waterwiki.netwaterwiki.net/images/5/5c/kazakhstanerkaz99g81.doc · web viewinternational council...

UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

Evaluation Report of the “Capacity Building of Water Users for Sustainable Development in

the Aral Sea Basin” Project, KAZ/99G81(within the Aral Sea Region Development and Humanitarian

Assistance Programme, KAZ/98/008)

Prepared byAndriy Demydenko, Consultant

October – December 2001

Final evaluation report “Capacity Building of Water Users for Sustainable Development in the Aral Sea Basin” by Andriy Demydenko, International Consultant, 27 December 2001 page 1

Contents

Executive Summary................................................................................................................................3Introduction..............................................................................................................................................5

Description of the Program...................................................................................................................5Approach and methodology of the mission..........................................................................................6

Evaluation of the Aral Sea Region Development and Humanitarian Assistance Programme. . .7A. Evaluation Report of the Project Support Centers (PSCs') performance.........................................7B. Evaluation Report on Capacity 21 Pilot Projects Implementation with recommendations for dissemination of the best practice of pilots as examples for the development of the Local Agenda 21.............................................................................................................................................................14Conclusions and recommendations.....................................................................................................18C. Concept of Local Agenda 21 as part of National Agenda 21.........................................................22

Annexes..................................................................................................................................................24Annex 1. Terms of Reference.............................................................................................................25Annex 2. Results of the discussions and meetings during the mission...............................................30Annex 3. Description of pilots............................................................................................................34Annex 4. Economic evaluation of pilots by Kuliash Bolatbaeva........................................................43Annex 5. Methodology to assess sustainability..................................................................................67Annex 6. List of Abbreviations...........................................................................................................71Annex 7. Economics of WUAs: The Case of Maktaral, Southern Kazakhstan..................................72Annex 8. Water Resource Saving Technologies for the Pilot Projects in Aral Sea Region...............86(by International Consultant Mr. Kimo Karini) ................................................................................86


Executive Summary

Evaluation Report of the “Capacity Building of Water Users for Sustainable Development in the Aral Sea Basin” Project, KAZ/99G81 (within the Aral Sea Region Development and Humanitarian Assistance Programme, KAZ/98/008), hereinafter mentioned as “Program”), consisted of three parts.

Part A is dealing with the analysis of the outputs of the Programme activities, evaluation of the performance of its PSCs and recommendations for the practical implementation of the project exit strategy.

Part B is dealing with the evaluation of Pilot Projects Implementation with recommendations for dissemination of the best practice of pilots as examples for the development of the Local Agenda 21.

Part C is dealing with the proposals and recommendations on priorities and structure (content) of the concept papers of the Local Agenda 21 for Aralsk and Kazalinsk Rayons as a part of National Agenda 21.

As a result of the evaluation of the Program and the pilots’ development the following conclusions could be made:

1. The process of selection, development, and approval of the pilot projects and mobilization of the community and local authorities as a result of the process implementation, is the one of the main outputs of the Program

2. This process could be estimated as largely corresponding (see details in Part B) to the main principles of the Local Agenda 21 development and, therefore, it could be recommended for replication in other areas of the country and in other countries with similar conditions (Aral Sea basin countries, first of all)

3. The performance of PSCs during 1998-2000 could be estimated as satisfactory because the main objectives for this period were achieved. The main recommendation is to concentrate on the development of clear, well-prioritized and doable targets, implementation of the Program in transparent and effective way and on quality of service provided for NGOs and local authorities. Taking into account that the goals for the last year of the Program are rather different, special attention of the PSCs’ staff should be devoted to the development and implementation of the exit strategy including transformation of PSCs into RCs and contribution to the Local Agenda 21 process (see details on possible roles and responsibilities of project staff and local authorities on pages 9, 12 and 15 below)

4. The following pilot projects: Potable water supply in Karateren village; Rehabilitation of Tushebas lake; Rehabilitation of irrigation water in Urkendeu village; Development of the natural-economic system of the Maidakol and Tuktibayev villages on the basis of the sustainable water supply; Rehabilitation of the natural economic system in Kaukei through sustainable water supply; Rehabilitation of the livelihood of Bozkol village, could be assessed as economically viable and sustainable from social-economic point of view

5. These pilots could be also assessed as sustainable from the poverty eradication point of view

6. Several pilots (Bozkol, Urkendeu, Tuktybaev/Maidakol, and Zhankozha) have good chances to be redesigned in order to correspond to the social-environmental criteria of sustainability

7. It is highly recommended to redesign these pilots (and may be some other crops production pilots) and submit the proposals to the LACs for the approval. It could be done by the experts of the PSCs, experts of Priaralye Scientific-Research Institute of Agroecology and Agriculture and by the experts


of Kazalinsk rayon akimat (as it was proposed by the Deputy Akim Mr. Talkanbaev). It will allow testing these technologies next year and having results before the termination of the Program

8. If these pilots will be redesigned and successfully implemented in 2002, they could substantially contribute to the Local Agenda 21 in Kyzyl-Orda oblast. In order to develop the full Local Agenda 21, however, further development of the mechanism of policy implications, derived from pilots, and influence on oblast strategy development will be needed. On-going process of strategy formulation in Kazakhstan provides good opportunity for successful intervention

9. Furthermore, pilots that correspond to the SD principles could be recommended for the replication in countries of the region with similar conditions. In order to facilitate and promote the successful replication, the best practice (including lessons learned) and replicable models for sustainable development at the village and community levels should be developed during 2002 by the NGOs, PSCs staff, LAC members and experts involved in the process. These best practices could become one of the main parts of the Local Agenda 21. The key role in the Local Agenda 21 development should be assigned to the Kyzyl-Orda PSC and LAC/Steering Committee of the Program.

10. It is highly recommended (for NGOs, through RCs, and to local authorities) to cooperate with Local Agenda 21 networks (i.e. ICLEI) in the development and dissemination of the best practice and replicable models. It is particularly important for fundraising after the termination of UNDP project

11. Separate (short) concept paper and report on Local Agenda 21 could be prepared for the submission and possible inclusion in the Local Agenda 21 materials of the World Summit for Sustainable Development (Johannesburg, September 2002) as a part of National Report/Assessment of the Republic of Kazakhstan (by February 2002, before the National Forum on SD in Kokshetau). The possible priorities, structure and recommendations on the process are provided in the part C.


Introduction

Description of the Program(based on the project documents KAZ/98/008/KAZ/99/G81)

The project Kaz/99/G81"Capacity Building of Water Users Association for Sustainable Development in the Aral Sea Basin (within the Aral Sea Development of Humanitarian Assistance Programme Kaz/98/008) " (we use the name “Program” throughout the document for the KAZ/98/008/KAZ/99/G81) aims to develop, test, and replicate effective, low-cost and sustainable models for participatory water management, and utilization for effective policy review with the participation of decision-makers at local, national and regional levels.

The objective of this Program is to demonstrate improved and sustainable use of scarce water resources in targeted villages and rural regions most affected by the Aral Sea crisis. It will provide clear demonstrations for local villagers, farmers, NGOs, local leaders and officials, and support extended service providers, so that replication and dissemination may accelerate at the lowest possible cost.

The Program works with a total of nine pilot villages planned in the Kyzylorda Oblast, in Kazalinsk and Aralsk Rayons. The purpose of these nine pilots is to demonstrate practical ways of introducing more sustainable agricultural, fisheries and water management practices at the village level through community mobilization. These pilots involve a combination of the introduction of new technologies, modification of existing resource management practices, and a systems approach that integrates management of different resources.

The Program has three interconnected components, which correspond to the three proposed objectives for the project.

Objective One – Replicable Models for Local Sustainable Development

The first objective is to develop replicable models of sustainable agricultural, fisheries, water and land management practices in the pilot villages that provide practical benefits for all sectors of the community through improved health status and more sustainable livelihoods

These pilot projects will demonstrate the practical benefits of participatory approaches for the development of more sustainable land and water management systems at the village level and set the stage for the implementation of Local Agenda 21.

Objective Two – Capacity Building and an Enabling Environment

The second objective is to support the first objective through its focus on capacity building. The primary purpose will be to strengthen the capacity of community–based NGOs in the pilot villages to carry out sustainable development projects through awareness raising, training and networking activities.

The second part of the objective is to strengthen the ability of Rayon and Oblast Administration institutions to both support sustainable development activities in the pilots, and to provide an enabling framework for these activities in the pilot villages. In this way, it will be possible to pave the way for replication of the sustainable development models from the pilots within the Oblast, and to draw out lessons and best practices to influence policy development at the Oblast and national levels.

Objective Three – Establishing an Environment for Dissemination and Replication of Models

The third objective will focus on dissemination and replication of the results of the pilot projects. The methodologies and experiences gained from the pilots will be used to formulate replicable models for sustainable development at the village and community levels. The project team and the LACs will work with a national NGO to draw out and document the relevant lessons and best practices from the


pilots in order to formulate the replicable models. These models would then be adapted and applied more widely in other areas of the Rayon, the Oblast, elsewhere in Kazakhstan, and in other countries in the region with similar environmental problems. The demonstration of the practical benefits of participatory and sustainable resource management practices will be used to help disseminate the models to other areas. The NPSC at the Oblast level will play a key role in the dissemination of the replicable models in other parts of the Oblast.

Approach and methodology of the mission

The evaluation mission was in Kazakhstan during 23 – 31 October 2001, Terms of Reference of the consultant is given in the Annex 1 and detailed schedule of meetings and field visits is given in the Annex 2 to this report.

During the first day of the mission meetings were held with relevant program officers of the UNDP Country Office. The second part of the mission was a field visit to the Kyzyl-Orda oblast to meet with citizens and akims of the auls, where the pilots are implemented, project staff and with key members of the Oblast and Rayon administrations.

The NPM Sergey Sokolov and Igor Zhaksylykov, National Expert on Local Agenda21/Manager of PSC, accompanied the consultant during the mission.


Evaluation of the Aral Sea Region Development and Humanitarian Assistance Programme

A. Evaluation Report of the Project Support Centers (PSCs') performance

Analysis of the outputs of the Programme activities

Evaluation mission concluded that after merge of KAZ/98/008 with KAZ/99/G81 and as a result of refocusing and reformulation of the complex objectives of the Aral Sea Programme after the mid-term evaluation in 2000, the main outputs of the Program could be formulated as follows:

1. Establishment of 14 active community–based NGOs of water users in the pilot villages to carry out sustainable development projects:

Aralsk rayon:

NGO Bogen, aul Bogen, President - Askerbek Karatyupov;NGO Barshakum, aul Tokabay, President – Konakbay Dosaev;NGO Kosaral, aul Karateren, President – Myrzysh Isaev;NGO Aydyn, aul Karakum, President – Kozhagul Tursynov;NGO Kamystybas, aul Kambash, President – Aldabergen Isaev;NGO Raim, aul Koszhar, President – Bekbolat Utepov

Kazalinsk rayon:

NGO Senim, aul Tuktibaev, President – Nur Esirkep;NGO Maydakol, aul Maydakol, President – Zhienei Zhanabergenov;NGO Zhanalyk, aul Zhankozha, President – Zhaksylyk Zhanabai;NGO Erdos, aul Kaukei, President – Omar Erbol;NGO Parasat, aul Kozhbakhy, President – Ertugan Karabalaev;NGO Bozkol, aul Bozkol, President – Mnazhat Kani;NGO Zhyluan Su, aul Urkendeu, President – Kozhakhmet Kuangaliev;NGO Syr Su, aul Aktan Batyr, President – Otepbergen Sabit;

In addition advisory/consulting assistance was provided to several initiative groups in establishing new NGOs (in the villages of Abai, Kamystybas, Shomishkol and town of Kazalinsk).

2. Participatory development (together with the above mentioned NGOs and local authorities) of 11 replicable pilot project as the models of sustainable agricultural, fisheries, water and land management practices that provide practical benefits for all sectors of the community through improved health status and more sustainable livelihoods:

Aralsk rayon:

1. Filling of Makpal lake through the sluice construction and cleaning of Kenes channel 2. Potable water supply in Karateren village, internal pipeline3. Rehabilitation of Tushebas lake4. Kaz/98/x19 -Pasture Management project on the basis of the MoU between UNSO-Government

of RK to Combat Desertification

Kazalinsk rayon:

1. Capacity building of water users in Zhankozha village


2. Abai village water supply for Sartogai lands 3. Rehabilitation of irrigation water in Urkendeu village 4. Development of the natural-economic system of the Maidakol and Tuktibayev villages on the

basis of the sustainable water supply 5. Rehabilitation of the natural economic system in Kaukei through sustainable water supply. 6. Rehabilitation of the livelihood of Bozkol village7. Remote village development: Pilot study in two selected bore holes in the villages of Tuktibayev

and Kozhabakhy- 1st phase supported through Nordic Fund

These NGOs of water users represent approximately half of NGOs in Kyzyl-Orda oblast, which are active in the environmental sector. All pilots are oriented on provision of access to water resources as the main source of healthy life (potable water) and the main basis of economic activities (agriculture, fishery) in the pilot auls. Full description of the pilots one can find in the Annex 3.

The pilots thus support the Government’s policy of privatization by facilitating the transfer of management of the irrigation and drainage systems to the Program beneficiaries who are to organize WUAs. Because of the failure of the government to properly manage and maintain the irrigation and drainage systems, and the difficulties faced by the government to deliver water to the water users in the area, it has become clear that new institutional mechanisms need to be adopted. Decentralized water management, utilizing WUAs, offers an institutional mechanism that can improve both water allocation efficiency as well as ensuring equity of distribution. Farmer based WUAs are seen as a management alternative that will guarantee sustainability of the irrigation systems by providing the necessary funding for Operation and Maintenance of the systems as well as ensuring transparency in the use of the water fees collected from the farmers.

Established under the Program 14 NGOs of water users are, however, only the precursors of the full scale WUAs as the issues of water-pricing and water management are not fully addressed yet. Detailed analysis of the economic viability of WUAs in Kazakhstan is beyond the scope of this report (one could see the study done in the Maktaral rayon of Southern Kazakhstan oblast as an example, Annex 7). But establishment of WUAs using the way developed under the Program in Kyzyl-Orda oblast looks like the step in the right direction.

The main outputs of the Program during 1998-2000 could be thus formulated as follows:

Demonstration that the development process could be built on the different from “command-and-control” basis, i.e. on the participatory basis which combined both top-down and bottom-up approaches

This could one of the main reasons to recommend this experience for replication in other parts of Kazakhstan and in other countries of the basin with similar problems

Growing understanding among local people (who became much more active) and authorities (who are ready for decentralization) that it is possible “to help people to help themselves” and enhanced capacity of local people and local authorities to be equal partners (stakeholders) in the development process

This is the main (potential) result for the introduction of substantial social changes. Paternalism was promoted by the previous social system and is still one of the main obstacles on the way to sustainable development with multistakeholders involvement. Changing social roles (there are not only providers and recipients now) promote recognition that both people and local authorities need each other to make a difference.

Local people/community mobilization in the auls (villages), which resulted in the establishment of NGOs of water users at local level. The catalytic role of the UNDP Programme (seed money and personal facilitation by Programme managers) was crucial in this mobilization


This catalytic role is widely recognized throughout the oblast but there is much less understanding on how these NGOs will live after gradual pulling out of UNDP assistance. It means that the exit strategy needs further development (including full range of service provided by RCs) and communication to all partners.

a) Practical implementation at the local level of the project approach as an iterative process (with such key elements as identification and involvement of stakeholders, selection of priorities, development of proposals, identification of budget and budget sources, implementation etc), the contrary to the well known in the region ‘wish list’ type of development programs. b) Establishment of some basic elements to support the development process: support (resource) centers with expertise on facilitation, communication, project preparations, fundraising etc, advisory committees with the involvement of key stakeholders, funding sources

It is very important to introduce such approach into implementation and development of all other oblast/rayon programs, which still are lacking some key features of the sustainable development process. It could be very important component of RCs activities (especially in Kyzyl-Orda) during the last year of the Program and could ensure much bigger ownership of the RCs by local authorities (especially in the development of Local Agenda 21).

Number of pilot projects that address one of the key obstacles to the sustainable development of rural communities in the Aral Sea basin: lack of minimum access to water resources as a key element of survival (drinking water) and economic development (crops production, pastures, fishing)

It should be mentioned that used approach, while really breaking the minimum threshold of sustainability, could quickly break through the maximum threshold of available resources being replicated on a wider scale, in the similar manner as it happened with the whole Aral Sea basin after 1960’. Some additional sustainability feedback measures should be incorporated in the pilots before they could be recommended for replication (see below more on the introduction of resource savings into pilots).

Lessons learned:

Positive and visible results became possible due to the combination of strategic vision of the Program and development of concrete small-scale pilots which correspond to the available resources and local capacity

One of the main challenges for the further implementation of the Program is the adequate communication within the Program and outside and establishment of the system of permanent monitoring of the pilots

Creation of the NGOs of water users is just the first step on the way to the establishment of the full scale WUAs. NGOs are not-for-profit organizations and couldn’t do business. It is not the problem now, when NGOs get land and water for free, but when they would like to use some profit received as the result of their activities, they will need registration as business organizations

Local authorities still see the pilots as not (yet) their but UNDP projects and PSCs as not yet their “tools” – RCs should become useful for local authorities in their daily activities


PSCs performance

The main driving forces of the Program implementation were three PSCs: in Aralsk, Kazalinsk and in Kyzyl-Orda. Their staff consists of:

Aralsk PSC : 1. Sergei Cokolov, NPM (2000-2001);2. Askar Khusainov – PSC Manager (1996-2001);3. Umirzak Izekeev – Driver (1997-2001);4. Marat Tyremuratov - NUNV (1999-2001)

Kazalinsk PSC:1. Liza Prkauova – Acting PSC Manager, Interpreter (1997-2001);2. Almat Askarov – National Consultant (2000 -2001);3. Gabidulla Sarykulov - NUNV (1999 -2001);4. Erken Zharmamgabetov - Driver (1996 -2001);5. Erzsebet Nemethne - IUNV (2000-2001)

Kyzyl-Orda PSC:1. Igor Zhaksylykov – PSC Manager/National Local Agenda 21 manager (1996-2001);2. Irina Lee – Admin-Finance Manager (1997-2001);3. Bayanbai Abdikadyrov - Driver (1995-2001)

Performance of the PSCs should be assessed, first of all, from the point of view of the achievement of Program objectives. The following check-list could be developed from the Program, workplans and Terms of Reference of the staff:

Assist population in organizing new NGOs of water users, prepare documents, charters (advise and informational support); creation of local NGO network (contacts, consultation). Assist in creation and strengthening of NGO Associations in Aralsk and Kazalinsk Rayons and Kyzylorda Oblast through promoting for donor funding Association’s project proposals, including creation of Resource Centres.

This was one of the main achievements of the Program. It looks like the key contribution was done by NPM (many NGOs see him as a godfather). More efforts, however, are needed to create the network from individual NGOs and, especially, for the establishment of NGOs’ association for collective actions/needs (like establishment of Resource Centers). Unfortunately, some of PSCs staff saw the process of transformation into Resource Centers as the opportunity to “privatize” them.

Priority setting, drafting proposals, pilots development, screening, implementation, evaluation, reporting, submission to LACs and donors.

This is another major activity provided largely by PSC Managers (like Askar Khusainov) and National Consultants (like Almat Askarov together with IUNV and NUNVs). Taking into account that most of pilots are approved and going to be implemented, this activity could be assessed positively. There is, however, the need to add resource savings measures to most of the pilots in order to make them SD pilots (see more below)

Resource mobilization and fundraising activities through drafting proposals, reports, other documents, direct contacts, meetings.

The following additional funds were raised during the last two years of the Program: Nordic Fund allocated $ 300,000 for pilot implementation of the Remote Villages Development Project in


Kozhabakhy and Tuktibaev. UNSO supported Pasture Management Project in Bogen ($ 50,000). New Zealand supported Solid Waste Management Project in Kazalinsk ($5,000). Finland supported small project on wheelchairs purchase. Cost-sharing agreement with IFAS is under implementation (in 2000 - $185,000; in 2001 - $155,000).

It looks, however, that the CO role was crucial while the project staff played modest role. In any case there is no systematic approach to the fund-raising at the project management level. Substantial parts of these raised funds are planned and managed by the donors themselves (and in accordance with the donors objectives) without full involvement of the project staff and clients (NGOs). So, it could be concluded that this activity needs further development

Training, consultation and advice to WUAs, NGOs, LAC, local administration, organizations and other target beneficiaries on project development and implementation, organizational development.

Consultation and advice to NGOs-WUAs and LACs took place more or less regularly and as a result the projects development and approval process run more or less smoothly. Training activities in the form of individual work with NGOs representatives took place permanently as well (by National Consultants). Formal training was organized in the form of the cycle of trainings in 2001 (see details in the Annual Progress Report for 2001) and needs to be further developed. It is not clear whether consultation and advice to local administration was provided (while it is inevitable for the inclusion of the pilots in the Local Agenda 21)

Evaluation of results of pilot projects implementation and work out recommendations for dissemination of developed replicable models and best practices.

Evaluation of the pilots has been started recently only because it is too early to see their results. Dissemination (and even identification) of the best practices and replicable models is not yet done and therefore there are no results to assess. It is expected that this evaluation will provide guidelines on the development of best practice and replicable models for the sustainable development point of view (see the next chapter)

Conduct training, seminars for NGOs in pilot villages on legislative basics of NGO activities, on practical aspects of pilot projects implementation (including projects monitoring), on environment, resource management, sanitary conditions, on awareness raising in participatory approaches for SD

The cycle of workshops and training was organized (project cycle, institutional issues, project monitoring and data base, sanitary and hygiene, etc). The most important topics for seminars in 2002 are: fundraising, resource saving technologies, integrated river basin management, economics of WUAs etc

Increased capacity of Rayon and Kyzylorda Oblast Akimats to help communities to plan, implement and monitor priority projects that promote sustainable agricultural and water resource management practices. Form full value National Steering Committee, e.g. transformation from working commission for screening and approval of project proposals in committee on Program management.

Capacity of local administration was raised, largely, through the participation in LACs and formal training. The task to create full value Steering Committee remains one of the main tasks for 2002. It is particularly important for the development of Local Agenda 21 on the base of pilots implemented by community based NGOs in pilot auls and replicated in other parts of Kyzyl-Orda oblast.


Increase efficiency of activities on coordination of donors’ assistance and resource mobilization. Discuss with Oblast Akimat a plan of organizing Donor Meeting

Coordination of donors’ activities remains rather low. There are no plans of Donor Meeting together with Oblast Akimat

Develop materials (brochures, articles, video films) that popularize results of pilot projects, best sustainable practices. Inform oblast population about results of implemented pilot projects through publications in mass media, demonstration of video films on TV, distribution of brochures, conducting meetings. Place information about Program activities and results of pilot projects on web-sites of UNDP, MNREP.

This activity is rather underdeveloped. There are only one poster and one (small) leaflet about the Program and its results. One of the reasons is that the results of the pilots and the best practices were not yet available. More attention and resources to the dissemination campaign should be dedicated in the last year of the Program

Taking into account the above-mentioned assessments, the performance of PSCs during 1998-2000 could be estimated as satisfactory because the main objectives for this period were achieved. The main recommendation is to concentrate on the development of clear, well-prioritized and doable targets, implementation of the Program in transparent and effective way and on quality of service provided for NGOs and local authorities. Taking into account that the goals for the last year of the Program are rather different, special attention of the PSCs’ staff should be devoted to the development and implementation of the exit strategy including transformation of PSCs into RCs and contribution to the Local Agenda 21 process.

Program exit strategy development process, recommendations for the practical implementation of the project exit strategy and the perspectives of the sustainable development of the Resource Centers

An exit strategy for the Program has to be based on ensuring sustainability of the program’s approach and achievements. An outside (UNDP) assistance should be restricted to the kick-start of the process rather than directing and formulating the policy and the action plans for its implementation. The last year of the Program provides the last opportunity to adjust, if necessary, and to implement the exit strategy. The staff of the Program and PSCs should play the critical role in this process, especially in the transition from the PSCs into RCs.

The specific measures recommended by the mid-term evaluation for promoting sustainability include, in particular:

Increased involvement by the Rayon and Oblast Administrations in project management. An increasing requirement for additional contributions, both in-kind and financial, for project implementation from the Rayon and Oblast Administrations.

Capacity building for community-based NGOs in participatory planning methodologies. Training will also be provided for key people in the Rayon and Oblast Administrations in participatory approaches, tailored to their specific needs and their involvement in the project.

Use of local technical expertise whenever possible, and strengthening linkages with the national NGOs through using NGO training resources and networking between community and national NGOs.

Developing models that are replicable and capable of providing benefits in areas other than the pilot villages, so that the Oblast Administration sees the relevance of the pilot projects for the whole Oblast.

A shift from a project-based approach to a programme approach, which clearly identifies the potential contribution of pilot projects to policy development and replication in other areas.


Identifying policy implications of project achievements and constraints, and formulating specific policy recommendations for Rayon and Oblast Administrations and for national government in order to provide an enabling legislative and institutional framework for sustainable development activities at the local level.

A change in the function, operational modalities, staffing and funding of the PSCs so that they gradually evolve from project support centres to resource centres that provide services for the sustainable development activities of communities, as well as the Rayon and Oblast Administrations.

A change in the function, operational modalities, staffing and funding of the PSCs so that they gradually evolve from project support centres to resource centres that provide services for the sustainable development activities of communities, as well as the Rayon and Oblast Administrations.

Fully sharing most of the recommendation of the mid-term evaluation, the following comments, clarifications and practical steps could be proposed:

The most important practical recommendation is the evolution from PSCs into RCs. However, in order to be resource centers these centers need to have some resources while they do not have any resources except of some equipment and human resources of their staff and invited experts. Aralsk Akim directly mentioned this paradox during the meeting with the evaluation team (while admitting that human resources are important resources too). He also mentioned that the name business centers would fit better.

Another issue is how to establish the RCs institutionally. From the available texts of exit strategy it is clear that for some of the staff of the PSCs the main resource is the equipment and salaries of the PSCs. It is valid for some of representatives of local authorities too. As a result the main idea of RCs – to provide service to all stakeholders in sustainable manner – is missing in this version of the exit strategy. It has also no indication of the possible sources of funding during the next and subsequent years.

Luckily most of NGOs and representatives of local authorities do not share this approach and think that RCs should belong to all NGOs and akimats should have definite stake in RCs as well. Our proposal – to establish RCs (or business centers) by the whole NGO community of each rayon and to invite in the Board of each RC representatives of NGOs, local authorities and UNDP – was well received by almost all persons met during the mission. The main objective of such RCs should be the service for the development and implementation of the projects and programs at aul, rayon and oblast level.

Local authorities support such approach but their support could be only in kind for the time being. They are not ready to provide financial support to such RCs or to provide staff for them. Further efforts are needed in order to explain the added value of such RCs for the local authorities.

Very important possible task for the RCs - identifying policy implications of project achievements and constraints, and formulating specific policy recommendations for Rayon and Oblast Administrations and for national government in order to provide an enabling legislative and institutional framework for sustainable development activities at the local level – is not yet recognized as important and further efforts are needed to include it in the list of tasks for the RCs. There are many programs in the oblast (funded from different sources including government, IFAS, other donors), which need similar organizational support as pilots: process, participation, LACs, links to budget processes, contribution to Local Agenda 21. It is recommended to do it through another UNDP-supported program, KAZ/00/005 in Kyzyl-Orda oblast, taking into account that such policy implications feedback mechanism is the key component of Local Agenda 21.

Another proposal is to collect under the umbrella of the RCs the whole spectrum of social support programs, which are active in the oblast. It will look strange for the local people and authorities


when similar type of service and support will be organized through different offices/centers. This idea, however, is not shared by the staff of some other programs (KAZ/95/012, for example) but the compromise could be found if all these programs will keep financial and managerial autonomy and will just share administrative and logistics expenses. This will also help to save on these expenses as well.

Possible partner in such organization of the RCs is the planned oblast program to combat the poverty in 2003-2007. Existing experience of the PSCs to deal with social-environmental projects at aul level could contribute substantially to the poverty program. (For example, the latest concept of the poverty program mentions that the impact of environmental problems could not be addressed at the oblast level !!)

The budget of RCs attached to the exit strategy (around USD17,000) looks unrealistic while the budget prepared by the Financial Manager Irina Lee (around USD5,000) could be sufficient just for minimum administrative expenses. Additional funds should be identified to cover expenses for invited experts/advisers (project proposals development, proposals for replication and dissemination, Local Agenda 21, other activities), training of NGOs and representatives of local authorities, fund raising activities, micro-credit program, etc. Taking into account that NGOs will be able to pay for such service not earlier than in two-three years and that akimats are ready for just in kind support of RCs, special fundraising should be organized to find some grant money to cover RCs expenses after completion of the Program.

It is recommended (to the Kyzyl-Orda PSC first of all) to establish close links with the existing networks of local initiatives/Agenda 21. International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) could be recommended. Their web-site (www.iclei.org) contains description of several hundreds of successful pilot project at local level and very useful documents like best practice and lessons learned worldwide. This network is rather successful in attracting donor funding for the activities of their members. Earlier it united largely municipalities but now special program to support rural communities is under development.

The task to implement most of these recommendations should be assigned to the NPM while tasks dealing with the Local Agenda 21 initiatives should be assigned to the Manager of the Kyzyl-Orda PSC. Respective activities should be included in the Workplan to be approved by the Project Management Committee


http://www.iclei.org/

B. Evaluation Report on Capacity 21 Pilot Projects Implementation with recommendations for dissemination of the best practice of pilots as examples for the development of the Local Agenda 21

The key principles of Local Agenda 21

A Local Agenda 21 is a process of planning and action to improve and maintain the well being of people and their environment. The purpose of it is to mobilize and focus a local government’s efforts to achieve sustainable development.

