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 MSP SKIs MSP (2006-2011) Comments MUSKI - Mugla Water supply and No investments in M&E data collected stopped after 2012. sanitation investments, MSP AF including a WWTP MESKI - Mersin Water supply Waste water Water supply related data available until investments only investments only, 2012, and sanitation related data collection network available after 2011.There was only sufficient time to assess the water supply impact, but corresponding data was unavailable. DESKI - Denizli water supply, storm Water supply, waste Long term data was available, but due water and waste water water and storm to attribution problems and crowding related investments. water investment s. effects (indicator reporting on larger Mostly rehabs. Mostly rehabs.. 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 Both water supply The only utility receiving both water waste water (including a and waste water and waste water support in both MSP WTTP) related related investments and MSP AF. Investments were both investments 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 Table 10: Municipal Infrastructure Investment Costs by Sector (Million EUR) Loan Water Waste Solid Case Sub-Projects Withdrawn Supply Water Waste Studies MSP I 28,60 28,60 MESKİ √ Polatli 3,18 Gelibolu 2,08 √ 9,75 Ödemiş √ √ 16,51 16,51 Muğla √ √ Bergama 2,27 √ Kütahya 4,77 √
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 √
ICR-Main-Document-P081880-2017-05-23-12-25-Front-Office-Edits-05242017.docx