Climate Change and Disaster-Resilient Water Resources Sector Project (RRP KGZ 51081-001)

DETAILED SECTOR ASSESSMENT

Table of Contents

I. Sector Performance, Problems, and Opportunities ............................................................. 1

A. Strategic Disaster Risks ................................................................................................... 1 B. Priority River Basins ......................................................................................................... 2 C. Irrigated Agriculture Subsector ......................................................................................... 4 D. Agricultural Productivity of Water ..................................................................................... 7 E. Water Scarcity ................................................................................................................ 9 F. PVIS Water Balances .....................................................................................................10 G. Irrigation Systems and Command .................................................................................11 H. Subproject Preparation ...................................................................................................12 I. Floods and Mudflows ......................................................................................................13 J. Irrigation Method and Scheduling ....................................................................................14 K. Institutions and Organizations .........................................................................................16

II. Government’s Sector Strategy ...........................................................................................21 III. ADB Sector Experience and Assistance Program ..............................................................22

1. This detailed sector assessment (DSA)1 supports core subproject selection and sector project preparation to improve sector policies and develop institutional capacity. ADB sector lending is required to meet eligibility criteria.2 These require that the borrowing DMC has:

i. A sector development plan to meet the priority development needs of the sector; ii. The institutional capacity, to implement the development plan, and: iii. Policies applicable to the sector that are appropriate and will be improved, if warranted.

2. The DSA (see the summary in Section I.C) confirms that these criteria are:

i. Adequately met, for the present low-level sector performance equilibrium, but are: ii. Not adequately met for the irrigation modernization challenge to realize considerable

incremental agriculture production potential identified herein. Therefore, participatory process capacity development will be undertaken within the project.

I. Sector Performance, Problems, and Opportunities

A. Strategic Disaster Risks 3. The following information is available for the six main Kyrgyz river basins 3 but not for sub-basins. Therefore, sector analysis and initial subproject screening is on a river basin basis. A climate risk and adaptation profile 4 prioritized: (i) drought and (ii) the water resources, agriculture and energy sectors. It also indicates the following annual average damage (AAD) for:

i. Drought is: a. High in the north (Chui and Talas river basins) and west (Syr Darya River Basin); b. Medium in the center and low in the east;

ii. Multi-hazards (floods and mudflows, landslides and earthquakes combined) is: a. Medium in the north (Chui and Talas river basins) and west (Syr Darya Basin); b. Low in the center and very low in the east;

4. Therefore, strategic water-related disaster risks are: (i) droughts and (ii) floods and mudflows (in that priority order). An agricultural risk assessment5 indicates that the major shocks to agriculture in the Kyrgyz Republic (KR) are the result of economy-wide political and macro-economic events outside of agriculture. However, complex shocks can also have a major impact, such as the combined impact of drought and falling prices due to economic downturn in 2012.

1 This DSA elaborates on that in ADB. 2013. Developing Water Resources Sector Strategies in Central and West Asia.

https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/project-document/79760/45353-001-tacr-01.pdf. 2 ADB. 2003. Operations Manual, Section D3/BP, Sector Lending. https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/institutional-document/31483/omd3-0.pdf. 3 River basins are the fundamental management unit for integrated river basin management (IRBM). KR basins are

Issyk-Kul and Tarim, in the east, Naryn in the center, Chui and Talas in the north and Syr Darya (downstream Naryn) and Amu Darya in the southwest. Syr Darya and Amu Darya are the main rivers in the Aral Sea Basin (ASB).

4 https://www.gfdrr.org/sites/default/files/publication/climate-change-country-profile-2011-kyrgyz-republic.pdf. 5 World Bank. 2016. Kyrgyz Republic Agricultural Sector Risk Assessment. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/744171467997560716/Kyrgyz-Republic-Agricultural-sector-risk-

assessment.

2

5. Within agriculture, irrigated agriculture is vulnerable to drought and irrigated agricultural drought (IAD) is the priority disaster risk. Furthermore, floods and mudflows (FMF) frequently affect irrigation:

i. Diversion weirs and intakes, located on dynamic rivers, that are prone to mudflows during both floods (erosion) and low flows (deposition and sediment intake), and;

ii. Main (1st and 2nd) canals that are frequently crossed by mudflow drainage channels.

B. Priority River Basins 6. The above profile (para 3) also indicates the following priority river basins:

i. Syr Darya, Chuy and Talas river basins, drought risk is high and FMF risk is medium; ii. Issyk-Kul River Basin, where drought risk is medium and FMF risk is low; iii. Amu Darya River Basin, where drought and FMF risks are both low, and: iv. Tarim River Basin, where drought risk is low and FMF risk very low (because of very

low exposure and very low demand-side development potential).

7. Drought and water stress or scarcity (higher stress) are related but different:

i. Drought is a periodic characteristic of weather. Therefore, it is a natural hazard with a probability of occurrence and associated disaster risk;

ii. Water scarcity is a permanent characteristic of (a stationary) climate:

Table 1: 2011 river basin water balances and scarcity

River Basin

Annual Volume (BCM) Water Scarcity

A W ETc ACE WSR A - W

Tarim 6.2 0.24 0.24 10,000 4 5.96

Amu Darya 0.5 0.13 0.13 5,480 26 0.37

Syr Darya 4.9 2.93 3.22 1,660 60 1.97

Chuy 3.9 2.36 2.48 2,180 61 1.54

Issyk-Kul 1.6 1.07 1.21 3,550 67 0.53

Talas 1.0 0.92 0.94 4,440 92 0.08

National 18.1 7.65 8.22 3,250 42 10.45

Source: footnote 1. Legend: A = allocation, ACE = annual per capita water endowment, BCM = billion cubic meters, ETc = potential crop evapotranspiration

or water consumption, W = withdrawal, and WSR = withdrawal to supply ratio.

8. Water scarcity is an indicator of both the: (i) potential for irrigated agriculture development, which consumes water as crop evapotranspiration, and (ii) vulnerability to agricultural drought.6 However, the project will develop irrigated agriculture and innovative drought risk management should “pick the low hanging fruit” (e.g. by first selecting river basins with moderate WSR values). In the sector project context, indicator (i) should take precedence over indicator (ii). Therefore, consistent with para 6, Table 1 confirms the following priorities (from highest to lowest):7

6 A river basin is more vulnerable to the same drought if it is withdrawing 80% of its supply than it was when withdrawing

only 20% of the same stationary supply. 7 Tarim and Amu Darya are excluded as they have very low populations and demand-side development potential.

3

i. Syr Darya River Basin has both the highest demand-side need (ACE = 1,660 m3) and

highest supply-side development potential (WSR = 60% and A-W = 1.97 BCM); ii. Chuy River Basin is next with slightly lower demand-side need (ACE = 2,180 m3) but

similar supply-side development potential (WSR = 61% and A-W = 1.54 BCM); iii. Issyk-Kul River Basin is intermediate, and: iv. Talas River Basin has both the lowest demand-side need (ACE = 4,440 m3) and almost

no supply-side development potential (WSR = 92% and A-W = 0.08 BCM); 9. However, a recent study8 indicates that the Syr Darya River Basin is the clear priority as:

i. Downstream Chuy and Talas environmental river flows are currently insufficient; ii. Based on two temperature and four development scenarios, the 2040 water deficit, in

(less stressed) Chuy River Basin, is projected to range from 135 MCM to 532 MCM; 10. A 2010 regional trade and marketing study recommended improved connectivity between Bishkek (in the Chuy River Basin) and/or Osh (in the Syr Darya River Basin) and their agricultural hinterlands. While agricultural production was similar, the value of foods and beverages in Bishkek was nearly 15 times that of Osh. However, connectivity is now improving in the Fergana Valley. Therefore, the hinterland in the Syr Darya River Basin, within a few hours’ drive of Osh, offers most potential to modernize irrigated agriculture and diversify into high-value crops (Figure 1).9

Figure 1: Areas within a few hours’ drive of Bishkek and Osh

8 ZEN. 2014. Strengthening Cooperation in Adaptation to Climate Change in Transboundary Basins of Chu and Talas.

https://archive.zoinet.org/web/sites/default/files/publications/chu_talas.pdf. 9 World Bank. 2010. Central Asia: Expanding Trade by Connecting to Markets, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTTAJIKISTAN/Resources/CA_Trade_Report_eng.pdf.

