Kooperatif İşletmeciliğindeki Sulama Tesislerinde Sulama Performansı ve Suyun Ekonomik Üretkenliğinin Değerlendirilmesi: Mihalıççık Örneği

Abstract

Yarı kurak bölgelerde küçük ölçekli sulama teşkilatlarının performansı, yalnızca su yönetimi açısından değil, aynı zamanda bölgesel tarımsal üretimin, kırsal istihdamın ve kamu sulama yatırımlarının ekonomik geri dönüşünün sürdürülebilmesi açısından da önem taşımaktadır. İç Anadolu koşullarında, su kıtlığının sulamalı tarımı giderek daha fazla sınırlandırdığı dikkate alındığında, kooperatifler tarafından işletilen sulama tesislerinin performansının anlaşılması hem uygulamaya hem de politika geliştirmeye yönelik açıdan açık bir önem taşımaktadır. Bu çalışmada, Eskişehir ili Mihalıççık ilçesinde kooperatifler tarafından işletilen gölet beslemeli borulu dört sulama tesisinde (Diközü, Dağcı, Ömerköy ve Bahtiyar) 2021–2025 dönemine ait sulama suyu kullanım etkinliği ve suyun ekonomik verimliliği değerlendirilmiştir. Sonuçlar, incelenen tesisler arasında su temin yeterliliği bakımından yıllar arası belirgin değişkenlik bulunduğunu göstermiştir. Tüm tesisler ve yıllar birlikte değerlendirildiğinde, su temin oranı %39 ile %118 arasında değişmiştir. Bununla birlikte, tek başına “yeterli” su temini ekonomik başarıyı getirmemiştir. En dikkat çekici bulgu Ömerköy Sulama Kooperatifi’nde ortaya çıkmıştır: çalışma dönemi boyunca su temin oranı sürekli düşük seyretmesine rağmen (%39–65), ekonomik performans güçlü kalmıştır. Nitekim, şebekeye alınan birim su hacmi başına gelir 0,47–0,73 ABD$ m⁻³ arasında değişmiş, sulanan birim alan başına gelir ise 2022–2024 döneminde 3.130–3.410 ABD$ ha⁻¹ düzeyine ulaşarak veri setindeki en yüksek değerler arasında yer almıştır. Bu durum, su kısıtı altında dahi, su tahsisi ve işletme kararlarının yüksek değerli ürün desenleri ile uyumlu olması halinde kooperatiflerin suyun ekonomik verimliliğini sürdürebileceğini göstermektedir. Dağcı Sulama Kooperatifi’nde ise su temin oranı çoğu yıl %100’ün üzerinde gerçekleşmesine rağmen (%103–118), ekonomik göstergeler orta-yüksek düzeylerde kalmıştır. Bahtiyar Sulama Kooperatifi ise yıllar arasında belirgin dalgalanmalar göstermiş ve 2022 yılında zirve değerlerine ulaşmıştır (şebekeye alınan birim su hacmi başına gelir = 0,89 ABD$ m⁻³; sulanan birim alan başına gelir = 3.542 ABD$ ha⁻¹). Genel olarak bulgular, kooperatif esaslı sulama işletmeciliğinin, ölçek bakımından çoğu zaman küçük olmasına rağmen, özellikle sulamanın yüksek değerli ve pazara yönelik üretim sistemlerini desteklediği koşullarda bölgesel tarım ekonomisine anlamlı katkılar sağlayabildiğini göstermektedir. Bununla birlikte, kamu sulama yatırımlarından sürdürülebilir geri dönüşlerin sağlanabilmesi için düzenli izleme ve değerlendirme, veri izlenebilirliği ve gerektiğinde sulama ile su yönetimine yönelik hedefe dönük teknik destek büyük önem taşımaktadır. Yetersiz su yönetimi yalnızca kamu yatırımlarını zayıflatmakla kalmamakta, aynı zamanda bölgesel tarımsal üretim ve istihdam üzerinde geri döndürülmesi güç olumsuz etkilere de yol açabilmektedir.

