Situation in Central Asia

From WaterWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

This article gives an overview about the Situation in the South-Eastern Europe sub-region

For more detailed information, visit also the individual country-sites:
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan


Contents

Overview about Water Resources in Central Asia

Water, a constraint resource and challenge

The most important ecological constraint is water availability. Rain and snow – generally quite sparse in this region but occasionally also causing floods – feed into mountain rivers, which on reaching the plains become the lifeline in a semi-arid area. Here fertile soils and a long vegetation period allow for highly productive agriculture. The two largest rivers (Amu Darya and Syr Darya) run into the Aral Sea. They are the backbone of two huge irrigation systems, which consume so much water that the Aral Sea has during the last 50 years shrunk to 20% of its original size. Related salinity and water pollution have already caused severe ecological damage, with high costs to society such as a high morbidity in the Aral sea region. Under today’s economic conditions, the marginal areas in mountains and deserts cannot compete with the central lowlands for agricultural production. The value gained from local resources is too small.

The excessive use of resources such as water and energy for cash-crop production for exports is having severe environmental side effects (e.g. water logging, soil salinisation) at a time when prices on the world market have drastically declined. Concessions for the exploitation of mineral resources are sold in the course of privatisation, but these rights do not regulate environmental side effects and residual pollution. Due to the process of privatisation in a context of declining economies, supplies in marginal places have become more expensive and opportunities for the commercialisation of local production have decreased.

(Source: Swiss Regional Mid-term Programme for Central Asia 2002-2006)

Major Transboundary River Basins of Central Asia

Management Agreements in the Major Transboundary River basins in Central Asia
Basin Riparian Nations Management Agreements
Amu Darya Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan 1992 Aral Sea Basin Water Allocation and Management (including Syr Darya but not Afghanistan); 1993 Aral Sea Basin Program and 1994 Nukus Declaration on Aral Sea Basin Management (including Syr Darya but not Afghanistan); 1999 Revised Mandate of the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea (including Syr Darya but not Afghanistan)
Chui and Talas Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan 2002 Kazakh-Kyrgyz Preliminary Agreement for Joint Use and Management
Ili-Balkash Kazakhstan, People’s Republic of China 2003 Kazakh-Chinese Preliminary Agreement for Joint Use and Management
Irtysh Kazakhstan, People’s Republic of China, Russian Federation 1992 Kazakh-Russian Joint Use and Protection of Transboundary Waters (covers Ishim, Irtysh, Ural, Tobol and Volga); 2003 Kazakh-Chinese Preliminary Agreement for Joint Use and Management
Ishim Kazakhstan, Russian Federation 1992 Kazakh-Russian Joint Use and Protection of Transboundary Waters (covers Ishim, Irtysh, Ural, Tobol and Volga)
Syr Darya Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan 1992 Aral Sea Basin Water Allocation and Management (including Amu Darya); 1993 Aral Sea Basin Program and 1994 Nukus Declaration on Aral Sea Basin Management (including Amu Darya); 1998 Framework Agreement on Rational Water and Energy Use; 1999 Revised Mandate of the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea
Tobol Kazakhstan, Russian Federation 1992 Kazakh-Russian Joint Use and Protection of Transboundary Waters (covers Ishim, Irtysh, Ural, Tobol and Volga)
Ural Kazakhstan, Russian Federation 1992 Kazakh-Russian Joint Use and Protection of Transboundary Waters (covers Ishim, Irtysh, Ural, Tobol and Volga)
Volga Kazakhstan, Russian Federation 1992 Kazakh-Russian Joint Use and Protection of Transboundary Waters (covers Ishim, Irtysh, Ural, Tobol and Volga)




The Development Situation (related to Water Issues)

Key Issues and Challenges around Water Governance in Central Asia

A UNDP 2004 Strategy document on Central Asia provides the following list of key water management issues in Central Asia:

