challenges for the sustainable development of water consumers

CHALLENGES FOR THE SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT OF WATER CONSUMERS
ASSOCIATIONS IN UZBEKISTAN
ВЫЗОВЫ УСТОЙЧИВОГО РАЗВИТИЯ
АССОЦИАЦИЙ ВОДОПОТРЕБИТЕЛЕЙ В
УЗБЕКИСТАНЕ
Edited by:
Abdulkhakim Salokhiddinov
Azim Nazarov
Dimitrios Zikos
Robert Roßner
This publication has been funded by VolkswagenStiftung under the initiative "Between Europe and
the Orient – A Focus on Research and Higher Education in/on Central Asia and the Caucasus" and
the research project “Designing Social Institutions in Transition: Promotion of Institutional
Development for Common Pool Resources Management in Central Asia (InDeCA)”.
InDeCA Discussion Series 3/2015
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
CONTENTS
PREFACE
Dr. Dimitrios Zikos …………………………………………………………………………………………………
i
1. DEVELOPMENT OF MANAGEMENT MECHANISMS OF WATER CONSUMERS
ASSOCIATIONS
1
Mukhomedjanov A. …………………………………………………………………………………………………
2. THE PERFORMANCE OF WATER MANAGEMENT INSTITUTIONS IN CENTRAL ASIA
Kayumov A. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
7
3. WATER AND IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT
Khaitova D. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
4.
12
LAND REFORMS AND COMMON POOL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT:
A case study of Uzbekistan with focus on collective action impact
Akbarov O. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
17
5. PHYTOREMEDIATION FOR DESALINATION OF SURFACE WATER IN IRRIGATIONDRAINAGE SYSTEMS IN UZBEKISTAN
Balla D., Khamidov M., Juraev U., Suvanov B., Matyakubov J.,
Maassen S., Hamidov A. …………………………………………………………………………………………..
24
6. ДЕЙСТВЕННЫЕ ПРАВИЛА В УПРАВЛЕНИИ ОБЩЕСТВЕННЫМИ РЕСУРСАМИ В
ЦЕНТРАЛЬНОЙ АЗИИ
Касымов У., Хамидов А. …………………………………………………………………………………………
31
7. CHALLENGES FOR SUSTAINABLE LAND USE IN UZBEKISTAN: A META-ANALYSIS OF
INTERNATIONAL PUBLICATIONS APPLYING THE LAND USE FUNCTIONS FRAMEWORK
Hamidov A., Helming K., Balla D. …………………………………………………………………………….
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
40
8. SEVEN CONSTRAINTS
KYRGYZSTAN
FOR
IRRIGATION
REFORM
IMPLEMENTATION
Crewett W. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
IN
47
9. INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE IN THE KYRGYZ IRRIGATION SECTOR. A SHORT
INTRODUCTION TO THE REFORM
Crewett W. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
55
10. ЎЗБЕКИСТОНДА СУВ ХЎЖАЛИГИ СОҲАСИДАГИ ИСЛОҲОТЛАР
ВА УЛАРНИНГ ТАҲЛИЛИ
Салоҳиддинова A., Ҳамидов А. ………………………………………………………………………………
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
63
Preface
By Dr. Dimitrios Zikos
Albrecht-Daniel Thaer Institute, Division of Resource Economics, Humboldt University Berlin.
Since the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991, the management of common pool resources
(CPRs) such as irrigation systems and pasture, have undergone substantial reforms in Central
Asia (CA). As a result, new institutions and governance structures (e.g. user associations) were
created. It is striking that these reforms hardly took into account local knowledge and
experiences in regard to the management of CPRs. Instead, these policies drew on blueprint
models with little consideration for the specific Central Asian socio-political context and the
existing institutional capacities. Moreover, implementation mostly followed top-down approach,
allowing little space for the active involvement of civil society.
Research work on CPR1 management has demonstrated the need for policy design to be adapted
to local conditions in order to bring about sustainable results. In the light of these studies the
sustainability of the newly established governance structures in CA is questionable. Therefore a
review of existing institutions for CPR management and the identification of successful
examples, existing capacities and risks seems a necessary pre-condition for sustainable CPR
management.
Under this light, the research project “InDeCA-Designing Social Institutions in Transition:
Promotion of Institutional Development for Common Pool Resources Management in Central
Asia”, supported by the Volkswagen Stiftung Funding Initiative “Between Europe and the Orient
– A Focus on Research and Higher Education in/on Central Asia and the Caucasus”, aims
amongst others at communicating research findings and facilitating dialogue by linking
researchers, practitioners, resource users and educational organizations, in CA and Germany.
The research project InDeCA aims to promote institutional learning and institutional
development for the management of CPRs in CA. The specific objectives are:
1. to identify the current institutional set up and the rules-in-use for CPR management in
representative cases and produce a comprehensive up-to-date knowledge base on past
failures and success stories of institutional change;
2. to develop sustainable institutional innovations and identify those conditions under
which effective local institutions for CPR management can be crafted in a globalized
multi-level arena with particular reference to CA by means of field experiments, case
study analysis, and participatory action research;
3. to communicate research findings and facilitate policy dialogue by linking researchers,
education organizations, resource users, and policy makers.
The InDeCA project is pleased to present this publication as a Discussion Paper series with the
aim to attract contributions by academics, researchers, policy makers and practitioners on
“Challenges for the sustainable development of Water Consumers Associations (WCAs) in
1
Water Consumer Associations (WCA) will be the main institutional set up to be researched under InDeCA project in
Uzbekistan.
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
i
Uzbekistan”. The main aim is to produce a comprehensive up-to-date knowledge base on past
failures and success stories of institutional change at the on-farm irrigation management sector
of Uzbekistan. In addition to the Uzbek irrigation management, papers reflecting Kyrgyzstan’s
irrigation sector is also welcomed.
The InDeCA project is pleased to present this collection of articles in the Discussion Paper series
with the aim to advance the understanding on challenges for the sustainable management of
CPRs in Central Asia and especially in Uzbekistan. Academics, researchers, policy makers and
practitioners have contributed on exploring the “Challenges for the sustainable development of
Water Consumers Associations (WCAs) in Uzbekistan” as main focus of this publication. Thus,
InDeCA project further contributes to the development of a comprehensive up-to-date
knowledge base on past failures and success stories of institutional change at the on-farm
irrigation management sector of Uzbekistan. In addition to papers discussing the Uzbek
irrigation management, articles reflecting on Kyrgyzstan’s irrigation sector have been also
included in this volume.
Dimitrios Zikos,
Project Coordinator of InDeCA
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
ii
1. DEVELOPMENT OF MANAGEMENT
CONSUMERS ASSOCIATIONS
MECHANISMS
OF
WATER
By Mukhomedjanov A.2
BISA
Basin Irrigation System Authority
CAC
Central Asian Countries
IWRM
Integrated Water Resources Management
SIC ICWC
WCAs
Scientific Information Centre for Interstate Coordination of Water
Commission
Water Consumers Associations
WPI-PL
Water Productivity Improvement at Plot Level
Abstract
After reforming of collective farms to private farms and changes in water management structure
with newly established WCAs which have a lack of adopted mechanisms on planning and water
management caused for low efficiency of land and irrigation water use in farm level. To solve these
problems we have applied different approaches in each WCAs in Ferghana valley chosen by Water
Productivity Improvement project. As an outcome proper norms for irrigation water use was set;
the water accounting system implemented in each farm; farmers’ knowledge improved through a
system of regular monitoring and advice by two newly established key specialists in WCAs provided.
Keywords: Irrigation water management; Water productivity; Water Consumers Association
Introduction
Reforms carried out in Central Asian states on restructuring agricultural and water sectors
resulted in certain problems in water resources management, particularly for agriculture.
Fragmentation of former large collective farms (1500 to 4000 hectares) into small farms
changed conditions and requirements of water distribution and irrigation water rate among
farms was set.
Previous technique of water use planning and irrigation scheduling were based on water supply
to kolkhozes by water use services under district water management administrations. Kolkhoz
was considered as main structural unit of agricultural water use, and agreement on water supply
by the Basin Irrigation System Authority (BISA) was drawn up for it. On-farm water allocation
was made by the farm itself – by agronomist and hydro-technician, under leadership of the
Chairman of kolkhoz.
It should be noted that at present in Central Asian Countries (CAC) the system of management in
agricultural production changed virtually after the reorganization of agriculture and water
2
SIC ICWC – Scientific Information Center for International Comission for Water Cooridination
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
1
management. The private farms organized at the site of the former collective farms and state
farms. Agricultural production, supply of resources, services for mechanisms and technology,
services for the supply of irrigation water is made on a contractual basis. State organized the
credit system of financing for crops grown under the state order. Each farm has become private
enterprise as legal entity. However, a new system of agricultural production doesn’t work
successfully everywhere. The system of management and rendering of services for farmers on
irrigation water catastrophically feels lack of specialists, there is no mechanism for planning,
distribution and metering of irrigation water at the farm level. System of planning and allocation
at the farm level by the WCA is made according to the method developed for the collective farms
which had significantly higher irrigated area than existing farms. For this reason, approaches to
planning and water allocation at the level of the WCA has more random character than
systematic approach with knowledge of all the laws of development of agricultural crops and the
norms of irrigation operations.
Of course, an effective water management system could not be developed simultaneously with
the implementation of reforms in agriculture. Reorganization itself required a lot of effort and
time. There are gap in terms of organization and yet newly organized management system gives
failures - WCA. Experience of the past years after the reorganization of agriculture has shown
what spheres and the structure now require development and improvements, which structures
require the development and strengthening of management mechanisms, based on the technical,
organizational, legal, technological and economic aspects.
Based on monitoring and analysis of materials received from the farms, where several projects
acted (IWRM – Ferghana; WPI-PL) we identified needs and issues that are common to all CAC,
which affect directly or indirectly to the efficiency of irrigation water use. The objective of this
paper is to show how we developed the technological solutions for the WCA level and field level
for effective irrigation and land management.
Description of site
From 2001 up to 2012, within Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) and Water
Productivity Improvement at Plot Level (WPI-PL) projects, the SIC ICWC with financial support
of the Swiss Development and Cooperation Agency had carried out works on introduction and
implementation of the IWRM principles and improvement of water use efficiency and
productivity. Our activity mainly worked on improvement of water productivity at the farm
level. Since 2009 activity of water productivity improvement became separate project WPI-PL
till 2012. There we mainly worked within WCA and farmers to create appropriate water
management mechanism. The project covered Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan parts of
Ferghana valley. In Uzbekistan project covered four WCAs and four demonstration fields:
In Ferghana
1. Quva district, Qodirjon Azamjon WCA, Kahramon Davlat Sahovati farm;
2. Tashlak district, Komiljon Umarov WCA, Ergash ota farm;
In Andijan
3. Marhamat district, Tomchikoli WCA, Davlat Ganimat farm;
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
2
In Namangan
4. Namangan district, Kazakjon Soliev WCA, Nabijon Ota farm.
Methodology
The Project proposed to develop an effective mechanism to resolve the issues, which is based on
the effective interaction between the two levels – the WCA and the farms. Everything is based on
the work of two key WCA personnel – the agronomist and the hydraulic engineer, which every
WCA should employ. This system provides for the organizational work to establish a system of
consultation and dissemination of knowledge and technology to farmers in the WCAs and
improve the structure of the WCA and its work. Both structures form an integral unit and are
closely linked with each other and therefore the success of both structures depends on the
effectiveness of their mutual and coordinated work. The agronomist and hydraulic engineer of
the WCA are involved in scheduling irrigation for each farmer and implementing this schedule.
During the growing season, they monitor farm fields, assisted by the hydrometers (mirabs) of
withdrawals (canals of fourth order). They keep track of crop water needs, the readiness of each
field and the farmer to obtain water. On the basis of such monitoring key experts give advice and
transfer new technologies to ensure efficient use of water by each farmer taking into account the
problems or errors that are identified by the experts. These experts advise the WCA on which
farm needs water and which does not. This creates the mechanism for close interaction between
WCAs and farms. The key experts protect both farmers' interests and the interests of the WCAs
proceeding from actual needs of farmers and WCA's capacity.
Assessment of water use in a farm under Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM)
project has shown that up to 50% and more of water delivered for irrigation is lost due to
discharge from fields and percolation below the root zone (Fig. 1). Water supply to an irrigated
field exceeds needed net irrigation amount as much as 1.5–2 times.
Depth percolation; 18%
Water escape; 31%
Irrigation efficiency;
51%
Figure 1: The average index of irrigative water use efficiency at the plot farms
Through the monitoring, it is revealed that there are large discrepancies in the amount of
irrigation water actually applied and the amount of water recommended through irrigation
norms. To solve this problem, under project of WPI-PL, crop water requirements were
calculated for individual demonstration fields and farmers were advised to irrigate their cotton
fields according to the recommended rates.
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
3
Demonstration fields equipped with Evaporators (ETgage class A) to observe how much water
evaporated to control soil water budged. 95% of farmers under these WCAs are equipped with
water flow meters to measure correct water flow into the field and flow out from the field.
Results and Discussions
The proposed system of work of key specialists under WCA (agronomist and hydro-technician)
allowed disciplining functioning of a water use system at farm level; setting norms for irrigation
water use; implementing a water accounting system in each farm; improving farmers’
knowledge through a system of regular monitoring and providing advice by those two key
specialists.
Comparison of in fact requirement and water use planned under hydro-module zoning shows
that in demonstration fields only four irrigations needed instead of previously applied continues
water flow per decade based on hydro-modules. In June only two irrigations are required as
compared to three irrigations applied by farmers. Similarly in July only one irrigation is needed
as compared to three irrigations applied by farmers. In August, farmers did not need to apply
irrigation water. This shows that by adopting recommended irrigation schedules, farmers can
save considerable amount of water.
1
0,6
0,4
0,2
Irrigation norm, l/s/ha
0,8
0
3
April
1
2
3
May
1
2
3
June
1
2
July
3
1
2
3
August
infact requrement
Figure 2: Comparison of in fact requirement irrigation regime (demand based irrigation events)
and recommended under hydro-module zoning (continuous and constant flow – discharge – of
irrigation water per decade) based irrigation for cotton.
Water productivity in the pilot project sites was raised by reducing the amount of water supply
and increasing crop yields (Fig. 10). This was made possible through the examination of the
complex of irrigation and agricultural issues that are closely interrelated and interdependent.
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
4
Water productivity of cotton at demonstration site in Quva kg/m3
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Average for district
2009
2010
2011
Figure 3: Comparative evaluation of indicators of the average water productivity for the province
and the project pilot sites WPI-P, kg/m3 (cotton).
This approach allowed the project to develop recommendations that ensure the efficient use of
water and all other resources. Productivity in the project area is much higher than the average
productivity for the province.
Water supply at demonstration site in Quva (cotton) m3/ha
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Average for district
2009
2010
2011
Figure 4: Comparative evaluation of indicators of the average water supply for the province and
the project pilot sites WPI-P, m3/ha (cotton).
The comparative analysis of the mean values of total water use at pilot sites shows how much
the project managed to reduce the water delivery and how much more irrigation water can be
saved in the region.
Evaluation of effectiveness of irrigation water use and its productivity, carried out within the
project area, showed that the majority of farms in all provinces had quite good results. Farms,
thanks to the recommendations of the Project, achieved a high efficiency of irrigation water use,
taking into account soil and drainage conditions of the area and choosing correct irrigation
timing and duration.
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
5
Conclusion
Use of the efficient technology in farms allowed increasing water productivity of cotton in
project sites to 0.74-0.92 kg/m3. Analysis of the results showed that there is possibility of
improving the situation and solving the problems without special investments at the first stage.
Only using resources in required norms allows increasing yields by 20–30%, reducing volume of
irrigation water use by 35%, increasing profit by up to 50%. Within the project area in 2011, net
profit of farmers increased up to 700 $/ha in comparison with average values of within 150 $/ha
in 2002.
Timelines and necessity of such initiative aroused big interest not only of users of a lower level,
farmers, but also water-management administrations and local authorities showed their interest
and support in set-up and development of such a system. This proves the significance and
rightness of the selected way of solving the problems.
References:
Report: Monitoring results for assessment and analysis water and land productivity, within
Integrated Water Resourses Management project in Ferghana valley, Tashkent, 2002.
Report: Assessment and analysis of water and land productivity, within Integrated Water
Resourses Management project in Ferghana valley, Tashkent, 2003–2004.
Report: Dissemination of advanced technologies to improve of water productivity within
Integrated Water Resourses Management project in Ferghana valley, Tashkent, 2007.
Report: Water productivity at demonstration plots and farms within Water Productivity
Improvement on Plot Level project, Tashkent, 2008–2012.
Mokhan Reddy, Design of level-basin irrigation systems for robust performance, ICID 21st
International Congress on Irrigation and Drainage, 15–23 October 2011, Tehran, Iran.
Mokhan Reddy, Shukhrat Mukhamedjanov, Kahramon Jumabaev, Davron Eshmuratov, Analysis
of cotton water productivity in Ferghana valley of Central Asia. Journal Earth & Environmental
Sciences, Agricultural Sciences, 6 August 2012.
Sh. Mukhamedjanov, Water Productivity Improvement at Plot Level experience in Central Asia,
ICID Journal, 2013.
Sh. Mukhamedjanov, Main challenges in water management at plot level and their solutions
under the conditions of Central Asia, World Irrigation forum, 2013, Turkey, Mardin.
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
6
2. THE PERFORMANCE OF WATER MANAGEMENT INSTITUTIONS IN
CENTRAL ASIA
Kayumov A.3
Abstract
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, a conflict on sharing of regional water resources emerged
between upstream and downstream countries in Central Asia. The regional water institutions failed
so far to find a common solution for regional water allocation. This paper examines and assesses
the performance of regional water management institutions based on five aspects: specificity,
feasibility, flexibility, transparency and effectiveness in structure from “insider” perspective. It
concludes that water management institutions in Central Asia do not perform well and there is still
much to be done about institutional structure.
Keywords: Central Asia, water cooperation and conflict, institutional performance, water
management institutions, trans-boundary water resources.
Introduction
This occasional discussion paper is an attempt to find some new insights to question of why
performance of water management institutions in Central Asia is weak. In order to answer this
question, I focus on five aspects of institutional performance as suggested by Frank Marty.4
According to Marty, institutions have high performance when they are specific, feasible, flexible,
transparent and effective in structure. Though, these aspects seem to be obvious for well
performance of institutions, I assume that the linking of theory with practice can change the
existing angle of view and may bring some interesting findings regarding trans-boundary water
management in Central Asia. The objective of the article is thus to test the concept suggested by
Marty in the case of Central Asian water management institutions.
For the sake of the article, 7 regional water experts have been interviewed. The experts have
been selected according to the following criteria: first, in order to get an “insider” view from the
basin institution, expert interviews were carried out with three representatives of the Basin
Valley Organization (BVO Syrdarya). Secondly, as BVO is integrated in higher regional bodies
such as IFAS and ICWC, four representatives from SIC ICWC were interviewed.
All conducted interviews were of a semi-structure character and based on a standardized
questionnaire. The interview partners were asked first to rate from 1 to 5 (whereas 1 is the
lowest and 5 is the highest rate) the specificity, feasibility, flexibility, transparency and
effectiveness of organization. In the second step, they were requested to explain their
assessments. Due to the high sensitivity of the issue, some respondents asked for anonymity
during the interview. Therefore, the names of the respondents are not mentioned.