Keywords

• Sulama performans
• Sulama kooperatifleri
• Su kullanım etkinliği
• Suyun ekonomik üretkenliği
• Tarımsal su yönetimi

Evaluation of Irrigation Performance and Water Economic Productivity in Cooperative-Operated Irrigation Schemes: Evidence from Mihalıççık

Abstract

In semi-arid regions, the performance of small-scale irrigation organizations is important not only for water management but also for sustaining regional agricultural production, rural employment, and the economic return of public irrigation investments. Under Central Anatolian conditions, where water scarcity increasingly constrains irrigated agriculture, understanding how cooperative-operated irrigation schemes perform has clear practical and policy relevance. This study evaluates irrigation water-use efficiency and water economic productivity during the 2021–2025 period in four pond-fed, piped irrigation schemes operated by cooperatives in Mihalıççık District, Eskişehir Province, Türkiye (Diközü, Dağcı, Ömerköy, and Bahtiyar). The results show pronounced inter-annual variability in water supply adequacy across the studied schemes. Considering all schemes and years together, the water supply ratio ranged from 39% to 118%. However, “adequate” water supply alone did not explain economic success. The most notable finding emerged for the Ömerköy scheme: despite persistently low water supply ratio values throughout the period (39–65%), economic performance remained strong. Specifically, income per unit water taken into the network ranged between 0.47 and 0.73 US$ m⁻³, while income per unit irrigated area reached 3,130–3,410 US$ ha⁻¹ in 2022–2024, among the highest values in the dataset. This indicates that, even under water constraints, cooperatives can sustain the economic productivity of water when allocation and operational decisions are aligned with high-value crop patterns. In Dağcı, water supply ratio was mostly above 100% (103–118%), yet the economic indicators remained at moderate-to-high levels. Bahtiyar displayed substantial year-to-year fluctuations, peaking in 2022 (income per unit water taken into the network = 0.89 US$ m⁻³; income per unit irrigated area = 3,542 US$ ha⁻¹). Overall, the findings suggest that cooperative-based irrigation operation, although typically small in scale, can make meaningful contributions to the regional agricultural economy, especially where irrigation supports high-value and market-oriented production systems. Nonetheless, ensuring sustainable returns from public irrigation investments requires regular monitoring and evaluation, data traceability, and when needed targeted technical support in irrigation and water management. Poor water management not only undermines public investments but may also lead to difficult-to-reverse impacts on regional agricultural production and employment.The results show pronounced inter-annual variability in water supply adequacy across the studied schemes. Considering all schemes and years together, the water supply ratio ranged from 39% to 118%. However, “adequate” supply alone does not explain economic success. The most notable finding emerged for the Ömerköy scheme: despite persistently low water supply ratio throughout the period (39–65%), economic performance remained strong. Specifically, income per unit water taken into the network ranged between 0.47 and 0.73 US$ m⁻³, while income per unit irrigated area reached 3,130–3,410 US$ ha⁻¹ in 2022–2024, among the highest values in the dataset. This indicates that, even under water constraints, cooperatives can sustain the economic productivity of water when allocation and operational decisions are aligned with high-value crop patterns. In Dağcı, water supply ratio was mostly above 100% (103–118%), yet the economic indicators remained at moderate-to-high levels. Bahtiyar displayed substantial year-to-year fluctuations, peaking in 2022 (income per unit water taken into the network = 0.89 US$ m⁻³; income per unit irrigated area = 3,542 US$ ha⁻¹). Overall, the findings suggest that cooperative-based operation, although typically small in scale, can make meaningful contributions to the regional agricultural economy. Nonetheless, ensuring sustainable returns from public irrigation investments requires regular monitoring and evaluation, data traceability, and—when needed—targeted technical support in irrigation and water management. Poor water management not only undermines public investments but may also lead to difficult-to-reverse impacts on regional agricultural production and employment.

