay RB 5.3% 1.7% 3.6% 8.945 221,486 40,386 (*) Turkey 5.6% 3.1% 2.6% 2,044.466 25,932,000 78,839 (*) including taxes & subsidies Source: Authors based on (TurkStat) data.

Page 30 of 167

Gross domestic product Gross domestic product 10,000,000 100%

80% 7,500,000

60% 5,000,000

40% thousandTL 2,500,000 20%

0 0% 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Agriculture Industry Services Agriculture Industry Services

Figure 6. Gross domestic product, Akarçay basin (2004-2014).

Source: Authors based on (TurkStat) data

Labour force 250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000 Person, 15+ age 50,000

0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Agriculture Industry Services

Figure 7. Labour force and labour productivity, Akarçay basin (2004-2014).

Source: Authors based on (TurkStat) data

Agriculture and livestock breeding are very relevant activities in Afyonkarahisar. Agriculture is primarily in the form of horticulture in the lowlands lying between the mountains, including seasonal vegetables and fruit production. Corn production is much extended; other crops such as opium poppy, sugar cane, potato and sunflowers are also common in the region.

In Afyonkarahisar, conventional animal husbandry is decreasing while modern animal husbandry has started to increase, and production of meat and meat products has developed. Livestock activities are performed in closed areas and in almost every city, especially in and around the city centre. Poultry husbandry and consequently eggs production are made intensely. Dairy and meat farming, ovine and bovine breeding, apiculture and poultry husbandry are also frequent.

According to MoIT data base, the river basin has 947 industries among which 158 in Konya and 789 in Afyonkarahisar. In relation with the main subsectors covered by the industries located in the river basin, the more important is the marble quarries & workshops, dominantly located near İscehisar. There are a total number of 73 quarries and 327 workshops. Other important industries with large enterprises located are the following: Avşar Glazing, Berat Pet, Emek Marble, Oruçoğlu Oil & Alkoloid factory.

As per their size, 568 are micro (< 10 employees), 310 are small (10-50 employees), 63 are medium (50- 250 employees) and 6 are large (> 250 employees).

Page 31 of 167

0.6%

6.7%

Micro Small 32.7% Medium 60.0% Large

Figure 8. Industrial sector per facility sizes, Akarçay river basin.

Source: MoSIT database

There are five OIZs in the basin; four of them are in Afyonkarahisar and one in Konya:

 Afyonkarahisar OIZ.  Afyonkarahisar Bolvadin OIZ.  İscehisar Mermer İhtisas OIZ.  Afyonkarahisar Şuhut OIZ.  Akşehir OIZ.

Industries within OIZs are mostly dedicated to the production of meat and poultry (19), then in processing and preserving of meat (8), in manufacturing of oils and fats (6) and manufacturing of other parts and accessories for vehicles (5). The 6 largest ones have activities in various sectors:

 Manufacture of other fabricated metal products  Manufacture of oils and fats  Cutting, shaping and finishing of stone  Manufacture of basic pharmaceutical products  Recovery of sorted materials

Tourism is a relevant activity due to different reasons (cultural assets, archaeological sites, thermal and spa activities). At the junction of many regions, the region benefits from good transport infrastructure.

3.2. CURRENT WATER USE

This chapter assesses economics to the water uses, what allows valuating the significance of water for the socio-economic wealth of the basin, as well as allows relating the water pressures with the dynamics of economic development and the impacts of the provision of the water services.

3.2.1. MUNICIPAL USE

In 2016, the base year for the current planning cycle, total population of Akarçay basin was 609,710 inhabitants (including immigrants). The province contributing the most to the basin population is Afyonkarahisar with a population slightly above half a million inhabitants within the basin. Current basin population is summarised below per provinces. Details per settlement are provided in Annex 01.

Page 32 of 167

Table 15. Current population (including immigrants) summary results, Akarçay basin (2016).

Province Population within the basin 2016 Population within the basin 2016 (including immigrants) Afyonkarahisar 501,950 506,344 Konya 103,011 103,366 Total 604,961 609,710 Source: Authors

As shown below, most of the population is located in the large municipalities (>25,000 inhabitants, 53%), such as Afyonkarahisar Merkez and Akşehir; the weight of the neighbourhoods and villages is also relevant (around 20%).

350,000

300,000

250,000 Municipalities > 25,000 inhabitants 200,000 Municipalities with inhabitants 2,000 - 25,000 150,000 Municipalities with inhabitants < 2,000 100,000 Neighbourhoods and villages

50,000

0 Akarçay 2016 Figure 9. Population distribution per type and size of settlement, Akarçay basin (2016).

Source: Authors

Figure 10. Spatial distribution of population, Akarçay basin (2016).

Source: Authors based on (Address-Based Population Registration System)

Page 33 of 167

For municipalities with population above 2,000 inhabitants, Annex 01 includes details regarding the current water consumption per capita, the (public + commercial) / residential ratio, the non-revenue- water ratios and the municipal gross and net demands. The results are summarised in the next table.

Table 16. Current population and municipal gross water demand, Akarçay basin (2016).

Total population within the basin Water abstracted Provinces (including immigrants) hm3/year l/capita/day Afyonkarahisar 506,344 35.75 193.44 Konya 103,366 10.96 290.50 Total / 609,710 46.71 209.89 Weighted average Source: Authors

In 2016, the volume of water abstracted for by municipal sector (including residential, public and commercial uses) was 46.71 hm3 (225 litres capita day) and 58.84 hm³ when livestock consumption included. These consumptions are in line with the Master Plan results, where the total municipal water demand of the basin is 46.01 hm³ (2015, gross, including livestock demand). In the Water Allocation Plan of Akarçay (on-going studies), the total municipal water demand of the basin is 42.83 hm³ (without livestock), which seems also in line with the calculated values.

3.2.2. LIVESTOCK USE

Annual livestock use is 12.13 hm³, in line with the Akarçay Water Allocation Plan, (16.74 hm³ of gross water demand). The table below summarizes the livestock water use; further details are in Annex 01.

Table 17. Livestock: number and water uses, Akarçay basin (2016).

Number of livestock within the basin Water use (gross) Province Bovine Ovine Poultry l/day hm³/year Afyonkarahisar 271,155 613,942 11,666,324 25,683,461 9.37 Konya 102,415 148,285 767,540 7,536,910 2.75 Total 373,570 762,227 12,433,864 33,220,371 12.13 Source: Authors

3.2.3. IRRIGATIONAL USE

General characterization

Akarçay river basin covers almost 8,000 km² area in the Central Anatolian Plateau. Leaving aside surface area of lakes, rivers and settlements (9.75%) as well as mountainous regions (5.28%); the remaining 85% of the basin is surface arable and 41% of it is suitable for plough-farming.

Total 5,402 km² arable lands of the basin have been surveyed to investigate irrigable fields by DSI and SPA (1,418 km² and 3,984 km², respectively). DSI has already developed irrigation projects for net 23,689 ha (net, or 26,458 ha gross). Besides, 22 irrigation projects under construction cover 6,757 ha (gross). SPAs have developed projects for 28,447 ha of lands. Finally, 39,301 ha of lands are irrigated by farmers. According to DSI and SPA surveys, there is still total 219,725 ha lands can be irrigated. However, irrigation projects cannot be developed for 98,505 ha due to the deficient water resources.

Page 34 of 167

Table 18. Land classification surveys, Akarçay basin.

Land classification surveys Survey area (ha) Survey area share (%) Irrigable area (ha) Surveyed area 141,791 16.6 135,042 DSİ Projects developed and implemented 26,458 23,689 surveys Projects developed 6,757 6,757 Projects under preparation 3,322 1,735 I 89,607 11.2 8,792 Lands that are II 89,463 11.3 53,095 feasible for III 81,478 10.2 56,011 plough-farming IV 64,323 8.0 41,845 SPA V 2,674 0.3 3,919 Lands that are not surveys VI 85,421 10.7 feasible for VII 264,536 33.1 plough-farming VIII 76,763 6.3 Remaining area (settlements, 43,650 8.8 uncultivated, lakes, dams, ponds...) SPA irrigation projects 28,447 Lands feasible to develop projects 276,153 Forests 83,005 11.7 Total 797,915 100.0 Source: (Akarçay Master Plan, 2013)

The first and largest irrigation project in Akarçay is Selevir Dam Irrigation, which has been operated since 1965 and irrigates 8,760 ha. Since then, many projects have been invested in the basin. The following map shows spatial distribution of ground and surface water irrigation areas in the basin.

Figure 11. Spatial distribution of ground and surface water irrigation areas, Akarçay basin (2016).

Source: Authors

Page 35 of 167

There are currently 347 irrigation units in the basin, excluding individual groundwater irrigations. Eber- Akşehir, Kocaöz and a few minor SPA surface water irrigation projects are currently idle due to either insufficient water potential or deficiencies in the infrastructure. 312 irrigation projects are operational; among them, Selevir and Seyitler are under rehabilitation. 14 of the farmer irrigations will be demolished, but replaced by DSI irrigation projects in the near future. Finally, there are 13 projects under construction and 14 projects under planning, which will be constructed in the near future.

Irrigation projects service 94,428 ha in the basin. Irrigational water for 74,863 ha (almost 79% of the irrigation area) is abstracted from groundwater resources. Remaining 19,566 ha (close to 21%) is supplied from surface water resources (mainly dams and small dams). Projects developed by DSI, SPA and Farmers covers 11,499 ha,Current 32.807 ha Irrigation and 50,122 ha, Area respectively. - 2016 (ha)

DSI-Large 3% DSI-Small 10%

Unauthorized wells 20%

Individual wells SPA-GW 34% 25%

Farmer-SW 8% SPA-SW 0% Figure 12. Distribution of irrigation areas per investor, Akarçay basin.

Source: (Akarçay Master Plan, 2013)

Changes in the cultivation of crops between 1993 and 2017 are represented in the following figure.

120,000 110,000 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000

Cultivated area(ha) Cultivated 60,000 50,000

40,000

2000 2005 2013 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2014 2015 2016 2017

Cereals Legumes Oilseeds Trefoil Fruit trees Strawberries Potatoes Vegetables Garden Maize Sugarbeets Forage crops Opium Figure 13. Cultivated crops in irrigation fields in Akarçay basin.

Source: Authors based on TurkStat database.

Page 36 of 167

Average crop pattern of the last decade is given below. Although the cultivation area of cereals has shrunk by more than one forth in the period, cereals are still the major cultivated crop in the irrigation fields. The orchard area has expanded more than 12% and nowadays fruits are the second most cultivated crop that has 16% of share inIrrigated irrigation Crop fields. Pattern

Cereals 52%

Opium 6% Fruit trees 12% Legumes 3%

Forage crops 4%

Sugarbeets 9% Potatoes 6% Maize 2%

Garden 2% Other vegetables 4% Figure 14. Average crop pattern in the last decade, Akarçay basin.

Source: Authors based on TurkStat database.

Irrigational water use

Total 586 hm³ water is supplied for irrigational purposes. Almost 75% of the water is abstracted from groundwater resources and remaining 25% from surface. Projects developed by DSI, SPA and Farmers utilize 68 hm³, 221 hm³ and 297 hm³ water per annum, respectively. The following table shows irrigation area and irrigational water demand as per investing institution and water resource.

Table 19. Current water demands of irrigation projects, Akarçay basin.

Irrigation area Water demand Irrigation project classification (ha) (hm³) 1. Projects invested by DSI 11,499 68 1.1. SW irrigation projects that are operated or transferred by DSI 11,499 68 1.1.1. Large-scale irrigation projects that are reviewed in the Annuals 2,610 17 of Irrigational Water Supply Evaluation Reports (1000+ ha) 1.1.2. Small-scale irrigation projects that are reviewed in the Annuals 8,889 51 of Irrigational Water Supply Evaluation Reports (1000- ha) 1.2. GW irrigation projects that are transferred or operated by DSI 0 2. Projects invested, operated or transferred by other institutions than DSI 32,807 221 2.1. GW irrigation projects invested by SPAs 32,299 218 2.2. SW irrigation projects invested by SPAs 508 3 2.2.1. Small dam irrigation projects 400 2 2.2.2. SW irrigation projects 108 1

Page 37 of 167

Irrigation area Water demand Irrigation project classification (ha) (hm³) 3. Farmer Irrigations 50,122 297 3.1 SW farmer irrigations 7,559 76 3.1.3. Farmer irrigations inspected by field surveys 7,559 76 3.2. GW farmer Irrigations 42,564 221 3.2.1. Farmer Irrigations with authorized groundwater wells 23,912 133 3.2.2. Farmer Irrigations with unauthorized groundwater wells 18,652 88 Total (*) 94,428 586 (*) Irrigation area according to the inventories of either DSI or SPA, in reality irrigation area may be slightly higher due to secondary cultivation cycle. Source: Authors based on (Akarçay Master Plan, 2013)

As per Master Plan (2013), the total irrigation area declared as 98,288 ha. While estimating future water demands in Master Plan, more focus was given on calculating the saved water volume by rehabilitating the current projects; water demands of future projects other than rehabilitation were not included in the water demand tables. The present analysis includes also those projects in water demand analyses.

The most extended crops in the basin are fruit trees, cereals, potatoes and vegetables.

Fruit trees 28,784 Cereals 11,599 Potatoes 8,591 Vegetables 8,509 Opium 7,916 Sugarbeets 7,487 Legumes 7,472 Forage crops 5,925 Maize 2,031 Strawberries 1,808 Trefoil 1,280 Garden 1,184 Sunflower 939 Maize for silage 756 Others 151

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 Surface area 2016 (ha)

Figure 15. Distribution of irrigated areas per crops, Akarçay basin (2016).

Source: Authors

Page 38 of 167

The crops with the highest water needs are strawberries, forage crops, vegetables and fruit trees, followed by garden, maize for silage, maize and potatoes. In 2016, the crops consuming the highest volume of water are by far fruit trees, followed by vegetables, cereals and potatoes.

Strawberries 7,946 Fruit trees 202 Other forage crops 7,856 Other vegetables 60 Other vegetables 7,098 Other cereals 52 Fruit trees 7,032 Potatoes 51 Garden 6,101 Other forage crops 47 Maize-silage 6,097 Sugarbeets 43 Maize 6,084 Legumes 42 Potatoes 5,918 Opium 39 Sugarbeets 5,786 Strawberries 14 Sunflower 5,624 Maize 12 Legumes 5,623 Garden 7 Others 5,546 Sunflower 5 Opium 4,898 Trefoil 5 Other cereals 4,462 Maize-silage 5 Trefoil 3,944 Others 1

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 0 50 100 150 200 250 3 Crop water needs (m3/ha) Irrigational water demand 2016 (hm /year) Figure 16. Crops water needs and annual consumption per crop, Akarçay basin (2016).

Source: Authors

The crops with a high net margin per hectare are strawberries, other vegetables, fruit trees and garden. In terms of net margin per cubic metre (apparent value of water in irrigation), strawberries also rank the first followed by fruit trees, other vegetables, garden and potatoes.

Strawberries 67,513 Strawberries 4.03 Other vegetables 21,611 Fruit trees 3.57 Fruit trees 19,967 Other vegetables 3.05 Garden 14,696 Garden 1.85 Potatoes 11,169 Potatoes 1.37 Others 8,383 Others 1.01 Other forage crops 6,167 Sugarbeets 0.85 Sugarbeets 4,442 Opium 0.82 Maize 3,675 Other forage crops 0.66 Maize for Silage 3,659 Maize 0.61 Legumes 3,540 Maize for Silage 0.58 Opium 3,230 Legumes 0.50 Cereals 1,158 Trefoil 0.38 Trefoil 1,157 Other cereals 0.33 Sunflower 863 Sunflower 0.16

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 Net margin (TL/ha) Net margin (TL/m3) Figure 17. Crops net margin per hectare and per cubic metre, Akarçay basin (2016).

Source: Authors

Page 39 of 167

The following maps illustrate the average crop net margin per cubic meter on ground water bodies and surface water bodies.

Figure 18. Crop net margin per cubic meter by GWB (left map); crop net margin per cubic meter by SWB (right map), Akarçay basin (2016).

Source: Authors based on (Akarçay Master Plan, 2013)

Page 40 of 167

In sum, in the 2016 irrigation agriculture spread over 94,430 ha; annually, it requires 586 hm3 and generates 1,137 million Turkish Liras of net margin. Most extended crops are fruit trees and vegetables, particularly potatoes and sugarbeets.

Table 20. Main outcomes of the irrigational water use, Akarçay basin (2016).

Irrigated Water needs Water use Net margin Net margin Crop group Crop area (ha) (m3/ha) (hm3/year) (TL/m3) (MTL/year) Fruit trees Fruit trees 28,784 7,032 202 3.3 674 Potatoes 8,591 5,918 51 1.4 73 Sugarbeets 7,487 5,786 43 0.8 36 Vegetables Strawberries 1,808 7,946 14 3.7 53 Garden 1,184 6,097 7 1.8 13 Other vegetables 8,509 7,098 60 2.9 176 Vegetables 27,578 6,387 176 2.0 352 Maize 2,031 6,084 12 0.7 8 Cereals Other cereals 11,599 4,462 512 0.3 17 Cereals 13,630 4,704 64 0.4 25 Opium 7,916 4,898 39 0.8 29 Oilseeds Sunflower 939 5,624 5 0.2 1 Oilseeds 8,855 4,975 44 0.7 30 Trefoil 1,280 3,944 5 0.4 2 Forage crops Maize for silage 756 6,097 5 0.6 3 Other forage crops 5,925 7,856 46 0.6 30 Forage crops 7,960 7,060 56 0.6 34 Legumes 7,472 5,623 42 0.5 21 Others 151 5,546 0 1.0 1 Total / Weighted average 94,430 6,203 586 1.9 1,137 Source: Authors

800

700 674

600 Fruit trees Vegetables 500 Cereals

400 352 Oilseeds Forage crops 300 Legumes Net margin(TL/year) 200 Others

100 25 30 34 21 1 0

Figure 19. Annual net margin per crops, Akarçay basin (2016).

Source: Authors

Page 41 of 167

Analysing the apparent value of water in irrigation (crop net margin per cubic metre) reveals that:

 High profitable crops (above 2 TL of net margin per cubic metre) such as strawberries and fruit trees represent 47% of the annual water use and generate 79% of the annual net margin.  More than one third of the annual water use is assigned to low profitable crops (below 1 TL/m³; sugarbeets, opium, maize, maize for silage, trefoil, sunflower, etc.); they account for 43% of the annual water consumption and 13% of the annual net margin.

300 6.0 277 hm3 (47%) 58 hm3 (10%) 250 hm3 (43%)

250 5.0 )

200 3.7 4.0 3 /year) 3 3.3 150 3.0 2.9 100 202 2.0

1.8 Net margin (TL/m 1.4 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 50 0.6 0.4 0.3 1.0 Annual water water Annualuse (hm 0.2 60 52 14 7 51 43 39 12 47 5 42 5 5 0 0.0 Strawberries Fruit trees Other Garden Potatoes Sugarbeets Opium Maize Other forage Maize for Legumes Trefoil Other Sunflower vegetables crops silage cereals Figure 20. Annual water use per crop and apparent value of water, Akarçay basin (2016).

Source: Authors

900 6.0 902 MTL (79%) 87 MTL (8%) 146 MTL (13%)

750 5.0 ) 600 4.0 3 3.7 3.3 450 3.0 2.9 674 300 2.0

1.8 1.4 Net margin (TL/m 0.8 150 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 1.0 176

Annual net margin (MTL/year) 53 13 74 36 29 8 30 3 21 2 17 1 0 0.0 Strawberries Fruit trees Other Garden Potatoes Sugarbeets Opium Maize Other forage Maize for Legumes Trefoil Other Sunflower vegetables crops silage cereals

Figure 21. Annual net margin per crop and apparent value of water, Akarçay basin (2016).

Source: Authors

3.2.4. INDUSTRIAL USE

Consumptive–industry

In 2016, the industrial activities required 9.19 hm3 to generate 2.29 billion TL of gross domestic product; 44% of this water use is supplied by municipal networks5.

There are five OIZs in the river basin; four of them are in Afyonkarahisar and one in Konya. One of the OIZs in Afyonkarahisar (Afyon Merkez OIZ) is also using the municipal network.

5 Based on field survey and Akarçay Master Plan data (industrial facilities and organized industrial zones connected to the municipal networks).

Page 42 of 167

As regards the industrial water use out-of-network, it is estimated as 5.16 hm3. The individual industries are the major users (3.13 hm3/year); 27% of this consumption is done by industries discharging directly to specific water bodies (identified through the discharges permits allocated by the MoEU). It is worth mentioning the presence of the Afyon Sugar Factory, which consumption (1.75 hm3/year) represents 34% of the total industrial water use in the basin.

The table below shows the details of the industrial water use by province and location/type of industry.

Table 21. Industrial water use, Akarçay basin (2016).

Province Type of industry / Location Name Water use 2016 (hm3/year) Individual industries 2.934

Afyon Sugar Factory Afyon Sugar Factory 1.746 Afyonkarahisar Iscehisar OIZ 0.170 Organized industrial zone Şuhut OIZ 0.040 Individual industries 0.199 Konya Organized industrial zone Akşehir OIZ 0.070 Total 5.160 Source: Authors based on field survey data, (Akarçay Basin Sectoral Water Allocation Plan Project Final Water Demands Analysis Report, 2017) and (Akarçay Master Plan, 2013)

The water use is concentrated in Afyonkarahisar (95%), as shown in the next figure and map hereafter.

6.0

5.0

4.0

Organized industrial zones 3.0 Afyon Sugar Factory Individual industries

hm³/year 2.0

1.0

0.0 AFYONKARAHİSAR KONYA

Figure 22. Industrial water use by province and location, Akarçay (2016).

Source: Authors

Page 43 of 167

Figure 23. Industrial water consumption, Akarçay (2016).

Source: Authors based on field survey data, (Akarçay Basin Sectoral Water Allocation Plan Project Final Water Demands Analysis Report, 2017) and (Akarçay Master Plan, 2013)

Non-Consumptive industry

The table below presents the list of hydroelectric power plants; none of them is now under operation.

Table 22. Hydropower plants, Akarçay basin.

HPP name Dam / Weir Province Stage Yürük HES Yörük Weir Konya Planning Bekcan HES Bekcan Weir Afyonkarahisar Planning Kuyulutaş HES Kuyulutaş Weir Konya Planning Source: DSI, (Akarçay Master Plan, 2013) and Energy Markets Regulatory Authority

The list of geothermal plants in the basin is included in next table.

Table 23. Geothermal plants, Akarçay basin.

Geothermal plant Province District Power (MW) Stage Afjet Afjes JES Afyonkarahisar Afyonkarahisar 2.76 Active Source: Governorships (2017)

The water uses of the thermal complexes in the basin are assessed as part of the municipal water uses.

Page 44 of 167

3.2.5. SUMMARY OVERVIEW

Akarçay basin represents 0.4% of the country’s gross domestic product and 0.9% of the labour force. Compared to the country’s production structure, the relative importance of the agricultural sector is higher; in the basin it accounts for 18% of the gross domestic product and 37% of the labour force, while is 7% and 21% respectively nationalwide.

In the year 2016, the total water use in the basin (gross demand) is 650 hm³. The most relevant water user is the agriculture sector; where irrigation represents 90% of the total water use and livestock 2%. The municipal sector signifies 7% and the industry 1% of the total. 700

600 586

500

400 Municipal Livestock

300 Irrigational Industrial

200

100 47 12 5 0 Gross demand (hm³/year), Akarçay 2016 Figure 24. Current water uses, Akarçay basin (2016).

Source: Authors

In 2016, population of Akarçay basin is 609,710 inhabitants (including immigrants). The province contributing the most to the basin population is Afyonkarahisar with a population slightly above half a million inhabitants within the basin. The volume of water abstracted for municipal use was 47 hm3 (225 litres/capita/day). Non-revenue water rate is 36% and the water distributed 106 litres/capita/day.

Irrigation agriculture spread over 94,430 ha; annually, it requires 586 hm3 and generates 1,137 million Turkish Liras of net margin. Most common types of crops are fruit trees and vegetables. 800

700 674

600 Fruit trees Vegetables 500 Cereals 400 352 Oilseeds 300 Forage crops 202 Legumes 200 176 Others 100 64 56 25 30 34 44 42 21 1 1 0 Net margin (MTL/year) Water use (hm3/year) Figure 25. Annual net margin and water use per crops, Akarçay basin (2016).

Source: Authors

Page 45 of 167

Average crop net margin stands as 1.9 TL/m³. High profitable crops (above 2 TL/m³ of net margin), such as strawberries and fruit trees, represent 47% of the annual water consumption and generate 79% of the annual net margin. More than one third of the annual water use is assigned to low profitable crops (below 1 TL/m³ of net margin; sugarbeets, opium, maize, maize for silage, trefoil, sunflower, etc.); they account for 43% of the annual water consumption and 13% of the annual net margin.

In the year 2016, the industrial activities required 9.19 hm3 to generate 2.29 billion TL of gross domestic product; 44% of this water is supplied out of the municipal networks and it is estimated as 3.58 hm3.

3.3. WATER DEMAND FORECAST

This chapter addresses the expected projections of water demands over the next planning cycles, based on the forecast of a selected group of indicators (key drivers) on water use. It reveals the compatibility between the foreseeable trend in demand for water services and the preservation or improvement of the ecological status of water ecosystems. It therefore constitutes a starting point to assess the expected pressures, the waterbodies status and the identification of the water bodies at risk of not achieving the environmental objectives.

3.3.1. MUNICIPAL DEMAND

Population forecast results (optimal projection) for Akarçay basin are summarised below per provinces within the basin. Details per settlement are provided in Annex 01. Population shows an upward trend reaching 905,888 people in the basin in 2038.

Table 24. Population forecast (including immigrants), Akarçay basin.

Province 2026 2032 2038 Afyonkarahisar 631,787 707,145 777,226 Konya 114,179 121,203 128,662 Total basin 745,966 828,348 905,888 Source: Authors

The table below summarises the population variations per type and size of settlement.

Table 25. Population forecast (including immigrants) and variation per size and type of settlement, Akarçay basin.

Variation Variation Variation Total variation Municipality size 2016 2016-2026 2026-2032 2032-2038 2016-2038 Neighbourhoods and villages 122,495 13,416 8,746 9,331 31,493 Municipalities < 5,000 99,617 12,401 8,015 8,376 28,792 Municipalities 5,000 - 25,000 63,843 9,604 5,921 5,955 21,480 Municipalities > 25,000 323,755 100,835 59,700 53,878 214,413 Total 609,710 136,256 82,382 77,540 296,178 Source: Authors

Page 46 of 167

As illustrated by the figure below, most of the population increase takes place in the large municipalities (>25,000 inhabitants).

350,000

300,000

250,000

200,000 Municipalities > 25,000

150,000 Municipalities 5,000-25,000 Municipalities < 5,000 100,000 Neighbourhoods and villages 50,000

0 Variation Variation Variation Total 2016-2026 2026-2032 2032-2038 variation 2016-2038

Figure 26. Population variation per size of settlement and planning cycle, Akarçay basin.

Source: Authors

The most important variation in population takes place in Afyonkarahisar central district.

Figure 27. Spatial distribution of population variation, Akarçay basin (2016-2038).

Source: Authors

Page 47 of 167

The results obtained for the municipal water demands in the 3 forecast scenarios, trend, optimistic and realistic scenarios are summarised in the tables below.

Table 26. Population and water demands forecasts in the trend scenario, Akarçay basin.

Trend scenario

2016 2026 2032 2038 Population (including immigrants) Municipalities >25,000 inhabitants 323,755 424,590 484,290 538,168 Municipalities with inhabitants 2,000-25,000 63,843 73,447 79,368 85,323 Municipalities with inhabitants < 2,000 99,617 112,018 120,033 128,409 Neighbourhoods and villages 122,495 135,911 144,657 153,988 Total 609,710 745,966 828,348 905,888 Total variation 136,256 82,382 77,540

Water distributed per capita (l/c/d) Afyonkarahisar (municipalities only) 91 106 117 130 Konya (municipalities only) 201 211 218 224 Weighted average 106 119 129 140 Non-revenue-water (%) Afyonkarahisar (municipalities only) 37 49 54 58 Konya (municipalities only) 28 30 30 30 Weighted average 36 47 52 55 Water abstracted per capita (l/c/d) Afyonkarahisar (municipalities only) 202 315 408 522 Konya (municipalities only) 366 410 432 456 Weighted average 225 327 410 515 Water abstractions (hm³/year) Afyonkarahisar (municipalities only) 31.02 61.69 89.98 127.44 Konya (municipalities only) 8.98 11.11 12.42 13.91 Non-municipal 6.71 7.89 8.69 9.56 Total 46.71 80.69 111.09 150.91 Total variation 33.98 64.38 104.20 Source: Authors

Table 27. Population and water demands forecasts in the optimistic scenario, Akarçay basin.

Optimistic scenario

Water distributed per capita (l/c/d) Afyonkarahisar (municipalities only) 91 106 117 130 Konya (municipalities only) 201 211 218 224 Weighted average 106 119 129 140

Page 48 of 167

Optimistic scenario

2016 2026 2032 2038 Non-revenue-water (%) Afyonkarahisar (municipalities only) 37 28 28 28 Konya (municipalities only) 28 28 28 28 Weighted average 36 28 28 28 Water abstracted per capita (l/c/d) Afyonkarahisar (municipalities only) 202 213 245 285 Konya (municipalities only) 366 398 420 443 Weighted average 225 235 265 303 Water abstractions (hm³/year) Afyonkarahisar (municipalities only) 31.02 41.57 54.10 69.59 Konya (municipalities only) 8.98 10.79 12.07 13.52 Non-municipal 6.71 7.90 8.69 9.55 Total 46.71 60.26 74.86 92.66 Total variation 13.55 28.15 45.95 Source: Authors

Table 28. Population and water demands forecasts in the realistic scenario, Akarçay basin.

Realistic scenario

Water distributed per capita (l/c/d) Afyonkarahisar (municipalities only) 91 106 117 130 Konya (municipalities only) 201 211 218 224 Weighted average 106 119 129 140 Non-revenue-water (%) Afyonkarahisar (municipalities only) 37 34 30 30 Konya (municipalities only) 28 34 30 30 Weighted average 36 34 30 30 Water abstracted per capita (l/c/d) Afyonkarahisar (municipalities only) 202 231 252 293 Konya (municipalities only) 366 433 432 456 Weighted average 225 255 273 311 Water abstractions (hm³/year) Afyonkarahisar (municipalities only) 31.02 45.15 55.59 71.37 Konya (municipalities only) 8.98 11.74 12.42 13.91 Non-municipal 6.71 7.89 8.69 9.56 Total 46.71 64.78 76.70 94.84 Total variation 18.07 29.99 48.12 Source: Authors

Page 49 of 167

By the last planning cycle (2038), the increase of the water abstractions with respect to the present planning cycle (2016) is estimated at 104.20 hm3 in the trend scenario and 45.95 hm3 in optimistic and 48.12 hm3 in the realistic scenario, respectively. According to the Master Plan, the total municipal gross water demand of the basin will be 77.75 hm³ in 2040 (livestock water demand is included).

1,000,000 160 NRW (2016 - 2038) 151 = 36% -55% 140

750,000 95 NRW (2016 - 2038) 120 = 36% - 28% 100 93 NRW (2016 - 2038) 500,000 = 36% -28% 80 47 60

Population (persons) 250,000 40

20 Groos wateruse (hm³/year) 0 0 2016 2026 2032 2038

Afyonkarahisar Konya Realistic scenario Optimistic scenario Trend scenario

Figure 28. Municipal scenarios, population and gross water use, Akarçay basin.

Source: Authors

3.3.2. LIVESTOCK DEMAND

The livestock forecast results (number and water demands) for Akarçay basin are summarised below per provinces. Details are provided in Annex 01.

Table 29. Livestock future water demands, Akarçay basin.