4

C. Irrigated Agriculture Subsector 11. System performance can be assessed using the diagnostic decision tree in Figure 2:

i. On the far left of Figure 2, irrigation systems are performing well. Therefore, there are no potential agricultural production benefits and there is no need for a project;

ii. From left to right, irrigation system performance declines and the need for projects and their potential agricultural production benefits both increase;

iii. On the far right, irrigation systems are performing poorly and there is considerable potential to improve both their performance and net value of agricultural production.

12. Other donor projects (Section III.) generally focus on periodic rehabilitation and cost recovery, especially for maintenance of main irrigation systems (1st and 2nd level canals) managed by DWR. This indicates that these projects are on the left hand side of Figure 2. Therefore, it also implies that existing irrigation systems are perceived to be performing well, 10 present crop yields are perceived to be high and there is little perceived potential to increase agricultural NVP (Figure 2). However, the system classification in Figure 1 is based on the following approximate ratios: Table 2: Yield and ET classes

Ya or ETa ETa / ETc and Ya / Yc

High Above 80%

Low About 50%

Very low Below 50%

Legend: a = actual, c = potential, ET = evapotranspiration and Y = crop yield.

13. For Pravaya Vetka Irrigation System (PVIS), measured crop yields (Ya) are in annual WUA reports and potential crop evapotranspiration (ETc) may be estimated from readily available crop and climate data. Potential crop yields (Yc) and actual crop evapotranspiration (ETa) are not available. However:

i. For wheat, KR yield is only 70% of the world average and KR is ranked only 62nd ii. For corn, KR yield is about 160% of the world average, but KR is ranked only 26th iii. The average KR cotton yield is 0.87 T of lint ha-1. This is 134% of the world average

and KR is ranked 18th highest out of 77 cotton producing countries. 11 14. For example, Australia has the world’s highest average cotton yield (1.94 T of lint ha-1). 10 In 2013, the top 20% of Australian growers achieved yields of 2.75 T of lint ha-1. 12 Therefore, average KR cotton yield is only 32% of that achieved by the top 20% of Australian growers. 15. Estimates in the separate Pravaya Vetka Irrigation System: Water Balance and Drought Risk Management linked document indicate that present PVIS wheat yield (4.0 T ha-1) is only 47% of its potential (8.5 T ha-1) and associated water consumption (actual crop evapotranspiration or ETa) (320 mm) is 64% of its potential (ETc) (nearly 500 mm). For corn, similar indicative estimates

10 Given their financing and various other constraints, existing irrigation systems appear to be remarkably stable and

there is no evidence that agricultural production is declining in Pravaya Vetka Irrigation System (PVIS) or elsewhere. 11 https://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?commodity=cotton&graph=yield. 12 http://cottonaustralia.com.au/cotton-library/fact-sheets/cotton-fact-file-the-australian-cotton-industry.

5

are 2.8 T of grain ha-1 (23%) versus 12.2 T of grain ha-1 and 280 mm (40%) versus 700 mm.

6

Figure 2: Diagnostic decision tree

Source: Steley and Makin in ADB. 2015. Regional: Innovations for More Food with Less Water, https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/project-document/189709/45072-001-tacr-05.pdf. Notes: Agron = Agronomy, CI = cropping intensity, CY = crop yields, ETa = actual crop evapotranspiration; IE = irrigation efficiency; O&M = operations and maintenance, OFWM = on- farm water management, P = precipitation, PC = productive consumption, W = withdrawal, Ya = actual yields

Assess Ya

Ya = High Ya = Low

PC / (W+P) = High

PC / (W+P) = Low

ETa = High ETa = Low

PC / (W+P) = High

PC / (W+P) = Low

PC / (W+P) = High

PC / (W+P) = Low

Project 1: None

Project 2: Increase IE Reduce W

Project 4: Improve agron

Project 5: Improve agron Increase IE Reduce W

Project 7: Improve agron & OFWM Increase W or reduce area

Project 8: Improve agron & OFWM Increase IE Reduce W

System Benefits: Limited

System Benefits: Reduced O&M cost

System Benefits: Increased crop yield

System Benefits: Increased CY Reduced O&M cost Save H2O

System Benefits: Increased CY Increased ETa

System Benefits: Increased CY Increased Eta Reduced O&M cost

Farmer Gains: Limited

Farmer Gains: None

Farmer Gains: Increased CY

Farmer Gains: Increased CY

Farmer Gains: Substantially increased CY

Farmer Gains: Substantially increased CY

Farmer Costs: Limited

Farmer Costs Increased OFWM costs

Farmer Costs: Increased OFWM & input costs

Farmer Costs: Increased OFWM & input costs

Farmer Costs: Increased OFWM & input costs

Farmer Costs: Increased OFWM & input costs

Project 3: Increase IE Maintain W Increase CI

System Benefits: Reduced O&M cost

Farmer Gains: None

Farmer Costs Increased OFWM costs

Project 6: Improve agron Increase IE Maintain W Increase CI

System Benefits: Increased CY Increased CI

Farmer Gains: Increased CY & CI

Farmer Costs: Increased OFWM & input costs

CI = High CI = low CI = High CI = low

Project 9: Improve Agron & OFWM Increase IE Maintain W Increase CI

System Benefits: Increased CY Increased Eta Reduced O&M cost

Farmer Gains: Substantially increased CY

Farmer Cost: Increased OFWM & input costs

CI = High CI = low

7

16. This indicates, present actual crop water consumption (ETa) is low (40% and 64% for corn and wheat) and present actual yields (Ya) are very low (23% and 47%). However, using the ADOPT tool, 13 the it is estimated only 84% peak adoption of modern PoW technology and practices after 10 years. Furthermore, optimum PoW (Ya / ETa) usually occurs when actual crop water consumption (ETa) is about 80% of its potential value (ETc). Therefore, full potential crop yields (Ya) are unrealistic. Nevertheless, existing irrigation systems are presently on the right-hand side of Figure 2. The present perception and actual situation are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3: Irrigated Agriculture Subsector

Consideration Present Perception Actual Situation

Figure 2 diagnosis Left hand side Right hand side

Water consumption (ETa) Not assessed Low

Crop yields (Ya) High Very low

Present performance Good Poor

Modernization potential Not considered High potential

Incremental PoW and NVP Not considered High potential

17. Table 3 indicates considerable potential for modernization of irrigation systems to increase agricultural productivity of water (PoW) and net value of production (NVP). However, this potential is constrained by the scarcity of water (Section I.E) and several related problems (see Annex A). PVIS crops are found to be short of water. For example, present actual water consumption of corn (280 mm) is only about 40% of its potential value (700 mm) and only about 50% of its optimum value (about 560 mm) required to maximize PoW. 14 Furthermore, in view of the present perception (Table 3), achieving the considerable potential will also require a challenging and innovative organizational and farmer behavioral change management process (Section I.K).

D. Agricultural Productivity of Water

18. This section provides a wholistic conceptual framework for assessing agricultural PoW. ADB 15 proposes the productivity of water (PoW) applied ($ m-3 or T m-3), by farmers to their fields, as the PoW benchmark. However, there are issues with using PoW applied, for water accounting at irrigation system or river basin level, unless it is adjusted for: (i) precipitation, which contributes to crop consumption and production, or (ii) drainage return flows (irrigation application plus precipitation minus crop consumption), which may be either productive or unproductive. Kyrgyz farmers rarely measure applications, which are difficult to aggregate at the system level. However, “you can’t manage what you don’t measure” and PoW consumed, which can be estimated by satellite image interpretation (Figure 3),16 is the preferred PoW benchmark.