Keywords

• Irrigation performance
• Irrigation cooperatives
• Water use efficiency
• Water economic productivity
• Agricultural water management

References

1. Akçay, S. (2016). Determination of water supply ratios in irrigation cooperatives of Aydın Province. Journal of Tekirdag Agricultural Faculty, 13(2): 135–143. https://izlik.org/JA55XB74JR (In Turkish).
2. Arslan, F., Córcoles Tendero, J. I., Rodríguez Díaz, J. A. and Zema, D. A. (2023). Comparison of irrigation management in water user associations of Italy, Spain and Turkey using benchmarking techniques. Water Resources Management, 37: 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-022-03355-2
3. Atalay, İ., and Öztürk, A. (2026). Evaluation of water use in irrigation cooperatives operating in Ankara Polatlı District. Research in Agricultural Sciences, 57(1): 19–27. https://doi.org/10.17097/agricultureatauni.1705105
4. Aydın, B., Özkan, E., Hurma, H. and Aktaş, E. (2017). Efficiency analysis in irrigation management (the case of Kırklareli, Edirne, Tekirdağ and Çanakkale provinces). Turkish Journal of Agricultural and Natural Sciences, 4(1): 70–78. (In Turkish).
5. Balaban, E. and Candoğan, B. N. (2024). Evaluation of irrigation performance in the Pamukçu and Aslıhantepecik Plain irrigation schemes. Journal of the Institute of Science and Technology, 14(2): 668–680. https://doi.org/10.21597/jist.1353128 (In Turkish).
6. Berbel, J., Expósito, A., Gutiérrez-Martín, C. and Mateos, L. (2019). Effects of irrigation modernization in Spain 2002–2015. Water Resources Management, 33: 1835–1849. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-019-02215-w
7. Bulut, O. D. (2025). Investigating the expectation meeting ratio of partners: The case of Edirne Province agricultural development / irrigation cooperatives. Selcuk Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences, 39(2): 334–343. https://doi.org/10.15316/selcukjafsci.1628307
8. Çakmak, B. and Avcı, S. (2025). Assessment of agricultural water consumption in İzmir Province. Turkish Journal of Agriculture–Food Science and Technology, 13(5): 1278–1284. https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v13i5.1278-1284.7577