PhD candidate at Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg, Address: Emdener Str. 52, 10551 Berlin,
abdurasul.kayumov@gmail.com
4 Marty, F. (2001).The Management of International Rivers – Problems, Politics and Institutions, Frankfurt, Peter Lang.
3
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
7
Measuring the effectiveness of BVO Syrdarya
With respect to specificity of the BVO Syrdarya, the personnel gave a good assessment (5), as the
tasks and goals of the institution, despite some internal/external problems, are accomplished
properly. (See: Table 1) The BVO Syrdarya is dealing with distribution of water, control,
operational regulation, monitoring and reporting.
The feasibility issue is assessed relatively lower than specificity of the institution (4.3). The BVO
Syrdarya accomplishes, actually, the function of a River Basin Organization (RBO). However,
regular rights of RBO are not given to the BVO Syrdarya. This low rate is related also to the issue
of financial situation and technical equipment available for the BVO. In fact, sometimes there is a
lack of information due to delay of information provision by a Metrological Center. Currently,
this complicates the accomplishment of the given task and submission of the reports on time.
The technological equipment of the BVO is assessed to be at middle level. The problems are seen
also in some exploitation and bureaucratic issues. Nevertheless, the human resources are
evaluated excellently.
Regarding the flexibility of the institution, the BVO is assessed as very good (5). However, many
water issues in the Syrdarya basin cannot be dealt by the BVO Syrdarya due to the fact that its
authority is limited across the basin. There are three interrelated administrative coordination
units. These are Naryn-Karadaryinskiy (Andijan) Golodnostepskaya (Gulistan), VerhneChirchikskaya (Chirchik) and Charvakskaya, which is not related to the above-mentioned units
and considered as independent units. For instance, the authority of the BVO does not expand to
the main reservoirs such as Toktogul. The BVO Syrdarya does not operate in any of the key
reservoirs as well. The operation of the Naryn cascade is under the Power and Transmission
companies of Kyrgyzstan. Other major reservoirs and hydroelectric stations are mostly operated
by national energy agencies. The BVO Syrdarya makes requests to all reservoir operators for
water releases during important summer irrigation seasons. During winter months (October
through March), water releases are determined mainly according to power generation needs in
consultation with the BVO Syrdarya. Chardara Reservoir and the section of the Syrdarya from
the reservoir down to the Aral Sea that situated in Kazakhstan are under control of the Aral
Syrdarya BVO. Aral Syrdarya BVO is a Kazakh government agency operating under the
Kazakhstan Committee of Water Resources of the Ministry of Agriculture. This BVO has its head
office in Kyzyl-Orda and branch office in Shymkent. It controls the main off-takes and pumping
stations and two main collectors which discharge back into the Syrdarya.
With respect to transparency of the institution, the BVO Syrdarya reports monthly to the ICWC
and quarterly to the inquiries of water management ministries of Central Asian countries (5).
The information is partly published through the special journal “Water Reporting”. (Vodootchet)
The information on the activity of the BVO Syrdarya is also available online.
The effectiveness of the organization is also assessed relatively high (4.3). It is assumed that the
current centralized structure is effective for the current regional social environment, because
there is still a top-bottom approach on production of particular agricultural commodities such as
cotton and wheat. The effectiveness of the organization might increase when the BVO Kyzylorda
and Toktogul dam would be included into the BVO Syrdarya.
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
8
Mean
4.7
Variance
0.5
5-53
Variance
0
5. Effectiveness of
the organization
5
Mean
5-55
Variance
0
4. Transparency
5
Mean
5-55
Variance
0.5
3. Flexibility
4.3
Mean
5-53
Variance
0
Mean
5
2. Feasibility
Variance
5-55
Mean
1. Specificity
BVO Syrdarya
Rate
4.3
0.5
Table 1: Performance of Syrdarya BVO (assessed by water experts from Syrdarya BVO), Source
(own)
Measuring the effectiveness of IFAS/ICWC
The performance of the IFAS and ICWC is assessed relatively lower than the BVO Syrdarya
(3.65). There is also inconsistence among interviewees on the institutional performance of the
IFAS and ICWC (variance 0.26).
The respondents gave the highest assessment to the specificity feature of the IFAS and ICWC
(4.5). According to them, the institutions are specified well enough. A clear scope and goals of
the institutions are to be found in regional water agreements and regulations of the IFAS and
ICWC.
The feasibility feature of the IFAS and ICWC, on the other hand, is assessed lower (3.25) due to
the fact that there is a need on particular binding agreements on information exchange. The
decisions of the both organizations are recommendatory in nature. Though certain systems of
analysis on water management are developed, regular financial support is not guaranteed all the
time. There are also some external factors that hinder the accomplishment of particular tasks.
According to the interviewees, these organizations are not flexible enough (3.5). They adapt with
difficulties to the external challenges and changes. There is no such a term as “flexibility” that is
mentioned in agreements, regulations or statutes of the institutions. However, certain flexibility
is ensured through consulting mechanisms that can turn the activity of institutions towards a
particular direction. One of the interviewees found that the both institutions are not flexible at
all.
The transparency of the organization is reflected at an average (3.5). Although, according to
internal agreement of members of the ICWC, it is stated that the information is completely
accessible for the internal users, there is no access for external users. Furthermore, there is a
lack of information on energy, which is vital for complex analyses of water and energy
inconsistence as well as for extreme situations. Though, the decisions of the ICWC are published
regularly on the official website of CAWater.info, the financial situation of the IFAS (especially
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
9
financial aspects of international projects), is not announced and it is difficult to find such
information elsewhere.
Mean
3.65
Variance
0.26
4-334
Variance
0.25
5. Effectiveness
3.25
Mean
4-334
Variance
0.25
4. Transparency
3.5
Mean
4-334
Variance
0.32
3. Flexibility
3.25
Mean
4-33-3
Variance
0.25
2. Feasibility
4.5
Mean
5-54-4
Variance
Rate
Mean
1. Specificity
IFAS and ICWC
With regard to the effectiveness of the institutions, it seems that the most appropriate structure
is a centralized way of management. However, in such a centralized management system, public
participation must be taken into account as well. It is important to clarify the functions of the
structures of the IFAS, ICWC and BVO, to enhance the obligations and rights of the BVOs, scope
of activity, to create new units, for instance, basin councils, (involvement of all stakeholders) to
create a judiciary basis for joint use and coordination of transnational water resources. The
whole system should be controlled through independent controlling revision unit.
3.5
0.25
Table 2: Performance of the IFAS and ICWC (assessed by water experts from SIC ICWC), Source
(own)
Conclusion
This occasional paper submitted for InDeCa project was an attempt to explore the weak
performance of water management institutions from the “insider” perspective. It was rather
quick analyses from the initial source, which are not fallen to a greater extent of interpretation
by the author.
Based on these assessments, it can be argued that on the basis of the assessment of interviewees,
the level of effectiveness of the BVO Syrdarya is relatively high with respect to specificity,
flexibility and transparency of the BVO. Further efforts are needed in terms of feasibility and
effectiveness of the structure, which include, among others, improvement of the regular inflow
of finance and enhancement of the coordination and control rights of the BVO in the whole basin.
Also, it can be concluded that the level of effectiveness of the IFAS and ICWC is fairly high with
respect to specificity of the institutions. However, their feasibility, flexibility, transparency and
effectiveness need further significant improvements. It is also worth to mention that there is
some discrepancy between the interviewees on the evaluation of the effectiveness of the
organizations. While overall the level of effectiveness of the IFAS and ICWC may be considered
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
10
as average, this does not yet explain definitely whether these two structures have contributed to
the ineffectiveness of water management institutions in Central Asia.
References:
Marty, F. (2001). The Management of International Rivers – Problems, Politics and Institutions,
Frankfurt, Peter Lang.
Murray-Rust, H., Abdullaev, I., ul Hassan, M. and Horinkova, V. (2003). Water productivity in the
Syr-Darya river basin. Research Report 67. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water
Management Institute.
Statement of heads of water economy organizations of Central Asian Republics and Kazakhstan
adopted on 10–12 October 1991 meeting in Tashkent
http://www.icwc-aral.uz/legal_framework.htm
Statute of the Basin Water Association “Amudarya” and “Syrdarya” (1992)
http://www.icwc-aral.uz/legal_framework.htm
Statute of the Basin Water Association “Syrdarya” (1992)
http://www.icwc-aral.uz/legal_framework.htm Last access on 02.08.2013
Statute of the Interstate Commission for Water Coordination of Central Asia (2008)
http://www.icwc-aral.uz/legal_framework.htm
Statute of the Secretariat of ICWC (1993)
http://www.icwc-aral.uz/legal_framework.htm
The Agreement about the status of IFAS and its organizations (1998)
http://www.icwc-aral.uz/legal_framework.htm
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
11
3. WATER AND IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT
By Khaitova D.5
Abstract
This paper is analyzing the situation of water and irrigation management in Central Asia and tries
to offer possible solutions for current management problems. During the Soviet period water was
managed by a general scheme of distribution among the regions. After the dissolution of the Soviet
Union the newly independent Central Asia states follow their own national development strategies.
In all five Central Asian states agriculture is considered as one of the economic priority directions.
Uzbekistan has favorable climatic conditions for agriculture. This branch provides the population
with necessary products of a food security, and various industrial raw materials. The market
transformations in the agricultural sector requires a formation of certain structures, economically
interested in increasing an efficient use of resources, in more complete satisfaction of demand.
Therefore basic direction of transformations in the agricultural sector needs new organizational
forms and methods of management, which are capable to supply an increasingly effective
utilization of land, water, soil and other resources.
Keywords: Water, Sustainable agriculture, IWRM, Water consumers association
Introduction
Population of Uzbekistan reached 30 million people and it is one of the Central Asia’s political,
social, and economical important countries. Water is essential for future development of the
country, especially for agricultural sector. The recent changes in agriculture have created
dynamic environment where de-collectivization resulted formation of individual farm units. The
water management system which was meant for collective farming, both hard (irrigation
network) and soft (institutional) components became irrelevant for more individualized
agricultural production. Recently established water consumers associations (WCAs) for filling
gap on water management at the local level are facing many problems, such as chronic nonpayment of membership fees, inability to install clear water management rules (Abdullaev et al.
2008). This paper presents an analysis that how we can get sustainable result on an effective
water management free of conflicts.
After their independence, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan
have aimed and announced their own national strategies of economical development and
strengthen their national independence. Since the mid-1990s, the tendency to growth in
agriculture has appeared in all five countries.
The regional water resources are extremely unevenly distributed because of natural reasons
and the seasons create additional requirements for the water usage patterns in the five
countries. Furthermore the transformation of water flow in the water basins is another
difficulty, because of the water usage for the different purposes of agricultural irrigation on one
hand and hydro-power generation on the other hand. The increase of hydro-power production
5
IWRM (MA) Student at German-Kazakh University, Almaty, Kazakhstan
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
12
in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan does not meet the interests of agricultural irrigation in the lower
river countries – Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Thus, water soon became a matter
of conflict between the upstream and downstream countries, in particular, the unbalance of
irrigation and energy interests and the resulting uneven seasonal water consumption lead to an
escalation.
However water is a key factor for the well being and further socio-economic development in
Central Asia. All of these countries are united through the ecosystems of the often transboundary water basins. So any changes in the water use of one nation will affect the interests of
its neighboring countries. Therefore a common scheme of trans-boundary water management
for the regional water basins is necessary.
General Situation of Water Usage in Uzbekistan
During the Soviet Period, Uzbekistan became the major producer of cotton. The irrigated
agricultural area increased from about 1.3 million hectare (ha) in the 1900s, to 2.6 million
hectare in the 1950s and 4.2 million hectare in the 2000s (UNDP 2007). Agriculture always was
a very important economic sector for Uzbekistan and remained its leading role also after the
nation´s independence in 1991.
The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Uzbekistan in 2005 was an estimated 15 billion US-Dollar,
with a per capita GDP of 2,616 US-Dollar (www.statistics.uz). Agriculture accounts for 28
percent of the GDP, 44 percent of employment, and 60 percent of export revenues. Nowadays
Uzbekistan is the fourth largest cotton producer in the world. Cotton production contributes to
60 percent of export revenues, while wheat production is a key component of the nation’s food
security strategy. The Uzbek Government currently procures all of the cotton production and 50
percent of the wheat production. The WISP envisions growth in agriculture to remain stable at
4.5 to 5.0 percent through 2015. It envisions growth of the industrial sector’s contribution to
GDP to increase from 23.1 percent in 2007 to 27.2 percent in 2015.
Today Uzbekistan has a population of 30 million, with an actual annual population growth rate
of 1.9 percent. In 1980, about two million tons of cotton was produced in Uzbekistan. After
independence, the Uzbek Government made efforts to restructure the agricultural sector to
grow food security and reduce irrigation water consumption in the agricultural sector. The
policy was leading to a significant decline in cotton production by about one-third (Alfred
Diebold 2013). In 2006, agricultural irrigation accounted for 92 percent of the total water
consumption in Uzbekistan, municipalities consumed 4 percent, while the industrial sector and
others consumed 2 percent each (Fig. 1). By 2015, the percentage of water usage in the
agricultural sector is anticipated to slightly decline to 90 percent, while total consumption
among municipal water users is expected to increase to 5 percent, whereas the amount of water
usage in the industrial sector will increase to less than 1 percent. The rural domestic water
supply is also suggested to increase to less than 1 percent, and other kinds of water usage might
increase to 3 percent. The reduction of water in the agricultural sector should be achieved
through water conservation measures in irrigation. To gain these potential aims is quite
necessary, as freshwater resources in Uzbekistan are already 100 percent allocated. Thus, water
conservation, in particular in the agricultural sector – is essential to ensure sustainable water
supply and support a future economic growth (Appendix 4.).
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
13
Irrigation
92
Municipalities
Industry
Others
90
4
2
2
2006
5
1
3
2015
Figure 1: Sectoral Water Consumption in Uzbekistan 2006 and 2015.
Domestic water supply infrastructure and wastewater facilities also suffer from lack of financing
for maintenance and operation. Only 65 percent of rural populations receive water supply
although current plans are to increase this to 90 percent by 2010. Estimates of the level of
investment necessary for urban water supply from 2006 to 2010 is 1,527 million and 1,706
million US-Dollar for rural drinking water supply. The World Bank estimates that the total
investment necessary for improving water supply nationally is 5 billion US-Dollar (ADB. 2005).
Role of the Water Consumers Associations in the sustainable agriculture
Sustainable agriculture integrates three main goals – environmental health, economic
profitability, and social and economic equity (UCDAVIS 2014). The key problems for the
sustainable agriculture are ecological, social, technical and political questions. Water
management plans and practices come about through bargaining between actors with
differential access to economic, social and political power – formal and informal. Many irrigation
infrastructuries constructed in Soviet Union period. These canals are broken for the most part.
As a result, irrigation infrastructuries are not working effectively. Thus, water resources are not
used effectively in irrigation season as well. Consequently, we can see water infiltration into soil.
It is dangerous for environment. The key factor for sustainable agriculture is Water Consumers
Associations (WCAs). A water Consumers association (WCA) is a self-managing group of farmers
working together to operate and maintain their irrigation and drainage network (only interfarm or on-farm levels) in order to ensure fair and equitable water distribution and increase of
crop yields (Wegerich et al. 2012). Central Asia's experience shows that in the past, most Water
Consumers Associations (WCAs) was created on the principle of "top-down" (when the initiative
and implementation of their creation came from the top) while with conventional farmers were
not consulted and nobody put them on notice that they are members of the WCA. Many practices
showed that WCAs may solve the problem of water distribution between farmers and mirabs. In
vegetative time water distribution is become the main reason for conflict between mirabs and
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
14
farmers or farmers and farmers. Managing of water resources and its distribution is difficult
without WCAs. The practice analysis shows weak management and not good governance
structure in water sector. The best solution that we need is supporting of WCAs by donors or
some founds. For farmers WCA is the place where they can give information about efficient
water management and discuss own problems with others. Population need actually precipitate.
Then people can understand as far as important new changes for their social life. People must
understand it.
Conclusion
We use all reforms of IWRM on agricultural sector, industrial sector, domestic water supply, and
hydropower sectors. Water resources in the region are not equally distributed. Therefore
Central Asia needs a sustainable and fair water management. It is true that economy is
developing very fast and population is growing as well, and as a result, demand for water is
increasing rapidly. Nowadays sustainable natural resources management is very important in
the world. It can be seen that natural resources are limited and consumers of them are
increasing too fast. This is serious problem and solving of this problem is necessary.
IWRM is management of water, land and other natural resources. “The general principles of the
IWRM are participation, integration of the resources, institution and stakeholders for
sustainable management. To strike a balance between use of resources as a basis for the
livelihood of the world’s increasing population and the protection and conservation of the
resources to sustain its functions and characteristics (Abdullaev et al. 2012).
Water Consumers Associations (WCAs) are nonprofit organizations, the initiative to create and
management, which owned by group of water users, representing one or more hydrological
subsystems (distribution channels, representing a higher level than the elbows, along which
directly located water users / farmers), regardless of the type of farms. Under the water users,
we understand those who work directly on the ground, the individual members of the lease
agricultural and shirkats, owners of farms and dehqon farms, owners of private plots etc.
(Ferghana-IWRM.2003).
At the end of the 1990’s, the Uzbek government initiated the formation of Water Consumers
Associations (WCAs). Although WCAs in Uzbekistan were organized in a top down, hierarchical
manner, using power and resources of the state water management organizations, their
formation per se was a much needed step for stabilizing irrigation management at on farm level.
(ZAVGORODNYAYA 2006, WEGERICH. 2000).
Despite the fact that most farmers Central Asia well mastered the management of the irrigation
system on the scale of their taps, they still do not have any experience in managing distribution
of irrigation systems of higher order. In this regard, in addition to providing hands-on training
and the availability of training manuals, one sure way in shaping confidence among water users
in taking responsibility for operation and maintenance of infrastructure is the organization their
visits to the existing irrigation system, successfully managed by WCA.
WCA can help farmers to distribute equal water resources. WCA have to support by donor
investigations which they can do collective decision - making on water allocation. We need to
change governance structure of WCA. Most of WCAs are working under the old structure.
“According to the rules governing a WCA, the water has to be distributed between members on
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
15
an equal and fair basis. Hence all members should have a share of the available water resources.
This would imply the formulation of an irrigation plan, which determines who is to receive
water, and when and how much water is to be distributed to farmers. The WCA rules stipulate
that information is to be shared and that members are to be involved in the decision-making
process. However, in the WCAs visited there was no bottom-up flow of information and
therefore there was no participation in WCA decision-making. Furthermore, the actions of a
WCA manager have to be transparent for the community of farmers, with the manager
accountable to them. However, neither transparency nor accountability was observable.
Farmers lacked knowledge about the duties and rights of WCA members and their
representatives (Kai Wegerich. 2012). Most of users have not enough information about WCA.
When users know about WCA, they are also support. We need shared information and its
structure. Water Consumers Associations are very important in distribution water resources
between users.
References:
Abdullaev, I., Nurmetova, F., Abdullaeva, F. and Lamers, J.P.A. (2008) ‘Socio-technical aspects of
water management in Uzbekistan: emerging water governance issues at the grass root level’, in
M. Rahaman and O. Varis (Eds.), Central Asian Water. Helsinki University of Technology,
Helsinki, Finland: Water and Development Publications.