  1. The need for interstate agreement on how to address irrigation-hydropower trade-offs is particularly acute and continues to attract high level political and diplomatic attention, especially for management of the Syr Darya Basin;
  2. Efforts to address transboundary water management issues have been hampered by weak understanding and application of international water law;
  3. Transboundary water management is constrained by limited, inaccurate and only weakly transparent information collection and analysis;
  4. The recent focus on the water-energy nexus has meant that crucial environmental and social concerns in transboundary water management are not being addressed, including the continuing humanitarian and ecological crisis in the immediate area of the former Aral Sea;
  5. Regional water management organizations require considerable strengthening if they are to fulfill their stated mandates relating to transboundary basin management; and
  6. National and local policies and practices do not yet fully encourage efficient and integrated water management.

It should be clear that these issues relate primarily to limitations of governance systems—economic, social, political and administrative—rather than technical concerns. Though the needs and costs of water infrastructure improvements should not be understated, the most rapid progress with transboundary water management in the region can be achieved through the introduction of improved management and governance systems at the regional, national and local levels. The next section of this paper provides more detailed information on each of the six areas identified above, followed by suggested programming intervensions for addressing each problem area.

(More..)



Stagnation in regional cooperation on Water Management leads to direct and indirect Implicatioon

The climate of nationalism causes considerable damage to the economic and social development of the region as a whole as well as to each of the countries. This has been described well in the Central Asia HDR 2005 . With regard to water, the consequences include:

Massive and direct financial costs
It has been estimated that the cost of poor water management in direct crop losses alone is $1.7 billion annually across the region. This does not include the cost of land degradation, environmental damage and other costs. These costs are directly attributable to very poor water use efficiency. This can be seen as a national issue, but individual countries are reluctant to take the necessary steps to improvement alone because of concerns that their annual water allocations may be affected.
Another cost is that of flooding on the Syr Darya due to winter releases of water from Kyrgyz reservoirs, which has been estimated at $770 million annually. It is unlikely that the Kyrgyz Republic will revert to the old regime of summer releases, but there is room for compromise, and developing a long term agreement allows Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan to understand and accept the reality of the winter regime and plan investments in flood control more effectively.
The lack of regional cooperation also costs money in unnecessary infrastructure investment. An example is the Koksarai reservoir in Kazakhstan, which is designed to capture winter releases from Kyrgyzstan for use in the irrigation season. It has an estimated capital cost of some $260 million, with a probable annual recurrent cost (for operations and maintenance) on the order of $5 million. A long term agreement coupled with improvements in water use efficiency and refinements in reservoir operations would negate the need for this dam.


Retarding economic development
Further development of hydropower would be highly beneficial, especially to Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, for which power exports could make up a significant part of their foreign currency earnings. Other countries would also benefit in having expanded energy source options, income generation through transmission and reduction of reliance on poor quality coal. Attracting international or private investment will require regional cooperation on power and water management as there will be a reluctance to invest in projects which may cause international tensions. A regional energy strategy which includes new hydropower generation would have significant economic benefits for the whole region (as well as for the region’s neighbours).
Damage to the irrigated agriculture sector continues through crop yield losses and land degradation due to the overuse of water. Central Asia has the lowest water use efficiency in the world and the situation will continue until the region develops a cooperative approach to water management. Currently, the individual nations strive to maintain their historic (Soviet) water allocations despite reduced agricultural activity because of concerns of losing allocations in the future if they are not claimed now.
As well as incurring massive financial losses and contributing to poverty in rural areas, the overuse of water in irrigation leads to water shortages for other sectors of the economy, especially industry, and to ecological damage in important wetlands and other water environments.