The key principles of Local Agenda 21 are the following:

1. The overall goal is sustainable development, that is it integrates social, economic and environmental goals rather focusing on just one sector or issue;

2. The focus is on improving and maintaining the well-being of the local people and their environment;

3. The objectives are strategic and tactical in that they focus on the main priorities for the province rather than trying to do too much;

4. The formulation of Local Agenda 21 is a process that develops as it goes along and builds on its achievements. This means that monitoring and evaluation are critical elements of the strategy and action plans;

5. Participation ensures that all stakeholders take responsibility for carrying out their allocated tasks. The process is therefore driven by a partnership between local government, business and community;

6. Communication is the lifeblood of a Local Agenda 21 – this works through the exchange of information, negotiation, and learning from each other;

7. The strategy is a process of planning and action through which a long-term vision is developed, decisions are made about priorities, action plans are drawn up and implemented;

8. The local Agenda 21 is integrated into decision making at the local level as part of the operation of the oblast/rayon/aul. It should not be seen as being external to the normal work of the local government – it must become the part of the normal operations of that government;

9. The aim is to build capacity at the local level from an early stage so that the local authorities and communities are able to take charge;

10. Outside assistance is restricted to kick-start the process rather than directing the formulation of the Local Agenda 21.

We will evaluate the pilots, their implementation and correspondence to the principles of sustainable development (to be recommended for replication/dissemination) using these key principles of Local Agenda 21.

The following pilots will be evaluated (see Annex 3 for their description):

Aralsk rayon:

1. Filling of Makpal lake through the sluice construction and cleaning of Kenes channel (when ready as a full concept to GEF/SGP)

2. Potable water supply in Karateren village, internal pipeline3. Rehabilitation of Tushebas lake4. Kaz/98/x19 -Pasture Management project on the basis of the MoU between UNSO-Government

of RK to Combat Desertification


Kazalinsk rayon:

5. Abai village water supply for Sartogai lands 6. Rehabilitation of irrigation water in Urkendeu village 7. Development of the natural-economic system of the Maidakol and Tuktibayev villages on the

basis of the sustainable water supply 8. Rehabilitation of the natural economic system in Kaukei through sustainable water supply. 9. Rehabilitation of the livelihood of Bozkol village10. Remote village development: Pilot study in two selected bore holes in the villages of Tuktibayev

and Kozhabakhy- 1st phase supported through Nordic Fund11. Capacity building of water users in Zhankozha Batyr village

There were several attempts to evaluate these pilots: by the staff of the Program and by Serik Timirkhanov (see Annex 3), by the invited experts like Kuliash Bolatbaeva (evaluation of socio-economic and some environmental benefits, see Annex 4), and like Igor Malkovsky (technical issues of pilots). We will not repeat the work done by these experts and concentrate on the areas not or less covered during these evaluations.

Kick-start principle (10)

All pilots which rely on the income generation or support by other programs (funded by local authorities or other donors) correspond to this principle. Pasture management pilot (#A4) as largely scientific without addressing the main obstacle: access to water and Nordic Fund funded pilots (#K6) as having negative results in 2001 (less debit of holes then before reconstruction and salinity increasing permissible level) do not correspond to this principle.

Built capacity principle (9) and Participation principle (5)

All pilots correspond to these principles. However, regarding capacity building this relates largely to the capacity of NGOs while more training for local authorities could be recommended. Such pilots as ## A2, A3, K2-5 deserve special recommendation to be selected for the separate best practice exercise on mobilization of the rural communities and participation (see more details in the Part A of this report). These best practice guidelines could be prepared by the staff of the Program in 2002 and presented in the end of the project together with the terminal progress report.

Integration principle (8) and planning and action principle (7)

All pilots that address the poverty eradication (due to the lack of access to the water resources) fully correspond to the main objectives of oblast/rayon policy and action plans. They are still, however, treated by the local authorities as not (yet?) their projects while all representatives fully support these pilots. There are big chances that comparatively small efforts will be enough to ensure full ownership by akimats.

On the other hand, it is too early to say about possible policy implications of pilots. Taking into account that the oblast authorities are rather receptive, there are good chances to have these implications in 2002. It could be well promoted by the KAZ/00/005 as well. If it will happen, such best practice could be also recommended for dissemination and replication in those areas where lack of access to minimum water resources is the priority.

Communication principle (6)

While there were a lot of meetings and information exchange it could be stated that communication was not the strongest feature of this Program (see also Part A of this report). The best confirmation is a lot of rumors related to the process of PSCs conversion into RCs.


Process monitoring and evaluation principle (4)

During the last months of the pilots’ implementation much more attention has been devoted to the monitoring and evaluation but it is still not the strongest feature of the Program.

Focusing on the main priorities principle (3) and on the well-being of the local people and environment principle (2)

Fully applicable to all pilots. Could be recommended for replication in other areas of Kazakhstan and the Aral Sea Basin with similar water related problems.

Sustainable development principle (1)

This is the most comprehensive principle to check compliance with. This issue requires special introduction on the methodologies to assess sustainability.

Application of SD assessment methodologies to the pilot projects

As it was mentioned above, the pilots were subject to several assessments: socio-economic assessment using cost-benefit analysis (by Kuliash Bolatbaeva) and assessment of technical features of the pilots (by Igor Malkovsky).

We will not discuss here technical features of the projects, as our goal is different. On the other hand, socio-economic analysis is rather useful and we refer here to Bolatbaeva’s report (Annex 4) and especially the Summary of the report and slide (see below)

Economic assessment of pilots (excerpts from the report by Bolatbaeva)

Comparison of costs and benefits

Correlation of costs and benefits (CCB) is the index of socio-economic potential of project realisation. It is suggested that all relative influences are taken into account, then a project is considered to be socio-economically cost-effective if benefits exceed costs. In this case CCB should be less that one.


CCB = Over-Spending / Over-benefit < 1 à Work on a project

CCB = Over-Spending / Over-benefit > 1 à Abandon a project

Where Over-benefit – all benefits of all period of time (quoted values) and Over-Spending – all costs of all period of time (quoted values).

Bozkol village Tushebas Karateren Zhankozha Batyr

All benefits of all period of time

342716 152601 19664 181419

All costs of all period of time

30790 10498 16109 18544

Socio-economic potential

< 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Conclusions and recommendations

CBA has shown itself as and effective and useful instrument in the analysis of different activities under consideration in terms of supply and demand for water. At the same time, lack of reliable data parallel to the need to provide quantitative and monetary expression of the basic influences of the activities, made us come with quite compromising and non-synonymous suggestions. For this reason current results should be regarded as approximate, and not as complete and of authority if the case is referred to water sector investment decision-making.

Readiness to pay for a more reliable and secure water supply: central objective of the questionnaire was the use of probability evaluation method (PEM) to evaluate RP for quantitative and/or qualitative change of ecological goods, or in other words of water.

Hypothetical change is described in the questionnaire and direct question is asked to a respondent about how much he/she is ready to pay for such change. These evaluation questions are supplemented with questions about socio-economic features and corresponding relations and preferences of the discussed good. Such information was used to define evaluation function that ‘explains’ RP as the outcome of these variables. Evaluation function can be used to confirm the results (i.e. to check whether RP is positively related to income, as theory predicts) and for correction of average RP in case of clear tendency in answers (for example, in case of inadequately high representation of high income groups).

In reality however it is more possible that each projects expertise gives mixed results where some influences are expressed in monetary units while others are represented qualitatively. In these cases CCB should not be the only criteria of choice.

Maximum potential of sustainability are in the ‘Rehabilitation of the livelihood of Bozkol village’, ‘Water users Potential capacity development for sustainable development of Zhankozha Batyr village’, which is first and foremost connected with the case that projects offer the most actual economic effect on households that are beneficiaries. Using the examples of these projects it is easier to follow how economic effects of first and second levels (community, rayon, oblast), as well as social effects directly depend on household economies, and in rural communities in particular.

As it is seen from the slide economic outcomes of these projects are substantially higher than that of other participants. Apart from economic benefit these two projects achieve one of the basic principles of environmental protection – resource preservation. Project implementation will allow preserving water resource up to 36 million cubic m. a year.


Two other projects have fewer attributes towards environmental protection. One of them ‘Water use in Karateren village’ touches upon sustainability principle in terms of water accessibility for population. The other one, ‘Filling of Tushebas lake system’ allows solving employment problem by providing possibility of recovery of fishery industry. Although one could mention the point that lake rehabilitation will in general improve the deserted zone ecosystem.

All projects have not achieved the aim of providing the public with quality water for drinking needs. Desalination machines construction requires huge investment as well as existence of specialists able to operate them, as the past years experience has shown. It is quite hard to claim that these projects enable change of quality of public life in terms of health and life expectancy in full.

The projects have social and economic effects on households first of all, leading to increase in goods production, further on rural community via tax returns increase, water supply arrangement, schools development, healthcare points, clubs, libraries and motorways. Third level of development on the rayon and oblast – notably to a lesser extent – increase of taxation income, decrease of social payments on pensions and poverty, direction of these funds on roads development, education (Technical colleges, professional schools), healthcare (regional hospitals).

Taking into account the repetitiveness of these projects there is a need to widen public knowledge and professional training of specialists.

As the world experience has shown negative environmental effects has the worst influence on the lives of the most poor layers of society. Suppressing majority of those who loose health or dye as a result of environmental degradation lives in ecologically dangerous zones. Publishing of these projects should be directed not only to Aralsk and Kazalinsk rayons villages of Kyzylorda oblast. These projects will lay fertile grounds for such rayons of Kazakhstan as Atyrau, Mangistau, Kyzylorda, separate regions of Almaty and South-Kazakhstan oblasts that have water supply problems, as well as in Central Asian states.

As it was shown above, in the regions with critical ecological tension large number of population lives in conditions below poverty line, for this reason the main risks of publication of these projects are:

Absence of public readiness to make decisions, Unwillingness and absence of self-organisation experience, Absence of financial support, basic source of which should become the budget when published Absence of local administration support

Assessment of pilots sustainability using Environmental Space social-environmental approach

Let’s now assess the pilots’ sustainability in the social-environmental dimensions in addition to the assessment in the social-economic dimensions mentioned above.

All pilots except #A4 (Kaz/98/x19 -Pasture Management project) are oriented on crashing the poverty “crash barrier” (social minimum of resource consumption) by providing more access to the key resource (water), which results in growing GDP of the auls and, therefore, better life for its citizens.

This could be definitely treated as sustainable feature of the pilots from poverty eradication point of view as poverty is considered inherently unsustainable.

On the other hand, no one pilot has any indication of taking care of avoiding over-consumption of water, i.e. taking care of not crashing the environmental maximum of resource consumption. Moreover, the ideology, which was behind pilots, is very similar to the ideology, which was behind the Soviet plans of cotton production in Central Asia. Authors of the pilots are trying to bring the (local) environmental situation back as it was before the Aral Sea crisis. There is a danger that if such approach will be widely repeated, it will contribute to the Aral Sea crisis instead of mitigating the crisis.


It means that the pilots do not correspond to the sustainability principle as far as environmental maximum of resource consumption (maximum crash barrier) is concerned and could not recommended for replication.

There are, however, updated versions of four pilots in the Kazalinsk rayon where the attempt to avoid rapid achievement and crashing of the Environmental Space maximum barrier was made. They were developed with the support of Priaralye Scientific-Research Institute of Agroecology and Agriculture (Mrs. M.A.Vilhelm) and were recently proposed for the consideration of the PSCs and NGOs. The text of these updated pilots is presented in the Annex 5. The main idea is to replace the rice production (as consuming too much water resources) with less hygrophilous cultures. Actually it is proposed to test the production of corn, rye and winter rye, sunflower etc., at the pilot plots in four auls – Bozkol, Urkendeu, Tuktybaev/Maidakol, and Zhankozha.

The data presented in these updated pilots (as well as other information kindly provided by Mrs. Vilhelm) allow us to make the Environmental Space assessment of the chances not to crash too soon the environmental maximum crash barrier. This estimation could be used to develop the long-term policy in the oblast especially regarding possible replication of the pilots.

Below please find the Figure with the main calculations:

We estimate the GDP growth which could be potentially received at the 5 ha pilot plot and trends

of consumption of Environmental Space (irrigation water) used for producing corn, rice, winter rye or


sunflower respectively. First 4 lines are showing the GDP growth (in thousand KZT) received from 5 ha plot. Next 4 lines are showing the water used for irrigation (in thousand cubic meters) to get the harvest. Two horizontal lines are ES minimum and maximum (compare with the Fig. 2 above), which were drawn using the following assumptions: ES minimum means that below it no crops could be produced due to the lack of water; ES maximum of 200,000 cubic meters is calculated (for average 100 persons using 5 ha pilot plot) from the total rivers run-off in the Aral Sea basin (100 cubic km assuming that 20-30 cubic km should run to the Aral Sea) and population of the basin (50 mln people).

The Figure clearly shows that almost the same amount of GDP growth requires rather different (but still growing) amount of water. It means that production of rice could not be estimated as sustainable approach. Production of three other less hydrophilic cultures is not radically sustainable as well (from the radical point of view the relative reduction of Environmental Space use is not enough and requires the absolute reduction of Environmental Space use necessary for decoupling of economic growth and use of resources). But relative reduction still could be treated as the right step in the direction to sustainability.

These estimations are rather rough and should be used for qualitative evaluation only. The main reason was to show where are the safe limits taking into account that sustainability could be defined as "living within our Environmental Space."

Estimation of sustainability using Methodologies and Practices of Water Resource Saving Technologies for the Pilot Projects in Aral Sea Region (by Mr. Kimo Karini)

The report of International Consultant Mr. Kimo Karini (see Annex 8) is concentrated on the needs of integrated water resource management as the tool for additional water savings which are different tools for irrigated projects in comparison with the agricultural and water supply ones. In the absence of resource savings tools for the presented pilot projects, the report recommends that all the PCS´s staff and NGO’s have urgent need to be trained and equipped with all necessary principles pf resource savings, which differs from project to project.


C. Concept of Local Agenda 21 as part of National Agenda 21

The National Agenda 21 (or as it more often called now, the strategy for sustainable development) is seen now as the participatory process (rather than one-off, top-down document developed from scratch) of analysis, debate, capacity strengthening, planning and investment, which integrates the economic, social and environmental objectives of society, seeking trade offs where this is not possible. Moving towards sustainable development presents tremendous challenges. Important structural changes are needed to the ways societies manage their economic, social and environmental affairs. Different countries may settle for different solutions, but all will have to make hard choices. Strategies for sustainable development are about making and implementing such choices, in a realistic, effective and lasting way.

An effective strategy for sustainable development brings together the aspirations and capacities of government, civil society and the private sector to create a vision for the future, and to work tactically and progressively towards it. It identifies and builds on ‘what works’, improves integration between approaches, and provides a framework for making choices where integration is not possible. Focusing on what is realistically achievable, an effective strategy will benefit from comprehensive understanding, but will not be paralyzed by planning overly comprehensive actions on many fronts at once. As a process of practical institutional change aimed primarily at mainstreaming sustainability concerns, the strategy is likely to be focused on only a few priority objectives. A strategy for sustainable development will rarely imply initiating a completely new or stand-alone strategic planning project. Rather, a number of initiatives, taken together, could meet the definition and the principles. Bringing existing initiatives closer to an effective strategy for sustainable development might involve complementing them with a broad ‘umbrella’: a vision and set of co-ordinated mechanisms and processes to improve their complementarity, smooth out inconsistencies, and fill gaps when needed. In practice, many countries have taken the approach of building on whichever strategy models have been found useful. These include development plans, poverty reduction strategies or action plans, national green plans, decentralized planning and consultation processes, i.e. the label does not matter – what is important is the consistent application of the underlying principles referred to above. The main goal is to convert all development strategies into strategies of sustainable development.

Many of these key principles one can find in the process of strategic planning in Kazakhstan. There is long-term Strategy-2030 process, which had short-term (1998-2001) implementation plans for national and oblast level (see Strategy for the Economic Development of the Kyzyl-Orda oblast, 1997). This oblast strategy has been implemented through several oblast programs like “Aul kelbeti”, “Tazalyk”, Taza su”, etc. Recently Kazakhstan entered into process of further, more detailed process of the strategy development for 2001-2010 (Kazakhstan-2010, see Agency for Strategic Planning web-site www.strategy.kz). In parallel to this process, there is an on-going national process of preparation to the World Summit for Sustainable Development (Johannesburg, 2002), which includes development of the Concept of Strategy of Sustainable Development of Kazakhstan. So, it is very convenient moment to intervene in order to introduce some sustainable features into national and oblast strategy development processes.

It is not yet clear what will be chosen as the priority goals of the Concept of Strategy of Sustainable Development of Kazakhstan. But it is well known what is already included in the National Strategy-2030 (and its concretization for 2010) and in the Kyzyl-Orda oblast strategy and program documents in the areas where the UNDP Program is active: poverty eradication and social equity (especially in rural areas suffered from the Aral Sea crisis), privatization in the agricultural and water management sectors with the empowerment of rural communities, introduction of resource saving technologies (including rice substitution for Strategy-2010 in Kyzyl-Orda oblast), etc. It is very much


http://www.strategy.kz/

probable that the goals of the Kazakhstan National SD Strategy will include (or refer to) the main so-called Millennium Development Goals, adopted at the UN Millennium Summit like:

Target 1. Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than one dollar a day; Target 9. Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes and reverse the loss of environmental resources (with the introduction of such SD Indicator as GDP per unit of energy use); Target 10. Halve by 2015 the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water.

Taking into account the objectives and practical implementation of the UNDP Program in the Kyzyl-Orda oblast, this Program could very well contribute to the Local Agenda 21.

Thus the key priorities of the Local Agenda 21 in Kyzyl-Orda oblast could include, naming a few:

halving by 2010 the proportion of people in rural areas without sustainable access to safe drinking water;

halving by 2010 the proportion of people living below the national poverty line; decreasing (by, say, 30%) the amount of water used to produce unit of GDP in the agricultural sector.

The priorities developed in such way will not contradict the existing process of strategic planning. They will just help to convert the existing strategies into SD strategies.

The content of the Local Agenda 21 in this case could consist of:

Introduction (describing the key principles of SD at local level); Chapter on key priorities/objectives (including SD priorities similar to the described above,

which were developed through the multistakeholders participatory process of consensus building);

Chapter on possible mechanisms of strategy implementation (in the format similar to the existing oblast programs but with the inclusion of the key features of “good project practice”, see part A);

Chapter on pilot activities, which could be built on the results and the best practices of those pilots that include the key SD principles, discussed above in Part B

Chapter on monitoring the progress including indicators of success and rules of participation

One can see that the main challenge is to keep this process going. And this is the challenge, first of all, for the three PSCs (with the leading role of Kyzyl-Orda PSC) and for the LACs and to be created Steering Committee which should serve as the secretariat for the process including the most important one part of it – to ensure incorporation of the SD priorities in the on-going process of strategy development at the oblast level. On the other hand, the situation is rather promising – key oblast leaders, including Rayon Akims and Deputy Oblast Akim, expressed already readiness for such development scenario.

Many of the above mentioned principles represent just good development practice. Many are already being implemented at the project level. Putting these principles into practice in strategic planning and policy processes remains a challenge.


Annexes


ANNEX 1. Terms of Reference

Job title: International Consultant on Capacity 21 Pilot Projects Implementation and Development of Local Agenda 21

Duty station: Remote basis and business trips to UNDP Almaty, Kazalinsk, Aralsk, Kyzylorda, Kokshetau (and Astana) to meet with Government officials and other stakeholders, Kazakhstan

Section/Unit: Environmental Management and Sustainable Development Project reference: A.Kaz/99/G81” “Capacity Building of Water Users for Sustainable

Development in the Aral Sea Basin within the Aral Sea Region Development and Humanitarian Assistance Program (Kaz/98/008)” B. Kaz/00/005 “Institutional Strengthening for Sustainable Development”

Duration of employment: 15 October - 10 December, 2001 through Remote and Field Based Input - 42 days Organizational settings: The consultant is required to report UNDP, Kazakhstan. The TOR provides the

background for an international consultant work and could be corrected by UNDP CO in accordance with unforeseen events after consultation with all interested parties.

BackgroundThe Project KAZ/99/G81 "Capacity Building of Water Users for Sustainable Development In the Aral Sea Basin (within the Aral Sea Region Development and Humanitarian Assistance Programme (KAZ/98/008)" is being implemented since 1999. This project is focused on capacity building activities with providing support at grassroots level, complementing the large infrastructure investments for water efficiency. The demonstration pilots with the idea to improve and sustainable use of water resources in 10 targeted villages in the most affected rural regions of Kazakhstani part of Aral Sea Region have already been developed by NGOs with support of UNDP Project Support Centers on the basis of priorities identified by local government and communities. Successful models developed from pilot projects implementations are to be replicated in other regions and to be used for the further attraction of donors. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Protection (MNREP RK) is an Executing Agency and Kyzylorda Oblast Akimat is an Implementing Agency of this programme.

One of the objectives of the joint UNDP-Government of RK 4 year national umbrella programme KAZ/00/005 "Institutional Strengthening for Sustainable Development" is to overcome the intersectoral barriers to cooperation for sustainable development and the development support for Kazakhstan Agenda 21. This activity is being coordinated and executed by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Protection (MNREP RK). Within the scope of the work plan on the Round Table of 13-14 July 2001 on preparation to Rio+10 conference and the development of the Agenda 21, it was decided, that the successful pilots in Kyzylorda oblast might become an example and basis for developing Local Agenda 21 Concept paper, which will be further integrated into the National Agenda 21. This process needs a qualified international expertise/advice to coordinate and facilitate the preparation of the position paper at national and local levels.

The present contract will cover the period from October, 2001 till Spring, 2002, up to 42 working days equivalent. Initial work will be undertaken in Kyzylorda, Kazalinsk, Aralsk, and this may require repeated visits to the Oblast and to MNREP in Kokshetau. Subsequent advice and support might be provided from the Advisor’s duty station to finalize the pilot project documents and the Kazakhstan's concept paper.

Scope of work: A. Evaluation of the Aral Sea Region Development and Humanitarian Assistance Programme (8 days) Analyze the outputs of the programme activities, lessons learnt from the Project Support Centers and the

programme exit strategy development process Recommendations for the practical implementation of the project exit strategy for the Project Management

Committee , scheduled for November, 2001 Evaluation Report by November, 2001, covering the perspectives of the sustainable development of the

Resource Centers

B. Implementation of 11 pilots in remote villages and the development of Local Agenda 21 (24 days)Consultant will be responsible for the successful outputs within the pilot projects implementation and the

development of the Kazakhstan Local Position Paper on Agenda 21. The consultant will be responsible for the following services: Analyze the pilot projects and lessons learnt and provide recommendations for further replication in different

regions/countries.


Provide continuing advice and support for project management and implementation as required, including the training/workshop in the project formulation and implementation, best practice dissemination models based on the case study for the successful pilots.

Analyze current situation, best practices, lessons learnt, constraints and progress achieved in developing National Agenda 21 and provide recommendations for starting and strenghtening the process of developing Local Agenda 21 in Aralsk and Kazalinsk Rayons of Kyzylorda Oblast, including recommendations on utilization of experience gained from pilot projects implementation.

C. Facilitation of the development process of the National Agenda 21 (10 days)On the basis of the international expertise on Agenda 21, the experience of Central Asian Countries, the latest progress of Kazakhstan on sustainable development issues, concept paper on Local Agenda 21, the consultant will facilitate the development of the National Agenda 21 concept paper. This activity will include:

Analyse the Agenda 21 concept successful development process in other countries Analyse the experience and effectiveness of environmental legistation implementation, methodologies of the

national sustainable development strategies, effective environmental management Analyse the latest progress of Kazakhstan on sustainable development issues including the process of

preparation of the report on Rio+10 and the latest developments of Kazakhstani Agenda 21- the place of Local Agenda 21 for Kyzylorda Oblast in the Kazakhstan National Agenda 21

Consultation process - project staff, stakeholders Facilitation of the National Forum in Astana on 1-2 November, 2001 On the basis of the stated above activities provide quidance and recommendations on the development of the

Kazakhstan Agenda 21 paper (priorities and structure).

Work plan and the outputs:In providing the above services to UNDP, the Consultant is expected to perform the following tasks:

N Content/Output Duration/Location DeadlineConsultation Process

A B

C:

Kaz

/98/

008

Kaz

/99/

G81

Evaluation of the latest project proposals of the 11 pilots developed within UNDP/ Cap21/UNSO/Nordic Fund for selection of best practice and lessons learnt. Project experience will serve as an examples for the development of the Local Agenda 21 as part of the Kazakhstan National A21 (pls. refer to the list of projects in the Annex 1 and materials of July forum, structure of NA21, draft elements of NCSD mandate)

8 daysRemote Base

(3 days for PSCs and 5 days for pilots)

23 October

B:K

az/9

9/G

81

Conduct consultations with PIU in Project Support Centers, Oblast officials, NGOs and other stakeholders in Kyzylorda oblast (4 days) for collecting the related information on development and implementation of the pilots and evaluation of the performance of the Project Support Centers

5 days for pilots in Kyzylorda, Kazalinsk. Aralsk (including3 days for PSCs)

23-30 October

A,B

, C:

all p

roje

cts Poverty and Environmental Management and Sustainable

Development Units, UNDP staff (2 days) for collecting related information/ Minutes of the meetings.

2 daysAlmaty-UNDP

30,31 October

C: K

az/0

0/00

5

Conduct consultations with Oblast officials, NGOs and other stakeholders Government officials, KAZ/00/005 PIU staff for collecting related information/Minutes of the meetings.

1 day - Kokshetau 2 days - Astana

1,2 November

Facilitation of the National Forum on preparation to Rio+10 and Sustainable Development process/Recommendation of the NCSD

2 days - Astana(dates could be shifted to the end of November)

15,16 November


Reports/OutputsK

az/

98/0

08Incorporate the recommendations from consultative process, findings and conclusions into the Evaluation Report of the PSCs' performance/ Report 1

5 days Remote base

5 November K

az/9

9/G

81

Evaluation Report on Capacity 21 Pilot Projects Implementation with recommendations for improvement and successful implementation of pilot projects, recommendation for dissemination of the best practice of pilots developed under the support of UNDP/Cap21, UNDP/UNSO, UNDP/Nordic Fund/UNOPS / Report 2.

8 days Remote Base(Submit draft by Steering Committee of 17 November)

15 November

Give proposals and recommendations on priorities and structure (content) of the concept papers of the Local Agenda 21 for Aralsk and Kazalinsk rayons/Concept of LA21 as part of National Agenda 21-Report 3

8 daysRemote base

10, December, 2001

The guidelines to be developed and Work Shop on dissemination of the best practice and lessons learnt to be scheduled, prepared, conducted. Project staff, NGOs trained/skilled for drafting the pilots and the future full scale projects on SD & Environment/ Guidelines and the Work Shop

5 daysRemote base 5 days in Kazakhstan

30 March, 2002

Kaz

/00/

00

Give proposals and recommendations on priorities and structure (content) of the concept papers of the National Agenda 21/Recommendation for PIU

5 daysRemote base

10 December

Expected outputs: All written material referred to this contract is to be provided both in electronic form and hard copy as an agreed version. Work Arrangements:Please refer to the: (i)Work Plan ; (ii) Records of the Stakeholder meeting below. UNDP CO provides in addition interpreter service and covers local transportation if needed.

Qualification requirements: Knowledge and skills: The post requires a highly qualified professional with advanced university degreeExperience: Experience in writing project support documents, related environmental strategies, evaluation reports, experience in regional program preparation, previous experience in NIS/Central Asian States programming and action plan. Languages: Fluent English, Knowledge of Russian is an asset.

Reporting:The international consultant will be reporting to UNDP Deputy Resident Representative through Sustainable Development Policy Specialist (SDPS). Day-to-day work will be coordinated with Senior Programme Assistant, responsible for the project and overall supervision by SDPS. The consultant will also liaise closely for consultation with members of Environmental Management and Sustainable Development theme and focal points of Poverty Program and Social Development Section within UNDP. Besides UNDP, the consultant will work closely and inform and coordinate his/her activities with the PIU of Kaz/00/005, Kaz/99/G81, Deputy Akim of Kyzylorda oblast / National Coordinator of the Aral Sea Programme and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection RK: Vice-Minister of MNREP RK / National Coordinator. By the beginning of the mission UNDP will provide an updated list of names of stakeholders the consultant need to meet in undertaking this assignment. The consultant will consult with national coordinators of the programs and projects referred below. Application of guidelines:.(a) Kazakhstan National Environmental Action Plan; Provision of the National Environmental Center for

Sustainable Development. (b) Project document KAZ/00/005: “Institutional Strengthening for Sustainable Development” and project related

documents.


(c) Project document KAZ99/G81 “Capacity Building of Water Users for Sustainable Development in the Aral Sea Basin within the Aral Sea Region Development and Humanitarian Assistance Program (Kaz/98/008)” and related reports.

(d) Agenda 21, discussions and workshop materials on implementation of Agenda 21. Country Cooperation Framework

Additional Documents (e) CCD NAP and MOU between Govt. and UNDP/UNSO(f) RER/98/005 Aral Sea Basin Capacity Development(g) Emerging issues and developments at the regional level: environment and natural resources development.