13 CSIRO Adoption and Diffusion Outcome Prediction (ADOPT) Tool, https://research.csiro.au/software/adopt/. 14 Potential consumption maximizes crop yield (T ha-1) whereas optimum consumption maximizes PoW (T m-3). 15 ADB. 2017. Irrigation Subsector Guidance Note, Building Blocks for Sustainable Investment. https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/institutional-document/238481/irrigation-guidance-note.pdf. 16 https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/315991/wateruse-remote-sensing.pdf.

8

Figure 3: Satellite image interpretation to estimate agricultural productivity of water consumed

Source: Asian Development Bank. 19. Relationships, between the agricultural productivities of water consumed and applied (or delivered or withdrawn) ($ m-3), precipitation and irrigation efficiency (%), are in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Conceptual productivity of water framework

Farmer

Management skill

Irrigation practices

Irrigation method

• Drip

• Sprinkler

• Surface

Application

Efficiency (e)

Actual Crop Consumption

or Evapo-transpiration

(ETa)

Agricultural Productivity

of Water Consumed

(Ya / ETa)

and

Applied

(Ya / ETa) / e Agronomic practices Actual Crop

Yield (Ya)

Source: Steley interpretation of ADB. 2015.17

17 ADB. 2015. Regional: Innovations for More Food with Less Water, https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/project-document/189709/45072-001-tacr-05.pdf.

9

Pa = Ya / ETa (Equation 1) and: X = (ETa – Re) / e therefore: Px = e Ya / (ETa – Re) (Equation 2) or where precipitation is negligible = e Ya / ETa (Equation 3) where: Pa = productivity of water consumed; Px = productivity of water applied, delivered or withdrawn etc; X = water applied, delivered or withdrawn etc; e = efficiency = water applied, delivered or withdrawn / water consumed; Ya = actual crop yield ETa = water consumed = actual crop evapotranspiration, and: Re = effective rainfall and/or snowmelt.

One might expect Pa to increase when: (i) Ya increases and/or (ii) ETa decreases. However, ETa and Ya are not independent variables as Ya is a function of ETa. As demonstrated below, as ETa

increases, Ya increases more. Therefore, as ETa increases, Pa also increases, not decreases.

E. Water Scarcity18 20. The KR has an abundant annual water endowment of 46.9 billion cubic meters (BCM). However, under extant Soviet-era agreements, 29.2 BCM is allocated to downstream riparian countries and a further 6.2 BCM is in the isolated mountainous Tarim River Basin. This leaves just 11.9 BCM (25%) as the effective annual KR water allocation. Nevertheless, in 2016, this represented an annual per capita water endowment (ACE) of nearly 2,000 m3, which is still above the national thresholds of water stress (ACE = 1,700 m3) and scarcity (ACE = 1,000 m3). 21.

Table 4 indicates that, from 1990 to the mid-2000s, performance of the Kyrgyz Republic IAD

subsector declined appreciably. Irrigated area declined by 15%. However, in the remaining irrigated area, DWR unit water deliveries to WUAs declined by a remarkable 51%, because of declines in both unit water withdrawals at intakes (19%) and irrigation delivery efficiencies (39%) (see

Table 4). There is no evidence that KR irrigation systems continue to deteriorate and their

performance appears to have stabilized. Therefore, relative to both their performance before 1990 and potential (Section I.C), existing irrigation systems are presently performing in a low-level equilibrium.

18 Unless otherwise stated, references herein are to ADB. 2013. Kyrgyz Republic: Developing Water Resources

Sector Strategies in Central and West Asia. TA Consultant’s Report. Manila. Available online: https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/project-document/79760/45353-001-tacr-01.pdf.

10

Table 4: Irrigated agriculture subsector performance - 1990 to min-2000s

Indicator Unit 1990 2000s Decline (%)

Withdrawal BCM 11.1 7.65 31

Delivery BCM 9 3.79 69

Irrigated area mha 1.02 0.87 15

Withdrawal m3 ha-1 10,882 8,793 19

Delivery m3 ha-1 8,824 4,356 51

Delivery efficiency % 81.1 49.5 39

Source: Analysis of ADB. 2013. Developing Water Resources Sector Strategies in Central and West Asia. Manila.

22. Table 1 above also indicates that crops are not “getting enough to drink”. Precipitation is negligible and actual water consumption or crop evapotranspiration ETa = irrigation system efficiency x withdrawal. To meet potential crop water requirements (ETc), Table 1 indicates that irrigation system efficiency would need to be 107% (8.22/7.65) nationally and 110% in the Syr Darya River Basin. However, this is impossible. Alternatively, if irrigation system efficiency is only 30%, ETa = 0.27ETc (0.3x2.93/3.22) in the Syr Darya River Basin. This is well below the ETa = 0.5ETc threshold and indicates considerable potential, assessed later herein, to increase both agricultural productivity of water (PoW) and net value of production (NVP). 23. Soviet-era feasibility studies are no longer available. However, Central Asian irrigation systems, that over-allocate their limited water to a large area serving many poor farmers, include: (i) Pravaya Vetka (based on evidence herein), (ii) Uzbek 19 and (iii) Tajik Kommunisim and Chubek irrigation systems. 20 Therefore, these irrigation systems were designed to meet the social equity objective (water scarcity by design) rather than the economic efficiency objective (80% reliability of meeting potential crop water requirements). Therefore, water scarcity is a generic (strategic) problem of both regional and Kyrgyz Republic national significance.

F. PVIS Water Balances 24. Pravaya Vetka Irrigation System: Water Balance and Drought Risk Management Plan linked document indicates that:

i. Main irrigation canal design delivery capacity (18.0 cumec) is not a constraint; ii. Water deficits (80% reliable streamflow + 80% reliable precipitation - mean potential

evapotranspiration) occur in August and September with and without climate change; iii. For the present stationary climate, the without-project cropping pattern implies either:

a. An unrealistic irrigation system efficiency (ISE) of 87% or: b. The crops are not getting enough water to “drink”, ie actual crop evapotranspiration

(ETa) is less than potential crop evapotranspiration (ETc) for maximum yield (Yc); iv. Based on CAWMA, 21 present crop yields indicate low (wheat) to very low (corn and

probably cotton and lucerne) present actual ET rates, relative to potential ET rates; v. For these low to very low ETa rates, the present stationary climate without-project water

19 ADB. 2012. Country Partnership Strategy, Uzbekistan 2012-2016, ANR Sector Assessment (Summary). https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/linked-documents/cps-uzb-2012-2016-ssa-03.pdf. 20 Steley. unpublished. Feasibility Study of the Kommunism Irrigation System, for ADB. 21 IWMI. 2007. Water for food water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture, http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/assessment/Publications/books.htm.

11

balance and cropping pattern also indicate a plausible present ISE of only 50%; vi. Therefore, water scarcity is the underlying PVIS development problem (Annex A).

vii. However, the CAWMA analysis also indicates very low (wheat) to extremely low (corn

and probably cotton and lucerne too) present (Ya) relative to potential crop yields (Yc); viii. This indicates considerable potential to modernize irrigation system management

(O&M), to improve its agricultural PoW and NVP performance: ix. With-project, the present optimum PVIS management strategy, to increase actual crop

evapotranspiration (ETa), PoW (Ya / ETa), crop yield (Ya) and NVP, involves: a. Increasing ISE, from 50% to 60%, and: b. Reducing the cropping intensity, from 100% to about 80%, to: c. Allocate limited water (m3) to irrigate less land (ha) with more water (m3 ha-1);

G. Irrigation Systems and Command 22 25. Three Jalalabad irrigation systems, visited during project preparation, are described below: 26. Zernovoi Kok-Art Irrigation System:

i. Free intake, on Kugart River 23 is adequately maintained by bulldozer; ii. However, it suffers during high river flows from high sediment intake;

Presently, 40,000 m3 of sediment is removed two or three times per year; iii. Requires new sediment-exclusion headworks and sediment settling tank, but: iv. Design would benefit from geomorphological study and physical modeling?

