INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
IN THE ARAL SEA BASIN
Prof. Victor A. Dukhovny
Dr. Vadim I. Sokolov
Scientific-Information Center
of the Inter-state Commission for Water Coordination in the Aral Sea Basin
1. GEOGRAPHY OF THE ARAL SEA BASIN
1.1. Location and Geomorphology
The Aral Sea basin (Figure 1) coincides with almost the entire area of Central Asia. It is located in the heart
of the Euro-Asian continent. The basin covers the whole territory of Tadjikistan, Uzbekistan, the majority of
Turkmenistan, three provinces of the Kyrgyz Republic (Osh, Jalalabad and Naryn), the southern part of
Kazakhstan (the Kyzyl-Orda and South Kazakh provinces) and the northern parts of Afghanistan and Iran.
Here, only the provinces of the first five countries within the Aral Sea Basin have been taken into
consideration. This territory covers an area of about 1.549 million km2, of which about 0.59 million km2 are
cultivable lands (Table 1).
The basin is named after the Aral Sea, one of the largest inland seas in the world, which lies in the west of the
basin and receives the waters from the two main rivers, namely the Syr Darya and Amu Darya. This Chapter
will discuss generic aspects of the basin and the subsequent Chapters will review the Syr Darya, and the Amu
Darya together with the sub-basin of the Zerafshan river, a former tributary of the Amu Darya.
The large Aral Sea basin comprises three distinct water bodies: the Amu and Syr Darya
Rivers, and the Aral Sea proper which receives all waters from the Daryas. Some parts of the
basin are mountainous and wet, but large tracts downstream are arid. Though some areas are
heavily industrialized, most are dominated by large-scale irrigated districts and deserts. Average
population density is rather low. The main water origin is smowmelt and glaciers.
Water allocation is the prime concern, especially for the irrigation and hydropower
sectors. Since the independence of the Republics and the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, the
basin is now shared by five nations (Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Tadjikistan and the
Kyrgyz Republic). Allocation, therefore, must also suit these regional demands. The Aral Sea, as
ultimate recipient of the water, is now considered the “sixth riparian”. Shortage of water, as well
as salinization and pollution, are the main threats to the Sea’s survival.
International water allocation is decided in the Inter-state Commission for Water
Coordination, and two basin-based operating agencies (BWOs) operate the infrastructure
accordingly. The region inherited a top-down water management style geared exclusively at
economic productivity. Participatory allocation and economy management mechanisms that
would help to enhance the efficiency of water use are still poorly developed.
The basin comprises two main zones: the Turan plain and the mountain zone. The Kara Kum zone covers the
western and the northwestern parts of the basin within the Turan plain and the Kyzyl Kum deserts. The
eastern and south eastern parts are situated in the high Tien Shan and Pamir mountains ranges. The
remaining part of the basin is composed of various types of alluvial and inter-mountain valleys and dry and
semi-dry steppe. The mountainous Kyrgyz Republic and Tadjikistan are upstream riparians having a
"monopoly" on the formation of the water, but they also have a deficit of cultivable lands. An important
feature of the region is the number of large wet oasis areas (Fergana Valley, Khoresm, Tashaus, Mary,
1
Zerafshan, Tashkent–Chimkent) which cover a small part of the overall area, but since ancient times have
been the focus of human activity and population.
Table 1. Land Resources in the Aral Sea Basin
Country
Area of the
country
Cultivable
area
Cultivated
area
Kazakhstan*
Kyrgyz Republic*
Tadjikistan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
ha
34,440,000
12,490,000
14,310,000
48,810,000
44,884,000
ha
23,872,400
1,257,400
1,571,000
7,013,000
25,447,700
ha
1,658,800
595,000
769,900
1,805,300
5,207,800
Actually
irrigated
area
ha
786,200
422,000
719,000
1,735,000
4,233,400
Aral Sea basin
154,934,000
59,161,500
10,036,800
7,895,600
* Only the provinces in the Aral Sea basin
The majority of the territory of Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan is covered by desert and less than
10% by mountains. This huge potential for irrigated agriculture, however, would demand more water
resources than those countries have available. This disparity of water and land was seen in Soviet times as an
opportunity to re-allocate the water resources for the development of irrigated agriculture in the downstream
Republics. However, in the current post-Soviet period these circumstances are a source of potential conflicts.
1.2. Climate
The landlocked position of Central Asia determines its continental climate, with low and irregular precipitation.
Large daily and seasonal temperature differences are characteristic, with high solar radiation and relatively low
humidity. Although this area is often struck by humid winds, the mountains in the east and southeast trap most
of the moisture, leaving little precipitation for the other areas of the Aral Sea Basin. The annual precipitation in
the lowland is only 80-200 mm, concentrated in the winter and spring, while on the southern and south
western sides of the mountain it ranges 600-800 mm. The region has very different climatic zones with
distinct water demands for irrigation. Large differences in air humidity in summer time between the old oases
and the newly irrigated areas (50-60% and 20-30%, respectively) cause water demands to be significantly
larger in the former desert that are now under irrigation.
Climate data cover almost hundred years. These observations indicate a similar increase between the regional
temperature and the global average of about 0.5oC during the last 70 years. If globally the CO2 equivalent
increases twofold, the temperature would rise 1-3oC according to international models. Then, the
precipitation is expected to reach a level of 100-120% of the present values. However, the local regional
model (Uzbek Hydromet Services) forecasts a smaller change in temperature of not more than 1oC and a
larger change in precipitation (up to 18 %) which would in effect not cause a significant growth in water
demand.
2. AVAILABLE WATER RESOURCES AND THEIR QUALITY
2.1. Formation of the Surface Flow
The region has three distinct zones of surface runoff: (a) the zone of flow formation (upper watersheds in the
mountain areas), (b) the zone of flow transit and dissipation, and (c) the deltaic zones near the Aral Sea.
Generally, there are few anthropogenic influences in the upper zone, but large dams and water reservoirs on
the border of this zone alter the downstream run-off regime significantly. Within the zone of flow transit
intensive interaction with land use occurs characterized by water withdrawal to the irrigated areas and the
return flow to the river carrying salt and agricultural chemicals.
2
In terms of water availability the Syr Darya is the second most important river in Central Asia but the largest
in terms of length. From the Naryn headwaters its length is 3019 km, with a catchment area of 219,000km2.
The river is glacier and snow-fed. The regime is characterized by a spring-summer flood, which begins in
April, and largest discharge in June. About 75.2% of the Syr Darya run-off originates in the Kyrgyz Republic.
The Syr Darya then flows across Uzbekistan and Tadjikistan and discharges into the Aral Sea in Kazakhstan.
The Amu Darya is the largest river. Its length from the headwaters of the Pyandzh to the Aral Sea is 2540km,
with a catchment of 309,000km2. Three large right tributaries (Kafirnigan, Surhandarya and Sherabad) and
one left (Kunduz) flow into the Amu Darya river within the middle reach. It is fed largely by water from
melted snow, thus, maximum discharges occur in summer and minimum ones in January-February, which is
very favorable for irrigation. While crossing the plain, from Kerky to Nukus, the Amu Darya loses the
majority of its flow through evaporation, infiltration and withdrawal for irrigation. In terms of sediment the
Amu Darya carries the highest load of all the rivers in Central Asia and one of the highest in the world. The
main flow of the Amu Darya river originates on the territory of Tadjikistan (about 74%). The river then flows
along the border between Afghanistan and Uzbekistan, across Turkmenian territory and then again returns to
Uzbekistan where it discharges into the Aral Sea.
The total mean annual flow of all rivers in the basin is about 116km3. At flow probabilities of 5% (wet years)
and 95% (dry years), the annual flow ranges from 109.9 to 58.6km3 for the Amu Darya, and from 51.1 to
23.6km3 for the Syr Darya river.
2.2. Surface Water Quality
Along the two rivers, the many intakes, which serve the major irrigation schemes, continuously reduce the
flow in the rivers. Consequently, the quality of the remaining water has worsened because of the discharges
of drain effluent from irrigated areas that are saline and polluted with the residues of agro-chemicals. In
addition, industry and municipalities cause point-source pollution.
The salinity level increases along the river, especially in the middle and lower reaches. At the end of the
1960s the mineralization of water did not exceed 1.0g/l. Now, it is 0.3-0.5g/l in the upper reaches and 1.72.0g/l in the lower reaches. Apart from the salinity, the chemical composition of the river water determines
its suitability for irrigation. The value often used to express the risk of developing alkalinity is the Sodium
Adsorption Ratio (SAR). SAR usually ranges 0.5 – 7 meq/l0.5 indicating that the water is still suitable for
irrigation.
Since independence the regional and sectoral water allocation has attributed increasing attention to ecological
values. This has led to some improvement of water quality. Water mineralization in the low reaches of the
Amu Darya has been reduced and has not exceed the permitted limit of 1.0g/l.
2.3. Groundwater
The groundwater resources in the basin originate from either the natural flow from mountainous and water
catchment areas, or from infiltration from reservoirs and irrigated land. Three hundred thirty nine aquifers were
approved as sources for extraction. The regional reserves are about 31.17km3, of which 14.7km3 are located in
the Amu Darya basin and 16.4km3 in Syr Darya basin. To control impact on surface water flows, the extractable
reserves are estimated at13.1km3/year (Table 2).
Total actual groundwater extraction in the basin was about 10.0km3. The groundwater quality in the region
varies by salt content from 1 to 3g/l, and in effect almost half of the groundwater is adequate for domestic
consumption, and approximately 70% for agricultural use. About 30% of the groundwater has a transboundary
nature, and its usage requires inter-state regulation.
3
Table 2. Groundwater Reserves and Use in the Aral Sea Basin (million m3/year)
Estimated
Regional
Reserves
Confirmed
for
Extraction
1,846
862
6,650
3,360
18,455
31,173
1,224
670
2,200
1,220
7,796
13,110
Country
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyz Republic
Tadjikistan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Aral Sea basin
Actual
Extraction Domestic
For:
Water
Supply
420
407
990
457
7,749
10,023
288
43
335
210
3,369
4,245
Users and purposes
Industry Irrigation
120
56
91
36
715
1,018
0
308
550
150
2,156
3,164
Vertical
Drainage
Wells
Pumping
Tests
Other
0
0
0
60
1,349
1409
0
0
0
1
120
121
12
0
14
0.15
40
66
Source: WARMIS Database
2.4. Wastewater and Drainage Water
Return water constitutes a high proportion of water resources in the basin and is also a major source of pollution.
