IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE

Irrig. and Drain. 59: 138–149 (2010)

Published online 17 November 2008 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/ird.452

ASSESSMENT OF THE IRRIGATION PERFORMANCE OF TRANSFERREDSCHEMES IN TURKEY: A CASE STUDY ANALYSISy

BELGIN CAKMAK1*, AYSEGUL KIBAROGLU2, BERNA KENDIRLI1 AND ZEKI GOKALP1

1Department of Farm Structure and Irrigation, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Ankara, Ankara, Turkey2Department of International Relations, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

ABSTRACT

Efforts to increase the amount of irrigation schemes transferred to irrigation associations (IAs) in Turkey have been

motivated by the poor performance – in terms of cost recovery, equity, efficiency in operation and maintenance

(O&M) and repairs – of many large irrigation schemes by government agencies, namely the State Hydraulic Works

(DSI). The objective of this study is to assess the irrigation system performance of transferred irrigation schemes in

the DSI Fifth Regional Directorate service area mainly for the year 2003 with benchmarking indicators.

According to the findings of the study, relative water supply was recorded as 1.5–8.4 respectively. The financial

performance indicators including cost recovery ratio, maintenance expenditure to revenue ratio, operating cost per

unit area, total cost per person employed on water delivery, revenue collection performance and service area per

personnel were found to be 1.0–10.6%, 0.7–12.5%, US$6.5–53.3 ha�1, US$636.0–7045.9 per person, 78–95%,

67–13 000 ha per person, respectively. As regards productive performance, output per unit command area, output

per unit irrigated area, output per unit irrigation supply and output per unit water consumed were determined as

US$325.2–2745.1, US$1028.03–5070.9 ha�1, US$0.2–0.7 m�3 and US$0.2–2.6 m�3 respectively. Water quality

classes were found to be C3S1 in all schemes. The results of the case study show that following the transfer of

irrigation schemes to the user organizations, significant improvements are recorded in irrigation water fee

collection rates and financial cost reduction in the systems operated by the IAs. Mixed results are observed in

terms of irrigation ratios. While there are improvements in two irrigation schemes, there are evident increases in the

water supply ratio in six other irrigation schemes. Management, operation and maintenance (MOM) costs in

general and the maintenance costs per se have increased compared to the collected water fees in the case-study

irrigation schemes. Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

key words: Turkey; irrigation associations; water delivery performance; financial performance; productive performance

Received 13 June 2007; Revised 13 July 2008; Accepted 14 July 2008

RESUME

Les efforts visant a augmenter le nombre de perimetres irrigues transferes a des associations d’irrigants ont ete

motives par la mauvaise performance en termes de recouvrement des couts, d’equite, d’efficacite dans l’exploita-

tion et la maintenance (O&M) de nombreux grands perimetres geres par les organismes gouvernementaux, a savoir

la DSI. L’objectif de cette etude est d’evaluer les performances des systemes d’irrigation dans les perimetres

transferes dans la region 5 de DSI principalement pour l’annee 2003 avec des indicateurs de benchmarking.

Selon les conclusions de l’etude le ratio de distribution d’eau relatif a ete enregistre de 1.5 a 8.4. Les indicateurs

de performance financiere suivants ont ete trouves: le ratio de recuperation des couts1.0–10.6%, le ratio depenses

* Correspondence to: Dr. Belgin Cakmak, Department of Farm Structure and Irrigation, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Ankara, 06110Ankara, Turkey. E-mail: belgin.cakmak@agri.ankara.edu.tryEvaluation de la performance des perimetres irrigues transferes en Turquie: une etude de cas.

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

IRRIGATION PERFORMANCE OF TRANSFERRED SCHEMES IN TURKEY 139

de maintenance sur recettes 0.7–12.5%, les couts d’exploitation par unite de surface 6.5–53.3 US$ ha�1, le cout

total par personne employee pour la distribution de l’eau 636.0–7045.9 US$/personne, le recouvrement des recettes

de fonctionnements 78–95%, la surface de service par personne 67–13 000 ha/personne. En ce qui concerne la

performance de production, ont ete determines: la production par ha domine 325.2–2745.1 US$ ha�1, la production

par ha irrigue 1028.0–5070.9 US$ ha�1, la production par m3 livre 0.2–0.7 US$ m�3 et la production par m3

consomme 0.2–2.6 US$ m�3. La classe de qualite de l’eau a ete trouve en C3S1 dans tous les perimetres.

Les resultats de l’etude de cas montrent qu’a la suite du transfert aux associations d’irrigants, des ameliorations

significatives sont enregistrees dans les taux de recouvrement des redevances d’irrigation et dans la reduction des

couts d’exploitation. Des resultats mitiges sont observes en terme de taux d’irrigation. Bien que des ameliorations

soient constatees dans deux perimetres, il est clair que le taux d’approvisionnement en eau augmente dans les six

autres perimetres. Les couts de gestion, d’exploitation et d’entretien (OMM) en general et les couts de maintenance

en particulier ont augmente par rapport aux redevances collectees dans les perimetres de cette etude. Copyright #

2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

mots cles: Turquie; association d’irrigants; performance de la distribution d’eau; performance financiere; performance de production

INTRODUCTION

Many recent critiques of the water sector have pointed to the poor attention paid by government agencies to

operations including delivery of irrigation water services, management and maintenance of water resource systems.