27. Existing Vetka Weir (improved by World Bank), on Kara-Ungur-Sai River, supplies:

i. Levaya-Vetka main canal, on the left, which supplies the: a. Levaya-Vetka main canal (improved by World Bank) and: b. Jany-Jogorku Akman secondary canal (proposed non-core subproject);

ii. Pravaya-Vetka main (1st and 2nd) canals on the right (core subproject); 28. In all three Jalalabad irrigation systems, the top of the main canal bank is visibly lower than much of the adjacent agricultural land and cannot command (serve or irrigate) it by gravity. Therefore, a key development hypothesis is that these canals are hydraulic systems, but not complete irrigation systems. They deliver water, from their intake to downstream end, but they:

i. Do not have enough head to fully command their potential net irrigable service areas; ii. Permissible service areas are nominal and uncertain. Therefore: iii. During project implementation, PIC and WUGs will verify net irrigable areas (NIAs).

29. This lack of command and uncertain NIAs cause the following viscous circle;

i. From the farmer perspective: a. The level of operational irrigation system service (water delivery LoS) is physically

constrained by a lack of head to adequately command farmers land;

22 Command is the head (difference in elevation), between the canal water level and the farmers field, required to make

water flow by gravity to irrigate or “command” farmers’ fields without requiring pumping. 23 Kugart River is a snow-fed tributary of the Karya Darya River that is a tributary of the Syr Darya River.

12

b. Therefore, farmers lack incentives to: (i) modernize their irrigated agriculture, (ii) develop their tertiary units or (iii) pay for DWRM main system maintenance etc;

ii. From the DWRM perspective:

a. DWRM staff are highly adapt at maintaining dilapidated main canal infrastructure; b. However, main canal infrastructure continues to deteriorate because of:

i. Severe flood, mudflow and drought disasters; ii. Limited financial resources for maintenance;

c. Therefore, DWRM staff lack incentives to provide a high irrigation LoS; d. Because the main system is physically constrained, by a lack of head to command

farmers land, DWRM staff also lack the means to provide a modern irrigation LoS. 30. A likely symptom, of the above viscous circle, is the evident lack of tertiary development:

i. Main canals are not equipped with check structures, to regulate their tertiary offtakes; ii. However, there are not enough tertiary offtakes. Zernovoi Kok-Art Canal has only 11,

for a nominal irrigable service area of 4,981 ha. The optimum is about 150 ha / TU. This indicates the need for about three times as many tertiary offtakes and units (TUs).

iii. Tertiary intakes are equipped with staff gauges (hydro-posts) to estimate discharge. However, without check structures, it is difficult to regulate low flows in main canals;

iv. Downstream of short DWRM intakes, WUAs are responsible for tertiary development but there are few tertiary canals, likely due to lack of main canal command (head).

31. Therefore, there is considerable potential to convert the present viscous circle (hydraulic canal water delivery systems) to a virtuous circle (complete modern irrigation systems) through conventional technical interventions to increase irrigation system command (head) and NIA. H. Subproject Preparation

32. During project preparation, a simplified pragmatic planning process was followed. However, during implementation, the PIC will help DWR and WUGs to complete (PVIS core subproject) and implement (non-core subprojects) the full planning process (Table 5) involving conventional:

i. Engineering bottom-up irrigation system planning process. For example, this is required to determine, from downstream to upstream, the optimum number / location of tertiary canal offtakes and the main canal water level required to maintain command;

ii. Participatory planning processes to develop WUG / WUA capacity and facilitate most efficient and effective planning of their modern irrigation systems.

13

Table 5: Alternative subproject planning processes

Engineering / Participatory Process Simplified Pragmatic Process

Topographic etc survey of nominal service area

i. During project preparation technical FS, provide for “adequate” TU development cost

ii. During Project implementation, develop and facilitate participatory WUA capacity development process to design their tertiary units (TUs).

WUAs select number and boundaries of tertiary units (TU), layouts of quaternary and tertiary canals and locations of their tertiary intakes equal to tertiary outlets or offtakes from main canal

Iterative hydraulic TU design determines:

i. Nett service area ii. Head in main canal at tertiary outlets

including the need for head regulators

Topographic survey of main canal

Longitudinal section and regular cross sections

Topographic survey of main canal

Longitudinal section and regular cross sections

Iterative hydraulic main canal design determines:

i. Main canal capacities to deliver the full design discharge at required head

ii. Full water supply and top of bank elevations along length of main canal

Hydraulic main canal design as indicates opposite

Technical FS to raise top of main canal banks by:

i. “As much as possible” and ii. Preferably, by at least 0.50m

Design of ancillary main canal structures

i. 2 sections of main canal (MC) lining ii. Shaidon Sai mudflow under crossing

An inverted syphon may be required to maintain hydraulic head in MC?

Note: Scope of project preparation technical feasibility study of Pravaya-Vetka core IAD subproject.

I. Floods and Mudflows

33. The three Jalalabad irrigation systems visited during project preparation involve main (1st and 2nd) canal mudflow crossings in proportion to the terrain of their irrigation service areas (Table 6). Table 6: Irrigation system terrain and mudflow crossings

Subproject Terrain Mudflow Crossings

Jany-Jogorku Akman Hilly - Rolling About 50

Zernovoi Kok-Art Intermediate Several

Pravaya-Vetka Gently sloping Shaidin Sai (Fig 5)

Source: Project preparation consultant.

Table 7: Flood and mudflow problems and impacts

Infrastructure Problem Maintenance Drought

Diversion weirs and intakes

Large debris and sediment intake during floods and high flows

High recurrent maintenance requirements and costs

Reduced water deliveries below design capacity

Main and secondary canals

Frequent flood mudflow crossing failures and sediment intake

Periodic interruption of downstream water supply

Source: Project preparation consultant.

14

34. In Osh and Jalalabad, rivers range from small, short, steep rivers, prone to flash floods, erosion and mudflows, to large, long, flat rivers that function as major mudflow debris channels. For example, PVIS is supplied by the Kara Unker Sai River, which is a tributary of the Karya Darya River that, at its confluence with the Naryn River, forms the Syr Darya River. Headworks and protection embankments are prone to erosion, particularly during floods and other high flows. 35. In view of the considerable challenge, DWR is preoccupied with maintaining the above infrastructure and appears to be remarkably effective in keeping it operational to minimize water supply reductions or interruptions. However, the above impacts should not be overstated as the main mudflow season (April to June) does not coincide with the late summer cropping season (July to September) when, PVIS farmers indicate, available water supply is limiting. This indicates that increased nett value of crop production is likely to be the main (90%) subproject benefit. J. Irrigation Method and Scheduling 36. On-Farm Water Management (OFWM) refers to farmer field-level: (i) irrigation method (precision surface, sprinkler, drip etc.) and (ii) scheduling (application depth and irrigation interval). Physical water losses are generally highest at farmer field-level, decrease in tertiary and secondary canals and are lowest in main canals. Therefore, in well operated irrigation systems, application efficiencies are the most important and tertiary irrigation efficiencies are next.

Table 8: Application efficiencies achieved by farmers

Reference Experience Parameter Irrigation Method x Efficiency (%)

PS SP DM

James 24 USA Management Moderate Mod - High High

Application Efficiency (%)

60 - 80 70 - 80 80 - 90

NWC 25 Australia 60 - 85 70 - 80 75 - 90

NPSI 26 International 60 - 90 65 - 90 75 – 90

Legend: DM = drip / micro, PS = precision surface and SP = sprinkler irrigation methods.

37. High tech drip / micro irrigation equipment and methods are often advocated, to “save water”, as they usually increase application efficiency. However, this does not reduce water consumption.27 If application efficiency increases, the farmer irrigator has two options:

i. Maintain water application and increase water consumption and crop production, or: ii. Reduce water application and maintain water consumption and crop production.

