Türkiye’nin Sanal Su Transferi

Öz

Artan nüfus, değişen tüketim alışkanlıkları ve iklim değişikliği su yönetimini küresel ölçekte kritik hale getirmiştir. Uluslararası ticaret yoluyla üretimde kullanılan su ülkeler arasında dolaylı olarak transfer edilmekte, bu durum özellikle su stresi yaşayan ülkeler açısından stratejik önem taşımaktadır. Bu çalışmada, 2015–2024 döneminde Türkiye’nin 29 stratejik tarımsal ve hayvansal ürün bazında uluslararası mavi ve yeşil sanal su akışları analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular, Türkiye’nin yıllık ortalama 20 milyar m³ sanal su ihracatı ve 35,6 milyar m³ sanal su ithalatı ile net sanal su ithalatçısı olduğunu göstermiştir. İhracatın %86’sı yeşil sudan oluşurken, net dengenin %32’sini mavi su oluşturmaktadır. Bu durum, Türkiye’nin ihracatını büyük ölçüde yağışa dayalı üretimle gerçekleştirdiğini, sulama suyu gereksinimi yüksek ürünleri ise ithalat yoluyla karşıladığını göstermektedir. Sanal su ihracatının %29’u Irak’a yönelirken, ithalatın %42’si Rusya’dan yapılmaktadır. Ürün bazında buğday unu ve ayçiçeği yağı toplam sanal su ihracatının %50’sini oluştururken, pamuk lifi mavi su ithalatının %60’ından fazlasını tek başına karşılamaktadır. Sonuçlar, Türkiye’nin yeşil su ağırlıklı ticaret yapısı sayesinde avantaj sağladığını; ancak mavi su yoğun ürünler, tedarik bağımlılığı ve yıllar arası dalgalanmalar nedeniyle su ve arz güvenliği açısından potansiyel riskler barındırdığını göstermektedir. Sanal su yönetiminin dış ticaret ve tarım politikalarıyla bütüncül ele alınması gerekmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sanal su ticareti
• su ayak izi
• mavi su
• yeşil su
• su güvenliği

Virtual Water Transfer of Türkiye

Öz

Population growth, changing consumption patterns, and climate change have made water management a critical global issue. Through international trade, water used in production is indirectly transferred among countries, making this process strategically important, particularly for water-stressed nations. In this study, Türkiye’s international blue and green virtual water flows for 29 products were analyzed for the 2015–2024 period. The results showed that Türkiye is a net virtual water importer, with an annual average of 20 billion m³ of virtual water exports and 35.6 billion m³ of imports. While 86% of total export consist of green water, 32% of the net balance is composed of blue water. This indicates that Türkiye largely bases its virtual water exports on rainfed production, while meeting demand for products with high irrigation water requirements through imports. At the country level, 29% of virtual water exports are directed to Iraq, whereas 42% of imports originate from Russia. At the product level, wheat flour and sunflower oil account for 50% of total virtual water exports, while cotton lint alone represents more than 60% of blue water imports. The findings indicate that Türkiye gains an advantage through its green water-dominated trade structure; however, it remains vulnerable due to blue water-intensive products, supply dependency, and interannual fluctuations. Virtual water management should therefore be addressed holistically together with foreign trade and agricultural policies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sanal su ticareti
• su ayak izi
• mavi su
• yeşil su
• su güvenliği

Kaynakça

1. Demirbilek B, Benson D. Between emulation and assemblage: Analysing WFD policy transfer outcomes in Turkey. Water 2019; 11(2): 324. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11020324
2. Conker A, Hussein H. Hydraulic mission at home, hydraulic mission abroad? Examining Turkey's regional 'Pax-Aquarum' and its limits. Sustainability 2019; 11(1): 228. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010228
3. Muratoğlu A. Sanal su: Tarım devriminden bilgi toplumuna su verimliliği. Standard Ekonomik ve Teknik Dergi 2024; 64(728-729): 66-77.
4. Roy A, Akber S, Roy A. Impact of globalization: Prospect and challenges. Journal of Green Business School 2025. https://doi.org/10.3329/jgbs.v6i1.81443
5. Helpman E. Understanding global trade. Harvard University Press, 2011. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.49-1588
6. Little SE, Go F, Poon TSC. Introduction: From international to global. In: Little S, Go F, Poon TC, editors. Global innovation and entrepreneurship. Palgrave Macmillan, 2017. pp. 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43859-7_1
7. Ristiyani N, Mangku D, Yuliartini N. Kedudukan hukum perdagangan internasional terhadap perekonomian Indonesia. Jurnal Komunikasi Hukum (JKH) 2022; 8(2). https://doi.org/10.23887/jkh.v8i2.52011
8. Amani A, Yawar M. International trade and export. Global Spectrum of Research and Humanities 2025. https://doi.org/10.69760/gsrh.010120250186