Hence, efforts to increase user participation have been spurred by poor functioning in terms of efficiency, equity,

cost recovery and accountability of many large-scale irrigation systems administered by government agencies. As

observed through various country experiences, management of state-operated irrigation projects were not able to

provide the expected benefits. Therefore, irrigation management transfers to different organizations such as water

user associations, cooperatives and municipalities were initiated. In this context, a set of performance indicators

was developed by the International Water Management Institute (IWMI), and likewise a new set of performance

indicators called ‘‘benchmarking indicators’’ was developed by the International Commission of Irrigation and

Drainage (ICID) to assess the performance of irrigation schemes (Molden et al., 1998; Burton et al., 2000).

IWMI performance indicators have been used for assessment of transferred irrigation schemes in many countries

under different conditions (Kloezen and Garces-Restrepo, 1998; Molden et al., 1998; Vermillion and Garces-

Restrepo, 1998; Cakmak, 2001; Svendsen and Murray-Rust, 2001). To illustrate, Vermillion et al. (2000) have

assessed the effects of a transfer programme on performance of irrigation schemes with 500 ha or less land area in

Indonesia. They assessed the agricultural performance based on income corresponding to per unit area and they did

not come up with any significant change in post-transfer performance.

Benchmarking is a beneficial tool to assess the performance of irrigation schemes. It is about improving the

performance of organizational processes and identifying the gap between current and achievable performance, and

making changes to realize the higher standards of performance. In 2004 the ICID published a special issue about

benchmarking in the irrigation and drainage sector (Cakmak et al., 2004). Leading international case studies using

benchmarking indicators set by the IWMI were included in that issue.

Cakmak (2001) applied the irrigation system performance assessment indicators developed by the IWMI in the

Konya irrigation associations, Turkey, and assessed the system performance for the years 1995–99. In the study,

equivalent gross production value was between US$195 and 5391 ha�1, actively irrigated area equivalent

production value was between US$359 and 6197 ha�1, equivalent gross production value corresponding to the

diverted water was between US$0.2 and 1.3 m�3, equivalent gross production value corresponding to irrigation

water need was between US$0.1 and 2.3 m�3, water supply ratio was between 0.3 and 7.8 and irrigation ratio was

between 36 and 104%.

Murray-Rust and Svendsen (2001) carried out a performance assessment study on the six irrigation associations

(Sarigol, Alasehir, Adala, Turgutlu, Manisa and Menemen) in the Gediz Basin in Turkey. The study found the water

productivity rate to be US$20–40 ha�1. The authors also stated that irrigation performance were not significantly

changed due to the diversity in irrigation association practices of the management of individual systems within the

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 59: 138–149 (2010)

140 B. CAKMAK ET AL.

basin. However, costs were recorded to be largely reduced, and production of economically valuable crops played a

supporting role in this regard.

Svendsen and Murray-Rust (2001) assessed the effectiveness of the national transfer programme in Turkey. They

indicated that the water fee in irrigation associations was US$78 ha�1, and this price was 13% higher in the DSI-

managed schemes; the water fee collection rate was 79% in irrigation associations and 43% in the DSI-managed

schemes. They also stated that a regular monitoring programme was needed in the transferred irrigation schemes.

Yercan et al. (2004) carried out a case study on the performance criteria in irrigation schemes of the Gediz Basin

to assess the performance of the schemes before and after irrigation management transfer. They reported the results

as a doubling of irrigation fee collection rates and a shifting of operation and maintenance expenditures from the

public to the users; an accumulation of reserves in some irrigation associations for future capital purchases; a

reduced wage for operation and maintenance personnel; and indications of expansions of irrigated area in some

transferred schemes.

Cakmak et al. (2004) assessed irrigation performance in the DSI Tenth Regional Directorate Irrigation Schemes

with benchmarking indicators for the years 1996–2000. Benchmark values for performance were identified in

Batman-Silvan, Devegecidi, Derik-Kumluca, Nusaybin-Cagdas and Cinar-Goksu irrigation associations. Their

analyses showed that, in general, all the schemes were performing well according to the benchmarking

performance indicators used in the case study.

In this paper, system performance of transferred irrigation schemes in the DSI Fifth Regional Directorate service

area mainly for the year 2003 is determined and assessed with benchmarking performance indicators. Data and

some assessments for the years 2000, 2001 and 2002 are also provided to see the changes brought by the transfer

programmes. Due to lack of reliable data, some performance indicators can be calculated only for the year 2003.

BACKGROUND

Agriculture plays a key role in the socio-economic development of Turkey. Yet the sector depends greatly on

climatic conditions. Average annual precipitation is 643 mm, ranging from 250 mm in the south-eastern part of the

country to over 3000 mm in the north-eastern Black Sea coastal area. Water is a limiting factor for agriculture

throughout much of the country. Under these circumstances, irrigation has gradually been expanded. Turkey has

developed its present base of irrigated agriculture very rapidly over the past 50 years and in so doing has established

a valuable source of technical expertise. Irrigation development in Turkey is carried out by the public sector

institutions, namely the General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works (DSI) and the General Directorate of Rural

Services (GDRS) and by the farmers and groups of farmers. Systematic water resources management in Turkey

started with the establishment of the DSI in 1954, which was attached to the Ministry of Energy and Natural

Resources. The DSI is responsible for almost all aspects of water resources development in Turkey. It is empowered

to plan, design, construct and operate dams, hydroelectric power plants and domestic water and irrigation schemes

(Bayazit and Avci, 1997).