24 James. 1998. Principles of Farm Irrigation System Design. 25 https://eprints.usq.edu.au/19530/1/Mushtaq_Maraseni_Waterlines_2011_PV.pdf. 26 http://www.insidecotton.com/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1/2108/pr030566.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y. 27 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317102271.

15

Table 9: Irrigation efficiency, water consumption and availability

Strategy to Increase

Irrigation Efficiency = consumption / withdrawal 1

Irrigation System

Water Consumption

River Basin

Water Availability

Maintain withdrawal and

Increase production Increases Decreases

Maintain production and

Reduce withdrawal No change No change

38. To optimize their profits and income, farmer irrigators usually choose option (i) above. However, for example, if they chose option (ii), the table above indicates that:

i. Poor irrigators, using PS methods, achieve an application efficiency (AE) of only 60%; ii. By upgrading their PS management skill, from poor to good, these irrigators would

increase their EA, from 60% to 85%, and reduce their water application by 29%; iii. By adopting DM methods, and upgrading their management skill from PS to DM, they

would further increase EA from 85% to 90% and reduce application by only 4%. 39. Precision surface irrigation methods are widely, but not universally, applicable, whereas drip / micro methods are more expensive and require higher irrigator management skills to address several issues. 28 This indicates that the priority should be to help farmers improve their existing field-level irrigation methods and skills. It also supports the ISGN emphasis on individual farm managers (and their skill as irrigators) that are a prerequisite of irrigation project success.

Table 10: Irrigation technology use in USA and Australia

Country Irrigation Method (%) Irrigated

Area (ha) Surface Sprinkler Drip / Micro

USA in 2003 43.4 50.5 6.1 21,591,000

Australia, 2008 - 09 44.0 42.7 13.3 1,826,000

Sources: ASABE. 2007 29 and Cotton Australia 29

40. Pressurized sprinkler and drip / micro irrigation systems are more expensive and require more skilled and less unskilled labor to design, install, maintain and operate (pump, pipes and energy). This suggests that farmer adoption rates are likely to be lower in Kyrgyz Republic, with more abundant cheap labor, than in the USA and Australia (Table 8). The above application efficiency, demand and adoption considerations suggest that, at least for broad-acre food crops (grains and grain legumes / pulses etc.) and cotton, the priority need is to adapt precision surface irrigation methods. For example, this is the main approach used by the Australian cotton industry. 41. Australian cotton industry irrigated lint yields are now the highest of any major cotton producing country in the world , being about three times the world average. This means that Australia cotton growers produce “more cask per splash” than any other cotton producing country. The Australian cotton industry / growers have also: 30

28 http://afghanag.ucdavis.edu/natural-resource-management/irrigation/irrigation-fact-sheets/IS_Irr_Drip_Issues.pdf. 29 ASABE. 2007. Design and Operation of Farm Irrigation Systems (USA) and footnote 29 (Australia). 30 Cotton Australia. undated. Sustainability Fact Sheet: Water Use Efficiency in the Cotton Industry.

http://cottonaustralia.com.au/uploads/factsheets/SUSTAINABILITY_FACT_SHEET_TEMPLATE_OL_Water_use_efficiency_in_the_cotton_industry.pdf.

16

i. Achieved a 40% increase in water productivity over the last decade; ii. Improved water use efficiency by 3-4% per year since 2003; iii. Almost doubled their irrigation water use index from 1.1 bales / megalitre in 2000-01 to

1.9 bales / megalitre in 2009-10. 42. The Australian cotton industry / growers use a range of techniques, to constantly improve water use efficiency, many of which are appropriate to, or might be adapted in, Kyrgyz Republic:

i. 70% of Australian cotton farmers use soil moisture probes, up from 40 percent in 2006 (highest of all agriculture industries in Australia);

ii. 96% of irrigators have improved their furrow irrigation system or changed to an alternate irrigation system;

iii. 49% of irrigators had made changes to the flow or size of their furrow siphons; iv. 35% have redesigned fields. For example, growers use laser-levelling and GPS guidance

equipment to ensure uniform, well drained fields; v. Tail water recycling systems are implemented so that water is reused; vi. Mulching and stubble retention help retain soil moisture, reducing the need for irrigations; vii. Permanent wheel beds to reduce soil compaction and increase water infiltration; viii. Implementing software packages such as Water Track (www.watertrack.com.au). ix. Other practices include deficit irrigation, pressurized systems, better accounting of soil

variations, changed bed shapes, irrigation scheduling probes, furrow irrigation system optimization evaluations, pump optimization and reduced distribution losses;

43. WaterPAK is a compilation of the latest best practice management information.31 K. Institutions and Organizations 44. The Ministry of Emergency Situations (MOES) and the Department of Water Resources and Melioration (DWR), under the Ministry of Agriculture and Melioration, are the main relevant state water resources sector agencies. MOES is responsible for DRM including construction, rehabilitation, and preventative maintenance of infrastructure, such as riverine embankments, and rescue and recovery after disasters including re-housing of displaced people. The State Agency for Hydrometeorology (Kyrgyz Hydromet), under MOES, is responsible meteorological and hydrological monitoring, analysis and forecasting, including warning of extreme weather events. The DWR constructs and manages (operates and maintains) main irrigations systems, including protective infrastructure. Irrigation management is coordinated with local water user associations (WUAs), who construct and manage lower-level canals. Individual irrigated farmers are independent decision-makers responsible for managing (irrigation method and scheduling) their irrigated land.

45. KyrgyzHydromet currently manages only 78 active hydrological monitoring stations (roughly one per 2,700 km2), which is insufficient to meet World Meteorological Organization guidelines (one per 1,875 km2).32 Existing gauging stations are largely manual. Under an ongoing World Bank project, pilots of automated gauging stations measuring water height and connected

31 CRDC. 2012. WATERpak: A Guide for Irrigation Management in Cotton and Grain Farming Systems.

http://www.cottoninfo.com.au/sites/default/files/documents/WATERpak.pdf. 32WMO. 2008. The Guide to Hydrological Practices. WMO No.168. Geneva.

17

to mobile network have proved unsuccessful due to fast-changing river beds.33 Data transmission and recording is done manually over the phone in hard copy documents. Basic flood risk assessments to generate flood warnings are performed using look-up tables, but don’t provide significant precision with respect to the location of the risks. Recent technological developments allow for flood forecasting based on satellite-based remote sensing using freely available datasets, and remote data collection and processing using low-cost app technology. This may improve the speed, accuracy, and precision of processing and forecasting, and can be scaled up to additional areas. 46. The state Civil Protection System (CPS) is implemented at the national level by the Inter-Agency Commission (IAC) for Prevention and Elimination of Emergencies and at the Oblast level by the Civil Protection Committees (CPC). The Prime Minister is the IAC Chairman and the Minister of Emergency Services is the IAC Deputy Chairman. The IAC coordinates the national ministries and Oblast CPCs. MOES fulfils its operational DRM functions mainly through its Northern and Southern Response Emergency Centers (ERCs) in Bishkek and Osh. Competitive bidding is used for large-scale works. However, small-scale and emergency works, that require rapid deployment of machinery, are conducted by the MOES themselves through the ERCs. The MOES ERCs have an asset management system. For each machine, this involves adequate: (i) hand-written records, including age, deployments, total working hours and periodic maintenance, (ii) state budget allocations for machinery maintenance and (iii) workshops with trained maintenance staff. However, much of the existing equipment is used beyond its economic lifetime. As of 2018, MOES reports that only 60% of the machinery is in good/working condition. As a result, in the face of increasing requirements for preventative and rehabilitation due to more frequent disaster events, the ERCs have been unable to complete annually planned preventative works. MOES also relies heavily on Soviet-era engineering approaches to flood risk management, which adds costs and may themselves create additional risks during high flood periods. 47. One view is that existing WUAs are functioning and effective34 but that much more DWR O&M is required to prevent main canal collapse.35 WUAs set the irrigation service fee (ISF) rates paid by water users. The eight PVIS area-based ISF rates range from kgs 374 / ha to kgs 769 / ha or about $5.5 / ha to $ 11.2 / ha.36 These are only 10% to 20% of international benchmarks37 at about $ 60 / ha.38 The irrigations systems that they manage are producing much less than their potential PoW and NVP, both the PVIS DWR and existing WUAs are presently in a sustainable but low-level performance equilibrium. 48. In 2017, the eight PVIS WUAs collected a total of kgs 7,642,646. Of this, they paid kgs 1,701,740 (22%) to DWR (at kgs 30 / 1,000 m3) and retained a total income of kgs 5,940,906. Of this they spent kgs 1,756,633 (30%) on maintenance and the balance (70%) on staff costs and overheads. DWR staff report about 40% of its total budget is met by state subsidy. Therefore, the total DWR O&M budget was 1,701,740/0.60 = kgs 2,836,233 and the total PVIS O&M budget was kgs 8,777,139. Of this, the eight WUAs received kgs 5,940,906 (67%) and DWR received 33%. 49. However, in similar gravity irrigation systems, the proportions of O&M costs are usually