Retarding the water planning process
One of the fundamentals of good water management is good planning, which is essentially missing in both the national and regional contexts, a fact which became evident through interviews with Ministries of Water or their equivalents across the region.
As an example, water managers in all countries know that energy releases in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan will grow, but the lack of a regional water management framework precludes discussion in those terms. The official line remains that reservoir release regimes must return to the old ways of prioritising irrigation. Planning that should be undertaken now to anticipate and prepare for the inevitabilities of the future is not happening.
The Interstate Commission for Water Coordination (ICWC) is the main body for water resources management at the regional level. It is a vice-ministerial body whose task is to agree water allocations between the countries and provide the appropriate orders to the Amu Darya and Syr Darya River Basin Organisations (BVOs) for implementation.
Primarily, however, ICWC continues to reiterate the so-called historic (essentially Soviet) water allocations for each country regardless of actual water demands and the changing nature of water use in the region. This is contrary to a modern, demand-based approach to water management but it reflects the political views of national leadership across the region.
Maintaining the old water allocations contributes to the overuse of water and the consequent environmental damage and economic losses associated with it (land degradation and the continuing Aral Sea decline to name two).
Irrigated agriculture in each country in Central Asia has declined since independence, and quite dramatically so in some, especially as they move to privately owned farms. But total water allocations have not changed, resulting in water being ‘dumped’ within the irrigation systems. Countries conceal or ignore their actual irrigation demands because of concerns that reporting a reduction will result in reduced water allocations which may be hard to get back if agriculture expands in the future. Each of the countries has plans to expand agriculture despite the questionable economics of doing so.
National planning for irrigation which is honest and realistic, under a system of regional cooperation for water management will change this completely.


Continuation of large scale environmental damage
The problem of the Aral Sea is one of regional water management and the problem continues. Essentially no progress has been made on the Aral Sea situation in the 15 years or so international organisations have been supporting projects and programmes. The Aral Sea’s root cause – bad water management - is the biggest environmental issue in the region. The very poor use of water for irrigation causes massive damage to water and land throughout the region and national self interest allows the damage to continue.


Retarding economic progress of poorest people, especially in the rural environment
The climate of national interests overcoming regional cooperation continues to drive individual countries to overuse water for irrigation because there is no incentive for improving it at the regional level (as described above). Reduced irrigated agriculture coupled with historic water allocations results in excessive water being put through irrigation systems and causes immediate and direct crop yield losses, soil salinity and land degradation and drives rural poverty. The total regional estimate of $1.7 billion in annual crop yield losses is staggering in itself, but the impact is felt most strongly by the individual farmers who collectively make up this figure.


Retarding progress on improving health
The lack of regional cooperation on water management contributes to the continuing deterioration of water quality in most rivers and other water bodies. Much of the water quality problem is related to the overuse of water discussed above but there are many other contributing factors. It is also the case that downstream countries continue to blame upstream countries for their water quality problems, thereby avoiding responsibility for taking positive actions themselves. As long as there are other countries to blame little will happen in improving water quality. People, especially in rural areas, will continue to be forced to drink unsanitary water and damage their health.
Conculsion
All of the points noted above are areas of focus for UNDP and are related to the MDGs. There is an opportunity for UNDP to play an active role in improving regional water cooperation which will directly support work on these issues.



The Legal and Policy Situation

Review of CAR countries' policy toward Water Governance

An EU/TACIS mission report (spring 2006) states the following (TO BE REVISED)
The countries fall into two groups, those placing more emphasis on a reform process calling for IWRM based on WFD principles (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan) and those whose reform ideas are focused on increasing agricultural production through improved infrastructure first and more efficient resource use second (Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan). Turkmenistan stands out as presenting a straightforwardly unreconstructed agenda with infrastructure capital projects as their main concern.
The first three and possibly Uzbekistan agree that the WFD represents the way forward but all understand that its implementation is a progressive affair that will take considerable time. The two directions in which the countries are going is the introduction of IWRM principles and structures and of practical reforms of water management procedures. In the first area, for example, the UNDP project in Kaz aims to develop a strategy for water sector development that is linked to other sectors of the economy and includes the establishment of river basin councils with user participation. In the second, smaller scale practical initiatives focusing on specific aspects of management, as for example the OSCE-funded work in Tajikistan on quality management issues or the Kazakh support to water users’ cooperatives to help ensure effective self-management of irrigation water.
In discussion, the one topic which arose time and again was that of quality standards and the need to make a break from soviet norms. There was also a general consensus that this should be done regionally so as not to introduce incompatibilities between country systems. A clear distinction arose between the scientists who saw standards as a tool for better monitoring and information gathering and those for whom it could be a means of supporting water quality improvement (a minority).
Kyr and Taj were at one to stress the importance of maintaining mountain ecosystems in order to protect water sources for all CA countries, with Kyr calling for participating in the funding of a mountain centre in Bishkek.
At the other end of the water cycle, the Aral Sea continues to be a major challenge and both Uzb and Kaz called for support (mainly to infrastructure reinforcement – drainage etc).
Remarkably little was said about the Caspian, other than to argue its status in international law.
The point was made (Kyr) that 15 years of Tacis and other collaboration had produced a wealth of material on water issues which remained seriously underused and which needs to be exploited before new studies and actions are launched.