Number of livestock Water demands Province Bovine Ovine Poultry l/day hm³/year 2026 Afyonkarahisar 320,815 708,784 15,555,446 30,561,372 11.15 Konya 115,696 171,945 810,177 8,566,519 3.13 Total 2026 436,511 880,729 16,365,623 39,127,891 14.28 2032 Afyonkarahisar 357,531 778,111 18,510,244 34,175,776 12.47 Konya 125,274 189,286 837,326 9,312,321 3.40 Total 2032 482,805 967,397 19,347,570 43,488,098 15.87 2038 Afyonkarahisar 400,671 858,951 22,044,325 339,434 0.12 Konya 136,338 209,543 865,791 10,176,493 3.71 Total 2038 537,009 1,068,494 22,910,116 48,605,389 17.74 Source: (Akarçay Master Plan, 2013)

Page 50 of 167

3.3.3. IRRIGATIONAL DEMAND

The forecast scenario is based on four main aspects:

 New irrigation projects commenced by institutions,  Agricultural practices: increasing trends in irrigation areas,  Changes in conveyance and in-field efficiency rates due to rehabilitation of infrastructure or different cultivation practices,  Changes in crop pattern.

New irrigation projects commenced by institutions

As of 2016, the irrigated area in the basin is 94,428 ha. Although 540,200 ha land is arable and still 219,725 ha land has not been irrigated, no more irrigation projects can be developed for more than 98,505 ha due to the deficient water resources.

DSI has 13 projects under construction which will irrigate 5,120 ha in the near future. Besides, DSI has 14 projects under planning that will irrigate 2,674 ha by 2026.

Agricultural practices: Increasing trends in irrigation areas

As per Turkstat, the changes in annual cultivated and irrigated surfaces are given in the chart below. The irrigated surface in the basin ranged between 94,335 ha and 109,470 ha in the last decade.

300,000

Cultivated Irrigated

250,000

200,000

283,119

279,596

272,034 270,289

150,000 268,676

265,868

264,573 264,572

264,261

260,248

259,825

255,744

254,961

249,119

246,711

236,281

232,733

231,254

230,972

230,872

229,262

228,444

223,713

212,285 212,025

100,000 Cultivated and Irrigated Area (ha)

50,000

117,819

116,085

112,005

110,490

109,765 109,783

109,470

108,358

108,275

107,964

107,222

99,738

105,606

105,221

105,157

104,220

103,861

97,048

96,099

95,137

101,225 101,203

101,003

94,335 100,492

Figure 29. Changes in annual irrigated and cultivated lands in Akarçay.

Source: Authors based on Turkstat data

Neither decreasing nor increasing trend is detected in the irrigated surface area. Based on the last decade data, the irrigation fields are expected to expand as 91,531 ha, 92,702 ha and 96,101 ha for 2026, 2032 and 2038, respectively. Irrigation ratio of each project is adjusted to achieve estimated surface area. In this adjustment process, it is assumed that foremost surface water then groundwater resources will be utilized to irrigate aforementioned surface areas. This assumption is made based on the overexploitation of groundwater resources problem in the basin.

Page 51 of 167

Changes in conveyance and in-field efficiency rates due to rehabilitation of infrastructure or different cultivation practices

DSI and SPA have already rehabilitated many projects in order to diminish water use and enhance water efficiency in the basin. 182 of 235 operational projects use pressurized methods in water transmission. Only 52 irrigation units have not been rehabilitated and use still traditional methods to convey from the water resource to the irrigation area. 46 of 52 irrigation units are groundwater cooperatives. Their surface area ranges between 27 and 582 ha and their total irrigation area is 8,393 ha. There are also 6 surface water irrigation projects that are assumed to convey water by traditional methods to irrigate 539 ha in total. It is assumed that not-rehabilitated irrigation area, that covers 8,932 ha, might easily be rehabilitated by 2026.

The gross water demand for the agriculture sector varies from 586 hm3 in 2016, to 551 hm3 in 2026, 555 hm3 in 2032 and 578 hm3 in 2038; the water use decreases in 8 hm3 due to the improvement of the water efficiency through the rehabilitation projects.

Table 30. Distribution of the irrigated surface per efficiency method, Akarçay basin.

Efficiency method Current Future Furrow + Sprinkler 2% 0% Drip 8% 35% Furrow 17% 8% Sprinkler + Drip 73% 58% Source: Authors

Changes in crop pattern

Crop pattern of each irrigation project is extracted from the master plan. It is assumed that the crop pattern will remain as current until a rehabilitation project is executed. Following to the rehabilitation, designated future crop pattern will be implemented in the field.

Irrigational water demands are summarized below.

Table 31. Irrigational water demands forecasts per type of investor Akarçay basin.

Irrigation area (ha) Total water use (hm³) Classification of Irrigation Projects 2016 2026 2032 2038 2016 2026 2032 2038 1.0.0 Projects invested by DSI 11,499 29,359 32,206 33,680 68 66 195 204 SW projects that are operated or 1.1.0 11,499 28,561 31,408 32,882 68 66 190 199 transferred by DSI 1.1.1 Large-scale projects 2,610 10,914 12,536 13,034 17 17 81 84 1.1.2 Small-scale projects 8,889 17,647 18,872 19,848 51 50 109 115 GW projects that are transferred or 1.2.1 0 798 798 798 0 0 5 5 operated by DSI Projects invested, operated or 2.0.0 transferred by other institutions than 32,807 31,184 31,213 31,623 221 188 177 180 DSI 2.1.1 GW projects invested by SPAs 32,299 30,035 30,064 30,457 218 185 171 174 2.2.0 SW projects invested by SPAs 508 1,149 1,149 1,167 3 3 6 7 2.2.1 Small dam projects 400 610 610 628 2 2 3 4 2.2.2 SW projects 108 539 539 539 1 1 3 3

Page 52 of 167

Irrigation area (ha) Total water use (hm³) Classification of Irrigation Projects 2016 2026 2032 2038 2016 2026 2032 2038 3.0.0 Farmer irrigations 50,122 31,073 29,368 30,886 297 297 182 193 3.1.0 SW farmer irrigations 7,559 7,051 7,222 7,377 76 76 72 73 SW farmer irrigations inspected by 3.1.3 7,559 7,051 7,222 7,377 76 76 72 73 Field Surveys 3.2.0 GW farmer irrigations 42,564 24,022 22,146 23,510 221 221 111 120 GW farmer irrigations with 3.2.1 23,912 10,055 9,640 9,237 133 133 48 47 authorized groundwater wells GW farmer irrigations with 3.2.2 18,652 13,967 12,506 14,272 88 88 63 73 unauthorized groundwater wells Total 94,428 91,617 92,787 96,189 586 551 555 578 Variation per planning cycle -2,812 1,170 3,403 -35 4 23 Source: Authors

DSI has focused on diminishing groundwater use by both supplying surface water and promoting pressurized irrigation methods. With this respect, several projects were commenced, in which dams (or weirs) were built and pressurized irrigation networks were installed. Thus, existing wells and irrigation networks will be shifted to idle mode.

The results of the irrigational baseline scenario are summarised in the figure below.

125,000 650 586 578 551 555

95,933 100,000 94,430 94,033 92,550 520

75,000 390

50,000 260

Wateruse (hm³) Surfacearea (ha)

25,000 130

0 0 2016 2026 2032 2038 Fruit trees Sugarbeets Potatoes Strawberries Garden Other vegetables Maize Other cereals Opium Sunflower Legumes Maize for Silage Other forage crops Trefoil Others Water Use Figure 30. Agriculture baseline scenario: irrigated surface and water use per crop, Akarçay basin.

Source: Authors

Page 53 of 167

The figure below illustrates the crop pattern and water uses per crop in the last planning cycle (2038); the subsequent figure represents the annual irrigational water demand in 2038. The crop pattern changes foreseen in the Master Plan are applied as the rehabilitation projects are executed.

Fruit trees 30,805 Other cereals 10,764 Sugarbeets 9,278 Other vegetables 9,150 Potatoes 7,949 Other forage crops 7,762 Opium 7,061 Legumes 3,462 Strawberries 2,231 Maize 1,923 Maize for silage 1,641 Trefoil 1,281 Garden 1,209 Sunflower 1,209 Others 207

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 Surface area 2038 (ha) Figure 31. Cultivated crop surface, Akarçay basin (2038).

Source: Authors

Fruits 199 Vegetables 60 Forage Crops 57 Sugarbeets 51 Cereals 48 Potatoes 47 Opium 36 Legumes 21 Strawberries 16 Maize 12 Maize for Silage 10 Garden 8 Sunflower 7 Trefoil 5 Others 1

0 50 100 150 200 250

Irrigational water demand 2038 (hm3/year) Figure 32. Irrigational water demand per crop, Akarçay basin (2038).

Source: Authors

Page 54 of 167

3.3.4. INDUSTRIAL DEMAND

The baseline scenario for the industrial water demand in Akarçay basin outlines an upward trend, in line with the tendency for capacity increase and industrialization development. This is 2.3% annual rate increase during the first planning cycle (2016-2026), 2.5% during the second one (2027-2032) and 1.3% during the period 2027-2038. It is in the last planning cycle that, as response to the climate change impact, innovation in the manufacturing processes is expected resulting in resource efficiency achievements and consequently projected as minimization of future water demand.

The following figure shows the variations on the water demand (out-of-network) by provinces. Endüstriyel su kullanımı 9.0

8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0 KONYA

/ year 4.0

3 AFYONKARAHİSAR

hm 3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0 2016 2026 2032 2038 Figure 33. Consumptive–industry water use projections by province, Akarçay basin.

Source: Authors

The table below presents the industrial water demand projections by province and type of industry.

Table 32. Projections for the consumptive–industrial water use, Akarçay basin.

Water use Forecast Forecast Forecast Province Type of the industry 2016 2026 2032 2038 (hm3/year) Individual industries 2.934 3.656 4.122 4.377 Afyonkarahisar Afyon Sugar Factory 1.746 2.176 2.453 2.605 Organized industrial zone 0.210 0.292 0.350 0.394 Individual industries 0.199 0.249 0.280 0.298 Konya Organized industrial zone 0.070 0.087 0.098 0.104 Total 5.160 6.460 7.304 7.778 Annual variation (average %) 0.130 0.141 0.079 Total variation per cycle 1.300 0.844 0.475 Source: Authors

3.3.5. SUMMARY OVERVIEW

The following figures and subsequent table gather the water demands forecast for the different sectors by planning cycle for the optimistic and the realistic scenario for the municipal sector and for the single scenario for the rest of them. Overall, the water uses (gross demands) show an upward trend.

Page 55 of 167

As for the municipal sector, the population increases as 77,540 persons in 22 years reaching almost 906,000 inhabitants by 2038; water abstractions are projected at 95 hm3 in the realistic scenario for the reduction of losses (48 hm3 more relating to 2016) and 93 hm3 in the optimistic one (46 hm3 more).

With regard to the agricultural sector, the irrigated surface rises 1,761 ha in 22 years, reaching 96,189 hectares in 2038; while the water use decreases in 8 hm³, from 586 hm3 in 2016 to 578 hm3 in 2038. 800

700 8 5 7 6 600

500 Industrial 400 578 555 Irrigational 586 551 300 Livestock Municipal 200

100 16 18 12 14 93 47 60 75 0 2016 2026 2032 2038 Gross demands (hm³/year), optimistic scenario. Akarçay basin.

Figure 34. Water uses projections in the optimistic scenario, Akarçay basin.

Source: Authors 800

700 8 7 5 6 600

500 Industrial 400 578 555 Irrigational 586 551 300 Livestock Municipal 200

100 16 18 12 14 95 47 65 77 0 2016 2026 2032 2038 Gross demands (hm³/year), realistic scenario. Akarçay basin. Figure 35. Water uses projections in the realistic scenario, Akarçay basin.

Source: Authors Table 33. Water uses projections results for optimistic and realistic scenarios, Akarçay basin.

Gross demand Optimistic scenario Realistic scenario (hm³/year) 2016 2026 2032 2038 2016 2026 2032 2038 Municipal water use 47 60 75 47 47 65 77 95 Livestock water use 12 14 16 12 12 14 16 18 Agricultural water use 586 551 555 578 586 551 555 578 Industrial water use 5 6 7 8 5 6 7 8 Total 650 632 653 696 650 636 655 698 Source: Authors

Page 56 of 167

3.4. WATER TARIFFS STRUCTURE AND PRICE LEVELS

3.4.1. MUNICIPAL SECTOR

In Akarçay river basin, KOSKİ Water and Sewage Administration provide drinking water and wastewater management services to Konya Metropolitan Municipality. There are also 10 district municipalities and 33 town municipalities for which tariff information has been surveyed.

The 39 municipalities of Afyonkarahisar and the 2 districts of Konya metropolitan municipality have provided full information about the tariffs they are applying to the different subscribers served. They declared that 100% of the subscribers have meters installed and periodically read, except for 4 municipalities in Afyonkarahisar, where not all the population covered has meters: Karamikkaracaören and Pazarağaç in Çay district and Salar and Sülümenli in Afyonkarahisar Merkez district.

The field survey tariff data covers 99% of the basin in terms of population and 95% in terms of number of municipal settlements, so the tariff analyses are significantly representative.

Frequency of meter reading, tariff types and structure

The frequency of meterMeters reading differsReading in each Periodicity: of the municipalities. Akarçay

5% Monthly 14% 16% Bimonthly Quarterly 2% Every 4 months 7% Sem-annual Pre-Paid 56% Mix Bimonthly & Pre-paid No charge

Figure 36. Meters reading periodicity, Akarçay basin.

Source: Field survey

The most common practice in the basin is the bimonthly reading, with a 56% of the municipalities, after that, prepaid with a 16% is the second more usual procedure, and monthly reading with a 14% is the third one. The rest of the options are less commonly used.

For the assessment of the types of tariffs used, 3 basic types of tariffs have been considered:

 Fixed tariffs: those, without considering the volume of water served, assume just a fix amount of payment periodically made for the water and wastewater services.  Variable tariffs: those with a price per cubic meter without including any fix component.  Fixed + variable tariffs: those including 2 components, a fixed price independent of the consumed water and a variable component per volume of water used.

Page 57 of 167

 Volume blocks: for those types of tariffs that include a variable component, this component can also consider different tariffs depending on the volume of water consumed, generally increasing the unitary cost of the cubic meter when volumes also increase; each of the volume groups with a predetermined tariff is called block (for instance, 0-50 m3, 50-100 m3 and more than 100 m3 could be 3 typical bocks with different tariffs for each of them).

The WFD calls for pricing policies providing adequate incentives to use water resources efficiently. In line with the Directive’s spirit, for the water supply service, (increasing) blocked tariffs are of common use (49% of the municipalities). Meanwhile for wastewater service, 73% of the municipalities do not apply any tariff, 20% flat tariff and remaining 7% only connection fee.

100%

80% Municipalities with No Tariff 60% Municipalities with Only Connection Fee 40% Municipalities with Block Tariff Municipalities with Percentofmunicipalities 20% Flat Tariff

0% Supply Sanitation

Figure 37. Water services tariff structure, Akarçay basin.

Source: Field survey

Type of subscribers and applied tariffs

There is a big diversity in the tariffs applied for each municipality, varying both the type of subscribers, the definition of the blocks and the unitary prices applied.

 Afyonkarahisar province: o Among the 41 municipalities, 30 charge a fee for new drinking water connections. The applied fees vary between 30 TL per connection and 1,500 TL; an average of 89 TL per connection considering all the existent types of subscribers in the 30 municipalities. o For the new wastewater connections, only 6 municipalities apply a fee. The values vary between 30 TL and 385 TL. The average applied fee is 169.7 TL/connection. o Variable rates for water supply vary from 0.3 TL/m3 to 7.6 TL/m3. Many municipalities do not apply charges for wastewater (32 out of 41); for the rest, 2 apply a fixed tariff and 7 a variable one, the values vary between 0.15 TL/m3 and 0.5 TL/m3. o When in place, the fix component ranges between 0.24 TL and 21 TL. o Regarding the types of subscribers, there are many different types. 12 municipalities consider just one subscriber type while Afyonkarahisar Merkez considers 19 subscriber types. Most of them consider between 3 and 5 types of subscribers, the more typical ones being: households, workplaces, schools/ health centres and construction sites.

Page 58 of 167

 Konya metropolitan municipality: o In all the towns in the 2 districts included in the river basin there is a charge fee for both new drinking water connections and new wastewater connections of 750 TL/connection and 630 TL/connection, respectively. o Also in all the towns within the metropolitan municipality there are charges for the wastewater management services for all the subscribers except for construction sites and environment, the applied tariffs vary between 0.07 TL/m3 and 0.97 TL/m3. o There is no fix component in the tariffs applied in the metropolitan municipality. o Regarding the types of subscribers, both districts have the same 9 type of subscribers: households, public welfare, charity organisations/ associations/ foundations, workplaces, construction sites, state offices/ schools/ hospitals, subscribers with discount, public places and environment. o In both districts flat rates are in place, varying between 0.35 TL/m3 and 6.87 TL/m3.

Price and tariffs analysis

Tariff levels vary across provinces and across districts within the provinces. . Considering all tariff components, prices range between 0.4 TL/m3 and 3.1 TL/m3. . Monthly payments span between 6 TL/household and 40 TL/household. . Payment, for an average consumption per house of 12.9 m³/month, is 27 TL/month. The expenditure on water services represents 1.0% of the household disposable income. . For the average consumption per household, price of water services stands at 2.09 TL/m³.

Table 34. Average price of and payment for municipal water services, Akarçay basin.

Price (TL/m³) Payment (TL/month) Average price and payment for for the average consumption of for the average consumption of water services 12.9 m³/month 12.9 m³/month Water supply 2.04 26 Wastewater 0.05 1 Water services 2.09 27 Monthly household disposable income (mean, TL) 2,739 Percent of household disposable income in water services spent (%) 1.0% Source: Authors, TurkStat, Field survey

The subsequent figures illustrate the payments for water services . By consumption ranges (first and second 100 litres/capita/day, in other words, first and second 10.5 m³/household/month). It is remarkable that there are large differences in payments among municipalities. . By service (water supply and wastewater) for the average water consumption (12.9 m³/month). The majority of the municipalities do not apply a wastewater tariff and therefore most of the payment corresponds to the water supply service.

Page 59 of 167

Payment for water services by consumption ranges (first and second 10.5 m³/month/hh), Akarçay 2016

Afyonkarahisar / İşcehisar / Merkez Afyonkarahisar / Bolvadin / Merkez Afyonkarahisar / Merkez / Sülümenli Afyonkarahisar / Sultandağı / Merkez Afyonkarahisar / Merkez / Merkez Konya / Akşehir / Merkez Afyonkarahisar / Sultandağı / Yeşilçiftlik Afyonkarahisar / Sultandağı / Dereçine Afyonkarahisar / Merkez / Erkmen Afyonkarahisar / İhsaniye / Yaylabağı Afyonkarahisar / Merkez / Büyükkalecik Afyonkarahisar / Merkez /… Afyonkarahisar / Sinanpaşa / Merkez Afyonkarahisar / İhsaniye / Gazlıgöl Konya / Tuzlukçu / Merkez Afyonkarahisar / Şuhut / Merkez Afyonkarahisar / Çay / Merkez Afyonkarahisar / Bolvadin / Dişli Afyonkarahisar / Merkez / Çıkrık Afyonkarahisar / Merkez / Fethibey Afyonkarahisar / Merkez / Gebeceler Afyonkarahisar / Sinanpaşa / Düzağaç Afyonkarahisar / Merkez / Salar Afyonkarahisar / Merkez / Beyyazı Afyonkarahisar / Şuhut / Karaadilli Afyonkarahisar / Bolvadin / Özburun Afyonkarahisar / Sinanpaşa /… Afyonkarahisar / Merkez / Susuz Afyonkarahisar / İşcehisar / Seydiler Afyonkarahisar / Sinanpaşa / Akören Afyonkarahisar / Merkez / Sülün Afyonkarahisar / Sinanpaşa / Kılıçarslan Afyonkarahisar / Sinanpaşa / Kırka Afyonkarahisar / Merkez / Nuribey Afyonkarahisar / Merkez / Çayırbağ Afyonkarahisar / Çay / Pazarağaç Afyonkarahisar / İhsaniye / Kayıhan Afyonkarahisar / Çobanlar / Kocaöz Afyonkarahisar / Sinanpaşa / Tınaztepe Afyonkarahisar / Çobanlar / Merkez Afyonkarahisar / Merkez / Işıklar 00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 TL Fee Monthly payment for the 1st 100 l/c/d in an average household (3.51 persons per house) Monthly payment for the 2nd 100 l/c/d in an average household (3.51 persons per house) Figure 38. Payment for water services by consumption ranges, Akarçay (2016).

Source: Authors based on field survey data

Page 60 of 167

Payment for water services by service (12.89 m³/month/hh), average water use, Akarçay, 2016

Afyonkarahisar / İşcehisar / Merkez Afyonkarahisar / Bolvadin / Merkez Afyonkarahisar / Merkez / Sülümenli Afyonkarahisar / Sultandağı / Merkez Afyonkarahisar / Merkez / Merkez Konya / Akşehir / Merkez Afyonkarahisar / Sultandağı / Yeşilçiftlik Afyonkarahisar / Merkez / Erkmen Afyonkarahisar / Merkez / Değirmenayvalı Afyonkarahisar / Sinanpaşa / Merkez Afyonkarahisar / İhsaniye / Gazlıgöl Afyonkarahisar / Merkez / Büyükkalecik Afyonkarahisar / İhsaniye / Yaylabağı Konya / Tuzlukçu / Merkez Afyonkarahisar / Şuhut / Merkez Afyonkarahisar / Çay / Merkez Afyonkarahisar / Sinanpaşa / Düzağaç Afyonkarahisar / Bolvadin / Dişli Afyonkarahisar / Merkez / Fethibey Afyonkarahisar / Merkez / Gebeceler Afyonkarahisar / Şuhut / Karaadilli Afyonkarahisar / Merkez / Salar Afyonkarahisar / Bolvadin / Özburun Afyonkarahisar / Sinanpaşa / Küçükhüyük Afyonkarahisar / Merkez / Susuz Afyonkarahisar / Merkez / Çıkrık Afyonkarahisar / Merkez / Beyyazı Afyonkarahisar / İşcehisar / Seydiler Afyonkarahisar / Sinanpaşa / Akören Afyonkarahisar / Sinanpaşa / Kılıçarslan Afyonkarahisar / Sultandağı / Dereçine Afyonkarahisar / Sinanpaşa / Kırka Afyonkarahisar / Merkez / Nuribey Afyonkarahisar / Merkez / Çayırbağ Afyonkarahisar / Çay / Pazarağaç Afyonkarahisar / Merkez / Sülün Afyonkarahisar / İhsaniye / Kayıhan Afyonkarahisar / Çobanlar / Kocaöz Afyonkarahisar / Sinanpaşa / Tınaztepe Afyonkarahisar / Çobanlar / Merkez Afyonkarahisar / Merkez / Işıklar

00 10 20 30 40 50 TL

Water supply Wastewater Figure 39. Payment for water services by water service, Akarçay (2016).

Source: Authors based on field survey data

Page 61 of 167

3.4.2. INDUSTRIAL SECTOR

In Akarçay there are 5 OIZs and 4 of them are providing water services to the facilities within their limits. The following table summarises the current status of the applied tariffs in those OIZ.

Table 35. Industrial tariffs, Akarçay basin.

OIZ Providing water services (Y/N) Type of tariff Tariff (TL/m3) Afyonkarahisar OSB N N/A N/A Afyonkarahisar Bolvadin OSB Y No charge - İscehisar Mermer Ihtisas OSB Y No charge - Afyonkarahisar Şuhut OSB Y No charge - Akşehir OSB Y Volumetric – no blocks 1.70 Source: Field survey

For the 4 OIZ providing water services to their facilities, only in one of them they are charging a fee of 1.70 TL/m3, in the other 3 cases they do not charge a specific tariff for water.

3.4.3. AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

The following table summarises the number of surveyed irrigation areas for each of the types of tariffs.

Table 36. Typology of applied tariffs in surveyed irrigation areas, Akarçay basin.

Type of tariff Only tariff for gravity Only tariff for pumped Tariff for both gravity and pumped Hourly tariff 9 54 15 Volumetric tariff 2 Surface tariff 1 14 1 Crop surface tariff 7 Source: Field survey

The most frequent type of tariff is the hourly tariff, which is consistent with the majority of irrigation areas pumping groundwater in this river basin, the most related charge with the operation and maintenance costs. The values for the different types of tariffs are summarised in the table below.

Table 37. Tariffs applied in surveyed irrigation areas, Akarçay basin.

Type of tariff Minimum value Maximum value Average value Hourly tariff 0.3 TL/hour 50 TL/ hour 24.7 TL/hour Volumetric tariff 0.3 TL/m³ 0.33 TL/m³ 0.31 TL/m³ Surface tariff 70 TL/ha 2,000 TL/ha 862.9 TL/ha Crop surface tariff 100 TL/ha 1,000 TL/ha 445.7 TL/ha Source: Field survey

The variability of the tariffs applied is quite high. For hourly tariffs, the more widespread in the river basin, the charges can vary between 0.3 TL/hour and 50 TL/hour. Most of these tariffs are around 20 TL/hour to 30 TL/hour, the average being 24.7 TL/hour.

There are only 2 irrigation areas applying volumetric tariffs in the basin, this is due to the lack of metering systems in most of the irrigation areas. They are: Afyon-Çay-Devederesi and Konya-Akşehir- Gedil, both are groundwater cooperatives and are charging 0.3 TL/m3 and 0.33 TL/m3, respectively.

Page 62 of 167

For those irrigation areas applying a tariff based on the irrigated surface but not considering the cultivated crops the charges applied vary between 70 TL/ha and 2,000 TL/ha, with an average of 862.9 TL/ha. There are very high differences between different irrigation areas.

Finally, those tariffs that consider not only the irrigated surfaces but also the cultivated crops have also big differences depending on the irrigation area and the type of crop, with values between 100 TL/ha and 1,000 TL/ha. The table below summarises the tariffs applied to each of the crops in the river basin.

Table 38. Tariffs as per the crops in surveyed irrigation areas, Akarçay basin.

Irrigated crops Minimum value (TL/ha) Maximum value (TL/ha) Average value (TL/ha) Sugar beets 125 1,000 489 Maize (first crop) 125 1,000 504 Sunflower 125 750 438 Potatoes 125 1,000 504 Legumes 125 750 438 Melon and watermelon 125 750 438 Cereals (winter) 125 750 368 Cereals (summer) 125 750 368 Forage 125 1,000 489 Vegetables 125 1,000 504 Opium poppy 125 750 396 Meadow, forage, flower 100 600 388 Fruit trees 125 1,000 532 Poplar tree 125 1,000 538 Preparatory irrigation 100 600 263 Source: Field survey

The tariffs applied to each of the existent crops in the basin vary between 100 and 1,000 TL/ha. Most of them have values between 125 and 750 TL/ha, and the average vary from 263 TL/ha to 538 TL/ha.

Page 63 of 167

4. BATI AKDENIZ RIVER BASIN

4.1. SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE

This chapter contains general socio-economic features of the river basin.

 The current population and the trend of the last ten years.  The current scenario and future trends of the economic weight in terms of turnover and employment, per economic sector.

The next map shows the provinces and districts in the river basin.

Figure 40. Batı Akdeniz basin area, provinces and districts.

Source: Authors

The current population (2016) and its trend during the last ten years

Batı Akdeniz river basin is within 5 provinces: Antalya, Aydin, Burdur, Denizli and Muğla and its area amounts to 21,014 km2. The river basin area represents 36% of the area of the 5 provinces and around 22% of the entire population of the 5 provinces.

Basin population in 2016 is 1,253,873 (without immigrants). Population is concentrated in Muğla (66%), followed by Antalya (23%).

Page 64 of 167

There are 679 settlements among which 23 districts centres, 1 town municipality, 619 neighbourhoods and 36 villages. The figure below reveals the extent of villages and the low number of large cities.

Figure 41. Population (immigrants included), Batı Akdeniz basin (2016).

Source: Authors based on (Address-Based Population Registration System) and GSI tools

The population growth rates within the river basin and the 5 provinces differ significantly. In the past trends assessment, the data for immigrants are not considered as historical data are not available.

Table 39. Population trends, Batı Akdeniz basin.

Entire province Within the river basin No of inhabitants No of inhabitants Annual rate (without immigrants) Annual rate 2007/2016 2007/2016 2007 2016 2007 2016 Antalya 1,789,295 2,328,555 2.67% 248,311 282,666 1.30% Burdur 251,181 261,401 0.40% 41,811 44,251 0.57% Aydin 946,971 1,068,260 1.21% 2,657 5,612 7.76% Denizli 907,325 1,005,687 1.03% 99,797 87,507 -1.31% Muğla 766,156 923,773 1.89% 664,307 833,842 2.31% Total 4,660,928 5,587,676 1.83% 1,056,883 1,253,878 1.73% Source: Authors based on (Address-Based Population Registration System) and GSI tools

Page 65 of 167

6,000,000

5,000,000

4,000,000

3,000,000

Inhabitants 2,000,000

1,000,000

0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Population within basin Total population of provinces in the basin

Figure 42. Population trends: full provinces and basin population, Batı Akdeniz basin (2007-2016).

Source: Authors based on (Address-Based Population Registration System) and GSI tools

Turnover and employment by economic sector

Batı Akdeniz river basin contributes to 1.4% of the national gross domestic product and 1.8% of the labour force (28.09 billion TL and 468,473 persons respectively). The turnover variation from 2004 to 2014 (4.1%) is below the country trend (5.6%). The importance of the agricultural sector (11%) is higher than the country average (7%); the relative weight of the services sector (68%) is slightly above the country (61%); more significant is the industry being less developed in the basin (21%) with respect to the national average (32%).

Table 40. Turnover and labour force, Batı Akdeniz basin and Turkey (2004-2014).

Productivi Annual rate 2004/2014 GDP 2014 Labour force 2014 ty 2014 Labour Producti Relative Persons Relative GDP Billion TL TL/person force vity weight (%) (15+ age) weight (%) Agriculture -5.6% -0.6% -5.0% 3.114 11% 135,635 29% 22,960 Industry 6.4% 2.9% 3.5% 5.781 21% 101,318 22% 57,061 Services 6.2% 4.2% 2.0% 19.205 68% 231,519 49% 82,952 Batı Akdeniz 4.1% 2.3% 1.8% 28.095 468,473 59,984 RB (*) Turkey 5.6% 3.1% 2.6% 2,044.466 25,932,000 78,839 (*) including taxes & subsidies Source: Authors based on (TurkStat) data.

Page 66 of 167

Gross domestic product Gross domestic product 30,000,000 100%

25,000,000 80% 20,000,000 60% 15,000,000 40%

10,000,000 thousandTL 20% 5,000,000

0 0% 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Agriculture Industry Services Agriculture Industry Services

Figure 43. Gross domestic product, Batı Akdeniz basin (2004-2014).

Source: Authors based on (TurkStat) data.

Labour force Labour productivity 600,000 90,000 80,000 500,000 70,000 400,000 60,000 50,000 300,000 40,000

200,000 30,000 Person, 15+ Person, 15+ age TL /person, 15+ age 20,000 100,000 10,000 0 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Agriculture Industry Services Agriculture Industry Services

Figure 44. Labour force and labour productivity, Batı Akdeniz basin (2004-2014).

Source: Authors based on (TurkStat) data.

Crop production in Antalya province includes fruit trees, vegetables, greenhouse vegetables and ornamental plants (for exterior and interior spaces and cut flowers), the cultivation of medicinal and aromatic plants. According to TurkStat data in 2011, Antalya has over 37% of Turkey’s greenhouse area.

Regarding livestock breeding, in Antalya the average animal weight lies above the national average, the milk yield is about twice that of Turkey; it is ranked 12th in Turkey in the number of ovine animals.