33 KyrgyzHydromet staff, personal communication. 34 Verheijen. 2016, Performance Assessment of 72 Water Users’ Associations, prepared by NWRMP for World Bank. 35 World Bank. 2014. National Water Resources Management Project – Phase 1, Project Appraisal Document. 36 Alternative volume-based ISF rates range from kgs 61 / 1,000 m3 to kgs 144 / 1,000 m3. 37 HRW. 1998. Maintaining Value of Irrigation & Drainage Systems, http://eprints.hrwallingford.co.uk/150/1/odtn90.pdf. 38 Based on: (i) a capital replacement cost of $3,000, for similar well designed and constructed infrastructure, and (ii) an O&M cost of 2% per annum for normal gravity irrigation systems.

18

about 67%, in the headworks, primary and secondary canals, and 33% in lower-level canals. This indicates that DWR is doing about two thirds of the total O&M work for a third of the income. Therefore, DWR could be interpreted as functional and efficient (on maintenance) but not effective (on operation) and existing WUAs are functional but less efficient (on maintenance) and not effective (on operation).39 Existing PVIS WUAs are in Figure 5 and their main characteristics are in Table 11. 50. Under the 2002 WUA Law, WUFs or WUAs manage (O&M) their irrigation systems at any level. All water users therein are eligible for WUA membership. 40 All members have the right to participate in WUA decision-making and WUA (board) functions include ensuring full participation of all its members. The supreme WUA (governance) organ is the General Assembly of all its members. The other two WUA organs are the managing Council (or board) and Audit Commission. However, the Council also includes the WUA Directorate as its executive (management) body. 51. Furthermore, in view of large numbers of members (in PVIS, 1,500 households per WUA), the WUA Law also allows a Representative Council to exercise all General Assembly powers. Zones elect a Representative(s) to the Representative Assembly. In PVIS, there are about 12,000 farm households but only 366 Zones. Therefore, each Zone serves an average of 37 ha and 33 farm households. This is the upper limit for effective small group participation. However, between elections, Zonal members do not appear to participate and the existing Representative Councils, representing as little as 366 / 12,000 = 3% of eligible WUA members, seem to have usurped the intended supreme governance function of the General Assembly of all eligible WUA members.

Figure 5: Existing PVIS water user association service areas

39 During implementation, the PIC will help DWR and WUAs to: (i) prepare their asset management plans, (ii) verify the above analysis, interpretation and implications and (iii) agree to share O&M costs and income more equitably. 40 Landowners directly and leaseholders indirectly through a written agreement with the landholding lessee.

19

Table 11: Existing PVIS Water User Associations

Rayon Name Nooken BK Total PVIS

RC Name Aral Masy Nooken Sakaldy Sakaldy Shaidan Shaidan Kenesh

WUA Name ArS MM NK SS TM AiS SKU KS

Level Score 7 7 7 7 4 4 7 7 NA

Pop No 5,770 18,602 11,926 4,018 4,363 2,766 4,429 25,000 76,874

Mem No 853 1,412 1,244 85 226 347 627 1,763 6,557

Zones No 64 57 31 30 44 35 29 76 366

HP - R No 31 25 33 10 11 7 12 31 160

HP - A No 26 22 30 10 1 5 3 24 121

PSA ha 2,257 2,424 2,417 1,085 1,317 802 1,048 2,160 13,510

Wheat ha 605 485 370 140 108 183 205 200 2,296

Corn ha 359 425 203 130 150 124 215 596 2,202

Cotton ha 750 950 1,075 420 812 220 123 310 4,660

Lucerne ha 144 233 200 116 47 156 300 700 1,896

HG + V ha 267 321 528 129 200 99 181 198 1,923

Irrigated ha 2,238 2,424 2,409 972 1,317 802 1,048 2,160 13,370

CI % 99 100 100 90 100 100 100 100 99

Source: 2017 WUA Reports. Legend: Act = actual, AiS = Aikol Suu, AO = ArS = Aral Say, BK = Bazarkorgon, HG = household gardens, HP = Hydropost, KS = Kenesh Suu, MM = Murat Murap, NA = not applicable, NK = Nooken K, PSA = permissible service area, PVIS = Pravaya Vetka Irrigation System, RC = Rural Community (Ayil Okmot), Req = required, SKU = Shaidon Kara Ungur, SS = Sakaldy Suu, TM = Taimonku, Veg = vegetables, WUA = Water User Association. Minor crops = oil seeds (128 ha), fruit trees (99 ha), rice (92 ha) and vines (74 ha).

52. At the end of the Soviet-era in 1991, the collectivized state farms were abolished, and their irrigation system management functions were transferred to new water user associations (WUAs). The four-phase Integrated Water Resources Management in Fergana Valley Project (FVP) was financed by the Swiss Development Cooperation (SDC) and implemented jointly by IWMI and the Scientific Information Center (SIC), of Interstate Commission for Water Coordination of Central Asia. 41 The key output of FVP was to promote institutional reform and operationalize IWRM in Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan including formation of new water user associations (WUAs) to replace the old state farms. Initially, a top-down “blueprint” approach was used to form WUAs. 42 However, during the second phase, it was realized that WUAs formed on old state farm boundaries, typically serving 1,000 to 2,000 ha and similar numbers of farm households, are far too big to be representative of all irrigated farmers and to facilitate their participation in O&M. 53. An institutional analysis43 was critical of FVP and found that: (i) the existing WUAs were not, in fact, associations of water users (ie representative and accountable to irrigated farmers) and that (ii) this resulted in pronounced water delivery inequities from upstream (good) to

41 IWMI and SIC. 2008. Final Report of Integrated Water Resources Management in Fergana Valley Project, Phase III http://publications.iwmi.org/pdf/H041914.pdf. 42 IWMI and SIC. 2003. How to Establish a Water User association? Practical Steps for Social Mobilizers. http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/regional-content/central_asia/pdf/wua_eng.pdf. 43 IWMI. 2004. Inadequacies in the Water Reforms in the Kyrgyz Republic: An Institutional Analysis, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/42765044.

20

downstream (poor). 44 During the third phase, the original top-down “blueprint” approach was replaced by a more bottom-up social mobilization pilot program to form lower-level water user groups (WUGs) as the representative-participatory foundation of federated WUAs (Annex B). In Kyrgyz Republic, FVP formed 65 WUGs serving averages of 30 ha and 30 farm households. This size is ideal for effective small group participation and collective decision-making. However:

i. WUGs were not formed on hydraulic boundaries to facilitate irrigation management(O&M) (the normal size of quaternary units, managed by WUAs or WUGs is 100 ha to 200 ha);

ii. Mobilization was treated more as an end to itself rather than as a means to catalyze demand and facilitate participation in informed collective decision-making and irrigation system management using the cascading participatory capacity development process;

iii. FVP social mobilizers facilitated formation of only 25 WUGs. The other 40 WUGs were “established by the self-initiative of WUAs”. Therefore, existing WUAs, that were identified as the problem, were allowed to form the WUGs that were meant to address it!