Report of the Second Ministerial Conference on Space Applications for Sustainable Development in Asia and the Pacific

(h) Report of the Sub-regional Meeting on Strategic Environmental Management for Central Asian Countries(i) Latest Strategy for Economic Development of the Kyzylorda Oblast(j) Current on-going projects of the Kyzylorda Oblast supported by Govt. and other donors. Materials of the latest

donor meetings(k) Materials of the Kazakhstan Round Table on Preparation to Rio+10 and Agenda 21 of 13-14 July, Kokshetau(l) Materials of the International Workshop on Aral Sea Problems and Perspectives, of 11 August, Kyzylorda

List of pilot projects to be reviewed:

Aralsk rayon:

Filling of Makpal lake through the sluice construction and cleaning of Kenes channel (when ready as a full concept to GEF/SGP)

Potable water supply in Karateren village, internal pipeline Rehabilitation of Tushebas lake Kaz/98/x19 -Pasture Management project on the basis of the MoU between UNSO-Government of RK to

Combat DesertificationKazalinsk rayon:

Abai village water supply for Sartogai lands Rehabilitation of irrigation water in Urkendeu village Development of the natural-economic system of the Maidakol and Tuktibayev villages on the basis of the

sustainable water supply Rehabilitation of the natural economic system in Kaukei through sustainable water supply. Rehabilitation of the livelihood of Bozkol village Remote village development : Pilot study in two selected bore holes in the villages of Tuktibayev and

Kozhabakhy- 1st phase supported through Nordic Fund Capacity building of water users in Zhankozha Batyr village

List of persons to be met

Almaty:1. Zharas Takenov – SDPS, Head of Environment and Sustainable Development Unit, UNDP2. Aida Karazhanova – PC/SPA, UNDP, Env.SD unit3. Anna Paklina – Project Admin Assistant, Kaz/99/G81,UNDP, Env. SD unit4. Svetlana Islamova- PO, Head of Social Unit,Poverty Alleviation Programme, UNDP5. Serik Timirkhanov- national expert on project development cycle, Kaz/99/G816. Igor Malkovsky-national expert, hydrologist, resource saving technologies, Kaz/99/G817. Kimo Karini- international expert, resource saving technologies, Kaz/99/G81

Kyzylorda :1. Igor Zhaksylykov – National Expert on Local Agenda21/Manager of PSC, Kaz/98/008, Kaz/00/0052. Irina Lee – Admin/Financial Manager, Kaz/98/0083. Balzhan Shamenova – Head of Oblast Economy Department, Akimat4. Serikbai Nurgisayev – Akim of Kyzylorda Oblast5. Serik Retayev - National Coordinator


Kazalinsk :1. Elizabeth Nemethne – IUNV, Kaz/98/0082. Zbira Sarikulova – PSC Manager, Kaz/98/0083. Gabidulla Sarikulov – National Consultant, Kaz/98/0084. Almat Askarov – National Consultant,Kaz/98/0085. Menazhat Kani – NGO President (Bozgol)6. Zhaksylyk Zhanabai- NGO President (Zhankhozha)7. Nur Esirkep - NGO Presidents (Tyktibayev)8. Zhienei Zhanabergen – NGO President (Maidakol)9. Kozhakhmet Kuangaliyev - NGO President (Urkendey)10. Omar Erbol – NGO President (Kaukei)11. Tleus Zhumakhanov - NGO President (Abai)12. Nurman Talkanbaev – Deputy Akim of Kazalinsk Rayon13. Amirkhan Ornaliyev –Land Specialist / Akimat14. N. Ermekov- Head of Rayon Water Department15. Bolatbek Pusurmanov – Akim of Kazalinsk rayon

Aralsk :1. Sergey Sokolov – National Project Manager, Kaz/99/G812. Askar Khusainov – PSC Manager, Kaz/98/0083. Myrzash Isaev – NGO President (Karateren)4. Askerbek Karatuypov – NGO President (Bogen)5. Gabit Ospanov – Deputy Akim of Aralsk Rayon6. Danabek Tazhimbetov – Head of Land Committee/Akimat7. Bakhytzhan Kudamanov – Akim of Aralsk rayon

Kokshetau: 1 November1. Ludmila Shabanova – Manager of the Kaz/00/005 Programme on Instit. Strgnthen for SD 2. Ramil Disembayev – Leading Expert on Agenda 21, Kaz/00/0053. Kairat Aitekenov – Head of EP Department4. Murat Musatayev- Vice Minister, National Coordinator of the Kaz/00/0055. Andar Shukputov – Minister of NREP RK

Astana:1. Members of Project Management Committee, 2,15-16 November2. Attendees to the Round Table on Agenda 21 on 15-16 November


ANNEX 2. Results of the discussions and meetings during the mission

23 October 2001

During 23 October 2001 consultant reviewed the project documents KAZ/98/008, KAZ/99/G81 and KAZ/95/012, and met with the officers of UNDP/Almaty: Zharas Takenov, Sustainable Development Policy Specialist/Head of Environment and Sustainable Development Unit, Aida Karazhanova, Senior Programme Assistant/ Programme Coordinator, Env.SD unit, Nathalya Maksimchuk, Senior Programme Assistant in Governance Unit (KAZ/95/012) and Svetlana Islamova – Programme Officer/Head of Social Unit, Poverty Alleviation Programme.

ZT and AK described the history and implementation process of KAZ/98/008, KAZ/99/G81 emphasizing the necessity to develop and agree with all stakeholders the Exit Strategy and plans for 2002 including recommendation on replicability of pilot projects developed in Kazalinsk and Aralsk rayons.

Svetlana Islamova described the attempts to develop the concept of the Poverty Alleviation Programme in Kyzyl-Orda oblast. The possible mutual benefits of joint activities of this program and Resource Centers (to be created from the Project Support Centers of KAZ/98/008, KAZ/99/G81) were discussed.

The results of micro-crediting organized by KAZ/98/008, KAZ/99/G81 and by KAZ/95/012 were discussed with Natalya Maksimchuk. She was rather critical regarding the results of micro-credits program organized earlier that was not very well targeted and, therefore, return of funds was rather low. Women micro-crediting under KAZ/95/012 is much more effective and even succeeded to get license from the National Bank (for Kyzyl-Orda branch of the program). She has not seen any added value in joint work/cooperation with the Resource Centers and thinks that it is better to work in parallel. (The Kazalinsk officer of KAZ/95/012, Ms. Aiman Tokhtarova expressed later similar concerns).

24 October 2001

During the meeting with Mr. Aldabergen Isaev, president of NGO “Kamystybas” and Chairman of NGOs’ Association of the Aralsk rayon, it was mentioned that the main result of the Program is “opening of people’s eyes” in the auls, recognition by them of their rights and opportunities. Crucial role in achieving these results was played by PSCs and Program staff in the field, in particular by providing information; access to grant money; project identification, selection, and preparation of project proposals; relations with local authorities and donor agencies at national and international levels. NGOs of water users in Aralsk rayon think that such service deserves buying it and they will be really ready to pay for it but not earlier than after 2002, when they expect to get some income as a result of pilot projects implementation. He thinks that while administration in Aralsk rayon recognizes the NGO role and support them, they are behind NGOs in understanding the problem and the ways to address them. Absence of election and budget system at auls level means that NGOs have to deal with rayon and oblast levels of administration and have representatives at national level.

Regarding Makpal pilot (see description of the respective pilot in Annex 3) he mentioned that there is no need to have NGO for its implementation as NGO will not be the master of dams and channels and will own just the regulatory water devices.

25 October 2001

Visit to Karateren and Bogen (Tushebas pilot) auls in the Aralsk rayon (see description of the respective pilots in Annex 3). Meetings with Askerbek Karatyupov, NGO leader from Bogen and NGO leader (Mirzash Isaev) and Akim (Kines Sartov) from Karateren (met later in Urkendeu).


Their conclusion: Tushebas and Karateren pilots are good examples of well-addressed low-cost support projects but both are at preparatory stage to see the results. Pasture project (Kaz/98/x19 -Pasture Management project on the basis of the MoU between UNSO-Government of RK to Combat Desertification) is just one possible approach to diversification of pastures, which could not be a good example for implementation and replication as it was prepared and implemented without public participation (just one shepherd was involved), and remained largely as an example of scientific exercise with no practical result (no grass was grown).

They think that the main problem of the conversion of PSCs into RCs is to find the way to keep them concentrated on NGOs support. As NGOs couldn’t pay for such service in the near future (too early, no incomes yet), administrative measures should be proposed. For example, NGOs should be either founders or members of Governing body of the RCs to be established.

26 October 2001

1. Meeting with Aralsk PSC staff: Marat Kenzhebaev (instead of Askar Khusainov), Kuryshbek Ismamgabetov (specialist on micro-credits, KAZ/95/012), Sergei Sokolov, NPM, Marat Turemuratov, NUNV.

The main results from their point of view: established NGOs of water users as the structures of civil society, built capacity of local people, they see that this is the way to have access to financing of local projects, ownership of pilots, system approach to pilots selection, using mutually developed criteria and multistakeholder involvement (through Local Advisory Committees: NGOs, local authorities)

Negative aspects and lessons learned: distribution of micro-credits without program and control (during 1994-1998), possible ownership of future RCs by their staff

Proposal for the exit strategy of PSCs: RCs should be established in the same manner, as there were NGOs (meeting of NGOs Presidents). The Board of such RC-NGO should include representatives of NGOs, rayon administration, UNDP. RCs should deal with all aspects of support service including financial support and control, fund-raising, micro-crediting (together with KAZ/95/012), and gradually make such service paid by users (see separate note by Kuryshbek Ismamgabetov).

2. Meeting with Rayon administration of Aralsk: Bakhytzhan Kudamanov (Akim), Gabit Ospanov, B. Boranbaev, Z. Aitzhanova (Deputies to Akim), members of LAC.

The following main results of the Program were mentioned: pilots in the auls are very important and useful for rayon and its people, they contribute to local program of stabilization, they could be treated as an implementation of 2030 National Strategy at the auls and rayon level (poverty eradication).

It will be a pity if UNDP will pull out its resources. PSCs should continue their activities but some persons should not privatize them. Coordination by and connection to akimat should remain. PSCs should keep this name or could be renamed in business centers. Actually they are not resource centers as there are no resources. Their main resource – knowledge and expertise. This resource should be utilized by training the local people – both NGOs and representatives of akimat. Akimat is ready for cooperation in conversion/establishment of PSCs into RCs, in particular by participation in the Governing body of RCs established by all NGO community of rayon.


27 October 2001

1. Kazalinsk rayon, Tuktibayev/ Maidakol auls, meeting: Nur Esirkep - NGO President (Tuktibayev), Zhieney Zhanabergen – NGO President (Maidakol), Tulkibay Mukhanov, Akim

The following outputs of the Program were mentioned (see Annex 3 for details of Tuktibayev/ Maidakol pilots): protection from salty storms, provision of drinking water, creation of NGOs and changes in peoples’ consciousness, access to drinking water.

Difficulties and lessons learned: it was hard to understand in the beginning the reason for the establishment of NGOs, auls akimats are supportive but there is neither election of akims nor policy process or budgets at auls level (while there are rayon/oblast policy/programs to be implemented at auls level)

2. Meetings with the staff of Kazalinsk PSC: Elizabeth Nemethne, IUNV, Gabidulla Sarykulov, National Specialist, Almat Askarov, National Consultant

Main outputs of the Program: establishment of NGOs of water users, 7 out of 10 pilots are in the pipeline, access to funds (grants), access to new technologies and know-how,

Lessons learned and recommendations: not adequate transparency and monitoring created problems with implementation and common understanding of the objectives, Abai pilot was rejected as too expensive while its necessity is obvious, support by RCs will be necessary minimum one more year, training should be organized and oriented on concrete donors, NGOs were established as public organizations (and receive land and water for freeing the first five years) while they are going to do business in future – it means they will need to be reregistered, but business WUAs are absent in national legislation, water saving technologies should be added to some of existing pilots (Urkendeu, Tuktibaev/Maidakol, Abai, Tushebas) in order to make them more sustainable, RCs should belong to all NGOs, exit strategy should be redeveloped with more orientation on then perspective.

3. Meetings in Urkendeu and Kozhabakhi: Akim Nagyshbai Sagitzhanov, Kozhakhmet Kuangaliyev - NGO “Zhyluan Su” President, Ertugan Karabalaev – NGO “Parasat”

Outputs: pilot project in Urkendeu (channel) is very important, crucial role of PSC support, full support by aul akim, construction of IFAS-funded pump station in Urkendeu, Nordic-funded reconstruction of old holes in Kozhabakhi.

Lessons learned: support by RCs will be needed for one-two years, later NGOs will be ably to (partly?) pay for their service; IFAS pump station: less debit than before, plastic pipes, deep pump is needed, foreign filters, maintenance, electricity were not included in the budget, nobody wants to own the station now; Nordic holes: less debit than before reconstruction, nobody knows what were and what are the plans, no approval by LAC.

28 October 2001

Visit to Boskol. Meeting with Akim Altynbaev, Menazhat Kani – NGO President (Bozgol), Omar Erbol – NGO President (Kaukei)

Outputs: pilots – very important, supported by people; support by PSCs was crucial: development and monitoring the pilots, financial management, access to funds.

Recommendations: support by RCs will be needed for 2-3 years – than NGO will be able to pay for this service, replacement of rice by wheat, corn, sunflower is very promising – deserves to be included in pilots


29 October 2001

1. Visit to Zhankozha Batyr. Meeting with Zhaksylyk Zhanabai- NGO President and Akim Serik Mendibaev.

Outputs: people see the first real results of the pilot and are rather enthusiastic regarding continuation and search for other than UNDP funds, but RCs will be needed for such search and development of other pilots.

2. Meetings in Kazalinsk akimat: Deputy Akim Nurman Talkanbaev, Bulat Temirov, LAC

Results of the Program and recommendations: pilots supported by people and akimats, similar problems are in all auls: replication of pilots is needed, pilots correspond to the programs of the implementation of 2030 Strategy in the Kazalinsk rayon (Aul Keldeti??, Khaza-Su, check names, etc), full support to rice replacement by other crops, ready to further support NGOs but through real projects.

Recommendations regarding future of PSCs: RCs should become independent but owned by NGOs )or association of NGOs), they should help to find funds but being able to fund themselves, akimat is ready to provide in kind support to such RC and to participate in its Board keeping in mind that in the end these RCs and its equipment will be transferred to akimat.

Negative experience: Tuktybaev and Kozhabakhi project (Nordic fund) – wrong project, bad examples, not for dissemination, new projects are needed; IFAS pump station in Urkendeu – wrong approach because doesn’t work without deep pump, holes without pumps is needed with enough debit

30 October 2001

Meetings in Kyzyl-Orda Oblast akimat: Deputy Akim Serik Retaev, NPSC members: Kh. Arynov (Department for Regional Development and Entrepreneurship Support), Vitaliy Shek (ODSP “Aral”), Margarita Vilghelm (Prearalian Scientific-Research Institute of Agroecology and Agriculture) , Marina Lim (Environment Protection Department), Zhansultan Matayev (Economy Department), Slamzhan Isabekov (IFAS branch).

Deputy Akim of Kyzyl-Orda Oblast expressed full support to the program in general but mentioned that he does not know yet the details because he was nominated quite recently for this position. He described the policy of Oblast Akimat in the implementation of 2030 National Strategy and mentioned that Akimat is rather interested in cooperation with UNDP and local people in this implementation as well as in making the Oblast development plans the sustainable development plans.

During the meeting with the LAC members the following results of the Program were highlighted: people understood that they really could help themselves, establishment of NGOs – owners (they were established top-down but the most viable will survive), built human capacity on project development and implementation, fund-raising, pilot projects which address the most acute problem – access to water.

Lessons learned and recommendations: too much involvement/influence of local authorities on NGOs, minimum kick-off support was provided – time for development support, RCs are still needed but similar to support centers of small and medium business, the organization of the process (NGOs establishment, independent experts involvement, multistakeholder dialogue and approval mechanism through LAC) deserves replication/dissemination – special replication program is needed.


ANNEX 3. Description of pilots


FILLING LAKE MAKPAL,SLUICE CONSTRUCTION AND CANAL KENES CLEANING

Implementing organisation: Water Users Association “Kamystybas”

Project area: Kamystybas village, Aralsk rayon, Kyzylorda oblast

Project beginning date: October 1, 2001

Project completion date: 2002 - 2003

Status: Under implementation

Budget: 13,538 US Dollars, including:NGO contribution: 6,150 US DollarsUNDP contribution: 7,388 US Dollars (financed – 2,888 US Dollars)

Background:The past and present irrigation practices have wide spectrum negative influence on people’s livelihoods, destroying environment. Rice cultivation priority was the main factor during development and reconstruction of hydro-technical system. Before the Kazalinsk irrigation massif construction, the lake Makpal was filled during Syrdarya river flooding and was connected with Kamystybas lake system. After canal Basykara construction, which was irrigating Akbai rice growing farm, canal Kenes was filled up as non-perspective one for rice growing purposes. The project “Filling lake Makpal, sluice construction and canal Kenes cleaning” includes several activities on canal Kenes rehabilitation.

Goal : Filling lake Makpal with water (Phase I).

Objectives : Construction of the main sluice on canal Kenes (estimated consumption – 100 m3/s);Cleaning and deepening 9 km long part of canal Kenes

Beneficiaries: Inhabitants of the village of Kamystybas and town of Aralsk

Project activities: 9 km part of canal Kenes was cleaned and deepenedIn accordance with GEF Small Grants Programme’s plans to implement a project on Makpal lake’s biodiversity conservation with total cost of 50 thousand US Dollars, project funding from Capacity 21Programme was stopped. Project activities will be implemented within a new project.

Outputs: Water supply development in remote settlements in Syrdarya river’s middle delta; Rehabilitation of lake’s fish resources; Increase and creation of new jobs in fishery; Additional food source (inexpensive and fresh fish) – 200 tons per year; Water infrastructure development, including qualitative and quantitative water supply improvement; To give rights of independent maintenance, e.g. water resources management, to local WUAs; Creation of 200 ha additional irrigated fields, including hayfields – 50 ha, pastures – 150, with the

following effects:- guaranteed fodder;- increase number of livestock and poultry through increasing pasture areas;- quality fodder on clean water;- stopping soil degradation and decreasing salt-marshes areas.

CREATION OF THE MODEL ON SUSTAINABLE POTABLE WATER


SUPPLY OF SMALL SETTLEMENTS IN SYRDARYA RIVER DELTAUSING AN EXAMPLE OF KARATEREN VILLAGE (PHASE I)

Implementing organisation: Water Users Association “Kosaral”

Project area: Karateren village, Aralsk rayon, Kyzylorda oblast


Project completion date: December 30, 2002


Budget: 10,940 US Dollars, including:NGO contribution: 3,940 US DollarsUNDP contribution: 7,000 US Dollars

Background:Existing in the past water pipeline network in Karateren village during the last 10 years became fully out of commission and needs full replacement. At present time the main source of water is Syrdarya river, from which water is being delivered by different ways, even by hand. Population has no constant source of water. The project “Creation of the model on sustainable potable water supply of small settlements in Syrdarya river delta using an example of Karateren village” during the first phase makes provisions for construction of reservoirs for year-round water supply of population with drinking water.

Goal : To demonstrate methods of sustainable supply of the Aral Sea region’s population with drinking water meeting standard quality requirements on example of Karateren village

Objectives : Establish conditions for year-round potable water supply of population; Delivery drinking water to the final consumer; Quality assurance of drinking water applicable to the sanitary regulations; NGO “Kosaral” status strengthening

Beneficiaries: Inhabitants of the village of Karateren

Project activities:Phase I (2001):Water pipeline network in the village examined; technical documentation for reservoirs construction is

developed;Construction of five assembled concrete reservoirs;Phase II (2002): Construction of internal water pipeline net to reservoirs; Purchase and installation of cleaning equipment.

Expected outputs: Continuous water supply for the population of Karateren village; Decrease population expenses for water delivery into the village; Population living conditions improvement; WUA’s supervision of the water supply system in Karateren village

REHABILITATION OF TUSHEBAS LAKE SYSTEM (PHASE I)


Implementing organisation: Water Users Association “Bogen”

Project area: Bogen village, Aralsk rayon, Kyzylorda oblast


Project completion date: June 1, 2002



Background:In natural conditions lake system Tushebas was used by local population for fishery, neighboring to the lake hay fields served as a fodder base for cattle breeding, gardens were irrigated by lake water. Because of destroying of natural hydrological regime of Syrdarya river, level and salinity regimes of the lake system became unstable. Accordingly the regime of hay fields watering became unstable, when from one side process of turning into swamp happened, and from other side – drying up of agricultural lands. Unstable level and salinity regime of lakes became a factor of water and by water ecosystems degradation. That, in its turn, brought negative economical consequences - decreasing fish catch, decreasing productivity of hay fields, which finally led to aggravation of social problems – population’s employment and income decrease.The project “Rehabilitation of the lake system Tushebas” is aimed to establish conditions, enabling stabilization of level; and salinity regimes of lake system Tushebas by rational use of poor water resources of Syrdarya down stream.

Goal : Rehabilitation of Tushebas lake system’s environmental, social and economic significance

Objectives : ● Establish conditions for fishery sustainable development on Tushebas-Saryteren lake system;● Improvement of livestock fodder base of Bogen village;● Implementation of water saving filling lake regime and damping of hayfields;● Development of Bogen village Water Users Association

Beneficiaries: Inhabitants of the village of Bogen

Project activities: Field surveying investigations of canal courses and assessment of hydro-technical works have been conducted; Calculations of required capacities of water works and water quantity for filling lake and keeping water level; Cleaning and expansion of Stan canal is planned; Reconstruction of two locks sluices with transport crossing and fish-obstruction; Legal registration for ownership to manage all hydro-technical installments and lake system Tushebas-

Saryteren

Outputs: Sustainable fishery; Improvement of hay productivity; After the second year lake filling the water consumption decreased; Legal registration for NGO “Bogen” ownership to manage all hydro-technical installments and lake system

Tushebas- Saryteren

WATER SUPPLY OF ABAI VILLAGE

Implementing organisation: Water Users Association “Sartogay”


Project area: Abai village, Kazalinsk rayon, Kyzylorda oblast

Status: Under the process of developing and seeking for cost-sharing funding

Background:Comparing with other villages the Abai village lands are situated in the height part of Kazalinsk rayon. The water level in Syrdarya river and Left-bank Main Canal (LMC) is 4-6 meters lower than irrigated lands surface level. Therefore all projects of irrigation systems were designed for forced water lifting to field levels. Till 1995 – by electric pumps, and further due to electricity deficit – by diesel pumps. Economical losses of such type of water transportation with the current correlation of prices on agricultural products and fuel in Kazakstan is obvious. The project “Water supply of Abai village” makes provision for construction of hydro-technical works, enabling self-flowing watering of village lands.

Goal : Water supply for sustainable development of Abai village

Objectives : Water supply of Abai village, gardens, fields, pastures, hay fields at the area of 1,500 ha Beneficiaries: Inhabitants of the village of Abai

Project activities: Field prospecting works, hydrological research and analyses of the Kazalinsk Hydro Construction’s

water regime and water consumption of Aksai canal have been made. Land surveying of the Sartogay area, new canal course lay, cross surveying of Aksai canal and LMC have been made. The project proposal was developed.

Water Users Association “Sartogay” was established. Because of high project cost, cost-sharing funding sources are being sought.

Expected outputs: Planting trees in the village; Development of gardening; Improvement of household water supply of the village; Microclimate and village sanitary conditions improvement; Rehabilitation of agricultural lands on 1,100 ha; Decreasing salt-marshes and prevention of soil degradation in the area of 1,100 ha; Livestock increase through fodder production, rehabilitation of pastures and hay fields; Improve self-providing with gardening products; Increase population’s employment; Rehabilitated canal and water works are owned by NGO; Capacity building of NGO as a public center for receiving economical, environmental, technological

knowledge and information.

REHABILITATION OF AGRICULTURAL FIELDS IN URKENDEU VILLAGE (PHASE I)

Implementing organisation: Water Users Association “Zhyluan Su”

Project area: Urkendeu village, Kazalinsk rayon, Kyzylorda oblast


Project beginning date: December 1, 2001

Project completion date: September 30, 2002

Status: Implementation to be started in December 2001


Background:To avoid agricultural production degradation and to stimulate creation of new structures for water resources management, UNDP and Oblast Akimat implement the Capacity 21 programme, aimed at improved and sustainable utilization of poor water resources at local level by supporting Water Users Associations. Irrigated lands in the north-west of Urkendeu village are situated by 0.6 – 1.6 m higher than water level in the Left-bank Main Channel (LMC). Therefore all projects of irrigation systems were designed for forced water lifting to field levels. Till 1995 - by electric pumps, and further due to electricity deficit – by diesel pumps. Economical losses of such type of water transportation in the current correlation of prices on agricultural products and fuel in Kazakstan is obvious. The project “Rehabilitation of agricultural fields in Urkendeu village” makes provision for establishing the system of small water lifting and regulating hydro-technical works, enabling self-flowing watering of village lands.

Goal : To demonstrate practical ways of more sustainable methods of agricultural farming, water resources management and living conditions improvement of Urkendeu village population.

Objectives : ● Living conditions improvement of local population;● Creation of a guaranteed base for stockbreeding in account of flooded pastures and hay fields input;● Farm water supply scheme improvement.

Beneficiaries: Inhabitants of the village of UrkendeuPlanned activities: Reconstruction of hydro technical works on the canal Edren; Rehabilitation of Edren canal; Construction of sluice-regulator and water gate; Construction of woodland belt on 10 ha

Outputs: Agricultural lands increase up to 147 ha; Increase of fruit-melon crops gross harvest up to 1911 tons; Population employment increase (377 people); Decrease of pulmonary diseases; Green plantation square increase by 22 ha; Hay fields and pastures square increase by 440 ha; Green forage increase by 474 tons/year; Hydro-technical works reconstruction;

DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATURAL-ECONOMY SYSTEM OF TUKTIBAEV AND MAIDAKOL VILLAGES ON THE BASIS OF SUSTAINABLE WATER SUPPLY (PHASE I)

Implementing organisations: Water Users Associations “Senim” and “Maidakol”

Project area: Tuktibaev and Maidakol villages, Kazalinsk rayon, Kyzylorda oblast


Project beginning date: December 1, 2000

Project completion date: September 30, 2002



Background:Formed in the Aral Sea Region environmental situation lead to decreasing of population’s living conditions, agricultural production, increased unemployment and sickness rates, and decreased life length. During the past years these problems were increased by disruption of water distribution systems at grass-roots level and lack of mechanisms, stimulating rational water use. To avoid agricultural production degradation and for stimulating creation of the new structures for water resources management, UNDP and Oblast Akimat implement the Capacity 21 programme, aimed for improved and sustainable utilization of poor water resources at local level by supporting Water Users Associations. The project “Development of the natural-economy system of Tuktibaev and Maidakol villages on the basis of sustainable water supply” makes provision for rehabilitation of hydro-technical works and natural water reservoirs, and planting with trees in the villages.

Goal : To demonstrate practical ways of more sustainable methods of agricultural farming, water resources management and improvement of Tuktibaev and Maidakol villages population’s living conditions.

Objectives : ● Improvement of local communities living conditions;● Creation of a guaranteed base for stockbreeding by rehabilitating the irrigated pastures;● Introducing the system of rational water resources management

Beneficiaries: Inhabitants of the villages of Tuktibaev and Maidakol

Project activities: Examination and land surveying works along with canal lines, calculations of land works have been conducted

in both villages; Cleaning and deepening of existing canals Baizakasha and Matygul with total length of 3.6 km; Construction of a new 820 m long canal; Construction of two sluices-regulators with transport crossings; Repairing of two existing wells; Construction of two new wells; Planting trees on 5 ha area and construction of 2 ha woodland belt

Outputs: Decrease of the negative influence of salty-dusty storms; Improvement of potable and household water supply for population; Increase in food production; Pastures area increase for 210 ha and increase of forage production; Crop yield increase on the irrigated lands up to 1 t/ha; Rehabilitation of hydro technical works; Rehabilitation of the degraded lands; Reduction of water consumption from natural sources

WATER IMPROVEMENT OF KAUKEI NATURAL-ECONOMIC SYSTEM (PHASE I)

Implementing organisation: Water Users Association “Erdos”

Project area: Kaukei village, Kazalinsk rayon, Kyzylorda oblast

Project beginning date: November 1, 2000





Background:Kaukei village is being supplied by water from two sources. During the spring period water from Syrdarya river is supplied through Aksai channel during only 40 days. The other source are drain waters of the Kyzylorda Left-bank Rice Fields coming through Kuvandarya riverbed. Kaukei is located in the end of this system. Resources of drain water are large so, that capacities of hydro-technical water works do not allow to transport excess water to the down tail waters. Water is huge quantity is being collected near the dam Kaukei, destroys the dam and the road, connecting the village with rayon center, floods the village. Excess water leads to swamping and salinisation of large agricultural lands. For decreasing the risk of flooding in 15 km near the village the dam Kosa was constructed, through which water comes in quantities corresponding to capacities of Kaukei hydro-technical water works. Due to its low capacity the village faces lack of water, which leads to decreasing of agricultural production and drying up of the Karakol Lake. The project “Water improvement of Kaukei natural-economic system” makes provisions for developing the system of hydro-technical works, allowing to supply the village with sufficient quantity water without risk of flooding.

Goal : To establish conditions for the sustainable development of Kaukei natural-economic system by ensuring proper water resources regulation and distribution

Objectives : ● Restoration of Karakol Lake fisherie;● Maintenance of the stable fodder base for the cattle breeding;● Liquidation of Kaukei village flooding risk;● Minimization of the non-productive water loss by optimization of water resources regulation and distribution.