The river basin has 968 industrial sites among which 151 in Antalya, 102 in Burdur, 59 in Denizli and 656 in Muğla. As per their size, 680 are Micro (< 10 employees), 230 are Small (10-50 employees), 51 are Medium (50-250 employees) and 7 are Large (> 250 employees).

Page 67 of 167

5.3% 0.7%

Micro 23.8% Small Medium

70.2% Large

Figure 45. Industrial sector per facility sizes, Batı Akdeniz basin.

Source: MoSIT database.

317 of the industrial facilities are concentrated in the following three economic activities:

 Manufacture of bread; manufacture of fresh pastry goods and cakes  Quarrying of ornamental and building stone, limestone, gypsum, chalk and slate  Manufacture of oils and fats

The Batı Akdeniz River Basin has no OIZ according to MoIT database. Among the 5 largest individual facilities, 4 of them discharge directly to the water bodies. Aynes Dairy, Bez Textile, Gümüşdoğa and Sürsan Aquaculture are the largest enterprises in the basin.

4.2. CURRENT WATER USE

This chapter assess economics to the water uses, what allows valuating the significance of water for the socio-economic wealth of the basin, as well as allows relating the water pressures with the dynamics of economic development and the impacts of the provision of the water services.

4.2.1. MUNICIPAL USE

In 2016, the base year for the current planning cycle, total population of Batı Akdeniz was 1,262,368 inhabitants (including immigrants). The province mostly contributing to the basin population is Muğla, with a population of 841,684 within the basin. Current population for Batı Akdeniz is summarised below per provinces within the basin. It includes the data for immigrants, as they have been considered as a part of the total population of each settlement.

Population details per settlement are provided in Annex 01. For municipalities with population above 2,000 inhabitants, details regarding the results obtained for the current water consumption per capita as well as for the (public + commercial) / residential ratio, NRW and municipal demands (gross and net) are included in Annex 01.

Page 68 of 167

Table 41. Current population (including immigrants) summary results, Batı Akdeniz basin (2016).

Population within the basin Population within the basin Province 2016 2016 (including immigrants) Burdur 44,251 44,653 Denizli 87,507 87,693 Muğla 833,842 841,684 Antalya 282,666 282,726 Aydın 5,612 5,612 Total 1,253,878 1,262,368 Source: Authors

Most of the population within the basin is based in the neighbourhoods and villages (around 54%) followed by the large municipalities (>25,000 inhabitants, around 32%), in this case the district centres of Kumluca, Menteşe, Bodrum, Fethiye, Marmaris, Milas and Ortaca, all in Antalya and Muğla.

800,000

700,000

600,000 Municipalities > 25,000 inhabitants 500,000 Municipalities with 400,000 inhabitants 2,000 - 25,000 Municipalities with 300,000 inhabitants < 2,000

200,000 Neighbourhoods and villages

100,000

0 Batı Akdeniz 2016

Figure 46. Population distribution per type and size of settlement, Batı Akdeniz basin (2016).

Source: Authors

The most populated districts in the basin are Fethiye, Milas and Bodrum, all of which are in Muğla.

Page 69 of 167

Figure 47. Spatial distribution of population, Batı Akdeniz basin (2016).

Source: Authors based on (Address-Based Population Registration System)

The succeeding table presents the summary results of the current population and gross water demands.

Table 42. Current population and municipal gross water demands, Batı Akdeniz basin (2016).

Total population within the basin Temporary Water abstracted Province (inc. immigrants) population hm3/year l/capita/day Antalya 282,726 102,254 27.68 196.97 Aydın 5,612 0.31 150.00 Burdur 44,653 2.16 132.56 Denizli 87,693 6.59 205.74 Muğla 841,684 755,265 104.00 178.42 Total 1,262,368 857,519 140.73 181.88 Source: Authors

In 2016, the volume of water abstracted by the municipal sector (including residential, public and commercial uses) was 140.73 hm3 (181.88 litres/capita/day), 155.34 hm³ when livestock included.

The results obtained, 140.73 hm³, are in line with the Master Plan results, where the total municipal water demand of the basin (2015, gross) is 153.13 hm³.

Page 70 of 167

4.2.2. LIVESTOCK USE

Muğla is the province with the highest water demand for livestock, closely followed by Antalya. Results by province are summarised in the table below; further details are included in Annex 01.

Table 43. Livestock: number and water demands, Batı Akdeniz basin (2016).

Number of livestock within the basin Water demands Province Rural/Urban Bovine Ovine Poultry l/day hm³/year Urban 1,271 31,794 21,604 545,861 0.20 Antalya Rural 59,173 633,470 16,106 12,464,727 4.55 Urban 12,504 27,051 0 1,030,965 0.38 Muğla Rural 198,061 305,302 109,193 14,509,878 5.30 Urban 5,012 39,308 0 840,220 0.31 Denizli Rural 74,382 100,737 94,890 5,253,877.5 1.92 Urban 7,573 15,074 0 604,760 0.22 Burdur Rural 56,143 131,248 0 4,775,870 1.74 Urban - - - - - Aydın Rural - - - - - Total 414,119 1,283,984 241,793 40,026,158 14.61 Source: Authors

4.2.3. IRRIGATIONAL USE

General characterization

Batı Akdeniz River Basin covers an area of about 21,000 km². Only 17% of the basin area (358,596 ha) is suitable for plough-farming; due to the fact that the basin is mostly covered with forests and mountains.

The irrigation area is 95,416 ha, 49% are irrigation projects invested by DSI, 24% by other institutions and 27% are farmers’ irrigations.Current Among Irrigation them, 87,690 Area ha are- 2016 irrigated (ha) with surface resources (92% of the irrigation area) and 7,726 ha are with groundwater resources (8%).

Farmer-SW 27% DSI-Large 37%

SPA-SW 23%

DSI-Small 4%

DSI-GW 8% SPA-SDam 1% Figure 48. Distribution of irrigation areas per investor, Batı Akdeniz basin.

Source: (Batı Akdeniz Master Plan, 2016b)

The following map shows spatial distribution of ground and surface water irrigation areas.

Page 71 of 167

Figure 49. Current irrigation areas, Batı Akdeniz basin.

Source: Authors based on General Directorate of DSI data

Batı Akdeniz basin has a divergent crop pattern. Cereals, vegetables, fruits and citrus are typical crops. Changes in the cultivation of crops between 2004 and 2017 are represented in the following figure.

200,000

180,000

160,000

140,000

120,000

100,000 Cultivated Area (ha) 80,000

60,000

40,000 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Cereals Legumes Oilseeds Potatoes Vegetables Maize Sugarbeets Forage Crops Sunflower Tobacco Maize for Silage Vines Fruits Citrus Greenhouse Figure 50. Cultivated crops in irrigation fields in Batı Akdeniz basin.

Source: Authors based on TurkStat database.

Page 72 of 167

Average crop pattern of the last decade is given in the following figure. Although the cultivation area of cereals has shrunk 16%, nowadays they are still the major cultivated crop (23% of share in irrigated lands). With a steady trend, vegetables are the second most extended crop (20%). The orchard area has expanded almost by 40% and fruit trees are in the third place (14%). Greenhouse and maize for silage are other significant crops.

Greenhouse 6%

Citrus 8%

Cereals 29% Fruits 13%

Vines 2% Legumes Maize - silage 6% 3% Vegetables 22% Tobacco 2%

Forage crops 4%

Sugarbeets 2% Maize 3% Figure 51. Average crop pattern in the last decade, Batı Akdeniz.

Source: Authors based on TurkStat database.

Irrigational water use

Total 944 hm³ water is supplied for irrigational purposes. 7% of the water (68 hm³) is abstracted from groundwater resources and remaining 93% of the water use (877 hm³) is abstracted from surface water resources. Projects developed by DSI, SPA and farmers utilize 434 hm³, 209 hm³ and 301 hm³ water per annum, respectively. The following table shows irrigation area and irrigational water demand as per investing institution and water resource.

Table 44. Current Irrigation areas per type of investor and source of water, Batı Akdeniz basin.

Irrigation area Water use Classification of irrigation projects (ha), 2016 (hm³), 2016 1.0.0 Projects invested by DSI 46,979 434 1.1.0 SW projects that are operated or transferred by DSI 39,253 367 Large-Scale Projects that are reviewed in the Annuals of Irrigational 1.1.1 35,647 338 Water Supply Evaluation Reports (1000+ ha) Small-scale projects that are reviewed in the Annuals of Irrigational 1.1.2 3,606 28 Water Supply Evaluation Reports (1000- ha) 1.2.1 GW projects that are transferred or operated by DSI 7,726 68

Page 73 of 167

Irrigation area Water use Classification of irrigation projects (ha), 2016 (hm³), 2016 2.0.0 Projects invested, operated or transferred by other institutions than DSI 22,690 209 2.1.1 GW projects invested by SPAs 0 0 2.2.0 SW projects invested by SPAs 22,690 209 2.2.1 Small dam projects 1,007 8 2.2.2 SW projects 21,683 201 3.0.0 Farmer irrigations 25,747 301 Total 95,416 944 Source: Data collected from several sources.

The most extended crops are citrus and other fruit trees, other vegetables, other cereals, maize for silage and greenhouse production.

Citrus 16,950 Other fruit trees 15,890 Other vegetables 9,874 Other cereals 9,368 Maize for silage 9,121 Greenhouse 7,632 Other forage crops 5,829 Secondary crops 5,124 Oilseeds 4,022 Sugarbeets 3,937 Maize 3,923 Olives 3,010 Others 1,903 Legumes 1,055 Potatoes 924 Sunflower 804 Vines 704 Tobacco 461

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000

Surface area 2016 (ha)

Figure 52. Distribution of irrigated areas per crops, Batı Akdeniz basin (2016).

Source: Authors

Page 74 of 167

The crops with the highest water needs are forage crops and vegetables, followed by sugar beets, sunflower and fruit trees. In 2016, the crops consuming the highest volume of water are fruit trees, citrus, vegetables, maize for silage, forage crops and greenhouse products.

Other forage crops 12,839 Other fruit trees 172 Other vegetables 11,346 Citrus 147 Sugarbeets 11,078 Other vegetables 112 Sunflower 10,883 Maize for silage 91 Other fruit trees 10,741 Other forage crops 75 Maize 10,322 Greenhouse 64 Vines 10,134 Other cereals 54 Maize for silage 9,942 Sugarbeets 44 Others 8,769 Maize 40 Tobacco 8,574 Secondary crops 36 Potatoes 8,523 Oilseeds 34 Greenhouse 8,421 Olives 23 Oilseeds 8,402 Others 17 Olives 8,313 Sunflower 9 Citrus 7,768 Legumes 8 Legumes 7,611 Potatoes 8 Secondary crops 7,033 Vines 7 Other cereals 5,765 Tobacco 4

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 3 Crop water needs 2016 (m3/ha) Irrigational water demand 2016 (hm /year) Figure 53. Crops water needs and annual water use per crop, Batı Akdeniz basin (2016).

Source: Authors

The crops with a high net margin per hectare are greenhouse products, vegetables and fruit trees. In terms of net margin per cubic metre (apparent value of water in irrigation), greenhouse products rank the first followed by vegetables, citrus and olives.

Greenhouse 50,628 Greenhouse 6.37 Other vegetables 19,713 Other vegetables 1.79 Other fruit trees 11,501 Secondary crops 1.07 Vines 9,756 Olives 1.01 Secondary crops 8,009 Citrus 0.90 Others 8,009 Potatoes 7,797 Other fruit trees 0.84 Olives 6,723 Vines 0.68 Citrus 4,889 Legumes 0.63 Legumes 4,597 Others 0.57 Tobacco 4,519 Potatoes 0.50 Sugarbeets 4,497 Tobacco 0.49 Oilseeds 3,785 Oilseeds 0.42 Other forage crops 2,928 Sugarbeets Maize for silage 2,770 0.40 Maize 1,890 Maize for silage 0.40 Other cereals 1,167 Maize 0.31 Sunflower 1,075 Forage Crops 0.25

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 Net margin (TL/ha) Net margin (TL/m3) Figure 54. Crops net margin per hectare and per cubic metre, Batı Akdeniz basin (2016).

Source: Authors

Page 75 of 167

The following maps illustrate the average crop net margin per cubic meter on ground water bodies and surface water bodies.

Figure 55. Crop net margin per cubic meter by GWB (left map); crop net margin per cubic meter by SWB (right map), Batı Akdeniz basin (2016).

Source: Authors

Page 76 of 167

In sum, in the 2016 irrigation agriculture spread over 100,532 ha; annually, it requires 944 hm3 and generates 1,079 MTL of net margin. Most extended crops are fruit trees and vegetables, particularly citrus, greenhouse production, secondary crops, and olives.

Table 45. Main outcomes of the irrigational water use, Batı Akdeniz basin (2016).

Irrigated Water needs Water use Net margin Net margin Crop group Crop area (ha) (m3/ha) (hm3/year) (TL/m3) (MTL/year) Citrus 16,950 7,768 147 0.9 132 Fruit trees Vines 704 10,134 7 0.7 5 Other fruit trees 15,890 10,741 172 0.8 144 Fruit trees 33,545 9,226 326 0.9 281 Greenhouse 7,632 8,421 64 6.4 410 Secondary crops 5,124 7,033 36 1.1 38 Olives 3,010 8,313 23 1.0 23 Tobacco 461 8,574 4 0.5 2 Vegetables Potatoes 924 8,523 8 Sugarbeets 3,937 11,078 44 0.4 18 Other 9,874 11,346 112 1.8 201 vegetables Vegetables 30,963 9,202 291 2.4 692 Maize for silage 9,121 9,942 91 0.4 36 Forage Other crops 5,829 12,839 75 0.2 19 forage crops Forage crops 14,950 11,072 166 0.3 55 Maize 3,923 10,322 40 0.3 13 Cereals Other cereals 9,368 5,765 54 0.2 11 Cereals 13,291 7,110 94 0.2 23 Sunflower 804 10,883 9 Oilseeds Other oilseeds 4,022 8,402 34 0.4 14 Oilseeds 4,825 8,769 43 0.6 14 Legumes 1,055 7,611 8 0.6 5 Others 1,903 8,769 17 0.6 9 Total/ Weighted average 100,532 9,897 944 1.2 1,079 Source: Authors 800

692 700

600 Vegetables Fruit trees 500 Forage crops 400 Cereals Others 300 281 Oilseeds

200 Legumes Annual net margin net margin Annual(TL/year) 100 55 23 9 14 5 0 Figure 56. Annual net margin per crops, Batı Akdeniz basin (2016).

Source: Authors

Page 77 of 167

Analysing the apparent value of water in irrigation (crop net margin per cubic metre) reveals that:

 High profitable crops (above 2 TL/m³) such as greenhouse products represent 7% of the annual water consumption and generate 38% of the annual net margin.  75% of the annual water use is assigned to low profitable crops (below 1 TL/m³; sugarbeets, maize for silage, maize and other cereals, etc.); they account for 38% of the annual net margin.

3 3 171 hm 64 hm (7%) 692 hm3 (75%) 300 (18%) 7.0 6.4 6.0

250

)

3 /year)

3 5.0 200

4.0 150

3.0 Net margin Net margin (TL/m 100

Annual Annual water use (hm 172 2.0 1.8 147 50 112 1.1 91 0.3 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 75 64 0.9 0.5 54 36 0.8 44 0.4 40 23 7 8 17 4 34 0.2 0.2 0 0.0 Greenhouse Other Secondary Olives Citrus Fruit trees Vines Legumes Others Tobacco Oilseeds Sugarbeets Maize for Maize Other Forage crops vegetables crops silage cereals

Figure 57. Annual water use per crop and apparent value of water, Batı Akdeniz basin (2016).

Source: Authors

262 MTL 410 MTL (38%) 407 MTL (38%) (24%) 450 7.0 6.4 400 6.0

350

)

3 /year)

3 5.0 300

250 4.0

200 410 3.0 Net margin (TL/mmargin Net 150

1.8 2.0 Annual (hm Annual net margin 100 201 1.0 1.1 144 132 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 1.0 50 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.9 0.5 0.2 38 23 0.8 5 5 9 14 18 36 13 11 19 0 2 0.0 Greenhouse Other Secondary Olives Citrus Fruit trees Vines Legumes Others Tobacco Oilseeds Sugarbeets Maize for Maize Other Forage vegetables crops silage cereals crops

Figure 58. Annual net margin per crop and apparent value of water, Batı Akdeniz basin (2016).

Source: Authors

4.2.4. INDUSTRIAL USE

Consumptive industrial water use

In 2016, the industrial activities required 22.49 hm3 to generate 5.72 billion TL of gross domestic product. Supply by municipal networks only plays a minor role6.

In Batı Akdeniz, there are no organized industrial zones, while small industrial zones are widespread. As regards the industrial water use out-of-network, it is estimated as 22.27 hm3. More than half of this consumption is done by individual industries discharging directly to specific water bodies identified through the discharges permits allocated by the MoEU. The water use is localized mainly in Muğla (91%), after that in Denizli (9%) and Antalya (7%), as the next figure and map show.

6 Based on field survey and Batı Akdeniz Master Plan data (industrial facilities connected to the municipal networks).

Page 78 of 167

This project is co-financed by the European Union and the Republic of Turkey Technical Assistance on Economic Analyses within River Basin Management Plans and Water Efficiency Aspects in 3 Pilot River Basins in Turkey (TR2013/0327.07.01-01/001). 25.0TECHNICAL REPORT 0201. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WATER USES

20.0

15.0 3

hm 10.0

5.0

0.0 ANTALYA BURDUR DENİZLİ MUĞLA

Figure 59. Industrial water use by province, Batı Akdeniz basin (2016).

Source: Authors

Figure 60. Industrial consumption, Batı Akdeniz basin (2016).

Source: Authors based on field survey and (Batı Akdeniz Master Plan, 2016b)

Non-consumptive industrial water use

The list of hydropower plants, the installed power, the stage, the dam and its scope or use and the river when available are included in next table. The list includes 66 HPP, among them 23 are active and 3 are under construction.

Page 79 of 167

Table 46. Hydropower plants, Batı Akdeniz basin.

Dam Power HPP name Dam / Weir Province Stage River use (MW) A. Dalaman 1 - 2 - 3 - Weir Muğla Active Dalaman Çayı 4 - 5 - 6 HES A. Eşen 1 -2 - 3 - 4 Weir Muğla Planning Eşen Çayı HES Akalan Regülatörü ve Antalya Planning HES Akköprü Barajı ve Akköprü Dam E Muğla Active Dalaman Çayı HES Aksu HES Antalya Planning

Alakır HES Antalya 2.06 Active Alakır Çayı Alakır 1 - 2 HES Weir Antalya 13 Planning Alakır Çayı Altınyaka 1-2-3 HES Antalya Active Aziz HES Weir Muğla Planning Kara Dere Bağcı HES Weir Muğla Active Yuvarlakçay Balcılar HES Weir E Muğla Planning Namnam Çayı Bayırköy HES Weir Muğla Planning Eşen Çayı Çakır HES Weir Denizli Planning Dalaman Çayı

Çaldere HES Weir Muğla 8.74 Active Çaldere Çameli 1 HES Weir Denizli Planning Kanlıçay Çameli 2 HES Weir Denizli Planning Karanfilli Çayı Çayboğazı 1 HES Weir Muğla Planning Çayboğazı Deresi Çayboğazı 2 HES Weir Muğla Planning Çayboğazı Deresi Çaygözü HES Weir Muğla Planning Eşen Çayı Çökek HES Weir Muğla Planning Tezli Dere Çukurincir HES Dam E Muğla Planning Eşen Çayı Dalaman Akköprü Dalaman Muğla 115 Active Dalaman Çayı

Barajı ve HES Akköprü Dam

Dalaman HES Muğla 38 Active Dalaman Çayı Acıpayam Sul. Darıveren HES Irrigation Canal Denizli 3.07 Active Kan. Değirmendere HES Weir Denizli Planning Gökdere Dere HES Weir Denizli Planning Dalaman Çayı Dereköy HES Antalya 5.64 Active Alakır Çayı Dirgen Regülatörü ve Antalya Planning HES Dodurgalar 1 ve 2 Weir Denizli 4.14 Active Erceöz Deresi HES Ercin HES Weir Muğla Planning Kızıldere

Eşen 1 ve 2 HES Dam Muğla 102 Active Eşen Çayı

Fethiye HES Weir Muğla 17 Active Karapınar Deresi Under Geriz HES Weir Burdur Construction Göcek HES Weir Muğla Planning Kızıldere

Gökyar HES Weir Muğla 11 Active Dalaman Çayı Güldürtaş HES Weir Muğla Planning Dalaman Çayı E + Kapıçay Barajı ve HES Kapıçay Dam Antalya Planning IRR Karataş 1 HES Weir Denizli 9.52 Active Gökçay Deresi

Page 80 of 167

Dam Power HPP name Dam / Weir Province Stage River use (MW) Kargı HES Weir Muğla Planning Kargı Çayı Kasaba HES Antalya Planning

Kavakçalı HES Weir Muğla 11 Active Namnam Çayı Kazandere HES Antalya Planning Kemer HES Weir Muğla Planning Seki Çayı Keserali HES Weir Muğla Planning Kızıldere Kesme HES Antalya Planning Kılcan HES Weir Muğla 2.39 Active Kilcan Deresi Kozaklı HES Weir Muğla Planning Sarıçay Deresi

Kozdere HES Antalya 9.27 Active Alakır Çayı

Kürce HES Antalya 12 Active Alakır Çayı Maltepe HES wew Muğla Planning Çaldere Namnam HES Weir Muğla 3.72 Active Namnam Çayı Narlı Barajı ve HES Narlı Dam E Muğla 87 Planning Dalaman Çayı Nevbahar HES Weir Muğla Planning Cehennem Dere Önder HES Weir Muğla Planning Yukarı Akçay Sami Soydam Barajı Sami Soydam Under E Denizli 124 Dalaman Çayı ve HES Dam Construction Sarıçay HES Weir Muğla Planning Sarıçay Deresi Under Sarıkavak HES Weir Denizli Değne Çayı Construction Seher HES Weir Muğla Planning Namnam Çayı

Sekiyaka 2 HES Weir Muğla 3.39 Active Akçay Çayı Taşçılar HES Weir Denizli Planning Kanlıçay Tirkemis HES Weir Muğla Planning Namnam Çayı

Tocak 1 HES Antalya 4.76 Active Alakır Çayı Turunçova-Finike HES Antalya 0.53 Active Antalya Akçay Yapraklı HES Burdur Planning Yon HES Dam Denizli Planning Dalaman Çayı Yuvarlakçay HES Weir Muğla Planning Yuvarlakçay Source: DSI, (Batı Akdeniz Master Plan, 2016b) and Energy Markets Regulatory Authority

There are no geothermal plants in the basin.

4.2.5. SUMMARY OVERVIEW

Batı Akdeniz basin contributes to 1.4% of the national gross domestic product and 1.8% of the labour force. The importance of the agricultural sector (11%) is higher than the country average (7%); the relative weight of the services sector (68%) is above the country (61%); more significant is the industry being less developed in the basin (21%) with respect to the national average (32%).

In the year 2016, the total water use in the basin (gross demand) is 1,122 hm³. The most relevant water user is the agriculture sector; where irrigation represents 84% of the total water use and livestock 1%. The municipal sector signifies 13% and the industry 2% of the total.

Page 81 of 167

1,000 944

900

800

700

600 Municipal

500 Livestock Irrigational 400 Industrial 300

200 141

100 15 22 0 Gross demand (hm³/year), Batı Akdeniz 2016 Figure 61. Current water uses, Batı Akdeniz basin (2016).

Source: Authors

In 2016, basin population is 1,262,368 inhabitants (including immigrants). The province mostly contributing to it is Muğla (841,684 inhabitants within the basin). The volume of water abstracted for municipal use was 141 hm3 (197 litres/capita/day over the permanent and temporary population; 360 l/c/d over the permanent population). Non-revenue water rate is 39% (in municipalities) and the water distributed as 79 l/c/d over the total population; 257 l/c/d over the permanent population.

Irrigation agriculture spread over 100,532 ha; annually, it requires 944 hm³ and generates 1,079 million Turkish Liras of net margin. Most extended crops are fruit trees and vegetables.

800 692 700

600 Vegetables

500 Fruit trees Forage crops 400 326 Cereals 281 291 300 Others Oilseeds 200 166 94 Legumes 100 55 43 23 9 14 5 17 8 0 Net margin (MTL/year) Water use (hm³/year)

Figure 62. Annual net margin and water use per crops, Batı Akdeniz basin (2016).

Source: Authors

Average crop net margin stands as 1.9 TL/m³. High profitable crops (above 2 TL/m³ of net margin), such as greenhouse products, represent 7% of the annual water use and generate 38% of the annual net margin. 75% of the annual water use is assigned to low profitable crops (below 1 TL/m³ of net margin; sugarbeets, maize for silage, maize, etc.); they account for 38% of the annual net margin.

In 2016, the industrial activities required 22 hm3 to generate 6 billion TL of gross domestic product. Supply by municipal networks only plays a minor role.

Page 82 of 167

4.3. WATER DEMAND FORECAST

This chapter addresses the expected projections of water demands over the next planning cycles, based on the forecast of a selected group of indicators (key drivers) on water use. It reveals the compatibility between the foreseeable trend in demand for water services and the preservation or improvement of the ecological status of water ecosystems. It therefore constitutes a starting point to assess the expected pressures, the water bodies’ status and the identification of the water bodies at risk of not achieving the environmental objectives.

4.3.1. MUNICIPAL DEMAND

Population forecast results for Batı Akdeniz basin are summarised below per provinces within the basin. Details per settlement are provided in Annex 01. Population shows an upward trend reaching 2,047,695 people in the basin in 2038.

Table 47. Population forecast (including immigrants), Batı Akdeniz basin.

Province 2026 2032 2038 Burdur 55,933 62,754 69,138 Denizli 100,438 108,647 116,988 Muğla 1,087,431 1,251,434 1,429,777 Antalya 339,046 377,965 421,039 Aydın 7,542 9,006 10,753 Total 1,590,390 1,809,806 2,047,695 Source: Authors

The table below summarises the population variations per type and size of settlement.

Table 48. Population forecast (including immigrants) and variation per size of settlement, Batı Akdeniz basin.

Total Variation Variation Variation Municipality size 2016 variation 2016-2026 2026-2032 2032-2038 2016-2038 Neighbourhoods and villages 681,796 136,080 86,472 90,162 312,714 Municipalities < 5,000 8,774 918 596 634 2,148 Municipalities 5,000 - 25,000 164,468 46,338 29,129 28,766 104,233 Municipalities > 25,000 407,330 144,686 103,219 118,327 366,232 Total 1,262,368 328,022 219,416 237,889 785,327 Source: Authors

As shown in the figure below, most of the population increase in the basin takes place in the large municipalities (>25,000 inhabitants), even if the increase in neighbourhoods and villages is also significant as they represent a large part of the basin population.

Page 83 of 167

2,000,000

1,800,000

1,600,000

1,400,000

1,200,000 Municipalities > 25,000 1,000,000 Municipalities 5,000 - 25,000 800,000 Municipalities < 5,000 Neighbourhoods and villages 600,000

400,000

200,000

0 Variation Variation Variation Total 2016-2026 2026-2032 2032-2038 variation 2016-2038

Figure 63. Population variation per size of settlement and planning cycle, Batı Akdeniz basin.

Source: Authors

The most important variation in population in the basin for the whole period takes place in Milas, Bodrum, Menteşe, Marmaris and Fethiye districts, all of them in Muğla province.

Figure 64. Spatial distribution of population variation, Batı Akdeniz basin (2016-2038).

Source: Authors

Page 84 of 167

The results obtained for the municipal water demands in the 3 forecast scenarios (trend, optimistic and realistic scenarios) are summarised in the table below.

One very important aspect of the municipal water demand in the basin is the temporary (touristic) population, which represents nowadays 40% of the total population. There are around 300,000 summer villas (occupied 6 months a year) in Muğla and 22,000 in Antalya as well as numerous tourism facilities.

Table 49. Population and water demands forecasts in the trend scenario, Batı Akdeniz basin.

Trend scenario 2016 2026 2032 2038 Population (including immigrants) Municipalities >25,000 inhabitants 407,330 552,016 655,235 773,562 Municipalities with inhabitants 2,000-25,000 173,242 220,498 250,223 279,623 Municipalities with inhabitants < 2,000 0 0 0 0 Neighbourhoods and villages 681,796 817,876 904,348 994,510 Total permanent population 1,262,368 1,590,390 1,809,806 2,047,695 Temporary population (*) 857,519 857,519 857,519 857,519 Total with temporary population 2,119,887 2,447,909 2,667,325 2,905,214 Total variation 328,022 219,416 237,889

Water distributed per capita (l/c/d) Antalya (municipalities only) 121 128 133 138 Muğla (municipalities only) 68 71 73 76 Burdur (municipalities only) 74 88 99 112 Denizli (municipalities only) 224 222 236 249 Aydın (municipalities only) - - - - Average over total population 79 84 87 90 Average over permanent population 257 237 219 204 Non-revenue-water (%) Antalya (municipalities only) 40 40 40 40 Muğla (municipalities only) 40 30 30 30 Burdur (municipalities only) 19 33 33 33 Denizli (municipalities only) 15 30 30 30 Aydın (municipalities only) - - - - Total 39 32 32 32 Water abstracted per capita (l/c/d) Antalya (municipalities only) 233 254 269 285 Muğla (municipalities only) 189 182 184 187 Burdur (municipalities only) 123 206 253 310 Denizli (municipalities only) 314 384 414 444 Aydın (municipalities only) - - - - Average over total population 197 198 204 211 Average over permanent population 358 313 289 270

Page 85 of 167

Trend scenario 2016 2026 2032 2038 Water abstractions (hm³/year) Antalya (municipalities only) 18.50 23.05 26.56 30.79 Muğla (municipalities only) 80.20 86.72 94.52 103.79 Burdur (municipalities only) 1.28 2.87 4.06 5.56 Denizli (municipalities only) 3.42 5.15 6.20 7.33 Aydın (municipalities only) - - - - Non-municipal 37.33 47.49 54.31 61.71 Total 140.73 165.28 185.65 209.17 Total variation 24.55 44.92 68.44

(*) Converted into permanent population taking into the occupation a year of summer villas, tourism facilities, yatching, etc. Source: Authors Table 50. Population and water demands forecasts in the optimistic scenario, Batı Akdeniz basin.

Optimistic scenario 2016 2026 2032 2038 Population (including immigrants) Municipalities >25,000 inhabitants 407,330 552,016 655,235 773,562 Municipalities with inhabitants 2,000-25,000 173,242 220,498 250,223 279,623 Municipalities with inhabitants < 2,000 0 0 0 0 Neighbourhoods and villages 681,796 817,876 904,348 994,510 Total permanent population 1,262,368 1,590,390 1,809,806 2,047,695 Temporary population (*) 857,519 857,519 857,519 857,519 Total with temporary population 2,119,887 2,447,909 2,667,325 2,905,214 Total variation 328,022 219,416 237,889

Water distributed per capita (l/c/d) Antalya (municipalities only) 121 128 133 138 Muğla (municipalities only) 68 71 73 76 Burdur (municipalities only) 74 88 99 112 Denizli (municipalities only) 224 222 236 249 Aydın (municipalities only) - - - - Average over total population 79 84 87 90 Average over permanent population 257 237 219 204 Non-revenue-water (%) Antalya (municipalities only) 40 30 30 30 Muğla (municipalities only) 40 30 30 30 Burdur (municipalities only) 19 19 18 18 Denizli (municipalities only) 15 15 15 15 Aydın (municipalities only) - - - - Total 40 30 30 30 Water abstracted per capita (l/c/d) Antalya (municipalities only) 233 229 241 254 Muğla (municipalities only) 189 182 184 187 Burdur (municipalities only) 123 162 195 239 Denizli (municipalities only) 314 316 341 366 Aydın (municipalities only) - - - - Average over total population 197 192 197 203 Average over permanent population 360 309 285 266

Page 86 of 167

Optimistic scenario 2016 2026 2032 2038 Water abstractions (hm³/year) Antalya (municipalities only) 18.50 20.81 23.82 27.44 Muğla (municipalities only) 80.20 86.72 94.52 103.79 Burdur (municipalities only) 1.28 2.27 3.12 4.28 Denizli (municipalities only) 3.42 4.24 5.11 6.04 Aydın (municipalities only) - - - - Non-municipal 37.33 47.49 54.31 61.71 Total 140.73 161.53 180.87 203.26 Total variation 20.80 40.14 62.53

(*) Converted into permanent population taking into the occupation a year of summer villas, tourism facilities, yatching, etc. Source: Authors

Table 51. Population and water demands forecasts in the realistic scenario, Batı Akdeniz basin.