The institutional Water Management Structure in Central Asia

The regional water management structure consists of:

  • the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea (IFAS)
  • the Interstate Commission for Water Coordination (ICWC)
  • two River Basin Organisations (BVOs) for the Amu Darya and Syr Darya
  • the technical / scientific arm of the Scientific Information Centre (SIC)
  • National, local and river basin level water management organisations

IFAS was created to attract funds for Aral Sea related projects under the Aral Sea Basin Programme. A few projects were funded but the programme was poorly managed and there are no projects funded at present. Trust in IFAS has declined and now there are many questions as to its continued viability. However, in the overall structure of water management, IFAS is the top organisation and any changes will require a decision at presidential level. It will therefore take some time before any changes are made.

ICWC is considered politically weak with limited ability to make decisions about allocation and sharing of water. Additionally, the two BVOs and the SIC are seen by the other CA countries as Uzbek organisations and there will be no real support for these organisations from other countries until the situation is resolved. However, the ICWC / BVO / SIC is the essential platform on which to build and improve regional water management. It is necessary to build capacity and to build trust in the organisations if they are to become fully functional organisations.



Programming Oportunities

Recent Progress on CAR's Regional Water Management & Importance of UNDP Involvement in the Process

(Source: Adopted from "Final Report of the Central Asia Regional Water Advisor and a Proposed Programme for Continued UNDP Involvement", Tim Hannan 2006)

Progress on regional cooperation in water resources management has been slow in recent years despite considerable support from the international donor community. This is related to poor climate of regional cooperation in the broader economic and political scene. However, recent events show signs of a growing interest in regional cooperation, making this a good time to take up the challenge of regional water management. Well directed efforts now are most likely to have a positive impact on the future of water management in the region.

Failing to achieve regional cooperation on water management has significant economic, social and environmental impacts (see chapter above):

  1. Massive and direct financial costs
  2. Retarding regional and national economic development
  3. Retarding the water planning process
  4. Continuation of large scale environmental damage
  5. Retarding economic progress of poorest people, especially in the rural environment
  6. Retarding progress on improving health

These are all areas of focus for UNDP. Addressing regional water management issues will benefit UNDP’s overall development objectives. UNDP is considered by the Central Asian water management professionals and the international community to be the right organisation to lead the drive for cooperative transboundary water management.



