This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 ANKARA 004121 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
STATE FOR EUR/SE, EUR/PGI, OES/PCI 
PLEASE PASS EPA (BFREEMAN, HHUYNH) 
ALSO FOR USAID/EE/EEST (CMITCHELL) 
 
 
E.O.12958: N/A 
TAGS: SENV TBIO PGOV ECON TU
SUBJECT:  WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE: RECENT IMPROVEMENTS 
AMID PERSISTENT NEED FOR RESOURCES 
 
 
REF:  A. ANKARA 611 
¶B. 02 ANKARA 7205 
 
 
¶1.  Summary.  Turkey's wastewater resources infrastructure 
serves its metropolitan populations sufficiently but is 
unable to provide adequate sanitation services in rural 
areas.  Most wastewater is disposed of untreated in bodies 
of water.  Although the number of wastewater treatment 
facilities in Turkey doubled in the 1990s, resources have 
been reduced over the past two decades and now severely 
limit construction of new facilities.  The huge price tag 
that comes with infrastructure is likely to make this a 
troublesome chapter in Turkey's EU aspirations. End summary. 
 
 
¶2.  Untreated wastewater is one of the most costly 
infrastructure elements necessary to protect human health 
from bacteria and viruses, tourist beaches from 
contamination, ecosystems from destruction, and fisheries as 
productive economic options.  Turkey's wastewater treatment 
standards are consistent with those of the EU and World Bank 
for physical, chemical and biological parameters but outside 
of major cities, resources allotted to municipalities to 
meet those high standards fall short.  The numbers are not 
encouraging: 
 
 
--  Only 17 percent of Turkey's population is served by a 
public wastewater treatment system.  In the U.S., 71 percent 
are served.  The OECD average is 59 percent. 
 
 
-- About 70 percent of wastewater is discharged without 
treatment into rivers.  About a quarter of municipalities 
also rely on unsanitary seepage pits for domestic wastewater 
disposal. 
 
 
-- Many municipal wastewater treatment plants are not 
operational due to high operating costs. 
 
 
MOST POLLUTION COMES FROM AGRICULTURE 
-------------------------------------- 
 
 
¶3.  The greatest source of wastewater in Turkey is 
agriculture, followed by domestic and industrial uses. 
Turkey's most severe agricultural nutrient discharge pours 
into the Black Sea from the Kizilirmak, Yesilirmak and 
Sakarya rivers in Central Anatolia.  Agricultural wastewater 
is so severe from these rivers that the Global Environmental 
Facility (GEF) issued a $12 million grant earlier this year 
to improve agricultural practices. 
 
 
¶4.  Industries produce only one percent of Turkey's 
wastewater, according to the State Institute of Statistics 
(SIS).  However, industrial wastewater is the most toxic, 
pouring chemicals such as lead, mercury, chromium, and zinc 
into the effluent.  Only about ten percent of Turkey's 
industrial zones have wastewater treatment facilities. 
 
 
MUNICIPALITIES SEEK FUNDING 
--------------------------- 
 
 
¶5.  Turkey would need about $4 billion dollars to meet its 
sewage infrastructure needs and another $1.5 billion for 
wastewater treatment plants, based on Iller Bank numbers. 
The Bank of Provinces (Iller Bank), under the Ministry of 
Public Works, issues grants and credit for environmental 
infrastructure using GOT resources to cover a large portion 
of municipal wastewater needs.  Municipalities, however, are 
responsible for providing infrastructure in their 
communities. 
 
 
¶6.  Over the past two decades, economic crises and new 
priorities forced the GOT to reduce its financial 
contribution to Iller Bank's infrastructure projects.  GOT 
now covers only six (6) percent of project costs, 
dramatically down from 80 percent. Iller's tillers decrease 
further as many small municipalities do not re-pay their 
loans.  The Bank's resources grew so low that at the end of 
2002, Iller could not fund tender-ready plans for 270 sewer 
systems, wastewater treatment plants and sea-outfalls. 
Several greater municipalities found support for their 
projects from international sources, but of 2,300 needed 
projects, 1,500 remain unfunded. 
 
 
EU RELEVANCE 
------------ 
 
 
¶7.  Wastewater infrastructure increased in relevance when 
Turkey joined the European Customs Union Agreement in 1995 
as it will again during EU accession discussions.  Their 
high price tags have made the environmental components of 
the EU acquis among the most difficult for candidate 
countries.  As part of Turkey's pre-accession strategy, the 
EU has provided funds to identify potential gaps between EU 
and Turkish legislation, but those funds do not cover 
infrastructure needs. 
 
 
IMPROVEMENT IN THE CITIES 
------------------------- 
 
 
¶8.  Most wastewater infrastructure is concentrated in 
heavily populated areas with evident improvement over the 
past decade.  SIS estimates that from 1994-98, the 
percentage of treated wastewater tripled to nearly 30 
percent.  The number of wastewater treatment plants doubled 
from 41 to 81 and the population served by sewer systems 
increased to 60 percent. 
 
 
¶9.  Major cities have recently invested significantly and 
effectively in wastewater infrastructure.  Ankara 
constructed a $170-million wastewater treatment plant in 
1997 and opened new sewer system that serves 98 percent of 
its population.  A series of projects in Istanbul has ended 
direct wastewater discharge into the Golden Horm (Halic) and 
visibly cleaned that central body of water.  Izmir's self- 
funded, comprehensive $80-million "Dream Channel Project" 
begun in 1999 has won broad public acclaim for effectively 
cleaning up Izmir Gulf. The Mediterranean tourist center of 
Antalya treats and discharges all wastewater at-sea and 
requires all treatment centers to maintain laboratories for 
continual testing of effluent and water supply. 
 
 
¶10. Even in the rural Southeast, Diyarbakir, with 30 percent 
of the region's population, has received funding from German 
banks and will open a new wastewater treatment plant later 
this year.  However, smaller communities in the region and 
throughout rural Turkey do not receive adequate financial 
support and are unable to provide sufficient wastewater 
infrastructure for their residents. 
 
 
¶11. Comment.  The need for strengthening wastewater 
infrastructure may make Turkey's municipalities and 
industrial plants coveted customers of companies selling 
pollution control equipment.  However, financing will remain 
a significant burden until sanitation infrastructure places 
higher among many competing priorities. 
 
 
PEARSON