In recent years, the annual mean values of return flows, consisting of drainage and wastewater from
irrigation, industry, and municipal users varied between 28.0 and 33.5km3, of which 13.5-5.5km3 in the Syr
Darya basin and 16-19km3 in the Amu Darya basin. Ninety five percent of this is drainage water. The large
amount of drainage water indicates that the net irrigation abstraction is only about 45-50% of total
withdrawal. The surface component consists of the outflow from irrigated fields, losses from the irrigation
network, and water pumping from the vertical drainage system. The subsurface component of the drainage
consists of infiltration from irrigated fields and the infiltrated water from irrigation networks that reach the
collector-drainage system.
The drainage water is highly saline at 2-3g/l from April to September and 5-12g/l during autumn and winter.
The quality of the drainage effluent depends on the location of the irrigation scheme within the river basin
and the leaching requirements of the irrigated area. It also depends on the use of agro-chemicals. The poor
quality limits the re-use possibilities of drainage water, especially for irrigation. Only about 15% of total
return flow is re-used, more than 55% returns to rivers, and about 30% ends up in natural depressions from
which the water evaporates.
3. HISTORICAL REVIEW
3.1. Ancient History
The history of the Central Asia, one of the oldest centers of human civilization, is closely related to the use
and development of water resources. The earliest discoveries of human existence in Central Asia were in the
upper watersheds of the Fergana, Zerafshan, Murgab, Surkhandarya nd Atrek valleys, where small creeks
and water courses permitted without big effort to use water for drinking and growing of different crops (6,000
to 5,000 year B.C.). Historians have found large scale development of irrigated agriculture in the ancient
centers of Khorezm, Shash, Kokand, the foothill zone of Kopetdag, Geoksure, Gissar, etc. (2nd – 1st
millennium BC).
From time immemorial, the main oases (the centres and zones of the old irrigation systems) were located
along rivers and their tributaries, with stable natural and artificial irrigation. This explains their distribution as
if they were threaded along the trunks of these rivers. These oases are, first of all, Samarkand (ancient
Marakanda) and the Bukhara oases in the valley of the Zaravshan river, the Tashkent oasis in the valley of the
Chirchik river, the Khorezm oasis in the lower reaches of the Amu Darya, and oases in the valley of the
Surkhandarya and Katadian oasis in South Tadjikistan on the Vaksh river.
4
It is impossible to determine the accurate date of the origin of the various oases. Chinese sources of 1,149
BC, Ksenophont in his History of Kir, Pythagoras who visited Turkistan (valley of the Aria river) when Darey
Gistaspe ruled at the end of the 6th century BC, and Herodotos in his History, offer evidence about large
irrigation development in these area. Herodotos wrote that Turkistan, inhabited by “Chirkans, Bactrians,
Khorezmians and Saranians, formed two satrap territories of Persia (the 14th and 16th) and paid Persia duties
corresponding to 600 and 300 talants of silver or 200 talants more than prosperous Egypt”.
Thereafter, growth, failure, disaster and rehabilitation took place during the subsequent eras. After this, the
flourishing country of Gavhara emerged in the lowland of the Amu Darya in the 1st – 4th century AD. About
300,000 ha of cultivated irrigated area existed, which together with the transformation achieved at the end of
the previous century created a total area of about 3.2 million ha.
3.2. Water Resources Development in te 20th Century
From the first days of its existence the Soviet State concerned itself with land improvement problems.Thus, on
May 17, 1918, V.I. Lenin signed a decree on the development of irrigation in Turkestan under which
improvements were to be carried out on land already under irrigation and water brought to another 500,000
desyatins (about 600,000 hectares) in the Golodnaya Steppe, to ensure an adequate supply of cotton for
textile industry in Russia.Two years later, on May 13, 1920, the Council of People’s Commissars issued an
Edict, signed by Lenin “On Allocations to the All-Russia National Economic Council for Irrigation the
Golodnaya Steppe”. In the period of 1922-1927 agriculture was confronted with the task of increasing cotton
production in all possible ways. Since this involved a considerable expansion of the irrigated area, the
construction of irrigation projects had to be carried out at a high speed. Mechanization of agricultural
production called for rearrangement of the irrigation systems and enlargement of small irrigated fields. A big
number of collective farms kept growing and state farms had come into existence.
The Second World War spurred the industrial development of the region due to a large number of industrial
enterprises being relocated from Russia to Central Asia. An ensuing limitation at this time was the
availability of electricity production. As a result, construction continued but with emphasis on cheap
hydropower1. Thus, the Chirchik–Bozsu hydropower cascade in the Chirchik river basin and the Farkhad
hydropower station on the Syr Darya river were created. These works at the same time allowed regulation of
the river flow in the interest of integrated water use. In 1950-1970 large dams and water reservoirs were
constructed: the Kairakkum and Chardara reservoirs on the Syr Darya river, the South Surkhan on the
Surkhandarya river, and reservoirs on the Kashkadarya, Chu and Talas rivers. Also some unique dams at
Nurek and Baipasa on the Vakhsh river, and at Charvak on the Chirchik river were constructed. At the same
time large pumping schemes were constructed to serve more than 20% of the total irrigated area in the region.
The extensive growth of irrigation in the period of 1935 to1960 using fairly primitive irrigation techniques
changed in 1960 towards the so-called "integrated method of development of desert lands". This new
approach comprised not only the creation of irrigation and drainage networks, but also the overall
infrastructure needed for settlement of people (villages, roads, water ways, power lines, etc.). More than 1.6
million ha of new irrigated lands was developed this way in 1960 - 1990. Water abstraction from the rivers in
the region increased proportionally (Fig. 6).
More than 80 water reservoirs have been constructed in the basin, each with a capacity of over 10 million m3. To
regulate the river flow, storage reservoirs were constructed either on rivers (off-stream and river-channel
reservoirs) or on main canals (compensation reservoirs). The aggregate capacity of these water reservoirs
1
These conditions were very similar to those that lead to the creation of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) in the US:
major potential for improved water use (flood protection in the case of TVA); location of strategic defence industries in
demand of (hydro) power; absence of existing strong water management institutions; a policy to boost local employment
and combat poverty; and search for economies of scale by creating productivity-oriented, large-scale enterprises that are
vertically integrated (see xxx)(Note by the editors).
5
exceeds 60km3, of which about 44km3 is useable (17km3 in the Amu Darya river basin and 27km3 in the Syr
Darya river basin).
The basin has 45 hydropower plants with a total capacity of about 34.5GW, the largest being the Nurek (in
Tadjikistan) with a capacity 2,700MW, and the Toktogul (in the Kyrgyz Republic) with a capacity of 1,200MW.
Hydropower constitutes 27.3% of the average energy consumption in the basin. The contribution of hydropower
is the largest in Tadjikistan (about 98%) and in the Kyrgyz Republic (about 75%), and the lowest in
Turkmenistan (about 1%). Potentially, the region can meet more than 71% of its energy requirements from
hydropower which would equal an output of about 150GWh.
3.3. The Aral Sea Problem
The problem of the Aral Sea did not appear overnight. As it is located at the end of a closed water basin, the
sea size and the state of its deltas were directly influenced by the changes which took place in the upper
watershed. The intensive water withdrawal from the Amu Darya and Syr Darya during the last 40 years
caused the sea to shrink. Its level dropped by 17-19 meters and currently only 25% of the total water volume
remains in the sea. The salinity in the sea increased from 10‰ up to 40‰.
By the end of the 1980s the sea was divided into two parts: the Small Sea to the north in Kazakhstan, and the
Large Sea with a deep western part in Uzbekistan territory. After the sea separated into two parts various
scenarios were suggested for their stabilization, amongst which that the Small Sea should be stabilized at the
level of 41 to 42.5m by a special dam, which is now under the construction. No concrete efforts to stabilize
the Large Sea have yet been attempted but proposals for improvement of the situation were identified in the
“Inter-state Concept” in 1994 which will be described below.
4. LAND, IRRIGATION AND SALINITY
4.1. Land
In Central Asia agriculture has always been the mainstay of employment. Today, farming still employs about
60% of the rural population. The fertile soils gave prosperity to the working population. Out of the total land
resources of about 154.9 million hectares some 59.1 million hectares are considered as cultivable, of which
only about 10 million hectares are actually used (Table 1). Half of the actually cultivated lands are located in
the oases (they are naturally drained, with fertile soils). The other half of the land requires complicated and
expensive reclamation, including not only drainage and leveling, but also improvement of soil structure.
Distribution of land among the countries is inequitable, characterized by good land availability in Kazakhstan
and Turkmenistan and scarcity for the three other countries (Table 1). This “land deficit” and the water
scarcity creates friction between the countries but also among provinces, tribes and even local societies. The
former large-scale development of new desert areas in the Soviet times, such as Golodnaya Steppe, Karshi
Steppe, areas along the Karakum Canal, and the Asht and Lylak systems, allowed the resettlement of
hundreds of thousands of people from more populated areas. Such enormous undertakings are no longer
viable for the post-Soviet economically weak independent countries. Thus, decisions should be based only on
the improvement of the available resources rather than on major new developments.
4.2. Irrigated land
Of the total land resources of about 154.9 million ha some 32.6 million are considered suitable for irrigation,
while only about 7.9 million are irrigated (or only 5.1% of total territory of the basin). The non-irrigated area
(pastures, hay, meadows, long-term fallow land) occupy about 54 million hectares. This area includes some 2
million ha of rain-fed arable land but its productivity is on average no more than one-tenth of the productivity
of irrigated land. At the moment, the rain-fed land does not play any significant role in the total agricultural
production, with the exception of extensive semi-nomadic livestock husbandry (cattle and sheep).
Nonetheless, raising productivity of the rain-fed land is an important goal. Some crops (e.g. grains) which at
6
the moment are being increasingly grown in the irrigated areas, could be moved to non-irrigated areas thus
reducing substantially the volume of irrigation water.