Beneficiaries: Inhabitants of the village of Kaukei

Outputs: Stable water regime of the Karakol lake; Sustainable fisheries in the Karakol lake; Increasing of the population employment level; Improvement of the women’s social position through involving in the fish processing; Improved access to potable water; Decreasing of air dryness in Kaukei village; Increase of hay fields and pastures areas; Increase in the fodder stock; Liquidation of flooding risk; Liquidation of soil degradation; Recycled use of drain waters; Increasing the social role of the WUA; Participation of local community in the water resource management.

IMPROVING LIVING CONDITIONS AND DEVELOPMENTOF AGRICULTURE SECTOR OF BOZKOL VILLAGE (PHASE I)

Implementing organisation: Water Users Association “Bozkol”

Project area: Bozkol village, Kazalinsk rayon, Kyzylorda oblast

Project beginning date: November 1, 2001





Background:Formed in the Aral Sea Region environmental situation lead to decreasing of population’s living conditions, agricultural production, increased unemployment and sickness rates, and decreased life length. During the past years these problems were increased by disruption of water distribution systems at grass-roots level and lack of mechanisms, stimulating rational water use. To avoid agricultural production degradation and stimulate creation of new structures for water resources management, UNDP and Oblast Akimat implement the Capacity 21 programme, aimed at improved and sustainable utilization of poor water resources at local level by supporting Water Users Associations. The project “Improving living conditions and development of agricultural sector of Bozkol village” makes provision for rehabilitation of hydro-technical works and planting with trees in the village.

Goal : To demonstrate practical ways of improving living conditions of Bozkol village population and more sustainable methods of agriculture and water resources management.

Objectives : ● Improvement of local population’s living conditions;● Creation of the sustainable fodder reserve for cattle breeding development;● Introduction of water-saving technologies;● Development of Water Users Association

Beneficiaries: Inhabitants of the village of Bozkol

Project activities: Existing hydro-technical works (canals, bridges, water-gates, sluices-regulators) have been analyzed based on

results of field surveys; Cleaning of canal Kandyaryk of 6 km length, reconstruction of canal Bilim of 3.2 km length; Replacement of sluice-regulator and construction of two transportation crossings; Planting with trees; rehabilitation of 13.2 ha woodland belt; Construction of dam and filling the Irgekum Lake with water.

Outputs: Decrease of the negative influence of salty-dusty storms; Improvement of potable and household water supply for population; Increase in food production; Hay fields and pastures area increase; Increase of fodder production; Use of planting industry wastes for fodder production; Introduction of water saving regime; Expand of Bozkol WUA membership; Hydro-technical water works ownership by WUA

ANNEX 4. Economic evaluation of pilots by Kuliash Bolatbaeva

Evaluation of sustainable development aspects in Programme Capacity 21pilot projects

The ideology of sustainable development is an important step of humanity towards solving vital problems of the present and the future. Ideologies are powerless without an appropriate policy reflecting ideological principles as well as the interests of the prevailing part of the society.


Suitability of ideology and effectiveness of the policy is tested in practice. While principles and political programmes are important only political activity may approve appropriateness of ideology’s substance and principles comprising it, according to declared goals and needs of people and society.

It should be stressed that sustainable development is not an exclusive feature of future but it was realised thousands times during history of humankind in various spatial and temporal scales: from village communities within decades, to ethnoses within centuries. These periods of sustainable development are not always pictured in the annals of history; however, great world civilisations are convincing evidence of significance of such periods. It is symptomatically that every civilisation reached its end in condition of general systemic crisis: economic slump and degradation of major natural resources accompanied political collapse. External effects such as warlike neighbours’ conquests usually completed the processes of decomposition, which would usually be caused by internal reasons.

The novelty of the sustainable development ideology proclaimed in Rio-de-Janeiro lies in its global scale, since the humanity, which has entered the 21 century being numerous and “suppressed” by political, economic and ecological problems, there are no more barriers between states and there are no more oceans separating continents.

The global scale of the problem should not make the experience of local sustainable development examples secondary, as well as it is an indisputable fact that the global development consists of crumbled puzzle of local “economic, natural and social clusters” – the primary cells of the global material. One of the categories of such cells is the countryside households and communities – populated areas.

Sustainable development of village communities is less known but incomparably more representative than sustainable development of ethnoses, civilisations and countries. Because of the following it is worthwhile to include this practical and pragmatic level in the discussion while planning of implementation of the principles of the Agenda 21:

The problems of providing intersectional interaction in the process of decision- making in sustainable development are irrelevant at this level. At the household and village community levels all sustainable development providing issues are in organic and indissoluble integration. In this practical mirror the positive and negative aspects of sustainable development policies - sectional as well as integration - are clearly reflected.

The stage of development of village communities is one of complex indicators of country’s rate of development.

The village communities affected by economic and political cataclysms to a lesser extent in particular are the stabilising component of the society. It is enough to remind that village production and its manufacturing potential were always a reserve for survival of any country in its critical periods of development

Traditional village technologies in irrigated agriculture and land farming, farm and drive away stock-breeding, fishing and hunting industry, agricultural production re-cultivation and private industries usually do not consume much energy and village economy does not have sufficient investment potential for “nature transforming” projects. For this reason and with rear exception of absence of political influences and investments they are not capable of causing significant degradation of natural resources of ground and water.

These specifics of life-sustainability of village technologies present village households and communities as representative and illustrative polygon to research all aspects of sustainability. In general, village agricultural production is hard to be analysed because of numerous long-term influences. However concrete projects of local economic or rehabilitation projects provide grounds to observe majority of introduced “disturbances” at socio-economic and ecological levels.

Sustainable development is a balanced self-supporting development, which improves the quality of human life and which at the same time is limited by the ecosystem capacity.

Sustainable development implies that the reserve of capital assets stays unchanged or grows over time. The definition of sustainable development as “satisfaction of current generation needs without harming future generations capacity to satisfy their needs” clearly underlines the fact that natural resources are limited, and raises the issues of fair consideration of interests of different generations, the necessity of compromised decisions to be taken by today’s generations.

Sustainable development concept has three fundamental aspects: socio-economic, social and ecological.

Economic aspect includes realisation of complex activities, which promote poverty alleviation, consumption structure transformation, population growth control, human health protection, and sustainable economic development.


Social aspect covers realisation of complex activities, which aim at population growth control, human health protection and human development.

Ecological aspect of sustainable development covers a wide range aiming at preservation, environmental recovery and rational use of natural resources, alleviation of deserts and draughts, retaining the biodiversity, ecologically safe biotechnology use, safety improvement of toxic chemical elements use, solving problems with hard wastes.

Taking into account that economic and social development is the main and the most powerful factor in negative effects on nature, sustainable development can be defined as ecologically grounded economic and social development in the interests of the current and the future generations. At the same time clear negative dependence is evident. Only developed economy is based on natural resources, degradation of which excludes economic development. Social environment depends on economy, and the quality of the living environment in its turn predetermines the quality of the major economic resource – the human capital. The intense mutual predetermination of these three fundamental components of human life was numerous times historically demonstrated. What happened to Aral Sea is the classical example of ecological catastrophe as a result of natural disaster. People who determined the policy in the past knew very well that continuous and control-free water consumption for irrigation needs would lead to death of Aral Sea. However they satisfied urgent economic needs of that time only by ignoring this problem. The result was dramatic for economy, nature and population of the Aral region.

Central Asian countries signed Environment and Development Declaration at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED, Rio-de-Janeiro, 1992) and committed to implement the approved Agenda 21 Programme document. Since the beginning of the Aral Sea Basin Programme and the Programme of the strengthening the potential of (“To help the population of the Priaralye is to help ourselves”) UNDP in co-operation with the department of Investment Policy of the Ministry of Economics of the Republic of Kazakhstan, administration of Kyzylorda oblast, administration of Kazalinsk and Aralsk rayons, certain results have been achieved in the salivating of the water supply, health care and economics through rehabilitation of the limited number of water constructions in pilot villages, mentioned by the local consulting committees.

Within the last two years the foundation was supported through creation of three PSC (Project Support Centre) in Kyzylorda (oblast centre) and in towns Kazalinsk and Aralsk, financed by the project. Fifteen new associations, co-operation with the government and the society through the Local Consulting Committees (LCC) of the region and the National Committee on project management (NCPM) in the oblast were as established as well.

In the short-term perspective more than 15 thousand of local population including farmers and fishers those who live in the mouth of the river Syrdarya, local NGO, local specialists in such issues as water resources, agriculture, fishery and soil resources and also women and children - more than 1000 families - will become direct gainers from the projects.

In a long run perspective residents of the other regions of Kazakhstan will benefit from the projects as well in case if such projects are repeated. The Program Potential 21 plans the following results: The potential of the poverty alleviation will be demonstrated to other organisations and people through the

benefits of the pilot projects. Established contacts between the water consumer associations and state organisations of Kyzylorda oblast will

help to improve co-operation forms, which could be extended to the national level. The project will promote the participants and the country’s involvement in order to increase their knowledge of

modernised exploitation and maintenance systems of water distribution and control. The project should increase public knowledge of costs of inefficient water consumption and promote water

saving, biodiversity and environmental protection. Training, applied technologies and direct services, developed within the pilot projects will improve economic

condition in the delta of the river Syrdarya.

The long-term aim is to enhance the potential of the local groups and individuals in order to provide food supply to the population, promote biodiversity in the mouth of the river Syrdarya, improve health of people and promote sustainable development of the region.

The following regions and projects were selected for project implementation:

Kazalinsk region, Kyzylorda oblast:


Water users potential capacity development for sustainable development of Zhankozha Batyr village Sartogai site soil irrigation in Abai village Rehabilitation of agricultural farms in Urkendi village Channels reconstruction for protection forest lines of the villages Maidakol and Tuktibayev. Forest plantation rehabilitation in the village Bozkol Rehabilitation of the lake Karakol and Kaukei village pastures,

Aralsk rayon, Kyzylorda oblast

Filling of Makpal lake through the sluice construction and cleaning of Kenes channel Tushebas lake system filling Water supply, Karateren village.

Basing on field trip report let us consider to what extent the four projects correspond with goals and principles of the Agenda 21: Forest plantation rehabilitation, Bozkol village Potential capacity of Water users development for sustainable development of Zhankozha Batyr village Tushebas lake system filling Water supply, Karateren village.

Project description

Forest plantation rehabilitation, Bozkol village

In this project the strongest part is afforestration. At present there is fruit trees’ park existing established in soviet times. Aborigines that do not wait for the external financial assistance have started works on increasing the area of plantations for the protection from the salt and dust storms.Main drinking water sources for population are the two artesian wells and the water from the Kandyaryk channel. The channel satisfies 70 % of the need in the drinking water and 30% come from artesian wells when the quality of the channel water is low. For communal purposes 70% of water is used from the wells and 30% comes from the channel.

The following activities reflected in the project are necessary:

Recreation of the square of the forest plantation to the previous size of 13.2 hectares (from 9 to 13.2 hectares) Retain the existing green planting by 7 hectares and extend the overall area of planting into the village to 10

hectares (by 3 hectares) In future, the creation of forest shields along Bilim channel with the length of 2000 meters, width of 50 meters

to the west from the village on the side where salt and dust storms come from. To deepen the existing Bilim channel length of 1500 meters and to bring the water to the village. To build smaller channel (1100 meters) as prolongation of the existing one till forest plantation. To build the extension branch of Bilim channel (600 meter length) till the village centre in the future park zone

‘Water users Potential capacity development for sustainable development of Zhankozha Batyr village’.

Water resources for communal needs are surface waters: Aschikol lake (96 hectares), melioration channels water, surface waters of the waste and drainage water from irrigation fields. There is no direct access to water consumption from Syrdarya river. The Rightbank Main Channel (RMC) and the small channels network of the communal unit deliver water from Kazalinsk Hydro-knot. The annual water consumption from the RMC is about 8.8 million cubic m.

Drinking water supply. The drinking water source for the villagers of Zhankozha Batyr is the three artesian wells (depth of 200-400 meters), mining wells and the channels water. Drinking water sources research have shown that saltiness level in the artesian wells from ranges from 2 to 4g/l, in the channels ranges from 1.2 to 2.0 g/l and more.

One of solutions for water supply for communal purposes and irrigation water supply to 30% of the territory is the possibility of taking water from the channel. But at present lack of financing, remoteness and water shortage in the channel create additional problems.


For this reason the existing channel should be purified from silt and soil layers up to 0.6 meters, and the existing Atsoigan channel extended by building a 2000-meter continuation near the village. The activities included in the project: Construction of Zhanabai channel (4km length). Construction of control sluices. Construction of cross-bridges - 2 units. Construction of demonstration pasture - 30 hectare.

Tushebas lake system filling.

Activities are related to the opportunity of filling of the lake hollows and maintaining of constant level. This will create the basis for sustainable development of fishery and agriculture.

Since it is difficult to find way to retain water when filling lakes in the periods of spring and autumn floods and winter droughts. In the post-soviet period the situation has worsened by the collapse of the downstream infrastructure of Water Resources Committee, and as a consequence the impossibility to maintain hydro-geological constructions in working conditions. Finally, at present it is almost impossible to speak not only about the water regime control but also about the water coming through to lakes and villages.

Project ‘Potable Water Supply in Karateren Village, pipeline Construction’ differs from others by its specifics – providing water supply for the village. Thirty percent of the population has handmade reservoirs for drinking water storage near their houses. The rest are constantly facing the problem of water delivery. In wintertime people use ice as a water source. The project intends to solve the problem of drinking water delivery to the whole Kazalisnki rayon through the complex of measures such as: Building of 5 monolith and concrete reservoirs (the 10-15 m3) Connecting reservoirs with the water pump system made of polyethylene pipes (overall length of 1870 meters)

Possibility of application of economic “costs and benefits analysis” method.

In the Environmental Protection projects it is not sufficient if the project is effective in terms of usual economic and financial criteria. In the present report an attempt to define project’s potential social and economic benefits in money terms and their comparison with the initial investment has been undertaken.

At first it is necessary to do at least approximation to define economic profitability of the projects, without which social benefits conclusions are groundless.

In projects and their results evaluation costs and benefits analysis is used as the main analytical means. It is used by financial institutions (i.e. World Bank, Asian Bank for Reconstruction and Development) to analyse and plan big scale projects. It can fully be implemented in such local projects estimations as ‘Afforestration rehabilitation’ in Bozkol village, ‘Potable Water Supply in Karateren Village, pipeline Construction’, ‘Tushebas lake system recovery’ and ‘Water users potential capability development for sustainable development in Zhankozha Batyr village’. In view of facts that all projects have common goal of finding solution to complex problems of water supply shortage in the region the projects are located next to each other in two bordering regions, thus, it is suggested to consider them together.

OHP Transparency 3p shows the costs required to be taken in order to realise the project. Main cost categories used in the current report are: Capital costs: consist of all costs of fixed assets (i. e. pipeline construction) and general operational

expenditure (i. e. channel cleaning) Technical services costs: these are costs of maintenance of fixed assets in working condition. According to

the approach taken in other World Bank researches (World Bank, 1999), annual technical services costs are considered to be 2% of fixed assets costs.

Operational costs: these are investment-started activity costs. In the current research operational costs include labour costs

Current investigation pays much attention to the benefits analysis. When evaluating the benefits of water supply improvement the welfare change is the major criteria in external effects evaluation. The general term for defining such analysis is economic or money evaluation. Economic evaluation provides a good or a service with its money value.


For example, if shortage of water has negative effects on rates of harvests in the region, then costs of crops not harvested could serve to rate ecological damage because of insufficient investment. Costs of other influences could indirectly be defined basing on market prices of surrogate goods [alternate goods] or services. For example, the absence of drinking water filter may cause the shortage of drinking water. Alternative source of drinking water such as bottled mineral water may represent the external cost of bad financing of the water supply system. In the examples shown above market prices are direct or indirect indicators of external effect costs. However most of the external influences have no market price. Methods for evaluation of these non-market influences are usually classified into methods worked out from ‘set preferences’, and prices are based on ‘open preferences’ (Freeman, 1993)Readiness of an individual to pay for a good or a service reflects his/her preference of this good or service.

The described benefits of the above projects (4 pilot projects) include only growing benefits. These benefits have effects on:

Population Agriculture Fishery Water saving

OHP Transparency 2p shows a table of economic benefits to be achieved when carrying out projects.Costs and benefits analysis has revealed itself as an effective and useful tool in the analysis of various activities of water demand and supply. Approximate and rounded calculations demonstrate that these projects produce positive economic effect.


Projects compliance with the principles of sustainable development.

Projects considered above to a certain degree correspond with the principles of Agenda 21.

TableEvaluation of the Program Potential 21 projects impact on sustainable development

*** - strong impact** - average impact* - weak impact0 - absence of impact

«Water consumer potential capacities development for sustainable development of the Zhankozha Batyr village

‘Potable Water Supply in Karateren Village, pipeline Construction’

«Forest plantation rehabilitation in the village Bozkol

«Lake system Tushebas recovery»

“Rehabilitation of agricultural farms of the Urkendi village”

“Channels reconstruction for forest shields of the villages Maidakol and Tuktibayev”

“Rehabilitation of the lake Karakol and the pastures of the village Kaukei

«Filling of Makpal lake through the sluice construction and cleaning of Kenes channel »

SECTION 1. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTSInternational co-operation aiming at accelerating sustainable development in developing countries and appropriate national policy

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Poverty alleviation *** * 0 ** *** *** * **Consumption structures transformation ** * 0 *** *** ** * *Population dynamics and sustainable development ** *** 0 * ** ** * **Human health care and protection * *** * ** * * * 0Promotion of populated areas sustainable development *** *** * * ** ** ** **Consideration of environmental issues and development in the process of decision making

** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

SECTION II. SAVING AND RATIONAL RESOURCES CONSUMPTION FOR DEVELOPMENTComplex approach to planning and rational consumption of land resources

*** 0 0 0 *** *** * 0


Deforestation alleviation 0 0 *** 0 * ** 0 *Rational consumption of the vulnerable ecosystems: Deserts and draughts alleviation

*** 0 *** *** *** *** ** **

Sustainable agricultural and village development promotion

*** *** 0 *** *** *** ** **

Preservation of the biodiversity * 0 *** *** 0 * ** ***Preservation of the quality of the drinking water and its supply complex methods application in water resources investigation, management of water farms and water consumption

*** *** 0 *** * ** * 0

SECTION III. STRENGTHENING THE POSITION OF PREVAILING POPULATION GROUPS Acknowledgement and strengthening the role of the aboriginal nations and local communities

*** *** * ** ** * * *

Strengthening the role of NGOs: partners in the process of sustainable development promotion

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Initiatives of the local municipalities in support of 21 Century Agenda

** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

Strengthening the role of the workers and their professional unions

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Strengthening the farmer’s role ** 0 0 ** ** ** ** **SECTION IV. MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATIONFinancial resources and mechanisms ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **Ecologically clean technology transfer, co-operation and potential building

*** *** ** ** ** ** ** **

Education promotion, provision of information and human resources training

** * 0 * ** ** * **

Information for decision making *** *** ** ** ** ** ** **


The most significant impacts of the projects in the context of sustainable development: provision of possibility for sustainable access to the means for existence by the poorest population.

According to official estimates there were 7076 people registered to be living below level of poverty in 1999, in 2000 this figure changed to 12026 people. These are only official statistics, which do not always reflect true situation: the facts of cheating figures or artificially exaggerating them still exist. In Bozkol auyl region 105 families are regarded to be poor and the average per capita income ranges from 300 to 600 tenge per month and here we only approximately can speak about the income presence at all. Projects in Kazalisnki rayon as well as in Aralsk rayon promote sustainable development of agriculture and fishery, which in their turn will allow more than 400 people to receive sustainable means for existence.

Strengthening of non-governmental organisations: partners in the process of sustainable developmentAgenda 21 proclaims the need to involve non-governmental organisations and local administrative bodies

as mechanisms of implementing the principles of sustainable development, as it is set in these projects. Among the created associations of Water users (NGO) one positive example is the Association of Water users that manage small schemes of irrigation. This example of social organisation of communities with corresponding support helps improvements of water resources distribution (resources saving factor), solving of water disputes, quality of water and creation of additional employment (irrigation specialists, security, gardeners, and mechanics of hydro-technology maintenance.

NGO as it is said in the Agenda 21, is considered to be the source of innovation thought and activity at the local level and they are deeply interested in supporting provision of sustainable acceptance of means for existence. NGO of Priaralye today already at the starting stage after realising their effectiveness begin search for solving these or that problems and plans on their own. So they have taken an effort to arrange a rest zone on one of the lakes that is one of the most beautiful places of Priaralye (they developed a project and applied for grant support that had a positive effect) Human healthcare and protection

The questions of health and development are inseparably tied to each other. General aim suggested in the Programme is about limiting negative effects and maintaining quality of the environment at the level to avoid dangers to health and safety of people, and at the same time permitting to pursue the process of development.

In recent years one of the main reasons for worsening of heath of population of Priaralye has been worsening of quality of environmental indexes: application of a huge number of poisoning chemicals and mineral fertilisers, increase of wastes of highly mineralised collector-drainage waters from irrigated massifs and not appropriately purified communal and industrial sewers to Syrdarya river.

Aral and Kazalinsk regions of Kyzylorda oblast are considered to be ecological catastrophe. They are situated near the cost of Aral Sea and within the mouth of Syrdarya River with population of 124 thousand. Because of recent years changes in ecological situation in the region tendencies in basic population health fluctuations indexes have been researched. For example depending on socio-economic condition people’s health is better characterised by medico-geographical processes indexes. Birth rates of population in recent 13 years has gone down in the Aral region by 27,9%, and in Kazalinsk region by 14,5% and accordingly is 21,2 and 25,7 out of 1000 of population in the year of 1999. Decrease in birth rates in Aral region is almost twice lower than in Kazalinsk region. Mortality rates in the Aralsk rayon for this period has gone up by 8,7% and in Kazalinsk region by 37,5% and is about 8,4 cases out of 1000. Natural increase of population within the last 13 years in the Aral region is lower by 40%, and in Kazalinsk by 13,3%. In both regions there is decrease in birth rates, in natural population growth and growth of mortality rates of population.

High level of children mortality is noted in the regions, that in 1997 was 31,3 cases out of 1000 born in Aralsk rayon, and 27% in Kazalinsk.

From all mortality cases 44% dye from intestinal infection diseases that is related to low quality of drinking water. Large numbers of researches prove direct dependence of health indexes from quality of communal water use as well. Mineralisation of subterranean waters in recent years has grown up to 3700 ml/l, chlorides – up to 720 ml/l, sulphates - up to 440 ml/l. Syrdarya water is characterised by 3 times overwhelming of maximum allowed coefficient of hardness, of sulphates - by 1,5-2 times, phosphates – up to 200, phenols – up to 2, fluorum – by 1,7 times.

In 80-100% case drinking water bacteriological pollution in rural populated areas does not correspond national standards of ‘Drinking Water’. Water consumption rates of villages are very low and are around 15-20 l/day.

Serious [problem is with tuberculosis sickness that has the tendency of annual growth. Welfare and shortage of water predetermine such diseases as intestinal infections, virus hepatitis, tuberculosis and itch. As most of inhabitants think – bad environmental quality is the basic reason for their diseases (79%).

At the same time it should be noted that negative indexes of medical and demographic statistics could in little effect directly or indirectly be related to ecological factors. However, in the regions in ecological crisis, a

Final evaluation report “Capacity Building of Water Users for Sustainable Development in the Aral Sea Basin” by Andriy Demydenko, International Consultant, 27 December 2001 Page 51

wider context ecological crisis effective through socio-economical factors is particularly an influential reason for medical problems.

Projects in Kazalinsk and Aral region suggest provision of sufficient water access for population. First of all here there is an opportunity to use water for communal needs (irrigation, laundry, sanitary-hygiene needs), which of course will have positive effects on overall sanitary-hygiene situation. At the same time insufficient investment for water desalination and purification works is an insufficient factor in solving the given problem in full aspect.

Projected activity to further development of forest lines to protect from dust and salt storms (Bozkol village) has as well positive influence. In the Aral Sea zone large amount of toxic salts are blown up to the air from the stripped and dry seabed. These salts have direct influence on people and animals, and cause further pollution of water and soil in this region.

Assistance to sustainable development of populated areas

Direct influence on this part has ‘Potable Water Supply in Karateren Village, pipeline Construction’ project. The projects of ‘Water users potential capacity development for sustainable development of Zhankozha Batyr village’ and ‘Tushebas lake system recovery’ (fishery component have indirect influence through strengthening of household economies.

Saving and rational use of resources for development purposes

Sustainability of grocery production will be more dependent on rational and effective use of water resources and application of saving methods that generally are about irrigation development and arrangement, including rational use of water resources for the purposes of land farming, water supply for stock-breeding, fishery in internal basins and agrarian forest melioration.

Water resources deficit in Priaralye forces carrying treatment of water. Water saving activity in Bozkol and Zhankozha Batyr villages have been developed with consideration of particularities of agrarian production in the region. Analysis and selection of agrocultures optimal for cultivation in conditions of water deficit and shortage of material resources, analysis and selection of technology of water delivery to consumers from the source of water-supply, and water distribution system analysis have been made when working out the projects. OH Transparency 4p – water-saving and economic evaluation.

Strengthening of non-governmental organisations: partners in the process of sustainable development provisionToday when the world community is heading to break away from irrational models of development and to

lead environmentally secure and sustainable development, one of the basic objectives that we have is to assist to understanding of the general aim in all layers of society. The possibility of provision of such objective will depend on readiness of all layers of society to take part in a truly wide partnership, from realisation of independent role and commitments and special potential of each.

For the potential input of each NGO is realised in full, the bodies responsible for the Agenda for 21 st

Century, and within frameworks of programmes especially directed on it, it is required to stimulate maximum connection and partnership between international organisations, national governments, local administrative bodies and NGOs.

Projects implementation, as in Programme Potential 21, as well as in the following draws is possible only with NGO participation. NGO arrangements (around 15 in Priaralye) provided revealing of priority problems, development of projects, mobilisation of resources and population. With regards to local condition knowledge and implementation by the beneficiaries themselves the project has the least number of risks when implemented.

This kind of projects provides positive experience and strong impulse to rural communities local governance development.

Local governance initiative in support to Agenda for 21 st Century

Local governance bodies create economic, social and ecological infrastructure, manage and maintain it, follow the planning processes, set and define policy and norms of environmental protection and support implementation of national and sub-national nature protection strategies.

UNDP Potential 21 Programme implementation has started with the support of Kyzylorda oblast administration and regional administrations of Aralsk and Kazalinsk. Local authorities approved the objectives of the pilot projects and, moreover, have initiated actual support for successful implementation of the projects:

On a long-term basis akimats provide lands for projects development, An agreement was reached for 1-2 years to meet the payment for water consumption in the villages

included into the Programme Potential 21 from local budgets.


These initiative acts are evident of full support and mutual understanding of local administrative bodies, both regional and rural.

Farmers role strengthening 1 When comparing the results of sociological research made in 1998 with the results of households study

done in the region in 1995, some principal changes in socio-economic situation are notable. Population numbers development in the past years revealed strong tendency for migration abroad the territory; today the situation is almost stable.

If in 1995 more than 1/3 of questioned claimed their desire to move away, then in 1998 the given index fell down to 23%. In both cases shortage of money was the principal factor in constraining family departures, while basic reasons for their desire to depart were expectations to find better work and improvement of living conditions. The situation with population employment also worsened. In 1998 81,5% of households had unemployed family members, while in 1995 this index was 67,6%.

In general 4 categories of problems of population concern could be defined: Local employment and income situation Insufficient infrastructure expressed in the shortage of electricity, water supply, healthcare, transport and

communication Worsening of agricultural and stock-breeding conditions Environmental situation and environmental protection that have negative effects on water supply quality, health

of people and stockEven though it is early to make any statements, it is clear that people’s mood is changing. People realise

that they cannot rely on support from the government. Expectations of the previous years did not bring about essential changes. It is also noted that people have begun expressing their needs more clearly than it used to be in previous years, and even though many people feel helpless they predominantly desire to solve their problems on their own.Pilot projects of Potential 21 suggest concrete support to population that is ready to solve problems, directed to improve established conditions.

Educational support, provision of information and human resources training

Questions of public education, provision of public with information and professional training are connected to almost all spheres of activity within the framework of Agenda for the 21 st Century, and even more tied to questions of satisfaction of basic needs, creation of potential with data and information, science and role of basic groups.

Unfortunately the pilot projects of Potential 21 do not include the aspect of widening the knowledge and professional training, which is supposedly tied to the problem of insufficient financing. Nevertheless, in the starting period of project preparation training and seminars were held that were directed to introduction and attraction of more public attention to the objectives set in the projects. Leaflets of sanitary-hygiene content were published as well. It is required to continue strengthening propaganda in this direction in future. One of the aspects of this direction should become the propaganda of Programme Potential 21 project experience as one of the conditions of successful draw.

Conclusions and recommendations.

Maximum potential of sustainability are in the ‘Rehabilitation of the livelihood of Bozkol village’, ‘Water users Potential capacity development for sustainable development of Zhankozha Batyr village’, which is first and foremost connected with the case that projects offer the most actual economic effect on households that are beneficiaries. Using the examples of these projects it is easier to follow how economic effects of first and second levels (community, rayon, oblast), as well as social effects directly depend on household economies, and in rural communities in particular.

As it is seen from OHP transparency 2p economic outcomes of these projects are substantially higher than that of other participants. Apart from economic benefit these two projects achieve one of the basic principles of environmental protection – resource preservation. Project implementation will allow to preserve water resource up to 36 million cubic m. a year.