Abdullaev, I. (2012) Socio-technical aspects of water resources management in Central Asia.
Lambert Academic Publishing, Saarbucken.
Alfred Diebold. From the Glaciers to the Aral Sea Water unites || 2013 – Trescher.
Land improvement in Bukhara, Navoi and Kashkadarya Oblasts. ADB, 2005
UNDP. 2007.
Water: Critical Resource for Uzbekistan’s Future. United Nations.
Wegerich, K. (2000) ‘Water user associations in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan: study on conditions
for sustainable development’, Occasional Paper No. 32, Water Issues Study Group, School of
Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London.
Wegerich K., Kazbekov J., Lautze J., Platonov A., Yakubov M. (2012) From monocentric ideal to
polycentric pragmatism in the Syr Darya: searching for second best approaches. Int. J. Sustain.
Soc. 4(1/2).
Zavgorodnyaya, D. 2006. WCAs in Uzbekistan: Theory and practice. PhD Thesis, University of
Bonn, Centre for Development Research (ZEF), Bonn.
www.statistics.uz
UCDAVIS 2014. http://asi.ucdavis.edu/sarep/about-sarep/def
«ИУВР-Фергана»: iwrmf.icwc-aral.uz. 2003.
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
16
4. LAND REFORMS AND COMMON POOL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT:
A case study of Uzbekistan with focus on collective action impact
Akbarov O.6
Abstract
The focus of this research proposal is to study impact of land reforms on collective action for
drainage infrastructure management in Uzbekistan. The recent land reform has started early in
1991, taking very gradual steps on transformation of collective and state farms into smaller
individual farming units. With transformation of collective and state farms into individual farms
existing institutional set up for Operation and Maintenance of Irrigation and Drainage
infrastructure was liquidated. Hence, Irrigation and Drainage property status became vague with
arising hot questions on safety, responsibilities, operation and maintenance.
Keywords: land reform, land tenure, irrigation infrastructure, drainage infrastructure, land
degradation, salinity.
Introduction
Uzbekistan is one of the most vulnerable countries in Central Asia. Uzbekistan is the largest
country in Central Asia in terms of population, and it is already crossed over 30 million
inhabitants over 64% of which comprises rural population. Agriculture in Uzbekistan is
characterized with its heavy dependence on irrigation. In the first decade of its independence
existing large farms were transformed into smaller agricultural enterprises (shirkats) followed
by partition of those shirkats into much smaller private or individual farms. The average land
plot in 2000 was 10 ha, currently it is more than 80 ha. The cropping pattern of Uzbekistan is
dominated by cotton, which accounts 40% of the total sowing land, wheat sowed lands
constitutes 39% and it is the second most important crop.
Land reforms in Uzbekistan
The main goal of land reforms in many countries around the world is improving agricultural
productivity and sustainability (Spoor, 2003). Land reform has been pursued in many former
socialist countries as well. The most rapid reforms are being carried out in the Former Soviet
Union countries and Central and Eastern Europe. However, each country followed its own way.
Uzbekistan is experiencing sequence of land reforms since yearly twenties century. Mostly these
land reforms were part of wider agrarian reform strategy.
6 Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Philippstr. 13, Haus 12 – D-10099 Berlin, Germany. E-mail: akbarovo@hu-berlin.de
/ o.akbarov@yahoo.com
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
17
Consolidation phase: collective farms (1920–1989)
The first land reform has started after Soviets declared land nationalization after October
revolution. A nationalization of land has abolished feudal land tenure in Central Asia by 1920.
However, in Uzbekistan land reform was not actually carried out till 1925 and land reform have
coincided with water reform. The land reform linked land use right with water use right, i.e.
whoever had the land had a right to use water too. The land and water reforms were not aimed
to provide land to all landless people it rather was focused to abolish feudal tenure, to
undermine economic and political influence of large landowners on land transfer to occupied
workers on that land. In this stage of land reform the land was transferred to actual users, the
large share of appropriated land was given to sharecroppers (charikers). Land reform also aimed
to create middle type farms capable to produce commercial crops. This type of farm was the
main producer of commercial crops; they were provided by maximum of 10 ha land, which
prevented restrains and allowed to keep producing commercial crops (especially cotton). In
1925–1926 next phases of land reforms started through transformation of individual farms into
collective farms (kolkhozes). However, in the first years the collectivization was slow and only
1.2% of all farms were collectivized in 1925. The drastic changes occurred during 1930–1935,
when 83.5% of all farms were collectivized (Proshlyakov, 1964; Davidov, 1965). But still size of
collective farms was small, consisting of average 40–60 ha of irrigated lands. The collectivization
had its rational behind, “in reality poor people acquired land, but most of them did not have the
necessary means of production; i.e. they had nothing with which to plough the land” (Bloch,
2002).
The next phase of land reform started in 1950–1953, the main goal of which was the
enlargement of collective farms. It was during the same period when irrigation systems were
improved and catered to large-scale agricultural production. However, development of irrigation
systems lagged behind the extension of new irrigation lands for collective farms. Therefore
irrigation systems were needed continuous upgrading and improvement. The average size of
collective farm in 1950’s was about 480 ha and increased up to 1400 ha in 1954.
In 1957–1959 the next phase of land reform targeted transformation of collective farms into
state farms (sovkhoz). Thus, since 1957 two types of farms existed in Uzbekistan: collective and
state farms. The state farms were created by merging few collective farms or reclaiming virgin
(desert, step) lands. The main purpose of transformation of collective farms into state farms was
achieving of economies of scale. It was anticipated that use of resources such as water, land,
fertilizers and other, in the large farms would be more efficient. In average state farms took over
5 collective farms, and reached the average size of 8200 ha. In all former socialistic countries the
trend was similar. “The Soviet agricultural ideology was driven, among other factors, by
expectations of economies of scale” (Lerman et al., 2006).
Fragmentation phase: cooperatives and small private farms (1989–2007)
The land reform in 1989 aimed to increase farm efficiency provided more land to households
and encouraged restructuring of collective farms (Lerman, 1998). Starting in 1989, over 1.5
million families were given the opportunity to extend their personal plots and some 0.5 million
additional families acquired plots for the first time. In 1991, additional plots were allotted to
families living in rural areas to provide forage for cattle. During this short period of time, over
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
18
0.5 million hectares of irrigated lands, more than 10% of the total irrigated area, was allocated
for small scale production, and mainly used for growing vegetables. These plots previously
produced cotton and were, in fact, some of Uzbekistan’s most productive cotton lands with soils
of high organic matter and low salinity (Abdullaev et al., 2007). The increase of both size and
area of the family owned plots had a two-fold impact on water resources: an increase in
irrigation water consumption and the competition for water between family plots and
farmlands. The competition for water between the family plots and farmlands is one of the most
challenging water problems of irrigated agriculture in Uzbekistan and elsewhere in Central Asia.
The next land reform phase in Uzbekistan started since soviet system broke up. Since 1991, slow
and gradual contrary to previous phases of land reform has targeted to restructure the large
farms. Therefore the first stage towards restructuring was dismantling of sovkhozes and
kolkhozes into smaller agricultural cooperative farms (shirkats). These established shirkats
continued production of strategic crops – cotton and wheat.
The next stage of land reform started in 1997 was aimed to further dismantle existing shirkats
into smaller private farms. These private farms were allowed to register, hold bank account, and
receive long-term land lease until 49 years. Minimum size of these private farms was allowed of
10 ha, in average it was 20–30 ha. However, these private farms were not allowed to change
cropping pattern assigned for the owned field. For instance, mostly irrigated fields were
assigned only for cotton and wheat production, and few irrigated and rain-fed for vegetable
production.
Consolidation phase: large private farms (2008–present)
To 2008 all types of cooperative farms are transformed into more than 215000 individual farms
through land redistribution. The average size of individual farms was 27 ha. And in the same
year Government started preparation for land consolidation by liquidation of inefficient private
farms. Within one year number of individual farms has been decreased to about 105000 farms.
The average size of individual farms has increased to 56 ha. On later stages to 2011 number of
individual farms has decreased to more than 66000 farms. The average size has reached to 80
ha.
Operation and maintenance of Irrigation and Drainage infrastructure
Along consolidation and enlargement of collective and state farms there was a huge
development of large-scale irrigation and drainage (I&D) infrastructure system. Operation and
maintenance (O&M) of I&D infrastructure on the bottom level of the system were implemented
by established collective and state farms. The bottom level of the I&D system was covered
around 2000–4000 ha of collective farms, and 5000–8000 ha of state farms.
These collective and state farms included special and well equipped units with specialists and
machinery to maintain the system. These units were responsible for development of annual
business plan with indicated budget for operation and maintenance works. However more
sophisticated assignments on repair and maintenance were implemented by external
contractors.
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
19
With transformation of collective and state farms into private individual farms existing
institutional set up for O&M of I&D infrastructure was liquidated. As a result of this
transformation of pre-existed on-farm I&D infrastructure system became inter-farm and started
to benefit established many newly and much smaller individual farms. Hence, I&D property
status became vague with arising hot questions on safety, responsibilities, operation and
maintenance.
In 2000–2001, government supported by international donors started to make initial steps in
establishing Water Consumers Associations (WCAs). These WCAs have inherited responsibilities
to maintain of on-farm infrastructure of former collective and state farms which became after
transformation inter-farm infrastructure for many newly established individual farms.
Recognizing the severity of the land degradation processes, government of Uzbekistan in 2008
issued a decree focused on improvement of land reclamation activities. According to this decree
the Land Reclamation Fund was established. The Fund is responsible for financing construction,
reconstruction, repair and maintenance of main interregional, inter-district and inter-farm
drainage infrastructure including pump and monitoring stations facilities. Since 2008, every 5
years the government is approving detailed program for above mentioned activities.
Presently, responsibility for O&M of I&D infrastructure on on-farm level are lays on individual
farmers, on inter-farm level lays similarly on individual farmers but through WCAs (in case of
required substantial financial inputs then supported by the Fund).
Problem statement
During the Soviet time multiple land tenure variations were abolished, nationalization of land
took place in parallel with establishment of sovkhoses and kolkhoses. Under that period all the
remaining small farms were collectivized. An extensive irrigation and drainage infrastructure
systems was built and the government changed land use to foster a cotton monoculture
production.
The recent land reform has started early in 90s, taking very gradual steps towards privatization
by dismantling of large collective farms into smaller individual farming units. The increasing
productivity of newly established individual farms has encouraged the government to continue
restructuring land use. However, while dismantling collective farms government has
transformed irrigation and drainage infrastructure from public to collective use.
Irrigation infrastructure is aimed to deliver water to fields whereas drainage infrastructure is
aimed to control ponding, waterlogging and salinization. As it was above described existing
drainage infrastructure requires regular maintenance. Created and developed extensive
drainage infrastructure today represent complex system consisting of several levels of function
and management. These levels are starting from bottom – on-farm drainage channels and wells,
secondly – inter-farm drainage channels, and on upper level are inter-district and main
channels. Upper level channels are extensively maintained by governmental agencies funded by
the state budget. First and second level drainage infrastructures are on responsibility of land
users and therefore should be maintained by themselves. For proper function both bottom level
drainage infrastructures require collective actions.
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
20
As on the earth in parallel to laws created by humans there are existing laws of physics meaning
that applied irrigation water to the one specific field will impact on groundwater which is not
limited by property boundaries but by hydrological principles. This makes use of drainage
infrastructure non excludable by surrounding land users. Due to this characteristic of drainage
infrastructure land users tend for free riding.
Objectives and main research questions
Research aim and objectives:
The focus of this research is to evaluate impact of transformation processes on collective actions.
1.
To explain changed land tenure system and drainage infrastructure transfer in
Uzbekistan.
2.
To analyze rationale behind land reform processes under existing CPRs.
3.
To examine the role of property rights in managing of drainage infrastructure by
collective action.
4.
To evaluate impact of land reforms on collective action for drainage
infrastructure management.
Outline of analytical framework
This research will analyze institutional change and its impact on collective actions by analytical
framework of the Institutions of Sustainability (IoS) developed by Hagedorn et al. (2002). Based
on Hagedorn’s (2008) analytical framework for investigating nature-related transactions this
research will use below described four key elements. The following four main analytical
elements: (i) Actors, (ii) Transactions, (iii) Institutions and (iv) Governance structures will be
combined in the action arena represented by drainage infrastructure management.
In the case of irrigated agriculture there are two important issues: irrigation and drainage.
Drainage infrastructure function is more complex unlike to irrigation canal infrastructure where
deteriorated parts are not functioning and thereby delivery of water is worsened to some of land
users. However, in case of deterioration of part of drainage system may cause negative impact
on extended area even where land users might properly maintaining on-farm and inter-farm
drainage canals. For example, inadequately functioning drainage infrastructure may cause rising
of groundwater level and thereby bringing salt on topsoil level which is harmful for crops
vegetation. Therefore it requires collective action in controlling groundwater level and
preventing land salinization.
The focus of this research is to analyze drainage infrastructure (on-farm and inter-farm levels)
maintenance process from the collection action dilemma perspective in the territories of former
collective farms. The actors in this research are land users such as land-leasing farms, dekhkan
farms, households, Water Consumers Associations. Analyzes will focus on transactions between
the actors and community.
Description of main theory
To achieve objectives of this research the following four theories will be operationalized: (i)
Common Pool Resources (CPRs), (ii) Property rights, (iii) Transaction costs and (iv) Institutional
change.
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
21
This research will analyze two existing systems: land tenure and CPR management (drainage
management). Due to agro-climatic conditions agricultural production in Uzbekistan is mainly
on irrigated land. Irrigated lands imply availability of drainage to control groundwater level.
This means formally and informally right for any irrigated land by default comes together with
right to use irrigation and drainage infrastructure.
Empirical methodology
The research study will be carried out in irrigated agricultural areas with existing drainage
system and lands prone to land degradation such as salinization. In order to understand the
institutional change in land tenure and in management of essential infrastructure such as
irrigation and drainage, identify appropriate reasons behind such change, and determine factors
that may improve long-term sustainability in cooperation of individual farms, an empirical
methodology is proposed.
The research will be based on multiple sources of information obtained from available
secondary literature including grey literature, statistical materials, and information obtained
from surveys. The data on land, water use and crop will be obtained from national, respective
provincial and district statistical departments. Detailed data will be collected from each selected
farm units through interviews and questionnaires.
References:
Abdullaev I., Giordano M., Rasulov A. (2007) Cotton in Uzbekistan: Water & Welfare. School of
Oriental & African Studies (SOAS). University of London. pp. 214–228.
Abdullaev, I., Fraiture, Ch., Giordano, M., Yakubov, M., Rasulov, A. (2009). Agricultural water use
and trade in Uzbekistan: Situation and potential impacts of market liberalization. Water
Resources Development 25(1): pp. 47–63.
Bloch, P. (2002) Agrarian reform in Uzbekistan and other Central Asian countries. Working
Paper No.49. Land Tenure Center. University of Wisconsin–Madison.
Davidov A. (1965) Agro reorganizations and formations of socialistic land use in Uzbek SSR
(Agrarnie preobrazovaniya i formirovaniya sotsialisticheskogo zemlepolzovaniya v Uzbekskoi
SSR). Nauka. Tashkent.
Hagedorn, K., Arzt, K. and Peters, U. (2002). Institutional Arrangements for Environmental Cooperatives: a conceptual framework. In: Hagedorn K. (ed.).
Environmental Cooperation and Institutional Change: Theories and Policies for European
Agriculture. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Hagedorn, K., (2008). Particular requirements for institutional analysis in nature-related sectors.
European Review of Agricultural Economics 35(3): pp. 357–384.
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
22
Lerman, Z. (1998) Land Reform in Uzbekistan in: Wegren, S. (Ed.), Land Reform in the Former
Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, Routledge, London-New York, pp. 136–161.
Lerman, Z., Sutton, W. (2006) Productivity and efficiency of small and large farms in Moldova.
American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting. California.
Proshlyakov, V. (1964) Mejhozyaistvennoe zemleusrtoistvo v usloviyah oroshaemogo
zemledeliya. Gosizdat. Tashkent.
Spoor, M. ed. (2003) Transition, Institutions and the Rural Sector, Lanham and Oxford: Rowman
and Littllefield, Lexington Books.
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
23
5. PHYTOREMEDIATION FOR DESALINATION OF SURFACE WATER IN
IRRIGATION-DRAINAGE SYSTEMS IN UZBEKISTAN
Balla D.1, Khamidov M.2, Juraev U.3, Suvanov B.2, Matyakubov J.2, Maassen S.1, Hamidov A.4
Abstract
High levels of soil and water salinity are the major problem in Central Asia`s agriculture. Besides
technical water reclamation solutions, accompanying methods of phytoremediation are a
challenge for desalination. We proved in laboratory studies and field experiments the salt uptake
by Lemnaceae ssp. (duckweed). The plants absorb mineralized and nutrient-rich water which
induces a rapid growth and hence, uptake of salt. In special cleaning ponds, integrated in the
irrigation-drainage systems and covered with water plants (e.g. duckweeds), the uptake can be
realized due to a biologically efficient residence time. A regular harvest of the duckweed plants is
necessary. Besides of positive impacts of the water quality in general, the production of biomass
and a further re-use offers new perspectives for local stakeholders.
Keywords: Desalinization, irrigation and drainage, environmental technologies, water plants,
cleaning ponds.
Introduction
It is sufficiently known that the salinization of the soil and water resources in the mainly cotton
producing agricultural areas of Uzbekistan is limiting both, the fertility of land and the utilization
of water. During the last 50 years, irrigated areas were expanded largely without considering
resource conservation (Kienzler et al., 2012). Salinity is closely related to drainage conditions.
Groundwater tables are too high because of excessive irrigation intensity and often insufficient
drainage systems. Therefore, the Government of Uzbekistan decided a State program (2013–
2017) which is focused on new ways for sustainable usage of water resources and the
improvement of living conditions for the rural population (Uzbek Cabinet of Ministers’ Decree
No.39).
One of the irrigation districts in Uzbekistan is the Bukhara oasis which is covered by 275 000 ha
irrigated land. Amelioration systems with drainage and irrigation channels are set up for 219
000 ha. The total length of open channels amounts to 7 045 km (Matyakubov, 2014). The main
natural water course is the Amudarya River which gets the surface water from the Tajik
highlands and discharges into the Aral Sea region. In transit, water is removed for irrigation and
is distributed into the channel system (Fig. 1). To control the groundwater tables of the irrigated
land as measure against the groundwater salinization, percolation water is discharging back to
the main water course or into lakes via drainage systems. In consequence, the salinization level
is increasing across the water course and in the open water bodies with serious problems for the
environment (Toderich et al., 2008).
1 Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Muencheberg, Germany.Corresponding address:
dballa@zalf.de.
2 Tashkent Institute of Irrigation and Melioration, Tashkent, Uzbekistan.
3 Tashkent Institute of Irrigation and Melioration, Bukhara Branch, Uzbekistan.
4 Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany.
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
24
Figure 1: Water channel network in the Bukhara region.
The state of repair of the channel system needed drastically re-construction which started in
2008 in the Bukhara region and is nowadays in progress.