54. Despite these deficiencies, an external review 45 recommended SDS finance a phase IV of FVP for widespread replication of the phase III pilot WUG formation process. The IWMI phase IV impact assessment 46 is a non-open access document. However, the World Bank Water Management Improvement and Second On-Farm Improvement projects focused instead on irrigation management (O&M) transfer (IMT) of higher-level canals to new federations of existing WUAs (building on the weak foundation of existing WUAs). This is now official government policy under the 2013 revision of the 2002 WUA Law. However, at the end of 2017, 35 WUF had been formed and legally registered but only 11 (31%) were managing (O&M) their secondary canals. This indicates that the FVP institutional (WUG and WUA) reform process remains to be completed. 55. The Water User Association Support Program (WUASP) was financed by USAID and implemented by Winrock International. An independent impact assessment 47 found that it used a more bottom-up participatory process but the pronounced social mobilization was still often directed at key farmers and WUA leaders and not at the general population of water users. Compared with the top-down “blueprint” approach of the World Bank On Farm Irrigation Project, WUASP had a positive and statistically significant effect on several WUA performance outcomes. However, its WUAs were not representative as WUASP failed to address elite capture and deliver benefits vulnerable groups (ethnic, female, downstream users and small landholders). WUA sizes (area and households) are not stated, but WUA size was inversely related to WUA outcomes.48

56. A similar study49 found: (i) current NGO partnerships with existing WUAs frequently amount to financial and technical transactions, to preserve inherited infrastructure and resist disturbance, and (ii) there is an increasing disassociation between irrigation constituents and the organizations that are supposed to address their grievances through legitimate channels. It also

44 Pronounced water delivery inequities are no longer evident in PVIS where only the far downstream Sakaldy Suu

WUA reported a 2017 cropping intensity of 90%. The other seven WUAs reported 99% or 100%. 45 Tarnutzer et al. 2007. External Review of the Ferghana Valley IWRM Project, for SDC, http://waterwiki.net/images/3/33/SDC-Ferghana_IWRM_III-ExtRev_FINAL_Nov07.pdf. 46 Yakubov. 2010. The 2009 Impact Assessment Study. IWRM Fergana Valley Project Phase IV. http://centralasia.iwmi.cgiar.org/publications/. 47 McGee. 2011. Water, International Development and Collective Action: An Impact Assessment of an Irrigation

Management Project in Southern Kyrgyzstan, https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/89827. 48 To overcome heterogeneity, small homogeneous groups might have been mobilized and WUG hydraulic boundaries

and membership adjusted to accommodate them. 49 Igoe, 2013. Supporting Transitions to Resilient Irrigation systems: Findings from Southern Kyrgyzstan, http://www.cfc.umt.edu/grad/icd/files/Igoe.pdf.

21

found the absence of locally-specific knowledge and information concerning current irrigation practice from decision-making represents a critical barrier and potential opportunity to fostering effective deliberation and supporting transitions to more resilient systems.

57. International experience is that WUAs are consistently more effective when women play an active role in their governance and management. Another study 50 found the need to reassess participatory processes in order to increase female farmer inclusion in WUAs. For example, in 2017 the eight PVIS WUAs reported 56 WUA council (board) members all of whom were male. Therefore, at least 50% of WUA constituents are effectively disenfranchised. 58. Relevant small-scale Helvetas projects and references include the Water Productivity Improvement, On-Farm Water Management, Efficient Use of Water (WUA governance) and Local Market Development projects, a WUA Governance Self-Assessment Guide and evaluations of the Rural Advisory Services (RAS). These projects concluded that they had been too supply-driven, that existing WUAs are functioning as service providers, not associations of all water users, and that they are not adequately representative, transparent or accountable to all their members. The active regional Water Productivity Project (WAPRO) 51 takes a “push-pull” balanced supply and demand-driven approach with agricultural productivity of water (PoW) providing the “pull”. 59. Therefore, the predominant view is that existing WUAs: (i) may be adequately functional, to maintain the present low-level irrigation performance equilibrium, but (ii) are far too large and unrepresentative to meet the significant challenge of modernizing their irrigated agriculture, to realize the considerable PoW and NVP potential, either efficiently or effectively. 60. Irrigated farmers are the key independent decision-makers that will decide independently what crops to grow, how to irrigate them and when to grow and irrigate them. Therefore, they will ultimately determine the success of the project. Particularly in view of pervasive water scarcity, pre-agreed system-wide cropping patterns and associated water delivery schedules will be essential. However, farmers presently lack the information and organizational means to make these important collective decisions. This will require reorganization and revitalization of existing WUAs to facilitate informed collective decision-making as intended by the WUA Law.

61. In PVIS, there are presently 121 flow measurement “hydro-posts” serving an average of 125 ha. In gently sloping terrain, this is the typical size of a quaternary irrigation management (O&M) unit. Existing Zones, serving an average of 37 ha, are too small. Therefore, the project will mobilize existing Zones to design more efficient and effective quaternary and tertiary canals. This will determine the “hydraulic” boundaries of quaternary units and, therefore, the membership of new quaternary-level sub-WUAs. Existing tertiary-level WUAs may need to be reorganized. To revitalize tertiary-level WUAs, the PIC will facilitate the proven cascading capacity development process. Information will flow from the PIC, through its community development teams (CDTs) and WUF, WUA and sub-WUA boards, to all eligible WUA members. Informed collective decision-making will be aggregated upwards from all farmers to sub-WUA, WUA and WUF boards. II. Government’s Sector Strategy 62. The 2018-2022 national development program includes disaster and climate change risk

50 Nixon and Owusu. 2017. Choice, Inclusion and Access to Information: Understanding Female Farmer’s Participation

in Kyrgyz WUAs, file:///Users/colinsteley/Downloads/Choice_Inclusion_and_Access_to_Information_Underst.pdf. 51 http://www.corporateecoforum.com/wapro-enhancing-water-productivity-using-push-pull-policy-approach/.

22

management and prioritizes improved irrigation infrastructure and water use efficiency. 52 The 2018-2030 emergency situations strategy aims to reduce disaster losses through improved monitoring and forecasting and protective infrastructure. 53 The 2005 Water Code is based on integrated river basin management principles requiring user participation in decision-making. 54 63. The irrigation development plan (IDP) allocates $266 million to 12 projects for which finance is sought. 55 These involve: (i) new development (serving 17,350 ha) and conversion of (ii) diversion to storage systems (12,083 ha) and (iii) pumped to gravity systems (4,511 ha). However, the average unit cost of $7,830 per hectare is likely to prove economically prohibitive. The unit cost of infrastructure, to modernize and protect the PVIS core subproject, is only $800 per hectare. Therefore, in view of the considerable potential increase in agricultural PoW and NVP, the project is likely to add considerable value the present IDP and includes participatory process capacity development to support subsequent scaling-up and widespread replication. III. ADB Sector Experience and Assistance Program

64. The Agriculture Area Development Project, completed in 1999, was rated successful.56 The present project will address the three priorities identified in the Climate Change Assessment linked to the current Country Partnership Strategy: (i) significantly enhance the scant climate change evidence base; (ii) integrate climate change in the design of water resources and other infrastructure projects and (iii) address specific climate vulnerabilities with dedicated projects. 57 65. Revitalizing Asia’s Irrigation study found that, in Central Asia including Kyrgyzstan, there is no alternative to WUAs as the main irrigation system management (O&M) organizations. 58 The project is also consistent with the ADB Irrigation Subsector Guidance Note (ISGN). 59 ISGN advocates a more interventionist approach to project preparation. For example:

i. Prior irrigation system performance Assessment and diagnosis (PAD); i. Remote sensing image interpretation of the spatial variation in PoW, and: ii. Detailed irrigation system water balances that:

a. Account for water withdrawal, consumption (ETa) and drainage return flows; b. Assess the potential to cost-effectively increase irrigation efficiency by

pumping return flows from drains, shallow groundwater aquifers or rivers. 66. The World Bank National Water Resources Management (NWRMP)60 and Agricultural