1 In this part all ‘farmers’ are referred to those rural areas inhabitants that get their means for existence from their agricultural activity, fishing and use of forest resources


Two other project have less attributes towards environmental protection. One of them ‘Water use in Karateren village’ touches upon sustainability principle in terms of water accessibility for population. The other one, ‘Filling of Tushebas lake system’ allows solving employment problem by providing possibility of recovery of fishery industry. Although one could mention the point that lake rehabilitation will in general improve the deserted zone ecosystem.

All projects have not achieved the aim of providing the public with quality water for drinking needs. Desalination machines construction requires huge investment as well as existence of specialists able to operate them, as the past years experience has shown. It is quite hard to claim that these projects enable change of quality of public life in terms of health and life expectancy in full.

The projects have social and economic effects on households first of all, leading to increase in goods production, further on rural community via tax returns increase, water supply arrangement, schools development, healthcare points, clubs, libraries and motorways. Third level of development on the rayon and oblast – notably to a lesser extent – increase of taxation income, decrease of social payments on pensions and poverty, direction of these funds on roads development, education (Technical colleges, professional schools), healthcare (regional hospitals).

Taking into account the repetitiveness of these project there is a need to widen public knowledge and professional training of specialists.

As the world experience has shown negative environmental effects has the worst influence on the lives of the most poor layers of society. Suppressing majority of those who loose health or dye as a result of environmental degradation lives in ecologically dangerous zones. Publishing of these projects should be directed not only to Aralsk and Kazalinsk rayons villages of Kyzylorda oblast. These projects will lay fertile grounds for such rayons of Kazakhstan as Atyrau, Mangistau, Kyzylorda, separate regions of Almaty and South-Kazakhstan oblasts that have water supply problems, as well as in Central Asian states.

As it was shown above, in the regions with critical ecological tension large number of population lives in conditions below poverty line, for this reason the main risks of publication of these projects are:

Absence of public readiness to make decisions, Unwillingness and absence of self-organisation experience, Absence of financial support, basic source of which should become the budget when published Absence of local administration support

AppendixIn accordance with the gradation of 9 pilot projects held by specialists, they could be divided into the following groups (the text is presented with no changes)«UNDP projects are distinguished into three groups: Karateren village water supply projects. Aralsk rayon projects and Kazalinsk rayon projects.Karateren project is clearly distinguished by its specifics – it is mostly devoted to drinking water supply to the village. (it is observed separately in the given analysis)Two other groups have complex character and solve a complex of problems connected to water deficit in the region: drinking water provision, creation of protective green zone in the villages, pasturelands square increase, hayfields, individual fields and filling of lake hollows (lake squares rehabilitation). The division into two groups corresponds to the natural landscape and agricultural land marking. Aralsk region (Tushebas and Makpal projects) is situated within the borders of the medium and lower delta of Syrdarya river and is referred to deserted zone. Kazalinsk rayon (Maidakol, Tuktibayev, Abai, Bozkol, Urkendeu and Kaukei) is situated within the borders of higher delta and is part of the irrigated agricultural zone. In accordance with such natural human living conditions and agricultural production formation separation, each of these projects’ groups have their own particularities.Aralsk group has the following features:They are situated in a deserted zone;Syrdarya river is the water supply source;Two lakes with large surface square are planned to be filled;One of the basic activities is fishing industry.Both of Aralsk projects (one has been analysed, author’s note) are also united by traditional way of water resources saving. For it is hard to find water saving way when filling comparatively large lake hollows, the basic way of water preservation is to form a water regime. That will enable an in-time filling of lakes with water during spring and autumn floods; and preservation of collected volumes within the lake basin during winter and summer droughts.Traditional scheme for water use includes unregulated lakes filling in flood time, if that is the case, with extra water drainage into inter-lake hollows with the following loss of it or creation of new lakes. When level of water in the river lowered, lake waters would pour into Syrdarya and level of lakes’ water would decrease. In the post-soviet time the situation worsened by the collapse of lower infrastructure of the Water Resources Committee, and consequently it is impossible to maintain hydro-technical constructions in working condition.. In the end, today it is


practically impossible to talk not only about regulation regime, but even about water input into lakes and villages at all..So, projects’ activities are basically directed to in-time filling in of lake hollows and maintenance of constant level in them. The condition creates the basis for sustainable development of rural and fishing farms. Kazalinsk group of projects has the following features:The are situated in the irrigation zone;Irrigation channels serve as water supply source;Basic direction of water use is for agricultural needs (haymaking, pasturelands, individual farms);The need for protection from salt and dust storms.

For the reason that Kazalinsk projects water is basically used for irrigation, this group of projects has a potential of diverse water saving technology trials in traditional terms.Three sub-groups are distinguished in the Kazalinsk rayon:Abai project (the given project perspective are still unknown)Kaukei project;Bozkol, Tuktibayev-Maidakol and Urkendeu projects (Bozkol project analysis is present)‘Water users potential capacity development for sustainable development of Zhankozha Batyr village’ project analysis is also presentedTaking into account of all of the above-mentioned, one could say that correspondence to the principles of Agenda 21 in Bozkol and Zhankozha Batyr projects will be featured in Tuktibayev-Maidakol and Urkendeu villages as well. It will to some extent prevail in Kaukei village project that has fishery industry development perspective.

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY 21PILOT PROJECTS

In environmental protection projects it is not enough that they are effective in economic and common financial terms. For this reason the basic aim of this research should be to define and evaluate socio-economic and ecological benefits of project implementation capacity and to compare them with costs. To achieve sustainable development one needs increased economic integration in making ecological decisions and in particular through application of economic methods in evaluation of projects and strategic trends. The main method favourable to use is the costs and benefits analysis (CBA).

In the current research CBA is used as the basic analytical instrument that shows advantages and disadvantages of activity in pilot projects of Kyzylorda region.

EBA Methodology. The aim of this description is to show that the principles of ecological economics could have great input in ecological regulation. The description is quite general and does not aim to give full presentation of EBA. The following issues are touched upon:

CBA could be defined as the method that evaluates the ‘effectiveness’ and ‘ineffectiveness’ of a particular project. In many countries CBA has been used as the method of evaluation of projects’ financial side. Financial institutions (i.e. World Bank, Asian Development Bank) apply this method in large projects analysis in particular, but we will try to apply it in the analysis and planning of smaller regional/local projects like ‘Rehabilitation of the livelihood of Bozkol Village’, ‘Potable Water Supply in Karateren Village, pipeline Construction’, ‘Tushebas Lake System Recovery’, and “Zhankozha Batyr Village Water Users’ Capacity Abilities Development For Sustainable development”.

CBA has several stages:

Stage I: Project definition; Stage II: Definition of the economically significant project influences; Stage III: Monetary evaluation of costs and benefits;Stage IV: Comparing costs and benefits.

In practice the approach has never been brought forward in full. In many cases there is shortage of information. While some of influences could easily be presented in quantitative figures, others could only be ascribed according to their ratings. In these cases it is particularly important to perform sensibility analysis to show which factors and predictions have more influence on the general CBA result. Moreover, quantitative analysis of undefined could often be conferred by review of more qualitative aspects, in total bringing about more value to the CBA results. In any case all influences should be shown in the analysis with no recourse to whether they have quantitative expression or they do not. It is better to provide with the description of the influences rather than not to have their evaluates or not to mention them at all.


Taking into account that all four pilot projects have general aim - to solve a complex of problems tied to water deficit in the region, territorially integral and are situated in two neighbouring regions – the suggestion is to look at them together.

Stage I: Project Definition. In the current research four projects are analysed. All projects’ components should be taken into account to have correct costs and benefits evaluates of each of these activities.

Stage II: Definition of the economically significant project influences. A project could have significant and insignificant consequences. In our evaluation only the first are of interest. Inevitably one needs to solve what is significant and what is not. To judge the rates and significance of ecological influence a range of criterions could be put forward:

Influence on the natural, human, chemical and physical environment with regards to their relative sensibility, Zone of influence within object’s borders or overriding them (local, regional, national or international scale) Time of influence (during construction, exploitation or during post-exploitation period), Is the influence reversible or not, and Whether it is positive or negative.

Quality and volumes of water, increase in population productivity rates, agriculture, fishery and water resources savings are considered to have significant effects in our research. Influences on health are clearly not considered because of insufficient data on dosage-reaction dependency. However in current research it is presumed that influence on health is a significant part of external project effects.

There is a rule that only first class influences should be considered. Secondary influences are out of the scope of the given evaluation.

Stage III: Monetary evaluation of costs and benefitsEvaluation of Costs

For a number of reasons calculation of costs is usually less direct and less complicated procedure than calculation of benefits. Firstly, investment decisions as a rule include detailed financial reporting presented by financial institutions. For this reason documentation on costs is present. Secondly, costs used are mostly taken from existing markets.

Basic expenditure categories used in the current research:

Capital costs: consist of all costs of fixed assets (i. e. pipeline construction) and general operational expenditure (i. e. channel cleaning)

Technical services costs: these are costs of maintenance of fixed assets in working condition. According to the approach taken in other World Bank researches (World Bank, 1999), annual technical services costs are considered to be 2% of fixed assets costs.

Operational costs: these are investment-started activity costs. In the current research operational costs include labour costs.

Evaluation of Benefits

In the current research particular attention is paid to benefits evaluation. In calculation of benefits of better provision of water supply changes in welfare are basic in evaluation of external influences. Common term for this analysis is economic or monetary evaluation. Economic evaluation is provision of price in money to product or service.

External influence evaluation faces different obstacles. External influences are defined to be happening out of the market and market price of these influences is usually absent. For this reason special methods are needed to evaluate value of external influences.

There are different methods of external influences definition. Some of costs are based on market prices of produced goods. For example, if shortage of water has negative effects on rates of harvests in the region, then costs of crops not harvested could serve to rate ecological damage because of insufficient investment. This method is called ‘Productivity Function Method'. Costs of other influences could indirectly be defined basing on market prices of surrogate goods [alternate goods] or services. For example, absence of water purification could lead to shortage of safe drinking water. Alternative source of drinking water like bottled mineral water could again present external cost of water farm bad functioning. In the examples shown above market prices are direct or indirect indicators of external influences costs. However most of the external influences have no market price. Methods for evaluation of these non-market influences are usually classified into methods worked out from ‘set preferences’, and prices are based on ‘open preferences’ (Freeman, 1993).


Methods of open preferences calculate external benefits by using relationship between ecological goods and expenses on market goods. This category includes for example the method of caution behaviour method (CBM) and hedonic price-creation method (PCM). A set preference method learns about people’s readiness-to-spend (RS) on ecological goods by using structuralized surveys. RS is defined by maximum amount of money that a person is ready to spend on good or service. Readiness to pay of a separate person for a product or service reflects his/her preference of one good in relation to other.

Supply and demand of water in region under research.

Basic interested parties in this region include:

Population: approx. 7043, living in Bugun auyl region, Zhankozha Batyr village, Karateren village, and Bozkol village.

Farmers: agricultural producers live in small villages. Because of well-known conditions the volume of irrigated agriculture remarkably decreased, which led to decrease in agricultural production and feeding resources for animal breeding.

Fishermen: Fishermen’s villages Kaukei, Shengeldy, Zhuanbalykh used to be close to each other on the shores on the Aral Sea. From the time of the sea drawback and abandoning of fishing the population of Zhuanbalykh and Shengeldy villages moved to Kaukei, Bozkol, Karateren. Until today Aral Sea has left Kaukei for 115 km. The remaining industrial fishermen shifted to fishing in lakes not far from the settlement. Within recent 7 years because of shortage of water most of the lakes dried out and there is no fishing.

Water supply

Bozkol village. Basic source of water for the village population are two artesian holes and Kandyaryk channel water. Drinking water demand is met by 70% supply from the channel and 30% from the holes with absence or low quality water in Kandyaryk channel. For municipal and other needs 70% of supply is satisfied from the holes and 30% from the channel.

Artesian holes built in 1973-75 from 200 to 400 m in depth until 1990 provided the population of the village by drinking water from the ECOS-50 type desalination machine. With the breakdown of the machine people consume water directly from the hole. Scientific research has shown that the saltiness of the artesian water ranges from 2,5 to 3,7 g/l. Quality of water does not correspond to the sanitary norms set in RK. National standard is set to range from 0,5 to 1,0 g/l.

Kandyaryk channel is the basic source of drinking water for the population of the village. Water consumption is 9 months annually. In spring and autumn periods water is used directly from the channel. In summer time, when levels of water in the river and parallel channels decrease and quality worsens, people shift to using water from the holes that does not comply with the sanitary norms. In winter people use water from the channel ice, however there is not enough ice in the channel to provide the population with drinking water for 3 winter months.

Current condition of the channel does not make it to provide the population with drinking water all-year round, as well as modern water supply system does not provide water to the inner village.

Sources of drinking water for wintertime are needed to be found and works need to be done to provide water to the inner village.

Karateren village. The basic source of water supply for Karateren village is the water of Syrdarya River that is used with no purification. Thirty percent of population have self-made reservoirs to store drinking water. Others have constant problem with drinking water supplies to their homes. In wintertime local people use ice as source of water. In the project it is suggested to solve the problem of water supply to all of Karateren region in complex.

Tushebas lake system. Over-flood, over-growth of green plantations and water passage capability decrease to the Tushebas-Sarteren lake system happened because of shortage of funds for repairs and maintenance of three bypass channels. These days only insufficient amount of water comes in during winter- and springtime. In the summer-autumn period Tushebas Lake dries out to minimal size, and Sarteren Lake dries out totally.

Repair and Recovery works at the presented channels and valves will make Tushebas lake fill in with water that will enable support to the ecological rehabilitation of this lake system. Over-flood, over-growth of green plantations and water passage capability decrease to the Tushebas-Sarteren lake system happened because of shortage of funds for repairs and maintenance of three bypass channels. These days only insufficient amount of water comes in during winter- and springtime. In the summer-autumn period Tushebas Lake dries out to minimal size, and Sarteren Lake dries out totally. .


Repair and Recovery works at the presented channels and valves will make Tushebas lake fill in with water that will enable support to the ecological rehabilitation of this lake system.

Zhankozha Batyr Village. Water resources of the farm consist of surface waters: Aschikol lake – 96 hec, ameliorative channel waters, surface waters from waste and irrigation waters from irrigated fields. There is no direct approachability and supply of water from Syrdarya River. Transportation of water is made from Kazalinski Hydro-knot along the right-hand main channel (RMC) and from the web of smaller channels of the village. Annual water consumption from the channel is around 8,8 million cubic m.

Drinking water supply. There is no water supply from ECOS-50 desalination machine built in 1987 that does not function because of breakdown in 1991 plus decrease in water levels in the artesian well. Existing web of water canalisation with collective pumps does not function. Drinking water source for the population of Zhankozha Batyr village are three artesian holes from 200 to 400 m in depth, mining wells and water from the channels. Scientific research has shown that the saltiness of the artesian water ranges from 2 to 4 g/l. Saltiness of water in the channels is from 1,2 to 2,0 g/l and more. The basic source of drinking water for most of the population is the water from channels, which does not correspond with sanitary and bacteriological norms. National standard for drinking water in saltiness is from 0,5 to 1,0 g/l. The only usable water well is Bazarbai. It gets its waters from filtered waters of nearby Atsoigan channel. The well is situated in the Southern part of the village: it is 7 m in depth, its’ saltiness rages from 0,8-1,2 g/l. Water (output) debit is not higher than 1,0-1,5 cubic metres a day that provides water for only 10% of population. The rest existing wells salty water that does not comply with the norms, because they are far from the channel. One of the options in provision of drinking water is bringing the channel closer to the village. In this case the existing sources will be provided with filtered water good for consumption.

Communal supply is the next problem with water.

In the past irrigation of land was provided from the electric valves from local budget. In recent years shortage of electricity and funds led to further collapse of these lands.

Shortage of water for communal and other needs of the village has negative influence on sanitary conditions and health of local population, or in other words on their sanitary-hygiene needs (washing, bathing, washing dishes etc.). Shortage of water for animal breeding is as well a problem for farming in wintertime.

One of solutions for water supply for communal and other needs of population and irrigation water for almost 30% of territory is the possibility of using the waters of the channel. However far distance and shortage of water today have additional negative impacts connected to the shortage of funds. For this the exiting channel should be cleaned from valves, silt and soil down to 0,6 m in depth and new channel should be laid, 2000 meters in length in continuation of the existing artesian channel.

Demand for Water

Bozkol village.

Pastures and haymaking - 1,370 million cubic m/year

Gardens and melons – 1,386 million cubic m/year

Green plantations – 0,370 million cubic m/year

Water to population – 0,180 million cubic m/year

Irgekum water reserve – 1.134 million cubic m/year

Karateren village

Water to the population – 0.06 million cubic m/year

Tushebas lake system

In high water level during 38 days of autumn-winter period Syrdarya river water supply is 33 million cubic meters in volume.

In the current research three large projects are worked upon. All components should be taken into account to have correct evaluates of costs and benefits for each of them. For example, for the new project of using underground waters new well, pipeline to modernized pump system and modernization of distribution system might be required. All these components should be taken into account.


Zhankozha Batyr village

Annual consumption of water from RMC is around 8,8 million cubic m.

Description and costs of the activity under consideration

In this part short description of suggested activities and their projected costs are given. The following activities are looked at:

Bozkol village

Recovery of forest plantations to the previous size of 13,2 hec (from 9 to 13,2 hec);

Preserve current green plantations of 7 hec and widen total square of green plantations inside the village up to 10 hec (by 3 hec);

Creation of protective forest lines along Bilim channel in the west in perspective 2000 m long, 50 m wide at the wind path of salt and dust winds.

Deepen the existing Bilim channel of 1500 m long and bring water to the village;

Build 1100 m long smaller channel in continuation of the existing one to the forest plantation;

Build irrigation ditch from Bilim channel of 600 m in length to the centre of the village and the future park zone

Table. Summary of costs

Category of costs Sum (in USD)

Total capital costs 22987

Annual technical maintenance costs 400

Annual Operational costs 400

Karateren village

Building of five monolith-concrete reservoirs 10-15 cubic meters in volume

Bringing water pipeline web made of polyethylene pipes to the reservoirs. Total length of the lines is 1870 meters






Tushebas lake system

Fill in Tushebas lake hollow up to level of 52,8 m in absolute terms. Increase of the water reserve basin from 1000 hec to 1500 hec at the expense of Syrdarya river water 5 million cubic meters in volume.

Recovery of projected Stan channel carrying capacity (to 10 cubic meters per second) to allow 33 million cubic meters of annual input into Tushebas lake system as evaluated (first stage; the second stage is planned to be recovery of Beketai channel and parallel financing of МФСА of Balgabai third channel)





Annual Operational costs -



Zhanabai channel structure of 4 km in length. Sluice controls structure Passing bridge structure - 2 units. Demonstration pasture structure of 30 hec






Table. Summary of costs of all activities under consideration

Bozkol village Karateren village Tushebas lake system recovery


Total costs Total costs Total costs Total costs

(USD) (USD) (USD) (USD)

2000 - - - 12851

2001 22987 10940 8840 520,00

2002 800,0 530,00 170,00 530,4

2003 816 540,6 173,4 540,8

2004 832 551,2 176,8 551,72

2005 848,8 562,33 180,37 562,64

2006 865,6 573,46 183,94 574,08

2007 883,2 585,12 187,68 585,52

2008 900,8 596,78 191,42 597,48

2009 919,2 608,97 195,33 609,44

2010 937,6 621,16 199,24 621,4

Total 30790,20 16109,62 10498,18 18544,48

Benefits

In this part benefits of the above mentioned activities are described. Similar to the Costs part it should be reminded that only increasing benefits are under consideration. These benefits have positive effects on:

Population; Agriculture; Fishery, Watersaving

Population

Bozkol village

Softening of negative effects of salt and dust storms


The activities under consideration influence the population relative to change of quality and quantity of drinking and technical water.

The protective forest line is arranged in the north-western and western parts of the village at the wind path of salt and dust storms. Forest plantation of 2000 m * 50 m will be situated along Bilim channel from Kandyaryk channel to forest nursery.

It is assumed that protective lines effect will show up in 7-10 years after actual planting. Therefore sustainability of this activity will be summed up after the 7th year.

With population of 2387 in Bozkol village there are up to 1072 cases of respiratory organs illnesses worsened by salt and dust storms factor. Human health risks and even mortality rates in relation to this factor would have been evaluated if these storms are watched (qualitative content and size of transfer parts). In any case all influences should be mentioned in analysis with no recourse to whether they have quantitative expression or not. It is better to provide description of influences rather than not to have their evaluates and not to mention them at all.

High level of child mortality is noticed in Kazalinsk rayon, so in Bozkol it is 32.7 cases for every 1000 of born. Basic reasons for mortality are innate anomalies (43,7% of cases) and dyspeptic upsetting syndrome (25% of cases), or in other words illnesses related to ecological situation. Of all mortality cases from infection diseases 44% are intestinal as a result of low quality of drinking water. Large number of researches proves clear dependence of most diseases and health indexes on quality of water that is used by population for drinking and communal purposes. In recent years mineral content level of subterranean waters has grown up to 3700 ml/l, chlorides – up to 720 ml/l, sulphates – 440 ml/l. in 80-100% cases drinking water in the villages does not comply with the national standards of ‘Drinking Water’ in bacterial pollution rates. High level of intestinal infection diseases is witnessed in the region where they in most cases depend on health, sanitary culture and personal and public hygiene. Virus hepatitis cases in the region is very high and is at the level of 793,4 cases from 100,000, of whom 98% are children.

In cases shown above it is not perceived to be possible to refer to them through application of cost indexes, taken by application of market prices to physical influences on the environment. In this case it may be useful to apply the so-called Subjective price appreciation method (SPAM). SPAM is a type of market research where the good (object of research) is environmental change.

In application of SPAM respondents are asked questions about prices they would hold to environmental change. In the given test one of the questions asked to the population of Kazalinsk and Aralsk rayons was of the following type: ‘If you were guaranteed quality and normal volume of water supply, would you agree to pay for this improvement? If – yes, then how much?’

All respondents are ready to pay more for quality and sufficient volumes of water, however RP is increasing mostly for the reasons of public income levels increase, existence of a farm and number of family members. Taking into account that similar tests have already been held and there is international and experience in Kazakhstan it is possible to suggest that average additional RP of population for quality water is about 0,7 dollars a month per family.

There are 1100 people leaving in the village, of whom 748 are grown-ups or 210 families. Additional payment for quality water we will calculate for 210 families. Annually this will be 210*0,7*12 = 1764 USD (according to statistical data in recent years population numbers in rural areas of Kyzylorda region is not changing)

Karateren village

People are getting water in sufficient distance from place of living. Positive moment – is sufficient volume of water that satisfies drinking and communal needs of the population.

Preliminary disinfected in a chloral apparatus water supply would remarkably decrease infection and intestine diseases

Data of the healthcare committee of Aralsk rayon show increase in number of digestive diseases: in 1998 there were 4242 cases registered, in 2000 – 5441. The analysis of results of deep clinic and laboratory research of children revealed clinical picture that is prominent with a number of features: slow down of physical development, striking of most organs and systems. Some diseases abnormal for a given age are revealed, i.e. children of 6-7 years of age are sick with urinary stone diseases, chronic deformation bronchitis and etc.

Similarly to Bozkol village it is not considered to be possible to evaluate benefits for human health in cost terms because of lack of data. However it is possible to use the same SPAM method that makes it possible to evaluate the welfare of normal drinking water.


There are 1456 people living in the village, or 240 families. Additional payment for drinking water we will evaluate for 240 families that makes it 240*0,7*12= 2016 USD annually (according to statistical data in recent years population numbers in rural areas of Kyzylorda region is not changing)


Project implementation fully satisfies the water supply for communal needs of the population.

Three artesian wells from 200 to 400 m. in depth, mining wells and channel waters are the sources of drinking water for the population of Zhankozha Batyr village. Drinking water sources test has shown that water saltiness in the artesian wells ranges from 2 to 4,0 g/l. Channel water saltiness is from 1,2 to 2,0 g/l and more. Basic source of drinking water for most of the population is water from the channels that does not comply with sanitary and bacteriological norms. National standard for drinking water in saltiness is from 0,5 to 1,0 g/l. The only eligible water source is Bazarbai mining well. Filtrated waters feed it from Atsoigan channel waters that pass by in nearby. The well is situated in the southern part of the village; it is 7 m in depth and its saltiness ranges from 0,8 to 1,2 g/l. Water output (debit) from the well is not more that 1,0 -1,5 cubic m per day that satisfies only 10% of population requirements. Water in other wells in the village is salty and does not comply with the norms for they situate far from the channel. One of the options of drinking water supply is bringing the channel to the village. In this case filtered water will appear the existing wells and will meet the needs of population in water consumption.

People’s RP for additional quantity of water and improved quality will become benefit of this activity in cost terms.

There are 1687 people in 289 families. Additional payment for quality water we will evaluate for 289 families that will make it 289*0,7*12= 2427,6 USD (according to statistical data in recent years population numbers in rural areas of Kyzylorda region is not changing)

Agricultural production

Bozkol village

Increasing square and products of agricultural farms

Gardens and бахчи, hec Total,

hec

Crop capacity, tons/hec Gross harvest, tons/hec

Existing Projected Existing Projected Existing Projected

25 85 110 11,0 13,0 275 1105

Increase of pasturelands

Pastures, hec

Tota

l, he

c Increase of square, %

Productivity of forage, tons/hec.

Total productivity, tons/ year. Increase of

forage, %Existing Projected Existing Projected Existing Projected

120 70 190 27 0,7 1,0 84,0 70,0 45,5

Recovering haymaking lands

Haymaking, hec

Tota

l, he

c

Increase of square, %

Crop capacity haymaking, tons/hec.

Total gross harvest,

tons/ year. Increase of forage, %


0 60 60 100 0 0,8 0 48,0 100

Product title Existing, tons/year

Projected tons/year

Price per ton,

(rural data)

Product sales benefit

(thousand tenge)



(except allocation) (projected)

(thousand tenge)

Бахчевые культуры

275 1105 5000 825 3315Forage 84 70 1500 75.6 63Haymaking 0 48 1300 0 37Total 3415

Tushebas lake system.

Product title Existing, tons/year

Projected tons/year

Price per ton,

(rural data)


(thousand tenge)

(except allocation)

Product sales benefit (projected)

(thousand tenge)

Difference of sales benefits (thousand tenge)

Haymaking - 1000 1300 - 1300 1300


Productivity of reed haymaking

Haymaking, hec Total, hec


Crop capacity of haymaking, tons/hec.

Total gross harvest,

tons/year. Increase of forage, %


0 30 30 100 0 3,0 0 90,0 100

Increase of pasture lands up to 150 hec.

Pasturelands, hec Total, hec


Productivity of forage, tons/hec.

Total productivity, tons/ year.

Increase of

forage, %Existing Projected Existing Projected Existing Projected

0 150 150 100 0 1,0 0 150,0 100

Product title

Existing tons/year

Projected tons/year

Price per ton

Existing goods productivity

(thousand tenge)

Projected goods productivity (thousand tenge)

(including expenditure costs)

Project implementation benefits

(thousand tenge)

Haymaking

0 90 1300

4000

0 70 70

Forage 0 150 1500

8000

0 225 225

Fishery

Bogen village (Tushebas lake system)

Product title Existing Projected Price per ton Projected goods Project


tons/year tons/year

(tenge/ton)

productivity (thousand tenge)

implementation benefits

(thousand tenge)

Fish caught 10 50 20000 200 1000

Water saving

Bozkol village

Water resources deficit in the Priaralye region forces wary water use. Water saving activities have been worked out taking into account special features agricultural production in the region. Analysis and selection of agrarian cultures optimal for cultivating in the conditions with shortage of water and material resources, analysis and selection of water delivery from source to consumers technology, as well as water distribution technology analysis have been made to work out further activity.

The following analysis has been done to evaluate the potential benefits of water-saving technology:

- conditions of existing hydro-plants (channels, crossings, water outputs, sluice regulators) on according to field trips results;

- Evaluates of quantity of existing and future Water users and water-consumption volumes;

- Choosing the option of water distributing system with less negative influence and sustainable in water resources management.

In the leading part of Kandyaryk channel БРТП-1,5-1 (pipe diameter - 1,5 m, number of pipes – 1 unit).

As evaluated the average expenses without the regulator in the leading part are 22 million cubic m/year in average, total projected demand is 4,4 million cubic m/year, that makes it 17,6 million cubic m/year of losses. For other sluice-regulators and channels all water losses should be evaluated on the basis of instrumental measurements and calculations.

For the purposes of rational water distribution from Kandyaryk channel to the consumers БРТП-1,0 sluice regulator is set up – 1 for 10 km – to increase levels of water for gardens, the village, forest line and forest nursery. Water output is regulated by this sluice-regulator. Consumer water distribution (the village, forest line and forest nursery) is regulated by sluice-regulator БРТП-1,0-1 at Bilim leading channel.

Water regulating machinery input saves 18 million cubic m/year.

Through water capacity term we will try to evaluate benefits of water saving technology use.

18 million cubic m/year enables additional cultivation of 1700 hec of haymaking fields, that will create conditions for additional 1370 tons of hay and 1784 thousand tenge of benefits.


Water savings as a result of water regulating machinery use is 18 million cubic m/year, that as well as in the Bozkol village case supposedly could be presented as 1784 thousand tenge in cost terms.