Since independence, the area of irrigated land has not changed significantly (with the exception of
Turkmenistan where the area of irrigated land during 1995-1996 increased by about 400,000 ha). However,
there have been significant changes in crop patterns. Cotton still remains one of the most important crops,
although between 1990 and 1998 its share in irrigated agriculture decreased from 45 to 25%, whilst the area
under cereals (wheat, rice, maize and others) increased from 12 to 77%. Wheat became the dominant crop,
covering about 28% of the total irrigated area. Fodder crops in 1998 occupied only 19.6% of the total
irrigated area, compared to 27,4% in 1990, what is highly undesirable from the point of view of maintaining
soil fertility and crop rotation. For a variety of reasons, such as the high cost of inputs (gasoline and chemical
fertilizers) and dysfunctional markets, both yields and production of major crops (cotton, cereals, maize) in
irrigated farming have decreased by 5 to 30% in every country since 1990.
The large-scale irrigated farming in Central Asia is based on a well developed system of irrigation and
drainage facilities, including unique civil engineering projects such as the Karshi scheme where pumping
stations with a total capacity of 350m3/s lift water 180m, and several large-scale gravity irrigation systems
with a mean annual water supply of individual systems approximating 700m3/s. By the end of 1998, the
overall length of main and inter-farm irrigation networks in the basin was 47,750km. Of this, about 28% has
lining against infiltration. About 77% of farm intakes are equipped with flow gauges. On-farm irrigation
networks total 268,500km of which about 21% is lined. Since 1990, on-farm irrigation networks have
deteriorated due to the poor financial situation of both state-owned and privatized farms which have no
possibilities either to reconstruct on-farm networks or even maintain them.
During the last ten years specific water consumption has been gradually decreasing due to limits on water
abstraction imposed by the inter-state water management organizations (see below)(1980: 18,200m3/s; 1990:
14,600m3/s; 1995: 12,200m3/s; 1998: 12,400m3/s). However, this reduction has not been accompanied by an
introduction of advanced irrigation techniques due to insolvency of the water users. Also, a great discepancy
exists between the actual and the required water use. While calculated irrigation rates ranged between 3,800
and 11,200m3/s, actual water consumption in 1990-1998 was 4,500-20,600m3/s. At the same time, it becomes
a priority to consider introduction of local irrigation methods (drip, sprinkler, dispersion) in areas with steep
slopes and on mountain foothills as these methods can reduce irrigation rate 2 to 3 times, preventing at the
same time undesirable environmental effects (namely, waterlogging due to infiltration of more than 6,0008,000m3/s/y into lower horizons; erosion; washout of slopes; etc.). This would at the same time lower the
very high expense for power needed for water lifting.
4.3. Salinization, drainage
The climatic and hydro-geological conditions make soil particularly vulnerable to salinization. Some land,
especially in inter-mountain valleys, is initially salt affected due to the arid climate. The process of salt
accumulation is further intensified under the influence of deep saline artesian water and infiltration of
irrigation water. This is due to natural evaporation processes and the use of overly saline irrigation water on
approximately on 1.2 million ha as well as because of natural poor land drainage conditions (on almost 4
million ha). Out of the total net irrigated area of about 7.9 million ha in the basin, over 5 million requires
man-made drainage, and about 4.5 million is provided with such drainage. 56.8% of the irrigated area (or
4,513,253 ha) has drainage. Out of this total, about 59.6% is surface drainage, 26.2% sub-surface drainage, and
14.2% vertical drainage (tube-wells).
Therefore, the irrigated land is characterized by high groundwater tables and salinity. The area with high
groundwater levels increased in 1990-98 from 25 to 34% of the total irrigated land. In the same period, the
area of moderately and strongly saline land (where crop yields are reduced by 20 to 50%) increased from 23.4
to 28.5% of the total irrigated land. About 60% of irrigated land is classified as non-saline according to Central
Asian standards (with as main criterion the total amount of toxic salts in the soil). This may in the future result
in a drastic loss of land productivity due to a wide spread of soil salinity.
7
5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ROLE OF WATER
5.1. Population
The population growth before independence in all the countries created a heavy demographic pressure. The
total population in the basin was 39.87 million in 1998, of which almost 62% were rural (Table 3). During
1993-1998 the average annual population growth was 1.5% ranging from 2.2% in Uzbekistan to 0.4% in
Kazakhstan.
Table 3. Distribution of population in the Aral Sea basin (1998)
Source: Statistics Yearbooks [3-7]
Population
Total
Urban
inhabitants
% of inhabitants
inhabitants
total
per km2
Kazakhstan*
2,710,000
6.8
7.87
1,219,500
Kyrgyz Republic*
2,540,000
6.4
19.9
685,800
Tadjikistan
6,066,600
15.2
42
1,880,646
Turkmenistan
4,686,800
11.8
9.7
2,109,060
Uzbekistan
23,867,400
59.8
53.2
9,308,286
Aral Sea basin
39,870,800
100
25.7
15,203,292
* Only provinces in the Aral Sea basin are included
Country
%
45
27
31
45
39
38.1
Rural
inhabitants
1,490,500
1,854,200
4,185,954
2,577,740
14,559,114
24,667,508
%
55
73
69
55
61
61.9
This is a decline from the previous decade (1980-1990) when growth averaged 2.5 to 3.2% per year. This
decline is mainly caused by the deteriorating socio-economic conditions prevailing in the countries since their
independence from the former Soviet Union. Population density is lowest in South Kazakhstan with 7.9
inhabitants/km2, and highest in Uzbekistan with 53.2 inhabitants/km2. In some oases (Fergana Valley,
Khorezm, Zerafshan Valley) density increases to 700-800 inhabitants/km2.
Independence after the Soviet Union’s collapse developed into a social threat for the majority of the
population. Thus, Central Asia, despite a well educated population and a high level of human development
and social services, now has poverty levels comparable to some African countries and stands on the same
level as Pakistan and India. Rural poverty has increased particularly sharply.
5.2. Economic Changes
The water sector arguably plays the most significant role in the economic life and national incomes in the
region. During the last three decades before independence (1960-1990), the irrigated agriculture sector and
the sectors of the economy related to water management (hydropower, hydro-technical construction)
contributed more than 50% of the GNP. Now, in the process of gradual transition to a market-oriented
economy, the region has experienced a general production decline. The macro-economic situation varies from
country to country, but overall agricultural production now contributes only between a fifth and a quarter of
GNP in the countries (Table 4).
The decline in GNP, with the biggest drop in Tadjikistan and smallest in Uzbekistan, was accompanied by
major shifts in the distribution of production between sectors. For example, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz
Republic and Tadjikistan experienced a sharp reduction in the contribution of industry, and Kazakhstan and
Turkmenistan, of agriculture (Table 4). Nonetheless, the agricultural sector is still the dominant employer
with 25 to 60% of the labor force. The present agricultural production value varies from as low as
US$350/ha in heavily affected areas (salinity, etc.) to US$2,100/ha in the best areas.
8
Table 4. Changes in the Economic Situation During the Transition Period
Country
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyz Republic
Tadjikistan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
GNP
US$/cap
1990
1998
2310
1330
1240
700
910
340
1490
920
1000
970
By Sector of Economy, %
Industry and Construction Agriculture, Forestry
and Fishery
1990
1998
1990
1998
36.1
27
28
10
35.9
24
34.6
46
33.7
25
27.1
25
33.6
35
28.6
11
32.5
30
31.3
28
Services
1990
35.9
29.5
39.2
37.8
36.2
1998
63
30
50
54
42
Source: Statistics Yearbooks [3-7]
The transfer to a market economy and the exposure of the local cotton to world market prices (the price of
cotton fiber declined from US$1,760/ton or more, to 1,050) heavily impacts on the farmers’ ability to carry on
agricultural production. Under these new conditions the specific income per hectare in the region increased
from US$150/ha to 900, though in the case of cotton growing this increase is much lower.
Proper management, operation and maintenance (MO&M) of the irrigation infrastructure costs about US$65120ha/y. Since farmers cannot afford to pay much more than 10% of their income on MO&M, the
government would need to provide a major part of the funds to maintain the infrastructure in operational
conditions (averaging 70%). If agricultural production increases in proportion with the GNP, it is anticipated
that the 1990 levels will be reached between 2007 and 2015. With this increase in agricultural production,
farmers will be able to pay a larger part of MO&M. The decrease of agricultural production since 1990 also
has a significant impact on the availability of food. This shortage is acute in poorer rural areas.
5.3. National Strategies and Their Influence on the Water Sector
The common aspiration of the Central Asian states to adopt new forms of economic development has been
accompanied by changes in government priorities. In the past, most attention was paid to irrigated
agriculture, but now each country has selected its own course for survival.
Kazakhstan has used a “shock therapy” to transition by removing subsidies to agriculture, and by creating the
possibility for all new farmers to openly compete in the world market. The majority of industrial enterprises
were privatized, many of them with the participation of foreign investors. The oil sector became the principal
sphere of governmental interest.
The Kyrgyz Republic, with almost a total absence of sources of fossil fuel, identified hydropower production
as a first priority for ensuring self-sufficiency. In agriculture, the approach has also been to privatize farming
and minimize the support from the government. Political instability has delayed government regulation in
agriculture and industry, but even under the current conditions agriculture did not decline significantly.
Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan followed a path of a much more gradual transfer to privatization in agriculture
and industry, but economic weakness reduced attention for the water sector.
Tadjikistan has been threatened until recently by political instability. The transition process began only one
year ago but suffers from a very difficult economic situation.
The public sector should assume its role of regulating the transition processes. This is especially important
for the arid Central Asian states, where water management and infrastructure at all levels of the economy and
society should continue to be the focus of attention. The role of the government is underscored by the
perilous and almost unworkable state of the huge infrastructure created in the Soviet times. Moreover, the
large social consequences of the water supply within the existing conditions should be clearly taken into
account.
9
6. WATER DEMAND
6.1. Actual Water Use
The main reasons for the rapidly increasing massive water withdrawal were the population growth, the
agricultural specialization of the region, and the expansion of irrigation driven by the former federal government.
However, water consumption per unit of production tended to be reduced. For example, in the period 1960-1990
water withdrawal increased by only 1.8, while population expanded by 2.7, irrigated area by 1.7, agricultural
output by 3.0, and GDP by 6. After 1990 the tendency towards a reduction of water intake continued and in
1995 water withdrawal decreased by about 9km3 in comparison with 1990, and similarly over the recent years by
17 to 18km3 (Table 5).