To meet the more environmental aspect of the water resources within the arid zone, and to
improve the water quality, a small bilateral 2-year research project funded by the German
Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) and co-financed by the Republic of
Uzbekistan was initiated in 2012. The project partners, the Tashkent Institute of Irrigation and
Melioration (TIIM) as well as the Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF) at
Müncheberg focused their topic on desalinization by phytoremediation of open water bodies, i.e.
“the treatment of environmental problems (bioremediation) through the use of plants that
mitigate the environmental problem without the need to excavate the contaminant material and
dispose of it elsewhere” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoremediation).
The idea was to prove the uptake of salt by the water plant Lemna (in English duckweed, in
German Wasserlinse, in Russia rjaska) under arid natural climate and environmental conditions
and to prove the technical design for the integration of cleaning ponds in the irrigation-drainage
networks. These works continue the research based on laboratory and outdoor experiments at
the Institute of Landscape Hydrology at ZALF to find a solution against salinization in Egypt
(Omar, 2012). These investigations have been provided under German humid climate
conditions. The main issues of the current cooperation between TIIM and ZALF are to verify
these findings under arid and semi-arid conditions and to develop technical solutions.
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
25
State of the Art
In general, desalination removes dissolved salts from water to certain extent depending on the
method applied: distillation in evaporators (thermal method), the ion-exchange method, electrodialysis, or the reverse-osmosis (membrane) method. Besides these technological, cost-intensive
methods for water purification it also may be possible to adapt some low-cost measures
(Qureshi et al., 2007) like bioremediation. Although these measures could be less effective than
technical methods, and depend strongly on climatic and natural conditions, they could play an
important role for the environment (Mitch and Gosselink, 1997).
Methods of phytoremediation of nutrients by plant uptake are used throughout the world,
mainly in natural and constructed wetlands (Anderson et al., 2007, El-Shafai et al., 2007; Kadlec
and Wallace, 2008; Bal Krishna and Chongrack, 2008). Examples of the main groups of plants
used for these eco-technologies are submerged plants such as algae, surface-floating plants such
as duckweed (Lemnaceae) and water hyacinths (Eichhornia sp.), emerged plants such as reeds
(Phragmites australis) and bulrushes (Typha latifolia) or, in the subtropical and tropical zones,
papyrus sedge (Cyperus papyrus) (Al Nozaili, 2001).
Sewage treatment with the small aquatic plant duckweed (Lemnaceae) has undergone a revival
during the last decades. There is a wealth of literature about its purification behavior (e.g.
nutrients, trace metals, toxic substances), and technical solutions for the adaptation of duckweed
for waste water treatment (e.g. Al-Nozaily et al., 2001; Journey et al., 2003). The advantages of
duckweed are its fast growth, worldwide occurrence, ease of maintenance and high protein
content as fodder.
Figure 2: Single duckweed plants with four fronds of each (left), duckweed cover of a cleaning
pond in Germany (right).
Salt uptake by phytoremediation is mainly known for soils. Hamidov et al. (2007) implemented
scientific research on alkali soils of the Amu Darya floodplain converting the scientific
experience of a research project in Portugal, e.g. with Portulaca oleracea. A comprehensive study
of the botany of rangelands in the arid and semi-arid zones of Uzbekistan and the usage of salttolerant plants as forage and in medicine was provided by Gintzburger et al. (2003).
Water plants for the uptake of dissolved salt in surface water bodies are not studied extensively,
yet. According to international cited publications, investigations have only recently started
(Balla et al., 2013).
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
26
For the removal of nutrients in artificial drainage systems in North-East Germany, at ZALF there
is much experience with the biological and hydraulic functioning of cleaning ponds which are
integrated into drainage systems. As small water reservoirs with high biodiversity they collect
drainage water, lower the flow velocity and prolong the residence time as a key factor for
biological reactions (Steidl et al., 2008)
In order to combine these small-scale purification reservoirs or cleaning ponds within
irrigation-drainage systems to treat saline drainage water under arid conditions, experiments
have been conducted in the Bukhara Branch of TIIM (1) for the adaption of the Lemna water
plant to saline water and reproduction, to study (2) growth of Lemna and uptake efficiency of
salt from drainage water in the lab and (3) growth and uptake behavior in a special created
cleaning pond (Matyakubov, 2014).
Experiments
Plants of the duckweed Lemna minor were kept in small dishes in three variants of total salt
concentrations (salinity) (Variant 1: 1–3 g/l; Variant 2: 3–5 g/l; Variant 3: > 5 g/l, Variant 4:
control without Lemna) in 3 replicates. The salinization steps have been derived from the
distribution of salt concentration in the drainage channel of the Bukhara region. Thus, for the
growth tests the original water from different drainage systems has been taken. The salt
concentration was measured every 12 hours (chloride Cl, hydrogen carbonate HCO3, sulfate SO4,
and salinity) in the lab of the “Hydrological Melioration Expedition” under the Amu-Bukhara
Basin Irrigation Systems Authority and in the regional “Nature Protection Committee” lab. The
number of plants have been counted every 12 hours, the phenological development was
described as well as the degree of coverage by plants was estimated. The plant biomass was
weighted before and after the duration of experiments (120 hours).
The experiments have been conducted in 2012 and 2013 under real climate condition. Thus,
because of high temperatures during the experimental period the evapotranspiration was to be
considered by measured water loss if estimating the salt uptake by plants.
For field investigations in the Bukhara district (Yulduz collector, “Muhammad Choruqiy” farm
territory) a cleaning pond was excavated (length: 30 m, width: 5 m) (Fig. 3)
Figure 3: Excavated cleaning pond (left) and flow chart of the implementation with collector, and
baffles within the cleaning to prolong the retention time (right).
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
27
Some of the preliminary results indicate the following:
In variant 1, the salinity decreased during the 5 days observation from 1,14 g/l to 0,85 g/l
(25%), due to decreased chloride concentration. A sulfate reduction did not take place.
In variant 2, a decrease was observed for all measured compounds: salinity from 3,2 g/l to 2,2
g/l (32%), Cl from 0,40 to 0,30 g/l (25%), HCO3 from 0,31 to 0,16 g/l (50%), and SO4 from 3,2
g/l to 2,2 g/l (32%).
Variant 3 with the highest drainage water salinity of 5,5 g/l showed an inhibited Lemna growth
and the lowest uptake of all compounds, e.g. for Cl less than 15%.
The first experiment under field conditions showed similar results. An uptake could be
measured. The further consolidation of the preliminary results is planned.
Conclusions and outlook with respect to InDeCA
We can summarize that our bilateral project focused on mitigation of surface water salinization
in drainage-irrigation systems in the arid zones in Uzbekistan using water plants has manifold
aspects and results:
We tested a new, biological solution to enhance the water quality under arid climate
conditions. This approach was developed under humid conditions in Germany but with
focus on its application in semi-arid and arid regions (e.g. Egypt). The verification of the
results in Uzbekistan gives the potential for a further development of sustainable methods.
The new method consists in the farming of the water plant Lemna (or other convenient salt
tolerant plants like water salad Pistia stratiotes) in detention ponds which are in bypass
with drainage collectors. The nutrients of drainage water including chlorides and sulfates
provide the aquatic plants with nutrients and enhance a rapid growth and nutrient uptake.
Sustainability which is defined as the nexus of economy, ecology and society is given in the
following aspects:
a) Economically, the project offers the chance to reuse harvested biomass. Depending on
the volume of produced biomass, in time value-adding by local farmers is conceivable, e.g.
production of fodder, fertilizer, and biofuel.
b) Ecologically, the project enhances the purification of water (not only salt but also other
compounds), sets accents within the relatively monotone cotton landscape scenery and
enhances the biodiversity.
c) The social aspect is given in alternative employments of rural population. Since
phytoremediation needs biomass harvesting, maintenance of cleaning ponds is necessary.
Because of the small-scaled solution it could be provided by farmers. A further social
aspect is the education of specialists in environmental technologies which combine
biological knowledge with engineering, e.g. eco-hydrologists.
The first results and experience of the 2-year research project offer a proper perspective for
further sustainable development with advantage for both, Uzbekistan and Germany.
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
28
References:
Al-Nozaily, F. A. 2001. Performance and process analysis of duckweed-covered sewage lagoons
for high strength sewage. The case of Sana`a, Yemen. UNESCO-IHE, Delft.
Andersson, J., Wedding, B., Tonderski, K. 2007. Estimating wetland non-point source nutrient
removal – a comparison of methods and two Swedish regions. 2nd International Symposium on
Wetland Pollutant Dynamics and Control (WETPOL 2007), 140: 35–37.
Balla, D., Omar, M., Maaßen, S., Hamidov, A., Khamidov, M. (2014) Efficiency of duckweed
(Lemnaceae) for the desalination and treatment of agricultural drainage water in detention
reservoirs. In: Müller, L., Saparov, A., Lischeid, G. (eds), Novel measurement and assessment
tools for monitoring and management of land and water resources in agricultural landscapes of
Central Asia. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 423–440.
Bal Krishna, K., Chongrack, P. 2008. An integrated kinetic model for organic and nutrient
removal by duckweed-based wastewater treatment (DUBWAT) system. Journal of Ecological
Engineering, 34(3): 243–250.
El-Shafai, S., El-Gohary, F., Nasr, F., Van der Steen, N., Gijzen, H. 2007. Nutrient recovery from
domestic wastewater using a UASB-duckweed ponds system. Journal of Bio-source Technology,
98(4): 798–807.
Gintzburger, G., Toderich, K.N., Mardonov, B.K., Mahmudov, M.M. 2003. Rangelands of the arid
and semi-arid zones of Uzbekistan. CIRAD-ICARDA., 426 pp.
Hamidov, A., Beltrao, J., Costa, C., Khaydarova, V., Sharipova, Sh. 2007. Environmentally useful
technique – Portulaca Oleracea golden purslane as a salt removal species. WSEAS Transactions
on Environment and Development 3 (7), pp. 117–122.
Journey, W., Skillicorn P., Spira, W. 1993. Duckweed aquaculture. A new aquatic farming system
for developing countries. Washington D.C. The World Bank.
Kadlec, R., Wallace, S. 2008. Treatment wetlands - 2nd Ed. ISBN 978-1-56670-526-4.
Kienzler, K.M., Djanibekov, N., Lamers, J.P.A. 2011. An agronomic, economic and behavioral
analysis of N application to cotton and wheat in post-Soviet Uzbekistan. Agricultural Systems
104 (2011) 411–418.
Matyakubov, J. (2014). Using phyto-amelioration measures to adjust salt regime of soil. Master
Thesis. Tashkent Institute of Irrigation and Melioration, Uzbekistan.
Mitch W.J., Gosselink J.G. 1993. Wetlands. Van Norstrand Reinhold. New York. 722 pp.
Omar, M. 2011. Improvement of detention ponds with respect to salinity. Book Series of the
Department of Civil Engineering. Technische Universität Berlin. Aachen: 10.
Ozengin, N., Elmaci, A. 2007. Performance of duckweed (Lemna minor) on different types of
wastewater treatment. Journal of Environmental Biology, 28 (2): 307–314.
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
29
Qureshi, A. S., Qadir, M., Heydari, N., Turral, H., Javadi, A. 2007. A review of management
strategies for salt-prone land and water resources in Iran. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International
Water Management Institute. 30 p. (IWMI Working Paper 125).
Steidl, J., Kalettka, T., Ehlert, V., Quast, J., Augustin, J. 2008. Mitigation of pressures on water
bodies by nutrient retention from agricultural drainage effluents using purification ponds. – In:
Proceedings of the 10th International Drainage Workshop of ICID Working Group on Drainage:
Helsinki/Talllin, 06.-11. July 2008: 187–194.
Toderich, K.N., Shuyskaya, E.V., Ismail, S., Gismatullina, L.G., Radjabov, T., Bekchanov, B.B.,
Aralova, D.B. 2009. Phytogenic resources of halophytes of Central Asia and their role for
rehabilitation of sandy desert degraded rangelands. Land Degrad. Devel. DOI: 10.1002/ldr.936.
List of Figures
Figure 1: Water channel network in the Bukhara region.
Figure 2: Single duckweed plants with four fronds of each (left), duckweed cover of a cleaning
pond in Germany (right).
Figure 3: Excavated cleaning pond (left) and flow chart of the implementation with collector, and
baffles within the cleaning to prolong the retention time (right).
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
30
6. ДЕЙСТВЕННЫЕ ПРАВИЛА В УПРАВЛЕНИИ ОБЩЕСТВЕННЫМИ
РЕСУРСАМИ В ЦЕНТРАЛЬНОЙ АЗИИ
Касымов У.1, Хамидов А.1
Аннотация
Страны Центральной Азии (ЦА) переживают переход от централизованной системы
государственного управления к децентрализованной рыночной экономике и приобрели
ценный опыт в проектировании новых институтов в управлении общественными
ресурсами (ОР). Эта статья описывает «действенные правила» и формальные
институты, а также структуры управления на примере управления пастбищами в
Кыргызстане и управления ирригационными системами в Узбекистане. Для дальнейшего
анализа авторы рекомендуют использование аналитических рамок Институтов
Устойчивого Развития для лучшего понимания взаимодействия между «действенными
правилами», формальными институтами и структурами управления.
Ключевые слова: институты, действенные
общественные ресурсы, Центральная Азия.
правила,
структура
управления,
Введение
Политические реформы в области управления общественными ресурсами (ОР) в
Центральной Азии (ЦА) пытаются решить проблемы (например, ухудшение
инфраструктуры и переиспользование природных ресурсов), вызванные постсоветскими
преобразованиями, а также стабилизировать спонтанные изменения так называемых
«действенных правил» и структурировать социальные взаимодействия в использовании
ресурсов. Последствия реформ в пастбищах и ирригационном секторе Кыргызстана и
Узбекистана уже широко обсуждаются (использование пастбищ в Кыргызстане, см.
Undeland, 2005; Steimann, 2011; Crewett, 2012; Dörre, 2012; использование оросительной
воды в Узбекистане, см. Zavgorodnyaya, 2006; Abdullaev et al., 2010; Dukhovny et al., 2013).
Большинство авторов наблюдают массовое сокращение мобильности в использовании
пастбищ после 1991 в ЦА, это связано с приватизацией скота, распадом крупных
организационных структур (бывших колхозов и совхозов) и ухудшением
инфраструктуры. Снижение мобильности имело экологические и экономические
последствия. Это привело к деградации пастбищ из-за чрезмерного использования
присельных и недоиспользования отдаленных летних пастбищ (Ludi, 2003; Undeland,
2005; Farrington, 2005; Shigaeva et al., 2007; Kerven et al., 2012; Kreutzmann, 2012), что в
свою очередь приводит к снижению продуктивности скота (Wright et al., 2003). В
Кыргызстане скотоводы переживают правовые и институциональные изменения,
сталкиваются с ситуацией легального плюрализма, который характеризуется
множеством институциональных уровней, которые одновременно сосуществуют,
противоречат и пересекаются, конфликтуют или сотрудничают. Легальный плюрализм
Университет имени Гумбольдта в Берлине, Департамент Экономики Сельского Хозяйства, Кафедра
Экономики Ресурсов, kasymovu@agrar.hu-berlin.de.
1
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
31
дает возможность скотоводам договариваться друг с другом, но если платформа для
достижения договоренностей отсутствует, у некоторых групп пастбище-пользователей
могут возникнуть проблемы к справедливому доступу к ресурсу (Bonfoh et al., 2011: 553).
Кроме того, скотоводы сталкиваются с экономической, институциональной и
экологической неопределенностью, которые возникли в результате реформ в сельском
хозяйстве. В условиях такой неопределенности, пользователи пастбищ опираются на
различные правила, соответствующие их интересам, в зависимости от ситуации
взаимодействия и наличия ресурсов (Steimann, 2011).
С распадом Советского Союза система сельскохозяйственного производства, которая
была хорошо организована и каждое лицо или индивидуум четко знал о том, кто имеет
права на землепользование или кто ответственен за управление оросительными
каналами, больше не функционировала в странах ЦА, особенно в Узбекистане. Особенно
это было заметно в ирригационном секторе, где возник огромный «вакуум» о том, кто
должен управлять и поддерживать вторичные и третичные ирригационные и дренажные
сети, которые в советское время были под ведомством колхозов (Jumaboev et al., 2013). В
результате
возникла
необходимость
социального
взаимодействия
между
заинтересованными сторонами по поводу оросительной воды, для определения
ответственности и прав владения на это имущество (Wegerich, 2000).
Ухудшение состояния оросительных каналов было очевидно. Большинство каналов были
построены в советское время, но необходимы регулярные инвестиции в обслуживание.
Их отсутствие привело к критической ситуации. Плохое состояние большей части
инфраструктуры привела к снижению урожайности, увеличению сорняков и наносов в
сельскохозяйственных каналах, которые в свою очередь препятствуют своевременной
подаче воды водопотребителям и вызывает недовольство среди фермеров.
Кроме того, несмотря на наличие четких формальных правил, которым отдельные
пользователи ресурсов должны следовать, существует неформальная практика, где люди
следуют своим традиционным обычаям. Например, фермеры официально согласовывают
и подписывают договор между Ассоциациями Водопотребителей (АВП) об оказании
услуг по доставке воды и поддержании водохозяйственной инфраструктуры на уровне
канала АВП, но в большинстве случаев либо они не выполняют своих обещаний, либо
осуществляют оплату в определенных АВП в натуральной форме.
Данная статья направлена на анализ «действенных правил» и формальных институтов, а
также структур управления в области использования ОР. Статья способствует
определению факторов, которые вызывают трансформационные процессы в управлении
ОР в ЦА «снизу вверх». Мы считаем, что нормы и правила действенны только в том
случае, если они будут признаны пользователями ресурсов, и в целом им будут следовать
на местном уровне. В ЦА многие нормы и правила в настоящее время не работают
эффективно, т.е. не достигают тех целей, для которых они были разработаны. Многие
конфликты остаются нерешенными и в случае институционального вакуума возникает
риск появления новых. В нашем исследовании мы рассматриваем эффективные
институты, которые представляют собой смесь формальных и неформальных
институтов. Современная литература утверждает, что существует несоответствие между
формальными правилами (например, конституцией, законами) и «действенными
правилами» (например, правила, которым следуют пользователи ресурсов), особенно в
условиях переходного периода. Поэтому мы делаем фокус на изучение локально
признанных эффективных институтов и структур управления.
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
32
Методология: «Кейс стади»
Качественные данные для эмпирического исследования были собраны из двух кейсов –
один в Кыргызстане (управление пастбищами) и один в Узбекистане (управление
орошением). В исследовании кейсов изучаются формальные и неформальные не
задокументированные соглашения для регулирования использования природных
ресурсов, а также анализируются причины и различные факторы, определяющие
развитие «действенных правил». Главной целью при выборе кейсов было достижение
максимального различия важных характеристик (Seawright и Gerring, 2008) для лучшего
понимания институционального контекста в управлении ОР в постсоциалистической ЦА.