In 1960 the General Directorate for Soil and Water was established which in 1985 was reconstituted as the

General Directorate for Rural Services (GDRS) under the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Affairs. From

1993 until recently, the GDRS operated under the Prime Minister’s Office. The GDRS was abolished in 2005 and its

tasks especially as regards to the activities at village level were reassigned to the Special Provincial

Administrations. Its headquarters is organized under the concerned department at the Ministry of Agriculture and

Rural Affairs. The GDRS was concerned with soil surveys and conservation; on-farm development activities

including on-farm drainage construction; the construction of small dams/reservoirs, and the construction of minor

surface and groundwater irrigation schemes which have been turned over to autonomous farmers’ associations or

groundwater cooperatives respectively (Kibaroglu et al., 2005).

According to comprehensive studies carried out by the DSI, 8.5 million ha of land could be economically

irrigated. As of 2007, 4.97 million ha of the 8.5 million ha area have been equipped with irrigation facilities, of

which 2.85 million ha have been developed by the DSI, 1.1 million ha by the GDRS, and about 1.0 million ha by

small-scale privately owned irrigation schemes. Moreover, 6.5 million ha of the 8.5 million ha of land are envisaged

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 59: 138–149 (2010)

IRRIGATION PERFORMANCE OF TRANSFERRED SCHEMES IN TURKEY 141

for development by the DSI, 1.5 million by other state agencies, and 0.5 million ha by small-scale privately owned

irrigation schemes by the year 2030 (State Hydraulic Works, 2007: 13).

The DSI has the primary task of management and operation of the irrigation systems including the collection of

water fees and water delivery to farmers. However, by the Establishment Law Code 6200 (1954), it is entitled to

transfer the operation and maintenance (O&M) of irrigation systems to irrigation management organizations

(IMOs) such as village administrations, municipalities, cooperatives, and irrigation associations (IAs). Thus, since

the early 1960s, the DSI has had a programme to transfer O&M responsibility for secondary and tertiary canals to

IMOs. However, up until 1993, it was only able to transfer O&M irrigation systems of some 70 000 ha to various

types of IMOs. This process has gained momentum since 1993 and within the past 15 years nearly 2 million ha

irrigation schemes have been transferred to local administrations or to IAs: the innovative form of transfer used,

where the irrigation scheme covers more than one local administrative unit (e.g. village or municipality).

Significant developments were achieved in transfer processes, and while 95.2% of irrigated areas were operated by

the DSI in 1993 this ratio decreased to below 10% (Figure 1).

Key background conditions leading to irrigation management transfer include: a national budgetary crisis that

led to severe limitations on financial allocations to the DSI in general and to the O&M Department in particular, and

progressive deterioration of the irrigation infrastructure due to the deferred maintenance. The IAs in Turkey have

been established through the existing local government structures. They are not a product of any grass-roots

movement or organization. DSI staff were the major initiator and executor of the transfer programme. There were

intensive negotiations between the agency (DSI) and local communities including the representatives from local

governments concerning the terms of transfer.

MATERIAL

In this study, performance of the transferred irrigation schemes, namely the Kalecik, Akinci, Asartepe, Gokceoren,

Koprukoy right bank and left bank, Bolu, Kizilirmak and Kumbaba IAs, serving under the DSI Fifth Regional

Directorate are assessed (Table I). The DSI Fifth Regional Directorate is geographically located in the Central

Anatolian and Western Black Sea regions (Figure 2). Its service area covers the watersheds of the Sakarya,

Kizilirmak and Yesilirmak rivers. Annual average precipitation in the region is about 455 mm.

Table II includes characteristics of the irrigation schemes. Data on irrigation area, irrigated land, water diverted

to schemes, irrigation water need, and cropping pattern for the years 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 are gathered from

the DSI monitoring and evaluation reports; yield and unit price data are gathered from the records of the DSI Fifth

Regional Directorate State Hydraulic Works (DSI, 2003a, b, 2004a, b).

METHOD

In this study, the approach recommended by the International Programme for Technology and Research in

Irrigation and Drainage (IPTRID) for performance evaluation in the irrigation and drainage sector is utilized

Figure 1. Distribution of transferred schemes based on undertaking organization (DSI, 2005)

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 59: 138–149 (2010)

Table I. Irrigation schemes in the study area

Irrigation facility Starting date for operation Date of transfer Type of irrigation organization

Kalecik 1970 15.08.2002 Kalecik central irrigation cooperativeAkinci 1970 09.01.1998 Akinci plain irrigation associationAsartepe 1983 24.06.1996 Ayas Asartepe irrigation associationGokceoren 1983 22.07.2003 Gokceoren agricultural development cooperativeKoprukoy 1970–84 06.02.1998 Koprukoy right bank irrigation association

Kesikkopru K. Kecili irrigation associationBolu 1970–85 20.06.2003 Bolu plain irrigation associationKizilirmak 1994 31.10.1994 Kizilirmak irrigation associationKumbaba 1980 22.07.2003 Kumbaba irrigation cooperative

Source: DSI records.