Donor Situation in Central Asia

See also
ADB - Donor Project Matrix on Central Asia


An EU/TACIS mission report (spring 2006) states the following
The presentations touched on different areas of water management depending on the institution of origin of the presenter, a reflection of the fragmented nature of the sector, the vertical integration of and the limited level of collaboration between the institutions (as a result of the regulations they work to more than of a lack of will).
There also tends to be a gulf between programmes of the scientists of the institutes and of the various institutions they are linked to, with the ones interested in information for its own sake and the others unable to determine what information would be of most use to them in a changing management context. This is important when one remembers that it is the institutes that are generally asked to define standards and draw up implementing regulation.
International cooperation supported by the international institutions is often in fields not adequately covered by legislation (eg IWRM) and which therefore appears to become more an academic exercise than something which becomes part of the normal working practice in or between states. Even where law is adopted that introduces IWRM, it is difficult to get changes in working practice that reflect the new requirements.
Thus, although there might be a good understanding of the direction in which countries need to go (the WFD is the reference document [except for the Turkmen?]), there seems to be less idea of how to start the process: institutions are bound by their regulatory requirements inherited from previous regimes and find little time to design reforms, let alone put them into practice.
Quality standards are an issue which can be made to bring scientists and administrators together and provide a basis for pragmatic reform action to break the existing mould. The diversity of interest, for example between headwater and recipient countries and between irrigation and quality protection institutions which has so bedevilled efforts at rational water allocation through WARMAP, ASREWAM and other initiatives could make it difficult to achieve a regional consensus on a single way forward.
The results of the Tacis programme evaluation published in January 2006 will need to be borne in mind in the design of ToR. This concluded in particular that ToR should incorporate the lessons of earlier projects and define institutional relationships adequately, and that there needed to be a better rapport with beneficiaries.


Overview of Main Donor Programs in the Water Sector

(Source:McCauley Report 2004)

A number of initiatives are currently underway to address water management issues, and most are supported by at least some measure of international assistance. This section summarizes current donor responses in the water sector the region. It briefly reviews the major efforts being implemented at present, organized according to the principal donor rather than the recipient or implementing body.

