2016年-世界发展银行全球_Republic_of_Turkey___Sustainable_Urban_Water_Supply_and_Sanitation_116页_9mb

Summary of Republic of Turkey: Sustainable Urban Water Supply and Sanitation

Core Content

This report analyzes the challenges and opportunities for the Water Supply and Sanitation (WSS) sector in Turkey as it seeks to comply with the European Union (EU) Water Framework Directive (WFD), Drinking Water Directive (DWD), and Urban Wastewater Directive (UWWD). It aims to enhance the sustainability, affordability, and quality of WSS services in line with EU standards, while aligning with Turkey's Sustainable Development Goals.

Main Issues and Opportunities

1. Turkey's Experience in WSS Services Management

• Turkey has a long and rich experience in managing water and wastewater services.
• The 1926 Water Law placed water resource management under the state, which was reaffirmed in the 1982 Constitution.
• In 1981, Istanbul introduced a new model of service provision with the creation of a dedicated Water and Sewage Administration (ISKI), which became a public utility with an independent budget.
• In 2014, a new law created 14 additional metropolitan municipalities (MMs) and extended the service areas of all MMs to cover entire provinces.
• As of 2014, 30 SKIs (General Directorates for Water and Wastewater Administration) were responsible for WSS services to 77% of the population (62 million people).

2. Current Status of the WSS Sector in Turkey

• Water Supply: Almost universal, with access rates reaching 97% in municipalities and 91% nationally in 2014.
• Sanitation and Wastewater Treatment: Still an ongoing effort, with sewage connection rates of 90% in municipalities and 84% nationally.
• Treated Water Access: 58% in municipalities and 54% nationally, with the rest assumed to be of sufficient quality for simple disinfection.
• Non-Revenue Water (NRW): Reduced from 54% to 35% between 2006 and 2014.
• Un-treated Wastewater Discharge: Decreased from 36% (1,226 million m³) in 2006 to 19% (813 million m³) in 2014.
• These performance levels are comparable to those of EU member states in the Danube River Basin.

3. Challenges in Compliance with EU Directives

• Regulatory Overlap and Conflicts: Multiple institutions and overlapping action plans complicate implementation and monitoring.
• Financial Challenges: Most SKIs face budget deficits, with debt levels exceeding revenue. Many operate at a loss despite reasonable tariffs.
• Institutional Responsibilities: Responsibilities are scattered across multiple ministries and agencies, affecting efficiency and coordination.
• Need for Capacity Building: Training and institutional capacity development are critical for improving service delivery and financial sustainability.

4. Comparison of EU and Turkish Regulations

• Drinking Water Standards: Turkey's standards are slightly lower than EU standards.
• Wastewater Standards: Turkey's standards are more stringent than EU's, particularly in sensitive areas.
• Sensitivity Definitions: The designation of "sensitive areas" in Turkey differs from EU recommendations, which are based on eutrophication and environmental threats.

5. Cost of Compliance with EU Wastewater Regulations

• The report estimates compliance costs for three scenarios:
  • (i) Under EU standards
  • (ii) Under Turkish standards for nutrient removal in sensitive areas
  • (iii) Under Turkish standards for nutrient removal in sensitive areas plus nitrogen removal for cities with more than 50,000 people
• Estimated Additional Investment Costs: Between 5.2 and 6.3 billion Euros
• Estimated Annual O&M Costs: Between 844 million and 1.4 billion Euros
• Total Costs (including amortization): Between 116 and 186 billion Euros
• Cost Differences:
  • Applying EU standards with current sensitive areas increases investment costs by 17% and O&M costs by 59%.
  • Applying EU standards with new sensitive areas increases investment costs by 15% and O&M costs by 52%.

6. Opportunities for Improvement

• Phased Compliance Approaches: Gradually increasing standards based on the progress made in achieving "good ecological status" can optimize environmental and sustainability goals.
• Integrated Urban Water Management (IUWM): IUWM offers a holistic approach to managing water resources, considering the entire water cycle and integrating infrastructure planning with urban development.
• Institutional Reforms: Streamlining institutional responsibilities and improving coordination can enhance the efficiency of the WSS sector.
• Improved Data and Benchmarking: Developing a robust benchmarking system for WSS services is essential for effective monitoring, strategic decision-making, and improving the incentive framework for efficiency and financial sustainability.

Key Information

• Water Supply and Sanitation (WSS): Almost universal access, but uneven performance across regions.
• Non-Revenue Water (NRW): Reduced from 54% to 35% between 2006 and 2014.
• Sewage Network Coverage: 90% in municipalities and 84% nationally.
• Treated Water Access: 58% in municipalities and 54% nationally.
• Debt and Financial Challenges: Most SKIs are in financial difficulty, with debt exceeding revenue.
• EU Compliance Efforts: Turkey has made progress, but challenges remain in harmonizing regulations and improving institutional efficiency.
• Cost Implications: Compliance with EU standards significantly increases investment and operational costs, which many SKIs cannot afford.

Conclusion

The report highlights the need for institutional reforms, capacity building, and improved data systems to support the sustainable and affordable delivery of WSS services in Turkey. It also emphasizes the potential for turning current challenges into opportunities by adopting EU best practices, particularly in phased compliance, integrated urban water management, and improved regulatory frameworks. The findings are intended to stimulate further dialogue and analysis with Turkish authorities to support the sector's development in alignment with EU directives.