Mersin (existing MM) Mersin was already a metropolitan municipality. With the Law, service area was increased from 1,850 km2 to15,853 km² and service population of the MM increased from 950,418 to 1,745,221. More than 8-fold increase in area 45% increase in service population Kayseri (existing MM) Kayseri was already a metropolitan municipality. With the Law, service area of the MM increased from 9,465 km2 to 16,197 km2 and service population of the MM increased from 921,238 to 1,341,056. 12-fold increase in area Service Population increased by 31% Denizli (new MM) Denizli became a metropolitan municipality. With the Law, service area of the MM increased from 1,159 km2 to 11,868 km2 and the service population increased from 654,321 to 993,742. 10-fold increase in area 35% increase in service population Muğla (new MM) Muğla became a metropolitan municipality. With the Law, service area of the MM increased from 1,659 km2 to 12,654 km2 and service population of the MM increased from 99,158 to 866,665. More than 7-fold increase in area 88% increase in services population. Provincial municipalities Kırşehir No change. Kütahya No change. District municipality changes Ödemiş Izmir (existing MM) Ödemiş became part of existing İzmir Metropolitan Municipality. Almost 2-fold increase in area 13% increase in service population Bergama Bergama became part of existing İzmir Metropolitan Municipality. İzmir was already a metropolitan municipality. With the Law, the Municipality’s service area extended to cover nine additional districts including Bergama and Ödemiş and therefore, the service area was increased from 6,810 km2 to12, 007 km² and the service population of the MM has increased from 3,679,242 to 4,168,415. Elbistan Kahramanmaraş (newly created MM) Elbistan became a part of the newly created Kahramanmaraş Metropolitan Municipality in March 2014. Ilıca Antalya (existing MM) Ilıca Municipality was closed and its services transferred to Antalya Metropolitan Municipality and ASAT (for water and sewerage).
data were reported only in percentage terms or simple ratios, without supplying the background detail used in deriving the ratios. Additionally, the expansion of the MSP with the AF, and the sudden expansions in service areas experienced by the utilities after Law 6360 in 2014, contributed to discontinuities in data collection and aberrations in the M&E data, as partly noted in the table below. The problems and challenges cited above have impacted M&E data quality while concurrently leading to a systematic underestimation of project impact and benefits. Table 9: Investments Funded under MSP and MSP AF SKIs MSP (2006-2011) MSP Comments MUSKI - Mugla Water supply and sanitation investments, including a WWTP No investments in MSP AF M&E data collected stopped after 2012. MESKI - Mersin Water supply investments only Waste water investments only, collection network only Water supply related data available until 2012, and sanitation related data available after 2011.There was sufficient time to assess the water supply impact, but corresponding data was unavailable. DESKI - Denizli water supply, storm water and waste water related investments. Mostly rehabs. Water supply, waste water and storm water investment s. Mostly rehabs.. Long term data was available, but due to attribution problems and crowding effects (indicator reporting on larger areas than served by the project) the data does not reflect all evidence of impact. Also, it was not possible to accurately estimate micro level technical performance (NRW) due to lack of SCADA. ASAT - Antalya Both water supply and waste water (including a WTTP) related investments Both water supply and waste water related investments The only utility receiving both water and waste water support in both MSP and MSP AF. Investments were both massive and varied. Full manifestation of project benefits will take time as also spelled out in the feasibility studies. Table 10: Municipal Infrastructure Investment Costs by Sector (Million EUR) Sub-Projects Loan Withdrawn Water Supply Waste Water Solid Waste Case Studies MSP I MESKİ 28,60 √ 28,60 Polatli 3,18 Gelibolu 2,08 √ Ödemiş 9,75 √ √ Muğla 16,51 √ √ 16,51 Bergama 2,27 √ Kütahya 4,77 √
Supervision/ICR Seema Manghee Senior Infrastructure Specialist/ TTL ECSSD TTL Mara Warwick Country Sector Coordinator/TTL ECSSD TTL Elif Ayhan Sr.Urban Development Specialist/TTL ECSSD TTL Stephen George Karam Sector Leader Sector Leader ECSSD Yarissa Sommer ICR TTL GSU09 Seda Aroymak Sr. Financial Management Specialist GGO21 FM Soraya Goga Lead Urban Specialist Lead ECSUW Jung Eun Oh Sr. Transport Economist ECSTR Stanley Peabody Safeguards Specialist GEEDR Safeguard Chukwudi H. Okafor Sr. Social Development Specialist ECSS4 Social Esra Arikan Sr. Environmental Specialist GEN03 Environment Zeynep Darendeliler Social Development Specialist ECSSO Social Ashna Mathema Urban Development Specialist ECSUW Canan Yildiz Consultant Arzu Uraz Yavas Safeguard Specialist GSU03 Social Bernard Baratz Consultant Ruxandra Maria Floroiu Lead Environmental Specialist Environment Michael Peter Steen Jacobsen Lead Water and Sanitation Specialist ECSUW Frederick Edmund Brusberg Consultant/Social Safeguards EASVS Safeguard Ulker Karamullaoglu Program Assistant ECCU6 Bianca Moldovean Consultant GSU09 ICR analyst Suha Satana Consultant Staff Time and Cost Stage of Project Cycle Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only) No. of staff weeks USD Thousands (including travel and consultant costs) Lending FY03 10.28 53751.51 FY04 30.90 109880.58 FY05 80.54 334426.87 FY06 0.10 2912.27