UNDP
With a history of assistance to Central Asian transboundary basin management dating from the early 1990s, mostly through GEF co-financed international waters projects and institutional support to IFAS and the ASBP, UNDP is now preparing this new regional strategy and action program to redefine its role while taking advantage of lesions from past experience. UNDP recently played a leading role in helping Tajikistan and IFAS organize the 2003 Global Freshwater Forum convened in Dushanbe, which prominently featured Central Asian water management issues. UNDP also has initiated (with support from Norway and the Global Water Partnership) a project to help the Water Resources Committee of Kazakhstan develop a National Integrated Water Resources Management Plan. From 1998-2002 UNDP implemented the $18 million GEF Caspian Environmental Program, and in 2004 embarked on implementation of the second phase of this Caspian project (a $32 million GEF co-funded project). The 2003 national Human Development Reports (HDR) for both Tajikistan and Kazakhstan focused on water management concerns, and the 2005 regional HDR also will include a significant section on regional cooperation for improved water resources management. The UNDP 2004-2007 water strategy program described herein will firmly place UNDP as a significant contributor to addressing the regional water management problems identified.
World Bank
Thus far, the World Bank has been arguably the most active donor in the area of Central Asian water management, having served as lead for ASBP-1 (Executing Agency for most of the GEF resources allocated). In addition to the analyses and pilot activities under ASBP, World Bank land and water management programming has included country-level investments in the irrigation sector as well as a project to divide the remainder of the Aral Sea into two parts. It also has produced a recent insightful review of agricultural water use and associated needed reforms in the region. The World Bank can be expected to continue country-level investments for improved irrigation, drainage and wetlands management, with associated water and agricultural policy reforms. It is significantly addressing the “energy-water nexus” on the Naryn-Syr Darya Cascade, having produced a recent analysis of options for the riparian states. The activity now centers on providing support to CACO’s efforts to develop an implement a WEC concept, through regional dialogue of experts in the water, energy and economic fields. The Bank also plans to contribute to better water management in the Ferghana Valley through a series of country-level investments in all three riparian states (Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan). Finally, it is in dialogue with IFAS about further capacity building measures to that organization, based on a highly critical evaluation of its IFAS’ performance under ASBP-1 and centering on strengthening its roles in donor coordination and water information management.
Asian Development Bank (ADB)
The ADB is playing an increasingly active role in encouraging greater regional economic integration in Central Asia through its sponsorship of the Central Asian Regional Economic Cooperation (CAREC) forum. It has recently committed to further regional support for environmental information networking, building on considerable previous environmentally-related assistance to the region. ADB sponsored Central Asian participation in the 3rd World Water Forum of 2003. It has recently initiated a follow-up regional project on management of shared watercourses including components on: improvements to the 1998 Syr Darya Framework Agreement (through SIC-ICWC); management of the Chui-Talas Basin; and facilitation of regional dialogue on key issues relating to shared water resources management in the region. ADB also has country-level investments with Water Resources Ministries/Committees in all Central Asian countries except Turkmenistan to improve irrigation management and expand rural water supply.
European Union (EU)
The EU has been active through its Technical Assistance for the Commonwealth of Independent States program (EU/TACIS) since the early 1990s through the so-called WARMAP and WARMIS projects through the SIC-ICWC and targeting the Basin Management Organizations (BVOs) of the Aral Sea Basin. It has assisted in water policy and institutional development, focusing on capacity building, legal assistance and strategies for managing water. The current phase of EU/TACIS assistance is focused on two pilot transboundary basins: Chui-Talas (Kyrgyzstan-Kazakhstan); and the Vakhsh (Tajikistan-Turkmenistan), where it is developing new models for shared water management in Central Asian conditions for application/replication in other basins. The EU also is preparing to implement the EU Water Initiative (EUWI - see also EU Financing Opportunities) through TACIS which will assist the countries of the region “in developing plans for integrated water resources and water efficiency…[and support] exchange of experiences regarding integrated water management...” The EUWI also will develop a water investment support instrument for the conduct of feasibility studies and identification and preparation of water investment projects as well as supporting small scale investments and pilot projects centered on the two areas of: (i) promoting integrated water resources management; and (ii) expanding access to clean water supply and sanitation services.
Swiss Government (SDC)
The Swiss Development Corporation (SDC) is very active on water management in the region, with current projects centering on: improved irrigation canal and on-farm water management in the Ferghana Valley (with the International Water Management Institute and SIC-ICWC); hydro-meteorological data collection, water monitoring and information sharing; and improved drinking water supply (with UNDP) for cross-border projects between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. The Central Asia Regional Water Information Base (CAREWIB) Project, implemented in partnership with SIC-ICWC, UNEP/GRID-Arendal and UNECE holds considerable promise as a transparent portal for water information in the region. SDC also has proposed to create a Regional Centre for Hydrology under the auspices of EC-IFAS.
United States of America Government (USAID)
The US Agency for International Development (USAID) has been supporting the ASBP since 1994. It has assisted with improved drinking water, transboundary water issues, and meteorological monitoring, fisheries management in the Syr Darya delta and a strengthened legal/regulatory framework. Most of USAID’s water assistance in the region is now focused on field-level demonstrations of improved irrigation systems and hydrological monitoring systems. Its transboundary work has included technical assistance associated with creation of the 1998 Syr Darya Framework Agreement and more recent analyses of management options for Toktogul Reservoir in Kyrgyzstan, basin modeling, and a pre-feasibility analysis for construction of the Kambarata I and II Dams above Toktogul. Through the regional environment program of the US State Department, support also is provided for a project on integrated water management for the lowlands and deltas of the Aral Sea Basin through SIC-ICWC. The State Department also has provided funding to UNDP for the Transboundary River Basin Initiative which is to be used to finance a significant portion of the new effort described in Part B of this report.
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)
The OSCE is leading an activity supporting creation of the Joint Commission for the Chui and Talas Rivers in cooperation with EU/TACIS, UNECE and ADB. It also is involved with UNDP and UNEP in the Environment and Security Initiative, which deals in part with regional water issues, including a new effort in the Ferghana Valley to better understand the problems and management options associated with industrial water pollution.
Global Water Partnership
The Global Water Partnership’s Caucasus and Central Asia program (GWP-CACENA) is building regional relations to support improved integrated water management. It also is serving a resource mobilization function, for example having helped to bring UNDP and the Government of Norway together to finance the new Kazakhstan IWRM project.
Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)
CIDA has been active in regional water training, having helped to establish a water training center at SIC-ICWC in Tashkent. Its current program, however, are almost exclusively focused on alleviating poverty at the local level in Tajikistan.
UN other than UNDP
United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) has done considerable work on Aral Sea Basin since 1989, mostly in preparing reports on environmental trends and conditions. More recently, it partnered with the ICSD (with co-financing from UNDP and ADB) to support the REAP, which includes transboundary water issues as one of its five program areas. The UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) partnered to create SPECA, which was concluded in 2003 and included an analysis of regional water and energy management issues. These organizations have recently made a commitment to EC-IFAS to continue SPECA’s work on these topics, subject to the availability of funds. ESCAP also supports an analytical project on strategic management of transboundary river basins in Central Asia. The UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has administered the Aral Sea Basin Initiative (ASBI) since 1992, which comprises a network of research projects in the region. The Scientific Advisory Board for Aral Sea Basin Problems (SABAS) was created by UNESCO in 1998 to generate options for possible future actions/remedies, and a new phase of the ASBI was launched in October 2002. UNESCO also recently sponsored a conference on Dialogue among Cultures and Civilizations in Eurasia—hosted by the President of Kyrgyzstan and including participation of several Central Asian countries—that dealt, in part, with transboundary water issues as a potential source of conflict.