Realistic scenario 2016 2026 2032 2038 Population (including immigrants) Municipalities >25,000 inhabitants 407,330 552,016 655,235 773,562 Municipalities with inhabitants 2,000-25,000 173,242 220,498 250,223 279,623 Municipalities with inhabitants < 2,000 0 0 0 0 Neighbourhoods and villages 681,796 817,876 904,348 994,510 Total permanent population 1,262,368 1,590,390 1,809,806 2,047,695 Temporary population (*) 857,519 857,519 857,519 857,519 Total with temporary population 2,119,887 2,447,909 2,667,325 2,905,214 Total variation 328,022 219,416 237,889

Page 87 of 167

Realistic scenario 2016 2026 2032 2038 Water abstracted per capita (l/c/d) Antalya (municipalities only) 233 238 241 254 Muğla (municipalities only) 189 186 184 187 Burdur (municipalities only) 123 197 224 275 Denizli (municipalities only) 314 406 414 444 Aydın (municipalities only) - - - - Average over total population 197 199 199 206 Average over permanent population 360 318 285 266 Water abstractions (hm³/year) Antalya (municipalities only) 18.50 21.58 23.82 27.44 Muğla (municipalities only) 80.20 88.63 94.52 103.79 Burdur (municipalities only) 1.28 2.75 3.60 4.94 Denizli (municipalities only) 3.42 5.45 6.20 7.33 Aydın (municipalities only) - - - - Non-municipal 37.33 47.49 54.31 61.71 Total 140.73 165.89 182.45 205.21 Total variation 25.16 41.71 64.48 (*) Converted into permanent population taking into the occupation a year of summer villas, tourism facilities, yatching, etc. Source: Authors

By the last planning cycle (2038), the increase of the water abstractions with respect to the present planning cycle (2016) is estimated at 68.44 hm3 in the trend scenario and 62.53 hm3 in optimistic and 64.48 hm3 in the realistic scenario, respectively.

2,250,000 147 NRW (2016 - 2038) 160 2,000,000 144 = 39% - 32% 140 1,750,000 142 NRW (2016 - 2038) = 39% - 30% 120 1,500,000 NRW (2016 - 2038) 100 1,250,000 103 = 39% - 29% 80 1,000,000 60 750,000 500,000 40

250,000 20 Groos wateruse (hm³/year) Population (persons) 0 0 2016 2026 2032 2038 Aydın Burdur Denizli Antalya Muğla Realistic scenario Optimistic scenario Trend scenario Figure 65. Municipal scenarios, population and gross water use.

Source: Authors

Page 88 of 167

4.3.2. LIVESTOCK DEMAND

Livestock forecast results for Batı Akdeniz basin are summarised below per provinces within the basin. Details are provided in Annex 01. The results obtained for the livestock water demands in the baseline years are also summarised in the table below.

Table 52. Livestock future water demands, Batı Akdeniz basin.

Number of livestock within the basin Water demands Province Rural/Urban Bovine Ovine Poultry l/day hm³/year 2026 Urban 1,594 41,711 29,116 712,644 0.26 Antalya Rural 74,076 793,859 19,669 15,616,602 5.70 Urban 14,592 31,772 0 1,206,180 0.44 Muğla Rural 232,605 373,342 123,109 17,261,157 6.30 Urban 6,148 48,668 0 1,037,420 0.38 Denizli Rural 94,976 131,681 127,786 6,755,961 2.47 Urban 9,001 18,130 0 722,000 0.26 Burdur Rural 69,313 160,647 0 5,875,355 2.14 Urban - - - - - Aydin Rural - - - - - Total 2026 502,305 1,599,810 299,680 49,187,320 17.95 2032 Urban 2,018 55,019 39,254 935,998 0.34 Antalya Rural 93,112 1,001,208 24,039 19,679,730 7.18 Urban 17,225 37,746 0 1,427,440 0.52 Muğla Rural 276,961 462,245 0 20,781,725 7.59 Urban 7,602 60,449 0 1,286,835 0.47 Denizli Rural 122,465 173,128 172,131 8,763,203 3.20 Urban 10,752 22,021 0 867,915 0.32 Burdur Rural 86,192 198,626 140,796 7,324,189 2.67 Urban - - - - - Aydin Rural - - - - - Total 2032 616,327 2,010,442 376,220 61,067,035 22.29 2038 Urban 2,578 72,899 52,937 1,235,619 0.45 Antalya Rural 117,502 1,270,134 29,404 24,934,461 9.10 Urban 20,567 45,353 0 1,708,645 0.62 Muğla Rural 334,265 578,910 0 25,396,900 9.27 Urban 9,473 75,330 0 1,603,600 0.59 Denizli Rural 159,240 228,717 231,919 11,450,735 4.18 Urban 12,909 27,004 0 1,050,510 0.38 Burdur Rural 107,889 247,871 163,509 9,153,392 3.34 Urban - - - - - Aydin Rural - - - - - Total 2038 764,423 2,546,218 477,769 76,533,862 27.93 Source: Authors

Page 89 of 167

4.3.3. IRRIGATIONAL DEMAND

The forecast scenario is based on four main aspects:

New irrigation projects commenced by institutions

As of 2016, the irrigated area in the basin is 185,669 ha. Although 395,215 ha land is arable, 209,546 ha land has still not been irrigated.

Agricultural practices: increasing trends in irrigation areas

As per Turkstat, the changes in annual cultivated and irrigated surfaces are given in the chart below. The irrigated surface in the basin ranged between 159,358 ha and 189,395 ha in the last decade.

500,000

450,000 Cultivated Irrigated

400,000 (ha) 350,000

300,000

250,000

421,249

407,309

404,671

402,653

399,967

395,215

394,418

392,262

388,282

383,887

383,925

373,516 373,378 200,000 368,650

150,000

Cultivated and Irrigated Areas 100,000

192,943

189,395

188,627

185,669

180,601

177,801

172,798

168,614

165,787

165,761

164,278

162,871 161,298 50,000 159,358

0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Figure 66. Changes in annual irrigated and cultivated lands in Batı Akdeniz.

Source: Authors based on Turkstat data

Page 90 of 167

Changes in crop pattern

Irrigational water demands

Based on the Master Plan, rehabilitation steps for each type of irrigated areas have been proposed taking into consideration the total estimated area to be rehabilitated; the proposed groups or steps show reasonable yearly rehabilitated surfaces. The tables below first summarise the proposed scenarios then detail the proposal per type of irrigation projects (or rather per type of investor).

In the first period (2016-2026) the rehabilitation rate in the basin will be 3,994 ha/year, while as in the second (2026-2032) and third cycles (2032-2038) it will be 4,419 and 5,009 ha/year respectively.

Table 53. Scenarios for rehabilitation of irrigation areas, Batı Akdeniz.

Total rehabilitation of all irrigation projects (1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.2.0 & 2.2.1) Period Number of projects Total area (ha) Area per year (ha/year) 2016-2026 142 23,961 3,994 2026-2032 42 26,512 4,419 2032-2038 33 50,088 5,009 Source: Authors based on (Batı Akdeniz Master Plan, 2016b)

Table 54. Scenarios for rehabilitation of irrigation areas per type of investor, Batı Akdeniz basin.

Period Percentiles Estimated area (ha) Groups (ha) No Projects Area (ha) Area (ha) / year Rehabilitation of DSI large-scale irrigation projects (1.1.1) 2016-2026 63% 2,000 < 2,500 ha 13 12,248 2,041 2026-2032 89% 7,500 2,500 – 7,500 4 15,904 2,651 2032-2038 100% 11,350 > 7,500 ha 3 29,210 2,921 Rehabilitation of DSI small-scale irrigation projects (1.1.2) 2016-2026 41% 200 < 200 ha 3 494 82 2026-2032 60% 400 200 – 400 1 400 67 2032-2038 100% 700 > 400 ha 2 1,400 140 Rehabilitation of DSI GW irrigation projects (1.2.0) 2016-2026 59% 272 < 300 ha 33 4,811 802 2026-2032 79% 442 300 – 450 11 3,923 654 2032-2038 100% 1,260 > 450 ha 12 7,951 795 Rehabilitation of SPA small dam irrigation projects (2.2.1) 2016-2026 67% 150 < 150 ha 93 6,158 1,026 2026-2032 86% 300 150 – 300 26 6,285 1,048 2032-2038 100% 1,600 > 300 ha 16 11,527 1,153 Source: Authors based on (Batı Akdeniz Master Plan, 2016b)

The results of the irrigational baseline scenario are summarised in the next figure and table.

Page 91 of 167

1,562 1,630 250,000 232,504 215,730 1,600 225,000 1,344 1,440 200,000 1,280 172,836 175,000 1,120 150,000 960

125,000 944 800 100,532 100,000 Surface area (ha) 640

75,000 480

50,000 320

25,000 160

0 0 2016 2026 2032 2038

Vines Citrus Olives Other fruit trees Sugarbeets Potatoes Greenhouse Tobacco Other vegetables Secondary crops Maize Maize silage Other cereals Sunflower Other oilseeds Legumes Forage crops Others Water Use Figure 67. Agriculture baseline scenario: irrigated surface and water use per crop, Batı Akdeniz.

Source: Authors Table 55. Agriculture water demands forecasts per type of investor, Batı Akdeniz basin.

Irrigation area (ha) Total water use (hm³) Classification of irrigation projects 2016 2026 2032 2038 2016 2026 2032 2038 1.0.0 Projects invested by DSI 46,979 111,670 149,022 162,435 434 843 1,065 1,134 SW projects operated or 1.1.0 39,253 100,049 134,940 145,750 367 758 966 1,023 transferred by DSI Large-scale projects reviewed in 1.1.1 the Annuals of Irrigation Supply 35,647 85,527 111,160 115,533 338 656 800 808 Evaluation Reports (1000+ ha) Small projects reviewed in the 1.1.2 Annuals of Irrigational Supply 3,606 14,522 23,779 30,217 28 102 167 215 Evaluation Reports (1000- ha) GW projects transferred or 1.2.1 7,726 11,621 14,082 16,685 68 86 98 111 operated by DSI Projects invested, operated or 2.0.0 22,690 26,419 28,304 30,072 209 199 196 194 transferred by another than DSI 2.1.1 GW projects invested by SPAs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.2.0 SW projects invested by SPAs 22,690 26,419 28,304 30,072 209 199 196 194 2.2.1 Small dam projects 1,007 1,282 1,282 1,282 8 9 9 9 2.2.2 SW projects 21,683 25,137 27,022 28,790 201 190 187 185 3.0.0 Farmer irrigations 25,747 25,777 25,777 25,777 301 302 302 302 Total 95,416 163,866 203,103 218,284 944 1,344 1,562 1,630 Variation per planning cycle 68,451 39,236 15,182 399 219 68 Source: Authors based on (Batı Akdeniz Master Plan, 2016b)

Page 92 of 167

The figure below illustrates the crop pattern and water uses per crop in the last planning cycle. The crop pattern changes foreseen in the Master Plan are applied as the rehabilitation projects are executed.

Fruit trees 41,470 Other vegetables 30,262 Citrus 28,705 Other cereals 19,984 Maize 16,255 Greenhouse 15,130 Secondary crops 14,203 Forage crops 14,041 Oilseeds 10,357 Sugarbeets 9,258 Maize for silage 8,571 Olives 8,432 Legumes 5,112 Vines 3,288 Others 3,090 Potatoes 2,838 Sunflower 1,046 Tobacco 460

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 Surface area 2038 (ha) Figure 68. Cultivated crop surface, Batı Akdeniz basin (2038).

Source: Authors

Fruit trees 350 Other vegetables 247 Citrus 172 Forage crops 131 Maize 115 Greenhouse 103 Sugarbeets 80 Other cereals 76 Secondary crops 71 Maize for silage 71 Oilseeds 64 Olives 47 Legumes 29 Others 22 Vines 21 Potatoes 18 Sunflower 9 Tobacco 3

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Irrigational water demand 2038 (hm3/year)

Figure 69. Irrigational water demand per crop, Batı Akdeniz basin (2038).

Source: Authors

Page 93 of 167

4.3.4. INDUSTRIAL DEMAND

The baseline scenario for the industrial water demand in Batı Akdeniz basin outlines a moderate upward trend, in line with the tendency for capacity increase and industrialization development. This is 1.1% annual rate increase during the first planning cycle (2016-2026), 1.2% during the second one (2027- 2032) and then steady during the period 2027-2038. It is in the last planning cycle that, as response to the climate change impact, innovation in the manufacturing processes is expected resulting in resource efficiency achievements and consequently projected as minimization of future water demand.

The following figure shows the variations on the water demand (out-of-network) by provinces. Industrial water use 30.0

25.0

20.0 MUĞLA

15.0 DENİZLİ / year

3 BURDUR

hm 10.0 ANTALYA

5.0

0.0 2016 2026 2032 2038 Figure 70. Consumptive industry water use projections by province, Batı Akdeniz.

Source: Authors

The table below represents the industrial water demand projections by province (it is recalled that all of the industries are individual industries).

Table 56. Projections for the consumptive industrial water use, Batı Akdeniz basin.

Water use 2016 Forecast 2026 Forecast 2032 Forecast 2038 Province (hm3/year) Antalya 1.365 1.524 1.618 1.618 Burdur 0.049 0.055 0.058 0.058 Denizli 1.779 1.986 2.109 2.109 Muğla 19.072 21.290 22.606 22.606 Total 22.266 24.855 26.392 26.392 Yearly increase (average) 0.259 0.256 0.000 Total variation per cycle 2.589 1.537 0.000 Source: Authors

4.3.5. SUMMARY OVERVIEW

As for the municipal sector, the population increases as 785,327 persons in 22 years reaching almost 2,047,695 inhabitants by 2038; water abstractions are projected at 205 hm3 in the realistic scenario for the reduction of losses (64 hm3 more than in 2016) and 203 hm3 in the optimistic one (63 hm3 more).

Page 94 of 167

With regard to the agricultural sector, the irrigated surface shows a strong rising trend (3.8% per year; 122,869 ha in 22 years), reaching 218,284 hectares in 2038; the water use presents an increase in a minor proportion, namely 686 hm3 from 2016 to 2038 (2.5% per year).

2,000 26 1,800 26 1,600 25 1,400

1,200 22 1,630 Industrial 1,000 1,562 Irrigational 1,344 800 Livestock 600 944 Municipal

400 28 18 22 200 15 141 162 181 203 0 2016 2026 2032 2038 Gross demands (hm³/year), optimistic scenario, Batı Akdeniz basin

Figure 71. Water uses projections in the optimistic scenario, Batı Akdeniz basin.

Source: Authors

2,000 26 1,800 26 1,600 25 1,400

1,200 22 1,630 Industrial 1,000 1,562 Irrigational 1,344 800 Livestock 600 944 Municipal

400 28 18 22 200 15 141 166 182 205 0 2016 2026 2032 2038 Gross demands (hm³/year), realistic scenario, Batı Akdeniz basin

Figure 72. Water uses projections in the realistic scenario, Batı Akdeniz basin.

Source: Authors

Page 95 of 167

Table 57. Water uses projections, results for both scenarios and Batı Akdeniz basin.

Gross demand Optimistic scenario Realistic scenario (hm³/year) 2016 2026 2032 2038 2016 2026 2032 2038 Municipal water use 141 162 181 203 141 166 182 205 Livestock water use 15 18 22 28 15 18 22 28 Agricultural water use 944 1,344 1,562 1,630 944 1,344 1,562 1,630 Industrial water use 22 25 26 26 22 25 26 26 Total gross demand 1,122 1,548 1,792 1,888 1,122 1,548 1,792 1,888 Source: Authors

4.4. WATER TARIFFS STRUCTURE AND PRICE LEVELS

4.4.1. MUNICIPAL SECTOR

The population within Batı Akdeniz river basin is supplied drinking water and wastewater management services by ASAT, DESKİ and MUSKİ Water and Sewage Administrations in the case of Antalya, Denizli and Muğla Metropolitan Municipalities, respectively, and by the municipal water services for Burdur.

The 4 municipalities of Burdur, 3 districts of Denizli, 6 districts of Antalya and 11 districts of Muğla Metropolitan Municipalities have provided full information about the tariffs they apply to the different subscribers. The data used in the tariff analyses covers 100% in terms of both population and number of municipal settlements, indicating that the tariff analyses are significantly representative for the basin.

Frequency of meter reading, tariff types and structure

Municipalities declared that 100% of subscribers have meters installed and that all of them are read periodically. The frequencyMeters of Reading meter reading Periodicity: differs in each ofBatı the municipalities.Akdeniz

6% Monthly 5% Bimonthly 11% Quarterly Every 4 months Sem-annual

78% Pre-Paid Mix Bimonthly & Pre-paid No charge

Figure 73. Meters reading periodicity in Batı Akdeniz basin.

Source: Field survey

The most common practice in the basin is the monthly reading; with a 78% of the municipalities, then bimonthly with an 11%. The rest of the options are clearly less commonly used.

Page 96 of 167

As aforementioned, the assessment of the tariffs’ types considers the 3 basic types generally used all around the world: fixed tariffs, variable tariffs and fixed + variable tariffs that combine the former 2 types. The variable portion of these tariffs, on the other hand, may either be flat with a constant price per m³ of water or be defined for volume blocks, which refers to predefined consumption intervals (such as 0-50 m³/month, 50-100 m³/month, and so forth) where the unit prices of water change, or mostly increase as cumulative consumption increase to encourage water-saving.

The Water Framework Directive calls for pricing policies providing adequate incentives for users to use water resources efficiently. In this sense, there is room for enlargement of the block tariff structure in the basin as it is in practice only in 21% of the municipalities on water supply and 5% on wastewater, where 13% of the municipalities do not apply any tariff on wastewater.

100%

80% Municipalities with No Tariff 60% Municipalities with Only Connection Fee 40% Municipalities with Block Tariff Municipalities with Percentof municipalities 20% Flat Tariff

0% Supply Sanitation

Figure 74. Water services tariff structure, Batı Akdeniz basin.

Source: Field survey

Type of subscribers and applied tariffs

There is a big diversity on the tariffs applied in each municipality, varying both the type of subscribers, the definition of the blocks and the unit prices applied.

 Burdur province: o All the municipalities in 3 of the 4 districts of this province apply a charge fee for new drinking water connections that vary between 110 TL and 156 TL per connection. o For the new wastewater connections, also 3 of the districts apply a charge fee for new connections, varying between 100 TL/connection and 400 TL/connection. o For the water supply service, block tariffs vary from 1.2 TL/m3 to 6.0 TL/m3. No fixed component for water services is applied. o No charges are applied in this province for the wastewater management services. o The types of subscribers are similar for the 4 towns in the 3 districts. These are: households, workplaces, worship places, state offices, construction sites, schools, etc.

Page 97 of 167

 Denizli metropolitan municipality: o All the towns in the 3 districts in the basin have a charge fee for new drinking water connections of 50 TL/connection. New wastewater connections have no charge fee. o For the water supply service, block tariffs vary from 0.3 to 6.0 TL/m3. o Also in all the towns within the metropolitan municipality there are charges for the wastewater management services for all the subscribers, (0.5 TL/m3 to 2 TL/m3). o There is a fix component in the tariffs applied in the entire metropolitan municipality that is called maintenance fee and has the same value for all the towns: 75 TL/m3. o All the districts have the same 19 type of subscribers.

 Muğla metropolitan municipality: o There is no charge fee for both new drinking water connections and new wastewater connections in the entire metropolitan municipality. o For the water supply service, block tariffs vary from 1.68 TL/m3 to 7.83 TL/m3. o In all the towns there are charges for the wastewater management services for all the subscribers, the applied tariffs vary between 1.57 TL/m3 and 2.69 TL/m3. o There is not a fix component in the tariffs applied in the metropolitan municipality.

Price and tariffs analysis

Tariff levels vary across provinces and across districts within the provinces. . Considering all tariff components, prices range between 1.2 TL/m3 and 3.0 TL/m3. . Monthly payments span between 19 TL/household and 68 TL/household. . Payment, for an average consumption per house of 11.9 m³/month, is 59 TL/month. The expenditure on water services represents 2.1% of the household disposable income. . For the average consumption per household, price of water services stands at 3.89 TL/m³.

Table 58. Average price of and payment for municipal water services, Batı Akdeniz basin.

Price (TL/m³) Payment (TL/month) Average price and payment for for the average consumption of for the average consumption of water services 11.9 m³/month 11.9 m³/month Water supply 2.63 40 Wastewater 1.25 19 Water services 3.89 59 Monthly household disposable income (mean, TL) 2,858 Percent of household disposable income in water services spent (%) 2.1% Source: Authors, TurkStat, Field survey

The subsequent figures illustrate the payments for water services . By consumption ranges (first and second 100 litres/capita/day, this is to say, first and second 8.9 m³/household/month). It is remarkable that there are large differences in payments among municipalities. . By service (water supply and wastewater) for the average water consumption (11.9 m³/month). The majority of the municipalities do not apply a wastewater tariff and therefore most of the payment corresponds to the water supply service.

Page 98 of 167

Payment for water services by consumption ranges (first and second 8.9 m³/month/hh), Batı Akdeniz 2016 Muğla / Seydikemer / Merkez Muğla / Ula / Merkez Muğla / Ortaca / Merkez Muğla / Milas / Merkez Muğla / Marmaris / Merkez Muğla / Köyceğiz / Merkez Muğla / Fethiye / Merkez Muğla / Datça / Merkez Muğla / Dalaman / Merkez Muğla / Bodrum / Merkez Muğla / Menteşe / Merkez Denizli / Serinhisar / Merkez Denizli / Çameli / Merkez Denizli / Acıpayam / Merkez Burdur / Gölhisar / Merkez Antalya / Kemer / Merkez Antalya / Kumluca / Merkez Antalya / Kaş / Merkez Antalya / Finike / Merkez Burdur / Çavdır / Merkez Antalya / Elmalı / Merkez Antalya / Demre / Merkez Burdur / Altınyayla / Merkez Burdur / Çavdır / Söğüt

00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Fee TL Monthly payment for the 1st 100 l/c/d in an average household (2.97 persons per house) Monthly payment for the 2nd 100 l/c/d in an average household (2.97 persons per house)

Figure 75. Payment for water services by consumption ranges, Batı Akdeniz (2016).

Source: Authors based on field survey data

Page 99 of 167

Payment for water services by service (11.94 m³/month/hh), average water use, Batı Akdeniz, 2016

Muğla / Seydikemer / Merkez Muğla / Ula / Merkez Muğla / Ortaca / Merkez Muğla / Milas / Merkez Muğla / Marmaris / Merkez Muğla / Köyceğiz / Merkez Muğla / Fethiye / Merkez Muğla / Datça / Merkez Muğla / Dalaman / Merkez Muğla / Bodrum / Merkez Muğla / Menteşe / Merkez Burdur / Gölhisar / Merkez Denizli / Serinhisar / Merkez Denizli / Çameli / Merkez Denizli / Acıpayam / Merkez Antalya / Kemer / Merkez Antalya / Kumluca / Merkez Antalya / Kaş / Merkez Antalya / Finike / Merkez Burdur / Çavdır / Merkez Antalya / Elmalı / Merkez Antalya / Demre / Merkez Burdur / Altınyayla / Merkez Burdur / Çavdır / Söğüt

00 10 20 30 40 50 60 TL

Water supply Wastewater

Figure 76. Payment for water services by water service, Batı Akdeniz (2016).

Source: Authors based on field survey data

4.4.2. INDUSTRIAL SECTOR

In Batı Akdeniz there are no organized industrial zones therefore no tariff analysis for industrial sector has been performed.

Page 100 of 167

4.4.3. AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

The following table summarises the number of surveyed irrigation areas for each of the mentioned types of tariffs applied in Batı Akdeniz river basin.

Table 59. Typology of applied tariffs in surveyed irrigation areas in Batı Akdeniz basin.

Type of tariff Only tariff for gravity Only tariff for pumped Tariff for both gravity and pumped Hourly tariff 13 15 4 Volumetric tariff 8 Surface tariff 5 7 1 Crop surface tariff 16 Source: Field survey

As per the values obtained, the most commonly used types of tariffs are the hourly tariff and the crop surface tariff. The values for each of the different types of tariffs are summarised in the table below.

Table 60. Tariffs applied in surveyed irrigation areas in Batı Akdeniz basin.

Type of tariff Minimum value Maximum value Average value Hourly tariff 6 TL/hour 50 TL/hour 23.6 TL/hour Volumetric tariff 0.12 TL/m³ 0.68 TL/m³ 0.35 TL/m³ Surface tariff 17.5 TL/ha 1,000 TL/ha 504.8 TL/ha Crop surface tariff 100 TL/ha 1,000 TL/ha 383 TL/ha Source: Field survey

As we can see, the variability of the tariffs applied is quite high. For hourly tariffs, the charges can vary between 6 TL/hour and 50 TL/hour, the average being 23.6 TL/hour.

There are only 8 irrigation areas applying volumetric tariffs in the river basin, this is due to the lack of metering systems in most of the irrigation areas. These 8 Irrigation areas are charging between 0.12 TL/m3 and 0.68 TL/m3, with an average value for all of them of 0.35 TL/m3.

For the irrigation areas applying a tariff based in the irrigated surface but not considering the cultivated crops the charges applied vary between 17.5 TL/ha and 1,000 TL/ha, the average being 504.8 TL/ha. As we can see, there are very high variations between the different irrigation areas.

Finally, those tariffs that consider the irrigated surfaces and cultivated crops have also big differences depending on the irrigation area and type of crop, with values between 100 TL/ha and 1,000 TL/ha. In the following table we summarise the different tariffs applied for each of the cultivated crops.

Table 61. Tariffs as per the crops in surveyed irrigation areas in Batı Akdeniz basin.

Irrigated crops Minimum value (TL/ha) Maximum value (TL/ha) Average value (TL/ha) Cotton 320 350 341.3 Sugar beets 125 1,000 498.8 Maize (first crop) 125 1,000 469.5 Maize for silage (first crop) 400 400 400.0 Sunflower 125 750 432.1 Potatoes 125 1,000 419.6

Page 101 of 167

Irrigated crops Minimum value (TL/ha) Maximum value (TL/ha) Average value (TL/ha) Beans and legume 210 780 432.0 Chickpeas 400 400 400.0 Legumes 125 750 437.5 Sesame 300 345 323.8 Aniseed 150 400 290.0 Peanut 310 350 335.0 Tomatoes 780 780 780.0 Melon and watermelon 125 1,000 426.1 Onion 260 350 313.3 Garlic 260 490 368.3 Cereals (winter) 125 750 281.0 Cereals (summer) 125 750 281.0 Forage 125 1,000 474.2 Vetch 150 180 165.0 Maize (second crop) 400 400 400.0 Vegetables 125 1,000 488.1 Opium poppy 125 750 344.6 Tobacco 320 550 423.0 Clover, alfalfa 350 780 495.0 Vineyard 190 390 333.9 Citrus 380 420 407.0 Meadow, forage, flower 100 780 466.0 Fruit trees 125 1,000 509.8 Poplar tree 125 1,000 480.0 Olive 260 660 360.4 Strawberries 780 780 780.0 Off-season irrigation 130 130 130.0 Preparatory 100 600 213.5 Source: Field survey

As we can see in the table above, the tariffs applied to each of the existent crops in the river basin vary between 100 and 1,000 TL/ha. The average values vary from 130 TL/ha to 780 TL/ha.

Page 102 of 167

5. YEŞILIRMAK RIVER BASIN

5.1. SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE

This chapter contains general socio-economic features of the river basin.

 The current population and the trend of the last ten years.  The current scenario and future trends of the economic weight in terms of turnover and employment, per economic sector.

The next map shows the provinces and districts in the river basin.

Figure 77. Yeşilırmak basin area, provinces and districts.

Source: Authors

The current population (2016) and its trend during the last ten years

Yeşilırmak river basin is within 10 provinces (without considering the small contribution of Bayburt): Amasya, Çorum, Erzincan, Giresun, Gümüşhane, Ordu, Samsun, Sivas, Tokat and Yozgat and its area amounts to 39,574 km2.

In 2016, the basin population is 2,542,870 inhabitants, without immigrants. Population is located mainly in Samsun (38%), Tokat (24%), Çorum and Amasya. It presents a steady trend for the total of the provinces and for the basin population as well.

Page 103 of 167

Basin settlements are 2,806 of which 52 districts centres, 44 other town municipalities, 624 neighbourhoods and 2,086 villages. The figure below reveals the extent of villages.

Figure 78. Population (immigrants included), Yeşilırmak basin (2016).

Source: Authors based on (Address-Based Population Registration System) and GSI tools

In the population past trends, immigrants data are not considered as historical data are not available.

Table 62. Population trends, Yeşilırmak river basin.

Entire province Within the river basin No of inhabitants No of inhabitants Annual rate (without immigrants) Annual rate 2007/2016 2007/2016 2007 2016 2007 2016 Sivas 638,464 621,224 -0.3% 66,886 56,699 -1.64% Yozgat 492,127 421,041 -1.5% 147,547 107,877 -3.08% Samsun 1,228,959 1,295,927 0.5% 872,356 967,456 1.04% Tokat 620,722 602,662 -0.3% 592,420 602,473 0.17% Çorum 549,828 527,863 -0.4% 305,197 337,234 1.00% Amasya 328,674 326,351 -0.1% 312,673 317,255 1.15% Ordu 715,409 750,588 0.5% 22,202 18,492 -1.81% Giresun 417,505 444,467 0.6% 41,522 40,516 -0.24% Gümüşhane 130,825 172,034 2.8% 62,315 85,690 3.24% Erzincan 213,538 226,032 0.6% 7,955 9,081 1.33% Bayburt 76,609 90,154 1.6% 233 97 -10.77 Total 5,336,051 5,388,189 0.1% 2,431,270 2,542,870 0.45% Source: Authors based on (Address-Based Population Registration System) and GSI tools

Page 104 of 167

6,000,000

5,000,000

4,000,000

3,000,000

Inhabitants 2,000,000

1,000,000

0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Population within basin Total population of provinces in the basin

Figure 79. Population trends: full provinces and basin population, Yeşilırmak (2007-2016).

Source: Authors based on (Address-Based Population Registration System) and GSI tools

Turnover and employment by economic sector

Yeşilırmak river basin contributes to 1.8% of the national gross domestic product and 3.5% of the labour force (37.50 billion TL and 895,788 persons respectively). The GDP variation from 2004 to 2014 (4.7%) ranks behind the country average (5.6%).

The basin is an important agricultural production region of Turkey representing 4.4% of the sector GDP at national level. Agricultural activities created 5.96 billion TL of GDP and around 353 thousand persons of labour force. In the decade 2004-2014, the sector has declined slightly.

The industrial sector has gained importance in the decade 2004-2014. In 2014 it generates a gross domestic product of 8.27 billion TL (1.4% of the sector GDP at national level).

Table 63. Turnover and labour force in Yeşilırmak river basin and Turkey (2004-2014).