Использование пастбищ в Кыргызстане
Формальные институты и структура управления
Всемирный Банк и другие международные организации поддержали правительство
Кыргызстана в разработке и реализации нового закона о пастбищах, который вводит
радикальные изменения в систему управления пастбищами: (1) упраздняет
трехуровневую систему управления пастбищами на основе пространственных
характеристик пастбищ; (2) создает Ассоциации Пастбище-Пользователей (АПП) и
Пастбищные Комитеты (ПК); (3) передает полномочия управления пастбищами органам
местного самоуправления; (4) отменяет долгосрочную систему аренды пастбищ и вводит
ежегодную плату за пастбища на основе численности поголовья скота («пастбищные
билеты»); (5) и, наконец, новый закон вводит систему планирования и контроля за
использованием и управлением пастбищами. После интенсивных обсуждений между
экспертами и ответственными организациями на национальном уровне, новый закон «О
пастбищах" был принят Жогорку Кенешем в феврале 2009 года и вступил в силу
постановлением правительства в июне 2009 года. К 2011 году во всех 475 Айыл Окмоту в
Кыргызстане уже были созданы Ассоциации Пастбище-Пользователей и Пастбищные
Комитеты. Проект Всемирного Банка по Сельскохозяйственным инвестициям и услугам
(ПСИУ) и Агентство по развитию и инвестированию сообществ (АРИС) поддержали
создание новых структур управления.
Сообщество Жергетал
После роспуска колхоза "Жаны Талап" и приватизации скота, техники и
сельскохозяйственных земель, Айыл Окмоту Жергетал был официально учрежден в
середине девяностых (Steinmann, 2011). Сегодня около 1164 семей проживают в
муниципалитете с общим населением 5225 жителей (статистика села, 2013). Сообщество
состоит из трех деревень: Жергетал, Жалгыз Терек и Кызыл Жылдыз. В сообществе
Жергетал из 1650 га сельскохозяйственных земель, приблизительно 1000 га орошаемых.
65% всех пахотных земель используется в качестве сенокосов и для выращивания
кормовых культур (эспарцет и клевер), остальные используются для производства
пшеницы и ячменя. Крупные владельцы скота владеют большей долей пахотных земель
и выращивают различные культуры (Steinmann, 2011: 142). Сообщество Жергетал
владеет около 91597 га пастбищных земель. Большинство зимних пастбищ,
расположенных вблизи деревень подвержены перевыпасу. Например, пастбище Акташ
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
33
используется в течение всего года. Кроме этого, некоторые доступные весенние /
осенние пастбища, такие как Кабырга Булак и Ача Камды также переиспользованы (UrRahim and Maselli, 2008: 13). Самые дальние летние пастбища Аксай не используются
пастухами из Жергетала. Около 146 кошар на зимних и весенних/осенних пастбищах
принадлежат крупным и средним скотоводам. Животноводство является основой
культуры Кыргызских кочевников, а также важной экономической базой для
обеспечения средств к существованию людей в сообществе Жергетал. Животноводство
важно для установления и поддержания социальных отношений в обществе и важно, как
финансовый капитал. Стоимость скота растет и он может быть с легкостью продан за
наличные деньги. В последние годы поголовье скота сильно возросло. Средний владелец
скота имеет около 80% коз и овец, и 5–10% коров и лошадей (Steinmann, 2011). В
Жергетале существует высокая асимметрия во владении скотом. В то время как 1% семей
имеют 16,8% скота, то 61% семей имеют только 39% (Isakov, 2013). Богатые
домохозяйства держат больше коров и лошадей, в то время как малые и средние
домохозяйства предпочитают коз и овец.
«Действенные правила»
Многие малые и средние скотовладельцы объединяют свой скот для того, чтобы
коллективно использовать общие пастбища. Пастух имеет те же расходы, если он кочует
со своим скотом, но он может увеличить свою прибыль, объединив свой и чужой скот,
предлагая услуги выпаса для «клиентов». Предоставление услуг выпаса стало
популярным «бизнесом».
«Мал кошуу» широко практикуется в Жергетале. Например, более 70% пастухов
предоставляют услуги выпаса для скотовладельцев, объединяя скот и выпасая его на
разных пастбищах. У пастухов есть собственный скот и они могут объединять его со
стадом «клиентов». В Жергетале пастух может собрать до 700 овец. Весной владельцы
скота договариваются с пастухами об условиях сотрудничества.
Пастух объясняет: «Владельцы скота сами обращаются к нам. Если цена хорошая, то я
пасу их скот. Люди передают нам свой скот, потому что мы хорошо кормим его на летних
пастбищах» (опытный пастух / мелкий скотовладелец, Жергетал). Работа пастуха очень
рискованная. На высокогорных пастбищах животные могут потеряться, могут быть
съедены волками или же погибнуть от экстремальных погодных условий. В таком случае
пастухи должны возместить цену за потерянный скот владельцу. Поэтому пастухи,
предлагающие такую услугу, должны иметь определенный профессиональный опыт и
имущество. Правила в регионах отличаются и стороны могут иметь конкретные
индивидуальные договоренности, но определенные правила являются общепринятыми:
пастух отвечает за сохранность скота на весенних, летних и осенних пастбищах; в случае
если животное было съедено волками, пастух должен предоставить доказательство
(голову и шкуру животного). Если доказательств нет, то он возмещает цену. Аналогично,
если скот теряется, пастух платит цену. Оплата может быть произведена в натуральном
виде путем замены одного животного на другое или же в виде предоставления
бесплатных услуг в будущем; владелец скота несет ответственность за здоровье своих
животных. В случае заболевания он должен сам лечить животное. В обязанности пастуха
входит только информирование владельца о случившемся заболевании животного, и
если потребуется, может отправить скотину обратно в деревню; дойных же кобылиц
пастух пасет бесплатно (бее байлап), поскольку получает от них молочные продукты.
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
34
Пастух и владелец скота не подписывают никакого контракта, все условия
согласовываются устно: "Мы кыргызы – никто не пишет договоров" (пастух «мал кошуу»).
Каждый отмечает на своем документе согласованную цену за услугу и количество голов
для выпаса. Они также записывают возраст и отличительные метки скота. На основании
этих документов животные возвращаются. Осенью каждый владелец скота должен знать
своих животных и их отличительные метки. Существует определенное доверие между
пастухом и владельцем скота во время их сотрудничества каждый год. Владельцы скота
заготавливают зимние корма и получают свой скот обратно осенью. После возвращения
животных некоторые владельцы стараются продать свою скотину, так как в этот период
за них дают самую высокую цену.
В Жергетале мелкие и средние владельцы скота тесно сотрудничают, принимая участие в
«Мал Кезуу» - выпас скота местной общины на основе схемы отгонного выпаса. Каждое
участвующее домохозяйство назначает пастуха, который утром сгоняет весь скот для
выпаса на присельных пастбищах, а вечером пригоняет его обратно владельцам.
Координируют это сотрудничество старейшины и уважаемые люди. Например, они
определяют начало и завершение периода выпаса. В Нарыне к концу апреля выпас могут
остановить из-за начинающихся полевых работ. Они всей общиной обсуждают и решают
все правила и условия.
Управление ирригационной водой в Узбекистане
Ассоциация водопотребителей (АВП) Халач Kальти, расположенная в районе Вобкент
Бухарской области, была создана в октябре 2006 года на территории бывшего колхоза
Рузи-Хусенов. Объект исследования был выбран на основе вторичных данных,
полученных от МинСельВодХоза и анализа рекомендаций опытных специалистов,
работающих в отрасли. 18 октября 2010 г., АВП была перерегистрирована в
Министерстве Юстиции в качестве Неправительственной Организации (НПО) по
бассейново-гидрологическому принципу.
В начале АВП состояло из 111 членов, полностью ориентированных на производство
хлопка и пшеницы. В 2008, 2009 и 2010 годах в связи с оптимизацией фермерских
хозяйств по решению правительства с консолидацией земель для получения большей
экономической выгоды путем увеличения масштабов хозяйств, число членов резко
сократилось, и в настоящее время АВП состоит из 34 членов. 30 из них культивируют
хлопчатник и пшеницу, трое из членов ориентированы на производство
животноводческой продукции, и только один член АВП занимается садоводством. На
время проведения исследования в марте 2013 года, АВП в своем составе имела трех
служащих: председателя, главного бухгалтера и водителя сельскохозяйственной
техники. Название АВП Халач Кальти состоит из названий двух оросительных каналов –
Халач и Кальти.
АВП имеет 2073 га орошаемых земель, 52% из них предназначены для производства
хлопка и около 30% для выращивания пшеницы. По словам председателя, АВП решила
взимать плату за гектар7. Общая сумма предполагаемых расходов за подачу оросительной
В соответствии с Постановлением Кабинета Министров (КМ) Республики Узбекистан (№82, 2013 года), до
установления водозаборов с измерительными устройствами, фермерские и дехканские хозяйства имеют
право взимать плату за водопотребление с учетом фактических площадей орошения (см. Положение №29).
7
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
35
воды на фермерские поля, делится на общее количество га территории обслуживания
АВП.
«Действенные правила», формальные институты и структура управления
АВП Халач Кальти расположено в нижнем течении магистрального канала между двумя
дренажными каналами. В случае если воды в ирригационном канале очень много или же
она не используется, излишки воды попадают в дренажную систему8. По-видимому, такое
расположение в нижнем течении очень выгодно для АВП. Прежде, чем достичь Халач
Кальти, вода проходит через пять АВП, расположенных в верхнем течении этого канала.
Несмотря на сезон дефицита воды в 2012 году, АВП, используя насосы, выкачал воду из
дренажного канала и полностью обеспечил водой своих клиентов. В общем, они не
испытывают сильной нехватки воды. Так как АВП расположена между двумя основными
дренажными каналами, где установлены два насоса типа СНП-500, дефицит воды не
является серьезной проблемой. Большинство фермеров не испытывают дефицита в воде,
но затраты на электроэнергию могут быть для них дополнительным бременем.
Благодаря своему многолетнему опыту в управлении, председатель смог разрешить
различные споры без вмешательства со стороны. Кроме того, местные органы власти
имеют слабые позиции, чтобы вмешиваться во внутренний процесс принятия решений
АВП относительно распределения оросительной воды.
Несмотря на отсутствие соответствующих средств на организацию крупных встреч,
работники АВП признали, что, по крайней мере, один раз в неделю организуются встречи
для обсуждения различных вопросов, связанных с распределением воды и поддержанием
функционирования канала, особенно во время вегетационного периода (с апреля по
сентябрь). Некоторые встречи проводились в конференц-зале местного управления
ирригационными системами (УИС) или же на территории фермерских хозяйств АВП.
Обсуждения с фермерами показывают, что все члены АВП или, по крайней мере,
представители их хозяйств активно участвуют в этих встречах.
Председатель был избран членами во время общего собрания АВП и служит с момента ее
создания. Он был председателем колхоза в советское время, а также председателем во
время периода существования ширката. Работая в этой области, председатель приобрел
огромный опыт и был хорошо принят как местными органами власти, так и сообществом.
По словам местных чиновников и членов АВП, используя свою репутацию и связи,
председатель смог преодолеть проблемы, связанные, как с внутренними конфликтами,
так и с доступом к воде. По специальности он агроном и получил высшее образование в
Андижанском Институте Хлопководства и кроме того имеет большой практический опыт
в этой сфере.
АВП взимает с фермеров дополнительную плату для покрытия расходов на
обслуживание канала, электроэнергию, налоги и заработную плату сотрудникам. Когда
требуется техническое обслуживание канала, АВП обращается к местным
государственным органам водного хозяйства с просьбой предоставить им экскаватор и
АВП покрывает все расходы из собственного бюджета. АВП не взимает оплату для
В соответствии с Постановлением КМ Республики Узбекистан (№82, 19 марта 2013 года), за сброс
поливной воды в коллекторно-дренажные сети право на водопотребление прекращается (см.
Положение №56).
8
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
36
поддержания больших каналов с фермеров. В случае же маленьких внутрихозяйственных
каналов, для их чистки фермеры нанимают сезонных рабочих. По словам председателя
АВП, фермеры поддерживают мобилизацию сообщества в поддержании канала и сами
принимают активное участие.
Что касается домохозяйств, то они освобождаются от оплаты за ирригационные услуги и
вместо этого вносят свой вклад в виде общественного труда. Согласно АВП, есть
некоторые домохозяйства, которые отказываются от сотрудничества. Но в целом
местные домохозяйства вовлечены в общественные мероприятия сообщества для
поддержания канала.
Заключение
В данной статье, используя два кейса, авторы описывают «действующие правила»,
формальные институты и структуру управления водными и пастбищными ресурсами в
процессе трансформации в ЦА. Основываясь на опыте Кыргызстана и Узбекистана в
разработке и реализации реформ ОР, можно отметить, что, несмотря на то, что были
реализованы различные реформы в сельском хозяйстве и созданы формальные
институты для управления ресурсами, проблемы остались схожими, а именно: слабость
новых институтов; слабое общественное признание и отсутствие легитимных новых
правил и структур управления среди пользователей ресурсов; и разрыв между
реализованной политикой и практикой использования ресурсов.
Авторы предлагают сфокусировать исследование на взаимодействии между
«действенными правилами», формальными институтами и структурами управления,
используя для дальнейшего анализа аналитические рамки «Институтов Устойчивости»
(Hagedorn, 2002). Фокус на взаимодействие между пользователями ресурсов и
природными системами, а также на процессы их институционализации поможет лучше
понять, как появляются и изменяются «действенные правила» в управлении ОР в
переходном контексте ЦА.
Библиография:
Abdullaev, I., Kazbekov, J., Manthrithilake, H., Jumaboev, K. (2010): Water User Groups in Central
Asia: Emerging Form of Collective Action in Irrigation Water Management. Water Resources
Management 24:1029–1043.
Bonfoh, B., Zinsstag, J., Fokou, G., Weibel, D., Ould Taleb, M., Ur-Rahim, I., Maselli, D., Kasymbekov,
J., Tanner, M., (2011): Pastoralism at the crossroads: New avenues for sustainable livelihoods in
semi-arid regions. In: Wiesmann U., Hurni H., editors; with an international group of co-editors.
Research for Sustainable Development: Foundations, Experiences, and Perspectives.
Perspectives of the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) North-South,
University of Bern, Vol. 6. Bern, Switzerland: Geographica Bernensia, pp. 549–570.
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
37
Crewett, W., (2012): Improving the Sustainability of Pasture Use in Kyrgyzstan: The Impact of
Pasture Governance Reforms on Livestock Migration. Mountain Research and Development,
32(3), 267–274.
Dörre, A., (2012): Legal Arrangements and Pasture – Related Socio- ecological Challenges in
Kyrgyzstan, in H., Kreutzmann (ed.), Pastoral practices in High Asia, Advances in Asian HumanEnvironmental Research.
Dukhovny, V., A., Sokolov, V., I., Ziganshina, D., R., (2013): Integrated Water Resources
Management in Central Asia, as a way of survival in conditions of water scarcity. Quaternary
International 311:181–188.
Farrington, J., D., (2005): "De-development in eastern Kyrgyzstan and persistence of seminomadic livestock herding." Nomadic Peoples 9.1–2 (2005): 1–2.
Hagedorn, K., (2002): Institutional Arrangements for Environmental Cooperatives: a
Conceptional Framework, paper published in: Environmental Cooperation and Institutional
Change: Theories and Policies for European Agriculture. New Horizons in Environmental
Economics. Cheltenham, UK, and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, 2002.
Isakov, A., (2013): Assessment of land conditions of Kyrgyz Republic with respect to grazing and
possible development of quoting system at the local governmental level, Paper presented at the
UNU-Land Restoration Training Programme Keldnaholt, 112 Reykjavik, Iceland.
Jumaboev, K., Reddy, M., Muhammedjanov, Sh., Anarbekov, O., Eshmuratov, D., (2013): An
innovative public-private partnership for irrigation extension in Fergana valley of Central Asia.
Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development 5 (1), 21–30.
Kerven, C., Steimann, B., Dear, C., Ashley, L., (2012): Researching the future of pastoralism in
Central Asia's mountains: Examining development orthodoxies. Mountain Research and
Development, 32(3), 368–377.
Kreutzmann, H. (Ed.). (2012): Pastoral Practices in High Asia: Agency of'development'Effected
by Modernisation, Resettlement and Transformation (Vol. 5). Springer.
Ludi, E., (2003): Sustainable pasture management in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan: development
needs and recommendations. Mountain research and development, 23(2), 119–123.
Seawright, J., Gerring, J., (2008): Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research. A Menu of
Qualitative and Quantitative Options 61 (2), pp. 294–308.
Shigaeva, J., Kollmair, M., Niederer, P., and Maselli, D., (2007): Livelihoods in transition: changing
land use strategies and ecological implications in a post-Soviet setting (Kyrgyzstan). Central
Asian Survey, 26(3), 389-406.
Steimann, B., (2011): Making a Living in Uncertainty. Agro-Pastoral Livelihoods and Institutional
Transformations in Post-Socialist Rural Kyrgyzstan. Dissertation zur Erlangung der
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
38
naturwissenschaftlichen Doktorwürde (Dr. sc. nat.). Universität Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Mathematisch-naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät.
Undeland, A., (2005): Kyrgyz Republic livestock sector review – embracing new challenges.
Europe and Central Asia Region, Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development, World
Bank.
Ur-Rahim, I., Maselli, D., (2008): Baseline Study GTZ-CCD Pasture Management Project,
Kyrgyzstan.
Wegerich, K., (2000): Water users associations in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan: Study on
conditions for sustainable development. With assistance of International Water Management
Institute. Water Issues Study Group, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of
London. London, U.K.
Wright, I., A.; Malmakov, N., I.; Vidon, H., and Kerven, C., (2003): New patterns of livestock
management: constraints to productivity. Prospects for pastoralism in Kazakstan and
Turkmenistan: from state farms to private flocks, 108–127.
Zavgorodnyaya, D., (2006): Water user association in the Republic of Uzbekistan. Theory and
practice. PhD Thesis, Center for Development Research (ZEF). University of Bonn, Bonn,
Germany.
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
39
7. CHALLENGES FOR SUSTAINABLE LAND USE IN UZBEKISTAN: A METAANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL PUBLICATIONS APPLYING THE LAND USE
FUNCTIONS FRAMEWORK
Hamidov A.1,2, Helming K.1, Balla D.1
Abstract
Agriculture is one of the main economic sectors of Uzbekistan and is the country’s important source
of employment and income. However, sustainable use of agricultural lands in the irrigated areas of
Uzbekistan is a key challenge for policy makers as well as local stakeholders. Using the land use
functions framework, the current paper examines scientific publications on agricultural land use in
Uzbekistan that were published between 2008 and 2013 in order to determine the type and relative
shares of economic, social and environmental aspects of land use. The results indicate that
environmental and economic dimensions of sustainable land use received relatively higher
attention by scientific community than social aspects of sustainability.
Keywords: Land use functions, agriculture, sustainability, research gaps, Uzbekistan.
Introduction
Located around the flows of two main rivers, the Amudarya and Syrdarya, agriculture is an
important sector for the Uzbek economy and is the key source of employment and income in
rural areas. Due to the full-scale diversion of these main rivers into the irrigated farming fields,
the well-known ecological catastrophe – the Aral Sea disaster – emerged. In the meantime,
intensive withdrawal of water resources to the agricultural fields led to the rise of groundwater
tables and the expansion of secondary soil salinization (Toderich et al., 2002). Subsequently, it
resulted in significant decline of cotton and wheat production – dominant crops throughout the
country (Kushiev et al., 2005). Salinization has now affected about 55% of irrigated lands of
Uzbekistan and is a serious threat for the decline of crop productivity (Hamidov et al., 2007).