9. Çakmak, B., Gökalp, Z. and Demir, N. (2014). Evaluation of agricultural water use in transboundary river basins. Journal of Tekirdag Agricultural Faculty, 11(2): 119–129. https://izlik.org/JA78BD32CN (In Turkish).
10. Cengiz, A. and Uçar, Y. (2021). Evaluation of the performance of the Acıpayam Irrigation Scheme. Turkish Journal of Science and Engineering, 3(1): 22–29. (In Turkish).
11. Çifçi, Ş. and Değirmenci, H. (2022). Analysis of irrigation associations in the Asi Basin using irrigation performance indicators and the TOPSIS method. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University Journal of Agriculture and Nature, 25(1): 169–180. (In Turkish) https://doi.org/10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.885525
12. D’Agostino, D., Denisi, P., Marrara, G., Nicotra, A., Zema, D. A. and Zimbone, S. M. (2025). A methodological follow-up of performance assessment in collective irrigation systems. In: Biosystems Engineering Promoting Resilience to Climate Change - AIIA 2024 Mid-Term Conference. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, vol. 586. Ed(s): Sartori, L., Tarolli, P., Guerrini, L., Zuecco, G. and Pezzuolo, A. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-84212-2_29
13. Demir, H. N. and Topak, R. (2015). Water management in Konya–Sarayönü District Gözlü irrigation cooperative. Selcuk Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences, 2(1): 19–26.
14. DSI (General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works) (2026a). Planning report (hydrometeorology and climate). Eskişehir, Türkiye: Region III, 31st Branch Directorate. Unpublished internal report. (In Turkish)
15. DSI (General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works) (2026b). Irrigation scheme: Institutional inventory, operational and financial records (2012–2024). Eskişehir, Türkiye: Region III, 31st Branch Directorate. Unpublished internal dataset/report. (In Turkish)
16. DSI (General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works). (2025). 2024 Annual Report. Ankara, Türkiye. https://cdniys.tarimorman.gov.tr/api/File/GetGaleriFile/425/DosyaGaleri/594/dsi_2024_yili_faaliyet_raporu.pdf (Accessed Date: 12.02.2026) (In Turkish).
17. E-ITOM (2025). Unit prices of agricultural products for 2012–2024 in Eskişehir province [Official correspondences; E-71121967-042-9710368, E-71121967-042-19181764]. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Eskişehir Provincial Directorate of Agriculture and Forestry. (In Turkish)
18. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2020). The State of Food and Agriculture 2020: Overcoming Water Challenges in Agriculture. FAO, Rome.
19. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2022). World Food and Agriculture – Statistical Yearbook 2022. FAO, Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc2211en
20. Frija, A., Speelman, S., Chebil, A., Buysse, J. and Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2009). Assessing the efficiency of irrigation water users’ associations and its determinants: Evidence from Tunisia. Irrigation and Drainage, 58: 538–550. https://doi.org/10.1002/ird.446
21. Gökhan, C. and Taş, İ. (2024). Adequacy status of irrigation water diverted to irrigation areas: The case of Çanakkale–Biga Bakacak Dam. Turkish Journal of Agricultural and Natural Sciences, 11(2): 463–474. https://doi.org/10.30910/turkjans.1448148 (In Turkish).
22. Harman, E. and Çakmak, B. (2023). Evaluation of irrigation performance in Sakaryabaşı Irrigation Association. COMU Journal of Agriculture Faculty, 11(2): 320–330. (In Turkish) https://doi.org/10.33202/comuagri.1310046
23. Harman, E. and Çakmak, B. (2025). Evaluation of irrigation efficiency and economic performance: A case study of the Eskişehir Water User Association. Irrigation and Drainage, 74(5): 2217–2229. https://doi.org/10.1002/ird.70008
24. Kırmıkıl, M. (2025). Irrigation performance evaluation for sustainable water management: A study of Karacabey Water Users Association, Türkiye (2006–2023). Sustainability, 17(9): 4059. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094059
25. Malano, H. and Burton, M. (2001). Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
26. Şener, M. and Abdisamad, A. Q. (2023). Benchmarking of irrigation performance in Karataş and Karaçal irrigation associations. Journal of Tekirdag Agricultural Faculty, 20(1): 51–60. https://doi.org/10.33462/jotaf.1065361
27. Soto-García, M., Martínez-Alvarez, V., García-Bastida, P. A., Alcon, F. and Martin-Gorriz, B. (2013). Effect of water scarcity and modernisation on the performance of irrigation districts in south-eastern Spain. Agricultural Water Management, 124: 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.03.019
28. Süheri, S. and Topak, R. (2005). The comparison of irrigation organizations in point of water management in Konya Plain. Selcuk Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences, 19(37): 79–86.
29. Sun, J., Li, Y. P., Suo, C. and Liu, Y. R. (2019). Impacts of irrigation efficiency on agricultural water-land nexus system management under multiple uncertainties: A case study in Amu Darya River Basin, Central Asia. Agricultural Water Management, 216: 76–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.01.025
30. Taşpınar, M. and Ertek, A. (2018). Sustainable management of water and its effects on farmers in the irrigation cooperative of Beykavağı Neighborhood, Kadınhanı, Konya. Journal of Agriculture Faculty, 13(2): 73–78. (In Turkish)
31. Wang, J., Huang, J., Zhang, L., Huang, Q. and Rozelle, S. (2010). Water governance and water use efficiency: The five principles of WUA management and performance in China. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 46: 665–685. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2010.00439.x
32. Yercan, M., Atis, E. and Salali, H. E. (2009). Assessing irrigation performance in the Gediz River Basin of Turkey: Water user associations versus cooperatives. Irrigation Science, 27: 263–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-008-0142-z
33. Yürekli, H. and Topak, R. (2018). Evaluation of irrigation performance in Ivriz Right Bank irrigation association. Selcuk Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences, 32(3): 221–230.
34. Zema, D. A., Filianoti, P., D’Agostino, D., Labate, A., Lucas-Borja, M. E., Nicotra, A. and Zimbone, S. M. (2020). Analyzing the performances of water user associations to increase the irrigation sustainability: An application of multivariate statistics to a case study in Italy. Sustainability, 12(16): 6327. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166327
35. Zema, D. A., Nicotra, A., Tamburino, V. and Zimbone, S. M. (2015). Performance assessment of collective irrigation in water users’ associations of Calabria (Southern Italy). Irrigation and Drainage, 64: 314–325. https://doi.org/10.1002/ird.1902