Productivi Annual rate 2004/2014 GDP 2014 Labour force 2014 ty 2014 Labour Producti Relative Persons Relative GDP Billion TL TL/person force vity weight (%) (15+ age) weight (%) Agriculture -0.1% -4.3% 4.2% 5.962 16% 354,585 40% 16,813 Industry 8.9% 5.7% 3.2% 8.216 22% 185,548 21% 44,579 Services 5.0% 1.2% 3.7% 23.266 62% 355,655 40% 65,419 Yeşilırmak 4.7% -0.7% 5.4% 37.500 895,788 41,862 RB (*) Turkey 5.6% 3.1% 2.6% 2,044.466 25,932,000 78,839 (*) including taxes & subsidies

Source: Authors based on (TurkStat) data.

Page 105 of 167

Gross domestic product Gross domestic product 40,000,000 100%

30,000,000 80%

60% 20,000,000

40% thousandTL 10,000,000 20%

0 0% 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Agriculture Industry Services Agriculture Industry Services

Figure 80. Gross domestic product, Yeşilırmak basin (2004-2014).

Source: Authors based on (TurkStat) data.

Labour force Labour productivity 1,200,000 70,000 60,000 1,000,000 50,000 800,000 40,000 600,000 30,000 400,000

20,000

TL /person, 15+ age Person, 15+ age 200,000 10,000

0 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Agriculture Industry Services Agriculture Industry Services

Figure 81. Labour force and labour productivity, Yeşilırmak basin (2004-2014).

Source: Authors based on (TurkStat) data.

In Yeşilırmak there are 2,619 industrial sites. As per their size, 1,787 are micro (< 10 employees), 620 are small (10-50 employees), 182 are medium (50-250 employees) and 30 are large (> 250 employees). Yeşilırmak

1.1%

6.9%

Micro 23.7% Small Medium 68.3% Large

Figure 82. Industrial sector per facility sizes, Yeşilırmak basin.

Source: MoSIT database.

Eight of the largest facilities (18) have activities in textile. 764 are concentrated in 5 NACE activities:

 Manufacture of grain mill products  Manufacture of bread; manufacture of fresh pastry goods and cakes  Sawmilling and planning of wood  Manufacture of builders’ ware of plastic  Manufacture of kitchen furniture

Page 106 of 167

In Yeşilırmak basin there are 15 OIZs, 5 of them are in Tokat, 5 in Samsun, 4 in Amasya and 1 in Çorum. 5 of these OIZs are using municipal network.

Most of the industrial sites are located in Samsun (32%), Çorum (23%), Amasya (21%) and Tokat (12%), representing 88% of the total. Some of the most important are Amasya, Çarşamba & Turhal Sugar Plants, Ladik Cement Factory and Eti Copper Co. The mining sector has a large number of lignite coal mining operations in Çorum; Samsun has limited potential as well as Erzincan. There are important minerals in Tokat province.

The agricultural sector is significant within the river basin. This is the case in Samsun where main crops are wheat, tobacco, sunflower, sugar beet and vegetables. The Amasya province is agriculture-oriented and has an important potential for animal husbandry. Tokat province benefits from fertile plains where fruit is produced in significant quantities. The other provinces have less suitable land and appropriate arable land is limited for products with a high profitability.

Tourism is relevant as a gate of the Black Sea to Central Anatolia within the Anatolian culture variety.

5.2. CURRENT WATER USE

5.2.1. MUNICIPAL USE

In 2016, the total population of Yeşilırmak Basin was 2,547,535 inhabitants (including immigrants). The provinces mostly contributing to the basin population are Samsun and Tokat, followed by Amasya. Current population for Yeşilırmak is summarised below per provinces within the basin. It includes the data for immigrants, as they have been considered as a part of the total population of each settlement. Details per settlement are provided in Annex 01.

Table 64. Current population (including immigrants), Yeşilırmak basin (2016).

Province Population within the basin 2016 Population within the basin 2016 including immigrants) Amasya 317,255 317,816 Çorum 337,234 339,445 Erzincan 9,081 9,085 Giresun 40,516 40,574 Gümüşhane 85,690 85,709 Ordu 18,492 18,492 Samsun 967,456 967,966 Sivas 56,699 56,754 Tokat 602,473 603,544 Yozgat 107,877 108,053 Bayburt 97 97 Total 2,542,870 2,547,535 Source: Authors

Page 107 of 167

Most of the population within the basin is based in the large municipalities (>25,000 inhabitants, around 53%), followed by neighbourhoods and villages (around 31%). The largest cities are Atakum and İlkadım (in Samsun), the district centres of Çorum, Tokat and Amasya.

1,600,000

1,400,000

1,200,000 Municipalities > 25,000 inhabitants 1,000,000 Municipalities with 800,000 inhabitants 2,000 - 25,000 Municipalities with 600,000 inhabitants < 2,000

400,000 Neighbourhoods and villages

200,000

0 Yeşilırmak 2016

Figure 83. Population distribution per type and size of settlement, Yeşilırmak basin (2016).

Source: Authors

According with the map below the most populated district in the basin is İlkadım district centre in Samsun and Çorum central district.

Figure 84. Spatial distribution of population, Yeşilırmak basin (2016).

Source: Authors based on (Address-Based Population Registration System)

Page 108 of 167

Details regarding the current water consumption per capita, the (public + commercial) / residential ratio, NRW and municipal demands (gross and net) are included in Annex 01. Results are summarised below.

Table 65. Current population and municipal water demands, Yeşilırmak basin (2016).

Province Population (inc. immigrants) Water abstracted (hm3/year) Water abstracted (l/capita/day) Amasya 317,816 28.83 248.57 Çorum 339,445 23.07 186.20 Erzincan 9,085 0.50 152.10 Giresun 40,574 4.37 294.79 Gümüşhane 85,709 5.31 169.66 Ordu 18,492 1.22 181.17 Samsun 967,966 105.90 299.75 Sivas 56,754 4.95 239.10 Tokat 603,544 59.48 270.02 Yozgat 108,053 6.95 176.17 Bayburt 97 0.01 150.00 Total 2,547,535 240.60 258.75 Source: Authors

In 2016, the volume of water abstracted for the municipal sector was 240.60 hm³ (308 l/c/d in average).

5.2.2. LIVESTOCK USE

The province with the highest water demand for livestock (within the basin) is Tokat.

Table 66. Livestock: number and water demands, Yeşilırmak (2016).

Number of livestock within the basin Water demands Province Rural/Urban Bovine Ovine Poultry l/day hm³/year Rural 44,469 29,350 2,663,700 0.97 Samsun Urban 219,126 118,906 12,739,890 4.65 Urban 15,169 12,502 5,214,897 2,249,704 0.82 Çorum Rural 116,874 107,322 7,453,530 2.72

Urban 4,611 3,935 13,677 292,994 0.11 Giresun Rural 29,734 34,416 2,002,940 0.73

Urban 659 743 1,000 44,345 0.02 Ordu Rural 7,791 8,638 5,200 520,420 0.19 Urban 9,711 6,322 770 580,572 0.21 Sivas Rural 143,317 131,933 12,376 9,147,939 3.34 Urban 89,861 102,408 6,029,170 2.20 Tokat Rural 249,193 290,187 16,812,455 6.14 Urban 24,946 28,265 267,660 1,738,190 0.63 Yozgat Rural 74,157 87,166 60,060 5,030,355 1.84 Urban 19,165 7,616 1,072,490 0.39 Gümüşhane Rural 39,701 17,250 2,243,800 0.82 Urban 44,629 74,419 3,347,735 1.22 Amasya Rural 167,808 157,189 10,748,235 3.92 Bayburt Rural 418 933 34,895 0.01 Urban 416 20,800 0.01 Erzincan Rural 9,766 6,274 582,410 0.21 Total 1,311,521 1,225,774 5,575,640 85,356,570 31.16 Source: Authors

Page 109 of 167

5.2.3. IRRIGATIONAL USE

General characterization

Yeşilırmak Basin, originating from Köse District of Gümüşhane and ending in Çarşamba District of Samsun, is one of the largest basins of Turkey. With an area of 39,574 km² it has many differences in both socio-economic and geographical contexts. These differences also affect the quality and quantity of the agricultural activities carried out at the basin. Çarşamba Plain, located in the downstream, is predominantly farmed with corn, rice and vegetable. On the other hand, sugar beet, sunflower and onions are planted in significant amounts in the upstream part of the basin. Moreover, fruit growing around Amasya and Tokat is quite common. The next map shows the estimated distribution of the currently irrigated surfaces in the basin.

The total irrigated area is 140,612 ha; 37% are irrigation projects invested by DSI, 28% are invested by other institutions and 35% are farmers’ irrigations. Among them, 126,913 ha are irrigated with surface resources and 13,699 ha are with groundwater resources.

Figure 85. Current irrigation areas in Yeşilırmak.

Source: (Yeşilırmak Master Plan, 2016a)

Page 110 of 167

This project is co-financed by the European Union and the Republic of Turkey Technical Assistance on Economic Analyses within River Basin Management Plans and Water Efficiency AspectsCurrent in 3 Pilot IrrigationRiver Basins in AreaTurkey (-TR2013/0327.07.012016 (ha) -01/001). TECHNICAL REPORT 0201. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WATER USES

Farmer-GW 3%

DSI-Large 28% Farmer-SW 32%

SPA-SW 20% DSI-Small 2%

DSI-GW 7%

SPA-Small dam 8% Figure 86. Distribution of irrigation areas per investor, Yeşilırmak basin.

Source: (Yeşilırmak Master Plan, 2016a)

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000 Cultivated Area (ha) 200,000

100,000 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Cereals Legumes Oilseeds Potatoes Vegetables Maize Sugarbeets Forage Crops Sunflower Paddy Onions Tobacco Maize for Silage Vines Fruits Figure 87. Cultivated crops in irrigation fields in Yeşilırmak basin.

Source: Authors based on TurkStat database.

Average crop pattern of the last decade is given in the following figure. Although the cultivation area of cereals has shrunk 58%, nowadays they are still the major cultivated crop (21% of share). With a steady trend, fruit trees are the second most extended crop (21%). Forage crops area has doubled being at the present time the other significant crop (17%).

Page 111 of 167

Vines 2% Fruit trees 21% Cereals 28% Maize - silage 3% Tobacco 1% Legumes 1% Onions 3% Vegetables Potatoes 2% 11% Paddy 1% Forage crops 11% Sunflower 6%

Maize 5% Sugarbeets 5% Figure 88. Average crop pattern in the last decade, Akarçay basin.

Source: Authors based on TurkStat database.

Irrigational water use

Total 1,015 hm³ water is supplied for irrigational purposes, 8% (85 hm³) is abstracted from groundwater resources and remaining 92% (929 hm³) is abstracted from surface water resources. The next table shows irrigation area and irrigational water demand as per investing institution and water resource.

While estimating future water demands in Master Plan, more focus was given on calculating the saved water volume by rehabilitating the current projects; water demands of future projects other than rehabilitation were not included in the water demand tables. The present analysis includes also those projects in water demand analyses.

Table 67. Current Irrigation areas per type of investor and source of water in Yeşilırmak.

Irrigation area Water Use Classification of Irrigation Projects (ha), 2016 (hm³), 2016 1.0.0 Irrigation Projects invested by DSI 52,696 381 1.1.0 SW Irrigation Projects that are operated or transferred by DSI 42,410 329 Large-Scale Irrigation Projects that are reviewed in the Annuals of 1.1.1 39,644 306 Irrigational Water Supply Evaluation Reports (1000+ ha) Small-Scale Irrigation Projects that are reviewed in the Annuals of 1.1.2 2,766 22 Irrigational Water Supply Evaluation Reports (1000- ha) 1.2.1 GW Irrigation Projects that are transferred or operated by DSI 10,286 52 Irrigation Projects invested, operated or transferred by other institutions 2.0.0 39,296 353 than DSI 2.1.1 Groundwater Irrigation Projects invested by SPAs 0 0 2.2.0 Surface-Water Irrigation Projects invested by SPAs 39,296 353 2.2.1 Small Dam Irrigation Projects 11,090 78 2.2.2 Surface-Water Irrigation Projects 28,206 276 3.0.0 Farmer Irrigations 48,620 280 Total 140,612 1,015 Source: Data collected from several sources.

Page 112 of 167

The most common crops are fruit trees, sugar beets, cereals, maize and vegetables.

Fruit trees 20,363 Sugarbeets 18,493 Maize 17,876 Other vegetables 17,290 Other cereals 16,763 Other forage crops 13,579 Onions 8,953 Paddy 6,830 Maize dor silage 6,564 Sunflower 6,286 Legumes 4,224 Potatoes 1,351 Secondary crops 947 Vines 846 Tobacco 564 Others 400

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

Surface area 2016 (ha)

Figure 89. Distribution of irrigated areas per crops, Yeşilırmak basin (2016).

Source: Authors

Page 113 of 167

The crops with the highest water needs are sugarbeets and forage crops, followed by tobacco, sunflower and potatoes. The crops consuming the highest volume of water in the basin are sugarbeets, fruit trees, vegetables, forage crops, maize and cereals.

Sugarbeets 10,769 Sugarbeets 199 Other forage crops 10,043 Fruit trees 147 Tobacco 8,703 Other vegetables 137 Sunflower 8,360 Other forage crops 136 Potatoes 8,328 Maize 105 Vines 7,948 Other cereals 82 Other vegetables 7,937 Sunflower 53 Others 7,479 Maize for silage 37 Fruit trees 7,198 Paddy 36 Legumes 5,941 Onions 26 Maize 5,880 Legumes 25 Maize for silage 5,679 Potatoes 11 Paddy 5,282 Vines 7 Secondary crops 4,982 Tobacco 5 Other cereals 4,908 Secondary crops 5 Onions 2,942 Others 3 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 0 50 100 150 200 250 3 3 Crop water needs 2016 (m /ha) Irrigational water demand 2016 (hm /year) Figure 90. Crops water needs and annual water use per crop, Yeşilırmak basin (2016).

Source: Authors

The crops with a high net margin per hectare are vines, vegetables and fruit trees. In terms of net margin per cubic metre (apparent value of water in irrigation), onions rank the first followed by vegetables, vines and fruit trees.

Vines 16,150 Onions 2.84 Other vegetables 13,424 Vines 2.03 Fruit trees 11,434 Other vegetables 1.76 Legumes 9,539 Legumes 1.68 Potatoes 8,300 Fruit trees 1.60 Onions 8,022 Secondary crops 1.16 Secondary crops 5,278 Potatoes 1.10 Others 5,278 Others 0.77 Maize for silage 3,197 Maize for silage 0.57 Other forage crops 2,642 Other cereals 0.43 Sugarbeets 2,529 Paddy 0.26 Other cereals 2,034 Maize 0.26 Sunflower 1,953 Other forage crops 0.24 Tobacco 1,625 Sunflower 0.24 Maize 1,481 Sugarbeets 0.24 Paddy 1,384 Tobacco 0.21 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3 Net margin (TL/ha) Net margin (TL/m ) Figure 91. Current net margin per hectare and crop, Yeşilırmak basin (2016).

Source: Authors

Page 114 of 167

The following maps illustrate the average crop net margin per cubic meter on ground water bodies and surface water bodies.

Figure 92. Crop net margin per cubic meter by GWB (left map); crop net margin per cubic meter by SWB (right map), Yeşilırmak basin (2016).

Source: Authors

Page 115 of 167

In sum, in the 2016 irrigation agriculture spread over 140,612 ha; annually, it requires 1,015 hm3 and generates 805 MTL of net margin. Most extended crops are vegetables and cereals, particularly sugarbeets, maize and paddy.

Table 68. Main outcomes of the irrigational water use, Yeşilırmak basin (2016).

Irrigated area Water needs Water use Net margin Net margin Crop group Crop (ha) (m3/ha) (hm3/year) (TL/m3) (MTL/year) Sugarbeets 18,493 10,769 199 0.2 47 Onions 8,953 2,942 26 2.8 75 Potatoes 1,351 8,328 11 1.1 12 Vegetables Secondary crops 947 4,982 5 1.2 5 Tobacco 564 8,703 5 0.2 1 Other vegetables 17,290 7,937 137 1.8 241 Vegetables 47,598 5,317 384 1.0 382 Maize 17,876 5,880 105 0.3 28 Cereals Paddy 6,830 5,282 36 0.3 0 Other cereals 16,763 4,908 82 0.4 35 Cereals 41,468 5,389 223 0.3 63 Vines 846 7,948 7 2.0 14 Fruit trees Other fruit trees 20,363 7,198 147 1.6 235 Fruit trees 21,209 7,653 153 1.6 249 Maize for silage 6,564 5,679 37 0.6 21 Forage crops Other forage 13,579 10,043 136 0.2 33 crops Forage crops 20,143 8,621 174 0.3 54 Oilseeds 6,286 8,360 53 0.2 13 Legumes 4,224 7,198 25 1.7 42 Others 400 7,479 3 0.8 2 Total/ 141,328 7,178 1,015 0.8 805 Weighted average Source: Authors

450

400 382

350 Vegetables 300 Fruit trees 249 Cereals 250 Forage crops 200 Legumes 150 Oilseeds Others 100 63

Annual net margin (TL/year) 54 42 50 12.5 2.3 0

Figure 93. Annual net margin per crops, Yeşilırmak basin (2016).

Source: Authors

Page 116 of 167

Analysing the apparent value of water in irrigation (crop net margin per cubic metre) reveals that:

 High profitable crops (above 2 TL/m³) such as onions and vines represent only the 3% of the annual water use and generate 11% of the annual net margin.  More than half of the annual water use is assigned to low profitable crops (below 1 TL/m³; maize for silage, maize, paddy, sunflower, etc.); they account for 65% of the annual water use and 22% of the annual net margin.

300 6.0 33 hm3 (3%) 325 hm3 (32%) 654 hm3 (65%) 250 5.0

200 4.0 )

/year) 3

150 2.8 3.0

2.0 100 1.8 2.0 1.7 1.6 199 147 (TL/mmargin Net 137 1.2 1.1 136 50 105 1.0 Annual (hm Annual use water 0.6 82 0.3 53 0.2 37 36 26 7 25 5 11 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 5 0 0.0 Onions Vines Other Legumes Other fruit Secondary Potatoes Maize for Other Maize Paddy Other Sunflower Sugarbeets Tobacco vegetables trees crops silage cereals forage crops Figure 94. Annual water use per crop and apparent value of water, Yeşilırmak basin (2016).

Source: Authors

300 6.0 88 MTL (11%) 536 MTL (67%) 178 MTL (22%)

250 5.0

200 4.0

150 2.8 3.0

2.0 241 235 100 2.0 1.8 1.7 (TL/m3)margin Net 1.6 1.2 1.1 50 0.2 1.0 Annual (MTL/year) Annual net margin 75 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 14 42 5 12 21 35 28 0 33 13 47 1 0 0.0 Onions Vines Other Legumes Other fruit Secondary Potatoes Maize for Other Maize Paddy Other Sunflower Sugarbeets Tobacco vegetables trees crops silage cereals forage crops Figure 95. Annual net margin per crop and apparent value of water, Yeşilırmak basin (2016).

Source: Authors

5.2.4. INDUSTRIAL USE

Consumptive–industry water use

In 2016, the industrial activities required 28 hm3 to generate 8,216 million TL of gross domestic product. A small portion of this water use (3%) is supplied by municipal networks7.

There are 15 organized industrial zones in the basin, 5 of them are in Tokat, 5 in Samsun, 4 in Amasya and 1 in Çorum. Five of them are using municipal network.

7 Based on field survey and Batı Akdeniz Master Plan data (industrial facilities and organized industrial zones connected to the municipal networks).

Page 117 of 167

As regards the industrial water use out-of-network from surface and ground waters, it is estimated as 26.96 hm3. One third of this consumption is done by individual industries discharging directly to specific water bodies identified through the discharges permits allocated by the MoEU.

Individual industries are the major users (57%). The water use is localized mainly in Amasya (51%), Samsun (27%) and Tokat (18%).

Figure 96. Industrial consumption, Yeşilirmak basin (2016).

Source: Authors based on field survey and (Yeşilırmak Master Plan, 2016a)

Figure 97. Industrial water use by province and location, Yeşilirmak basin (2016).

Source: Authors

Page 118 of 167

The following table shows the details of the industrial water use by province and by type of industry.

Table 69. Consumptive–industry water use, Yeşilırmak basin (2016).

Province Type of industry / Location Name Water use 2016 (hm3/year) Individual industries 13.516 Samsun Free Zone 0.135 Individual industries 7.139 Amasya Organised industrial zones Amasya OIZ 0.032 Individual industries 3.250 Tokat Erbaa OIZ 0.222 Tokat Merkez OIZ 0.900 Tokat Organised industrial zones Tokat Niksar OIZ 0.107 Tokat Turhal OIZ 0.164 Tokat Zile OIZ 0.082 Individual industries 0.191 Çorum Organised industrial zones Çorum OIZ 0.929 Yozgat Individual industries 0.099 Sivas Individual industries 0.079 Gümüşhane Individual industries 0.062 Giresun Individual industries 0.029 Erzincan Individual industries 0.022 Ordu Individual industries 0.001 Total 26.959 Source: Field survey, MoIT and (Yeşilırmak Master Plan, 2016a)

Non-Consumptive Industry Water Use

The next table lists the hydroelectric power plants, installed power, stage, dam and its scope or use and the river when available. It includes 116 HPP, among them 59 are active and 6 are under construction.

Table 70. Hydropower plants, Yeşilırmak basin.

HPP name Dam / Weir Dam use Province Power (MW) Stage River Under Akıncı HES Soğukpınar Weir E Tokat 99 Kelkit construction Akşar HES Sivas 7 Planning Akşar Çayı Alçe HES Weir Sivas 5.14 Active Buldur Deresi Almus Barajı ve E + FC + Almus Dam Tokat 27 Active Yeşilırmak

HES IRR Altıntepe HES Irrigation Canal Sivas 4.082 Active

Amasya Kale HES Kale Weir Amasya 29 Active Yeşilırmak Asarcık 1 HES Weir E Giresun 19.086 Planning Asarcık Asarcık 2 HES Weir E Giresun 4.62 Planning Asarcık, İnceler Ataköy Barajı ve Ataköy Dam E + IRR Tokat 5.53 Active Yeşilırmak

HES Atasu 1 - 2 - 3 HES Weir E Tokat 8.215 Planning Perşembe Bal HES Weir E Giresun 3.07 Planning Kelkit Bektemur HES Bağlar Weir Amasya 3.49 Active Çekerek Beyatça Weir E Tokat 25.3 Planning Yeşilırmak Beypınar HES Irrigation Canal Sivas 3.686 Active

Page 119 of 167

HPP name Dam / Weir Dam use Province Power (MW) Stage River Boyalı HES Weir E Sivas 7.0 Planning Yeşilırmak

Burçak HES Burçak 1 - 2 Weirs Giresun 66 Active Aluçra Çayı Gümüşh Çam 1 - 2 HES Dam E 16 Planning Kelkit ane Under Çamlıca HES Weir E Tokat 22.652 Zinav Deresi construction Çamlıgöze Barajı Çamlıgöze Dam E Sivas 32 Active Kelkit ve HES

Çarıklı HES Çarıklı Weir Amasya 8.96 Active Yeşilırmak Çarşamba HES Çarşamba Weir Samsun 11 Active Yeşilırmak Çataloluk Barajı Çataloluk Dam E + IRR Sivas 7 Planning Kösedağ ve HES Çekerek 1 - 2 - 3 - Weir E Yozgat 27.52 Planning Çekerek 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 HES Çekerek Barajı ve Süreyyabey E + FC + Yozgat 27 Active Çekerek HES (Çekerek) Dam IRR

Çilehane HES Çilehane Weir Tokat 7.20 Active Yeşilırmak

Çobanlı HES Weir Sivas 19 Active Çobanlı Deresi Dartaş HES Dartaş Pond E + MW Tokat 0.961 Planning Kartalkaya Değirmen 1 HES Okçaören Weir E Giresun 14.3 Planning Kelkit Değirmen 2 - 3 Çamoluk Weir - Under E Giresun 27 Kelkit HES Değirmen III Weir construction Yılanlı, Mere, Delice 1 HES Delice 1 - 2 Weirs E Tokat 6.66 Active Gındıra Delisava HES Weir E Giresun 4.88 Planning Büyük Dereköy HES Weir E Sivas 3.95 Planning Yeşilırmak Dibecik HES Weir E Samsun 1.5 Planning Bolaş Doğanşar 1 - 2 Karakaya & Doğanşar HES Sivas 6.77 Active Weirs Gevele Duru 1 HES Duru 1 Weir Amasya 5.29 Active Kozalan Çayı Duru 2 HES Duru 2 Weir Amasya 5.40 Active Kozalan Çayı Durucasu HES Amasya 1.07 Active Kozalan Çayı Ekinözü 1 - 2 Ekinözü 1 - 2 HES Sivas 5.66 (8.97) Active Kozlu Deresi Weirs Enes 2 HES Weir E Tokat 1.5 Planning Engelli Enes 1 HES Weir E Tokat 2.2 Planning Çatak Erbaa HES Köklüce Weir Tokat 49 Planning Kelkit Fahret Weir - Fahret - Özen HES E Sivas 9.87 Planning Subatan, Özen Özen Weir Gemin 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 Weir E Sivas 21.23 Planning Gemin - 5 HES Generji HES Weir E Samsun 4.47 Active Terme Gökçe HES Weir E Samsun 5.59 Planning Abdal Gökmen HES Weir Yozgat 2.87 Active Çekerek Gölova Barajı ve Gölova Dam E + IRR Sivas 1.05 Active Çobanlı Deresi HES Gölova HES Weir E Sivas 5.547 Planning Dinesor Gülcan HES Sivas Planning Kelkit Hasan Uğurlu Hasan Uğurlu E Samsun 500 Active Yeşilırmak

Barajı ve HES Dam İlimsu 1 - 2 HES Dam E Giresun 8.52 Planning Avutmuş

Page 120 of 167

HPP name Dam / Weir Dam use Province Power (MW) Stage River

İncesu HES Kazankaya Weir Çorum 15 Active Çekerek Irmakiçi HES Weir E Samsun 2.7 Planning Kırkıl Karacakaya HES Weir E Sivas 0.9 Planning Karabel Under Karakeçili 1 HES Weir E Tokat 7 Yeşilırmak construction Karakeçili 2 HES Weir E Tokat 3.63 Planning Yeşilırmak Karakuş HES Weir E Tokat 4.72 Planning Karakuş Deresi Karayel HES Weir E Amasya 22 Planning Yeşilırmak Kayadibi HES Weir E Samsun 1.563 Planning Yeşil Kaynar HES Weir E Tokat 2.27 Planning Çanakçı Kaynar 1 HES Kaynar Weir E Sivas 9.65 Planning Çobanlı Deresi Kaynar 2 HES Kaynar Weir E Sivas 7.56 Planning Çobanlı Deresi Deliçay, Keçeci 2 HES Weir E Tokat 7.602 Planning Kuruçay Kılıçkaya Barajı ve Kılıçkaya Dam E + FC Sivas 120 Active Kelkit

HES

Koçak HES Koçak Dam Giresun 25 Active Kelkit

Köklüce HES Ataköy Dam E + IRR Tokat 90 Active Yeşilırmak Konak HES Irrigation Canal Sivas 4.016 Active Gümüşh

Köprübaşı HES Köprübaşı Weir 15 Active Şiran Çayı ane

Koyulhisar HES Weir Sivas 63 Active Kelkit Koyulhisar HES Sivas 0.20 Active

Kumköy HES Kumköy Weir Samsun 17 Active Yeşilırmak Kutay HES Weir E Tokat 7.48 Planning Zinav Deresi Kuyulu HES Weir E Amasya 2.328 Planning Çorum Çayı Ladik Samsun 0.40 Active Göz Deresi Büyükkızoğlu HES Mert HES Weir E Samsun 9.0 Planning Mert Mete HES Weir E Giresun 13 Planning Kelkit

Midilli HES Midilli Weir Amasya 33 Active Yeşilırmak Moran 1 - 2 - 3 Dam E Giresun 17.25 Planning Moran HES

Muratlı HES Muratlı Dam Giresun 38 Active Kelkit

Niksar HES Niksar Dam Tokat 40 Active Kelkit Omala, Under Tokmakkaya, Omala Dam E Tokat 17 Yeşilırmak construction Karakaya HES

Onur HES Onur Weir Tokat 20 Active Zinav Deresi

Osmancık HES Osmancık Weir Amasya 9.02 Active Yeşilırmak Under Pamuk HES Dam E Giresun 18 Kelkit construction Polat Deresi

Polat HES Weir Sivas 6.56 Active (Çermişek) Poyrazlı HES Weir E Sivas 1.921 Planning Gökdere Çaylı, Karaca,

Reşadiye HES Tokat 64 Active Kelkit Karlıyayla Weirs Şahinkaya Barajı Şahinkaya Dam E + MW Ordu 85 Planning Karakuş Deresi ve HES Sevindik HES Irrigation Canal Sivas 6.3 Active

Page 121 of 167

HPP name Dam / Weir Dam use Province Power (MW) Stage River Gümüşh Sifon HES Weir E 2.87 Planning Çetpazar ane Suat Uğurlu Barajı Suat Uğurlu Dam E + MW Samsun 69 Active Yeşilırmak ve HES

Sümer HES Sümer Weir Giresun 22 Active Aluçra Çayı Taşova - Irrigation Canal Amasya 1.98 Active Yeşilırmak Yenidereköy HES Tepekışla Barajı Tepekışla Dam E Tokat 70 Active Kelkit ve HES Terice HES Samsun 1 Planning Terice Deresi Tokat Çamlıca Tokat 23 Active HES Tokat Suçatı 1 Suçatı 1 Weir Tokat 8.59 Active Tozanlı Çayı HES Tokat Suçatı 2 Suçatı 2 Weir Tokat 6.38 Active Tozanlı Çayı HES Gümüşh Tomara HES Weir E 2.21 Planning Parmaklar ane

Tuna HES Dam Tokat 37 Active Delice Deresi Turhal Barajı ve Turhal Dam Tokat 5 Planning Gülüt Çayı HES Uğurlu HES Weir E Samsun 9.5 Planning Yeşilırmak Umut Dam and

Umut HES Ordu 42 Active Karakuş Deresi Weirs

Umutlu HES Weir E Amasya 20 (22.287) Active Yeşilırmak Ütük HES Weir E Sivas 6.806 Planning Yeşilırmak

Yakınca HES Weir E Sivas 19 Active Çobanlı Deresi Yaprak I HES Yaprak I Dam Amasya 13.48 Active Gökdere Yaprak II HES Yaprak II Weir Amasya 10.8 Active Gökdere

Yavuz HES Yavuz Weir Amasya 23 Active Yeşilırmak Yeni HES Weir E Sivas 6.761 Planning Yeşilırmak Yeni Suşehri Weir Kösedağ, Yeni Suşehri HES E Sivas 4.656 Planning - Çataloluk Weir Çorakırmak

Yeşil HES Weir Sivas 14 Active Yeşilırmak Yeşilırmak 1 HES Yeşilırmak 1 Weir Tokat 14 Active Yeşilırmak Yeşilırmak 2 HES Yeşilırmak 2 Weir Tokat 6.24 Active Yeşilırmak Gümüşh Zafer HES Weir E 5.5 Planning Kelkit ane Zinav HES Weir E Tokat 4 Planning Zinav Deresi Source: DSI, (Yeşilırmak Master Plan, 2016a) and Energy Markets Regulatory Authority

No geothermal plants are found in the basin. It is worth noting that in Yeşilırmak the company Toros Tarim Sanayi ve Ticaret (Samsun Şubesi) satisfies a current demand of 106.7 hm3/year from sea water for cooling purposes.

5.2.5. SUMMARY OVERVIEW

Yeşilirmak basin contributes to 1.8% of the national gross domestic product and 3.5% of the labour force. The basin is an important agricultural production region of Turkey representing 4.4% of the sector GDP at national level. The weight of the industrial sector is 1.4% of the sector national GDP.

Page 122 of 167

In 2016, the basin water use (gross demand) is 1,313 hm³. Agriculture is the most relevant water use; where irrigation is 77% and livestock 2%. The municipal sector represents 18% and the industry 2%. 1,200

1,015 1,000

800

Municipal

600 Livestock Irrigational Industrial 400

241 200

31 27 0 Gross demand (hm³/year), Yeşilırmak basin 2016 Figure 98. Current water uses, Yeşilirmak basin (2016).