Summary of benefits

Table… Bozkol village project summary of benefits

Population Agriculture Watersaving TotalUnits $ $ $ $

2000 -2001 -2002 1764,00 23000 12136 369002003 1799,29 23460,00 12378,72 376382004 1834,56 23920,00 12621,44 383762005 1871.60 24403,00 12876,30 391512006 1908,64 24886,00 13131,15 399262007 1947,46 25392,00 13398,14 407382008 1986,26 25898,00 13665,14 415492009 2026,83 26427,00 13944,26 423982010 2067,40 26956,00 14223,39 43247Total 17206,04 224342 118374 359923

Table … Tushebas lake system project summary of benefits

Agriculture Fishery TotalUnit $ $ $2000 - - -2001 - - -2002 8843 6802 156452003 9020 6938,04 15957,92004 9197 7074,08 16270,82005 9382 7216,922 16599,352006 9568 7359,764 16927,892007 9763 7509,408 17272,082008 9957 7659,052 17616,272009 10161 7815,498 17976,112010 10364 7971,944 18335,94Total 86255 66346 152601,3

Table … Karateren village project summary of benefits

Population TotalUnit $ $2000 - -2001 - -2002 2016 20162003 2056,32 2056,322004 2096,64 2096,642005 2138,98 2138,982006 2181,31 2181,312007 2225,66 2225,662008 2270,02 2270,022009 2316,38 2316,382010 2362,75 2362,75Total 19664,06 19664,06


Table… Zhankozha Batyr village project summary of benefits

Population Agriculture Watersaving TotalUnit $ $ $ $2000 - - - -2001 2427 2006 12136 165692002 2476 2046 12378 169002003 2524 2086 12621 172312004 2575 2128 12876 175792005 2626 2170 13131 179272006 2680 2214 13398 182922007 2733 2258 13665 186562008 2789 2304 13944 190372009 2845 2351 14223 194192010 2900 2397 14502 19799Total 26579 21963 132877 181419

Comparison of costs and benefits

The last step in the analysis of Costs and Benefits is the comparison of costs and benefits

Correlation of costs and benefits (CCB) is the index of socio-economic potential of project realisation. It is suggested that all relative influences are taken into account, then a project is considered to be socio-economically cost-effective if benefits exceed costs. In this case CCB should be less that one.

CCB = Over-Spending (ЧПЗ) / Over-benefit (ЧПВ) < 1 or (ЧПВ > ЧПЗ) à Work on a project

CCB = ЧПЗ / ЧПВ > 1 or (ЧПВ < ЧПЗ) à Abandon a project

Where ЧПВ – all benefits of all period of time (quoted values) and ЧПЗ – all costs of all period of time (quoted values).

Bozkol village Tushebas Karateren Zhankozha Batyr

All benefits of all period of time

342716 152601 19664 181419

All costs of all period of time

30790 10498 16109 18544

Socio-economic potential

< 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Conclusion

CBA has shown itself as and effective and useful instrument in the analysis of different activities under consideration in terms of supply and demand for water. At the same time, lack of reliable data parallel to the need to provide quantitative and monetary expression of the basic influences of the activities, made us come with quite compromising and non-synonymous suggestions. For this reason current results should be regarded as approximate, and not as complete and of authority if the case is referred to water sector investment decision-making.

Readiness to pay for a more reliable and secure water supply: central objective of the questionnaire was the use of probability evaluation method (PEM) to evaluate RP for quantitative and/or qualitative change of ecological goods, or in other words of water. Hypothetical change is described in the questionnaire and direct question is asked to a respondent about how much he/she is ready to pay for such change. These evaluation questions are supplemented with questions about socio-economic features and corresponding relations and preferences of the discussed good. Such information was used to define evaluation function that ‘explains’ RP as the outcome of these variables. Evaluation function can be used to confirm the results (i.e. to check whether RP is positively related to income, as theory predicts) and for correction of average RP in case of clear tendency in answers (for example, in case of inadequately high representation of high income groups).

In reality however it is more possible that each projects expertise gives mixed results where some influences are expressed in monetary units while others are represented qualitatively. In these cases CCB should not be the only criteria of choice.


ANNEX 5. Methodology to assess sustainability

Many methodologies have been suggested to assess the progress towards sustainability since the Rio Summit in 1992 (for an overview see the materials of the 9 th session of UNCSD, April 2001). The notion of sustainability, as suggested by the United Nations’ Commission for Environment and Development refers to a socio-environmental concept. It has proven widely attractive for its attempt to harmonize two principles formerly regarded as antagonistic – environmental protection on the one hand and social-economic development on the other. It foreshadows a kind of economic development that secures a dignified life for all people, without over-burdening ecological systems by reconciling technical, social and environmental systems.

In reality, causal linkages between poverty and the environment are often poorly understood, very complex and context-specific, and in many areas the majority of environmental damage is caused by the non-poor, by commercial companies or by state agencies. It is beyond doubt, however, that degradation of the environment significantly reduces output and opportunities for economic growth and development –through the depletion of natural resources, soil erosion and salinization, water and air pollution etc.–, and that people who live in poverty are often disproportionately affected.

Both the techno-sphere and the eco-sphere are non-linear complex systems - the former viable only as a “parasite” to the latter. It is therefore not trivial to ask what practical and directionally safe criteria may apply in order to enable the Earth to remain in a balance. One way of doing so is to use the Human Development Index approach applied by UNDP in order to assess sustainability in socio-economic dimensions. Another one is to apply the set of sustainability indicators developed by UN Commission for Sustainable Development (UNCSD). The author prefers, however, to use a sustainability concept such as the Environmental Space, which permits to derive directionally secure and socially acceptable targets for the consumption of specific environmental commodities and, thus, is applicable for use in the socio-environmental-economic plane of the Sustainability Prism (see Figure 1). Environmental Space concept is officially approved by some states (like Denmark and Netherlands) and is included by the UN Commission for Sustainable Development in the list of possible methodologies to assess sustainability. For the description of methodology see also Spangenberg, J.H. (Ed.) 1995, Towards Sustainable Europe, A Study from the Wuppertal Institute for Friends of the Earth Europe, Luton/Brussel.

Figure 1: Sustainable Development needs to integrate four dimensions

Environmental Space is a normative concept with a biophysical as well as a socio-economic/developmental dimension. Biophysically, Environmental Space is determined by the carrying capacity of the ecosphere’s bio-geological systems. The social dimension of Environmental Space is reflected in the "global fair shares approach" (the "equity principle") derived from the definition of sustainable development. It assigns to all living people a moral right to achieve a comparable level of


resource use, and to future generations a right to a functionally equivalent supply (inter- and intra-generational distributional justice of utilities, compare with the definitions of sustainable development). The developmental aspect is taken into account by recommending a minimum level of resource availability that permits a dignified life in the respective society. Obviously, this criterion has to be quantified on the regional level, based on tradition, culture, affluence etc. In many countries, poverty exists not only due to a lack of national wealth creation, but also due to the non-equitable distribution of income and thus non-equitable access to resources in that country. Thus besides the average societal affluence in terms of GDP/capita, the income distribution is decisive whether or not a significant share of the population lives below the minimum resource access required for a dignified life. For many poor countries, this minimum is only surpassed by a wealthy few and the true poverty is pervasive. As poverty is considered inherently unsustainable (one of the main normative elements of the Environmental Space concept), widespread penetration of the lower bound of environmental space (social unsustainability) is considered as unacceptable situation as a general overshoot in resource consumption (environmental unsustainability). Below a certain level of resource availability (on the basis of given technology) no sustainable lifestyle can be maintained. In this respect, distributional justice is an essential element of sustainable development.

Figure 2: Environmental Space as a sustainability measure

Since the maximum permissible resource flow can never be precisely determined, the political application of science-based concepts like the Environmental Space must necessarily take into account the precautionary principle as a means to positively implement the concept of sustainable development. Thus, in order to err on the safe side, the biophysical resource flows should have the smallest-feasible volume, well clear off all known damage thresholds. Safeguarding the capacity of the environmental functions of the biogeosphere to support human economic activities is a normative concept. The maximum permissible damage and the level of precaution chosen, however, are political decisions based on pragmatic concerns (sensitivity of the public, political majorities, cost and efforts involved), rather than on normative grounds. They have to take into account the need to balance all four dimensions of (sustainable) development, i.e. social, economic, institutional and environmental needs and constraints (see Figure 1). This means that as a result of a political process decision-makers will be called upon to steer the economy not by scratching the crash barriers, but by staying clear of them, keeping the economy in the middle of the road towards sustainability. Environmental Space estimates provide two such crash barriers.

The available Environmental Space constitutes an opportunity space between the social minimum and the environmental maximum of resource consumption. It allows for a deliberate, non-forced decision on the preferred kind of economic and political system as well as for a change in preferences (e.g. resulting from experience with the impacts of one development path). On the other hand, Environmental Space works like a filter, limiting choices to those that can be realized in between the two “crash barriers”. Environmental Space, thus defined, is the window of opportunity between poverty and wasteful over-consumption. Within this opportunity space, sustainable economies should succeed, providing the goods


and services to meet human needs, generating enough financial surpluses to pay for investments and providing enough jobs and income to avoid social tensions. Consequently, sustainability can be defined as "living within our Environmental Space."

This presupposes the existence of proper resource-efficient technologies that permit a socially sustainable level of consumption without “scratching the environmental crash barriers”. Given the uneven distribution of resource use today, a global reduction e.g. by one-half in the use of Environmental Space translates into a reduction of physical resource consumption in affluent countries like the EU by 80 – 90%. The tenfold increase of resource productivity necessary for this behalf is significantly less than the increases in labour productivity achieved in the Western world in the 20 th century. Nonetheless it constitutes a serious challenge for redirecting the trajectories of technology development.

Despite the lower standard of living, the per capita resource consumption has been even higher in the former Soviet Union, a situation that provides significant potentials for efficiency increases in the industrial and agricultural modernization process of all post-communist countries including Central Asia. For China e.g. this implies that further economic growth should be based on productivity increases rather than on accelerated resource consumption, whereas for most African countries there is still significant room for growing resource consumption.

Figure 3: Dematerialized growth, decoupling GDP and ES consumption

a

GD P

ES u se d (1)

ES u se d (2)

ES a vai l abl e

ES u se d (3)

time

E SG D P

2075205020101990

The necessary decoupling of economic growth and Environmental Space use must not only be relative (graph 1, reduction per product/unit of GNP, overcompensated by growth), but absolute (graph 2, absolute reduction of Environmental Space use). Furthermore, to reach sustainable development, the dematerialization targets have to be reached in due time (graph 3).

Providing efficient technologies that permit implementing these reduction targets without deterioration in the standard of living cannot be a short-term task. In essence, it calls for new pattern of growth that is dematerialized and thus environmentally sustainable (see figure 3). These target figures are merely based on two explicit assumptions: that overall we are already beyond the limits of carrying-capacity, and that the equity principle of intra- and intergenerational justice is pursued.Once applied, the targets would not by themselves guarantee a dignified life for all the Earth’s citizens, but would secure the biophysical basis for such a development. In this respect they define a necessary, but not a sufficient precondition to be used for policy guidance. For this guidance to become politically effective the two basic assumptions pointed out have to be shared by decision-makers and their constituencies at large, and to be supported by the majority of the individuals and many institutions concerned.

Environmental Space as defined so far, however, is not yet operational. In order to make it a viable, science-based policy tool that easily communicates to decision-makers while appealing to society


at large, a straightforward methodology of measuring biophysical resource consumption has to be defined.

In some cases, however, the Environmental Space “crash barrier” is rather easy to define. Aral Sea crisis provides one of such opportunities.

Irrigated agriculture in Central Asia has more than 5 thousand years of history. But during the last 40 years the unsustainable use of water resources resulted in the Aral Sea crisis when almost all water that used to go to the Aral Sea was being used for irrigation. As a result the Aral Sea level had dropped by more than 15 meters and its area had shrunk by more than two times. This is shown in the graph below.

It is clear that the Environmental Space in this case (total available rivers run-off) was overused. And the income, generated by the irrigated agriculture (largely by the cotton and rice production) and received (in the best case) by the whole population, is not enough to provide the necessary means to compensate the lost access to the resources, which are the main source of living (fishery, agriculture and drinking water) for the downstream population. Moreover, as the consumption was (and largely is) near the 100% of available water resources, the ecosystem of the basin was kept near its biophysical limits where the short-term irregularities such as fluctuations of run-off could cause such disastrous consequences as droughts, conflicts over water resources, etc.


ANNEX 6. List of Abbreviations

“Program” means Kaz/98/008/Kaz/99/G81 throughout the reportNGO Non-Governmental OrganizationWUA Water Users AssociationPSC Project Support CenterRC Resource CenterICLEI International Council for Local Environmental InitiativesES Environmental SpaceNPM National Project ManagerIFAS International Fund for saving the Aral SeaLAC Local Advisory CommitteeGDP Gross Domestic Product(N,I)UNV (National, International) United Nations Volunteer


ANNEX 7. Economics of WUAs: The Case of Maktaral, Southern Kazakhstan

Introduction

This paper examines the economic viability of the proposed water user associations (WUAs) in the Maktaral Region of Southern Kazakhstan. It focuses on the issues of water costs from the viewpoint of the farmers and raises questions about some of the basic assumptions that underlie both the World Bank and Asian Development Bank (ADB) loan projects. By examining the issues faced by WUAs in one district this paper provides insight to the realities of irrigated agricultural development in the country. The final section provides recommendations for addressing the issues identified in the paper.

Agriculture plays an important role in Kazakhstan. In spite of the fact that agriculture’s share of the GDP is only 11%, with over 40 percent of the population living in the rural areas, sustainable growth in this sector is key to stability in the country and the continued existence of the rural communities. All basic food items, including cereals, potatoes, vegetables, meat and dairy products are produced domestically. Furthermore, Kazakhstan continues to be a net exporter of grain (ADB, May 1998).

Given the arid conditions in most of the country, agriculture is dependent upon irrigation. Yet, in spite of the scarcity value of water, the use of irrigation systems has been very inefficient. Due to the low energy costs and zero-pricing of water, the original design of the systems did not place priority on system efficiency. It is estimated that irrigation systems in the country use 30-35% more water than irrigation systems growing similar crops in market oriented economies. In recent years irrigation system efficiency declined even further as most irrigation systems have deteriorated due to a lack of funds for maintenance and a breakdown in management.

Farm privatization and restructuring in the sector have created further problems. The rapidly increasing number of small farms has made irrigation management more complex involving financial, economic, environmental and institutional issues. State and district level water committees are facing increased difficulties in terms of water fee collection and revenue generation. The inefficient use of the irrigation systems has exacerbated local environmental problems with excessive water applications leading to water logging and soil salinity problems, as well as contributing to downstream environmental problems in the Aral and Caspian Seas.

Recognizing the basic requirement to address the need for drainage in the country, the World Bank and the Asian Development Banks have developed similar loan-supported projects in Maktaral, a cotton growing area in the southern part of Kazakhstan. The two projects propose to rehabilitate irrigation infrastructure in two areas (9,607 and 32,500 ha, respectively) and replace the vertical drains with new wells. These projects will support the Government’s policy of privatization by facilitating the transfer of management of the irrigation and drainage systems (including the drainage wells) to the project beneficiaries who are to organize WUAs. ecause of the failure of the government to properly manage and maintain the irrigation and drainage systems, and the difficulties faced by the government to deliver water to the 1000's of new water users in the area, it has become clear that new institutional mechanisms need to be adopted. In Maktaral. decentralized water management starting at the secondary canal diversions, utilizing WUAs, offers an institutional mechanism that can improve both water allocation efficiency as well as ensuring equity of distribution. Farmer based WUAs are seen as a management alternative that will guarantee sustainability of the irrigation systems by providing the necessary funding for O&M of the systems as well as ensuring transparency in the use of the water fees collected from the farmers.

Maktaral

Development of the Golodnaya steppe, covering approximately one million ha of which about 88% lies in Uzbekistan and 12% in Kazakstan, began as early as 1891. However, most of the irrigation systems in the Kazakhstan portion of the Golodnaya steppe, in Maktaral, were constructed during the 1950s and 1960s. Kazakhstan’s portion of the Golodnaya steppe is 126,385 ha of which 125,881 ha can be irrigated by the Dostyk Main Canal. Administratively, the entire part of Kazakhstan’s Golodnaya steppe is located in the Maktaral Raion (District).

In the Soviet economic system, most of Central Asia was assigned to be a provider of raw materials–primarily agricultural produce and minerals–to the industrial heartlands in the Slavic republics (Russia, Ukraine and Belarus). In order to increase the agricultural production in the region, from the 1940s on irrigated area expanded rapidly. Under the virgin lands campaign in the mid-1950s vast stretches of land in northern and central Kazakhstan were converted to agriculture. These were followed by the substantial expansion of irrigated area for cotton and rice production in Uzbekistan and southern Kazakhstan, including Maktaral.


Irrigation systems in Maktaral draw water from the Dostyk Canal, an unlined earth channel that diverts water from the Syr Darya at the Farkhadskaya Hydroelectric Complex located in Uzbekistan. The canal has a capacity at the head of 230 m3/second and is 113 km long–73 km in Uzbekistan and 40 km in Kazakhstan. It serves a total area of 226,000 ha –102,000 ha in Uzbekistan and 124,000 ha in Kazakhstan–and is maintained by the Uzbekistan Government with the costs shared by the two countries. Most of the area served by the Dostyk Canal is drained by the Central Golodnaya steppe collector drain, which in the lower reaches also defines the border between Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. The collector, which is also maintained by the Uzbekistan Government, drains into the Arnassi Depression in Uzbekistan.

The former State Water Resources Committee of the Cabinet of Ministers (now the State Water Resources Committee of the MoA) in June 1995 stated that the required volume of water for Kazakhstan’s part of the Golodnaya steppe (an area of 126,300 ha) is 1286.2 million m3/year, or about 10,000 m3/ha/year. The system efficiency of the entire area is estimated at 0.64.

During the Soviet period, the Department of Irrigation Systems (UVS) delivered water from the Dostyk Canal to 31 large state farmers. These farms in turn operated their internal irrigation systems through internal irrigation brigades. As the irrigation system was only required to deliver water to large blocks of irrigated land, it did not contain a large number of control and diversion structures in the main and interfarm canals. With the breakup of the state farms and the establishment of an increasing number of smaller, private farms and cooperatives (now over 6,000), the lack of control structures is becoming more and more of a problem. These problems are further compounded by the fact that routine land leveling activities have been reduced and eliminated due to the financial conditions in the agricultural sector and deterioration of the majority of the agricultural machinery.

Topographic and hydrologic conditions in the Maktaral area require good drainage to sustain irrigated agriculture. Yet, by the 1940s the region had started to experience water logging and salinity problems that were accelerated by the rapid expansion of irrigation in the 1950s and 1960s. To try to reduce the high watertables, the first horizontal open, gravity-flow drains were installed in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Their effectiveness was limited and they failed to solve the drainage problems. To supplement these drains, vertical drainage using centrifugal pumps was started in 1969.

These proved effective and over time the government installed in excess of 810 vertical drains in the Maktaral area. However, the majority of the drains were installed by late 1970 and have now exceeded their expected life. In addition, the situation was complicated by the withdrawal during the initial years of privatization of the subsidies that paid for the O&M of the wells, including payment of the electricity bills. With non-payment of the electricity charges, the State Electric Power Company cut all power supplies to the wells. This resulted in a complete collapse of the vertical drainage system during 1993-1994. As a consequence the water table rose rapidly and soil salinity led to a 40% decline in yields, back to pre-vertical drainage levels. At present none of the wells are functioning and in fact the power lines, transformers, switch boxes and electric motors have all been removed and sold for scrap--as a result the wells are totally non-functional.

Crop Production

Maktaral Raion has a comparative advantage in irrigated cotton. The district is contiguous to Uzbekistan, which is among the top three cotton exporters in the world. These areas are suited for cotton production because of their relatively long growing seasons, dry summer climate with high solar radiation, and perennial water supply from the Syr Darya via the Dostyk Canal.

In Maktaral, cotton, alfalfa and wheat are the dominant crops. Government agricultural scientists recommend a mix of 70%, 20% and 10% of the cultivated area, respectively, but during the past decade the cropping system has evolved into a mono-culture of cotton. Cotton is now produced on more than 100,000 ha and is by far the most significant crop in the area. Although it is grown on less than 1% of the area planted to grains in Kazakhstan, during recent years it is estimated that cotton has produced 10-15% of agricultural GDP, and 5-11% of the value of agricultural exports.

Present yields are far below potential, and those achieved during the 1970s and 1980s when the vertical wells were working. Yields are constrained by water logging and salinity as well as the lack of inputs, especially fertilizers and pesticides for the increasing pest problems in the cotton fields.

Table 1 Historical Cotton Yields at Selected State Farms in Maktaral (ton/ha)


Year Nurlybaev (t/ha)

Zhana-Zhol (t/ha) Zhenis Assoc. (t/ha) Weighted Average Yield (t/ha)

1973 2.79 3.24 3.00

1974 3.00 3.84 3.39

1975 3.39 3.76 3.56

1976 3.26 4.17 2.20 3.58

1977 3.15 3.2 2.88 3.15

1978 2.82 3.78 2.48 3.21

1979 2.9 3.13 2.94 3.00

1973-1979 Avg. 3.27

1980 2.35 3.21` 3.22 2.78

1981 2.80 2.25 3.09 2.58

1982 1.70 2.25 1.75 1.94

1985 2.21 2.20 2.25 2.21

1986 3.12 3.09 2.97 3.10

1987 2.78 2.72 2.33 2.72

1988 2.22 2.70 2.50 2.45

1989 3.04 3.18 3.22 3.11

1990 2.94 3.20 3.21 3.04

1991 2.84 3.04 3.07 2.94

1992 2.39 2.51 2.17 2.40

1993 1.58 1.97 1.69 1.75

1994 1.89 2.49 2.31 2.17

1995 2.38 2.70 1.75 2.46

1996 2.01 2.16 0.56 1.88

Decline 17 yrs -32.70%

Normalized 1996 yields

2.20

Source: Harza (August 1998)Table 1 illustrates the changes in cotton yields in a selected set of state farms in the Maktaral area. As can be seen in the table, yields have gone down since discontinuing the use of the vertical drains as well as due to the breakdown of the agricultural credit and agricultural input systems. In addition, average wheat yields have declined from 2.46 t/ha in 1990 to 1.59 t/ha in 1996 while alfalfa hay yields have slipped from 9.37 t/ha in 1990 to 7.27 t/ha in 1996. Yields of maize silage, vegetables and melons have also declined as result of the failure of the vertical drains and the resulting soil salinity.

Irrigation


Based on data reported by Harza (August 1998), the monthly watering rates for the main agricultural crops in the irrigated areas of Maktaral for 1994 and 1995 are presented in Table 2.

Table 2 Monthly Watering Rates of Main Agricultural Crops in Maktaral Raion (m3/ha)

Crop Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total

1994

Cot. 36 36 315 577 1066 1310 1190 315 554 554 5953

Wht. 116 116 639 970 605 87 - 176 381 255 - 3229

Alf. 46 1063 655 939 1247 1432 1163 832 270 54 - 7701

1995

Cot. 40 40 356 651 1207 1477 1342 356 - 624 624 6712

Wht. - 75 414 628 392 57 - 115 247 165 - 2093

Alf. 34 792 488 700 930 1068 867 620 201 40 - 5740Source: Harza (August 1998)

These totals can be compared to the crop water requirements for cotton (7799 m3/ha) and grains (6401 m3/ha) based on data from IBRD (January 1996). Obviously, the monthly watering rates in the region are less than those calculated by IBRD. This can be explained by the fact that although the Maktaral area is supposed to be provided around 10,000 m3/ha of irrigation water from the Dostyk canal, they often do not receive this amount. For example, in 1998, the Department of Irrigation Systems (UVS) reported that they delivered a total of 475,703,000 m3 of water. This served a total of 85,000 ha (out of the 126,000 potential ha of irrigated land), or an average of 5597 m3/ha.

Clearly, the amount of water delivered the last few years seems to be less than the crop water requirements which would indicate that the low yields are partly due to water stress. However, this is complicated by the fact that since the vertical drains have stopped working water table levels are very high in the area. These high water tables are forcing the farmers to delay planting (for example, much of the cotton is now being planted in May instead of April as the fields are too wet to work in March and April) as well as restricting the amount of water that can actually be applied without over-watering the roots of the plants. On the other hand, the high water tables actually result in sub-irrigation as water moves upward by capillary action to the plants. This significantly reduces the amount of water that needs to be applied via surface irrigation.

Crop Economics

As indicated, the major crops in Maktaral are cotton, wheat and alfalfa. Although the government recommends a mix of these crops with about 60% of the land in cotton, in reality the current agricultural economy is dominated by cotton with no more than 20% of the land in wheat and alfalfa. This reflects the relative profitability of the crops.

Production Costs

Over the past few years production costs in Maktaral have been increasing rapidly. This indicates the impacts of the privatization of the economy and consequent removal of subsidies. Table 3 indicates the historical costs of production for cotton and wheat in the Maktaral region for 1994-1996.

Table 3 Historical Costs of Agricultural Production ($/ha)

Crop Unit 1994 1995 1996

Raw Cotton US$/ha 202.20 469.50 607.38


Wheat US$/ha 37.32 82.03 116.31Source: Harza (August 1998)

These costs can be compared to the crop production costs quoted by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the World Bank for their Maktaral projects (Table 4)

Table 4 ADB and World Bank Crop Production Costs ($/ha)

Crop Unit ADB (1997) World Bank (1997)

Raw Cotton US$/ha 408.90 445.50

Wheat US$/ha 292.60 355.40

Alfalfa US$/ha 182.90 198.20Note: These budgets assume farmers are hiring equipmentSource: ADB (November 1997) and Mott MacDonald/Temelsu (February 1998)

As can be seen, production costs for wheat (and alfalfa) have increased rapidly while production costs for cotton have actually fallen. This can probably be explained by the lack of credit and availability of inputs in the region and the consequent decline in input use (and yields) in the past two years. However, even though the costs for cotton production have declined they still are significant and in general exceed the capacity of farmers to fund from their own resources. These costs are in line with the credit advances from the local cotton gins (around $400/ha) and also agree with those reported by farmers in the region. For example, one farmer detailed his direct production costs for cotton at $332.14/ha but admitted that he used less fertilizer and pesticides than previously due to lack of credit and availability of inputs–his yields were only 1.5 tons/ha of raw cotton which confirms the lower than normal levels of inputs.

Production Yields

Over the past five years, due to disruptions in the economic system, increases in water logging and salinity, unavailability of agricultural inputs and increases in pest problems, agricultural yields have declined for almost all of the crops in the Maktaral area. Historical data from three of the former state farms in the area illustrate the declines in production (Table 5).

Table 5 Historical Gross Crop Yields from Three State Farms in Maktaral (t/ha)

Crops 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Enterprise Nurlybaev

cotton 2.94 2.84 2.39 1.58 1.89 2.38 2.01

wheat 2.28 2.37 2.57 1.90 1.88 1.70 1.20

alfalfa 9.32 7.26 6.94 9.79 9.66 7.41 10.69

Zhana-Zhol Ltd.

cotton 3.20 3.04 2.51 1.97 2.49 2.70 2.16

wheat 2.65 2.19 3.82 2.70 2.97 2.56 1.97

alfalfa 9.85 7.41 6.62 7.05 6.93 9.82 4.74

Zhenya Association

cotton 3.21 3.07 2.17 1.69 2.31 1.75 0.56

wheat 2.52 2.77 2.05 2.26 1.60 - -

alfalfa 8.18 6.63 5.85 5.54 5.17 5.21 7.0


The production figures from the three former state farms are reflected in data quoted by ADB and the World Bank. For example, the ADB (November 1997) quotes 1997 yields for cotton, wheat and alfalfa as 1.9 t/ha, 2.0 t/ha and 3.8 t/ha, respectively, while Mott MacDonald/Temelsu (February 1998) quotes 1997 yields for cotton, wheat, and alfalfa as 2.2 t/ha, 2.0 t/ha and 3.2 t/ha, respectively.

Crop Prices

Export prices for cotton in Maktaral are based on cotton prices in the Liverpool, England market. In contrast to most cotton growing areas, the low prices for cotton seed indicate that the local markets are not well established as there seems to be almost no demand for cotton seed oil and cotton seed cake in Maktaral. Without any public market outlets or farmer cooperatives, farmers must sell their cotton to the Kazakhstan Cotton Corporation or private cotton gins that are active in the Maktaral area.

Economic calculations by the ADB and World Bank were based on 1997 prices and, in the case of cotton, used Liverpool prices as the assumed price that farmers receive in Maktaral. The World Bank states, There are now no formal controls on crop production and marketing in the South-Kazakhstan Oblast (State) and foreign buyers are actively buying cotton for export to Europe and elsewhere. No problems are envisaged in the marketing of the increased production at world market prices provided cotton lint of the required quality is provided. ........ No marketing problems are anticipated either for the other crops . Since the area as a whole is a wheat deficit area any incremental production is expected to find a ready market as an import substitute.....no problems are envisaged in the disposal (sale or farm use) of the small incremental production of alfalfa (Mott MacDonald/Temelsu, February 1998). Prices used in the ADB and World Bank project appraisals are presented in Table 6.

Table 6 ADB and World Bank Project Appraisal Prices (US$)

Crops Units ADB World Bank

Cotton Lint (US$/ton) $1705 $1305

Cotton Seed1 (US$/ton) $504 $500

Wheat (US$/ton) $181 $175

Alfalfa (US$/ton) $1362 $401Liverpool c.i.f. price less transport and ginning costs and including value of raw seed2Per fodder unit

Unfortunately, since the project was appraised cotton prices in Liverpool have slipped significantly. For example, 10 September 1998 cotton lint was $1477/ton and since then it has fallen to $1224/ton by 12 November 1998. However, this is not the major problem facing farmers. Due to the fact that almost no agricultural credit is available in the Maktaral area (the Agro-Credit banks are closed), farmers are forced to sell their cotton on future contracts to the cotton gins or the Kazakhstan Cotton Corporation.