World Bank (2002) reported that the annual losses of agricultural production due to highly salinized
land are estimated to be around US$ 12 million. The increase of dust storms in the Aral Sea areas
of Uzbekistan is an additional challenge that impacts on human health (Groll et al., 2013). A
higher rate of asthma, childhood pneumonia, high levels of organochlorine compounds in blood
lipids of children, and the increase of infant mortality in the Aral Sea zone have caused major
threat to human health in the region (ibid.).
In order to profoundly address the above-mentioned challenges, policy makers (international
and domestic institutions) as well as land managers need an adequate knowledge base about the
environmental, social and economic factors related to agricultural land use. Research can
provide a knowledge base for well-informed decision making and help to close existing
knowledge gaps. A meta-analysis of existing scientific literature helps to characterise the
Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF e.V.), Eberswalder Straße 84 – D-15374 Müncheberg,
Germany.
2 Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Philippstr. 13, Haus 12 – D-10099 Berlin, Germany.
Corresponding author: Tel.: +49(30)2093-46371, Fax: +49(33)43282-223, E-mail: ahmad.hamidov@gmail.com
1
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
40
knowledge base and to detect blind spots with regards to all three dimensions of sustainability
(environmental, economic and social).
The land use functions (LUFs) framework helps to include all three dimensions of sustainability
in to land use decisions. It was developed to make the framework of multifunctional land use
operational for land use decision making and land management (Pérez-Soba et al., 2008). It
facilitates the assessment and governance of land use to promote sustainable development. This
study is unique in connecting a meta-analysis about agricultural land use in the region with the
concept of LUFs and therefore, it is a first step in efforts to identify and close existing research
gaps.
The main aim of this paper is to analyse current research on agricultural land use in Uzbekistan
through applying the LUFs framework. In particular, it examines the type and relative shares of
environmental, economic and social aspects of agricultural land use addressed in the
international research community. Last but not least, the paper aims to identify existing
scientific gaps for potential future research foci.
This paper structured as following: introduction section sets up research problems and the aim
of the paper. In the following section, we provide brief methodology. The results section is
devoted to the findings of the paper and finally, conclusion completes the review.
Materials and methods
In this research, we used quantitative and qualitative approaches to discourse analysis of
scientific publications dealing with agricultural land use in Uzbekistan. A systematic database
search of peer-reviewed articles was conducted using the electronic Web of Science – a
comprehensive citation search database. We selected the English-language articles that were
published between 2008 and 20139. We used the following thematic search terms in the
database: agriculture, farm, irrigation, land, land use, and water management. Documents were
considered relevant if they matched at least one of the topical search terms in title, abstract or
keywords. After identifying the relevant papers, we further reviewed all abstracts and in some
instances, the entire paper in order to affirm their relevance. The relevance was checked based
on the LUFs categories and simultaneously, papers were assigned to single or multiple LUF
categories. Table 1 depicts the definition of each LUFs.
Table 1: Definition of land use functions.
Land use functions
(LUF)
Definition
Environmental
LUF 1: Provision of
abiotic resources
9
The role of land in regulating the supply and quality of air, water,
and soil.
The study period covered 2008–2013 after the release of LUF framework by Pérez-Soba et al. (2008).
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
41
LUF 2: Support and
provision
of biotic
resources
Factors affecting the capacity of the land to support biodiversity,
in the form of the genetic diversity of organisms and the diversity
of habitats.
LUF 3: Maintenance of
ecosystem processes
The role of land in the regulation of ecosystem processes related
to the production of food and fibre, the regulation of ecosystem
processes related to the hydrological cycle and nutrient cycling,
cultural services, and ecological supporting functions such as soil
formation.
Economic
LUF 4: Land-based
production
LUF 5: Residential and
land
independent
production
LUF 6: Transport /
Infrastructure
Provision of land for production activities that do not result in
irreversible change, e.g. agriculture, forestry, renewable energy,
and land-based industries such as mining.
Provision of space where residential, social and productive
human activity takes place in a concentrated mode. The
utilization of the space is largely irreversible due to the nature of
the activities.
Provision of space used for roads, railways, and public transport
services, involving development that is largely irreversible.
Social
LUF 7: Provision of
work
LUF 8: Human health
and
recreation
(spiritual & physical)
LUF
9:
Cultural
(landscape
identity,
scenery & cultural
heritage)
Employment provision for all activities based on natural
resources, quality of jobs, job security, and location of jobs
(constraints, e.g. daily commuting).
Access to health and recreational services, and factors that
influence service quality.
Landscape aesthetics and quality, and values associated with
local culture.
Source: Perez-Soba et al. (2008: 382-383).
Results
After detail review and analysis of peer-reviewed English papers, we found 219 articles relevant
to agricultural land use in Uzbekistan. The pattern depicted in Figure 1 reveals that the
publication trend is generally increasing during the study period. It shows that compared to
2008, the number of LUF-related published articles doubled in 2013. The review indicated that
the increase of publication is due primarily to the engagement of international research groups
in the country. For example, Uzbekistan benefited from an extended German research project on
land and water resources, where local and international scholars were highly involved. The
project was implemented through the Center for Development Research (ZEF) at the University
of Bonn during 2000–2011 with the financial assistance from the German Ministry of Education
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
42
and Research (BMBF). In addition to that, International Water Management Institute (IWMI) in
Tashkent has been very active since the beginning of 2000 in promoting research activities in
the Ferghana Valley of Uzbekistan to implement an integrated water resources management
approach. Thus, top-two institutions that authors represent include ZEF and IWMI.
Figure 1: Trends in the LUFs literature in Uzbekistan.
Additionally, distribution of LUFs is given in Figure 2. It indicates that most scientists primarily
focused on the importance of environmental and economic dimensions of land use. Going back
to the ZEF project, for example, we can see that almost half of the papers deals with irrigationrelated issues in the Aral Sea Basin. Among the papers analysed, most papers focused on
environmental aspects of land use (LUF 1–3), followed by economic aspects of land use (LUF 4–
6). Social aspects of land use (LUF 7–9) were least addressed (figure 2). Among the
environmental aspects, provision of abiotic resources (LUF 1) and maintenance of ecosystem
services (LUF 3) were mostly addressed. This includes the role of land in regulating the supply
and quality of air, water and soils which has been the main focus of land use scientists in recent
years. The support and provision of biotic resources (LUF 2) remains underexplored. Among the
economic factors, land-based production (LUF 4) was mostly addressed by literature followed
by infrastructure (LUF 6). In the latter case, reconstruction and rehabilitation of irrigation and
drainage infrastructures were primary concerns of most papers. Non-renewable uses of land
(LUF 5) such as mining and industry played a minor role in the literature analysed. All social
aspects of land use, such as employment (LUF 7), health and recreational services (LUF 8), and
landscape aesthetics (LUF 9) were least addressed in scientific literature. Obviously, the
scientific evidence base about social aspects of land use is very limited.
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
43
Figure 2: Distribution of land use functions.
It is interesting to note that despite the high-level of impacts of Aral Sea shrinkage on human
health, researchers were less concern on this particular issue. A detail review of the six healthrelated papers indicated that three papers discussed some aspects of human health and
recreational services in the Aral Sea areas of Uzbekistan. For instance, in the paper “Getting the
water prices right using an incentive-based approach: an application of a choice experiment in
Khorezm, Uzbekistan”, authors explored whether water fees collected by a water users
association can be used to provide socio-economic benefits to its members (Bhaduri and Kloos,
2013). These benefits include maintenance of health centers and schools, provision of
microcredit, and so on (ibid.). In another ZEF-paper – “Ecosystem and social construction: an
interdisciplinary case study of the Shurkul lake landscape in Khorezm, Uzbekistan” – authors
explored the importance of the ecological and socio-cultural dimensions of Shurkul lake that was
formed during the transformation from forested to agricultural landscape (Oberkircher et al.,
2011). The results indicated that “the lake is part of local ecological knowledge, functions as a
prestige object and recreational site, and is rooted in religious beliefs of the population as a symbol
of God's benevolence” (ibid.). Third paper, published by ZEF researchers, included the assessment
of the economic viability of organic cotton production in Uzbekistan. The study compared a
conventional cotton production system, which contributed to soil degradation, water depletion
and poor human health, with an integrated organic system in Western Uzbekistan (Franz et al.,
2010). Results revealed higher profits under an organic farming system, which could reduce
pressure on the environment and improve local livelihoods (ibid.).
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
44
Conclusion
In this paper, using the framework of land use functions (LUFs), we analysed scientific
publications on agricultural land use in Uzbekistan in English language. The main aim was to
determine the type and relative shares of economic, social and environmental aspects of
agricultural land use. We found 219 published articles relevant to land use. The analysis
indicated that publications concentrating on environmental and economic dimensions of land
use functions were primary focus of land use scientists. By contrast, social aspects of land use
functions, such as employment, health and recreational services, and landscape aesthetics
received far less importance by international scholars. However, it is strongly dependent on the
realised foci of international projects.
Overall, by applying LUF framework we identified research focus and gaps that future scientists
can contribute to the sustainability of land use practices in Uzbekistan. For example, we
advocate for more scientific papers in the area of social dimensions of land use practices,
particularly looking at human health aspect. Additionally, research on biotic resources such as
biodiversity and habitat conditions for plants, organisms and species as well as landindependent production such as market, financial services, rural banks and land competition are
lacking and thus, require more attention by the scientific community.
Going forward, it would also be interesting to find out local key stakeholders and policy makers
in the area of agricultural land use in Uzbekistan and undertake participatory workshop to get
their perspectives with regard to land use functions. Through comparing different perspectives
we may identify a mismatch between the research interests and the needs of key actors, which
could further open up a new research interests.
Finally, review of non-English articles shall also be further explored for the evaluation of status
quo on research field of land use in Uzbekistan and for a further harmonization of research
needs and to close existing knowledge gaps.
References:
Bhaduri, A.; Kloos, J. (2013). Getting the water prices right using an incentive-based approach:
An application of a choice experiment in Khorezm, Uzbekistan. European Journal of
Development Research 25(5), 680–694.
Franz, J.; Bobojonov, I.; Egamberdiev, O. (2010). Assessing the economic viability of organic
cotton production in Uzbekistan: A first look. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 34(11), 99–119.
Groll, M.; Opp, Ch.; Aslanov, I. (2013). Spatial and temporal distribution of the dust deposition in
Central Asia – results from a long term monitoring program. Aeolian Research 9: 49–62.
Hamidov, A.; Beltrao, J.; Costa, C.; Khaydarova, V.; Sharipova, Sh. (2007). Environmentally useful
technique – Portulaca Oleracea golden purslane as a salt removal species. WSEAS Transactions
on Environment and Development 3(7), 117–122.
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
45
Kushiev, H., Noble, A., Abdullaev, I.; Toshbekov, U. (2005). Remediation of abandoned saline soils
using Glycyrrhiza Glabra: A study from the hungry steppes of Central Asia. International Journal
of Agricultural Sustainability, 3(2), 102–113.
Oberkircher, L.; Shanafield, M.; Ismailova, B.; Saito, L. (2011). Ecosystem and social construction:
An interdisciplinary case study of the Shurkul Lake landscape in Khorezm, Uzbekistan. Ecology
and Society 16(4), 20.
Pérez-Soba, M.; Petit, S.; Jones, L.; Bertrand, N.; Briquel, V.; Omodei-Zorini, L.; Contini, C.;
Helming, K.; Farrington, J.; Mossello, M.; Wascher, D.; Kienast, F.; Groot, R. (2008). Land use
functions – a multifunctionality approach to assess the impact of land use changes on land use
sustainability. Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 375–404.
Toderich, K.; Tsukatani, T.; Black, C.; Takabe, K.; Katayama, Y. (2002). Adaptations of plants to
metal/salt contaminated environments: Glandular structures and salt excretion; Available at:
http://ipec.utulsa.edu/Conf2002/toderich_katayama.pdf.
World Bank (2002). Global condition of environment. World Bank for Reconstruction and
Development: Tashkent.
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
46
8. SEVEN CONSTRAINTS FOR IRRIGATION REFORM IMPLEMENTATION IN
KYRGYZSTAN
Crewett W.13
Abstract
The Kyrgyz irrigation management reform is still under way. In many regions of the country
irrigation services are remain to be inadequate provided. A literature review was conducted in
order to summarize the key constraints that hamper the progress of the establishment of functional
self-governing water user associations (WUAs).
Introduction and method
The analysis aimed at the identification on most important constraints that hamper the
development of the Kyrgyz community-based irrigation management reforms. Table 1
documents the studied literature which was analysed for the discussed implementation
challenges. The remainder of the text discusses the seven key issues which were discussed as
hampering factors for WUA development across the studied cases.
The Status of the reform process
Based on the available material it is rather challenging to make general statements on success or
failure of the reform. This is because country-wide data on the performance of the newly
established administrative and management structures are not available and the number of
cases that were examined in the available studies is rather low. This is aggravated by the fact
that even within one case the reform is assessed very differently by service users.14 One trend
points at the direction that WUAs that received some organizational support as part of a Pilot
project on irrigation management (reported of by Yakubov 2006 and Manthrithilake 2007) were
more successful than such WUAs that did not receive external support. Also, the reports suggest
that better outcomes of reforms were observed were cash crops are grown (DFID 2003).
The available information on the outcomes of the reform indicates mixed results. On the one
hand it is obvious that much progress has been made in terms of decentralization and
establishment of WUAs and formal establishment of new institutions at district level. Also,
progress in adequate water supply was observed for some of the study WUAs as a whole.
Yakubov found “quite an improvement in water delivery performance in terms of both adequacy
and timeliness against farmers-expressed water demands.” (2006, 23) After the project more
than 80 percent of water users reported to have adequate (90–100 percent of their needs) water
Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany
found that a quarter does not see any changes, more than half find that water delivery
improved “a little bit” and more than 20 percent see considerable improvements, He also find that “there
was nobody across study WUAs except for a tiny faction (5%) in [the Kyrgyz] WUA Isan to express their
full satisfaction with WUA performance.” At the same time it was only a small number of farmers who
were particularly unhappy about the WUA service the majority of farmers said to be fairly satisfied with
WUA services (Yakubov 2006, 38).
13
14 Yakubov
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
47
supply (ibid., 19) and to have increased the number of irrigations (ibid., 23). However, this
mainly refers to those who draw water from head ends of the irrigation canals than from middle
or tail ends.
But there are also other studies that found counterevidence (e.g. Sehring 2007). Some farmers
report of unfair water distribution, mainly at the distributary canals (where WUAs are in charge)
and less at the water course, which is the responsibility of District water administration
(Yakubov 2006, 28). Most disadvantaged farmers in terms of water access and timeliness of
water delivery are those at the tail-ends of water courses (Yakubov 2006, 19; 22; see also UI
Hassan 2004). Water distribution is “already predeliniated by the land plots allocated before to
the village elite.” (Sehring 2007, 288) Reasons for water disputes were found to be: first, a lack
of water and second “no coordination or agreed rules between farmers.” (Yakubov 2006, 36) For
garden irrigation, an important source of conflict was unfair distribution of water (Yakubov
2006, 60).
In some WUAs repair and maintenance status of irrigation systems improved from 2002 to 2005
(Yakubov 2006). However, canal maintenance, both at water course and distributary canals is
not sufficient (Yakubov 2006, UI Hassan 2004).
Anecdotal evidence suggests that water management organizations are adequately staffed, and
are professionally qualified. It also seems that the organizational and task distribution as well as
communication between different departments of district water management bodies is
sufficiently well functioning and that – given the financial constraints tasks as well
accomplished. Hassan and colleagues also report of extensive book keeping of all transactions –
however, these are of different quality (UI Hassan 2004, 33).
Other authors find quite the contrary: water managers are not always experts and lack adequate
qualifications (Herrfahrdt et al. 2006, 86). Critics summarize that the WUAs are not yet able to
serve local communities in a satisfactory way. Findings by Herrfahrdt and colleagues as well as
from Sehring suggest that WUAs do not fully control water withdrawal, guarantee timely
delivery of water to those who need it and provide for an obedience of water laws (Herrfahrdt et
al. 2006; Sehring 2007, 288). UI Hassan reports of only slowly increasing “capacity of water
users to jointly operate and maintain their irrigation system.” (UI Hassan 2004, v)
Major constraints for the implementation of the reform
First, insufficient in-country resources for rehabilitation of infrastructure. Currently, 2 percent
of the state budget is allocated to the irrigation sector. This is a huge drop in government
support compared to the pre-reform situation and is by no means sufficient to cover capital
requirements. The bulk of these funds are spent on salary for administrative staff responsible for
water allocation and fee collection as well as salary of staff at regional and district level
(Herrfahrdt et al. 2006, 103; UI Hassan et al. 2004). Remaining funds are inadequate to perform
“capital repairs [which] are neglected entirely, unless foreign exchange funds from donors can
be secured.” (UI Hassan et al. 2004, 30–31) Government support also arrives only irregularly
and does not allow for financial planning. In effect, international donors, mainly the World Bank,
provide the largest part of finance for irrigation rehabilitation but until now only 20–30 percent
of the irrigation infrastructure has been rehabilitated, yet. It is very unlikely that, even with
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
48
further support, the rehabilitation of the complete irrigation infrastructure through
international donor support will be achieved in the near future (Herrfahrdt et al. 2006).10
Second, WUAs lack the means and capacity to measure water use which results in weak contract
enforcement. Fee collection is not necessarily linked to the amount of water the service user
receives (UI Hassan 2004). This is partly because measurement devices are not at the disposal of
local and district water administration so that monitoring of water withdrawal, delivery and
planning of water distribution is severely constrained. In fact, it is impossible to calculate
individual fees based on actual volumetric water use (UNEP 2006). Therefore, fee collection is
based on “guesstimates and hunches” (UI Hassan 2004, 10). This practice seems, together with
the bad performance of the entire system in terms of water delivery, severely contradict the
rationale of the reform: “It is often argued that volumetric charges are a useful means to force
water suppliers to fulfill their contractual obligations and thus promote accountability and
equity, however, this market mechanism does not work when general availability is uncertain
and losses are high.” (UI Hassan et al. 2004, 30)
Third, insufficient resources of WUAs hamper operation and maintenance activities. The IFS is
set by the parliament and is “merely symbolic” (Sehring 2007, 283). In 2006, during the
irrigation period from April to September, the fee was 0.03 KZS/m³ from October to March it
was 0.01 KZS/m³. In “remote areas” – which basically refers to highland regions with high
incidence of rural poverty - the fee is even reduced to 0.01 KZS/m³ (Herrfahrdt et al 2006, 106).
It does not reflect actual maintenance and operation cost that accrue to the WCAs and financial
requirements of district water management bodies, (Johnson III et al. 2002, UI Hassan 2004, 39)
and also neglects variations in soil, climate, and crop water requirements (UI Hassan 2004).