142 B. CAKMAK ET AL.

(Malano and Burton, 2001). Environmental performance is not evaluated due to lack of reliable data. Related data

for performance evaluation are taken from the records of the irrigation association. The benchmarking performance

indicators used in performance assessment of irrigation schemes are given in Table III.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table IV displays the water supply ratios, which are determined by the dividing total amount of water diverted to an

irrigation system by total irrigation water need. The maximum ratio was 8.4 in Kumbaba and the minimum 1.5 in

Kalecik in 2003. While the relative water supply ratio was over 2.0 in pre-transfer, this ratio decreased to about

1.5 in the Kalecik irrigation scheme. This may be evaluated as an improvement brought by the transfer.

Cost recovery ratios, which are obtained by comparing collected water fees with expenses spent on O&M, are the

indicators of success rates for irrigation operations. The ratios were maximum in the Kizilirmak irrigation scheme

Figure 2. Map and provinces of the study area

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 59: 138–149 (2010)

Table II. Characteristics of evaluated irrigation schemes

Name ofirrigation

Waterresource

Irrigationarea (ha)

Conveyanceand distributionnetwork

Cropping pattern Irrigationmanagement

Irrigationsystem

Kalecik Kizilirmak river 600 Classic(open canal)

Sugar beet, cereal, Free flow(furrow)

Pumping

Akinci Kurt bogazi 2800 Classic Garden, sugar beet, vegetable,sunflower

Free flow Gravity

Asartepe Ilhan 1500 Classic Cereal, corn, sugar beet, sapling Free flow Gravity –Pumping

Gokceoren Kizilirmak 350 Classic Sugar beet, garden, corn, vineyard Free flow PumpingKoprukoy Kizilirmak 3750 Classic Cereal, bean, sun flower, sugar beet Free flow Gravity –

PumpingBolu Buyuksu/mudurnu 8600 Classic

(lifted open canal)Sugar beet, corn, potato, vegetable Free flow Gravity –

PumpingKizilirmak Kizilirmak 4840 Classic Garden, bean, vegetable Free flow Gravity

Kumbaba Kizilirmak 550 Classic Sugar beet, vegetable, vineyard Free flow Pumping

Source: DSI records.

IRRIGATION PERFORMANCE OF TRANSFERRED SCHEMES IN TURKEY 143

with 10.6 and minimum in the Gokceoren irrigation scheme with 1.0 (Table V). Cost recovery ratios of the year

2000 were higher than those of the years 2001, 2002 and 2003 due to lower MOM costs. Hence, it is possible to infer

that after the year 2000, MOM costs have increased compared to the collected water fees in the case study irrigation

schemes.

Table VI presents the maintenance expenditure to revenue ratios, which are obtained by dividing the total amount

of collected water fees by maintenance costs. The highest maintenance/income ratio was obtained in the Kizilirmak

Table III. Benchmarking performance indicators used in the case study and data required (Burton et al., 2000)

Activity area Performance indicator Data required

Water deliveryperformance

Annual relative water supply Total annual inflow volume to system/Volume of annualirrigation water required by crop

Financialperformance

Cost recovery ratio Total revenue collected from water users/Total management,operation and maintenance (MOM) cost

Maintenance expenditure to revenue ratio Total maintenance expenditure/Total revenue collected fromwater users

Operating cost per unit area ($ ha�1) Total operation expenditure/Total command area serviced bythe system

Total cost per person employed on waterdelivery ($/person)

Total cost of MOM personnel/Total number of peopleemployed

Revenue collection performance Total service revenue collected/Total service revenue dueService area per personnel (ha/person) Total number of MOM staff/Total command area serviced

by systemProductiveperformance

Output per unit command area ($ ha�1) Gross value of agricultural production/Total cultivablecommand area

Output per irrigated area ($ ha�1) Gross value of agricultural production /Total irrigated crop areaOutput per unit irrigation supply ($ m�3) Gross value of agricultural production/Total inflow volume

of waterOutput per unit water consumed ($ m�3) Gross value of agricultural production/Total volume of

water required by cropEnvironmentalperformance

Water quality: salinity of supply anddrainage water

Electrical conductivity of periodically collected Measurementof periodically daily inflow water to scheme

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 59: 138–149 (2010)

Tab

leIV

.A

nn

ual

rela

tive

wat

ersu

pp

lyra

tio

s

Irri

gat

ion

sch

eme

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

To

tal

wat

erin

pu

tto

the

syst

em(m

3)

To

tal

irri

gat

ion

wat

ern

eed

(m3)

Rel

ativ

ew

ater

sup

ply

rati

o

To

tal

wat

erin

pu

tto

the

syst

em(m

3)

To

tal

irri

gat

ion

wat

ern

eed

(m3)

Rel

ativ

ew

ater

sup

ply

rati

o

To

tal

wat

erin

pu

tto

the

syst

em(m

3)