Source: Authors

In 2016, total population of Yeşilirmak basin was 2,547,535 inhabitants (including immigrants). The provinces mostly contributing to the basin population are Samsun and Tokat, followed by Amasya. The volume of water abstracted for municipal use was 241 hm3 (308 litres/capita/day). Non-revenue water rate is 45% (in municipalities), the water distributed is assessed as 114 litres/capita/day.

Irrigated agriculture spread over 140,612 ha; annually, it requires 1,015 hm3 and generates 805 MTL of net margin. Most extended crops are vegetables and cereals.

450

400 382 384

350 Vegetables 300 Fruit trees 249 250 223 Cereals Forage crops 200 174 153 Legumes 150 Oilseeds 100 Others 63 54 42 53 50 25 12.5 2.3 3 0 Net margin (MTL/year) Water use (hm³/year) Figure 99. Annual net margin and water use per crops, Yeşilirmak basin (2016).

Source: Authors

Average crop net margin stands as 0.8 TL/m³. High profitable crops (above 2 TL/m³) such as onions and vines represent just the 3% of the annual water use and generate 11% of the annual net margin. More than half of the annual water use is assigned to low profitable crops (below 1 TL/m³; maize, paddy, sunflower, etc.); they account for 65% of the annual water use and 22% of the annual net margin.

In the year 2016, the industrial activities required 28 hm3 to generate 8.22 billion TL of gross domestic product; a small portion of this water use (3%) is supplied by municipal networks.

Page 123 of 167

5.3. WATER DEMAND FORECAST

This chapter addresses the expected projections of water demands over the next planning cycles, based on the forecast of a selected group of indicators (key drivers) on water use. It reveals the compatibility between the foreseeable trend in demand for water services and the preservation or improvement of the ecological status of water ecosystems. It, therefore, constitutes a starting point to assess the expected pressures, the waterbodies status and the identification of the water bodies at risk of not achieving the environmental objectives.

5.3.1. MUNICIPAL DEMAND

In Yeşilırmak basin, Population shows an upward trend reaching 3,776,518 people in 2038. The table below presents the summary results per provinces. Details per settlement are provided in Annex 01.

Table 71. Population forecast (including immigrants), Yeşilırmak basin.

Province 2026 2032 2038 Amasya 376,463 416,524 460,553 Çorum 431,319 487,155 540,624 Erzincan 10,322 11,247 12,333 Giresun 48,759 53,970 59,186 Bayburt 107 114 121 Gümüşhane 119,685 140,469 160,508 Ordu 21,929 24,383 27,184 Samsun 1,161,781 1,286,626 1,418,678 Sivas 63,266 67,560 72,185 Tokat 728,055 807,348 888,359 Yozgat 120,307 128,302 136,787 Total 3,081,993 3,423,698 3,776,518 Source: Authors

The table below summarises the population variations per type and size of settlement.

Table 72. Population forecast (including immigrants) and variation per size of settlement, Yeşilırmak basin.

Variation Variation Variation Total variation Municipality size 2016 2016-2026 2026-2032 2032-2038 2016-2038 Neighbourhoods and villages 785,178 106,251 73,161 81,426 260,838 Municipalities < 5,000 182,384 46,623 28,980 27,994 103,597 Municipalities 5,000 - 25,000 226,861 40,851 25,251 25,499 91,601 Municipalities > 25,000 1,353,112 340,733 214,313 217,901 772,947 Total 2,547,535 534,458 341,705 352,820 1,228,983 Source: Authors

As shown in the figure below, most of the population increase in the basin takes place in the large municipalities (>25,000 inhabitants).

Page 124 of 167

4,000,000

3,500,000

3,000,000

2,500,000 Municipalities > 25,000 2,000,000 Municipalities 5,000 - 25,000 1,500,000 Municipalities < 5,000 1,000,000 Neighbourhoods and villages

500,000

0 Variation Variation Variation Total 2016-2026 2026-2032 2032-2038 variation 2016-2038

Figure 100. Population variation per size of settlement and planning cycle, Yeşilırmak basin.

Source: Authors

The most important variations in population for the whole period take place in:

 Atakum, İlkadım, Tekkeköy District Centres as well as Çarşamba District, all in Samsun province  Çorum, Tokat, Amasya District Centres in the related provinces.

Figure 101. Spatial distribution of population variation, Yeşilırmak basin (2016-2038).

Source: Authors

Page 125 of 167

The results obtained for the municipal water demands in the 3 forecast scenarios (trend, optimistic and realistic scenarios) are summarised in the tables below.

Table 73. Population and water demands forecasts in the trend scenario, Yeşilırmak basin.

Trend scenario

Amasya (municipalities only) 100 119 132 147 Çorum (municipalities only) 101 117 128 141 Erzincan (municipalities only) 56 75 90 108 Giresun (municipalities only) 48 73 81 90 Gümüşhane (municipalities only) 47 58 59 61 Ordu (municipalities only) 144 194 232 250 Samsun (municipalities only) 167 199 214 230 Sivas (municipalities only) 87 102 110 115 Tokat (municipalities only) 84 95 100 106 Yozgat (municipalities only) 84 99 110 123 Bayburt (municipalities only) - - - - Weighted average 114 133 144 155 Non-revenue water (%) Amasya (municipalities only) 47 35 34 33 Çorum (municipalities only) 33 33 33 33 Erzincan (municipalities only) 26 30 30 30 Giresun (municipalities only) 78 61 59 57 Gümüşhane (municipalities only) 58 49 46 43 Ordu (municipalities only) 44 30 30 30 Samsun (municipalities only) 42 50 55 58 Sivas (municipalities only) 63 61 62 63 Tokat (municipalities only) 49 47 48 49 Yozgat (municipalities only) 41 38 40 40 Bayburt (municipalities only) - - - - Total 45 44 46 47

Page 126 of 167

Trend scenario

2016 2026 2032 2038 Water abstracted per capita (l/c/d) Amasya (municipalities only) 283 269 292 324 Çorum (municipalities only) 194 236 258 282 Erzincan (municipalities only) 154 225 274 333 Giresun (municipalities only) 390 389 433 494 Gümüşhane (municipalities only) 172 190 195 203 Ordu (municipalities only) 285 312 375 406 Samsun (municipalities only) 407 589 742 891 Sivas (municipalities only) 355 397 465 527 Tokat (municipalities only) 305 257 290 323 Yozgat (municipalities only) 192 237 293 334 Bayburt (municipalities only) - - - - Weighted average 308 361 428 495 Water abstractions (hm³/year) Amasya (municipalities only) 24.29 27.88 33.94 42.14 Çorum (municipalities only) 20.54 31.92 39.66 48.89 Erzincan (municipalities only) 0.24 0.39 0.52 0.70 Giresun (municipalities only) 3.48 4.36 5.46 6.90 Gümüşhane (municipalities only) 4.90 7.71 9.29 11.09 Ordu (municipalities only) 0.44 0.54 0.68 0.79 Samsun (municipalities only) 83.83 150.29 211.71 281.62 Sivas (municipalities only) 3.20 3.90 4.81 5.72 Tokat (municipalities only) 52.00 53.94 68.08 84.07 Yozgat (municipalities only) 4.69 6.45 8.48 10.32 Bayburt (municipalities only) - - - - Non-municipal 42.99 51.74 57.92 64.88 Total 240.60 339.12 440.55 557.12 Total variation 98.52 199.95 316.52 Source: Authors

Table 74. Population and water demands forecasts in the optimistic scenario, Yeşilırmak basin.

Optimistic scenario

Page 127 of 167

Optimistic scenario

2016 2026 2032 2038 Water distributed per capita (l/c/d) Amasya (municipalities only) 100 119 132 147 Çorum (municipalities only) 101 117 128 141 Erzincan (municipalities only) 56 75 90 108 Giresun (municipalities only) 48 73 81 90 Gümüşhane (municipalities only) 47 58 59 61 Ordu (municipalities only) 144 194 232 250 Samsun (municipalities only) 167 199 214 230 Sivas (municipalities only) 87 102 110 115 Tokat (municipalities only) 84 95 100 106 Yozgat (municipalities only) 84 99 110 123 Bayburt (municipalities only) - - - - Weighted average 114 133 144 155 Non-revenue water (%) Amasya (municipalities only) 47 30 29 29 Çorum (municipalities only) 33 31 30 30 Erzincan (municipalities only) 26 26 26 26 Giresun (municipalities only) 78 30 30 30 Gümüşhane (municipalities only) 58 31 30 30 Ordu (municipalities only) 44 30 30 30 Samsun (municipalities only) 42 30 30 30 Sivas (municipalities only) 63 29 29 29 Tokat (municipalities only) 49 30 29 29 Yozgat (municipalities only) 41 31 30 30 Bayburt (municipalities only) - - - - Total 45 30 29 29 Water abstracted per capita (l/c/d) Amasya (municipalities only) 283 235 263 299 Çorum (municipalities only) 194 219 235 259 Erzincan (municipalities only) 154 214 260 317 Giresun (municipalities only) 390 217 259 313 Gümüşhane (municipalities only) 172 136 146 158 Ordu (municipalities only) 285 312 375 406 Samsun (municipalities only) 407 411 452 496 Sivas (municipalities only) 355 216 248 274 Tokat (municipalities only) 305 180 193 211 Yozgat (municipalities only) 192 198 224 258 Bayburt (municipalities only) - - - - Weighted average 308 267 292 323

Page 128 of 167

Optimistic scenario

2016 2026 2032 2038 Water abstractions (hm³/year) Amasya (municipalities only) 24.29 24.41 30.57 38.89 Çorum (municipalities only) 20.54 29.50 36.09 44.88 Erzincan (municipalities only) 0.24 0.37 0.50 0.66 Giresun (municipalities only) 3.48 2.43 3.26 4.37 Gümüşhane (municipalities only) 4.90 5.50 6.96 8.64 Ordu (municipalities only) 0.44 0.54 0.68 0.79 Samsun (municipalities only) 83.83 104.70 128.77 156.71 Sivas (municipalities only) 3.20 2.12 2.56 2.97 Tokat (municipalities only) 52.00 37.80 45.32 54.86 Yozgat (municipalities only) 4.69 5.39 6.50 7.97 Bayburt (municipalities only) - - - - Non-municipal 42.99 51.75 57.93 64.89 Total 240.60 264.51 319.14 385.63 Total variation 23.91 78.54 145.04 Source: Authors

Table 75. Population and water demands forecasts in the realistic scenario, Yeşilırmak basin.

Realistic scenario

2016 2026 2032 2038 Population (including immigrants) Municipalities > 25,000 inhabitants 1,353,112 1,693,845 1,908,158 2,126,059 Municipalities with inhabitants 2,000 - 25,000 226,861 267,712 292,963 318,462 Municipalities with inhabitants < 2,000 182,384 229,007 257,987 285,981 Neighbourhoods and villages 785,178 891,429 964,590 1,046,016 Total 2,547,535 3,081,993 3,423,698 3,776,518 Total variation 534,458 341,705 352,820 Water distributed per capita (l/c/d) Amasya (municipalities only) 100 119 132 147 Çorum (municipalities only) 101 117 128 141 Erzincan (municipalities only) 56 75 90 108 Giresun (municipalities only) 48 73 81 90 Gümüşhane (municipalities only) 47 58 59 61 Ordu (municipalities only) 144 194 232 250 Samsun (municipalities only) 167 199 214 230 Sivas (municipalities only) 87 102 110 115 Tokat (municipalities only) 84 95 100 106 Yozgat (municipalities only) 84 99 110 123 Bayburt (municipalities only) - - - - Weighted average 114 133 144 155

Page 129 of 167

Realistic scenario

2016 2026 2032 2038 Non-revenue water (%) Amasya (municipalities only) 47 34 30 30 Çorum (municipalities only) 33 34 30 30 Erzincan (municipalities only) 26 34 30 30 Giresun (municipalities only) 78 34 30 30 Gümüşhane (municipalities only) 58 34 30 30 Ordu (municipalities only) 44 34 30 30 Samsun (municipalities only) 42 34 30 30 Sivas (municipalities only) 63 34 30 30 Tokat (municipalities only) 49 34 30 30 Yozgat (municipalities only) 41 34 30 30 Bayburt (municipalities only) - - - - Total 45 34 30 30 Water abstracted per capita (l/c/d) Amasya (municipalities only) 283 248 266 302 Çorum (municipalities only) 194 226 235 260 Erzincan (municipalities only) 154 238 274 333 Giresun (municipalities only) 390 230 259 313 Gümüşhane (municipalities only) 172 143 146 158 Ordu (municipalities only) 285 330 375 406 Samsun (municipalities only) 407 434 452 497 Sivas (municipalities only) 355 235 255 282 Tokat (municipalities only) 305 192 198 216 Yozgat (municipalities only) 192 207 224 258 Bayburt (municipalities only) - - - - Weighted average 308 282 295 325 Water abstractions (hm³/year) Amasya (municipalities only) 24.29 25.78 30.92 39.30 Çorum (municipalities only) 20.54 30.53 36.24 45.04 Erzincan (municipalities only) 0.24 0.42 0.52 0.70 Giresun (municipalities only) 3.48 2.57 3.26 4.37 Gümüşhane (municipalities only) 4.90 5.79 6.96 8.64 Ordu (municipalities only) 0.44 0.57 0.68 0.79 Samsun (municipalities only) 83.83 110.72 129.01 157.03 Sivas (municipalities only) 3.20 2.31 2.64 3.06 Tokat (municipalities only) 52.00 40.40 46.51 56.31 Yozgat (municipalities only) 4.69 5.61 6.50 7.97 Bayburt (municipalities only) - - - - Non-municipal 42.99 51.74 57.91 64.89 Total 240.60 276.44 321.15 388.10 Total variation 35.85 80.55 147.50 Source: Authors

Page 130 of 167

By 2038, the increase of the water abstractions with respect to the reference base year (2016) is estimated as 316 hm3 in the trend scenario, 145 hm3 in the optimistic and 147 hm3 in the realistic one.

4,000,000 600 NRW (2016 - 2038) 3,500,000 492 = 45% - 47% 500 3,000,000 NRW (2016 - 2038) 400 2,500,000 323 = 45% -30% 2,000,000 321 300 1,500,000 NRW (2016 - 2038) 200 1,000,000 198 = 45% - 29% 100

500,000 Groos wateruse (hm³/year) Population Population (persons) 0 0 2016 2026 2032 2038 Amasya Çorum Erzincan Giresun Gümüşhane Ordu Samsun Sivas Tokat Yozgat Bayburt Realistic scenario Optimistic scenario Trend scenario

Figure 102. Municipal scenarios, population and gross water use, Yeşilırmak basin.

Source: Authors

5.3.2. LIVESTOCK DEMAND

Livestock forecast results are summarised below per provinces. Details are provided in Annex 01.

Table 76. Livestock water demands forecasts, Yeşilırmak basin.

Number of livestock Water demands Province Rural / Urban Bovine Ovine Poultry l/day hm³/year 2026 Rural 49,510 32,827 2,967,905 1.08 Samsun Urban 247,114 141,636 14,480,240 5.29 Urban 17,489 15,867 7,030,598 2,870,104 1.05 Çorum Rural 143,240 133,972 0 9,171,580 3.35 Urban 31,258 36,181 2,105,615 0.77 Giresun Rural 4,848 4,137 14,379 308,050 0.11 Urban 704 794 1,068 47,377 0.02 Ordu Rural 8,323 9,227 5,555 555,944 0.20 Urban 10,209 6,646 809 610,342 0.22 Sivas Rural 153,287 140,340 13,284 9,772,771 3.57 Urban 102,290 118,897 6,897,955 2.52 Tokat Rural 281,986 335,842 0 19,136,930 6.98 Urban 27,956 32,569 360,990 1,976,582 0.72 Yozgat Rural 86,653 102,161 63,139 5,880,850 2.15 Urban 20,148 8,006 0 1,127,490 0.41 Gümüşhane Rural 41,737 18,135 2,358,875 0.86 Urban 59,762 95,052 4,413,880 1.61 Amasya Rural 213,522 197,882 13,644,330 4.98 Bayburt Rural 439 981 0 36,665 0.01 Urban 437 0 0 21,850 0.01 Erzincan Rural 10,267 6,596 0 612,290 0.22 Total 1,511,179 1,437,748 7,489,822 98,997,626 36.13

Page 131 of 167

Number of livestock Water demands Province Rural / Urban Bovine Ovine Poultry l/day hm³/year 2032 Rural 52,977 35,240 3,177,450 1.16 Samsun Urban 266,957 158,102 15,719,380 5.74 Urban 19,185 18,402 8,412,000 3,338,280 1.22 Çorum Rural 162,963 153,995 10,458,075 3.82 Urban 32,210 37,283 2,169,745 0.79 Giresun Rural 4,996 4,262 14,816 317,434 0.12 Urban 732 826 1,111 49,268 0.02 Ordu Rural 8,659 9,600 5,779 578,395 0.21 Urban 10,521 6,847 834 628,963 0.23 Sivas Rural 159,757 145,744 13,877 10,177,479 3.71 Urban 111,122 130,750 7,517,350 2.74 Tokat Rural 305,025 368,417 20,777,505 7.58 Urban 30,097 35,643 432,000 2,147,495 0.78 Yozgat Rural 95,801 113,136 65,062 6,503,355 2.37 Urban 20,762 8,250 0 1,161,850 0.42 Gümüşhane Rural 43,008 18,687 2,430,705 0.89 Urban 71,253 110,376 5,218,290 1.90 Amasya Rural 247,550 227,944 15,796,660 5.77 Bayburt Rural 452 1,011 0 37,765 0.01 Urban 450 0 0 22,500 0.01 Erzincan Rural 10,580 6,797 0 630,955 0.23 Total 1,655,057 1,591,312 8,945,479 108,858,900 39.73 2038 Rural 56,835 37,948 3,410,970 1.25 Samsun Urban 289,579 177,139 17,136,035 6.25 Urban 21,160 21,420 10,065,682 3,895,720 1.42 Çorum Rural 186,315 177,773 11,982,345 4.37 Urban 33,191 38,419 2,235,835 0.82 Giresun Rural 5,149 4,392 15,267 327,147 0.12 Urban 762 859 1,156 51,274 0.02 Ordu Rural 9,009 9,988 6,012 601,773 0.22 Urban 10,841 7,056 859 648,105 0.24 Sivas Rural 166,632 151,442 14,510 10,606,858 3.87 Urban 121,203 144,388 8,225,970 3.00 Tokat Rural 331,089 405,685 22,639,725 8.26 Urban 32,550 39,160 517,008 2,344,152 0.86 Yozgat Rural 106,475 125,935 67,043 7,229,536 2.64 Urban 21,394 8,501 0 1,197,215 0.44 Gümüşhane Rural 44,317 19,256 2,504,690 0.91 Urban 84,992 128,413 6,175,795 2.25 Amasya Rural 287,662 263,190 18,330,950 6.69 Bayburt Rural 466 1,042 0 38,930 0.01 Urban 464 0 0 23,200 0.01 Erzincan Rural 10,902 7,004 0 650,160 0.24 Total 1,820,987 1,769,010 10,687,537 120,256,384 43.89 Source: Authors

Page 132 of 167

5.3.3. IRRIGATIONAL DEMAND

The forecast scenario is based on four main aspects:

New irrigation projects commenced by institutions

As of 2016, the irrigated area in the basin is 537,148 ha. Although 1,057,726 ha land is arable, 509,493 ha land has still not been irrigated.

Agricultural practices: Increasing trends in irrigation areas

As per Turkstat, the changes in annual cultivated and irrigated surfaces are given in the chart below. The irrigated surface in the basin ranged between 480,827 ha and 549,090 ha in the last decade.

1,400,000

Cultivated Irrigated 1,200,000

(ha) 1,000,000

800,000

1,201,521

1,185,589

1,152,441 1,099,892

600,000 1,074,897

1,071,625

1,060,325

1,057,726

1,051,908

1,051,691

1,048,138

1,039,747

995,552 1,022,677

400,000

Cultivated and Irrigated Areas

549,090

548,233

537,148 534,009

200,000 525,416

502,737

500,404

497,694

497,498

488,997

488,518

488,238

481,550 480,827

0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Figure 103. Changes in annual irrigated and cultivated lands, Yeşilırmak basin.

Source: Authors based on Turkstat data

Based on the Master Plan, proposed rehabilitation steps have been foreseen for each type of irrigated areas taking in consideration the total estimated area to be rehabilitated. The tables below first summarise the proposed scenarios, then detail the proposal per type of irrigation projects (or rather per type of investor); the proposed groups or steps show reasonable yearly rehabilitated surfaces.

Page 133 of 167

In the first period (2016-2026) the rehabilitation rate in the basin will be 5,378 ha/year, while as in the second (2026-2032) and third cycles (2032-2038) it will be 5,232 and 6,928 ha/year respectively.

Table 77. Proposed scenarios for rehabilitation of irrigation areas, Yeşilırmak basin.

Total rehabilitation of all irrigation projects (1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.2.0 & 2.2.1) Period Number of projects Total area (ha) Area (ha) per year 2016-2026 109 53,784 5,378 2026-2032 31 31,392 5,232 2032-2038 20 41,569 6,928 Source: Authors based on (Yeşilırmak Master Plan, 2016a) Table 78. Scenarios for rehabilitation of irrigation areas per investor, Yeşilırmak basin.

Estimated area Number of Area Area per year Period Percentiles Groups (ha) projects (ha) (ha/year) Rehabilitation of DSI large-scale irrigation projects (1.1.1) 2016-2026 81% 4,999 < 5,000 ha 18 43,840 7,307 2026-2032 95% 15,000 5,000 – 15,000 ha 3 24,349 4,058 2032-2038 100% 18,130 > 15,000 ha 2 33,330 3,333 Rehabilitation of DSI small-scale irrigation projects (1.1.2) 2016-2026 82% 250 < 250 ha 31 3,960 660 2026-2032 96% 500 250 – 500 ha 5 1,590 265 2032-2038 100% 710 > 500 ha 2 1,305 131 Rehabilitation of DSI GW irrigation projects (1.2.0) 2016-2026 65% 150 <150 ha 28 2,337 390 2026-2032 85% 250 150 – 300 ha 8 1,491 249 2032-2038 100% 650 > 300 ha 7 2,578 258 Rehabilitation of SPA small dam irrigation projects (2.2.1) 2016-2026 57% 200 < 200 ha 32 3,647 608 2026-2032 84% 350 200 – 350 ha 15 3,962 660 2032-2038 100% 800 > 350 ha 9 4,356 436 Source: Authors based on (Yeşilırmak Master Plan, 2016a)

DSI has focused to diminish groundwater use by both supplying surface water and promoting pressurized irrigation methods. With this respect, several projects were commenced in which dams (or weirs) were built and pressurized irrigation networks were installed; thus, existing wells and irrigation networks are shifted to idle mode. Such projects are widespread in Yeşilırmak, particularly in Çorum and Amasya region of the basin.

At the same time, DSI has initiated two rural development projects “1,000 dams in 1,000 days” and “1,071 dams in 1,000 days”. Most of them were under construction as of 2016 and will be operational in near future; moreover, DSI has been progressively developing large-scale multipurpose projects since 1950s particularly for large plains such as Suşehri, Çarşamba, Merzifon and Çekerek.

Page 134 of 167

2,082 450,000 2,250 406,094 1,844 1,682 400,000 351,485 2,000 311,228 350,000 1,750

300,000 1,500

250,000 1,250

1,015 Water use (hm³) Water

Surface areaSurface (ha) 200,000 1,000 141,328 150,000 750

100,000 500

50,000 250

0 0 2016 2026 2032 2038 Year Vines Fruit trees Sugarbeets Onions Potatoes Tobacco Other vegetables Secondary Crops Maize Maize silage Paddy Other cereals Sunflower Legumes Forage crops Others Water Use

Figure 104. Agricultural baseline scenario: Irrigated surface and water use per crop, Yeşilırmak basin.

Source: Authors Table 79. Irrigational demands forecasts per investor type, Yeşilırmak basin.

Irrigation area (ha) Total water use (hm³) Classification of irrigation projects 2016 2026 2032 2038 2016 2026 2032 2038 1.0.0 Projects invested by DSI 52,696 259,808 306,240 361,497 381 1,256 1,460 1,715 SW projects operated or 1.1.0 42,410 250,981 300,139 354,602 329 1,212 1,427 1,680 transferred by DSI Large p. reviewed in the Annuals of Irrigation 1.1.1 39,644 223,856 266,461 308,832 306 1,067 1,248 1,444 Supply Evaluation Reports (1000+ ha) Small p. reviewed in the Annuals of Irrigation 1.1.2 2,766 27,125 33,678 45,770 22 145 178 235 Supply Evaluation Reports (1000- ha) GW projects transferred 1.2.1 10,286 8,827 6,101 6,895 52 44 33 36 or operated by DSI Projects invested, 2.0.0 operated or transferred 39,296 34,705 31,758 31,979 353 294 273 262 by another than DSI 2.1.1 GW p. invested by SPAs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.2.0 SW p. invested by SPAs 39,296 34,705 31,758 31,979 353 294 273 262 2.2.1 Small dam projects 11,090 12,085 10,088 11,749 78 72 60 62 2.2.2 SW projects 28,206 22,620 21,670 20,230 276 222 213 199 3.0.0 Farmer irrigations 48,620 16,260 13,332 12,638 280 132 112 105 Total 140,612 310,773 351,330 406,114 1,015 1,682 1,844 2,082 Variation per planning cycle 170,161 40,557 54,785 667 163 237 Source: Authors based on (Yeşilırmak Master Plan, 2016a)

Page 135 of 167

Maize 63,993 Fruit trees 57,746 Sugarbeets 54,577 Other cereals 51,821 Other forage crops 39,231 Other vegetables 39,089 Onions 27,338 Sunflower 24,595 Maize for silage 14,426 Legumes 12,937 Paddy 12,606 Potatoes 6,346 Vines 958 Tobacco 431 Secondary crops 0 Others 0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 Surface area 2038 (ha) Figure 105. Cultivated crop surface, Yeşilırmak basin (2032).

Source: Authors

Fruit trees 280 Other forage crops 273 Other vegetables 226 Other cereals 159 Sunflower 141 Onions 85 Legumes 59 Maize for silage 58 Paddy 57 Potatoes 34 Vines 7 Tobacco 4 Secondary crops 0 Others 0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Irrigational water demand 2038 (hm3/year)

Figure 106. Irrigational water demand per crop, Yeşilırmak basin (2038).

Source: Authors

Page 136 of 167

5.3.4. INDUSTRIAL DEMAND

The baseline scenario for the industrial water demand in Yeşilirmak Basin outlines upward trend, in line with the tendency for capacity increase and industrialization development. This is 2.1% annual rate increase during the first planning cycle (2016-2026), 2.4% during the second one (2027-2032) and then 1.2% during the period 2027-2038. It is in the last planning cycle that, as response to the climate change impact, innovation in the manufacturing processes is expected to result in resource efficiency improvements and consequently projected as minimization of future water demand.

The table below represents the industrial water demand projections by province and type of industry.

Table 80. Projections for the consumptive industrial water use (out-of-network), Yeşilirmak basin.

Use 2016 Forecast 2026 Forecast 2032 Forecast 2038 Province Type of the industry (hm3/year) Individual industries 13.516 16.842 18.989 20.163 Amasya Organized industrial zones 0.135 0.188 0.225 0.253 Individual industries 7.139 8.896 10.030 10.650 Samsun Free Zone 0.032 0.036 0.038 0.038 Individual industries 3.250 3.628 3.852 3.852 Tokat Organized industrial zones 1.475 1.968 2.306 2.547 Organized industrial zones 0.929 1.292 1.547 1.745 Çorum Individual industries 0.191 0.238 0.269 0.285 Yozgat Individual industries 0.099 0.111 0.118 0.118 Sivas Individual industries 0.079 0.088 0.094 0.094 Gümüşhane Individual industries 0.062 0.069 0.073 0.073 Giresun Individual industries 0.029 0.036 0.040 0.043 Erzincan Individual industries 0.022 0.028 0.032 0.034 Ordu Individual industries 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 Total 26.959 33.421 37.614 39.897 Annual variation (average) 0.646 0.699 0.380 Total variation per cycle 6.461 4.193 2.282 Source: Authors

The following figure shows the variations on the water demand (out-of-network) by provinces. Industrial water use 45 ORDU 40 ERZİNCAN 35 GİRESUN 30 GÜMÜŞHANE 25 SİVAS

/year 20

3 YOZGAT hm 15 ÇORUM 10 TOKAT 5 SAMSUN 0 AMASYA 2016 2026 2032 2038 Figure 107. Consumptive industry water use projections by province, Yeşilirmak basin.

Source: Authors

Page 137 of 167

5.3.5. SUMMARY OVERVIEW

The following figures and subsequent table gather water demand forecasts by planning cycles, for which optimistic and the realistic scenarios are presented for the municipal sector, and a single scenario for the other sectors. Overall, the water uses (gross demands) show an upward trend.

As for the municipal sector, the population increases as 1,229,000 persons in 22 years reaching almost 3,777,000 inhabitants by 2038; water abstractions are projected as 388 hm3 in the realistic scenario for the reduction of losses (148 hm3 than in 2016) and 386 hm3 in the optimistic one (145 hm3 more).

With regard to the agricultural sector, the irrigated surface shows a strong rising trend (4.8% per year; 265,512 ha in 22 years), reaching 406,144 hectares in 2038; while the water use increases less than proportionately (3.3%) as 1,067 hm3, from 1,015 hm³ in 2016 to 2,082 hm3 in 2038. 3,000

2,500 40

38 2,000 33

Industrial 1,500 2,082 Irrigational 27 1,844 1,682 Livestock 1,000 Municipal 1,015

500 44 31 36 40 386 241 265 319 0 2016 2026 2032 2038 Figure 108Gross. Water demands uses (hm³/year),projections inoptimistic the optimistic scenario, scenario, Yeşilırmak Yeşilirmak basin basin.

3,000 Source: Authors

2,500 40

38 2,000 33

Industrial 1,500 2,082 Irrigational 27 1,844 1,682 Livestock 1,000 Municipal 1,015

500 40 44 31 36 388 241 276 321 0 2016 2026 2032 2038 Gross demands (hm³/year), realistic scenario, Yeşilırmak basin Figure 109. Water uses projections in the realistic scenario, Yeşilirmak basin.

Source: Authors

Page 138 of 167

Table 81. Water uses projections, results for both scenarios and Yeşilirmak basin.

Gross demand Optimistic scenario Realistic scenario (hm³/year) 2016 2026 2032 2038 2016 2026 2032 2038 Municipal water use 241 265 319 386 241 276 321 388 Livestock water use 31 36 40 44 31 36 40 44 Agricultural water use 1,015 1,682 1,844 2,082 1,015 1,682 1,844 2,082 Industrial water use 27 33 38 40 27 33 38 40 Total 1,313 2,016 2,241 2,551 1,313 2,027 2,243 2,553 Source: Authors

5.4. WATER TARIFFS STRUCTURE AND PRICE LEVELS

5.4.1. MUNICIPAL SECTOR

The population within Yeşilirmak river basin is supplied drinking water and wastewater management services by OSKİ and SASKİ Water and Sewerage Administrations in the case of Ordu and Samsun Metropolitan Municipalities and by the corresponding municipal water services for the other 68 Municipalities included in the river basin, for which tariff information has been collected throughout the performed field survey.

75 out of 96 municipalities have provided full information about the tariffs they are applying to the different subscribers served. The field survey tariff data covers 96% of the basin in terms of population and 78% in terms of number of municipal settlements, so the tariff analyses are significantly representative.

Frequency of meter reading, tariff types and structure

All of the municipalities declared that 100% of subscribers have meters installed that are read periodically. The frequencyMeters of meter Reading reading differs Periodicity: in each of the mun Yeşilırmakicipalities.