Table 5. Actual Water Use and Prospective Requirements in the Aral Sea basin (million m3)
Country
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyz Republic
Tadjikistan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Aral Sea basin
Estimated
level
1990
1997
2010
1990
1997
2010
1990
1997
2010
1990
1997
2010
1990
1997
2010
1990
1997
2010
Domestic
Water
Supply
Rural
water
supply
213
102
384
94
92
352
485
436
770
121
320
1100
2051
2259
5850
2964
3209
8456
131
125
229
70
69
266
696
615
650
70
80
270
839
1200
1630
1806
2189
2945
Economic sectors
Industrial Fishery Irrigated
water
Agric.
supply
275
64
474
68
42
315
607
931
1400
126
135
1150
1260
1070
1460
2336
2142
4899
111
110
341
0
5
0
0
0
500
35
38
400
783
582
2240
929
735
3481
10,136
6,814
10,935
4,910
4648
7,820
11,221
9,443
10,380
24,416
22,200
25,225
58,338
48,622
48,020
109,021
91,727
102,380
Total
Others
451
99
600
13
0
17
374
0
600
2
0
0
0
0
0
840
99
1217
11,317
7,314
12,963
5,155
4,856
8,770
13,383
11,425
14,300
24,770
22,773
28,145
63,271
53,733
59,200
117,896
100,101
123,378
Sources: For 1990: FAO (1997); for 1997: Reports [3-7]; for 2010: Report [1].
Irrigated agriculture used almost 92% of total water demand (though a large part of this is returned to the river).
Due to the economic deterioration experienced industrial use dropped dramatically. It is foreseen that irrigated
agriculture abstraction will decrease in the future to 87% of total water use. Domestic consumption will increase
1.9 times, industrial consumption 1.3 times, and fisheries 1.9 times. Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and
Turkmenistan plan to lower demand for irrigated agriculture by 9.6%, 6.3%, and 19.5%, respectively.
Tadjikistan plans some increase in irrigation water demand. In Uzbekistan, future demand will be stabilized at
the recent level.
6.2. Demand Forecast by Sector
Municipal, domestic and rural water supply. Current data show that the centralized piped water supplies in
southern Kazakhstan constitute less than 40% of the requirements, and that water use was 2-3 times less than the
national average, which is at the level of 270l/capita.day. In the Kyrgyz Republic, centralized piped supply
10
provides water for only 57% of the population, with an average consumption of 110-400l/capita.day. In
Tadjikistan, 60% of the population has piped water supply with an average consumption of 645l/capita.day in
urban areas. The situation is somewhat better in Uzbekistan where 84% of urban and 50% of rural population
enjoy piped water supply. In accordance with the Fundamental Provisions of the Regional Water Management
Strategy [1] planned domestic water use in Central Asian countries in 2010 should be as following:
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyz Republic
Tadjikistan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
540 l/capita.day;
137 l/capita.day;
621 l/capita.day;
592 l/capita.day; and
525 l/capita.day
Industrial water use will not increase sharply up to 2010 though water use will be growing in a few industries,
such as oil and gas refining, chemicals, paper-making, mining and mineral processing. Estimates prepared by
the regional Working Group for the World Water Vision 21 concluded that the growth of industrial water
demands could be satisfied by the re-use of return flow from industrial enterprises and additional use of brackish
low-mineralized water.
The energy sector and hydropower plants in particular have large potentials and may require increased
resources. Hydropower constitutes 27.3% of average energy consumption in the region. Tadjikistan and the
Kyrgyz Republic use hydropower almost exclusively, at 90.3 and 71.9%, respectively, while Kazakhstan and
Turkmenistan use only insignificant amounts of hydropower. Political independence has permitted owners of
energy resources to make full use of, and even exceed design capacity, due to a transition from an irrigation
to a power production mode of storage reservoir operation. The region can meet 71% of its energy
requirements from hydropower resources, but this will require investment not only by the countries in which
the resources are located, but also by the downstream countries affected by their development, i.e.
Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. In the long term, development of hydropower will be extremely
advantageous for all Central Asian countries.
Water use in agriculture is currently decreasing, especially in Uzbekistan, due to the introduction of cereal crops
on about 1.1 million ha. Further reduction of water intake is possible with the use of appropriate drainage and
advanced irrigation methods. Thus, the Inter-State Committee for Water Coordination (ICWC)(see below) is
well oriented in its policy to reduce irrigation water abstraction rates and to permit consumption increases by
other sectors. Irrigated acreage henceforth may be increased only within specified limits2.
In consideration of the high efficiency of non-consumptive water use such as navigation, recreation and fishery,
possible development of these areas should be assessed. According to ichthyologists, the volume of fish output
can be increased several times in the region by stocking reservoirs and rivers and building small, artificial fish
nurseries. In the Tudakul and Hauzhan reservoirs, fish production is as high as 40-60 kg/ha per day 30.9 kg/ha
per day, respectively, while in the rest of the region it is only 3-7 kg/ha per day. The combined potential of the
natural lakes, rivers, storage reservoirs assumed at 100 kg/ha per day could satisfy the demand for fish at 200
t/year, at the total water requirements of 3.5 km3/year.
6.3. Environmental Issues Related to Water Resources
The most dramatic effect of the large-scale development of irrigation has been the shrinking of the Aral Sea
and the disruption the ecosystems it supported. Other impacts include (1) the loss of fish species in the Sea
due to salinity and toxic contamination, (2) soil degradation as a result of waterlogging and salinization of
2
"Water consumption by a certain type of consumer in each country, as well as the development of irrigation in each
country, may proceed only within overall limits (quota) and reserves, which are determined by the modernization of water use
processes and other types of water conservation as well as the development of additional water resources." Fundamental
Provisions of Water Strategy in the Aral Sea Basin, approved by the ICWC, Bukhara, June 1996.
11
irrigated land in the catchment areas of the Aral Sea Basin, (3) crop diseases and insect infestation, i.a. due to
cotton mono-culture, (4) adverse health effects from the poor drinking water quality and sanitation, and
wind-blown chemicals from the exposed sea bottom, and (5) local climate changes.
The riparian states have agreed that the Aral Sea with its deltas is to be considered an independent water user
whose legitimate demands will be specified jointly on the basis of a strategy for improvement of the
environmental situation, taking into account the variability of the river flows. At the same time, all the riparian
states recognize the importance of environmental requirements concerning both water quality and quantity for
the preservation of biodiversity and bio-productivity. In the Soviet period Master Plans existed for the Amu
Darya and Syr Darya which set minimum mandatory flow for the Syr Darya at 50m3/s and at 100m3/s for the
Amu Darya. Unfortunately, these requirements have not been adhered to. In 1992-1998, thanks to the higher
natural water availability and the ICWC initiatives, the Aral Sea and its coastal region received about 110km3 of
water (Fig. 2). In the nearest future, the requirement is estimated as 8 and 5km3/yearfor the Amu Darya and Syr
Darya river, respectively. By 2010, these inflows should increase to 11 and 8km3/year, respectively. The actual
demand of the natural complexes, including the watering of deltas, wetlands and pastures, is assessed by the
Regional Water Resources Management Strategy at 4.6km3/year for the Amu Darya and 2.0km3/year for the
Syr Darya.
7. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AT THE REGIONAL LEVEL
7.1. The Heritage from the Soviet Era and Creation of BWO
The need to integrate water resources management at the basin level was fully understood in the period before
independence. Then, water allocation plans were drafted annually by the federal government, primarily the
former Ministry of Water Resources of the USSR (MWR – Minvodgoz), in a centralized way, but based on
consultations with the governments of the five republics. However, the bad experiences with the water
shortages in 1974-76 and especially in 1982 indicated that reliable and environmentally sound water delivery
along the river was impossible without a unified water management for the whole basin. Such a basin-wide
organization could operate the water infrastructure and deliver water in accordance with the schedule agreed
among the republics and approved by MWR. The framework of this organization was elaborated at the
beginning of the 1980s by SANIIRI which at that time performed the role of a regional scientific center on
water management and use. Two Basin Water Organizations were established: the BWO “Amu Darya” with
headquarters in Urgench, and the BWO “Syr Darya” in Tashkent. By State Decree No. 1088 the operation
and maintenance of all head water structures on both rivers with a discharge above 10m3/s were transferred to
the BWOs. The BWOs remained operational after independence, and their current mandate includes:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Timely and guaranteed water supply to water users, in accordance with the ICWC established limits for
water intake from transboundary water sources. This covers the control over releases to the deltas and
the Aral Sea, as well as the operational control over inter-state reservoir operation, and river water
quality.
Development of plans for water diversions by main water intakes, reservoirs and cascade operation
regimes, and the preparation in coordination with ICWC of water allocations for all water users.
Creation of automatic flow control systems, the organization of water flow measurement on the main
water intakes, and the operation of the equipment.
Performance monitoring, together with Hydromet services, of flow measurements across state borders to
ensure accurate accounting for the purpose of balancing allocations.
Construction, rehabilitation and technical exploitation of complex hydraulic structures, head water
intakes, inter-republic canals, and automatic control systems.
Scientific research, and design.
BWOs, therefore, dispose of departments for the operation of the large water infrastructure in the basins, and
manage otherwise financially independent enterprises specialized in transportation, machinery, civil works,
12
etc. The MWR financed the BWOs from the federal budget for operation, maintenance, rehabilitation and
development.
During the Soviet period, the BWOs’ working procedure was as follows. On the basis of forecasts prepared
by the Central Asia Hydromet Service, the BWOs presented twice a year3 an annual allocation plan to MWR,
with prior agreement of the republics. The plan set the water releases from the reservoirs and delivery to each
water management region. The water share for each republic was established in accordance with water
allocation principles, which were approved by the Federal State Planning Committee on the basis of the
previously mentioned Master-Plans for both rivers. These annual plans, in which a very important component
addressed the water storage plan in the main water reservoirs for multi-year regulation (Toktogul, Andijan,
Charvak, Nurek), were then confirmed by the Deputy Minister of the MWR. The work plan of the BWOs
was organized along this annual plan. To facilitate operations, work was begun with Soviet Union funding on
the modernization of the headworks of the main canals, in particular to install an automatic control system for
the Syr Darya.