To

tal

irri

gat

ion

wat

ern

eed

(m3)

Rel

ativ

ew

ater

sup

ply

rati

o

To

tal

wat

erin

pu

tto

the

syst

em(m

3)

To

tal

irri

gat

ion

wat

ern

eed

(m3)

Rel

ativ

ew

ater

sup

ply

rati

o

Kal

ecik

25

08

68

61

23

79

59

2.0

39

50

77

51

54

60

25

2.6

18

86

03

91

43

64

89

1.3

14

23

69

59

49

50

01

.5G

ok

ceo

ren

31

49

18

61

65

86

44

1.9

38

07

36

42

04

65

92

1.9

28

61

79

98

06

20

03

.51

32

53

29

85

85

00

1.5

Bo

lu9

28

63

88

36

81

54

42

.51

46

74

21

63

46

57

80

4.2

12

57

52

42

10

20

60

00

1.2

18

59

29

50

46

07

40

04

.0K

um

bab

a5

59

35

03

61

97

91

.51

14

43

50

10

61

78

61

.11

27

35

04

09

57

80

.37

89

54

39

45

00

8.4

Kop

ruk

oy

63

12

00

00

38

28

43

80

1.7

46

65

50

00

12

08

92

80

3.9

77

56

12

80

28

96

45

28

2.7

89

07

40

80

35

72

50

02

.5A

sart

epe

97

87

00

04

94

91

06

2.0

59

62

27

23

97

00

50

0.2

86

86

71

49

24

00

00

0.9

11

26

46

98

36

54

00

02

.5A

kın

cı8

00

67

16

22

16

03

83

.68

19

04

78

23

69

43

03

.51

05

10

06

06

96

00

00

1.5

10

03

12

56

15

78

57

46

.4

Kız

ılır

mak

Tim

arli

44

72

70

00

11

27

17

30

4.0

44

87

00

00

10

94

83

36

4.0

68

50

00

00

15

26

34

58

4.5

86

20

00

00

13

29

20

20

6.5

Tab

leV

.C

ost

reco

ver

yra

tio

Irri

gat

ion

sch

eme

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

To

tal

coll

ecte

dw

ater

fee

(US

$)

To

tal

MO

Mco

st(U

S$

)

Co

stre

cover

yra

tio

(%)

To

tal

coll

ecte

dw

ater

fee

(US

$)

To

tal

MO

Mco

st(U

S$

)

Co

stre

cover

yra

tio

(%)

To

tal

coll

ecte

dw

ater

fee

(US

$)

To

tal

MO

Mco

st(U

S$

)

Co

stre

cover

yra

tio

(%)

To

tal

coll

ecte

dw

ater

fee

(US

$)

To

tal

MO

Mco

st(U

S$

)

Co

stre

cover

yra

tio

(%)

Kal

ecik

68

51

31

51

32

1.7

23

51

45

17

86

24

.53

63

99

13

69

04

26

.64

83

42

42

71

66

11

.1G

ok

ceo

ren

97

87

55

72

61

7.6

31

73

97

32

95

54

.39

35

94

51

29

47

18

.36

40

14

63

60

42

41

.0B

olu

21

26

36

28

39

33

.85

45

35

10

61

55

15

.13

27

10

25

82

40

12

.71

57

62

85

83

60

42

2.7

Ku

mb

aba

25

87

97

47

26

.51

01

68

94

28

81

.16

72

26

30

53

99

22

.01

09

07

00

Kop

ruk

oy

20

93

86

71

07

31

.25

37

05

14

31

02

37

.57

79

25

97

05

65

8.0

67

71

91

02

95

34

6.6

Asa

rtep

e3

67

49

42

07

88

7.3

38

59

92

76

89

01

3.9

73

93

14

33

78

81

7.0

77

14

97

98

74

99

.7A

kın

cı1

47

95

27

48

45

3.8

23

96

81

66

41

71

4.4

31

09

52

76

81

91

1.2

39

45

34

31

44

19

.1

Kız

ılır

mak

Tim

arli

31

09

51

01

72

43

0.6

38

44

51

53

88

62

5.0

79

98

56

50

17

61

2.3

99

29

39

38

51

51

0.6

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 59: 138–149 (2010)

144 B. CAKMAK ET AL.

Table VI. Maintenance expenditure to revenue ratio for the year 2003

Irrigation scheme Total maintenancecost (US$) (1)

Total revenue collectedfrom water users (US$) (2)

Maintenance expenditure torevenue ratio (%) (1)/(2)

Kalecik 2 120 48 342 4.4Gokceoren — 64 015 —Bolu 3 695 157 628 2.3Kumbaba — 10 907 —Koprukoy 2 827 67 719 4.2Asartepe 4 786 77 149 6.2Akinci 289 39 453 0.7

Kizilirmak Timarli 12 367 99 293 12.5

IRRIGATION PERFORMANCE OF TRANSFERRED SCHEMES IN TURKEY 145

Timarli irrigation scheme with 12.5%, and the lowest ratio obtained in the Akinci irrigation scheme with 0.7%. This

low return rate in the Akinci irrigation scheme indicates that collected water fees are not sufficient to meet the

maintenance costs. Thus, not only the MOM costs but also maintenance costs per se are found to be higher than the

collected water fees.