52 Government of Kyrgyz Republic. 2018. Development Program of the Kyrgyz Republic for the Period 2018-2022

“Unity, Trust, Creation”. 53 Government of Kyrgyz Republic. 2018. Strategy of Comprehensive Protection of the Population and Territory of the

Kyrgyz Republic from Emergency Situations for Years 2018-2030. 54 Government of Kyrgyz Republic. 2005. Water Code of the Kyrgyz Republic. 55 Government of Kyrgyz Republic. 2017. State Program on the Development of Irrigation of the Kyrgyz Republic for

2017-2026. 56 ADB. 2013. Agriculture Area Development Project: Validation Report. https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/evaluation-document/36201/files/pvr-284.pdf. 57 ADB. 2013. Kyrgyz Republic: Country Partnership Strategy (2013-2017). https://www.adb.org/documents/kyrgyz-republic-country-partnership-strategy-2013-2017. 58 IWMI and FAO. 2009. Revitalizing Asia’s Irrigation: To Sustainably Meet Tomorrow’s Food Needs, https://www.think-asia.org/bitstream/handle/11540/2391/revitalizing-asia-irrigation.pdf?sequence=1. 59 ADB. 2017. Irrigation Subsector Guidance Note: Building Blocks for Sustainable Investment, https://www.adb.org/documents/irrigation-subsector-guidance-note. 60 World Bank. 2014. National Water Resources Management Project – Phase 1, Project Appraisal Document.

23

Productivity and Nutrition Improvement (APNIP)61 projects are active. Both take a wholistic approach to irrigation infrastructure, management (O&M) and agriculture. APNIP is financed by GAFSP. However, rather than irrigated agriculture modernization, they are more straightforward irrigation rehabilitation projects. Existing WUAs deliver agricultural advisory services to their members. This is consistent with a recent IWMI study for IFAD that found that multipurpose WUAs are more efficient and effective than single purpose WUAs exclusively for irrigation O&M.62,63

61 World Bank. 2015. Agricultural Productivity and Nutrition Improvement Project, Project Appraisal Document, http://www.gafspfund.org/sites/gafspfund.org/files/Kyrgyz%20APNIP%20PAD.pdf. 62 IWMI. 2012. Water User Associations in the NEN Region: IFAD Interventions and Overall Dynamics, http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/water_cooperation_2013/pdf/water_users_associations_in_nen_region.pdf. 63 This also avoids considerable effort to re-mobilize communities and form separate agricultural organizations (AOs).

24

Annex A: Problem Tree: Irrigated Agriculture Subsector

Passive satisfaction with present situation

No creditable change process No shared vision of the

potential future

Low-level equilibrium

Low nett value of

total crop production ($)

Low agricultural productivity

of water ($ m-3)

Irrigation systems not explicitly managed for water scarcity or drought risk

Low irrigation system efficiency (%)

Insufficient command 64

Insufficient command

Farmer field-level irrigation method not optimal

Floods and mudflows Insufficient 3rd + 4th canals

Limited market access

Dynamic rivers with high sediment loads

Traditional crops

DWRM underfinanced and under-resourced

Existing WUAs just adequate (neither good nor poor) for

present low-level equilibrium

Inadequate for modernization

Traditional risk aversive

farmers

Scarce water is the limiting resource 65

64 Command is the head (difference in elevation), between the canal water level and the farmers field, required to make

water flow by gravity to irrigate or “command” the farmers field without requiring pumping. 65 Soviet-era irrigation systems were designed to meet the social equity objective (limited access to scarce water for

many farmers) and not the economic efficiency objective (ie scarcity-by-design). For example, Pravaya Vetka has only enough water to supply about half potential crop water requirements (ETc) over its authorized service area.

25

Annex B: Ideal Apex Water User Association

Table B1: Management levels of irrigation systems

System Level losses / efficiency

Typical Size (ha)

Managed (O&M) by

Present Future

Application 1-2 Farmers Farmers

40 Zones Zones

Quaternary 100 WUGs

Tertiary 1,500 WUAs WUAs

Main (1st and 2nd) Larger DWRM WUFs?

Source: Asian Development Bank

67. During the Soviet-era, “farm” referred to large collective farms. However, “farm” now refers to individual farmers and their farms and fields. Therefore, the old “inter-farm” and “on-farm” canals are referred to herein as main (1st and 2nd) and tertiary (3rd) canals respectively. Figure B1: Ideal multi-level federated organization of farmers’ water user association (WUA)

Water User Association

(WUA)

WUF Main (1st + 2nd)

WUA Tertiary

WUG Quaternary

Farmers Field

WUA = water user association, WUF = their federation and WUG = water user sub-group. Source: Asian Development Bank.

68. At the end of the Soviet-era, WUAs were formed to take over the management (O&M) of the old collectivized “on-farm” canals (Table B1 above) typically serving 1,000 ha to 2,000 ha. However, while these may be of tertiary (3rd) order, they are an order of magnitude larger than the tertiary units, typically serving only 50 ha to 200 ha (average 100 ha), that are managed by WUAs in the rest of the world. Therefore, depending on context, herein WUA (Fig B1) may refer to either the:

i. Present existing tertiary-level WUAs; ii. Future all-inclusive farmer owned and operated system WUAs, to facilitate informed,

inclusive and collective farmer decision-making and participation, that are: a. Founded on new formal quaternary-level WUGs and b. Federated at main (WUF) and / or tertiary-level (WUA).

26

Annex C: Estimated and Projected Productivity of Water CAWMA Figure

Variable Unit Wheat Corn

7.3 Average Values

Present actual grain yield T ha-1 4.0 7.0

Actual crop evapotranspiration mm 320 600

Actual productivity of water consumed kg m-3 1.25 1.17

Estimated irrigation efficiency % 50 50

Actual productivity of water withdrawn kg m-3 0.63 0.58

Present productivity of water withdrawn kg m-3 0.6 0.6

7.2 Optimum Values

Potential actual grain yield T ha-1 9.67 14.1

Actual crop evapotranspiration mm 500 700

Actual productivity of water consumed kg m-3 1.93 2.02

Estimated irrigation efficiency % 60 60

Actual productivity of water withdrawn kg m-3 1.16 1.21

7.2 Optimum Values

Half ETa

increase

Future actual grain yield T ha-1 7.67 13.0

Actual crop evapotranspiration mm 410 650

Actual productivity of water consumed kg m-3 1.87 2.00

Estimated irrigation efficiency % 55 55

Actual productivity of water withdrawn kg m-3 1.03 1.10

7.3 Average Values

Half ETa

increase

Future actual grain yield T ha-1 6.25 11.38

Actual crop evapotranspiration mm 410 650

Actual productivity of water consumed kg m-3 1.52 1.75

Estimated irrigation efficiency % 55 55

Actual productivity of water withdrawn kg m-3 0.84 0.96

Average 7.2 + 7.3 Half ETa

increase

Target future actual grain yield T ha-1 6.7 11.8

Actual crop evapotranspiration mm 410 650

Actual productivity of water consumed kg m-3 1.64 1.82

Estimated irrigation efficiency % 55 55

Target productivity of water withdrawn kg m-3 0.9 1.0

Average 7.2 + 7.3 Half ETa +

2/3 Ya increases

Target future actual grain yield T ha-1 5.8 10.2

Actual crop evapotranspiration mm 354 558

Actual productivity of water consumed kg m-3 1.64 1.83

Estimated irrigation efficiency % 55 55

Target productivity of water withdrawn kg m-3 0.9 1.0 Source: Asian Development Bank.