Calculations by UI Hassan and colleagues, suggest that “the present ISF can only cover about a
quarter of assumed expenditures at the district level and only between 11 and 19 percent of
WUA costs.11” (UI Hassan et al. 2004, 30) Different estimates exist to which extend the fees
should be increased in order to arrive at self-sustaining levels, or at least to guarantee actual
operation and maintenance costs: DWM estimations consider 0.2 KZS/m³ to be adequate to
cover actual operation and maintenance cost (Herrfahrdt et al. 2006, 108) – which would mean
an increase by almost tenfold of the current price. There is some political interest not to raise
water fees. Even though according to the law the parliament has to follow the recommendation
of the DWM (article 48 of the Water Code), the DWMs’ call for an increase in ISFs was ignored
(Johnson III et al. 2002). Some authors link this to parliament members’ interests “to avoid new
civil unrest emanating from rural areas.” (Herrfahrdt et al. 2006, 114) particularly considering
the relatively instable political situation in the country. Fee collection rates vary greatly between
WUAs and regions (Alybaeva 2004, UI Hassan et al. 2004). In 2000, ISF collection rate varied
between 45 percent and 65 percent in different regions of the country (UI Hassan 2004, 20). For
2003, Alybaeva found a range of 42 to 67%, the numbers are similar so that in average about
half of the ISF was paid. (Alybaeva 2004, 11). In some WCAs delayed and incomplete payments
as well as entire refusal of payments of ISF occur (Sehring 2007, 284, UI Hassan et al. 2004, DFID
2003). However, also full payment of fees were observed (Yakubov 2006).
Fourth, general low levels of rule obedience and enforcement. Several of the WUAs under study
do not control water withdrawal, do not punish rule breakers and are not able to guarantee
10 This is also aggravated by the fact that Kyrgyzstan has adopted a debt reduction strategy that does not allow the
government to raise any more loans (Herrfahrdt et al. 2006, 105; IMF 2005a, 16).
11 Besides of low revenues from ISFs, also official transfers to water management bodies are irregular and also happen
to arrive in kind (Herrfahrdt et al. 2006, 102–103).
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
49
timely delivery of water to those who pay fees in time (Sehring 2007, Herrfahrdt et al. 2006). On
the other hand in some WUAs some degree of enforcement of payment of fees occurred: those
who paid later or refrained from paying full fees receive water only after all other water users
had been served (Herrfahrdt et al. 2006). Weak rule enforcement also leads to extensive water
theft: „Un-allowed water withdrawal is so common that it can be described as an informal
institution itself as it presents a widely non-confronted rule of behavior which possesses a
certain degree of legitimacy.“ (Sehring 2007, 284). Water users react with the establishment of
private enforcement mechanisms and hire guards in order to secure their right to water.
However, even guards seem not to guarantee water delivery according to the rules because
bribery and also physical threatening of the guards occurs (Herrfahrdt et al. 2006, 129, 130).
The provisions that stipulate the establishment of management structures along hydrological
boundaries were only partly enforced (UNEP 2006). Water management structures at rayon
level still exclusively follow administrative boundaries which “constitute a noteworthy hurdle
on the way to implementing IWRM” (Herrfahrdt et al. 2006, 68). The same holds for WUA, so
that many of the studied WCAs were determined by village borders, old kolkhozes borers,
machinery delivery stations, study farms (Herrfahrdt et al. 2006; DFID 2003). It seems that there
are no formal procedures that would allow for rule enforcement: formal conflict resolution
mechanisms for water conflicts are not yet widely spread (Sehring 2005, 32; Herrfahrdt et al.
2006, 127) or do not function adequately where they are established (Yakubov 2006). It was
also reported that court decisions are bypassed by bribery of water managers at the local level
(Herrfahrdt et al. 2006, 128). Dispute resolution seems to be more effective by means of
informal conflict resolution (Yakubov 2006; UI Hassan and colleagues 2004).
Fifth, participatory and accountable irrigation management is not achieved, yet. The reforms
remain formal and reinforce hierarchical behavioural patterns of water users and water
managers. As a Soviet legacy, the farmers lack experience in independent farmers’ organization
(Johnson III et al. 2002). The literature suggests that WUAs did not become independent
participatory institutions but remained part of a patrimonial system of traditional power
structures (Sehring 2007): some of the WUAs remained (and still are to some degree) (a) a copy
of the former state and collective farm hierarchies (UI Hassan 2004, 16; Sehring 2007), (b) are
dominated by the local governments, or (c) other representatives of authorities or local elites
such as elder courts (Sehring 2007). The organizational character of some of the water
management organizations is strictly hierarchical. Upward accountability characterizes the
“conventional hierarchy of subordination and superordination” and the system at large remains
centralized (DFID 2003, UI Hassan et al. 2004) or depends on patrimonial structures (Sehring
2007). The absence of a well designed participatory approach which is accepted by water users
and managers alike hampers the embeddedness of WUAs in the communities, participation and
feeling of ownership. (UI Hassan et al. 2004, vi). Instead, farmers consider members of the local
elite or even donors to be the drivers of the reform process. “Little knowledge and awareness of
WUA reflects the general situation where a majority of the village population is marginalized in
local decision making processes. The establishment of WUAs did not change the institutional
logic; it rather was incorporated in it.” It seems that external support is required in order to
enable WUAs to become participatory organizations. Yakubov did find an improvement in social
capital among water users which might be partly linked to the support the WUA received as part
of a pilot project: “Since the launch of the IWRM-Ferghana much effort has been put to build
proper capacities to this end within farmer communities and promote their collective action
towards truly participatory scheme management. With this regard, farmers’ replies that their
cooperation and mutual understanding has improved after the WUA set up could be considered
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
50
among major achievements of the project.” (Yakubov 2006, 40) For those WUAs that did not
receive support for capacity building there seems no such improvement. One could say that the
role of the patron transforms to that of a broker. […] The centre for resource distribution – the
patron of the local patron – is now not longer the party committee in […] Bishkek or Moscow but
international donor organizations. Sehring also found that “directors and councils feel more
accountable to the donor organization that promoted it than to its members, i.e. the people that
elected them.“ (Sehring 2007, 287). Water managers appear to feel accountable to donors or
remain to be bound to an up-ward accountability according to strict hierarchies (UI Hassan et al.
2004). Sehring also finds that the WUAs she studied consequently were ”incorporated into
patronage systems“ which now also seem to include donors (Sehring 2007). Often, the chairman
of former collective farms was appointed head of the WUA (Sehring 2007).12 “On a formal level,
new institutions have been established: laws have been approved, WCAs have been registered,
and fees have been introduced. On an informal level, these institutions are transformed
according to the existing institutional logics.” (Sehring 2007, 288) It was also observed that the
functioning of a WUA, payment of fees and water management seems to depend on whether
heads of WUAs are respected village members.
Sixth, the reform lacks legitimacy among water users and water providers. Water users do not
necessarily share an understanding of WUAs as self-financing and self-governing structures.
Instead, they assume the government or donors to be responsible for canal management and
maintenance (Herrfahrdt et al. 2006, 109). This might also be understood as part of the Soviet
legacy given that irrigation water was not to be paid for in the pre-reform period: with a “history
of receiving irrigation water free they were reluctant to pay to support such an organization.”
(Johnson III et al. 2002). It was also found that if payment of fees occurred this was not linked to
the perception that this is legitimate payment for a provided service but “because informal
authority [of WUA management] demands this. ”Sehring also reports of some kind of
understanding and agreement for non-payment by officials (Sehring 2007, 284).
Seventh, unfavorable economic frame conditions hamper the implementation of reforms. The
Collection of IFS is hampered by barter economy. Since a barter economy has developed in the
rural areas of Kyrgyz Republic (UI Hassan 2004, v) the WUAs are severely deprived of cash.
“Water users depend entirely, and the districts in part, on IFS paid by water users whose ability
to pay in cash is highly constrained…” Since the government permitted water users to pay a part
of the IFS in kind, that 50 to 80 percent of ISF were paid in kind (UI Hassan et al. 2004, 30). “The
economic aspect to introduce monetary valuation in irrigation management is not implemented
because the de-capitalized agrarian sector does not provide the necessary economic conditions
and because it contradicts established norms of usage. ISF are undermined by informal practices
that are partly institutionalized." (Sehring 2007, 288). Low willingness to pay irrigation fees was
also linked to the farmers’ inability to earn sufficient cash and pay higher ISF in cash, because of
only low incomes they are able to obtain from agricultural activities due to very limited
marketing opportunities. At district level water management bodies situation is likely to be
better since at least some government payments arrive as cash; however, district water
managers reported that they received clothes or machine parts. “In order to procure necessary
consumables, such as fuel for vehicles or construction materials, the water managers have to sell
12“The
positions in WUAs are usually filled with the main actors in a village who are also dominating the other
mentioned organizations. In all villages of the case studies, the respective director of the agricultural cooperative that
succeeded the kolkhoz or sovkhoz is the chairman of the WUA. At the Kyrgyz WUA "ZhanyPakhta", the WUA chairman
is the director of the agricultural cooperative, chairman of the municipal council, deputy to the district council, and a
close friend of the head of the local government." {Sehring 2007, 286}
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
51
the goods received or barter them for the needed goods.” (UI Hassan et al. 2004, 30)
Consequently, efficiently and effectiveness of water management therefore decreased, since
water managers buy, sell or store goods.
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
52
Table 1: Reviewed literature
Author
UI Hassan et al.
Year
2004
Type of publication
IWMI research report
Yakubov
2006
DFID
2003
Herrfahrdt et al.
2006
HerrfahrdtPaehle
Sehring
2008
Survey report on
Ferghana Valley project
Practice
guidelines
for
irrigation
management
transfer
German
Development
Institute (DIE) Study report
Book chapter
2007
Journal article
Manthirthilake
and
Djalalov
UNEP
Johnson III et al.
2007
2006
2002
Report
Workshop contribution
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
Method
RRA and open-ended, structured expert
interviews project and government document
analysis
IWRM Quantitative questionnaire
Literature Review and
Qualitative questionnaire for expert interviews
Literature review and expert Interviews
Level of evidence
2 WCAs in Kyrgyz Republic
Provincial level analysis
1 WCA in Kyrgyzstan, and two other WCA
in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan respectively
4 WCAs in Kyrgyz Republic
Members of WCAs in four study sites
Literature review
Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) such as 1 WCA in Kyrgyz Republic
semi-structured and open
1 WCA in Tajikistan
Interviews, informal conversations, participant Reforms did not meet objectives
observations, and group discussions
Pilot study on WCA affected by main canal
management of IWRM Ferghana Valley
project
In-country data collection
Outline of water management reform
process since 1999; field research data
from 2001
53
References:
DFID (Department for International Development) (2003): Privatisation/Transfer of irrigation
management in Central Asia. Final report. Department for international development knowledge
and research services contract R8025. DFID (Department for International Development).
Herrfahrdt, Elke; Kipping, Martin; Pickardt, Tanja; Polak, Mathias; Rohrer, Caroline (2006): Water
governance in the Kyrgyz agricultural sector. On its way to Integrated Water Resource
Management? Bonn: Dt. Inst. Für Entwicklungspolitik (Studies / Deutsches Institut für
Entwicklungspolitik, 14).
Herrfahrdt-Paehle 2008: Two steps forward, one step back: institutional change in Kyrgyz water
governance In: Waltina Scheumann / Susanne Neubert / Martin Kipping (eds.), Water politics and
development cooperation: local power plays and global governance, Berlin: Springer, 277–297.
Johnson III, Sam H.; Stoutjesdijk, Joop and Djailobayev Nurlan (2002): Irrigation reform in the
Kyrgyz Republic. Sixth International Seminar on Participatory Irrigation Management. Beijing.
Manthrithilake, Herath; Djalalov, Sandjar (2007): User participation in main canal governance.
Paper presented at The 4th Asian Regional Conference & 10th International Seminar on
Participatory Irrigation Management May 2–5, 2007. Teheran.
Sehring, Jenniver (2007): Irrigation reform in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. In: Irrig. Drainage Syst. 21,
277–290.
UNEP (2006): The Kyrgyz Republic. National Report. within the framework of
achieving the Johannesburg Plan of implementation target of "Integrated
Management and Efficiency Plans by 2005, with support to developing
Collaborating Centre on Water and Environment Global Water Partnership
Caucasus. Bishkek.
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
UNEP support for
Water Resources
countries". UNEP
Central Asia and
54
9. INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE IN THE KYRGYZ IRRIGATION SECTOR. A SHORT
INTRODUCTION TO THE REFORM
Crewett W.18
Abstract
Based on a literature review, the paper outlines the key institutional elements of the irrigation
management reform in the Kyrgyz Republic. The review documents a similar institutional reform
approach taken in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan with respect to legislation, governance structures and
payment schemes.
Introduction and method
The objective of this paper is to explore the nature and direction of the Kyrgyz irrigation
management reform. The focus of interest is on the type of institutional arrangements and
governance structures which are associated with the reform programme. The findings are based on
a review of the available studies on irrigation management in Kyrgyzstan. (see table 1).
The new water legislation
Besides several decrees that are concerned with irrigation management, two laws were created: a
Law on Water of the Kyrgyz Republic in 1994, amended in 2002; and a Water user Association law
(Law on Unions (associations) of Water Users) in 1997, amended in 2002.
Water code
The Water Code which was adopted in 2005 embraces a number of IWRM principles, such as water
rights security, participation of water users, environmental protection and sustainability, and
clarity of tasks distribution (UNDP 2006).
Box 1: Summary of the guiding principles of the Water Code:
Security
long-term rights to specified quantities of water and long term water permits for 15
or 50 years, if long term investments are required to use water
long term water supply contracts for delivery of defined water quantities to WCAs –
legal certainty and water security
18
Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
55
promotion of private sector investment and planning security for state water
management institutions
participation
establishment of Irrigation and Drainage Commissions at the national, basin and
local levels
water users are entitled to participate in planning and management of irrigation
structures guided by Basin Councils
Ecology
ecological provisions are taken into account, a water basin principle
provisions on improved water resource monitoring and water use planning, such as
registration of water use permits
Clarity
redefinition of competencies, tasks, and duties of state bodies involved in water
management (State Water Administration and National and Basin Water councils)
The reform has many features of a decentralization strategy: It lays ground for (a) the shift of
financial/budget water management responsibility to water users through the introduction of
water fees and water user self-management organizations, (b) a transfer of physical tertiary
irrigation infrastructure and management responsibility to WUAs, and (c) improvements in
coordination of state administration bodies by streamlining parallel administrative structures that
share same functions, a clearer definition of rights and responsibilities, and improvement in their
control and administrative functions.
The Law on Unions (associations) of Water Users (2002) outlines the purposes and tasks of WUAs,
procedures for establishment and registration of WUA. It also clarifies membership, rights and
duties of WUA members, WUA management including dispute resolution, and the finances of the
WUAs. Compared to other new legislations in Kyrgyzstan these laws are remarkably clearly
formulated and rather comprehensive. It is an exception that in these laws functions and decision
making authority is assigned to clearly defined actors or organizations.
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
56
Table 1: Reviewed literature
Author
UI Hassan et al.
Year
2004
Yakubov
2006
DFID
2003
Herrfahrdt et 2006
al.
Herrfahrdt2008
Paehle
Sehring
2007
Manthirthilake 2007
and
Djalalov
UNEP
2006
Johnson III et 2002
al.
Type of publication
IWMI research report
Method
RRA and open-ended, structured expert
interviews project and government
document analysis
Survey report on IWRM Quantitative questionnaire
Ferghana Valley project
Level of evidence
2 WCAs in Kyrgyz Republic
Provincial level analysis
1 WCA in Kyrgyzstan, and two other
WCA in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
respectively
4 WCAs in Kyrgyz Republic
Practice
guidelines for
irrigation
management
transfer
German
Development
Institute (DIE) Study report
Book chapter
Literature Review and
Qualitative questionnaire for expert
interviews
Literature review and expert Interviews
Members of WCAs in four study sites
Journal article
Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) such 1 WCA in Kyrgyz Republic
as semi-structured and open
1 WCA in Tajikistan
Interviews,
informal
conversations, Reforms did not meet objectives
participant observations, and group
discussions
Pilot study on WCA affected by main
canal management of IWRM Ferghana
Valley project
Report
Workshop contribution
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
Literature review
In-country data collection
Outline of water management reform
process since 1999; field research data
from 2001
57
Water Consumers Associations
Today, WUAs are the formal owner of the “on-farm irrigation structures” of the former
kolkhozes and sovkhozes – which is practically the irrigation infrastructure that is today used by
farmers to irrigate their plots. All those who hold land rights to a plot of land in the defined area
of the WUA are entitled to become members of the WUA.
Task of WUAs are:
Operation and maintenance of irrigation and drainage network in within their service
areas
Distribution of water to WUA members and non-members (based on individual
contracts)
Rehabilitation, construction and improvement of irrigation systems
Acquisition of water based on purchase of water from water suppliers or withdrawal
from natural water sources (Law on Unions (associations) of Water Users, Article 3,2)
WUAs are entitled to collect water user fees from their members as own budget revenue and
Irrigation Service Fees (ISF) on behalf of district irrigation bodies.
The government supported irrigation group formation since the mid 1990; however, since 2002,
considerable support for the reform comes from World Bank and Asian Development Bank
(Sehring 2007, 285). 430 WUAs (UNEP 2006, 11) have been established so far, the majority of
which is registered (Herrfahrdt et al. 2006) and altogether 500 are planned to have been formed
until 2010 (Herrfahrdt et al. 2006, 57; DFID 2003). All irrigated areas should then be managed
by WUAs.19 In the early 1990s informal water user groups had already been established
voluntarily by water users which had taken over the management of abandoned collective
infrastructure (Johnson III et al. 2002) and thereby tried to fill the void left by the dissolution of
large-scale farm irrigation management.
WCAs are suggested to come as a remedy for state withdrawal due to limited resources and
claim that the transfer of responsibilities to water users is driven by “the reluctance or inability
of the state to fund operation and maintenance of irrigation systems” which appears in line with
the move to a market economy. The reforms are therefore seen as “IMT [Irrigation Management
Transfer] by default (…) [because] in practice it is simply state withdrawal as active ‘transfer’
programs have been limited. In hand with this withdrawal has been pressure from external
sources (e.g. international donor organizations) for IMT, for example through technical
assistance elements on the rehabilitation projects that they are providing loans for. In fact the
evidence is that most IMT has been instigated and driven by external organizations
(predominantly international financing institutions), which have also contributed financially to
introducing IMT." (DFID 2003, 3-4)
In 2002, the “Law on Unions (associations) of Water Users” refined the role, legal status and
organizational framework for WUAs as being “voluntary, non-commercial organizations
operating in public interest.” The WUAs are expected to be participatory and democratic in
19 Relevant decrees were the “Regulation on WCAs in Rural Areas” in 1995 and the “Statute of WUAs in Rural Areas” in
August 1997. Strong donor influence contributed to the development of these provisions (Herrfahrdt et al. 2006).
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
58
nature and the law vests them with all decision making authority to act as an independent selforganizing organization. According to the law the WUAs’ general assembly is “the supreme
management organ” (Law on Unions (associations) of Water Users, Article 13,1). WUAs’ general
assemblies have received considerable decision making authority: its members possess decision
making power in operational decision making situations and in collective choice situations.
Collective choice rule making authority is exercised by the general assembly in three ways: (a) it
is entitled to decide about the rules according to which voting rights are distributed (either one
vote for each member, according to proportion of land within WUA, or according to the amount
of fees paid) (Article 13,8). (b) The general assembly also has the power to suspend members if
certain conditions are fulfilled, such as lack of payment of fees or water theft. (c) Besides, the
WUAs’ general assembly can decide about a change of its charter that defines among others
“structures and competences of management organs of the WUA”.
If WUAs are too large to have decision making in general assemblies, representatives assemblies
are to be elected (Article 14).