6% Monthly 11% Bimonthly 2% Quarterly 31% 7% Every 4 months Sem-annual Pre-Paid 43% Mix Bimonthly & Pre-paid No charge

Figure 110. Meters reading periodicity, Yeşilirmak basin.

Source: Field survey

Page 139 of 167

The most common practice is the bimonthly reading (43% of the municipalities); monthly is the second more usual procedure (31%); the third is the prepaid tariff (11% of municipalities).

The assessment of the types of tariffs used considers 3 basic types of tariffs, generally used all around the world: fixed tariffs, variable tariffs and fixed + variable tariffs that combine the former 2 types. The variable portion of these tariffs, on the other hand, may either be flat with a constant price per m³ of water or be defined for volume blocks, which refers to predefined consumption intervals (such as 0- 50 m³/month, 50-100 m³/month, and so forth) where the unit prices of water change, or mostly increase as cumulative consumption increase to encourage water-saving.

In line with the Directive’s spirit, on the water supply service, (increasing) blocked tariffs are of common use (49% of the municipalities) versus flat rates (51%). It is remarkable that some municipalities have no water supply tariff implemented and are providing drinking water services free of charge; which is the case in Kelkit-Deredolu and Kelkit-Öbektaş in Gümüşhane province, Başçiftlik-Hatipli and Reşadiye- BOZÇALI in Tokat province and Çekerek-Özükavak in Yozgat province. At the same time, on the wastewater service, 75% of the municipalities do not apply any tariff, 24% apply a flat tariff and remaining 1% only a connection fee.

100%

80% Municipalities with No Tariff 60% Municipalities with Only Connection Fee 40% Municipalities with Block Tariff Municipalities with Percentof municipalities 20% Flat Tariff

0% Supply Sanitation

Figure 111. Water services tariff structure, Yeşilirmak basin.

Source: Field survey

Type of subscribers and applied tariffs

There is a big diversity on the tariffs applied in each municipality, varying both the type of subscribers, the definition of the blocks and the unitary prices applied.

 Amasya province:

o In 6 of the 8 municipalities of this province included in the river basin, they charge a fee for new drinking water connections that vary between 66 and 250 TL. In the case of Merzifon, the charge is determined according to the necessary construction works. o For the new wastewater connections, only in Merzifon there is a fee. o For the water supply service, block tariffs vary from 0.97 to 13.3 TL/m3.

Page 140 of 167

o For the wastewater management services, charges are fixed in Gümüşhacıköy district, with fees between 10 TL and 20 TL depending on the subscriber type, and are variable in other districts with unit prices varying between 0.20 TL/m3 and 0.50 TL/m3. o The tariffs have a fixed component for all the districts except for Taşova. This fixed component varies between 0.6 TL and 3.70 TL. o Regarding the types of subscribers, they vary for the different districts, with only 2 types in the town of Ziyaret: Household and Workplace, and 11 in the case of Suluova: Households, Mercantile Establishments, Municipal Staff Discount, Hospitals and Nursing Homes, Schools, Mosques, Other State Offices and Establishments, Industry, Construction Sites, Martyr Families and Veterans and Handicapped Discount.

 Çorum province: o All the municipalities apply a charge fee for new drinking water connections. The fees vary per town and per subscriber type, with values between 30 TL and 450 TL. The average price considering all towns and types of subscribers is 158 TL/connection. There is no fee for new wastewater connections. o For the water supply service, block tariffs vary from 0.10 to 11.39 TL/m3. o No charges are applied for the wastewater management services. o The tariffs have a fixed component for all the districts except for Mecitözü. This fixed varies between 0.1 TL and 11.39 TL. o Regarding the types of subscribers, they vary for the different districts between 7 and 12 subscriber types, only in Düvenci there is one only type of subscriber: households.

 Erzincan province: o The sole district municipality of the province in the basin, Refahiye, has a charge fee of 130 TL per new drinking water connection, no fee for new wastewater connections. o It has 3 subscribers’ types: households, workplaces/offices/mercantile establishments and state offices/institutions/schools/dormitories/military bases. o For the water supply service, for households, 3 blocks apply; for the other 2 subscriber types the tariff is flat at 4.00 TL/m3. o No charges are applied for the wastewater management services.

 Giresun province: o 2 of the 3 district municipalities apply a charge fee for new drinking water connections. The fees vary per town and subscriber type between 103.4 TL and 180 TL (147 TL/connection in average). There is no fee for new wastewater connections. o Flat rates are in place for the water supply service, ranginf from 0.5 TL/m3 to 7 TL/m3. There is not fixed component in the drinking water tariff. o No charges are applied in this province for the wastewater management services. o The types of subscribers vary by district between 3 and 13 subscriber types.

 Gümüşhane province: o Only 2 of the 8 municipalities of this province in the river basin do not apply a charge fee for new drinking water connections. The applied fee varies between 62.5 and 500 TL per connection (147 TL in average considering all the districts and subscriber types).

Page 141 of 167

o For the water supply service, block tariffs vary from 0.20 to 9.0 TL/m3. There is not fixed component in the drinking water tariff. o No charges are applied for new wastewater connections and for the wastewater management services o The types of subscribers vary by district, with only 1 type in 2 of the towns: Deredolu and Öbektaş in Kelkit district, and a maximum number of 9 subscriber types in Köse.

 Ordu metropolitan municipality: o The sole district of this MM in the basin, Akkuş, has a charge fee of 327 TL per new drinking water connection and 1,288 TL per new wastewater connection. o For the water supply service, 2 blocks apply (0-12 m3 and more than 12 m3). The prices vary between 0.93 TL/m3 and 4.78 TL/m3. There is no fixed component. o The charges for the wastewater management services vary with the subscriber type between 0.47 TL/m3 and 3.0 TL/m3. o Akkuş has 10 types of subscribers.

 Samsum metropolitan municipality: o All the districts of this metropolitan municipality in the river basin have a charge fee of 93.53 TL per new drinking water connection, no fee for new wastewater connections. o For the water supply service, flat tariffs flat tariffs are in place with values between 1.88 TL/m3and 5.69 TL/m3. There is also a maintenance fee of 1.0 TL/m3. o They all apply charges for the wastewater management services varying with the subscriber type. The values fluctuate between 0.30 and 1.422 TL/m3. o The 4 districts of Samsum have the same 5 types of subscribers: households, workplaces, construction sites, public institutions and other.

 Sivas province: o 2 of the municipalities have a charge fee for new water connections (30 TL and 60 TL). Only one has a charge fee for new wastewater connections of 150 TL. o For the water supply service, block tariffs vary from 1.30 to 7.0 TL/m3. o None of the districts apply a charge for the wastewater management services, and only one of them, Akıncılar, applies a fixed component of 3.5 TL for all subscribers. o Regarding the types of subscribers, they are similar for the different districts, with 4 to 5 types: households, workplaces, state offices, hospitals and construction sites.

 Tokat province: o Most of the municipalities have a charge fee for new water connections, with values varying from 8.5 TL to 500 TL, with an average value considering all the municipalities of 91.78 TL per connection. Only 3 of them have a charge fee for new wastewater connections with values between 30 TL and 50 TL. o For the water supply service, block tariffs from 0.10 TL/m3 to 10.60 TL/m3. o Only one of the district towns applies a charge for the wastewater services, Yeşilyurt, with values that vary between 0.3 TL/m3 and 1 TL/m3 depending on the subscriber. o Regarding the types of subscribers, they vary between the different districts.

Page 142 of 167

 Yozgat province: o 4 of the 11 municipalities have a charge fee for new water connections, with values varying from 25 TL to 200 TL, with an average value considering all the municipalities of 88 TL. None of them have a charge fee for new wastewater connections. o For the water supply service, block tariffs vary from 0.05 TL/m3 to 7.62 TL/m3, with an average value for all of them of 2.40 TL/m3. Only 2 municipalities apply a fixed component in the drinking water tariff with values of 0.45 TL and 0.50 TL. o Only one of the district towns applies a charge for the wastewater management services, Aydıncık, with a price of 0.50 TL/m3. o Regarding the subscribers’ types, they vary between the different districts from 1 type in 2 municipalities to 14 in the municipality with the most different types..

Price and tariffs analysis

Tariff levels vary across provinces and across districts within the provinces. . Considering all tariff components, prices range between 0.1 TL/m3 and 4.0 TL/m3. . Monthly payments span between 1.4 TL/household and 58.2 TL/household. . Payment, for an average consumption per house of 13.7 m³/month, is 40 TL/month. The expenditure on water services represents 1.4% of the household disposable income. . For the average consumption per household, price of water services stands at 3.00 TL/m³.

Table 82. Average price of and payment for municipal water services, Yeşilirmak basin.

Price (TL/m³) Payment (TL/month) Average price and payment for for the average consumption of for the average consumption of water services 13.7 m³/month 13.7 m³/month Water supply 2.89 39 Wastewater 0.11 1 Water services 3.00 40 Monthly household disposable income (mean, TL) 2,839 Percent of household disposable income in water services spent (%) 1.4% Source: Authors, TurkStat, Field survey

The subsequent figures illustrate the payments for water services . By consumption ranges (first and second 100 litres/capita/day, i.e., 9.9 m³/household/month). It is remarkable that there are large differences in payments among municipalities. . By service (water supply and wastewater) for the average water consumption (11.9 m³/month). The majority of the municipalities do not apply a wastewater tariff and therefore most of the payment corresponds to the water supply service.

Page 143 of 167 Payment for water services by consumption ranges (first and second 9.9 m³/month/hh), Yeşilırmak 2016

Ordu / Akkuş / Merkez Samsun / Kavak / Merkez Samsun / Merkez / Tekkeköy Samsun / Merkez / İlkadım Samsun / Merkez / Canik Samsun / Merkez / Atakum Samsun / Havza / Merkez Samsun / Çarşamba / Merkez Samsun / Ayvacık / Merkez Samsun / Asarcık / Merkez Sivas / Gölova / Merkez Tokat / Zile / Merkez Tokat / Turhal / Merkez Tokat / Niksar / Merkez Samsun / Terme / Merkez Samsun / Salıpazarı / Merkez Samsun / Ladik / Merkez Gümüşhane / Köse / Merkez Amasya / Merzifon / Merkez Çorum / Alaca / Merkez Gümüşhane / Kelkit / Merkez Tokat / Merkez / Merkez Çorum / Çorum / Merkez Amasya / Amasya / Merkez Tokat / Turhal / Şenyurt Tokat / Almus / Merkez Amasya / Suluova / Merkez Amasya / Gümüşhacıköy / Merkez Amasya / Göynücek / Merkez Tokat / Erbaa / Merkez Yozgat / Kadışehri / Merkez Tokat / ReşadiyeThis / projectMerkez is co-financed by the European Union and the Republic of Turkey Technical AssistanceGiresun / Çamoluk on Economic / Merkez Analyses within River Basin Management Plans and Water Efficiency AmasyaAspects / Taşova in / 3 Merkez Pilot River Basins in Turkey (TR2013/0327.07.01-01/001). TokatTECHNICAL / Pazar / Merkez REPORT 0201. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WATER USES Tokat / Yeşilyurt / Merkez Tokat / Sulusaray / Merkez Giresun / Şebinkarahisar / MerkezPayment for water services by consumption ranges Sivas / Koyulhisar / Merkez(first and second 9.9 m³/month/hh), Yeşilırmak 2016 Yozgat / Çekerek / Merkez Yozgat / AkdağmadeniOrdu / Akkuş / Merkez AmasyaSamsun / /Amasya Kavak / / Merkez Ziyaret SamsunÇorum / MerkezMecitözü / Tekkeköy/ Merkez SamsunYozgat // SorgunMerkez / /Gülşehri İlkadım YozgatSamsun / Saraykent / Merkez / Saraykent / Canik SamsunTokat / Reşadiye/ Merkez // BaydarlıAtakum GiresunSamsun // AlucraHavza / Merkez SamsunTokat / Çarşamba / Almus // MerkezAtaköy SamsunSivas // AyvacıkSuşehri / Merkez SamsunSivas / /Akıncılar Asarcık / Merkez GümüşhaneSivas / Gölova/ Şiran / Merkez YozgatTokat / Aydıncık / Zile / Merkez ErzincanTokat / Refahiye / Turhal / Merkez TokatTokat / /Erbaa Niksar / Karayaka/ Merkez SamsunTokat / / Terme Erbaa / MerkezTanoba Yozgat Samsun/ Akdağmadeni / Salıpazarı / Belekçehan / Merkez SamsunTokat // NiksarLadik / / Merkez Serenli GümüşhaneTokat / Artova/ Köse / Merkez AmasyaTokat / /Merzifon Niksar / Yolkonak/ Merkez ÇorumÇorum / Merkez / Alaca // DüvenciMerkez GümüşhaneTokat / KelkitNiksar / / Merkez Yazıcık TokatTokat / /Niksar Merkez / Gürçeşme / Merkez GümüşhaneÇorum / /Kelkit Çorum / Ünlüpınar / Merkez AmasyaÇorum / OrtaköyAmasya / Merkez TokatTokat / Reşadiye / Turhal / Hasanşeyh / Şenyurt TokatTokat / Reşadiye / Almus / Cimitekke / Merkez YozgatAmasya / Aydıncık/ Suluova / /Baydiğin Merkez Amasya Tokat/ Gümüşhacıköy / Merkez / /Güryıldız Merkez AmasyaTokat // ReşadiyeGöynücek / Bereketli/ Merkez YozgatTokat / Kadışehri / Erbaa / MerkezHalıköy YozgatTokat / Kadışehri / Erbaa / Merkez/ Gökal TokatTokat // ReşadiyePazar / Üzümören / Merkez GiresunÇorum / / Çamoluk Ortaköy / MerkezAştavul AmasyaÇorum / /Taşova Şiran / / Yeşilbük Merkez TokatTokat / / Niksar Pazar / MerkezGökçeli Tokat / MerkezYeşilyurt / /Çamlıbel Merkez Tokat Tokat/ Sulusaray / Almus / Merkez / Kınık Giresun / ŞebinkarahisarTokat / Almus / / Merkez Gölgeli SivasTokat / /Koyulhisar Merkez / Emirseyit/ Merkez GümüşhaneYozgat / Kelkit/ Çekerek / Gümüşgöze / Merkez Yozgat /Tokat Akdağmadeni / Almus / /Görümlü Merkez AmasyaTokat / Amasya/ Almus / ZiyaretÇevreli ÇorumTokat // MecitözüBaşçiftlik / Merkez GümüşhaneYozgat / Sorgun / Kelkit / / Gülşehri Söğütlü Yozgat / SaraykentTokat / Merkez / Saraykent / Çat Tokat / Reşadiye / Baydarlı 00 20 40 60 80 100 TL Giresun / Alucra / Merkez Tokat / AlmusFee / Ataköy Sivas / Suşehri / Merkez Monthly payment for the 1st 100 l/c/d in an average household (3.32 persons per house) Sivas / Akıncılar / Merkez Gümüşhane / ŞiranMonthly / Merkez payment for the 2nd 100 l/c/d in an average household (3.32 persons per house) Yozgat / Aydıncık / Merkez ErzincanFigure / Refahiye 112 ./ PaymentMerkez for water services by consumption ranges, Yeşilirmak (2016). Tokat / Erbaa / Karayaka Tokat / Erbaa / Tanoba Source: Authors based on field survey data Yozgat / Akdağmadeni / Belekçehan Tokat / Niksar / Serenli Tokat / Artova / Merkez Tokat / Niksar / Yolkonak Çorum / Merkez / Düvenci Tokat / Niksar / Yazıcık Tokat / Niksar / Gürçeşme Gümüşhane / Kelkit / Ünlüpınar Çorum / Ortaköy / Merkez Page 144 of 167 Tokat / Reşadiye / Hasanşeyh Tokat / Reşadiye / Cimitekke Yozgat / Aydıncık / Baydiğin Tokat / Merkez / Güryıldız Tokat / Reşadiye / Bereketli Yozgat / Kadışehri / Halıköy Tokat / Erbaa / Gökal Tokat / Pazar / Üzümören Çorum / Ortaköy / Aştavul Çorum / Şiran / Yeşilbük Tokat / Niksar / Gökçeli Tokat / Merkez / Çamlıbel Tokat / Almus / Kınık Tokat / Almus / Gölgeli Tokat / Merkez / Emirseyit Gümüşhane / Kelkit / Gümüşgöze Tokat / Almus / Görümlü Tokat / Almus / Çevreli Tokat / Başçiftlik / Merkez Gümüşhane / Kelkit / Söğütlü Tokat / Merkez / Çat 00 20 40 60 80 100 TL Fee Monthly payment for the 1st 100 l/c/d in an average household (3.32 persons per house) Monthly payment for the 2nd 100 l/c/d in an average household (3.32 persons per house) Payment for water services by consumption ranges (first and second 9.9 m³/month/hh), Yeşilırmak 2016

Ordu / Akkuş / Merkez Samsun / Kavak / Merkez Samsun / Merkez / Tekkeköy Samsun / Merkez / İlkadım Samsun / Merkez / Canik Samsun / Merkez / Atakum Samsun / Havza / Merkez Samsun / Çarşamba / Merkez Samsun / Ayvacık / Merkez Samsun / Asarcık / Merkez Sivas / Gölova / Merkez Tokat / Zile / Merkez Tokat / Turhal / Merkez Tokat / Niksar / Merkez Samsun / Terme / Merkez Samsun / Salıpazarı / Merkez Samsun / Ladik / Merkez Gümüşhane / Köse / Merkez Amasya / Merzifon / Merkez Çorum / Alaca / Merkez Gümüşhane / Kelkit / Merkez Tokat / Merkez / Merkez Çorum / Çorum / Merkez Amasya / Amasya / Merkez Tokat / Turhal / Şenyurt Tokat / Almus / Merkez Amasya / Suluova / Merkez Amasya / Gümüşhacıköy / Merkez Amasya / Göynücek / Merkez Tokat / Erbaa / Merkez Yozgat / Kadışehri / Merkez Tokat / Reşadiye / Merkez Giresun / Çamoluk / Merkez Amasya / Taşova / Merkez Tokat / Pazar / Merkez This project is co-financed by the European Union and the Republic of Turkey Tokat / Yeşilyurt / Merkez Technical AssistanceTokat / Sulusaray on Economic / Merkez Analyses within River Basin Management Plans and Water Efficiency Giresun / ŞebinkarahisarAspects in / 3 Merkez Pilot River Basins in Turkey (TR2013/0327.07.01-01/001). Sivas / KoyulhisarTECHNICAL / Merkez REPORT 0201. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WATER USES Yozgat / Çekerek / Merkez Yozgat / Akdağmadeni / MerkezPayment for water services by consumption ranges Amasya / Amasya / Ziyaret(first and second 9.9 m³/month/hh), Yeşilırmak 2016 Çorum / Mecitözü / Merkez YozgatOrdu / Sorgun / Akkuş / Gülşehri/ Merkez YozgatSamsun / Saraykent / Kavak / Saraykent / Merkez SamsunTokat / /Reşadiye Merkez // TekkeköyBaydarlı GiresunSamsun / AlucraMerkez / /Merkez İlkadım SamsunTokat / /Almus Merkez / Ataköy / Canik SamsunSivas / / Suşehri Merkez / / MerkezAtakum SivasSamsun / Akıncılar / Havza / / Merkez Merkez GümüşhaneSamsun / Çarşamba / Şiran / / Merkez Merkez YozgatSamsun / Aydıncık/ Ayvacık / / Merkez Merkez ErzincanSamsun / Refahiye / Asarcık / / Merkez Merkez TokatSivas / /Erbaa Gölova / Karayaka / Merkez TokatTokat / Erbaa / Zile / / Tanoba Merkez Yozgat / AkdağmadeniTokat / Turhal / Belekçehan / Merkez Tokat / Niksar / Merkez Tokat / Niksar / Serenli Samsun / Terme / Merkez Tokat / Artova / Merkez Samsun / Salıpazarı / Merkez Tokat / Niksar / Yolkonak Samsun / Ladik / Merkez Çorum / Merkez / Düvenci Gümüşhane / Köse / Merkez Tokat / Niksar / Yazıcık Amasya / Merzifon / Merkez Tokat / Niksar / Gürçeşme Çorum / Alaca / Merkez Gümüşhane / Kelkit / Ünlüpınar Gümüşhane / Kelkit / Merkez Çorum / Ortaköy / Merkez Tokat / Merkez / Merkez Tokat Çorum/ Reşadiye / Çorum / Hasanşeyh / Merkez TokatAmasya / Reşadiye / Amasya / Cimitekke / Merkez YozgatTokat / Aydıncık / Turhal / Baydiğin/ Şenyurt TokatTokat / Merkez / Almus / Güryıldız / Merkez TokatAmasya / Reşadiye / Suluova / Bereketli / Merkez AmasyaYozgat / Gümüşhacıköy / Kadışehri / / Halıköy Merkez AmasyaTokat / Göynücek / Erbaa / / Merkez Gökal TokatTokat / Pazar / Erbaa / Üzümören / Merkez ÇorumYozgat / KadışehriOrtaköy / / Aştavul Merkez TokatÇorum / Reşadiye/ Şiran / Yeşilbük/ Merkez GiresunTokat / /Çamoluk Niksar / / Gökçeli Merkez TokatAmasya / Merkez / Taşova / Çamlıbel/ Merkez TokatTokat / / Pazar Almus / Merkez/ Kınık TokatTokat / Yeşilyurt/ Almus // GölgeliMerkez TokatTokat / / Merkez Sulusaray / Emirseyit / Merkez GümüşhaneGiresun / Şebinkarahisar / Kelkit / Gümüşgöze / Merkez SivasTokat / Koyulhisar/ Almus / Görümlü / Merkez YozgatTokat / /Çekerek Almus / ÇevreliMerkez YozgatTokat / Akdağmadeni / Başçiftlik / / Merkez Merkez GümüşhaneAmasya // AmasyaKelkit / Söğütlü/ Ziyaret ÇorumTokat / Mecitözü / Merkez / Merkez / Çat Yozgat / Sorgun / Gülşehri Yozgat / Saraykent / Saraykent 00 20 40 60 80 100 TL Tokat / Reşadiye / Baydarlı Fee Giresun / Alucra / Merkez Tokat / AlmusMonthly / Ataköy payment for the 1st 100 l/c/d in an average household (3.32 persons per house) Sivas / SuşehriMonthly / Merkez payment for the 2nd 100 l/c/d in an average household (3.32 persons per house) Sivas / Akıncılar / Merkez Gümüşhane / Şiran / Merkez Figure 115 (b). Payment for water services by consumption ranges, Yeşilirmak (2016). Yozgat / Aydıncık / Merkez Erzincan / Refahiye / Merkez Source: Authors based on field survey data Tokat / Erbaa / Karayaka Tokat / Erbaa / Tanoba Yozgat / Akdağmadeni / Belekçehan Tokat / Niksar / Serenli Tokat / Artova / Merkez Tokat / Niksar / Yolkonak Çorum / Merkez / Düvenci Tokat / Niksar / Yazıcık Tokat / Niksar / Gürçeşme Gümüşhane / Kelkit / Ünlüpınar Çorum / Ortaköy / Merkez Tokat / Reşadiye / Hasanşeyh Tokat / Reşadiye / Cimitekke Page 145 of 167 Yozgat / Aydıncık / Baydiğin Tokat / Merkez / Güryıldız Tokat / Reşadiye / Bereketli Yozgat / Kadışehri / Halıköy Tokat / Erbaa / Gökal Tokat / Pazar / Üzümören Çorum / Ortaköy / Aştavul Çorum / Şiran / Yeşilbük Tokat / Niksar / Gökçeli Tokat / Merkez / Çamlıbel Tokat / Almus / Kınık Tokat / Almus / Gölgeli Tokat / Merkez / Emirseyit Gümüşhane / Kelkit / Gümüşgöze Tokat / Almus / Görümlü Tokat / Almus / Çevreli Tokat / Başçiftlik / Merkez Gümüşhane / Kelkit / Söğütlü Tokat / Merkez / Çat 00 20 40 60 80 100 TL Fee Monthly payment for the 1st 100 l/c/d in an average household (3.32 persons per house) Monthly payment for the 2nd 100 l/c/d in an average household (3.32 persons per house) Payment for water services by service ( 14 m³/month/hh) average water use, Yeşilırmak 2016

Ordu / Akkuş / Merkez Samsun / Kavak / Merkez Samsun / Merkez / Tekkeköy Samsun / Merkez / İlkadım Samsun / Merkez / Canik Samsun / Merkez / Atakum Samsun / Havza / Merkez Samsun / Çarşamba / Merkez Samsun / Ayvacık / Merkez Samsun / Asarcık / Merkez Sivas / Gölova / Merkez Tokat / Zile / Merkez Tokat / Turhal / Merkez Tokat / Niksar / Merkez Samsun / Terme / Merkez Samsun / Salıpazarı / Merkez Samsun / Ladik / Merkez Amasya / Merzifon / Merkez Çorum / Alaca / Merkez Gümüşhane / Kelkit / Merkez Çorum / Çorum / Merkez Tokat / Merkez / Merkez Amasya / Gümüşhacıköy / Merkez Amasya / Amasya / Merkez Tokat / Turhal / Şenyurt Tokat / Almus / Merkez Amasya / Suluova / Merkez Amasya / Göynücek / Merkez Tokat / Erbaa / Merkez Tokat / Pazar / MerkezThis project is co-financed by the European Union and the Republic of Turkey TechnicalYozgat Assistance / Kadışehri on / Merkez Economic Analyses within River Basin Management Plans and Water Efficiency Amasya / AspectsTaşova / Merkez in 3 Pilot River Basins in Turkey (TR2013/0327.07.01-01/001). Tokat / ReşadiyeTECHNICAL / Merkez REPORT 0201. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WATER USES Giresun / Çamoluk / Merkez Tokat / Sulusaray / Merkez Tokat / Yeşilyurt / MerkezPayment for water services by service ( 14 m³/month/hh) Giresun / Şebinkarahisar / Merkez average water use, Yeşilırmak 2016 Yozgat / Çekerek / Merkez Yozgat / AkdağmadeniOrdu / Akkuş / Merkez GümüşhaneSamsun / /Kavak Köse / Merkez SamsunAmasya / Merkez / Amasya / Tekkeköy / Ziyaret SamsunSivas / /Akıncılar Merkez / Merkezİlkadım SamsunSivas / Suşehri/ Merkez / Merkez/ Canik ÇorumSamsun / /Mecitözü Merkez // AtakumMerkez SamsunTokat // HavzaAlmus / / Merkez Ataköy SamsunYozgat / Çarşamba / Sorgun / / Gülşehri Merkez YozgatSamsun / Saraykent / Ayvacık / Saraykent / Merkez TokatSamsun / Reşadiye / Asarcık // Baydarlı Merkez GiresunSivas / / Gölova Alucra / Merkez GümüşhaneTokat / /Şiran Zile / Merkez YozgatTokat / Aydıncık/ Turhal / Merkez SivasTokat / Koyulhisar / Niksar / Merkez ErzincanSamsun / Refahiye / Terme / Merkez SamsunTokat / Salıpazarı / Erbaa / Karayaka/ Merkez SamsunTokat // ErbaaLadik / MerkezTanoba AmasyaTokat / Merzifon / Niksar / / Merkez Serenli TokatÇorum / /Artova Alaca / Merkez GümüşhaneTokat / Niksar / Kelkit / Yolkonak/ Merkez ÇorumÇorum / /Merkez Çorum // DüvenciMerkez Yozgat / AkdağmadeniTokat / Merkez / Belekçehan / Merkez Amasya / GümüşhacıköyTokat / Niksar / / Merkez Yazıcık AmasyaTokat / /Niksar Amasya / Gürçeşme / Merkez GümüşhaneTokat / /Kelkit Turhal / Ünlüpınar / Şenyurt ÇorumTokat / Ortaköy/ Almus / Merkez TokatAmasya / Reşadiye / Suluova / Hasanşeyh / Merkez AmasyaTokat / /Reşadiye Göynücek / Cimitekke / Merkez YozgatTokat / Aydıncık / Erbaa / /Baydiğin Merkez TokatTokat / Merkez / Pazar / /Güryıldız Merkez YozgatTokat / Kadışehri / Erbaa / Merkez/ Gökal TokatAmasya / Reşadiye / Taşova / /Bereketli Merkez YozgatTokat / KadışehriReşadiye / MerkezHalıköy GiresunTokat // ÇamolukPazar / Üzümören / Merkez TokatÇorum / Sulusaray/ Ortaköy / MerkezAştavul TokatÇorum / Yeşilyurt / Şiran / / Yeşilbük Merkez Giresun / ŞebinkarahisarTokat / Niksar / MerkezGökçeli YozgatTokat // MerkezÇekerek / /Çamlıbel Merkez Yozgat / AkdağmadeniTokat / Almus / Merkez / Kınık GümüşhaneTokat / / Almus Köse / / Merkez Gölgeli AmasyaTokat / Merkez/ Amasya / Emirseyit / Ziyaret GümüşhaneSivas / /Kelkit Akıncılar / Gümüşgöze / Merkez TokatSivas / Başçiftlik/ Suşehri / Merkez ÇorumTokat / Mecitözü/ Almus / /Görümlü Merkez Tokat / Almus / AtaköyÇevreli GümüşhaneYozgat / Sorgun / Kelkit / / Gülşehri Söğütlü Yozgat / SaraykentTokat / Merkez / Saraykent / Çat Tokat / Reşadiye / Baydarlı TL Giresun / Alucra / Merkez 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Gümüşhane / Şiran / Merkez Water supply Wastewater Yozgat / Aydıncık / Merkez Sivas / KoyulhisarFigure / Merkez 113. Payment for water services by water service, Yeşilirmak (2016). Erzincan / Refahiye / Merkez Tokat / Erbaa / Karayaka Source: Authors based on field survey data Tokat / Erbaa / Tanoba Tokat / Niksar / Serenli Tokat / Artova / Merkez Tokat / Niksar / Yolkonak Çorum / Merkez / Düvenci Yozgat / Akdağmadeni / Belekçehan Tokat / Niksar / Yazıcık Tokat / Niksar / Gürçeşme Page 146 of 167 Gümüşhane / Kelkit / Ünlüpınar Çorum / Ortaköy / Merkez Tokat / Reşadiye / Hasanşeyh Tokat / Reşadiye / Cimitekke Yozgat / Aydıncık / Baydiğin Tokat / Merkez / Güryıldız Tokat / Erbaa / Gökal Tokat / Reşadiye / Bereketli Yozgat / Kadışehri / Halıköy Tokat / Pazar / Üzümören Çorum / Ortaköy / Aştavul Çorum / Şiran / Yeşilbük Tokat / Niksar / Gökçeli Tokat / Merkez / Çamlıbel Tokat / Almus / Kınık Tokat / Almus / Gölgeli Tokat / Merkez / Emirseyit Gümüşhane / Kelkit / Gümüşgöze Tokat / Başçiftlik / Merkez Tokat / Almus / Görümlü Tokat / Almus / Çevreli Gümüşhane / Kelkit / Söğütlü Tokat / Merkez / Çat 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 TL Water supply Wastewater Payment for water services by service ( 14 m³/month/hh) average water use, Yeşilırmak 2016