The BWOs had the authority to reduce or increase the allocation for each country by up to 10%. They did not
monitor the water quality, however, and were not responsible for the water use in each country. In effect, the
policy for water delivery to the Aral Sea as most downstream riparian consisted of providing whatever was
remaining.
The independent states inherited two approaches for water allocation: (1) proportional to the irrigated area, or
(2) proportional to demand, as estimated for each district and situation. However, new proposals are being
elaborated to define more restrictive water allocation limits for each river reach based on the minimal,
ecologically required rate. All additional water demand is then considered “economically productive”.
Therefore, the discrepancy between the current water allocation and the newly defined limit should be paid
for (or otherwise compensation) by the respective Local Administration to the common Basin Reserve Fund.
This principle will be also utilized for the creation of an incipient regional water market.
7.2. The New Period of Inter-relations after Independence
After the independence in 1991 the necessity arose to create a new mechanism for regional collaboration for
the management and financing of water resources management. Based on the principles of equal rights and
responsibilities, and of rational water resources use, agreed in 1992, a number of inter-state agreements have
been signed.
The first inter-state agreement (1992) established the Inter-state Commission for Water Coordination (ICWC)
responsible for joint water resources management4. The ICWC consists of the senior members of the water
management organizations of each of the founder states. The ICWC has four executive bodies, namely its
Secretariat, the two BWOs, and the Scientific-Information Center SIC. The location of each ICWC meeting,
the Chairperson and the agenda are determined by rotation and are based on an agreement reached at the
preceding ICWC meeting. The agenda is prepared by its executive bodies. The meetings consider current
questions related to water allocation and water use, as well as prospective issues.
Essentially the ICWC took over the functions of the former MWR but with appropriate changes:
•
•
The ICWC has five members, appointed by the respective governments. They are equal in rights and
obligations. They have scheduled meetings once per quarter to reach decision on all pending issues.
The two BWOs are transformed into the executive bodies of ICWC. In a similar way, a part of former
Central Asian Research and Education Institute for Water Economy SANIIRI was transformed into the
3
In March for the vegetation period and in September for the non-vegetation period.
Agreement about collaboration in the sphere of joint management of water resources from inter-state water sources:
regulation, use and conservation, signed in Almaty on February 18, 1992, and Decision of the Heads of States on March
23, 1993
4
13
•
•
•
Scientific-Information Center of the ICWC to act as the “think tank” for the Commission.
All agenda points for the ICWC meetings must be prepared by the executive bodies, and the materials
disseminated among the members at least 20 days before the meeting.
Each member of ICWC represents the interests of his country on the basis of defined authority and
responsibility, entrusted in him by his government.
The principles of water allocation prevailing in the Soviet times were retained until the new regional
water resources management strategies are confirmed.
The main functions of the ICWC are:
a) Allocation of the annual consumption allocations for each country as well as the river deltas and the Aral
Sea as well as all environmental releases on rivers and canals, and all infrastructure operation to
effectuate this. Operation of the large water reservoirs. All operations, support and maintenance of the
headworks on the rivers, which are under the supervision of BWO.
b) Definition of the regional water management policy as a function of population and economic interests.
Definition of programs for rational use and conservation of water resources and improved irrigation.
c) Development of recommendations to the governments on (i) a common water pricing policy, (ii) the
compensation mechanisms for possible losses incurred by one of the nations due to the joint water
management, and (iii) the legal framework of water management and use.
d) Coordination of large construction projects.
e) Creation of a single information data-base on water use, agricultural activities, and common
environmental values.
f) Initiation and coordination of joint research on the scientific and technical provisions for regional water
problems and for the preparation of master-plans.
g) Development of joint programs for awareness raising and for emergency preparation for natural
catastrophes.
Activities under (a) are typically discharged by the BWOs, whilst SIC ICWC assumes the responsibility for
the tasks (b) through (g). The ICWC and the BWOs are directly accountable to the States for the tasks under
(a). The countries have the obligation to financially and technically support both BWOs (Fig. 4).
Subsequently, in 1993, as the Aral Sea Basin Program was consolidating and being extended, two new
organizations were established, i.e. the Inter-state Council for the Aral Sea (ICAS) with the purpose of
program coordination; and the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea (IFAS) with the purpose of
attracting and managing financial means. In 1997 the inter-state entities were streamlined as follows (Fig. 5):
• The ICAS and IFAS were merged into a “new” IFAS, which is the top decision-makin g body of the
Aral Sea Program and its water management tasks, and of which the leadership is rotated every two
years among the Presidents of the five countries. The IFAS has in addition a separate Board for the
day-to-day operations, of which the Deputy Prime Ministers of the five States are the members.
• The Executive Committee of the IFAS (EC IFAS) was established to support the general day-to-day
activities of the Aral Sea Program. It is a permanent body, with two members from each State. It
carries out all the activities for implementing the decisions of the IFAS Board, via the National
Branches of IFAS. Also, it has authority to organize activities for different (international and donor
supported) projects through the executive agencies or the Project Monitoring and Coordination Unit on
behalf of the Board.
• The ICWC remains the highest technical level for transboundary water resources management, water
14
allocation, monitoring, and water use. The BWOs and the SIC ICWC remain the executive agencies of
the Commission.
Thus, the main tasks of the EC IFAS are to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ensure that the decisions of the Head of States (in the IFAS) are given practical follow up;
initiate and monitor the projects and programs emerging from the IFAS;
coordinate the activity of IFAS branches located on the territory of the founding states;
facilitate the ICWC activities;
lead the interactions with international organizations, donors country, and ecological and other funds;
attract and manage financial means and target their spending;
prepare documents for IFAS Board meetings as well as conferences and meetings of the Head of States
on the Aral Sea problems.
In practice the SIC ICWC prepares all the technical, financial, institutional, and legal proposals, in close
cooperation with the respective Ministries of the ICWC members. Those proposals must be approved by the
ICWC and then carried onward to the IFAS for endorsement. In this hierarchy the IFAS Board possesses the
prerogative of political decision making, but it is in turn subject to the overall approval of the policy
principles by the Heads of State at their regular meeting.
7.3. New Directions of Technical Activities
The Water Resources Management Information System (WARMIS) was created in 1995 by SIC ICWC, the
BWOs and foreign specialists, sponsored by the European Union TACIS Program. This system consists of 3
regional (SIC ICWC and BWOs) and 5 national nodes of a network to permanently exchange information
related to water resources use in a common format. The system covers:
•
•
•
•
•
historical data for all rivers for a period of about 100 years;
annual and monthly water allocations and use since 1986;
administrative sub-divisions, land use, and irrigation and drainage data since 1986;
socio-economic data; and
GIS covering the most parts of the irrigated area in the region.
The Water Use and Farm Management System (WUFMAS) was organized with the assistance of the same
donors. It comprises a unique system of observations and analysis of the irrigated agriculture at farm level.
Initially, WUFMAS covered 36 representative farms in the five countries. All observations were carried out
by national groups of specialists, who collected the technical, biological, agricultural, hydrological,
managerial, economic and social data related to agricultural production at the farm level. Also, the water and
land use, the efficiency and finances, and the contents of the work are observed. The regional team prepares
the analytical reports on the basis of this data. These reports then are disseminated annually among the five
states. In 1999 the observations were changed to include indicators for the improvements in productivity of
water and land.
The SIC ICWC became member of the international agricultural research IPTRID Network, which was
created by the World Bank, ICID and FAO. This allowed the creation of an urgently needed network to
exchange knowledge and information in the region, as well as between the region and the main centers of
water and irrigation research, such as ILRI (Netherlands), the US Bureau of Reclamation, Cemagref (France),
Wallingford (UK), ICID and FAO. The new facilities to translate and publish bulletins, proceedings and
other materials, now allow the water specialists in Central Asia to familiarize themselves with the
international experience with modern water management and irrigation performance, and with the newly
emerging issues.
15
7.4. Disadvantages of the Present System for Regional Water Resources Management.
The principal agreement of March 18, 1992, which was a milestone in the organization of the regional water
cooperation between the newly independent States, was still based on the concepts established in the Soviet
era. Since independence the economic weakness creates new conditions that shape the new challenges in
water management. This comprises the absence of the former federal support to water infrastructure, and the
impact of the difficult transition of the countries to a market economy which in turn creates substantial
differences between the countries. The main institutional weaknesses concern the following.
1. The water management rule that prioritized irrigated agriculture, does not any longer satisfy the States in
the upper watershed (Kygyz Republic and Tadjikistan) which prefer to use the water as the main source
of power generation. This creates a conflict of interests between up- and downstream countries.
Attempts to resolve this on the basis of a water-for-energy barter between countries (i.e., trading fossil
fuel from downstream countries for irrigation water from upstream countries) failed due to an absence of
strict mutually agreeable barter conditions. In some years, like in 2000, it actually created frictions
between the countries.
2. The water allocation policies did not take into account possible changes in the preferences of the former
republics, which are now new independent countries. The States have different water and land reserves
(Sections 2, 3 and 5), but also their demands are increasingly different because of present but especially
future concerns related to securing access to water and provision of water related services. The view of
the Kyrgyz Republic and Tadjikistan is that they have been constrained during Soviet times in their
development of irrigation capacity, and that, therefore, they need to reassess what they consider their fair
water share. The lowland countries wish to have taken into account the environmental constraints and
especially the quality of water in the middle and low reaches of the rivers. In addition, the possibility
grows that Afghanistan, once stabilized, could submit fresh requests for reallocation.
3. Several hydraulic structures, including some strategic reservoirs and transboundary river reaches, have
not been transferred by the countries to the BWOs operation yet. Many hydropower reservoirs are owned
by the power agencies.
4. The BWOs do not control schedules of groundwater extraction and return water diversion.
5. The BWOs do not manage or otherwise control the quality of the natural surface, return and groundwater.
6. Protected zones on the transboundary rivers have not yet been determined and officially transferred to the
BWO’s authority.
7. The BWOs do not dispose of up-to-date equipment for the acquisition and processing of data, for longdistance communication, for automatic operation of infrastructure, or for mathematical simulation of
integrated water use.