9. Kastner T, Chaudhary A, Gingrich S, Marques A, Persson U, Bidoglio G, Provost L, Schwarzmüller F. Global agricultural trade and land system sustainability: Implications for ecosystem carbon storage, biodiversity, and human nutrition. One Earth 2021; 4(7): 1044-1057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.09.006
10. Dalin C, Rodríguez-Iturbe I. Environmental impacts of food trade via resource use and greenhouse gas emissions. Environ Res Lett 2016; 11(3): 035012. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/3/035012
11. Givens J, Huang X, Jorgenson A. Ecologically unequal exchange: A theory of global environmental injustice. Sociol Compass 2019; 13(2): e12693. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12693
12. Antonelli M, Sartori M. Unfolding the potential of the virtual water concept: What is still under debate? Environ Sci Policy 2015; 50: 240-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.02.011
13. Hoekstra AY. Water footprint assessment: Evolvement of a new research field. Water Resour Manag 2017; 31: 3061-3081. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1618-5
14. Demirel M. Ticaret metası olarak su: Su ayak izi, sanal su ve sanal su ticareti. Akademik İzdüşüm Dergisi (AİD) 2023; 8(2): 373-406.
15. Hoekstra AY, Hung PQ. Virtual water trade: A quantification of virtual water flows between nations in relation to international crop trade. Value of Water Research Report Series No. 11. IHE Delft, 2002.
16. Hoekstra AY, Hung PQ. Globalisation of water resources: International virtual water flows in relation to crop trade. Glob Environ Change 2005; 15(1): 45-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.06.004
17. D'Odorico P, Carr J, Dalin C, Dell'Angelo J, Konar M, Laio F, Ridolfi L, Rosa L, Suweis S, Tamea S, Tuninetti M. Global virtual water trade and the hydrological cycle: Patterns, drivers, and socio-environmental impacts. Environ Res Lett 2019; 14: 053001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab05f4
18. Hogeboom R. The water footprint concept and water's grand environmental challenges. One Earth 2020; 2(3): 218-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.02.010
19. Pegram G, Conyngham S, Aksoy A, Dıvrak BB, Öztok D. Türkiye'nin su ayak izi raporu: Su, üretim ve uluslararası ticaret ilişkisi. WWF-Türkiye, 2014.
20. Akbostancı E, Tunç Gİ, Türüt-Aşık S. Virtual water flows of Turkey's agricultural products: A gravity approach. J Clean Prod 2023; 420: 138453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138453
21. Uçar B, Çapar G. Assessment of agricultural virtual water export of Türkiye. Akademik Gıda 2024; Yeşil Dönüşüm Özel Sayısı: 26-32. https://doi.org/10.24323/akademik-gida.1554424
22. Muratoğlu A. Assessment of wheat's water footprint and virtual water trade: A case study for Turkey. Ecol Process 2020; 9(13). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-020-0217-1
23. Yerli C. The high-resolution evaluation water footprint and virtual water trade of cotton in Türkiye. Water Sci Technol 2026; 93(4): 483-502. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2026.219
24. Hawrami KS, Shareef AJ. Turkish virtual river in Kurdistan Region-Iraq. Eur Online J Nat Soc Sci 2020; 9(3): 545-557.
25. Mekonnen MM, Hoekstra AY. The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 2011; 15(5): 1577-1600. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-1577-2011
26. Mekonnen MM, Hoekstra AY. A global assessment of the water footprint of farm animal products. Ecosystems 2012; 15(3): 401-415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-011-9517-8
27. Zhang Y, Zhang J, Tang G, Chen M, Wang L. Virtual water flows in the international trade of agricultural products of China. Sci Total Environ 2016; 557-558: 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.02.166
28. Liu J, Zehnder AJB, Yang H. Historical trends in China's virtual water trade. Water Int 2007; 32(1): 78-90. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060708691966
29. Qasemipour E, Abbasi A. Virtual water flow and water footprint assessment of an arid region: A case study of South Khorasan Province, Iran. Water 2019; 11(9): 1755. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11091755
30. FAOSTAT. Crops and livestock products trade data (2015-2024). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2026. Erişim adresi: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/TCL
31. Mekonnen MM, Hoekstra AY. The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products, Volume 2: Appendices. Value of Water Research Report Series No. 47. Delft, The Netherlands: UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, 2010.
32. Mekonnen MM, Hoekstra AY. The green, blue and grey water footprint of farm animals and animal products, Volume 2: Appendices. Value of Water Research Report Series No. 48. Delft, The Netherlands: UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, 2010.
33. Demir MS, Muratoğlu A. Strategic crop reallocation for reduced agricultural water footprints in semi-arid regions. Irrig Sci 2026; 44(2): 38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-026-01078-5
34. Dışkaya SK. Türkiye'nin su güvenliğine sosyal inşacı bir yaklaşım. İstanbul İktisat Dergisi 2018; 68(2): 265-300.
35. T.C. Resmî Gazete. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti ile Suriye Arap Cumhuriyeti Arasında Ekonomik İşbirliği Protokolü. T.C. Resmî Gazete 1987 (10 Aralık); 19660.
36. Yavaşlı DD, Erlat E. Climate model projections of aridity patterns in Türkiye: A comprehensive analysis using CMIP6 models and three aridity indices. Int J Climatol 2023; 43(13): 6207-6224. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.8201