In evaluating the financial performance indicators American dollars (US$) are taken as the currency unit to

facilitate comparison internationally. Table VII comprises the operating cost per unit irrigation area in the DSI Fifth

Region irrigation schemes. Even though the highest MOM cost occurred in Koprukoy with US$102 953, the highest

cost per unit area occurred in the Kalecik irrigation scheme with US$71.2 ha�1. The lowest cost was obtained in the

Bolu irrigation scheme with US$6.5 ha�1. Even though we obtained these results through the assessment of the

financial performance of the irrigation schemes in the case study area, further investigation of other schemes in

Turkey is needed to reach systematic conclusions.

The costs per person employed in water distribution were analysed in Table VIII. This value was obtained by

dividing the total costs of O&M personnel by the total number of people employed in O&M. The highest cost

occurred in the Akinci irrigation scheme with US$7045.9 per person, and the lowest in the Gokceoren irrigation

scheme with US$636.0 per person. In comparison of total MOM costs and total revenues of the irrigation schemes,

Akinci is more cost-effective than Gokceoren. To illustrate, cost recovery ratio of the Akinci irrigation scheme is

higher than that of Gokceoren. These figures can be elucidated further through cost–benefit analyses pertaining to

the financial performance of irrigation schemes in the study area.

Revenue collection performance is given in Table IX. The best performance was obtained in the Kalecik

irrigation scheme with 95%, and the lowest in the Koprukoy irrigation scheme with 78%. As a result, it is analysed

that revenue collection performance rates are decisive on all related financial performance indicators.

Table VII. Operating cost per unit area for the year 2003

Irrigation scheme Total operationcost (US$) (1)

Total command area servicedby the system (ha) (2)

Operating cost per unitarea (US$ ha�1) (1)/(2)

Kalecik 42 717 600 71.2Gokceoren 63 604 1 850 34.4Bolu 58 360 8 980 6.5Kumbaba 24 028 550 43.7Koprukoy 102 953 6 600 15.6Asartepe 79 875 1 500 53.3Akinci 43 144 2 800 15.4

Kizilirmak Timarli 93 852 4 840 19.4

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 59: 138–149 (2010)

Table VIII. Total cost per person employed on water delivery for the year 2003

Irrigation scheme Total cost of MOMpersonnel (US$)

Total number of peopleemployed person

Cost per personnel(US$/person)

Kalecik 6 743 9 749.2Gokceoren 1 272 2 636.0Bolu 19 081 8 2 385.2Kumbaba 1 731 1 1 731.5Koprukoy 50 177 11 4 561.5Asartepe 29 941 8 3 742.7Akinci 28 184 4 7 045.9

Kizilirmak Timarli 42 049 6 7 008.3

Table IX. Revenue collection performance for the year 2003

Irrigation scheme Total collected waterfee from the users (US$) (1)

Total water fee to becollected (US$) (2)

Revenue collectionperformance (%) (1)/(2)

Kalecik 45 936 48 342 95Gokceoren 53 452 64 015 83Bolu 140 548 157 628 89Kumbaba 9 501 10 907 87Koprukoy 53 244 67 719 78Asartepe 61 452 77 149 79Akinci 37 006 39 453 93

Kizilirmak Timarli 89 94 94

146 B. CAKMAK ET AL.

Irrigation service areas and service areas per personnel are indicated in Table X. Of the DSI Fifth Region IAs,

Bolu IA has the highest personnel need and Kalecik IA the lowest. In the research area, service areas per O&M

personnel are quite large and it indicates that IAs have insufficient personnel.

The highest output per unit of command area was obtained from the Asartepe irrigation scheme with

US$2745.1 ha�1, and the lowest from the Gokceoren irrigation scheme with US$325.2 ha�1 (Table XI). The highest

output per unit of irrigated area was obtained from the Asartepe irrigation scheme with US$5070.9 ha�1 and the

lowest from Kizilirmak Timarli irrigation scheme with US$1028.0 ha�1 (Table XII). Based on the calculations of

Table X. Service area per personnel for the year 2003

Irrigation scheme Total number of personnelemployed in operation and

maintenance (1)

Irrigation area (ha) (2) Service area per personnel(ha/person) (2)/(1)

Kalecik 9 600 67Gokceoren 2 1 850 925Bolu 8 8 980 1 122Kumbaba 1 550 550Koprukoy 11 6 600 600Asartepe 8 1 500 188Akinci 4 2 800 700

Kizilirmak Timarli 6 4 840 806

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 59: 138–149 (2010)

Table XI. Output per unit command area for the year 2003

Irrigation scheme Annual total agriculturalproduction (US$)

Irrigationarea (ha)

Output per unitcommand area (US$ ha�1)

Kalecik 1 001 367 600 1,669.0Gokceoren 601 583 1 850 325.2Bolu 6 627 355 8 980 738.0Kumbaba 283 694 550 515.8Koprukoy 2 211 394 6 600 335.1Asartepe 4 117 585 1 500 2,745.1Akinci 1 178 830 2 800 421.0