8. Strict and unambiguous financial obligations by States are absent in the mutual water management
agreements. Although the operational budget is confirmed each year by the ICWC before the beginning
of the fiscal year, only Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan have fully met their obligations for the operational
needs and for repair works. For the research work, only Uzbekistan has met its obligations, with the other
States contributing only a very small part. Attempts to facilitate the financing of reconstruction and
development of infrastructure has met with opposition from all the States financing bodies. As a result,
currently only a small part of the required innovation works for the Hydromet services on transboundary
rivers, and one headwork in BWO region are being carried out, with financial assistance from GEF and
CIDA.
16
9. “Command-and-control” methods in water management are increasingly incompatible with public
participation: The water management sector has managed after independence to preserve its preferential
position as a “closed shop”, although the welfare of millions of citizens depends on its performance.
7.4.10. Institutional Arrangements at the National Level
The transition to a market-oriented economy clearly highlights all the disadvantages of the former (and
largely current) institutional structures at the national level:
1. At national level the water sector still represents the interests of agriculture only, not of all users.
Similarly, the water and the agricultural administrative and economic structures in the downstream
countries still must be adjusted in order to represent the interests of irrigation, hydropower, water supply,
water storage, etc. on a more equal footing.
2. From the initiation of water management and irrigation projects right up to their implementation, all
important decisions are made only by administrations without participation of current or future water
users. Yet, the costs of the irrigation and water structures are increasingly transferred to these users. As
a result, full or partial costs can often not be recovered from them. Such situations are especially
problematic in the salinized lands and in the large irrigation water lift systems, where the costs of
drainage, maintenance and energy cannot be recovered from the income of the irrigated agriculture. On
the other hand, an unrestricted policy of maximum transfer of the O&M costs of irrigation networks to
water users is likely to breach the minimal maintenance procedures. The operational lifetime has expired
of systems that used to be considered among the technically most advanced (lined canals, flumes,
subsurface and vertical drains). However, decisions on their renovation lie between on one hand the
water users, who do not feel this to be their responsibility, and on the other the state agencies which do
not address it, pleading a lack of finances.
3. The habit of exclusively administrative management of water and irrigation creates local tension and puts
provincial and district administrative action at odds with the principle of equitable water rights for all
water users.
4. From both a legislative and financial perspective, the distribution of responsibilities between the local
water users and the state budget, is vague and ambiguous in all countries. A common belief prevails that
the national governments should take an increasing amount of the financial burden, although this neglects
the fact that the decrease in irrigation efficiency and the water saving cause productivity losses. This
presents a grave danger to the States as it decreases tax returns and national income.
5. As mentioned before, water losses at on-farm and inter-farm level are large. With national
administrations unable to remedy this, the cost effectiveness of the water resources is sharply reduced.
The understanding of the water conservation necessity caused by growth of ecosystem approach to water
management and creation on the proper initiatives in the steady water conservation. From upper level –
ICWC – Ministries – Oblast (province) water authorities existed under permanent pressure of water limit,
which rainforced each year. In Uzbekistan, for example, special body – “Uzwatercontrol” was organized
for monitoring of those limits for irrigation with rights to punish if they are exceed. From other side,
payment for such extra consumption implemented in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan by the State taxes
services, who charge it by price in 3…5 times more than regular price in all branches of water use (besides
irrigation) – in water supply, industry, etc. In Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic and Tadjikistan this activity
organized via WUA, but degree of their perfection and efficiency is very different. Unfortunately, in
irrigation they are only on initial stage and we can not monitor some efficiency of their role. Moreover,
now they are very unsufficient in water allocation between water users due to weak economic base of
stakeholders.
The enough big achievements in water saving had done in some projects, which organize a good system of
water delivery in water scarced regions and implement enough big price. These are Karakalpakstan water
supply project, Tashauz water supply project, Khorezm water supply project, which reduce water
consumption in rural and urban network by 25% and 33%! Unpopularity of the similar measures in
irrigated agriculture caused not by absence of understanding among decision-makers, but by impossibility
17
to pay real cost for water by farmers in result of low price of agricultural production and absence of
governmental subsidies.
Interrelation between environmental and water institutions are different in different countries, but in
common they have a proper level of collaboration without contradictions. In Kazakhsta, for example, State
Water Committee is under authorization of the Environmental ministry, In Tadjikistan, Uzbekistan and
Turkmenistan they collaborate throughout licence for water consumption given by Ministry of
environmenta and its local bodies.
7.5. Initiatives for Institutional Improvement
To guarantee integrated water management for the whole rivers it is necessary to transfer the management of
lower reaches and all essential hydraulic components to the BWOs. This is not yet the case, as the BWOs’
original task was not water management but the operation and maintenance of specific infrastructure works.
Within each BWO departments must be established to, at least, monitor transboundary groundwater and
return flows, water quality, and the state of the ecology of the transboundary water resources.
The BWOs would not act as executive agents or managers of these water resources, but they would provide
essential information on baseline data and on deviations. Special agreements between the States would allow
licensing the use of the national part of those transboundary flows; this can then be carried out by the BWO,
similar to the control on water abstraction. Similarly, the river beds and the protection zones on both rivers
should be monitored by the BWOs on the basis of agreements between the States, including allocation of
financial support for improvement of the situation along rivers. This is especially important in view of the
currently highly unsuitable condition of the river beds and the siltation regimes.
A special emergency body needs to be organized in each BWO to closely collaborate with the national
emergency initiatives. This is the more important, as the majority of the large dams on both rivers are owned
by the national energy agencies, rather than the BWOs. This emergency system must be interconnected to the
relevant structures under the umbrella of the BWOs.
It was proposed to organize public participation at the regional level in two ways:
•
•
Basin Supervision Committees should be set up within the BWOs with representatives of Governments
(33%), provinces which are supplied by these rivers (33%) and other stakeholders (Water User
Associations [WUAs], associations of water suppliers, etc.)(33%). The functions of these Committees
should include (i) periodical review and revision of the BWO activities; (ii) definition of urgent and
future measures; (iii) identification, initiation and contribution of financing; and (iv) public awareness
about the BWO work.
A broad spectrum of information about regional organizations should be organized under the aegis of the
EC IFAS in close collaboration with water and environmental NGOs. The first meeting of NGOs and
IFAS’ organizations took place in May 1999 and a Memorandum about mutual activity was agreed.
The relations in the Central Asian water management sector are not easy to be understood by outsiders, as the
countries have evolved in a short time from a multi-level administrative institutional hierarchy, that is being
gradually transformed to a market-guided economy with 5 or 6 levels, depending on the country and local
conditions.
Now, WUAs more and more replace the old farmer administrative rayon administration. Unions of WUAs
create physical systems and agencies at sub-basin levels, which permits to change the structure from a
territorial-administrative one to a morphology based one. In other words, at national scale the administrative
hierarchy would be (from top to bottom): Ministry of (Agriculture and) Water Resources (MAWR); Subbasin or System Agency; individual WUA or WUA Consortium; individual farmer (in agriculture) or other
water user such as factory or municipal water utility (Fig. 8).
18
7.6. Legal Framework
7.6.1. Regional Water Resources Management Strategy
The water management requires a new legal basis because the rivers in the region have become
transboundary. The new inter-state agreements and procedures are to be developed in accordance with
international law as well as taking into account local traditions and experience. The five Central Asian
nations have taken the first steps to respond to this need and overcome the inter-regional water problems and
minimize ethnic tensions. On September 12, 1991, the Water Resources Ministers of these countries declared
that henceforth joint water resources management would be established on the basis of equity and mutual
benefit, which is consistent with modern legal approaches in international water affairs as enunciated, for
example, in the Dublin Principles (1992 International Conference on Water and the Environment) and the
1997 UN Convention on Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses.
On February 18, 1992, the countries signed a second inter-state agreement stipulating that water allocation
should respect the historical uses and that the two technical river basin authorities (BWOs) should continue to
operate but now under the control of the newly established Inter-state Commission for Water Coordination.
All the water resources of the region (surface, underground, drainage) are divided into either transboundary
courses which are located on the territory of two or more countries, or national ones, located on the territory
of one country and not interacting with the transboundary waters.
Each country has the right to manage its own national resources as well as part of the transboundary water
within limits agreed with the other countries, and based on the principle that no damage should be caused. In
addition, the Aral Sea and its deltas were defined as an independent sixth riparian with their own water rights.
All transboundary water was declared the object of common ownership by all riparians, and its development,
protection and use should be carried out on the basis of inter-state agreements by the inter-regional bodies,
according to the national requests and regional interests.
Nonetheless, the existing documents do not yet ensure proper water use and control. This is due to the fact
that the existing framework agreements do not comprehensively cover all the important technical and
financial issues and eventualities that emerge from this transboundary water management. For instance,
water flows to the Aral Sea are not yet ensured, emergency conditions are often allowed to occur, and,
overall, water use is still inefficient. Therefore, the legal documents must be further expanded upon. They
should elaborate the mechanisms for their fulfillment with due regard for regional traditions as well as
international standards. Legal support should include a system of normative technical documents that specify
all technical aspects of water use and consumption, and what are deemed permissible impacts of human
activity on the environment. They should develop rules for the preparation, adoption and implementation of
decisions. In 1996, a first start was made for the establishment of this codex.
Beside the legal framework, a vision and strategy at the regional level are crucial to identify and resolve
conflicts over water issues. Major conflicts can develop between (i) the zones of flow formation and deltas;
(ii) the water users and the environment; and (iii) irrigation and hydropower. The following basic matters in
particular require further study and clear definition in the international documents:
•
•
•
The principle of equity in the use of water, and how to operationalize this principle.
The criterion of efficiency in the use of the common water resources.
The principle that the regional interests have priority over national ones, and how to ensure this principle
is effectuated.
19
Among the key solutions to the basin problems5 the legal documents to regulate the water resources
management and their use have priority. Such legal documents should specify the countries’ obligations that
can be enforced through a court of law. The legal framework that should support the water management
strategy should comprise policy provisions that clearly and unambiguously regulate both phases of the
development and the implementation of the water strategy, thus serving as guidelines to prevent or minimize
conflict in all eventualities that may arise in the water resources management. These documents should
preferably cover the following issues:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Inclusion of all waters of transboundary nature (surface, groundwater and return flow) under the authority
of the ICWC.
Specification of the BWOs’ functions and structure with due regard for the concept, currently being
developed, that aims at embracing the entire channel of each river by its BWO.