During 1998 the Kazakhstan Cotton Corporation financed over 44,000 ha of cotton in the Maktaral area. In the process they advanced up to $400/ha for production credit (the farmers normally use the credit to buy seeds, fertilizers, fuel, pesticides and agricultural chemicals from the Corporation at prices established by the Corporation). The Kazakhstan Cotton Corporation has contracted with these growers to buy their cotton at Liverpool price less 35%. Given the prices prevailing in November at harvest these ended up a price of less than $800/ton of lint ($795/ton on 10 November 1998).

With normal yields farmers still might at least breakeven at this price. However, on top of poor prices this year Maktaral has suffered from serious pest problems such that 40% of the crop has been destroyed. Combined with the increasing soil salinity problems, 1998 yields have been less than 2.0 t/ha of raw cotton or, with a conversion ratio of 32%, 0.64 t/ha of lint. As a result farmers have been unable to repay their production loans as their gross margin returns (gross returns minus cash inputs) were less than $100, before they paid taxes, water fees and VAT, as well as land payments if they were renting the land. Due to their inability to repay their loans, the Kazakhstan Cotton Corporation is charging their growers 10% additional interest to roll over their loans to next year as well as another 24% to obtain another production loan for next year. Under these circumstances farmers are unlikely to make any money on cotton during 1999 as well as during 1998.


The cotton gins are also operating in a similar fashion. For example one of the larger gins in Maktaral is providing production credit for 27,000 ha of cotton. They are purchasing the cotton from the farmers and after processing selling it to England and Switzerland. For cotton delivered in 1998 they paid the farmers $800/ton of lint with a maximum of $820/ton. Yet, these fields were attacked by pests and consequently had an average yields of 0.6 tons/ha of lint. These farmers were provided production loans by the cotton gin that they could use to buy production inputs at prices established by the gin. Due to pest damage and low yields the farmers did not make any money on cotton during 1998 and have found it difficult to pay off their loans.

These negative returns on cotton, which is by far the dominant production activity on cropped land in the Maktaral area, can be contrasted to the net returns projected by the World Bank (ranging from $544.5/ha in the first year to $1008.6 in years 5-30) and ADB ($849.20) in their appraisal documents. Admittedly, these returns were based on 1997 prices that were higher than those in 1998 but they still have to raise concerns about farmers’ future ability to repay the loan.

Actual wheat prices in Maktaral during 1998 were also much lower than those used by the two banks. While the World Bank used a price of $175/ton and the ADB used a price of $181/ton actual prices paid to farmers in Maktaral ranged from $75-90/ton for wheat. Only alfalfa hay prices seemed to be in line with prices used during appraisal as local prices during 1998 were around $47/ton which compares with $40/ton used by the World Bank. However, due to water logging and salinity and the lack of inputs, such as fertilizers, yields were very low for these commodities, as well.

Water Costs

For farmers in Maktaral, irrigation water is life, but in contrast to the situation during the Soviet period it is becoming more expensive as they are forced to pay a larger percentage of the actual costs for irrigation service.

The Department of Irrigation Systems (UVS) charges the users of irrigation water on a volumetric basis for the water delivered to their farms. For 1998 the Department of Irrigation Systems (UVS) collected tenge (tg) 70,542,364 for delivering 475,703,000 m3 or about tg 148 for 1000 m3. With an average diversion of slightly more than 5,000 m3/ha water payments were about tg 800/ha or about $10/ha (at tg 80=1 US$). In theory, once responsibility for O&M of the secondary canal passes to the WUAs, the charge for water from the Department of Irrigation Systems (UVS) could decline. However, as the rate has been increasing steadily the past few years it is unlikely that it will actually decline. In fact, in its appraisal the ADB estimated an annual water charge from the Department of Irrigation Systems (UVS) of $23/ha.

Once the WUAs are formed it is their responsibility to raise the necessary funds to support their own internal operations. In different countries, annual costs for WUA operated irrigated systems range from $20-$150/ha. For example, Coello irrigation district in Colombia that was transferred to the WUA from the government has an annual water fee of $53.86/ha (Vermillion and Garces-Restreppo, 1996), while the Bayi Irrigation District in northern China charges the WUA members $41.50/ha (Johnson, et. al, 1995) and the Firebaugh Canal Irrigation District in California in the USA charges its members an average annual fee of $137.39/ha (Michelson, et al., 1997).

As part of its project work on the World Bank project in Maktaral, Mott MacDonald/Temelsu has estimated the annual water costs it will take to sustain the WUAs on two secondary canals in the region. These costs are detailed in Table 7. As can be seen in the table, annual O&M costs for the two WUAs are estimated to be around $50/ha, including electricity charges. The ADB project appraisal document estimated the cost at $54.90, including the electricity charges, while the World Bank appraisal was higher at $69.38/ha per year plus another $27.03/ha per year for electricity charges.

Under the World Bank project, after 5 years of grace the farmers are expected to repay 70% of the value of the loan (this is approximately equal to $926/ha) as well as interest at 8%. The government is still discussing various alternatives for repayment, but in general it is expected that this will require the farmers to pay approximately $80/ha per year for 25 years (after the five year grace period). The ADB project assumes that the beneficiaries will pay 73% of the project costs back over a 25 year period after a 5 year grace period at an annual interest rate of 8%. The project is still not clear exactly how and how much is to be collected but the project documentation estimates the annual cost of drainage and irrigation investment at $170.40/ha. Seventy-three percent of this is approximately $125/ha per year.

Another cost item, is for the actual purchase of the irrigation systems from the government. This is an issue that has not been decided but if farmers are required to buy the irrigation system from the government (in contrast to signing


a contract to operate and maintain the systems with ownership remaining with the government) it will further increase the costs of water to the farmers. In the case of the World Bank Maktaral project, if farmers on K-15 are required to buy the irrigation infrastructure it has been valued at 18 million tenge ($225,000) or $48.73/ha. It has been proposed that farmers would pay this over a three year period for an annual payment of $16.24/ha.

Table 7 Estimated Annual Budgets for WUAs on Canals K-15 and K-17

Item K-17 WUA (US$) K-15 WUA (US$)

Staff 21,240 20,640

Vehicle Operating Costs 16,000 16,000

Office Expenses 10,640 10,260

Electricity Charges 94,845 118,270

Replacement of Small Machines/Equipment

18,000 15,000

Routine Maintenance 13,830 12,205

Periodic Maintenance 74,740 54,930

Total 249,295 247,755

Area (ha) 4,990 ha 4,617 ha

Total (US$/ha) $49.96 $53.66Source: Mott MacDonald/Temelsu, October 1998

Finally, it has been proposed that all users of water should pay an environmental fee to reflect the benefits lost by diverting water from natural bodies and the impacts of return water on the environment. This charge, when implemented, will be around $25-35/ha for agricultural water. Adding all these charges, based on the lower rates approximate total per hectare water costs in Maktaral will be:

Costs LowerEstimates ($/ha)

UVS water charges $10.00WUA O&M $50.00Loan Repayment Charges $86.71System Purchase $16.24Environmental Fee $25.00

Total $187.95

This water charge will decline by $16.24 after three years as the purchase of the irrigation system is completed so will be $171.71/ha per year during the life of the loan, assuming the environmental fee is actually implemented, or $146.71/ha without the environmental fee. Given the present returns from crops, it is obvious that farmers will not be financially able to pay this amount, which leaves in doubt the farmers’ ability to maintain a viable WUA as well as repay the loans.

Water Users Associations

The government recognizes that the relatively easy first phase of privatization is over. The challenge during the second phase is to establish viable farm enterprises. The second phase will require policy reform at the national level, and more importantly, the effective implementation of new policies at the state and district levels. The government’s strategy must address the physical, technical and institutional constraints that are becoming increasingly apparent. These constraints include poor developments of the institutions required in an efficient market economy, run-down and often inappropriate infrastructure, farms that have been privatized but remain burdened by old management structures and the weak (and often non-existent) rural financial system. All of these problems plague the creation and development of strong WUAs in Kazakhstan.


In Maktaral, farmers are just starting to realize that establishing a WUA means, in effect, they are forming (and funding) a small irrigation department that will be assuming all the tasks previously completed by the irrigation brigades on the state farms. Registering as a legal entity, raising funds from the members, electing a democratically selected board of representatives, recruiting and training staff, renting an office, purchasing vehicles and equipment, establishing procedures for water allocation, planning annual maintenance programs, and reacting to conflicts and emergencies are just some of the activities that WUAs must face in order to provide reliable irrigation service to their members.

In order to operate and maintain their portion of the irrigation system as well as the drains (including vertical drains) and roads, the WUAs in Kazakhstan must recruit a professional staff. Figure 1 provides a suggested staffing pattern for the WUAs to be developed under the World Bank loan project. As can be seen, this pattern has a Senior and Deputy O&M Engineer along with office staff such as an account clerk and an administrative assistant. Below the O&M engineers are three groups; pump operators to operate the vertical drains, maintenance staff, and O&M technicians that operate the irrigation system. This is a standard staffing pattern for WUAs with the number of pump operators, mechanics and gate operators depending upon the size of the service area and number of irrigation structures that must be operated and maintained.

Recent experiences with the formation of WUAs in many countries have proven that farmers can carry out these activities and establish a viable WUA. This requires that the WUAs are established under legislation that protects their rights and also provides tax exemption for the WUA. Unfortunately, the present legal options for the formation of WUAs in Kazakhstan are laws established for commercial activities and hence have legal restrictions that discriminate against farmer organized groups that are non-profit, service oriented associations. In order to have sustainable WUAs the country will have to pass legislation that addresses the unique needs of farmer groups in general, and WUAs in particular.

It has been demonstrated in a number of countries that farmers will pay for irrigation O&M and are willing to take responsibility for their irrigation system. However, it is necessary that they are earning sufficient profits to afford the additional costs. In Mexican irrigation systems where farmers were


earning good money, the WUAs expanded rapidly and are now very strong. In contrast in irrigation districts were farmers were facing financial difficulties, the WUAs also faced difficulties becoming strong and viable (Johnson, 1997). Cases such as this have occurred in WUAs in Colombia, Sri Lanka and Indonesia. Clearly, for WUAs to be effective and sustainable in Kazakhstan, the farmers have to be able to earn a reasonable living from their farm income.

Future Issues and Recommendations

A particular problem for the farmers in Maktaral, where cotton is the dominant crop, is the lack of available agricultural credit. With extremely limited financial resources on the farm, the result is that farmers are using fertilizers and pesticides at levels far below recommendations, and in many cases below threshold levels. There is also no medium-term credit for purchase of farm machinery and equipment and as a consequence there has been no replacement of the old and worn out farm machinery during the past few years.

As a result of the lack of access to credit to buy inputs, farmers are forced to sell their crops on forward contracts which guarantees they will receive a below market price for their produce and pay above market prices for their inputs. Under these circumstances, members of the WUAs are caught in a vicious circle. This is compounded further by the drainage and soil salinity problems they face in the region. Without drainage the farmers in the WUA face an increasingly hostile growing environment. Yet, with drainage but without agricultural credit and access to the proper agricultural chemicals and fertilizers, they cannot take advantage of the benefits of drainage.

The two loan projects by the World bank and the ADB are designed to improve the technical infrastructure of the irrigation system and address the drainage problem by reinstalling vertical drains. However, as stated in the loan documents, while recognizing the acute agricultural credit problems faced by farmers, the loans do not attempt to address this problem but assume that farmers can provide credit from their own resources. Unfortunately, (after a five year grace period) by requiring loan repayment (70%and 73%, respectively), the loans will actually exacerbate liquidity problems faced by farmers.

Cotton is the main cash crop in the area and cotton, whether it is produced in Kazakhstan or California, requires production credit. Therefore, in order for the WUAs to be strong and for the farmers to be able to support them as well as repay the bank loans, the government in conjunction with the private sector banks has to re-institute a viable system of agricultural credit with reasonable interest rates. This will allow the farmers to escape the grip of the cotton gins and the Kazakhstan Cotton Corporation and earn a reasonable return on their crops.

The second major issue in the region is drainage. Vertical drains work and have proven to be effective in the region, but this was under circumstances when the government paid for the installation of the wells as well as for the energy to operate them, and staff to maintain them. Drainage in Maktaral is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for productive and sustainable agriculture.

Drainage systems cannot serve just one farmer. In order to work effectively they must be installed so that they will benefit the entire region. These benefits are shared not just by the farmers but also by the merchants, cotton gins, cotton pickers, exporters and the government. Therefore, there is an argument that the costs of drainage should be spread across a wider spectrum than just the farmers. One approach would be to establish a drainage assessment district and all land in the region, including land that is used for other economic activities, would have to pay a drainage fee to keep the drainage system functioning. This type of assessment district is often found in the US as it recognizes that the other economic activities in the region are equally dependent upon the drainage system continuing to function in order for the local economy to be viable.

A third problem facing the region is that of agricultural pests, particularly those attacking the cotton crop. With a breakdown in the agricultural extension system, lack of credit and access to effective pesticides and a gradual shift toward a mono-culture of cotton, pest problems have increased dramatically. This year in excess of 40% of the cotton crop was eaten by bugs. Farmers that are able to obtain and apply viable pesticides are penalized as the fields of their neighbors that are not properly treated serve as a breeding ground and once the bugs have consumed their neighbors’ crops they then attack the treated fields.

To address this problem, it is necessary to use an integrated approach. This means that the Maktaral region has to use survey teams to identify areas where pests have reached a critical level and to spray on a systematic basis where needed and when needed. The region also needs to enforce planting dates and plow down dates to break pest cycles. And finally, the region needs to reintroduce an extensive crop breeding program to develop new varieties that have

pest resistance as well as higher yield potential. This is particularly important in Maktaral as the varieties currently being used are quite old and over time have lost some of their vigor and resistance. Strong WUAs that work together can take the lead in these activities, but they need technical assistance from specialists in crop breeding and protection.

Finally, if WUAs are going to be responsible for O&M in Maktaral, it is important that the WUAs be formed and legally registered under a legal statute that is designed for farmer member organizations. This statute must recognize that a WUA is formed by a group of farmers to provide services to the members of the WUA. It is not a profit-making association and therefore should not be expected to pay taxes on the services it provides to its members. Every entity (whether legal or physical, a joint stock company, a partnership or a producers cooperative) that receives water from the WUA should have the right to be a member with equal rights and responsibilities. The farmers are the owners of the WUA and they are the ones that should democratically elect their representatives that establish the policies under which the association is governed. Registration as a WUA needs to be a simple and straight-forward process and should not be expensive nor time consuming.

In order to have a sustainable WUA, it is imperative that the associations have access to training courses to learn how to carry out their functions. Not only do the hired staff of the WUA need access to training courses on irrigation system and drainage operation and maintenance, the members of farmer-elected Board of Representatives also need training courses in organizational and financial management. Democracy and transparency in an organization is new in Kazakhstan and training is critical in developing an understanding of the role of a farmer controlled organization and how the association can function to serve the needs of all the farmers in the association. Given that the Board of Representatives as well as the other elected members will change over time, it is important that in-service type training be available on a continuing basis. This can be provided by a local educational institute, a NGO, or a government agency. However, no matter which group provides training, to keep the WUAs sustainable, training must be affordable and accessible for the elected members of the WUAs.

References

Asian Development Bank. November 1997. RRF: KAZ 29597. Report and Recommendations of the President to the Board of Directors on Proposed Loans and a Technical Assistance Grant to the Republic of Kazakhstan for the Water Resources Management and Land Improvement Project. Manila, Philippines.

Asian Development Bank. May 1998. Agriculture Sector Profile of Kazakhstan--Policy Reforms and Sector Performance Since 1991. Forestry and Natural Resources Division, Agriculture and Social Sectors Department (East). Manila, Philippines.

Harza Engineering, Draft Report on Optimization of Naryn-Syr Darya RiverSystem Operations (Step 2), 19 August 1998.

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, “Syr Darya Control and Delta Development Project: Final Report”, January 1996 [IBRD]

Johnson, Sam H., III, Douglas Vermillion, Mark Svendsen, Wang Xinyuan, Zhang Xiying and Mao Xuesen. 1995. Institutional Management and Performance Changes in Two Irrigation Districts: Case Study from Hebei Province. In Irrigation Management Transfer: Selected Papers from the International Conference on Irrigation Management Transfer, Wuhan, China, 20-24 September 1994. International Irrigation Management Institute and Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy.

Johnson, Sam H., III. 1997. Irrigation Management Transfer in Mexico: A Strategy to Achieve Irrigation District Sustainability. Research Report #16. International Irrigation Management Institute. Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Michelsen, A.M., T. McGuckin, R.G. Taylor, and R.G. Huffaker. 1997. Emerging Price Conservation Programs in Agricultural Water Use. Invited Paper, Western Agricultural Economics Association, Annual Meeting, Reno, Nevada.

Mott MacDonald/Temelsu. February 1998. Irrigation and Darainage Improvement Project: Complex Reconstruction of Irrigated Lands in Maktaral Raion of South Kazakhstan Oblast. Maktaral Feasibility Study, Final Report. Ministry of Agriculture, Republic of Kazakhstan.

Mott MacDonald/Temelsu. October 1998. Maktaral Operation and Maintenance Plan. Almaty, Kazakhstan.

Vermillion, D.L. and C. Garcйs-Restrepo, 1996. Results of Management Turnover in Two Irrigation Districts in Colombia. Research Report #4. International Irrigation Management Institute. Colombo, Sri Lanka.


ANNEX 8. Water Resource Saving Technologies for the Pilot Projects in Aral Sea Region

(by International Consultant Mr. Kimo Karini)

UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

Water Resource Saving Technologies for the Pilot Projects in Aral Sea Region

Methodologies and Practices

Interim Report

November 2001

Kimo KariniInternational Consultant

Environmental Management and Sustainable Development, Kaz/99/G81UN - Office, AlmatyRepublic of KazakhstanFinal evaluation report “Capacity Building of Water Users for Sustainable Development in the Aral Sea Basin” by Andriy Demydenko, International Consultant, 27 December 2001 Page 86

AbbreviationsWRS Water Resource SavingsIWRM Integrated Water Resource ManagementMNREP Ministry Of Natural Resources and Environment Protection UNDP United Nation Developing ProgramIWMI International Water Management InistituteWUA Water Users AssociationPSC Project Support CentreNGO Non-Governmental OrganizationNPM National Project ManagerLCC Local Consulting CommitteeNCPM National Committee for Project ManagementO&M Operation and Maintenance

List of persons met

1. Mrs. Aida Karazhanova, Senior Program Assistance, Environment and Sustainable Development Unit

2. Mr. Igor Malkovsky, National Consultants, Hydrology Expert

Reports seen

3. Reports of 11 pilot projects, Project Design Sheet

4. Reviewing Evaluation Report of Mr. Andriy Demydenko, Consultant on Capcity 21 Pilot Projects Implementation and Development of Local Agenda21, November 2001


Contents Page

E Summary of Findings

1 Introduction

2 BackgroundExisting Set-up

3 Pilot ProjectsPresentation of Pilot Projects

3.1.1 Pilot Project in the Kyzylorda Oblast 3.1.2 Pilot Projects which meet goals of Agenda 21 3.1.3 Pilot Projects which does not meet goals of Agenda 21 3.2 WRS applications in the designated pilot projects

4 Water Savings Technologies and Methods4.1 A Basin Perspective on Water Savings4.2 How do we achieve ‘real’ water savings?4.3 The importance of improving irrigation services4.4 Ways of saving water and increasing the productivity of water

5 Case studies from Rural Areas5.1 Case Study – Pakistan5.2 Case Study – Egypt

6 Interim Report Conclusions and Recommendations6.1 Interim Conclusions6.2 Interim Recommendations

References

ANNEXES

A Draft Training Scheme for Community Water Supply

Summary of findings

This short study will review the current technical and sustainable arrangements of the proposed pilot projects and analyze a number of options to identify and recommend the most appropriate solution for the short and long term. The analysis will include provide best practices from international experiences in issues dealing with; cost-effective tools on water quality, water management, water saving technologies and effective land use in remote areas in the countries with the same environmental problems as in Aral Sea Region.

It is evident from reviewing all pilot projects that general aspects of Integrated Water Resource Management, (IWRM) are missing. IWRM is a process, which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources, in order to maximise the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems. It expresses the idea that water resources should be


managed in a holistic way, coordinating and integrating all aspects and functions of water extraction, water control and water related service delivery so as to bring sustainable and equitable benefit to those entire dependent on the resource. Therefore, it implies a concerted attempt to moderate between competing or conflicting demands by various users and stakeholders. Therefore it is a dynamic and interactive process involving consultation across sectors, a high level of communications activity, and an appropriate institutional, legal and financial framework.

In summery of findings the pilot projects outlines and provide bridges to resolve issues related to water and land use, which are listed as under: Shortage of water; Seasonality in water availability and in-flexible canal irrigation system; Inequity in water distribution; Inadequate O&M funding and poor cost recovery; Increase in water logging and salinity hazard due to poor maintenance; Excessive groundwater pumpage in certain regions and resulting in secondary salinization; Effluent disposal and related environmental issues; Absence of conducive environment required to introduce and implement water efficient irrigation techniques and

practices; Lack of private sector participation; Deteriorating institutional capacity of key water sector institutions; and Poor linkages among water, agriculture and rural development policies and strategies.

1. INTRODUCTION

The UNDP- Environmental Management and Sustainable Development Kaz/99/G81 “Capacity Building of Water Users for Sustainable Development in the Aral Sea Basin within the Aral Sea Region Development and Humanitarian Assistance Program (Kaz/98/008)”, is presently financing and planning to further support different schemes on capacity building and promoting sustainable developments in the Aral Region. As part of this study, it has been determined that a review of the present local set-up and the methodologies in water resource savings will be high lighted. The study will therefore review the current situation and analyze a number of options to identify and recommend the most appropriate know-how tools in the field’s water quality, water management, water saving technologies and effective land use in remote areas or such called less favourable environments.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 Existing Set-up

Within the last three years the local set-up in Kyzylorda Oblast was supported through creation of three PSC in Kyzylorda city and in towns Kazalinisk and Aralsk, financed by the UNDP. Fifteen new associations, co-operation with the government and the society through the LCC of the region and the NCPM in the oblast were established.

In the short-term perspective more than 15 thousand of local population including farmers and fishers those who live in the delta of the river Syrdarya, local NGO, local specialists in issues as water resources, agriculture, fishery and natural resources and also women and children - more than 1000 families were gainers from the projects( on-going).

In a long run perspective residents of the other regions of Kazakhstan will benefit from the projects, due to success of present ones. The Program Potential 21 aims following results:

The potential of the poverty alleviation will be demonstrated to other organisations and people through the benefits of the pilot projects.

Established contacts between the water consumer associations and state organisations of Kyzylorda oblast will help to improve co-operation forms, which could be extended to the national level.

The project will promote the participants and the country's involvement in order to increase their knowledge of modernised exploitation and maintenance systems of water distribution and control.


The project should increase public knowledge of costs of inefficient water consumption and promote water saving, biodiversity and environmental protection

Training, applied technologies and direct services, developed within the pilot projects will improve economic condition in the delta of the river Syrdarya.

The long-term aim is to enhance the potential of the local groups and individuals in order to provide food supply to the population, promote biodiversity in the delta of the river Syrdarya, improve health and welfare and promote sustainable development of the region.

3. Pilot Projects

3.1 Presentation of Pilot Projects

3.1.1 List of Pilot Project in the Kyzylorda Oblast

Kazalinisk Rayon

1. Remote village Development, Pilot Projects Tuktibaev and Kozhabaki 2. Development of Water User’s Potential Capacity In the Zhankozha Batyr Village3. Water Supply for Abai Village ( Sartogai site Irrigation)4. Rehabilitation of Agricultural fields in Urkendeu village5. Development of Natural-Economy System in the villages Tuktibaev and Maidakol (Phase I)6. Canal rehabilitation -reconstruction to protect forest lines in villages Maidakol and Tuktibaev.7. Improving living standard in village Bozkol (agricultural and forest plantation)- Phase I8. Improvement of water condition in the Kaukei Village to improve the natural and economic (rehabilitation of

lake Karakol and Village pastures)

Aralsk Rayon

1. Filling of Makpal Lake through new construction and cleaning of Kenes Canal 2. Rehabilitation of Tushebas Lake System (Phase I)3. Water Supply system to Karateren village.

3.1.2 Pilot Projects which meet goals of Agenda 21

It is in our understanding that all pilot projects has potential successful measures and generally reflects the acute need of the region. However, the following 5 pilot projects meet the demands and goals of Agenda 21, these pilot projects are listed as under:

1. Remote Village Development, Tuktibeav and Kozhabaki villages2. Water Supply System to Karateren Village3. Rehabilitation of Tushebas Lake system (Phase I)4. Improving living standard in village Bozkol (agricultural and forest plantation) (Phase I)5. Development off Water User’s Potential Capacity In the Zhankozha Batyr village

3.1.3 Short Description of Projects

1. Remote Village Development, Tuktibeav and Kozhabaki villages

Please refer to my pilot project report (Ref.1) and a draft training scheme (Annex 1)

2. Water Supply system to Karateren Village

This complete water supply system (pipe network and in later stage associated water treatment equipments) differentiate it self from others by its specifics and technicality. However it is necessary to under stand the vital


purpose of bring water to a village community, where 30% of the population has handmade reservoirs in their private yards for drinking water storage. The rest are constantly facing the problem of water delivery. In wintertime people use ice as a water source. The project intends to solve the problem of drinking water delivery in the Karateren Village by constructing and establishing followings:• Construction of 5 concrete reservoirs and associated sub-structures (the 10-15 m3}• Connecting reservoirs with the water pump system made of polyethylene pipes (overall length of 1870 meters)

3. Rehabilitation of Tushebas Lake (Phase I)

Activities involved for this rehabilitation project are related to repair the places where leakage appears from lake bed and sides. These demands maintain the hollows and stop sieving process. The objectives of this work are to maintain a constant level of water in the lake to be used for further development of fishery and agriculture.

From operation and risk point of view it will be difficult to find way to retain water in the lake after fillings, especially the periods of spring- autumn floods and winter droughts.

The last 10 year period the situation has worsened by the collapse of the essential infrastructure of Water Resources, and as a consequence the difficulties to maintain hydro-geological constructions in working conditions. The present situation is lake of water management, water control and demand from-to lake and villages.

4. Improving living standard in village Bozkol (agricultural and forest plantation) (Phase I)

In this project the strongest part is afforestration. At present there is fruit trees' park existing established in soviet times. Aborigines that do not wait for the external financial assistance have started works on increasing the area of plantations for the protection from the salt and dust storms.Main drinking water sources for population are the two artesian wells and the water from the Kandyaryk Canal. The Canal satisfies 70 % of the need in the drinking water and 30% come from artesian wells when the quality of the Canal water is low. For communal purposes 70% of water is used from the wells and 30% comes from the Canal.

The following activities, reflects the necessity of the project:- Recreation of the square of the forest plantation to the previous size of 13.2 hectares (from 9 to 13.2 hectares). Retain the existing green planting by 7 hectares and extend the overall area of planting into the village to 10 hectares (by 3 hectares).- In future, the creation of forest shields along Bilim Canal with the length of 2000 (meters, width of 50 meters to the west from the village on the side where salt and dust storms come from. - Increase the length existing Bilim Canal by 1500 meters and to connect water tothe village.

- To build associated sub Canals (1100 meters) to connect the existing one to forestplantation.

- To build the extension branch of Bilim Canal (600 meter length) towards village centre in the future park zone

5. Development off Water User’s Potential Capacity in the Zhankozha Batyr village

Water resources for communal needs are surface waters: Aschikol lake (96 hectares), melioration Canals water, surface waters of the waste and drainage water from irrigation fields. There is no direct access to water consumption from Syrdarya river. The Rightbank Main Cannel (RMC) and the small Canals network of the communal unit deliver water from Kazalinsk Hydro-knot. The annual water consumption from the RMC is about 8.8 million cubic m.Drinking water supply. The drinking water source for the villagers of Zhankozha Batyr is the three artesian wells (depth of 200-400 meters), mining wells and the Canals water. Drinking water sources research have shown that saltiness level in the deep wells from ranges from 2 to 4g/l, in the Canals ranges from 1.2 to 2.0 g/1 and more.


One of solutions for water supply for communal purposes and irrigation water supply to 30% of the territory is the possibility of taking water from the Canal. But at present lack of financing, remoteness and water shortage in the Canal create additional problems.For this reason the existing Canal should be purified from silt and soil layers up to 0.6 meters, and the existing Atsoigan Canal annexed by building a 2000-meter prolongation near the village. The over all activities were to be:• Construction of Zhanabai Canal (4km length).• Construction of control devices.• Construction of cross-bridges - 2 units.• Construction of demonstration pasture - 30 hectare.

3.1.4 Pilot projects which needs to be redesigned to approach Agenda 21 demands

1. Water Supply for Abai Village ( Sartogai site Irrigation)2. Rehabilitation off Agricultural fields in Urkendeu village3. Development off Natural-Economy System in the villages Tuktibaev and Maidakol (Phase I)4. Canal rehabilitation -reconstruction to protect forest lines in villages Maidakol and Tuktibaev5. Improvement of water condition in the Kaukei Village to improve the natural and economic (rehabilitation

of lake Karakol and Village pastures)6. Filling of Makpal Lake through new construction and cleaning of Kenes Canal

In summery

All presented pilot projects represent the acute needs of the population and resource savings tools were not applied in to the projects design cycle. It is obvious that every project has its own specifics, where different resource saving used all depends on the objectives and expected outputs; however the project outputs should be able to achieve primary objectives of integrated water resource management (IWRM) that are to:

Involve all stakeholders in integrated management; Move to full cost pricing of water services; Increase public funding for research and innovation; Increase cooperation in international water basins; and Massively increase investments in water.