Ordu / Akkuş / Merkez Samsun / Kavak / Merkez Samsun / Merkez / Tekkeköy Samsun / Merkez / İlkadım Samsun / Merkez / Canik Samsun / Merkez / Atakum Samsun / Havza / Merkez Samsun / Çarşamba / Merkez Samsun / Ayvacık / Merkez Samsun / Asarcık / Merkez Sivas / Gölova / Merkez Tokat / Zile / Merkez Tokat / Turhal / Merkez Tokat / Niksar / Merkez Samsun / Terme / Merkez Samsun / Salıpazarı / Merkez Samsun / Ladik / Merkez Amasya / Merzifon / Merkez Çorum / Alaca / Merkez Gümüşhane / Kelkit / Merkez Çorum / Çorum / Merkez Tokat / Merkez / Merkez Amasya / Gümüşhacıköy / Merkez Amasya / Amasya / Merkez Tokat / Turhal / Şenyurt Tokat / Almus / Merkez Amasya / Suluova / Merkez Amasya / Göynücek / Merkez Tokat / Erbaa / Merkez Tokat / Pazar / Merkez Yozgat / Kadışehri / Merkez Amasya / Taşova / Merkez Tokat / Reşadiye / Merkez Giresun / Çamoluk / Merkez Tokat / Sulusaray / Merkez Tokat / Yeşilyurt / Merkez Giresun / Şebinkarahisar / Merkez This project is co-financed by the European Union and the Republic of Turkey TechnicalYozgat Assistance / Çekerek on / Merkez Economic Analyses within River Basin Management Plans and Water Efficiency Yozgat / Akdağmadeni / Merkez Gümüşhane /Aspects Köse / Merkez in 3 Pilot River Basins in Turkey (TR2013/0327.07.01-01/001). Amasya / AmasyaTECHNICAL / Ziyaret REPORT 0201. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WATER USES Sivas / Akıncılar / Merkez Sivas / Suşehri / Merkez Payment for water services by service ( 14 m³/month/hh) Çorum / Mecitözü / Merkez average water use, Yeşilırmak 2016 Tokat / Almus / Ataköy YozgatOrdu / Sorgun / Akkuş / Gülşehri/ Merkez Yozgat Samsun/ Saraykent / Kavak / Saraykent / Merkez SamsunTokat / /Reşadiye Merkez // TekkeköyBaydarlı GiresunSamsun / AlucraMerkez / /Merkez İlkadım GümüşhaneSamsun / / Şiran Merkez / Merkez / Canik YozgatSamsun / Aydıncık/ Merkez / / Merkez Atakum SivasSamsun / Koyulhisar / Havza / / Merkez Merkez ErzincanSamsun / ÇarşambaRefahiye / / Merkez Merkez SamsunTokat / / Erbaa Ayvacık / Karayaka / Merkez SamsunTokat // AsarcıkErbaa / / Tanoba Merkez TokatSivas / GölovaNiksar // SerenliMerkez TokatTokat / Artova / Zile / /Merkez Merkez TokatTokat / Niksar / Turhal / Yolkonak / Merkez ÇorumTokat / Merkez / Niksar / /Düvenci Merkez Yozgat / AkdağmadeniSamsun / Terme / Belekçehan / Merkez SamsunTokat / Salıpazarı / Niksar / YazıcıkMerkez TokatSamsun / Niksar / Ladik / Gürçeşme / Merkez GümüşhaneAmasya / KelkitMerzifon / Ünlüpınar / Merkez ÇorumÇorum / Ortaköy / Alaca / /Merkez Merkez TokatGümüşhane / Reşadiye / Kelkit / Hasanşeyh / Merkez TokatÇorum / Reşadiye / Çorum / Cimitekke / Merkez YozgatTokat / Aydıncık / Merkez / Baydiğin/ Merkez Amasya / Gümüşhacıköy / Merkez Tokat / Merkez / Güryıldız Amasya / Amasya / Merkez Tokat / Erbaa / Gökal Tokat / Turhal / Şenyurt Tokat / Reşadiye / Bereketli Tokat / Almus / Merkez Yozgat / Kadışehri / Halıköy Amasya / Suluova / Merkez Tokat / Pazar / Üzümören Amasya / Göynücek / Merkez Çorum / Ortaköy / Aştavul Tokat / Erbaa / Merkez Çorum / Şiran / Yeşilbük Tokat / Pazar / Merkez Tokat / Niksar / Gökçeli Yozgat / Kadışehri / Merkez Tokat / Merkez / Çamlıbel Amasya / Taşova / Merkez Tokat / Almus / Kınık Tokat / Reşadiye / Merkez Tokat / Almus / Gölgeli Giresun / Çamoluk / Merkez TokatTokat / / Merkez Sulusaray / Emirseyit / Merkez GümüşhaneTokat / Kelkit / Yeşilyurt / Gümüşgöze / Merkez GiresunTokat / Şebinkarahisar / Başçiftlik / /Merkez Merkez YozgatTokat / / Almus Çekerek / Görümlü / Merkez Yozgat /Tokat Akdağmadeni / Almus // ÇevreliMerkez GümüşhaneGümüşhane / Kelkit/ Köse / /Söğütlü Merkez AmasyaTokat / Amasya / Merkez / Ziyaret / Çat Sivas / Akıncılar / Merkez 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 TL Sivas / Suşehri / Merkez Çorum / Mecitözü / Merkez Water supply Wastewater Tokat / Almus / Ataköy Yozgat / SorgunFigure / Gülşehri 116 (b). Payment for water services by water service, Yeşilirmak (2016). Yozgat / Saraykent / Saraykent Tokat / Reşadiye / Baydarlı Source: Authors based on field survey data Giresun / Alucra / Merkez Gümüşhane / Şiran / Merkez Yozgat / Aydıncık / Merkez Sivas / Koyulhisar / Merkez Erzincan / Refahiye / Merkez Tokat / Erbaa / Karayaka Tokat / Erbaa / Tanoba Tokat / Niksar / Serenli Tokat / Artova / Merkez Tokat / Niksar / Yolkonak Çorum / Merkez / Düvenci Yozgat / Akdağmadeni / Belekçehan Tokat / Niksar / Yazıcık Tokat / Niksar / Gürçeşme Page 147 of 167 Gümüşhane / Kelkit / Ünlüpınar Çorum / Ortaköy / Merkez Tokat / Reşadiye / Hasanşeyh Tokat / Reşadiye / Cimitekke Yozgat / Aydıncık / Baydiğin Tokat / Merkez / Güryıldız Tokat / Erbaa / Gökal Tokat / Reşadiye / Bereketli Yozgat / Kadışehri / Halıköy Tokat / Pazar / Üzümören Çorum / Ortaköy / Aştavul Çorum / Şiran / Yeşilbük Tokat / Niksar / Gökçeli Tokat / Merkez / Çamlıbel Tokat / Almus / Kınık Tokat / Almus / Gölgeli Tokat / Merkez / Emirseyit Gümüşhane / Kelkit / Gümüşgöze Tokat / Başçiftlik / Merkez Tokat / Almus / Görümlü Tokat / Almus / Çevreli Gümüşhane / Kelkit / Söğütlü Tokat / Merkez / Çat 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 TL Water supply Wastewater

5.4.2. INDUSTRIAL SECTOR

There are 12 organized industrial zones and 7 of them are providing water services. The following table summarizes the current status of the applied tariffs in those OIZ.

Table 83. Industrial tariffs in Yeşilirmak river basin.

Providing water Tariff Municipal tariff OIZ Type of tariff services (Y/N) (TL/m3) (TL/m3) Amasya Osb Y Volumetric – no blocks 1.00 - Amasya Merzifon Osb Y - - 2.50 Suluova Osb N N/A - - Çorum Osb Y Volumetric – no blocks 2.50 - Samsun Merkez Osb Y - 1.70 Samsun Kavak Osb Y - 5.60 Samsun Gida Osb Y - 7.15 Tokat Merkez Osb Y Volumetric – no blocks 2.20 - Tokat Erbaa Osb N N/A - - Tokat Niksar Osb N N/A - - Tokat Zile Osb N N/A - - Tokat Turhal Osb N N/A - - Source: Field survey

5.4.3. AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

The following table summarizes the number of surveyed irrigation areas for each of the types of tariffs.

Table 84. Typology of applied tariffs in surveyed irrigation areas in Yeşilirmak river basin.

Type of tariff Only tariff for gravity Only tariff for pumped Tariff for both gravity & pumped Hourly tariff 48 20 21 Volumetric tariff 5 Surface tariff 6 4 3 Crop surface tariff 29 Source: Field survey

In Yeşilirmak river basin the more often used type of tariff is the hourly tariff, followed by the crop surface tariff. The values for each of the different types of tariffs are summarized in the table below.

Table 85. Tariffs applied in surveyed irrigation areas in Yeşilirmak river basin.

Type of tariff Minimum value Maximum value Average value Hourly tariff 3 TL/hour 80 TL/hour 40.8 TL/hour Volumetric tariff 0.6 TL/m³ 1.3 TL/m³ 0.77 TL/m³ Surface tariff 100 TL/ha 3,000 TL/ha 780.6 TL/ha Crop surface tariff 100 TL/ha 1,400 TL/ha 409 TL/ha Source: Field survey

For hourly tariffs, the charges can vary between 3 TL/hour and 80 TL/hour.

Only 5 irrigation areas apply volumetric tariffs, this is due to the lack of metering systems; charges are between 0.6 and 1.3 TL/m3, with an average value for all of them of 0.77 TL/m3.

Page 148 of 167

Tariffs based in the irrigated surface but not considering the cultivated crops vary between 100 TL/ha and 3,000 TL/ha, with an average of 780.6 TL/ha.

Tariffs based on the irrigated surfaces and cultivated crops, are summarized in the following table.

Table 86. Tariffs as per the crops in surveyed irrigation areas in Yeşilirmak river basin.

Irrigated crops Minimum value (TL/ha) Maximum value (TL/ha) Average value (TL/ha) Cotton 320 350 341.3 Sugar beets 125 1,040 464.5 Maize (first crop) 125 1,072 444.0 Maize for silage (first crop) 400 400 400.0 Sunflower 125 750 343.2 Potatoes 125 1,000 384.6 Beans & legume 210 780 355.5 Chickpeas 160 400 308.8 Legumes 125 750 385.8 Sesame 300 345 323.8 Aniseed 150 400 290.0 Peanut 310 350 335.0 Tomatoes 780 780 780.0 Melon and watermelon 125 1,000 417.2 Onion 225 942 353.8 Garlic 260 490 375.4 Cereals (winter) 125 750 265.0 Cereals (summer) 125 750 257.2 Forage 125 1,111 454.9 Tare 290 290 290.0 Vetch 150 366 239.1 Potatoes(second crop) 390 400 393.3 Maize (second crop) 390 400 396.0 Paddy 911 911 910.8 Vegetables 125 1,400 607.5 Opium poppy 125 750 306.4 Tobacco 225 650 358.4 Vegetables (2nd crop) 360 400 385.0 Clover, alfalfa 290 780 453.0 Vineyard 190 715 404.7 Citrus 380 420 407.0 Meadow, forage, flower 100 780 376.4 Fruit trees 125 1,100 574.6 Poplar tree 125 1,137 512.2 Olive 260 660 360.4 Strawberries 780 780 780.0 Off-season irrigation 130 715 351.1 Preparatory 100 600 217.4 Apart from the network- 430 430 430.0 gravity Pedigree seed 130 390 325.0 Source: Field survey

Page 149 of 167

6. GENERAL OUTLINE

Socio-economic profile and current water use

Compared the country’s production structure, the relative importance of the agricultural sector is higher in the three pilot basins, particularly in Akarçay. The services sector is the leading one in terms of gross domestic product, while it is the agriculture in terms of labour force. Gross domestic product distribution 2014

Yeşilırmak 62% 22% 16%

Akarçay 56% 26% 18%

Batı Akdeniz 68% 21% 11%

TURKEY 61% 32% 7%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Services Industry Agriculture Figure 114. Gross domestic product distribution, Turkey and the three pilot basins (2014).

Source: Authors based on TurkStat data Labour force distribution 2014

Yeşilırmak 40% 21% 40%

Akarçay 39% 24% 37%

Batı Akdeniz 49% 22% 29%

TURKEY 51% 28% 21%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Services Industry Agriculture Figure 115. Labour force distribution, Turkey and the three pilot basins (2014).

Source: Authors based on TurkStat data

Akarçay represents 0.4% of the national gross domestic product (8.95 billion TL); the labour force (221,486 persons) accounts for 0.9% of Turkey. Batı Akdeniz contributes to 1.4% of the national GDP and 1.8% of the labour force (28.09 billion TL and 468,473 persons respectively). Yeşilırmak contributes to 1.8% of the national GDP and 3.5% of the labour force (37.50 billion TL and 895,788 persons).

In all the pilot basins the most important water user from a quantitative point of view is the irrigational; its relative importance is 90% in Akarçay, 84% in Batı Akdeniz and 77% in Yeşilırmak. The municipal water supply constitutes the essential service to the population, even if it is not that relevant in terms of volume; it represents 18% of the basin demand in Yeşilırmak, 13% in Batı Akdeniz (where the variable population is of great significance) and 7% in Akarçay. The industrial sector is more relevant in Yeşilırmak, with a greater potential of development and future water demand.

Page 150 of 167

Figure 116. Water uses distribution, all basins (2016).

Source: Authors The table below present the share of the water resources for each of the water uses in the river basins. Table 87. Gross water uses and water sources, all basins (2016).

Gross demand Surface waters Ground waters River basin Water use (hm³/year) (%) (%) Municipal* 47 24% 76% Akarçay Irrigational 586 24% 76% Industry 5 100% Municipal* 141 11% 89% Batı Akdeniz Irrigational 944 82% 18% Industry 22 60% 40% Municipal* 241 48% 52% Yeşilırmak Irrigational 1,015 68% 32% Industry 27 55% 45% (*) Without livestock. Source: Authors

The table below present some socioeconomic indicators for each of the water uses in the river basins.

Table 88. Gross water uses, production, population/ labour force and sector water needs, all basins (2016).

Population/ Gross Production Sector water River Area (km²) Water use Labour force demand value** needs basin Total Irrigated (persons) (hm³/year) (billion TL/year) (m3/1,000 TL) Municipal* 604,961 47 Akarçay 7,996 944 Irrigational 82,232 586 1.137 515 Industrial 52,279 5 2.290 2 Municipal* 1,254,936 141 Batı 21,014 954 Irrigational 135 635 944 1.079 875 Akdeniz Industrial 101,318 22 5.781 4 Municipal* 2,542,870 241 Yeşilırmak 39,574 1,406 Irrigational 354,585 1,015 0.805 1,261 Industrial 185,548 27 8.272 3 (*) Without livestock. (**) Production value: incomes of the water services for the municipal sector, net margin for the irrigational, and gross domestic product for the non-consumptive industry. Source: Authors

Page 151 of 167

The following maps illustrate the location of the significant water demands using groundwater and then surface water resources, for each of the three pilot basins.

Figure 117. Human and industrial water use from GW and GW irrigation areas (left map); human and industrial water use from SW and surface SW areas (right map), Akarçay basin (2016).

Source: Authors

Page 152 of 167

Figure 118. Human and industrial water use from GW and GW areas (left map); human and industrial water use from SW and SW areas (right map), Batı Akdeniz basin (2016).

Source: Authors

Page 153 of 167

Figure 119. Human and industrial water use from GW and GW areas (left map), human and industrial water use from SW and SW areas (right map), Yeşilirmak basin (2016).

Source: Authors

Page 154 of 167

As regards the water demands forecast, one only scenario has been considered for the irrigation, livestock and industrial sectors; while three scenarios (optimistic, realistic and trend), have been considered for the municipal one. The figure below show the results obtained for all sectors in the three river basins; it takes into consideration the realistic scenario for the municipal water use.

3,000

2,500

2,000

2016 1,500 2026 2032 1,000 2038

500

0 Akarçay Batı Akdeniz Yeşilırmak

Gross demands (hm³/year), all sectors (municipal realıstıc scenario)

Figure 120. Water demand forecasts (municipal realistic scenario), all basins.

Source: Authors Table 89. Water demand forecasts (municipal realistic scenario), all basins.

Gross demand (hm³/year) 2016 2026 2032 2038 Akarçay basin 650 653 689 754 Batı Akdeniz basin 1,122 1,552 1,794 1,890 Yeşilırmak basin 1,313 2,027 2,243 2,553 Source: Authors

Page 155 of 167

Municipal water demand forecast

The results obtained for the three river basins are summarised below for the realistic scenario.

450

400

350

300

250 2016

200 2026 2032 150 2038 100

0 Akarçay Batı Akdeniz Yeşilırmak Municipal gross demands (hm³/year), realistic scenario

Figure 121. Municipal water demands forecasts in the realistic scenario, all basins.

Source: Authors

In all the basins the increase in the population has a higher effect than the improvement in the water losses ratios in both scenarios.

Table 90. Municipal water demands forecasts, all scenarios and all basins.

Gross demand (hm³/year) 2016 2026 2032 2038 Optimistic scenario Akarçay basin 47 60 75 93 Batı Akdeniz basin 141 162 181 203 Yeşilırmak basin 241 265 319 386 Realistic scenario Akarçay basin 47 65 77 95 Batı Akdeniz basin 141 166 182 205 Yeşilırmak basin 241 276 321 388 Trend scenario Akarçay basin 47 81 111 151 Batı Akdeniz basin 141 165 186 209 Yeşilırmak basin 241 339 441 557 Source: Authors

Page 156 of 167

Irrigational water demand forecast

The results obtained for the agriculture water uses are shown in the figure below for the three river basins, as per the Master Plan Scenario.

2,500

2,000

1,500 2016 2026 1,000 2032 2038

500

0 Akarçay Batı Akdeniz Yeşilırmak Agricultural gross demands (hm³/year), Master Plan scenario

Figure 122. Irrigational water demands forecasts, all basins.

Source: Authors Table 91. Irrigational water demands, all basins.

Gross demand (hm³/year) 2016 2026 2032 2038 Akarçay basin 586 551 555 578 Batı Akdeniz basin 944 1,344 1,562 1,630 Yeşilırmak basin 1,015 1,682 1,844 2,082 Source: Authors

Page 157 of 167

Industrial water demand forecast

One scenario has been developed for the industrial water use. As illustrated in the figure below, Yeşilırmak is the most industrialized basin of the three pilot ones and it is also the one that presents the highest increase in water demand.

25 2016

20 2026 2032 15 2038 10

0 Akarçay Batı Akdeniz Yeşilırmak Industrial gross demands (hm³/year), baseline scenario

Figure 123. Industrial water demand forecast, all basins.

Source: Authors

Table 92. Industrial water demands, all basins.

Gross demand (hm³/year) 2016 2026 2032 2038 Akarçay basin 5 6 7 8 Batı Akdeniz basin 22 25 26 26 Yeşilırmak basin 27 33 38 40 Source: Authors

Page 158 of 167

Livestock water demand forecast

One scenario has been developed for the municipal water use.

30 2016 25 2026 20 2032 15 2038

0 Akarçay Batı Akdeniz Yeşilırmak Livestock gross demands (hm³/year), baseline scenario

Figure 124. Livestock water demand forecast, all basins.

Source: Authors

Table 93. Livestock water demands, all basins.

Gross demand (hm³/year) 2016 2026 2032 2038 Akarçay basin 12 14 16 18 Batı Akdeniz basin 15 18 22 28 Yeşilırmak basin 31 36 40 44 Source: Authors

Page 159 of 167

Price and payment for municipal water services

In order to conduct a comparative analysis of the prices applied for municipal water services in all of the pilot basins, unit prices are calculated for a consumption of 15 m³/month. . Batı Akdeniz presents the highest price (around 4 TL/m³); this may be explained by o The great significance of the variable population (tourists during summer time). o The higher relevance of population in neighbourhoods and villages (54% in the basin, whilst it is 20% and 31% in Akarçay and Yeşilırmak respectively) and lower share in large municipalities (32% in the basin, while it is 53% in Akarçay and Yeşilırmak). o The widespread application of wastewater tariffs in the basin (88%), unlike in Yeşilırmak and Akarçay (27% and 25% respectively). . Akarçay has the lowest price (at about 2 TL/m³); reasons behind it may be: o The higher population density (76 inhabitants/km² in the basin while it is 60 inh/km² and 64 inh/km² in Batı Akdeniz and Yeşilırmak respectively). o A large portion of population (53%) living in municipalities above 25,000 inhabitants. . Average price for the water services on Yeşilırmak stands at 3 TL/m³. Regarding the monthly water consumptions in an average household, . All basins present similar average consumption (around 12-14 m³/month) and also similar disposable income (2,700 TL/month – 2,800 TL/month). . In Batı Akdeniz average payment for water services comes to approximately 60 TL/month, with the highest effort in terms of percent of household disposable income (2%). . In Akarçay we have the opposite situation in terms of effort to pay the water services: around 30 TL/month and 1% of the household disposable income. . Average payment in Yeşilırmak is 40 TL/month, 1.4% of the household disposable income.

Table 94. Price and payments for water services, all basins.

Akarçay Batı Akdeniz Yeşilırmak

Water services price Water supply (TL/m³) 2.1 2.7 2.8 for a consumption of Wastewater (TL/m³) 0.1 1.3 0.1 15 m³/month Water services (TL/m³) 2.1 3.9 3.0

Average water consumption (m³/month) 13 12 14 Average payment on water services (TL/month) 27 59 40 Household disposable income (TL/month) 2,739 2,858 2,839 Percent of household disposable income 0.9% 2.1% 1.4% spent on water services (%) Source: Authors

Page 160 of 167

7. CONCLUSIONS

In the light of the results achieved by the economic characterization studies carried out in the three basins, some challenging circumstances can already be identified.

The forecasts of water demands in agriculture, domestic and industrial activities may oppose conventional solutions for the demands satisfaction and for the water resources sustainability in the medium and long term. Indeed, water consumption by domestic uses can be an opportunity for innovative solutions such as water reuse in agriculture together with efficiency improvements. It is in this sense that water pricing policies play a key role, as water prices have a relevant impact in the users’ behaviour towards higher-efficiency of the water use8.

Socio-economic considerations such as food security, food self-supply, maintaining the population in the rural areas and preserving highly productive activities are priority objectives in Turkey. Yet, long-term sustainability of water resources should rank above any other consideration. Especially Akarçay closed basin confronts severe conditions of overexploited ground waters. Measures such as water transfers may lessen the problem in the short and medium term, but a long term solution should be assessed.

As part of the cost-recovery analysis, the resource cost9 will allow us to compare the value of the production generated with overexploited waters with the cost of the new investments required to increase the resources availability, either through external resources (water transfers) or by making their use more efficient (modern irrigation systems, reuse of water).

The groundwater overexploitation and the challenge to satisfy future demands in Akarçay basin, a hint on a significant water management issue in the basin

The level of groundwater overexploitation in Akarçay river basin is so severe that it is likely to be one of the significant water management issues in the basin.

Let us remember that in Akarçay three quarters of the municipal and the irrigational demands, as well as the entire industrial demands are dependent on ground water resources. It is also worth mentioning that 15% of the irrigational use (88 hm3 of 586 hm3) is abstracted from wells without DSI authorisation.

The following maps show . The distribution of the population using groundwater resources (human consumption). . The spatial distribution of human and industrial consumption in ground waters.

8 These solutions are part of Component 3 tasks. 9 According to the WATECO Guide (2002), resource costs are the foregone opportunities that other water users suffer due to depletion of the resource beyond its natural ratio of recharge. Information Sheet on Assessment of Environmental and Resource Cost in the WFD (2004) associate the resource cost to the opportunity cost due to the benefit foregone in a situation of misallocation of water resources. In the present study, resource cost are evaluated as the foregone opportunities (cost) in a scenario of overexploited resources where, in the future time, water allocations are reduced so to achieve the balance between supply and demand.

Page 161 of 167

Figure 125. Spatial distribution of population in groundwater bodies, Akarçay basin (2016).

Source: Authors

Figure 126. Spatial distribution of human and industrial water use from ground waters, Akarçay basin (2016).

Source: Authors

Page 162 of 167

The overexploited groundwater bodies have been identified; those with a long-term average rate of abstraction above the available resources (natural recharge). The table below shows, for each GWB, the available resources, the different sector demands, the overexploitation ratio and the excess abstraction. Eight out of the 13 groundwater bodies in the basin are over abstracted with a total excess abstraction10 of 29.57 hm3/year (18% of the total abstraction) and an overall over exploitation ratio11 of 1.07.

Table 95. Over abstracted ground water bodies, Akarçay (2016).

Gross water demands Available Over Excess GWB Code Irrigation Municipal Industrial Total resource exploitation abstraction (hm³/y) (hm³/y) ratio (hm³/year) TR11050072 19.30 1.56 0.33 21.19 21.01 1.01 0.18 TR11050073 0.57 TR11050074 73.12 17.68 0.18 90.97 89.93 1.01 1.04 TR11050075 1.36 1.36 0.29 4.66 1.06 TR11050076 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.91 TR11050077 51.62 1.99 0.18 53.80 50.84 1.06 2.96 TR11050078 2.67 1.60 0.01 4.28 4.56 0.94 TR11050079 11.13 0.43 11.56 11.42 1.01 0.14 TR11050080 0.32 0.32 0.50 0.64 TR11050081 120.01 7.79 0.09 127.89 118.77 1.08 9.12 TR11050082 52.66 3.84 56.50 42.90 1.32 13.60 TR11050083 -0.83* TR11050084 85.14 3.66 0.60 89.40 87.94 1.02 1.46 TR11050085 0.00 Total 415.65 38.87 2.80 457.31 427.95 1.07 29.57 (*) Lateral transfers to other GWB Source: Authors

The excess abstraction volumes are apportioned to the different sectors by applying the following sequential rules: 1. Where abstractions are related to a sole use and where this exceeds natural recharge rates, the excess abstraction is allocated to the corresponding user. 2. Where municipal and industrial abstractions are less than natural recharge rate, then these abstractions are given priority (on the grounds that they are of paramount importance and the industries have a higher value added than agriculture’s net margins) so that in these cases the excess abstraction is allocated solely to irrigated agriculture. 3. Where all and each sector abstractions exceed natural recharge rate, then the excess abstraction is allocated among irrigational, municipal and industrial users in proportion to their share of total current abstractions.

10 Abstractions - Available Resource 11 Abstractions / Available Resource

Page 163 of 167

The resource cost for each sector is estimated for each overexploited groundwater body as the value of the production obtained with (irrigational and industrial sector) or consumed by (municipal sector) overexploited ground waters, by multiplying each sector’s distributed excess abstractions by their value which is derived as follows: 1. Municipal abstractions are valued at the average tariffs. 2. Industrial abstractions are valued at the industry gross value added. 3. Irrigational abstractions are valued at the weighted average of net margins for crops12. The next table shows the distribution of this excess abstraction between the three main sectors, in percentage and then absolute terms (hm3/year), for each groundwater body. Irrigated agriculture accounts for most excess abstraction, at 93% of the total. Industry only accounts for about 4% of the over abstracted water13.

Table 96. Excess abstraction in over abstracted ground water bodies by sector, Akarçay (2016).

Excess abstraction (share) Excess abstraction Irrigation Municipal Industrial Irrigation Municipal Industrial GWB Code % % % (hm³/year) (hm³/year) (hm³/year) TR11050072 100% 0.18 TR11050073 TR11050074 80% 19% 0% 0.83 0.20 0.00 TR11050075 100% 1.06 TR11050076 TR11050077 96% 4% 0% 2.84 0.11 0.01 TR11050078 TR11050079 100% 0.14 TR11050080 TR11050081 94% 6% 0% 8.56 0.56 0.01 TR11050082 100% 13.60 TR11050083 TR11050084 100% 1.46 TR11050085 Total 93% 3% 4% 27.62 0.87 1.08 Source: Authors

The next table presents the unit value of water for each of the sectors and for each of the groundwater bodies. As aforementioned, for irrigation it is the weighted average of the crops net margin, for industry it is the industrial gross value added and for the municipal sector it is the average municipal tariff.

12 The assessment of the net margin per crop in the basins may constitute a relevant decision-support tool for enhancement of future changes in the crop patterns. 13 This could explain why some recent studies (such as World Bank, 2016) have not estimated the resource costs of abstraction by industry.

Page 164 of 167

Table 97. Apparent value of water by sector, Akarçay (2016).

Irrigational Municipal Industrial Ground water body net margin tariff gross value added Code Name (TL/m³) TR11050072 Sinanpasa Aluvyonu 0.8 2.1 97.0 TR11050073 Igdeli Aluvyonu TR11050074 Afyon Aluvyonu 1.0 2.1 32.3 TR11050075 Cavdarli-Susuz Kayaçları 244.2 TR11050076 Iskehisar Aluvyon 9.6 TR11050077 Suhut Aluvyon 1.1 2.1 134.0 TR11050078 Karamik Vadisi 1.7 2.1 150.0 TR11050079 Kurucaova-Ozburun Kayaçları 0.9 2.1 TR11050080 Buyukkarabag Kayaçları 2.1 TR11050081 Sultandagi Aluvyonu 2.2 2.2 150.0 TR11050082 Aksehir Kayaçları 1.1 2.3 TR11050083 Uckuyu Kayaçları TR11050084 Aksehir-Eber Aluvyonu 4.0 2.3 86.7 TR11050085 Mevlutlu-Koarası Kayaçları Weighted average 2.0 2.1 164.8 Source: Authors

The next shows the unit value of water for each of the sectors and for each of the GWBs.

Table 98. Resource costs of over abstraction by sector, Akarçay (2016).

Ground water body Irrigation Municipal Industrial Total Code Name (MTL/year) TR11050072 Sinanpasa Aluvyonu 0.15 0.15 TR11050073 Igdeli Aluvyonu TR11050074 Afyon Aluvyonu 0.82 0.42 0.07 1.30 TR11050075 Cavdarli-Susuz Kayaçları 260.03 260.03 TR11050076 Iskehisar Aluvyon TR11050077 Suhut Aluvyon 3.11 0.23 1.33 4.66 TR11050078 Karamik Vadisi 0.00 TR11050079 Kurucaova-Ozburun Kayaçları 0.13 0.13 TR11050080 Buyukkarabag Kayaçları TR11050081 Sultandagi Aluvyonu 18.91 1.24 0.96 21.11 TR11050082 Aksehir Kayaçları 14.94 14.94 TR11050083 Uckuyu Kayaçları TR11050084 Aksehir-Eber Aluvyonu 5.83 5.83 TR11050085 Mevlutlu-Koarası Kayaçları Total 43.89 1.89 262.39 308.16 Sector as % of total 14% 1% 85% 100%

Average TL/m3 1.6 2.2 242.2 10.4 Source: Authors

Page 165 of 167

Finally, the following presents a summary of the resource costs of over abstraction in the Akarçay basin. While industry accounts for a small amount of the excess abstraction, it accounts for the largest share of the resource costs (at 85%) due to the high value of its outputs (in terms of industrial gross value added: 165 TL/m3 the average for all of the GWBs in the basin, 242 TL/m3 for the overexploited ones). Irrigation accounts for 93% of the excess abstraction but only 14% of the resource costs as, compared to the industrial sector, it generates a much lower value added (in terms of net margin: 2.0 TL/m3 the average for all of the GWBs in the basin, 1.6 TL/m3 for the overexploited ones). The resource cost of the municipal sector is not particularly relevant, neither by the amount of the excess abstraction (3%) nor by the amount of the resource cost (1%).

In Akarçay basin, a total value of the outputs (production) and services of 308 million TL/year is reliant on over-exploited ground waters (30 hm³/year), the costs of foregone opportunities which future users (generations) may suffer due to the depletion of the resource beyond its natural rate of recharge.

Table 99. Summary of resource costs of over abstraction, Akarçay (2016).

Resource cost Irrigational Municipal Industrial Total

Total abstraction (hm³/year) 415.6 38.9 2.8 457.3 Available resource (hm³/y) 428.0

Overexploitation ratio 1.1 Excess abstraction (hm³/y) 27.6 0.9 1.1 29.6 Excess abstraction (% for each sector) 93% 3% 4%

Value of water for total abstractions (TL/m3) 2.0 2.1 164.8

Resource cost, value of water for overexploited GWBs (TL/m3) 1.6 2.2 242.2 10.4 Resource cost, value of water for overexploited GWBs (MTL/y) 43.9 1.9 262.4 308.2 Percent of resource cost for each sector 14% 1% 85% 100% Source: Authors

Page 166 of 167

Page 167 of 167

This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The content of this publication is the sole responsibility of TYPSA-EGIS-DOLSAR Consortium and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union.