Rules for joint use of common water resources.
Legislation and standards on water quality, and qualitative and quantitative standards restricting
discharges.
Procedures for the decision-making by inter-state bodies.
Procedures for settling disputes and arbitration.
Specification and accountability for violating abstraction limits, flow regimes, water pollution and for
failure to feed water into the Aral Sea.
Protection of structures and waterways which are of international importance.
Assigning responsibility for information exchange.
Technical and operational procedures for the collaboration on transboundary rivers, lakes and waterways.
Procedures for the determination of damages and for their compensation, including compensation for
flooding, water pollution, etc.
This is a large agenda that inevitably will require much technical work and negotiation. However, the
foundation for this work was laid by the Fundamental Provisions … (see footnote) which has been agreed
upon by ICWC, and the Governments of Kazakhstan, Tadjikistan and Uzbekistan, as well as, with some
comments, by the Kyrgyz Republic and Turkmenistan.
As follow-up, IFAS and ICWC, assisted by legal advisers from the European Union, drafted a set of basic
agreements:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Agreement on the status of the organizations within the IFAS.
Draft agreement on institutional strengthening of the ICWC organizations.
Draft agreement on the formation of regional, national and basin-based information systems and the
exchange of information.
Draft agreement on “Water use from transboundary waters”.
Draft agreement on “Planning of joint interventions on the transboundary rivers”.
Draft agreement on “Water quality and the ecological sustainability of the rivers”.
The first text was approved by the Board of IFAS in 1997 and confirmed by the Head of States on April 9,
1999. The second and third drafts have gone through a long process of negotiation, and the final versions will
be submitted for endorsement to the next meeting of ICWC mid-2000. On the water use agreement, it was
decided after five unsuccessful negotiation rounds to prepare separate agreements for each basin, and these
are now only in a preliminary stage.
7.6.3. Permanent Legal Work
For all this preparation and negotiation work in the specialist working groups, the full-time commitment of
national representatives trusted by their governments is needed as well as the participation of NGOs. EC
5
Fundamental Provisions of the Water Resources Management Strategy in the Aral Sea Basin, ICWC, Bukhara, June
1996.
20
IFAS approved a list of country experts who are appointed by their respective government to work on the
legal documents. These expert representatives collaborate in a Working Group, assisted by a foreign expert,
along the following lines:
1. After the preparation of a draft, the draft should be disseminated between the States and become subject
of discussion at the national level.
2. The governments appoint their National Coordinators as well as the National Negotiation teams, which
include representatives from each national body interested in water management, use and protection. The
National Coordinator is responsible for the consultation process and he prepares a unified national
opinion, which must then be approved by the Deputy Prime Minister who is a member of the IFAS Board.
3. The opinions of all States are then assessed by an inter-state group, and EC IFAS and SIC ICWC convene
the next meeting of States’ representatives.
4. The subsequent revision of the draft should lead to consensus between the members of the inter-state
group following which the amended draft is returned for edorsement by the States.
Such a process can continue for a long time until consensus is achieved. Currently, a new important
psychological hurdle is that this legal work, though not finalized, no longer has an impartial outside facilitator
and sponsor due to the fact that the international assistance program under WARMAP-2 was completed while
its continuation WARMAP-3 has not yet been approved.
Finally, a major task remains the harmonization of the national water laws. After independence the States
began to create their own water law, but in the majority of the cases these followed the former Soviet Water
Code. Though the water laws of Kazakhstan, Tadjikistan and Uzbekistan declare the international
agreements of having precedence over the national water law, in the two other States such statements are
absent. This has caused conflicts on some occasions. Clearly, to resolve this structural incompatibility a long
period to develop mutual trust is required, as well as a mechanism of dispute resolution between the States.
Unfortunately, such a mechanism is also absent in the IFAS and ICWC framework, and it is currently
considered to address this under the umbrella of the internationally funded GEF project on the Aral Sea.
7.7. Conditions for Future Success
The political approval and acceptance of the proposals for institutional and legal reform that were prepared
by technical working groups has been generally slow because of the following reasons:
•
•
•
•
Reluctance of the decision makers in the downstream riparian countries (notably Kazakhstan,
Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) to change the status quo of the previous era, which created a conflict with
the upstream countries (Kyrgyz Republic and Tadjikistan) wishing to confirm their rights on the water,
and seeking their benefit under the new conditions.
The prevailing political priority of national sovereignty over regional stability.
The political weight attributed to the physical location of the EC IFAS, and the intense competition
between the countries to be seen as the leader in the collaboration.
The unstable working environment seriously hampers the development of an experienced and dedicated
staff complement, the stabilization of the relations with the international community, and the
development of the institutional quality, commitment and accountability of the water management
agencies.
The problem of slow consensus achievement is compounded by the fact that in each country at least 6 to 9
national agencies are government-level stakeholders in the water sector:
•
•
•
Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources, or in some countries, of Agriculture (MAWR or MA);
Ministry of Energy (MP);
Ministry or Committee of Environment and/or Natural Resources (ME);
21
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ministry of Economic Affairs and Statistics (MES);
Ministry of Industry (MI);
Ministry of Communal Needs (MCN), which is responsible for domestic water supply and wastewater
treatment;
Ministry of Finance (MF);
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA); and
Hydromet Service (HMS).
It appears that proper integrated water management at the regional level requires “four conditions for
consensus” to be met:
First condition – each State should dispose of some degree of consensus and mutual understanding between
these sector stakeholders, in reasonable accordance with the country’s priorities. In addition, there should
preferably be one central person, possibly the member of the IFAS Board, who can act as “central secretary”,
champion and spokesperson.
Second condition – the collaboration between the countries should be based on parity, transparency, mutual
trust, and a sincere desire to work towards consensus.
Third condition – consensus within the donor community, which should preempt the possibility that donors
start competing with each other and develop their own, uncoordinated agendas with separate States.
Fourth condition – consensus between the donor community and the Central Asia States that the impression
must be avoided that the local partners can be “dictated”, which would cause interests and information of the
States to turn asymmetrical and, thus, often disturbs the consensus building effort.
9. INTERNATIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT IN A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
9.1.Integrated Management and Development of Transboundary Water Resources
The meaning of “transboundary water” is not very clear in international water law and this creates confusion.
In fact, the changes and new interpretations that were introduced between the 1966 Helsinki rules, the 1992
Convention of the ECE/UN and the 1997 UN Convention on Non-navigational Use of International
Watercourses, did not help the newly independent States of Central Asia in clarifying the international water
law (Table 12).
Firstly, the definition of international watercourses is less clear than that of transboundary water in the 1992
Convention. Both Conventions and the Helsinki rules interpret the spheres of joint water use, protection and
management in different ways. The understanding of transboundary waters in the Aral Sea context was
formulated by the members of the regional team of scientists and professionals in the 1996 Fundamental
Provisions of the Water Resources Management Strategy in the Aral Sea Basin.
Transboundary waters comprise the following:
•
•
•
surface water: flow of rivers, their tributaries and combinations, which are formed and have
transboundary stretches, i.e., that mark or cross the borders between two or more States, as well as water
resources of artificial reservoirs formed as the result of human intervention to these transboundary
waters;
groundwater located in the territory of two or more States or linked with transboundary surface waters;
and
return waters changing quality and (or) quality of transboundary waters, or formed in the territory of two
or more States.
22
The Article 9 of the 1992 Convention stated that “… Riparian Parties shall specify the cathment area, or
part(s) thereof, subject to cooperation”, and it should be taken as a guiding principle for all international
water law. In the Aral Sea basin, the boundaries of the responsibility and territory of the regional and the
national organizations should be clearly outlined.
The criteria for water allocation are a second key question. Neither analysis of world treaties or of other
countries’ experience, nor the mentioned international laws could be used by the newly independent States as
unambiguous guidelines for developing these criteria. Commonly, especially in upstream zones, countries
interpret their right to transboundary water as a right to fully use all water, or implement any release regime
on their own territory. It appears that two cases must be distinguished: the right to use one’s volumetric
allocation (or possibly even the requests for volume increase), and the right to form water flow regimes by
one’s discretion. What should be taken as a basis? Clearly, international water lawyers have to contribute to
explain how to combine the basic tenets of international water law, notably (i) the right of the riparian
countries to equitable and reasonable use with regard for previous use; (ii) the rule “do not harm”; and (iii)
the “polluter must pay” rule.
From the viewpoint of the authors, the criteria for water allocation should take into account three principles:
1. Annual per capita water use must reflect the “technologically feasible minimal water use that still ensures
economic efficiency”. This should become the target for the States. Based on the experience elsewhere
and the possibilities created by advanced technologies, it is estimated that this would presently be below
1500m3, and in the future no more than 1000m3.
2. Historical water use rights of the population, not only for consumption, but also to serve nature.
3. Present priorities of the riparian countries.
The principle of “equitable and reasonable use” can be combined with the principle “do not harm”. However,
if such equitable and reasonable use has already caused damage, as was the case with the drive for regional
specialization of the downstream riparians into monocultural cotton production that damaged the Aral Sea, its
re-interpretation could aggravate the situation and cause different types of harm, for example employment and
welfare in these regions. What to do? The principle of a limit can be considered on what is thought to be a
vital but sustainable environmental water diversion – which is about 76km3 for the Aral Sea basin (Fig. 9).
Evidently, this is achievable, but not at once. At the present time, the population in the Aral Sea basin is 38
million, or 2000m3/cap.y. Assume we can set an allocation for each country, reflecting what is being
achieved in countries with similar economic and hydrological conditions (i.e., not considering rich Israel,
Saudi Arabia or Jordan, with 200-500m3/cap.y, but rather Egypt with 900m3/cap.y which has a similar level
of water use and national income). No country is likely to be able to make such a substantial improvement,
halving its water use, at once. One can consider the establishment of a “penalty fund” or “market” within
IFAS. Every user who exceeds this (theoretical, long-time goal) allocation should pay into this fund an
amount proportional to the current damage due to his overabstraction, and should adhere to a gradual plan to
achieve this limit. Such an approach would permit to combine the three mentioned major principles of water
law. Moreover, this approach is consistent with institutional, legal and financial aspects of water
management on transboundary rivers, and will create a joint investment facility for water infrastructure, for
conservation measures, and for measures to save water and improve water quality. Though acceptance of this
proposition by the countries will require a long process, increased public awareness will assist in this
endeavor.
