http://www.unmultimedia.org/photo/guidelines.jsp River Basins and - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

IISD – GWSP Conference on the Water-Energy-Food Security Nexus May 1 – 5 2012 Amudarya River Basin Preliminary results

• f the GCI II survey

River Basins and the Water-Energy-Food Security Nexus

Report by Sina Marx (GWSP IPO)

http://www.unmultimedia.org/photo/guidelines.jsp

Largest river in Central Asia Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan source: Pamir, Hindukush (~ 7,500 m) mouth: delta in the Aral Sea (300 – 500m) length: 2540 km catchment area: 309,000 km2 annual flow: 73.6 km3

The Amudarya Basin – Catchment Overview

Soviet Union:

• energy and water resources in the region centrally planned

 Imbalance between water availability and abstraction due to command economy

The Amudarya Basin – Historical Background

Water efficiency

• Outdated irrigation techniques with high water consumption

and a high evaporation rate on the fields are still applied (e.g. water loss from the huge Karakum Canal is estimated at one to two-thirds of the total flow)

• According to UNDP Central Asia has the lowest water use

efficiency in the world

• 50% to 80% of irrigation water is lost before reaching the

fields

Water quantity

• heavy water loss (up to 40%) due to outdated irrigation canals
• population growth:

14 million (1960) 50 million (2010)

Water quality water pollution from agricultural, industrial and municipal waste- and drainage waters major pollution sources collector drainage waters from irrigated fields: about 3-4 km3 are discharged directly into the river every year  health issues

The Amudarya Basin – Water Quality and Quantity

Preliminary analysis – land use

Irrigation

• after 1990 the growth of irrigated areas decreased significantly
• no equitable access to WR and decision-making about WRM
• shift from cotton to wheat, rice etc.

 only 8% of basin’s hydropower

potential developed

 whereas almost 90% of water

used for agriculture

 Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and

Afghanistan intend to develop hydropower potential to cover growing domestic energy demand, export energy and decrease energy dependence on hydrocarbon-rich neighbours

Preliminary analysis – Hydropower

Preliminary analysis – Hydropower

• downstream riparians claim that uncoordinated and unilateral

actions may have impact on water and ecological security in the region  irrigation mode vs. energy mode  90 per cent of Turkmenistan’s and Uzbekistan’s water supply

• riginate outside their borders
• Afghanistan, where about 20% of Amu Darya’s water originate

but only around 8% are utilized, plans to develop water resources which will increase the water intake from the rivers in Afghanistan

In 1992 the heads of states created the:

• Interstate Council for the Aral Sea, which led to the establishment of the

International Fund for the Aral Sea (IFAS) and the Intergovernmental Sustainable Development Commission (ISDC)

• The Interstate Commission for Water Coordination (ICWC) with its

two River Basin Organisations for the Amu Darya and Syr Darya, plus a scientific arm called the Scientific Information Centre to support technical needs

• joint management of interstate water resources
• responsible for water allocation, monitoring, and water use

Preliminary analysis – Governance

Problems

• Previously agreed water allocation policies do not satisfy all the

stakeholders’ interests, in particular irrigation versus hydropower generation

• Afghanistan, major contributor to the Amu Darya river flow, is not part of

the legal or institutional framework  Once stability returns, Afghanistan could become a player in the basin and will need to be integrated in water negotiations and agreements

Preliminary analysis – Governance

Biodiversity and the Nexus

1989 and 2009

• disastrous effects of rapid, massive

cotton monoculture in Central Asia → Aral Sea disaster 80% turned into a desert

• 1989: sea split into 2 separate bodies
• 2009: southeastern part of the sea

virtually disappeared

• water level in South dropped by 26 m
• shoreline has receded several 100 km

Biodiversity and the Nexus

1989 and 2008

• catastrophic impacts on biodiversity,

ecosystem and human health and local economy

• historical water-food-energy-nexus

without consideration of aquatic ecosystems

Summary and Way Forward

• Political system change:

disintegration of regional water-food-energy-nexus

• current water management regime in basin rather

resistant to change despite external and internal pressures

• Way Forward
• Reform and re-empowerment of regional and

national institutions

• Regional and international fora to give room for

discussions and cooperation