3.2 Water Resource Savings Applications in the Designated Pilot Projects

Saving and rational use of resources for development purposes

Reviewing the pilot projects, it is difficult to see whether the resource saving tools properly addressed. However it is understandable that the current situation is not an urgent matter from point of view of resource saving more than urgent creating an economic development mechanism to combat poverty, dissertation and provide essential of life needs to the communities in question. Water saving activity in Bozkol and Zhankozha Batyr villages has been developed with consideration for particularities of agrarian production in the region. Some of pilot projects represent a keen analysis and selection of agro-cultures optimal for cultivation in such conditions of water discrepancy and deficiency of material resources; analysis and selection of technology of water delivery to consumers, and water distribution system.

4. Water Savings Technologies and Methods

4.1 A Basin Perspective on Water Savings

For each drop of water, we should aim at increasing the value added and welfare derived from its use. In agriculture, this means promoting practices that achieve more output per unit of water consumed by agriculture. In the context of a river basin (Syrdarya Delta), this means ensuring clean water for drinking and agricultural. It means wise allocation between sectors and uses of water. It means ensuring enough water for the environment. One of the best ways to free up water for other uses is to improve the productivity of water in agriculture. With more crops from each drop, there is a need for fewer drops. In agriculture there is considerable scope remaining to increase the productivity of water. Productivity gains can be achieved from improved agricultural practices and improved water delivery services.


Irrigated agriculture has received a decreasing amount of attention from the international assistance community because of disappointing performance of irrigation systems, increasing interests in the environment, and because of the doubts about the linkage between irrigation development and poverty alleviation. But, putting productivity of water in the basin perspective, we see that it has everything to do with helping the environment and helping poor people get the most out of a limited resource. Increasing agricultural productivity of water will free up more water for

Nature, it will reduce scarcity giving more opportunities to poor, and with a poverty focus, can improve their incomes and livelihoods.

4.2 How do we achieve 'real' water savings?

Essentially, water savings means freeing up water from non-beneficial uses and providing it to another more productive use. In agriculture, we would like to increase production on existing lands, yet be able to release water for use by the environment, cities, or by more agriculture. In agriculture, it is often possible to identify means to decrease non-productive uses of water, thus releasing water for other uses. Reducing flows to sinks or non-beneficial evaporation, for example from waterlogged areas, will lead to water savings.

In highly water-stressed areas, such as the Punjab in India or Pakistan, the North China Plains, and Egypt's Nile Valley, only very aggressive water conservation practices will free up more water.

A common mistake is to justify projects on the claim of water savings. This is because project planners use a narrow point of view of efficiency at the farm or irrigation system level that ignores water recycling and re-use, phenomena that are prevalent in many systems.

The major recommendation then is to be wary of claims for water savings based only on irrigation-system or field-level studies. Only basin analysis will reveal whether water savings are really possible.

4.3 The importance of improving irrigation services

Providing reliable irrigation services is the key to improving the performance of irrigation.

Many past efforts in irrigation have focused on rehabilitation and modernization, or providing infrastructure to make sure that there is sufficient capacity to control water to provide more flexibility in supply for farmers. We feel that in many poorly performing irrigation systems (Aral Sea region), providing a stable, predictable water environment is a first priority, far above providing the capacity for flexible services.

This may initially translate into relatively simple operating procedures and structures. When communities get irrigation water under control, the next payoff will come in terms of the demand and implementation of more flexible systems.

4.4 Ways of saving water and increasing the productivity of water

1. Increasing the productivity per unit of water consumed

2. Changing crop varieties to new crop varieties that can provide increased yields for each unit of water consumed, or the same yields with fewer units of water consumed.

3. Crop substitution—by switching from high- to less-water-consuming crops, or switching to crops with higher economic or physical productivity per unit of water consumed.

4. Deficit, supplemental, or precision irrigation—with sufficient water control, higher productivity can be achieved using irrigation strategies that increase the returns per unit of water consumed.

5. Improved water management-to provide better timing of supplies to reduce stress at critical crop growth stages leading to increased yields or by increasing water supply reliability so farmers invest more in other agricultural inputs leading to higher output per unit of water.

6. Optimizing non-water inputs-in association with irrigation strategies that increase the yield per unit of water consumed, agronomic practices such as land preparation and fertilization can increase the return per unit of water.

Reducing non-beneficial depletion


Reducing water flows to sinks by interventions that reduce irrecoverable deep percolation and surface runoff. Minimizing salinization of return flows by minimizing flows through saline soils or through saline groundwater to reduce pollution caused by the movement of salts into recoverable irrigation return flows. Diverting polluted water to sinks to avoid the need to dilute with freshwater, saline or otherwise polluted water should be shunted directly to sinks.

Reusing return flows.

Reallocating water among uses, Reallocating water from lower- to higher-value uses reallocation will generally not result in any direct water savings, but it can dramatically increase the economic productivity of water. Because downstream commitments may change; however, reallocation of water can have serious legal, equity, and other social considerations that must be addressed.

Tapping uncommitted outflows

Improving management of existing facilities to obtain more beneficial use from existing water supplies. A number of policy, design, management, and institutional interventions may allow for an expansion of irrigated area,

increased cropping intensity, or increased yields within the service areas. Possible interventions are reducing delivery requirements by improved application efficiency, water pricing, and

improved allocation and distribution practices. Reusing return flows through gravity and pump diversions to increase irrigated area. Adding storage facilities so more water is available for release during drier periods. Storage takes many forms including reservoir impoundments, groundwater aquifers, small tanks, and ponds on farmers'

fields.

5. Case Studies

5.1 Case study 1

Irrigation water as a safe source of drinking water in Pakistan

Developing countries' efforts to supply drinking water to their rural communities have focused primarily on digging deep tube wells and installing hand-pumps to exploit bacteriological safe groundwater. But in large areas of South Asia, the Middle East and East Africa, groundwater is not an option because of high arsenic, fluoride, iron, or salt levels.

Here irrigation water is often the only water available for drinking, bathing, and washing. Options for improving drinking water quality in areas where groundwater cannot be used have received very little attention. Bridging the gap between irrigation and drinking water supply sectors, IWMI is conducting a series of studies in Pakistan, SriLanka and Morocco that examine the links between irrigation management, domestic use of irrigation water and human health. This research has highlighted the need to bridge the gap between the irrigation and drinking water supply sectors.

The potential for exploiting the health benefits of irrigation water is hindered by the lack of cooperation between drinking water providers and irrigation planners and managers. Drinking water programs are so focused on groundwater, they rarely consider irrigation water as and option. Irrigation managers base water allocation decisions on crop demands—ignoring the needs of domestic water users. A more coordinated effort could have a huge impact on child mortality and general community health.

The most recent study explored the links between the quantity and quality of water available and the incidence of diarrhoeal disease - a major contributor to childhood mortality in Africa and Asia. The research was conducted in Pakistan's Southern Punjab where brackish groundwater and very low rainfall force people to depend entirely on irrigation water to meet their basic needs.

Pakistan: Irrigation water is often the only water in the large areas of Pakistan where groundwater is too saline for human use, villagers divert Canal irrigation water into small community reservoirs-called diggis to meet their domestic needs. This water is either carried home by hand or is supplied to the household by means of PVC pipes and hand and motor pumps, for those who can afford the required equipment.

In addition to using water directly from these reservoirs, people tap small pockets of potable groundwater formed by seepage from unlined irrigation Canals and fields. In this case, the sandy soils act as a filter removing fecal contaminants.


Availability of this cleaner water depends on how much and how often irrigation water is released into the Canals. For a period of four to eight weeks, during the annual Canal closure, people must rely on water stored in the local diggi or in household storage tanks.

Several villages in the study area have piped water supply schemes, but the sand filters the schemes rely on for water treatment are completely dysfunctional due to lack of funds for maintenaince, and, in effect, villagers are being supplied with untreated irrigation water.

Quantity more important than quality for family health

The year-long IWMI study followed the drinking water quality, hygiene behaviour and health of 200 families with different levels of water availability. The study found that access to a large amount of water in the home had a greater effect on the incidence rate of diarrhoea than the quality of the water used. Among families without an in-house water connection and storage tank, the use of seepage water over surface water for drinking made no appreciable difference in the number of diarrhoea episodes suffered- even though seepage water was found to contain fewer pathogens.

The use of seepage water resulted in a significantly lower incidence of diarrhoea only in situations where people had a private water connection, a large storage facility and a toilet. In these more fortunate households, those who used seepage water had less diarhoea than those who used water directly from the diggi or Canals.

The results support the idea that the quantity of water available for drinking and domestic hygiene is more important than the quality of water.

The optimal solution: improving both quantity and quality. The research suggests that making it possible for people to pump irrigation seepage water into large storage tanks in their houses-thereby ensuring a continuous supply of water for drinking, sanitation and hygiene- would greatly reduce the incidence of diarrhoea, especially when combined with a campaign to promote better hygiene. As a second phase to this research, several pilot projects have been started to develop and test possible interventions-including chlorination of irrigation water,low-cost water storage containers and a sewerage scheme.

The focus of this case study was to highlight activities that can be implemented by the communities themselves.

5.2 Case study 2

Water Use Efficiency in Egypt

Egypt’s water management will be used as an example or case study for this course. However, it should be recognized that the most, if not all, of the implications drawn from the Egyptian case are very likely to be applicable to other river basins and other countries. Egypt’s water management system management is no better and no worse than most and its managers operate under some relatively severe political constraint. The examples are simply drawn to make points about potential improvements in water use.

Egypt’s Water System

Egypt depends on the Nile River for all but about 2 % of its water. Egypt’s annual allocation of the storage releases from the High Aswan Dam (HAD) is 55.5 billion cubic meters (bcm). Egypt is considered as a “water short” country, having a water scarcity index of slightly less than 1,000 cubic meters of fresh water per person.

For the 1996/97 water year, Egypt’s use of those waters was:Crop ET 36.5 bcmM&I 3.0 bcmEvap 2.4 bcmWeeds 0.7 bcmFayoum Outflow 0.5 bcmFresh Outfow 0.1 bcm


Drainage Outflow 12.4 bcm

A part of the drainage outflow was from the shallow aquifer associated with the Nile Basin, which has a stock of water estimated at between 5 and 6 bcm. For the moment, the flow of the River is the major focus.

The Nile Basin in Egypt is divided between Upper and Middle Egypt and the Delta. Of the approximately 7.5 million feddans (one feddan = approximately ½ hectare) of irrigated cropland in Egypt, about 80% is in the Delta. Crops are grown year-round, with major crops in the summer and winter seasons, and some cropping during the “shoulder,” or nili, season. Intercropping of vegetable crops with the major crops is common. Main summer crops are rice, corn and cotton; winter crops include wheat, berseem (annual clover), and fava beans. Year-round crops include citrus and other tree crops and sugar cane.

Water is delivered from the HAD to farmers through systems of canals and pump stations. Most farmers pump water from local canals, although some systems are gravity flow. At the local level, water is delivered on a rotation basis in most areas, depending upon the cropping requirements. Although many farmers use both surface water return flows and shallow groundwater, to date the annual water available has been adequate

with the exception of drought years in the mid-1980’s, when storage in the HAD reached critical minimums. However, rapid population growth (2.5 percent per year), increasing pollution from municipal and industrial sources, and ambitious plans to extend irrigation to up to an additional 2 to 2.5 million feddans, have begun to put a premium on intensive water management and “saving” water in the current system. Moreover, the current system of canals and pumping stations are deteriorating due to lack of maintenance.

Several alternatives have been suggested for increasing water use efficiency. However, some alternatives have been determined to be politically unacceptable, including establishing water rights or water prices.

Two major water-using crops have received special attention by the Ministries of Agriculture and Land Reclamation and Water Resources and Irrigation in Egypt: rice and sugar cane. Rice, grown primarily in the Delta (north of Cairo), requires about 25% more applied water and consumptive use per feddan compared to cotton and slightly less than double the water for maize. Sugar cane, cultivated mainly in Middle and Upper Egypt (south of Cairo), requires about 30 to 50% more applied and consumed water than the typical yearly rotation of other crops (maize and wheat, for example). In fact, the water requirements for most other crops are relatively similar, particularly when considered in the annual rotations. Current policies with regard to the two crops illustrate both the political and economic problems associated with “technical” solutions.

For sugar cane, the current program is to improve on-farm irrigation on the 300,000 feddans grown in Upper and Middle Egypt. Farmers contract to supply the cane to several government-owned sugar factories that employ significant numbers of workers and “spin off” several chemical production activities, as well as commercial sugar. Sugar is considered a “strategic commodity” in Egypt, as well, and receives significant trade protection. Agricultural and irrigation engineers estimate that applied water can be reduced from about 12,000 cubic meters to about 9,000 cubic meters per feddan through the on-farm improvements (gated pipe systems), resulting in an apparent “savings” of about 1 bcm. Moreover, the improvements are projected to increase productivity by about 20%. The financial feasibility of these systems has been examined, and it appears that the investment does generate a minimally adequate return. Thus, water productivity measures (both physical and financial) should increase. The improvements would facilitate changing to less water-consumptive crops on about 60,000 feddans (while maintaining the level of sugar production in the factories).

Hydrologically, the sugar cane production regions are in a “closed” portion of the basin. All but a very small percentage of the irrigation water applied returns to either the Nile surface flows or to the shallow groundwater system, and is available to downstream users. Some (Keller, for example) have estimated the global efficiency of the upper Nile at about 95%. Thus, reducing on-farm application rates will probably not have a large effect on water demands for the Nile Basin as a whole. Moreover, the reduction of sugar cane production, while institutionally feasible through changes in contracting, appears to be politically difficult, so that water savings appear to be questionable at least in the short run.

Egyptian rice breeders have developed several short season rice varieties, which will reduce the water application and consumption by up to 25%, while maintaining approximately the same yields as the longer season varieties. It


is estimated that these varieties, coupled with water management changes, could reduce applied water by about 2,000 cubic meters and “save” as much as 1,000 cubic meters of consumptive use per feddan. Early planting of the winter crop (principally clover) would reduce these savings somewhat. Initial tests indicated savings of about 1,200 cubic meters of applied water and 750-800 cubic meters of consumptive use. Ministry personnel estimated that the adoption of these varieties over the 1.5 million feddans of rice grown in 1998 would save 1.1 to 1.5 bcm consumptive use, and 1.8 to 3.0 bcm of applied water. Since much of the rice area is at the “end” of the Nile flows, reducing applied water also reduces losses of return flows to the sea. Clearly, these varieties contribute to decreased water use per feddan and to increased water productivity measures. However, rice has become a very attractive crop to farmers, particularly with short season varieties that permit early clover establishment. Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation personnel unofficially estimated that rice cultivation expanded to about 2 million feddans in 1999, which would have exhausted most of the calculated water savings.

Lessens Learned from this case study

One implication of these efforts is that technical solutions do offer opportunities for better water management and improved productivity, but that technical solutions can be ineffective if economic and political constraints are not taken into account.

6. Interim report conclusions and recommendations

Conclusions

Consideration should be given to prepare special Resource Saving paragraph in every pilot projects significantly in more detail than envisaged in the study in order to fast track implementation. Regardless of this all options identified should be carried through to the next stage of evaluation to provide more evidence to confirm the validity of the recommended pilots.

After discussion with, National Expert, Mr. I Malkovsky it is a general concern that the current situation of pilot projects to be seriously justified in order to fast track implementation. (Please refer to finding at the start of this interim report)

Well rehabilitation is ineffective in improving the debut of the well borehole.

Desalination units (EDU-400 ) using electro dialysis method for desalination of underground waters for drinking water, in general, justified as long as the regime of maintenance kept in tact.

Based on report of produced by Mr. Andriy Demydenko, Evaluation Report of ”Capacity Building of Water Users for Sustainable Development in the Aral Sea Basin” the existing local set-up needs to be restructured and the programme as it exists now deems to be very much in vain, in terms of expected outputs.

Draft training on water terminology attached to this report, which basically reflects Nordic Funds understanding of sustainable water related issues at the community level.

UNDP staff in the region, represented by PSC and NGO’s, whom all pilot project design cycle related, should accommodate experiences and practicality of resource savings modalities in proposed projects in order to bridge the gapes between applied approaches and produced achievements.

All the pilots presented occurs to have good engineering components for short term achievements, however little or none of components deals with resource savings

Doubtfulness of managerial capcity of PSC and NGO’s, resulted in occasional misleading information .

While the successful models from pilot projects implementations are to be replicated in other regions and to be used for the further attraction of donors, more consideration should be given to quality of basic approaches developed by NGO’s

The time has come that the governmental water and irrigation institutions to be more involved, and their input and contribution to be co-ordinated in the project design cycle

Discussions with Mr. Igor Malkovisky, have indicated that the major concerns regarding the design cycle of pilot projects and its poor quality and the low standard of driven opinions. This is exacerbated by the fact that UNDP staff in the area, represented by PCS’s and associated NGO’s are not able to bring a right modality of


their need and the their need for further training modalities in different water related issues as Water Demand Management skills, water Savings and its added value in economy, water quality etc.

An opinion expressed by Mr. Malkovisky was that he would wish to see an alternative to all pilot proposal, onto a more achievable outputs.

All pilot projects are participatory projects, managed by NGOs. Government institution should provide the framework skills of resource saving (trainings and workshops), by doing that the optimal achievements will be reached. Also, they should test innovative pilot projects before scaling up to a nationwide level. Some NGOs have purposely invested primarily in villages where people demonstrate a greater propensity for collective action or where there is less need for collective action. This is a sensible strategy for cost-effective use of limited watershed project budgets, as it the case in our pilot projects.

Recommendations

It is in our understanding that this Interim report will not offer any changes, other than raising the question of addressing best practicality of using the resource saving techniques in the proposed pilot projects. Actual changes should be done by training, workshop and case studies.

Poverty and resource degradation have worsened in these areas, Abai, Tuktibeav, Maidakol and Kaukei villages and the threat of famine is severe. Will the proposed pilot projects in these less-favoured areas stop resource degradation and for how long. It is clear that the urgent needs of villages are not resource saving, but surviving.

Training session Practices and exercises on crop water requirement, demand and supply of water, and water use

efficiency need to be developed for all pilot projects.

Objectives of the next Phase (2000-2004) plan are to have sustainable development and integrated management of water resources and use to meet the shortfall in water availability and needs. This would be achieved through a comprehensive strategy of development cum management in the light of key issues identified for the sector. The specific objectives would address the key-issues.

Sustainability of grocery production will be more dependent on rational and effective use of water resources and application of saving methods that generally are about irrigation development and arrangement, including rational use of water resources for the purposes of land farming, water supply for stock-breeding, fishery in internal basins and agrarian forest melioration (example of villages Bozkol, Zhankozha Batyr.) It is recommended the principles of this local experience to be duplicated in similar projects.

Recommendations on Operational Assessments

A detailed examination should be made for each pilot project:- Confirmation from all sides involved or beneficiary that the requested structure can operate reliably- Simplified working diagrams to be provided to enhance understanding and co-operation- Calculating crew and labour a basis for fuel consumption and storage requirements and operating costs- Requirements for maintenance- Inwards outwards water volumes to calculate actual demands and patterns- Assessment of new siding requirements at proposed eco-system (designated areas)- Examination of future requirements.


Recommendations on water harvesting for households in project area: - The special requirements of households should be specifically linked to the integrated water system. At

the moment they have been neglected.- Agriculture and the efficiency of water usage should be improved- Water systems should be considered by existing oblast institutions as wholesale market operations and

retailing should be left to NGOs and farmers’ voluntary organisations.- These are peripheral areas where knowledge and state of the art technologies are not available. A new

mechanism for technology transfer to NGOs needs to be established. - The water supplied for households is of poor quality and needs to be improved. - The key to effective water management is the ability to allocate and reallocate water equitably to

accommodate changing demands and priorities.- Water should be considered as a finite but renewable source.

Policy Issues

Policies must include short-, medium-, and long-term strategies for water harvesting, given the peculiarities and uniqueness of each area. Water-saving devices are different from water-harvesting devices, and the carrying equipment can improve water-saving abilities. A major factor for consideration by the policy-makers will be whether there is to be an integrated water system or not as it existed in the Soviet time.

Institutional Reforms in Natural Resource Management Land and water resources could be better managed by reforming outdated laws and bureaucratic procedures.

Recommendation (Risk Management)

Traditional risk management strategies have helped people manage drought risk, but they are costly and ineffective in the event of widespread, major droughts. Government employment schemes help landless people cope with drought, and crop insurance appears to have a favourable impact, but at an extremely high cost to the government. For those who do not grow insurable crops, another form of insurance is needed. It must be affordable; be accessible to all, including the poor; compensate for total income losses; be practical to implement.

Recommendation on how to improved natural resource management. There is a growing consensus that any major productivity improvements will first require improved natural resource management practices and technologies, especially for water catchment and soil fertility. These have the potential to increase yields with existing crop varieties. They will also create more favourable environments to enhance the payoff from developing improved crop varieties ( Bozkol).

Solutions to large-scale problems. Given the huge diversity in local conditions, research and development on natural resource management problems should focus on those problems that are common to a significant number of poor people, and only on those that can be scaled up from benchmark sites.

Diversification. While improved technologies for food crops for subsistence and local needs are often much needed in the poorer less-favored areas, sustained increases in per capita incomes will depend on diversification into higher-value agricultural products such as livestock and horticultural products and non farm activities such as agricultural processing.

Participatory approaches. There is a need for more participatory approaches to developing research agendas and testing new technologies if they are to be relevant and adopted, especially by the poor. Given that researchers must work on scaled-up problems to achieve impact beyond specific sites, then a research focus on representative benchmark communities can be a useful approach.

Integrated Water Resource Management

In practice very few national organisations or agencies can claim ‘integrated water resource management’. May sound good to be ‘comprehensive’, but agencies rarely have this luxury and usually concentrate on a few key functions. For example: River basin commissions in China - essentially cumbersome flood protection organisations (i.e. single purpose) with bulk of water allocation decisions made at provincial level (which is where the economic power resides).Final evaluation report “Capacity Building of Water Users for Sustainable Development in the Aral Sea Basin” by Andriy Demydenko, International Consultant, 27 December 2001 Page 100

The subject is to be addressed very intensively in Kazakhstan and its neighbouring countries, where all share the same resources.

In the absence of resource savings tools for the presented pilot projects, it is recommended that all the PCS´s staff and NGO’s have urgent need to be trained and equipped with all necessary principles pf resource savings, which differs from project to project. Resource saving tools for irrigated projects different from the agricultural and water supply ones.

References

1- Remote Village Development, Republic Of Kazakhstan, Kimo Karini - Project SupervisorFinal Report, July 22, 2001, Pilot Study on Tow Selected Boreholes In The Villages Tuktibaeva And Kozhabaki – Kazalinsk Rayon

2. UNDP-Kazakhstan, Formulation of The Programme For Environment And Sustainable Development For 2000-2004, Mission Report, Philip Tortell, Consultant. Almaty And Wellington, June 2000

3. Training workshop on ” Water Policy Analysis and Management for Agriculture for Central Asian Countries, September 10-21, 2001, Almaty Kazakhstan

4. Water Research Center, Drainage Research Institute, 1993, Drainage Water; Drainage Water Status In Nile Delta, Vol. 2, Planning Sector Water Security Project, MPWWR, Cairo Egypt.

5. GWP. 2000. to wards water security: A framework for action. Global Water Partnership. Stockholm, Sweden, 2000.

Annex 1

Remote Village Water Supply Management - Necessary Training Tools

Draft notes on issues related to further development of village water supplyAlmaty, Kimo KariniSupplement to the recommendations given in my Final Report- Pilot Study - Kazalinsk and Aralsk Rayon.

Community water management is a complex problem with all kinds of factors interacting on many different levels: supply technology, water (resource) availability, service level, community capacity, institutional environments, rules and regulation, ability to pay etc. There are many different interpretations of community water supply management. From communities providing their labour to system construction, to full community ownership of the supply system and full responsibility for its operation and maintenance.Based on these corner stones of management and the out put of the pilot project the suggested coming phase of the project should comprises activities as it described in detail in my final report.There are many discussions about important concepts related to community water supply management, such as cost recovery, demand responsiveness, gender, and poverty alleviation.

Phase 1- Why Village Community Water Associations

In the early 1980s it became clear in the water supply sector that the customary supply driven approaches to water supply were not sufficient, since too many of the projects based on this principle had proven unsustainable. A new approach rooted in wider participatory development approaches started to emerge initially based on increased community participation and later institutionalised as community management. Although its positive effects have been widely acknowledged, there are also critical voices, concerned particularly with the extra time and money that the approach entails, and the widespread failure to scale up community managed projects.

For instance: an important part of a sustainable water supply service is the recovery of operation and maintenance costs. For that a community needs to make rules and regulations. To create and enforce such rules and regulations a committee is needed. This committee needs to represent the whole of the community and it needs to be accountable for its actions. In addition it needs to be able to enforce its decisions, which calls for a mixture of external support and internal legitimacy. Committees have to deal with many other issues: monitoring system performance, taking (informed) decisions on extension of the system, taking (informed) decisions on the level of service, deciding how


to ensure poor people's access who can not pay the fee and so on. In addition committees often also have to deal with management of the water source and conflicts over the different uses of water.

Phase 1, Pilot Villages

The two villages in question will be chosen again (or one of the villages replaced by the chosen village from Aralsk Rayon) to implement the coming phase of the project, that basically comprises all stages referred to in the final report.10 to 20 villagers to be nominated in every village (most technically ones) and ready to be trained.The duration of training would be 2-3 weeks and it should be held in the premises of the village in question.The basic approach of this training will be to create a Centre of Excellence in the village that manages and operates all village demands of water needs (drinking, irrigation and agricultural) and (sanitation and drainage).The knowledge supplied to these village trainers would not only advocate one definition of community water supply management, but to present the diversity and dynamics of the concept and its implementation practices. The training session will as well shows, how different definitions and different applications are being used in different situations.

Before moving further, the villagers requested to clarify the status and ownership of the existing Water Works, which remains in a not functional condition since the fall of former system (FSU).This clarification will certainly, bring to the light, the most urgent issue of the new coming (to be supplied) equipment’s ownership. It is unlike matter that the villagers and the NGO will be able to operate and maintain the installed tools without assistance from the government entity of water service participation (Water agencies). Support to community managed water supplies demands special skills from Water Sector Staff at all levels. Its partners offer a range of products in this field and could be a great help in the training scheme.

Training Scheme

Training Schemes are based on participatory and adult learning methodologies. This means that participants are encouraged to play an active role in our training activities and share and build on their existing experiences. All our training activities take into account that:

all participants possess valuable knowledge and experience;

all participants have specific demands;

the most valuable aspect of a training activity is the opportunity it provides to apply and integrate ‘what has been learned’ in the working situation;

a participatory approach is more conducive to learning;

Technical Areas to be covered under the training

water terminology; water availability and sources; water engineering assessment works (water treatment cycle); essential water tests in the field; existing Water Works (purpose and functionality- case study); health and sanitation of the existing village water sources; and improvement scenarios for the following stages

Following Stages

People in communities need a range of capacities to take up such management tasks. Capacities to maintain technology, but most of all capacities to organise, to record, to keep books, to facilitate meetings, to mediate in conflicts. In short: water management is a complex mix of institutions, rules, tasks and responsibilities, and dealing with all of them at community level requires a great deal of capacity development and external support.

It clearly demonstrates the need to create support structures (Hakimat or Governmental Water agencies) for communities managing their water supplies. Such support structures should act as a safety net for communities and


involve:

a policy framework directed at supporting management of water supplies at community level, legislation and institutions to enforce the law, operating rules and guidelines,

capacities and institutions to implement systems together with communities and to support communities in times of conflicts or problems with the system,

a technological service structure (appropriate, standardised technology and spare parts supply network),

Continuous training and capacity building.

Community water management systems are often vulnerable. They can easily succumb to conflicts between different groups in the community, to financial problems, to lack of transparency and bad leadership. There is a clear and essential role for external agencies therefore to provide these support structures. To train, provide technical backup, and act as facilitators and honest brokers to a range of possible actor’s Hakimat, local government, NGOs.

What is essential is that they must be in a position to provide long-term support that continues beyond the ‘hand over’ of the system to the village community. Village community management cannot operate in a vacuum.

Further and additional training Further training needed after the system installed Target Groups

Workshops targeted at senior level staff

Training of Trainers targeted at training institutions that want to work with NGOs on country level training courses in community management of rural water supplies.

A project is likely to be most successful if it integrates technical and social components and is gender sensitive. It is our understanding this practical approach will provide state of the art on village community water supply management. Its objective is to present the development of the concept of community management of water supplies, to analyse these developments, assess the validity of the concept, and improve it for better and larger-scale use.

In Summery

Water supplies are ‘alien bodies’ within a community. Typically there are no ‘traditional’ institutions to manage modern water supply systems, it is unrealistic to assume that a community will be able to embrace an alien body overnight - it must be given time and support to develop ownership of the body, and to make it part of itself.

A crucial factor in water supplying is to increase the ability of communities to pay for water consumption. This requires a broader vision of water as not only a key element in human health, but also as a critical resource in rural livelihoods, particularly through rural (agricultural) production. In other words the economic value of water should be seen as an entry-point for securing sustainable drinking water supply.

The conducted training and workshops should focus for the way forward in community water supply management on the development of capacity at the intermediate level, to create support structures in which to embed community management. Only by doing this will it be possible to move rural water supply from a project based to a wholesale approach to water supply provision.

Kimo Karini

Almaty- August 28.2001