1- Polatlı (Ankara) 5- Mugla 9- Ilıca (Antalya) 2- MESKI (Mersin) 6- Bergama (İzmir) 10-Elbistan (K.Maraş) 3-Gelibolu (Çanakkale) 7- Kütahya 11- ASAT (Antalya) 4- Ödemiş (İzmir) 8- Denizli Table 2. The Municipalities/Utilities participated in MSP Additional Financing 1- ASAT (Antalya) 5- Kırşehir 2- MESKI (Mersin) 6- Kayseri 3- DESKI (Denizli) 7- Beypazarı (Ankara) 4- İSKİ (İstanbul) Table 3. Investments financed under Component A Sub-borrower Municipality Investments Polatlı Municipality (Ankara) Water Treatment Plant Gelibolu Municipality (Çanakkale) Landfill Ödemiş Municipality (İzmir) Water Treatment Plant Wastewater Treatment Plant Muğla Municipality Water Network Sewerage Network Wastewater Treatment Plant Bergama Municipality (İzmir) Landfill Kütahya Municipality Water Network Ilıca Municipality (Antalya) Water Network Sewerage Network Storm Water Network Elbistan Municipality (Kahramanmaraş) Water Network Denizli Water and Sewerage Utility (DESKI) Water Network Sewerage Network Storm Water Network Antalya Water and Sewerage Utility (ASAT) Water Network Sewerage Network Wastewater Treatment Plant Mersin Water and Sewerage Utility (MESKI) Water Network Sewerage Network Kayseri Metropolitan Municipality Landfill Kırşehir Municipality Water Network İstanbul Water and Sewerage Utility (ISKI) Sewerage Collector and Network (Cancelled)
Date 2009 2016 31-Dec-16 Comment Target not achieved. The sub-project in Beypazari was cancelled. The AF established the 2009 baseline. The target was updated for 2016 in the 2014 restructuring paper. Mugla Value 0 - 1,486 544 Date 2006 2012 31-Dec-12 Comment Target not achieved The AF established the 2006 baseline. The target was updated for 2012 in the 2011 restructuring paper. Odemis Value 0 - 3878 1170 Date 2006 2012 31-Dec-12 Comment Target not achieved The AF established the 2006 baseline. The target was updated for 2012 in the 2011 restructuring paper. PDO Indicator 3: Amount of waste safely disposed in landfills. (Tons/year, Custom) Category Composite Baseline Composite Target Values Actual Composite Value Achieved at Completion or Target Years Total 0 444,845 232,341 Comment Target not achieved; 52% of target value reached Total values are the result of simple addition, calculated for the purposes of the ICR, as per PAD recommendation. PDO Indicators were added in the AF agreement. All sub-projects closed by the closing date of the original loan. PDO Indicator 3: Sub Indicators Project Category Baseline Original Target Values (from approval documents) Formally Revised /Added Target Values Actual Value Achieved at Completion or Target Years Bergama Value 0 - 21,900 36,000 Date 2006 2012 31-Dec-12 Comment Target surpassed The AF established the 2006 baseline. The target was updated for 2012 in the 2011 restructuring paper. Gelibolu Value 0 - 32,227 9,978 Date 2006 2012 31-Dec-12 Comment Target not achieved The AF established the 2006 baseline. The target was updated for 2012 in the 2011 restructuring paper. Kayseri Value 0 - 390,718 186,363 Date 2009 2016 31-Dec-16 Comment Target not achieved The AF established the 2009 baseline. The target was updated for 2016 in the 2014 restructuring paper.
Comment The AF established the 2006 baseline. The target was updated for 2012 in the 2011 restructuring paper. Denizli II Value 0.66 - 0.55 1.14 Date 2009 2014 31-Dec-14 Comment The AF established the 2009 baseline. The target was updated for 2014 in the 2011 restructuring paper. Denizli II DESKI Value 0.68 - 0.61 1.14 Date 2014 2016 31-Dec-16 Comment The baseline and target were set in the 2014 restructuring, when the project was added. Denizli overall Value 0.74 0.61 0.58 Date 2015 Comment Target Surpassed. See comment under PDO 1. To facilitate carrying out the economic analysis and for consistency across cities where splitting of indicators occurred, the ICR considers the original baseline determined at the AF (2006), 2016 target and the final overall results assessed during the ICR. Elbistan Value 0.76 - 0.5 1.15 Date 2006 2012 31-Dec-12 Comment Target not achieved. The AF established the 2006 baseline. The target was updated for 2012 in the 2011 restructuring paper. Gelibolu Value 0.74 - 0.65 0.65 Date 2006 2012 31-Dec-12 Comment Target achieved. The AF established the 2006 baseline. The target was updated for 2012 in the 2011 restructuring paper. Ilica Value 0.15 - 0.08 0.08 Date 2006 2012 31-Dec-12 Comment Target achieved. The AF established the 2006 baseline. The target was updated for 2012 in the 2011 restructuring paper. Kayseri Value 1.66 - 1.06 0.16 Date 2009 2014 31-Dec-16 Comment Target surpassed. The AF established the 2009 baseline. The target was updated for 2014 in the 2011 restructuring paper. Kirsehir Value 1.09 - 1 0.84 Date 8-Apr-10 8-Apr-10 31-Dec-16 Comment Target surpassed. The AF established the 2009 baseline. The target was updated for 2016 in the 2014 restructuring paper. Kutahya Value 0.3 - 0.65 0.5 Date 2006 2012 31-Dec-12 Comment Target surpassed. The AF established the 2006 baseline. The target was updated for 2012 in the 2011 restructuring paper. MESKI I Value 0.64 - 0.67 0.83 Date 2006 2012 31-Dec-12