Opportunities for UNDP

(Source: Adopted from "Final Report of the Central Asia Regional Water Advisor and a Proposed Programme for Continued UNDP Involvement", Tim Hannan 2006)

UNDP has an important role to play in this as it is seen as a non-partisan organisation with clear international development goals. There are three main areas for which support has been requested:

  • to initiate a project to assess the governing statutes of IFAS / ICWC / BVOs and redraft them. This will drive discussion and reconsideration of the role of each of the organisations and spur discussions on the future role of IFAS.
  • to consider IFAS or ICWC becoming a UN commission, which has merit in helping to make progress on water management. At the very least the idea of a UN Commission deserves an objective assessment.
  • UNDP to attend IFAS and ICWC meetings to help identify specific ways to improve the structure and function of water management and its organisations in Central Asia.

The national, river basin and local water management organisations also need significant capacity building. A good start to the building process is to complete National IWRM and WE Plans in each country.


Other Activities in Regional Cooperation
Regional cooperation in water management in Central Asia can’t progress without a broader climate of cooperation. It is therefore important to monitor and participate in the related work of other international and regional organisations, including CAREC, SPECA, WEC, CACO and others. Many international donor agencies are active in the regional cooperation process, including many directed at water issues. They appear interested in broadening their involvement, making this a good time for UNDP to initiate project and programme ideas and seek funding for them within a regional water management framework.



Further Readings, References, Links

Links

Central Asia HDR 2005 - Chapter 4: Water, Energy and the Environment

Central Asian Gateway

‎ UNDP 2004 Strategy document on Central Asia

Global Water Partnership page on Central Asia and Caucasus



Further Reading

From WaterWiki
Others



McCauley's "Key References on Regional Cooperation and Water Management in Central Asia" (2004)
  • Asian Development Bank (ADB). 1997. Central Asian Environments in Transition. Manila.
  • ADB. 1998. Regional Economic Cooperation in Central Asia. Manila.
  • ADB. 2002a. Supporting Environmental Cooperation in Central Asia. Manila.
  • ADB. 2002b. Cooperation in Shared Water Resources in Central Asia: Past Experience and Future Challenges, Proceedings of a Regional Workshop, Almaty, Kazakhstan 26–28 September 2002, ADB: Manila.
  • ADB. 2003. Technical Assistance for Improved Management of Shared Water Resources in Central Asia, ADB: Manila.
  • Bucknall, et al. 2003. Irrigation in Central Asia: Social, Economic and Environmental Considerations, World Bank: Washington.
  • Central Asia Regional Environment Center (CA-REC). 2001. Decision Making System in the Field of Environmental Protection in Central Asia. CA-REC: Almaty.
  • Dukhovny, Victor A. and Vadim Sokolov. 2001. Integrated Water Resources Management in the Aral Sea Basin, Scientific Information Center of the Interstate Commission for Water Coordination in the Aral Sea Basin: Tashkent.

Global Water Partnership. 2003. GWP Central Asia and Caucasus Regional Strategy and Work Program for 2004-2008, GWP/CACENA: Tashkent.