9.2. Climate Change Effects
The Aral Sea region’s hydrology and meteorology is likely to make the region extremely sensitive to changes
in climate. The forecasted effects of climate change (see Sections 2 and 3) make sound understanding of
these change processes necessary, and calls for a strong political and public awareness. Society needs to
prepare for the eventuality that the region must survive with a steadily declining quantity of water. Such a
program is being initiated now by the GEF, but it lacks political involvement. As a first step, pressure should
23
be placed on political decision makers, and before 2030 a new generation of people must be educated with the
concept that per capita consumption in the region cannot exceed 1000m3/cap.y for all needs, partly to
anticipate the risk associated with climate change.
On the other hand, it should be recognized that the greenhouse effect in the Central Asian Region has not
been caused by local emissions, but primarily by industrialized countries. Therefore, a case exists that the
industrialized world should participate in the development and financing of a regional program to mitigate
possible negative consequences caused by the greenhouse effect.
9.3. Role of Donors in Central Asia Region
Against this background international donor support is critically important both in view of the inter-state
conflicts and the weak national capacities in the irrigation and water sectors. In addition, the problems are
compounded by the weakened local economies caused by drops in commodity prices6. Of course, if these
recover or the agricultural system manages to adjust, the farmers could develop more independently.
However, according to the authors’ forecasts, this process will take at least 10 years and will require growing
foreign investments. Without such vision, the future is unpredictable in this region where 52-53% of the
population is rural with its welfare based on irrigated agriculture, processing of products and related services.
Taking into account the heritage of the Soviet epoch which was characterized by high quality technical,
scientific and engineering skills, but lack of experience in market economy and in democratic institutions,
donors should assist the region in “pain places”, but not try to simply exchange local specialists for foreign
ones. Importantly, the majority of water professionals in the region nowadays understand the necessity to
adapt their knowledge to the conditions caused by the independence and economic liberalization. Many of
them have been trained in the mean time by foreign experts. So, the region needs financial assistance,
capacity building on institutional, legal and economic reform, and the introduction of new technologies,
equipment and consultancy services - by request and not by dictate.
Importantly, donors should abide by the “four conditions for consensus”, explained previously. One of the
donors should play a leading role in the coordination of financing and assistance initiatives according to a
vision agreed upon between IFAS and the international organizations to avoid duplication, deviation from a
coherent strategy, and to prevent conflicts of interests between donors and States. Excellent examples exist
of broad collaboration among ICWC, CIDA, Israeli consultants and now with USAID, and similarly with the
EU, GEF, SIDA, World Bank and the Dutch Government, but at the same time contradictions and
competition between donor actions did occur in past. The collaboration among the States is a very sensitive
area and donors should tread this area with extreme care.
As a result of the first donors meeting of June 1994 in Paris, the Aral Sea Basin Program was announced to
support the Plan of Concrete Actions, approved by the Heads of State in January 1994, with the international
obligations estimated at US$40 mln with an additional US$160 mln as soft loans. Though much efficient
work was done, as a whole, obligations were not fully met until now. The international community has
indicated that the program’s efficiency was low due to the following reasons:
•
•
More that half of the value of all contributions returned to the contributors in the form of payments to
foreign consultants and their services. Real investment in the region didn’t exceed 20% of contributions.
The inappropriate level of (local) knowledge of the consultants and their lack of responsibility for the
final results led in 50% of projects to the failure of the project. The IFAS Board has at two occasions
required the use of mostly local specialists for the execution of particular work, but this went unheeded.
6
World prices for cotton dropped since independence from US$1700-1800/ton to US$1000-1100/ton. Productivity in
irrigated agriculture stood at US$1600-2000/ha against a current US$500-900/ha, and water productivity similarly fell
from US$0.18-0.25/m3 to US$0.03- 0.10/m3.
24
•
The bureaucratic procedures of the EU and the World Bank and the regulations of the majority of donors
ensure strict control on expense details, but does not require that the contents of the work is accepted by
the beneficiaries. As a result, there is substantial ineffectiveness in almost every other project.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Under current social economic trends the Aral Sea region will have not more than approximately 1500m3 per
capita per year available by 2030, in comparison to the 2700m3 at the present time. Because of this as well
as other environmental reasons, the region must be characterized as a region that undergoes gradual
degradation.
However, if measures are take timely, the situation is by no means hopeless. A possible action program
could be based on the following:
•
Ancient water use was based on the use of water for the benefit of the broader society. Unfortunately,
the traditions and customs in water allocation, use and conservation have been partially lost. Now, in the
water resources sector and in irrigated agriculture a strict control needs to be established to ensure more
equal access to water for everybody and support cost recovery and other mechanisms for proper
operation and maintenance of the infrastructure.
•
Water use in the region could be much improved by borrowing from the experiences from countries with
similar aridity conditions (Israel, Jordan, western states of the USA, Spain), and from regional
experiences gained with advanced irrigation schemes. The analysis of the water allocation procedures
and the water losses at different levels of management shows that it is feasible to set stricter limits and
guidelines to water use for all the Aral Sea basin riparian countries in accordance with a target level of
“technologically feasible best water use”. This target is to be placed very high, but it is required for the
benefit of the future generations in the region.
•
The co-operation between governmental and non-governmental organizations must be improved. This is
also relevant for the policies and strategies for the management of the trans-boundary river basins. Rules
and financial mechanisms for shared water use and for conservation must be adopted.
•
Common policies and measures need to be developed to prevent transboundary water pollution. A major
effort is required to improve water quality through stricter control of the urban, industrial and agricultural
discharges.
•
Regional investment projects must be developed, and funds attracted from multilateral and bilateral
donors to ensure a better balanced use of water in the Aral Sea basin.
•
Surface/river water diversion to “economically productive” water users must be gradually reduced, to the
benefit of the “demand” by the environment along the trans-boundary rivers and by the Aral Sea zone, as
sixth riparian.
•
Measures must be developed to create a more sustainable ecological profile around the Aral Sea.
•
A common agricultural market in Central Asia must be developed, as it is the main driver of water use.
This initiative should include, i.a., the regulation of custom procedures, import tax, etc.
25
REFERENCES
International Fund for the Aral Sea, and World Bank. 1997. Fundamental Provisions of Water Resources
Management Strategy in the Aral Sea Basin. Tashkent, 214 p.
FAO. 1997. Irrigation in the Countries of the Former Soviet Union in Figures. Water Report # 15. Rome, 226
p.
The Ministry of Macroeconomics and Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan. 1999. Basic Indicators of
Social and Economic Development of the Republic of Kazakhstan in 1998. Astana, 248 p.
The Ministry of Macroeconomics and Statistics of the Kyrgyz Republic. 1999. Basic Indicators of Social and
Economic Development of the Kyrgyz Republic in 1998. Bishkek, 212 p.
The Ministry of Macroeconomics and Statistics of the Republic of Tadjikistan. 1999. Basic Indicators of
Social and Economic Development of the Republic of Tadjikistan in 1998. Dushanbe, 232 p.
The Ministry of Macroeconomics and Statistics of Turkmenistan. 1999. Basic Indicators of Social and
Economic Development of Turkmenistan in 1998. Ashgabad, 218 p.
The Ministry of Macroeconomics and Statistics of the Republic of Uzbekistan. 1999. Basic Indicators of
Social and Economic Development of the Republic of Uzbekistan in 1998. Tashkent, 224 p.
Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources of the Republic of Uzbekistan. 1998. Annual Report on Land
Reclamation and Water Use. Tashkent, 220 p. (in Uzbek).
State Committee for Water Resources of the Republic of Kazakhstan. 1998. Annual Report on Land
Reclamation and Water Use. Almaty, 200 p. (in Russian).
Department of Water Resources of the Kyrgyz Republic. 1998. Annual Report on Land Reclamation and
Water Use. Bishkek, 250p. (in Russian).
Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources of Turkmenistan. 1998. Annual Report on Land Reclamation
and Water Use. Ashgabad, 240p. (in Russian).
Ministry of Water Resources of the Republic of Tadjikistan. 1998. Annual Report on Land Reclamation and
Water Use. Dushanbe, 200 p. (in Russian).
Seckler D., Upali Amarasinghe, Molden D., Ridhika de Silva, and Barker R. 1998. World Water Demand and
Supply, 1990 to 2025: Scenarios and Issues. International Water Management Institute, Research Report 19,
Colombo.
Dukhovny V., and Sokolov V. 1997. Inter-state Water Legislation in the Aral Sea Basin. Proc. IX World
Water Congress. International Water Resources Association, Canada, September 1997, 2:655-657.
Dukhovny V., and Sokolov V. 1998. Water and Salt Management Strategies in the Aral Sea Basin. In: L.S.
Pereira and J.W. Gowing (eds.) Water and the Environment: Innovation Issues in Irrigation and Drainage, E
& FN Spon, London, 415-421.
Sokolov V. 1999. Integrated Water Resources Management in the Republic of Uzbekistan: Water
International, 24, 2:104-115.
26
Inter-state Commission for Water Coordination ICWC. WARMAP-2 - Water Use and Farm Management
Survey – Improvement in Water Productivity – Annual Report 1999. Tashkent.
International Fund for the Aral Sea, and World Bank. 1998. Program –7 “Water Management Information
System of the Aral Sea Basin” – Feasibility Study: Operational Water Resources Management and Control in
the Amu Darya and Syr Darya River Basins. Tashkent.
Dukhovny V.A. 1999. Proposals on IPTRID Network Development: Proc. The Learning Society and the
Water-Environment - La societe cognitive et les problèmes de I'eau. Paris, 2-4 June, 1999.
Dukhovny V., and Kindler J.. 1999. Developing Regional Collaboration to Manage the Aral Sea Basin Water
under International and Inter-Sectoral Competition. In: G.J. Alaerts, F.J.A. Hartvelt and F.-M. Patorni (eds.)
Water Sector Capacity Building: Concepts and Instruments. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam/Brookfield.
Dukhovny V., and Ruziev U.. 1999. River Basin Management in the Aral Sea Basin. Technical Documents in
Hydrology, Int.Hydrological Progr., No.31, UNESCO, Paris.
27