Kizilirmak Timarli 1 855 601 4 840 383.4

Table XII. Output per unit irrigated area for the year 2003

Irrigation scheme Annual total agriculturalproduction (US$)

Irrigationarea (ha)

Output per unitirrigated area (US$ ha�1)

Kalecik 1 001 367 211 4 745.8Gokceoren 601 583 202 2 978.1Bolu 6 627 355 2 194 3 020.7Kumbaba 283 694 63 4 503.1Koprukoy 2 211 394 1 429 1 547.5Asartepe 4 117 585 812 5 070.9Akinci 1 178 830 566 2 082.7

Kizilirmak Timarli 1 855 601 1 805 1 028.0

IRRIGATION PERFORMANCE OF TRANSFERRED SCHEMES IN TURKEY 147

annual total agricultural production and total amount of water diverted to the network, incomes per unit of water

diverted to the network are given in Table XIII. The Kalecik irrigation scheme had the highest income per unit of

irrigation water diverted to the network with US$0.7 m�3 and Kizilirmak Timarli and Koprukoy irrigation schemes

had the lowest income with US$0.2 m�3. The outputs per unit of consumed irrigation water are given in Table XIV.

The highest income was obtained from the Kumbaba irrigation scheme with US$2.6 m�3, and the lowest from

Kizilirmak Timarli irrigation scheme with US$0.2 m�3. Tables XI–XIVenable comparison of all irrigation schemes

in terms of command area, irrigated area, diverted water to network and irrigation water consumed.

Table XIII. Output per unit of irrigation supply for the year 2003

Irrigation scheme Annual total agriculturalproduction (US$)

Total amount of waterdiverted to network (m3)

Output per unit ofwater diverted (US$ m�3)

Kalecik 1 001 367 1 423 695 0.7Gokceoren 601 583 1 325 329 0.5Bolu 6 627 355 18 592 950 0.4Kumbaba 283 694 789 543 0.4Koprukoy 2 211 394 89 074 080 0.2Asartepe 4 117 585 11 264 698 0.4Akinci 1 178 830 10 031 256 0.1

Kizilirmak Timarli 1 855 601 86 200 000 0.2

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 59: 138–149 (2010)

Table XIV. Output per unit of water consumed for the year 2003

Irrigation scheme Annual total agriculturalproduction ($)

Irrigation waterneed (m3)

Output per unit of waterconsumption (US$ m�3)

Kalecik 1 001 367 1 089 000 0.9Gokceoren 601 583 1 419 500 0.4Bolu 6 627 355 3 147 900 2.1Kumbaba 283 694 108 000 2.6Koprukoy 2 211 394 2 092 500 1.1Asartepe 4 117 585 3 838 500 1.1Akinci 1 178 830 1 467 014 0.8

Kizilirmak Timarli 1 855 601 11 149 096 0.2

148 B. CAKMAK ET AL.

Irrigation water resources of the DSI Fifth Regional Directorate service area are provided by the Kizilirmak river.

In this respect, irrigation salinity values in all irrigations were recorded to be almost the same. Salinity classes of all

irrigation schemes were determined as C3S1.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The role of irrigation management transfer in reducing the financial burden on government as well as in improving

water use efficiency and equity through farmers’ involvement has been recognized by the concerned public

institutions in Turkey since the early 1990s. Hence, the DSI, the central water agency, has managed to transfer the

management, operation and maintenance of the irrigation systems at secondary and tertiary levels to the irrigation

associations.

Results of irrigation applications should be analysed to assess the operational success of the transferred irrigation

schemes. Commonly used performance indicators such as the irrigation ratio, irrigation efficiency, cost recovery

ratio and maintenance costs are particularly important for assessment of facility success. Accordingly, the results of

this study show that significant improvements are recorded in irrigation water fee collection rates and financial cost

reduction in irrigation systems operated by the IAs. Mixed results are observed in terms of irrigation ratios. While

there are improvements in two irrigation schemes, i.e. Kalecik and Gokceoren, there are evident increases in the

water supply ratio in six other irrigation schemes. Moreover, the MOM costs in general and the maintenance costs

per se have increased compared to the collected water fees in the case study irrigation schemes. It is observed that

the IAs, in the case study area, have been allocating very little from their revenues (collected water fees) to the

maintenance of the schemes. In this respect, works towards the modernization and rehabilitation of facilities

transferred by the DSI will be beneficial to increase the operational effectiveness of IAs in the future. Revenue

collection performance rates of the IAs are much higher (78% minimum) than the public institutions’ (DSI) overall

performance, which averaged 43% in 1993. Another key finding is that service areas per O&M personnel are quite

large, indicating that the IAs have insufficient personnel employed in O&M in the case study area.

This study includes the analyses of the irrigation performance of the schemes in only one of the Regional

Directorates of the DSI, and more systematic and comparative research needs to be conducted in order to be able to

analyse the whole set of irrigation schemes in Turkey. To illustrate, the study displays the comparison of the

financial performance indicators of the irrigation schemes such as the command area, irrigated area, diverted water

to network and consumed irrigation water in the case study area. Yet, further investigation of the other schemes in

Turkey is necessary to reach systematic conclusions pertaining to financial performance.