  • Hodgson, Steven. 2000. Kyrgyz Republic International Watercourse Law: Report of a Preliminary Visit to Bishkek for the UK Department for International Development, DFID: Bishkek.
  • International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea (IFAS). 2002. Water and Environmental Management Project Sub-Component A1: National and Regional Water and Salt Management Plan Phase III Report – Regional Needs and Constraints. GEF Agency of the IFAS Aral Sea Basin Program: Tashkent.
  • IFAS. 2003. Program on Concrete Actions on Improvement of the Environmental and Socio-economic Situation in the Aral Sea Basin for the Period of 2003-2010 (ASBP-2), IFAS: Dushanbe.
  • IFAS. 2003. Aral: The History of a Dying Sea, EC-IFAS: Dushanbe.
  • Kemelova, Dinara and Gennady Zhalkubaev. 2003. “Water, Conflict and Regional Security in Central Asia: Revisited” New York University Environmental Law Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1.
  • McCauley, David. 2004 (in press). Environmental Management in Independent Central Asia, in In the Tracks of Tamerlane: Central Asia’s Path into the 21st Century, D. Burghart and T. Sabonis-Helf (eds.), National Defense University Press: Washington, DC.
  • McKinney, Daene. 2004 (in press). Cooperative Management of Transboundary Water Resources in Central Asia, in In the Tracks of Tamerlane: Central Asia’s Path into the 21st Century, D. Burghart and T. Sabonis-Helf (eds.), National Defense University Press: Washington, DC.
  • PA Consulting. 2003a. Natural Resource Management Program Transboundary Water and Energy Project: Short Briefing Note, USAID/Central Asia: Almaty.
  • PA Consulting. 2003b. Proposals For Improved Water And Energy Management In The Syr Darya River Basin: Discussion Note, USAID/Central Asia: Almaty.
  • Rathnam, Michael and Eric Sievers. 2003. Central Asian Water Mission: Final Report and Recommendations, UNDP Regional Bureau for Europe and the CIS: New York (draft).
  • Sievers, Eric W. 2002. “Water, Conflict and Regional Security in Central Asia” New York University Environmental Law Journal, Vol. 10, No. 3.
  • Tabyshalieva, Anara. 1999. The Challenge of Regional Cooperation in Central Asia: Preventing Ethnic Conflict in the Ferghana Valley, United States Institute of Peace: Washington, DC.
  • Task Force for the Preparation of World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Asia and the Pacific. 2001. Central Asia Subregional Report for the World Summit on Sustainable Development. ADB, ESCAP, UNDP, UNEP: Bangkok.
  • UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), 2003. Invitation to Partnership on Implementation of the Central Asian Sustainable Development Initiative, Fifth Ministerial Conference Environment for Europe, Kiev, 21-23 May 2003, UNECE: Geneva.
  • UNECE/ESCAP. 2004. Strengthening Cooperation for Rational and Efficient Use of Water and Energy Resources in Central Asia, Special Programme for the Economies of Central Asia (SPECA), Project Working Group on Energy and Water Resources, United Nations: New York.
  • United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). 2001. Regional Environmental Action Plan for Central Asia. UNEP.RRA, UNDP and ADB: Bangkok.
  • UNDP. 2003. Sub-regional Strategy for Central Asia: 2003-2005, UNDP: New York.

World Bank. 2004a. Water and Energy Nexus in Central Asia: Improving Regional Cooperation in the Syr Darya Basin, The World Bank Europe and Central Asia Region: Washington DC.

  • World Bank. 2004b. International Donor Conference on Water and Energy Cooperation in Central Asia: Record Note, February 25-26, Washington DC.
  • World Bank. 2004c. Creation of a Water-Energy Consortium, Invited comments presented to the Central Asian Cooperation Organization (CACO), 24 May, 2004.



1292 Rating: 4.7/5 (3 votes cast)

Retrieved from "http://www.waterwiki.net/index.php/Situation_in_Central_Asia"
Personal tools
Reference