In a larger context, at national level, the desired benefits of transfers are not sufficiently achieved. Water fees are

far behind the current reliable values. In general, water measurement facilities allowing measured water

distribution are available in IAs, however they are not used effectively. Some IAs lack water measurement

infrastructure. Water fees are based on irrigated land area and crop type. Yet, ‘‘irrigation duration-hour’’ (TL h�1)

based pricing is applied in a few of them. Infrastructure for transition to volume-based (m3 or hour) pricing should

be established.

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 59: 138–149 (2010)

IRRIGATION PERFORMANCE OF TRANSFERRED SCHEMES IN TURKEY 149

Participation of farmers in operations and management in the irrigation sector helps to ensure the sustainability

of the system, reduce public expenditure and improve efficiency, equity and standards of service. Thus,

sustainability of water resource management depends not only on appropriate technology, but also on the

institutions involved in irrigation management at local levels. Although it must be clear that IAs have great benefits

in managing water effectively in the irrigation sector, it should be equally emphasized that for sustainable IAs the

existence of a facilitating social, political and legal framework is essential. In Turkey, strategies related to irrigation

operations were not effectively put into action. Legal, technical and socio-economic infrastructure were not

strengthened enough. In this respect, the proposed ‘‘Irrigation Associations Law’’ can play an important role in

providing the necessary framework for the IAs to function properly.

REFERENCES

Bayazit M, Avci I. 1997. Water resources of Turkey: potential, planning, development and management. International Journal of Water

Resources Development 13(4): 443–452.

Burton M, Molden D, Scutsch J. 2000. Benchmarking irrigation and drainage system performance. Position Paper, International Programme on

Technology and Research in Irrigation and Drainage. IPTRID-FAO-WB, Report on a Workshop 3–4 August 2000, FAO, Rome, Italy.

Cakmak B. 2001. Konya Sulama Birliklerinde Sulama Performansinin Degerlendirilmesi. A.U.Ziraat Fakultesi Tarim Bilimleri Dergisi 7(3):

111–117, Ankara, Turkey.

Cakmak B, Beyribey M, Yildirim EY, Kodal S. 2004. Benchmarking performance of irrigation schemes: a case study from Turkey. Irrigation and

Drainage 53(2): 155–164.

Kibaroglu A, Scheumann W, Klaphake A, Kramer A, Carius A. 2005. Cooperation on Turkey’s Transboundary Waters. Berlin Technical

University, Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety: Berlin, Germany.

Kloezen W, Garces-Restrepo C. 1998. Assessing Irrigation Performance with Comparative Indicators: the Case of the Alto Rio Lerma Irrigation

District, Mexico. Research Report 22. International Water Management Institute: Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Malano H, Burton M. 2001. Guidelines for Benchmarking Performance in the Irrigation and Drainage Sector. International Programme for

Technology and Research in Irrigation and Drainage (IPTRID), FAO: Rome, Italy; 44 pp.

Molden DJ, Sakthivadiel R, Perry C, Fraiture J. 1998. Indicators for Comparing the Performance Irrigated Agriculture. IWMI Research Report

20, Sri Lanka.

Murray-Rust DH, Svendsen M. 2001. Performance of locally managed irrigation in Turkey: Gediz case study. Irrigation and Drainage Systems

15: 373–388, the Netherlands.

State Hydraulic Works (DSI) Fifth Regional Directorate. 2003a. Irrigation Results. Ankara.

State Hydraulic Works (DSI) Fifth Regional Directorate. 2003b. Evaluation Report of Irrigation Schemes Operated by DSI and Transferred.

General Directorate of DSI, Operation and Maintenance Unit: Ankara, Turkey.

State Hydraulic Works (DSI) Fifth Regional Directorate. 2004a. Bolu-Golkoy Study. Ankara, Turkey.

State Hydraulic Works (DSI) Fifth Regional Directorate. 2004b. Cropping Pattern and Plantation Report. Ankara, Turkey.

State Hydraulic Works (DSI) Fifth Regional Directorate. 2005. Evaluation Report of Irrigation Schemes Operated by DSI and Transferred.

General Directorate of the State Hydraulic Works, Operation and Maintenance Unit: Ankara, Turkey.

State Hydraulic Works (DSI) Fifth Regional Directorate. 2007. The role of the General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works in development of

water resources of Turkey. In: Proceedings of the International Congress on River Basin Management, Antalya; 9.

Svendsen M, Murray-Rust DH. 2001. Creating and consulting locally managed irrigation in Turkey: the national perspective. Irrigation and

Drainage Systems 15: 355–371, the Netherlands.

Vermillion DL, Garces-Restrepo C. 1998. Impacts of Colombia’s Current Irrigation Management Transfer Program. International Water

Management Institute, Research Report 25, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Vermillion DL, Samad M, Pusposutardjo S, Arif SS, Rochdyanto S. 2000. An Assessment of the Small-Scale Irrigation Management Turnover

Program in Indonesia. International Water Management Institute, Research Report 38, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Yercan M, Dorsan F, Ul MA. 2004. Comparative analysis of performance criteria in irrigation schemes: a case study of the Gediz River Basin in

Turkey. Agricultural Water Management 66(2004): 259–266.

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 59: 138–149 (2010)