WUAs have become the “primary stakeholders responsible for water management at the local
level” (Herrfahrdt et al. 2006, 57). Prior to the establishment of WUA the on-farm irrigation
network was transferred to the local governments, however, these bodies were financially,
technically and administrative unable to fulfill the associated management tasks (Johnson III et
al. 2002; DFID 2003). Currently, local self governments which consist of elected councils and an
administration are “indirectly involved” in water management (Herrfahrdt et al. 2006, 60;
Herrfahrdt-Paehle 2008; Johnson III et al. 2002). However, if WUAs do not exist local
governments regularly fill the gap and an “agricultural specialists” at the local self government
administrations (Herrfahrdt et al. 2006, 60) or/and community based groups, such as elder
courts take over responsibility for irrigation management (Herrfahrdt et al. 2006, 55–60,
Herrfahrdt-Paehle 2008).
Administrative decentralization and restructuration
The reforms include a restructuration of government and local level administrative
organizations concerned with irrigation and water management. Currently, there are water
management bodies at all administrative levels:
At the national level, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water management and Processing Industry is
responsible for running a Department of Water Management (DWM). The department, being
financially and institutionally autonomous, is responsible for:
Determination of water consumption standards;
Submission of proposals on tariffs for water supply management (which have to be
approved by parliament);
Planning and financing of measures related to water rehabilitation of infrastructure.
Subordinated are six Basin Water Management Departments at regional level (formed 1997)
and district water management departments. At regional level the department distributes water
to districts, controls water management and supervises district budgets. At district level the
department distributes water to secondary and tertiary canals which are managed by WUAs.
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
59
District water administration also maintains the canal system. Since 1995, WUAs (or farmers
directly) receive water from the District Water Departments based on contracts which define the
amount of water to be delivered. WUAs in turn have contracts with farmers to whom they
deliver water13. The new law stipulates the formation of a new State Water Administration
which then will replace the DWM currently under supervision of the Ministry of Agriculture (see
graph 2).
In addition, at all administrative levels “Water User Association Support Units” were established.
These are staffed with local experts and international consultants in order to technically and
organizationally support WUA development. They are responsible to develop capacity within the
administration to ensure the creation of sustainable self-governing local level institutions for
irrigation management (Johnson III et al. 2002)14.
The water code requires two other new organizations to be formed: A National Water Council
responsible for coordination of different state bodies in charge of implementing the code and its
variant at regional (now basin) level and an Irrigation and Drainage Commission at national,
basin, and local level.
Cost sharing and user fees
The reform made major changes to the payment scheme for irrigation: two types of fee accrue to
the irrigation system user – irrigation service fees (ISF) and water user association fees. ISF
were introduced in the 1994 Law on Water but after resistance by members of parliament the
collection of the fees started only in 1999 (Sehring 2007, 282). The IFS is a flat charge per unit of
water used (UI Hassan 2004), or is calculated based on the size of irrigated land (Yakubov 2006,
27). It is meant to cover irrigation cost up to the farm gates of water users (Johnson III et al.
2002) In addition, water user association fees are to be paid by the water users. These fees
should cover the staff and office cost of WUAs as well as maintenance and operation costs for onfarm irrigation services. Both fees are collected by the WUAs who then transfer the ISF share of
it to district water management departments (Herrfahrdt et al. 2006, 106).
Government and donor subsidies fill financial gaps (Herrfahrdt et al. 2006, 53–54). According to
World Bank estimations, the irrigation sector is currently subsidized by more than 60 percent. In
2003, the irrigation sector, namely producers of irrigated crops, attracted subsidies of about 200
million KZS through public transfers (Herrfahrdt et al. 2006, 108). In addition, 45 percent of
DWM budget are financed by European Union’s Food Security Program (Herrfahrdt et al. 2006,
105).
However, compared to pre-reform standards, the state reduced its financial responsibilities for
irrigation management drastically since the introduction of ISFs in 1999. The state budget now
covers only staff at ministry, oblast and rayon level, and covers 50% of the operation and
maintenance costs that accrue to the districts.
In a limited number of cases inter-rayon level management organizations govern use and maintenance of canals
shared between different rayons. This is based on contractual agreements (Herrfahrdt et al. 2006, 54).
14 This additional support and the program as a whole is part of two World Bank programs run by World Bank.
13
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
60
Graph 1: Organizational structure of WUA, according to Law on Unions (associations) of Water
Users (2002) (Herrfardt et al. 2006, 58)
Graph 2: Institutional arrangement of Kyrgyz water governance (UI Hassan et al. 2004, 9)
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
61
References:
DFID (Department for International Development) (2003): Privatisation/Transfer of irrigation
management in Central Asia. Final report. Department for international development knowledge
and research services contract R8025. DFID (Department for International Development).
Herrfahrdt, Elke; Kipping, Martin; Pickardt, Tanja; Polak, Mathias; Rohrer, Caroline (2006):
Water governance in the Kyrgyz agricultural sector. On its way to Integrated Water Resource
Management? Bonn: Dt. Inst. für Entwicklungspolitik (Studies / Deutsches Institut für
Entwicklungspolitik, 14).
Herrfahrdt-Paehle 2008: Two steps forward, one step back: institutional change in Kyrgyz water
governance In: Waltina Scheumann / Susanne Neubert / Martin Kipping (eds.), Water politics
and development cooperation: local power plays and global governance, Berlin: Springer, 277–
297.
Johnson III, Sam H.; Stoutjesdijk, Joop and Djailobayev Nurlan (2002): Irrigation reform in the
Kyrgyz Republic. Sixth International Seminar on Participatory Irrigation Management. Beijing.
Manthrithilake, Herath; Djalalov, Sandjar (2007): User participation in main canal governance.
Paper presented at The 4th Asian Regional Conference & 10th International Seminar on
Participatory Irrigation Management May 2–5, 2007. Teheran.
Sehring, Jenniver (2007): Irrigation reform in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. In: Irrig. Drainage Syst.
21, 277–290.
UNEP (2006): The Kyrgyz Republic. National Report. within the framework of UNEP support for
achieving the Johannesburg Plan of implementation target of "Integrated Water Resources
Management and Efficiency Plans by 2005, with support to developing countries". UNEP
Collaborating Centre on Water and Environment Global Water Partnership Central Asia and
Caucasus. Bishkek.
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
62
10. ЎЗБЕКИСТОНДА СУВ ХЎЖАЛИГИ СОҲАСИДАГИ ИСЛОҲОТЛАР
ВА УЛАРНИНГ ТАҲЛИЛИ
Салоҳиддинов A.22, Ҳамидов А.23
Abstract
The wide scale reforms are under way in the sphere of water resources management (both on basin
and on farm levels) of Uzbekistan as it is going on in many other branches of economy. An analyses
and literature review was conducted in order to summarize the key outcomes and challenges of
sustainable water resources management.
Аннотация
Осуществляются широкомасштабные реформы в области управления (как на уровне
бассейнов, так и на уровне полей) и рационального использования водных ресурсов в
Узбекистане, как и во многих отраслях экономики. Был проведен анализ и обзор
литературы с целью оценки эффективности и основных элементов, определяющих их
успешность, а также главных сложностей в обеспечении устойчивого управления
ограниченными водными ресурсами.
Ўзбекистон Республикасида мустақиллик йилларида мамлакат сув хўжалигида катта
ўзгаришлар амалга оширилди. Жумладан, сув ресурсларини бошқариш тизими
такомиллаштирилди,
суғориш
тармоқларининг
техник
ҳолати
яхшиланди,
суғориладиган ерларнинг мелиортив ҳолатини яхшилаш ва уларнинг сув таъминотини
ошириш борасида кенг кўламли ишлар олиб борилди, замонавий сувни тежайдиган
технологияларни жорий қилиш, автоматлашган бошқарув ва кузатув тизимини ўрнатиш,
қишлоқ хўжалиги маҳсулотларини ишлаб чиқаришни диверсификация қилиш ишларига
кенг эътибор берилди.
Сув хўжалиги соҳасида амалга оширилган ва мамлакат тараққиётида алоҳида даврни
белгилаб берган кенг камровли ислоҳотларнинг қуйидаги босқич ва йўналишларини
кўрсатиб ўтиш мумкин:
Ўзбекистон Республикаси Вазирлар Маҳкамасининг қарори билан 1993 йилдаёқ
сув ресурсларидан чекланган асосда фойдаланиш тартиби ўрнатилди ва Сув
назорати инспекцияси ташкил этилди;
Вазирлар Маҳкамасининг 2003 йилдаги 320-сонли Қарорига асосан сув
ресурсларининг маъмурий бошқарув принципидан ҳавзавий бошқарув
принципига ўтказилиши барча поғоналарда сувни самарали бошқариш ва
адолатли тақсимлаш имкониятини яхшилади. Унга асосан бугунги кунда 10 та
Ирригация тизимлари ҳавза бошқармалари, 63 та Ирригация тизимлари ва
магистрал каналлари бошқармалари ташкил этилиб, ҳозирда самарали фаолият
юритиб келмоқдалар;
22
Тошкент Ирригация ва мелиорация институти, Ўзбекистон
University of Berlin, Germany
23 Humboldt
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
63
Республикада давлат сув ресурсларини бошқариш масалалари бўйича давлат
ваколат ва мажбуриятларининг бир қисми (қуйи бўғинда) жамоат ташкилотлари
орқали бевосита сув истеъмолчилари ва сувдан фойдаланувчиларнинг ўзларига
берилди. Қарорлар қабул қилиш жараёнида сув истемолчилари ва сувдан
фойдаланувчиларнинг бевосита иштирокини таъминловчи жамоат ташкилоти
сифатида Сув истеъмолчилари уюшмалари (СИУ) ташкил этилди ва уларнинг
фаолияти йўлга қўйилди. Бугунги кунда лимит асосида давлат ташкилотлари
бўлмиш Ирригация тизимлари бошқармаларидан сув ресурсларини қабул қилиб,
деҳқон ва фермер хўжаликлари ўртасидаги сув муносабатларини тартибга солиш
мақсадида 1507 та Сув истеъмолчилари уюшмалари хизмат кўрсатмоқда. Ҳозирда
улар сув хўжалиги тизимининг энг қуйи ва шу билан бирга энг асосий бўғини
ҳисобланадилар;
Республикада
сувдан
фойдаланиш
борасидаги
қонунчилик
базаси
такомиллаштирилди. Жумладан, 2009 йилда Ўзбекистон Республикасининг “Сув
ва сувдан фойдаланиш тўғрисида”ги Қонунига қатор ўзгартиш ва қўшимчалар
киритилди. Сувдан самарали ва тежамли фойдаланишни ташкил этиш мақсадида
сувдан фойдаланувчилар ва сув истеъмолчиларининг мажбуриятлари янада
оширилди, СИУларнинг ҳуқуқий мақомлари, вазифалари ва мажбуриятлари аниқ
белгилаб берилди, сувни муҳофаза қилиш ва унинг сифатини яхшилашга
қаратилган тадбирларни амалга ошириш тартиблари белгилаб берилди. Ушбу
қонунга киритилган ўзгартиш ва қўшимчалардан келиб чиқиб, 2013 йил давомида
сув хўжалиги соҳасида бир қатор қонуности меъёрий-ҳуқуқий ҳужжатлари ишлаб
чиқилди. Жумладан, 2013 йил 19 мартда Ўзбекистон Республикаси Вазирлар
Маҳкамасининг “Ўзбекистон Республикасида сувдан фойдаланиш ва сув
истеъмоли тартиби тўғрисидаги Низомни тасдиқлаш ҳақида”ги 82-сонли қарори
қабул қилинди. Мазкур қарор билан “Ўзбекистон Республикасида сувдан
фойдаланиш ва сув истеъмоли тартиби тўғрисида”ги Низом тасдиқланган бўлиб,
вазирликлар,
идоралар
ва
маҳаллий давлат
ҳокимияти органлари
иқтисодиётнинг барча тармоқларида сувдан оқилона фойдаланилиши ва унинг
муҳофаза қилиниши, шунингдек барча сувдан фойдаланувчилар ва сув
истеъмолчилари томонидан сув олишнинг белгиланган лимитларига риоя
этилиши, ҳисобга олиш ва ҳисоботлар белгиланган тартибда юритилиши
юзасидан назорат кучайтирилиши лозимлиги белгилаб қўйилган. Бундан
ташқари, сувдан фойдаланиш ва сув истеъмоли тартибини бузганлик учун
жавобгарлик янада кучайтирилган. Сувдан фойдаланиш ва сув истеъмоли
тартибини бузганлик учун фуқаролар ва мансабдор шахслар Ўзбекистон
Республикасининг Маъмурий жавобгарлик тўғрисидаги кодексига мувофиқ
маъмурий жавобгарликка тортилиши белгиланди. Сувдан фойдаланувчилар ва
сув истеъмолчиларига нисбатан улар томонидан қишлоқ хўжалиги, балиқчилик
хўжалиги, саноат, энергетика ва коммунал-маиший эҳтиёжлар учун сув олиш
тартиби бузилган тақдирда:
- сув истеъмолчилари томонидан лимитдан ортиқча сув олинганлиги учун – лимитдан
ортиқча олинган ҳар минг кубометр сув учун – белгиланган энг кам ойлик иш ҳақи
миқдорининг 10 фоизи миқдорида;
- сув олишга рухсат этилмаган жойлардан сув олганлик учун, шунингдек, сувдан
фойдаланувчилар ва сув истеъмолчилари томонидан сувни ўзбошимчалик билан
эгаллаганлик учун – олинган ҳар минг кубометр сув учун – белгиланган энг кам ойлик иш
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
64
ҳақининг 20 фоизи миқдорида жарима санкциялари қўлланилади. Бир йил мобайнида
сувдан фойдаланиш ва сув истеъмоли тартиби такроран бузилган тақдирда ушбу бандда
кўрсатилган жарима санкциялари ўн баравар миқдорида қўлланилиши белгиланган.
Шунингдек, 2013 йил 14 июнда Ўзбекистон Республикаси Вазирлар Маҳкамасининг
“Сувдан махсус фойдаланиш ёки сувни махсус истеъмол қилиш учун рухсатнома бериш
тартиби тўғрисидаги Низомни тасдиқлаш ҳақида”ги 171-сонли қарори қабул қилинди.
Ҳозирда эса сув хўжалиги қонунчилик базасини янада такомиллаштириш мақсадида “Сув
кодекси” лойиҳаси ишлаб чиқилиб, кўриб чиқиш учун Вазирлар Маҳкамасига киритилди;
Қишлоқ хўжалиги ишлаб чиқариши диверсификация қилинди. Пахта, шоли каби
сувни кўп талаб қилувчи экинлар қисқартирилиб, ўрнига бошоқли дон, сабзавотполиз экинлари ва боғ-узумзорлар майдони кенгайтирилди. Жумладан, агар ўтган
асрнинг 80 йилларида 4,0 млн. гектар умумий суғориладиган ерлардан 2,0 млн.
гектарида (50%) пахта етиштирилган бўлса, ҳозирги кунда пахта майдони 1,2 млн.
гектарни ёки жами суғориладиган майдонларнинг 30%ини эгалламоқда. Шу
билан бирга, шоли майдонлари 180 минг гектардан 40 минг гектаргача
камайтирилди. Суғориладиган ерларнинг бошқа қисмини сувни кам талаб
қиладиган ва инсон учун зарур бўлган бошоқли дон, сабзавот-полиз ва бошқа
озиқ-овқат маҳсулотлари эгаллади;
Мамлакат ҳукумати томонидан сув хўжалиги иншоотларини ишлатиш ва
замонавийлаштиришга давлат бюджетидан жуда катта маблағ ажратилмоқда.
Республика бўйича ҳар йили 5,0 минг км магистрал каналлар, сув истеъмолчилари
уюшмалари ва фермер хўжаликлари ҳисобидаги 16,0 минг км суғориш ва нов
тармоқлари, 10 мингга яқин гидротехник иншоотлар ва гидропостлар
тозаланмоқда ва таъмирланмоқда. Сўнгги йилларда 1,5 минг км канал, 400 та
йирик гидротехник иншоот, 200 та насос станцияси, 386,0 минг га суғориладиган
ерлар реконструкция қилинди ҳамда каналлар ва гидротехник иншоотларнинг
техник ҳолати яхшиланди. Бажарилган ишлар натижасида сувни тезкор
бошқариш ва истеъмолчиларга ўз вақтида кафолатли етказиб бериш имконияти
яратилди ҳамда суғориш тармоқларидаги техник ва фильтрацияга йўқолишлар
камайтирилди;
Ўзбекистон Республикаси Президентининг 2007 йил 29 октябрдаги ПФ-3932сонли Фармонига кўра Суғориладиган ерларнинг мелиоратив ҳолатини яхшилаш
Жамғармаси ташкил этилди ҳамда суғориладиган ерларнинг мелиоратив
ҳолатини яхшилаш бўйича 2008–2012 йилларга мўлжалланган Давлат Дастури
қабул қилинди. Мелиоратив техника паркини янгилаш мақсадида
“Узмелиомашлизинг” давлат лизинг компанияси, шунингдек, мелиоратив ва
бошқа сув хўжалиги ишларини бажариш учун 49 та ихтисослаштирилган давлат
унитар корхоналари ташкил этилди. Суғориладиган ерларнинг мелиоратив
ҳолатини яхшилаш Жамғармаси маблағлари доирасида 2008–2012 йилларда
коллектор-дренаж тармоқларини қуриш, реконструкция қилиш ва таъмирлаштиклаш ишларига жами 750 млрд. сўм маблағ ажратилди. “Узмелиомашлизинг”
давлат лизинг компанияси, шунингдек, мелиоратив ва бошқа сув хўжалиги
ишларини бажариш учун 49 та ихтисослаштирилган давлат унитар корхоналари
ташкил этилди. Ажратилган маблағлар ҳисобига 3,56 минг км коллектор-дренаж
тармоқлари, 143 дона мелиоратив насос станциялари, 797 дона вертикал дренаж
қудуқларини реконструкция қилиш ва қуриш ишлари бажарилди.
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
65
Шунингдек, 67 минг 205 км очиқ ва ёпиқ-ётиқ дренаж тармоқлари, 5407 дона вертикал
дренаж қудуқлари, 194 дона мелиоратив насос станциялари ва 5426 та қувурли ўтиш
жойларида тизимли равишда таъмирлаш-тиклаш ишлари амалга оширилди.
“Ўзмелиомашлизинг” компанияси орқали жами 1450 та янги замонавий, юқори унумли
мелиоратив техника, жумладан 600 дона экскаватор, 180 дона бульдозер ва 670 дона
бошқа турдаги техника ва механизмлар харид қилиниб, ирригация-мелиорация
тадбирларида иштирок этаётган қурилиш ташкилотларига имтиёзли лизинглар асосида
етказиб берилди. Бажарилган ишлар натижасида республика бўйича 1 млн. 500 минг
гектардан ортиқ суғориладиган майдонларнинг мелиоратив ҳолати яхшиланди.
Жумладан, кучли ва ўртача шўрланган майдонлар 113 минг гектарга камайтирилди, 118
минг гектар майдонда ер ости сизот сувлари мақбул сатҳларга туширилишига эришилди
ҳамда 977 минг гектар майдонларнинг мелиоратив ҳолати барқарорлиги таъминланди.
Ўтказилган таҳлиллар шуни кўрсатдики, мелиоратив тадбирлар амалга оширилган
ҳудудларда ўртача ҳосилдорлик пахтадан 3–4, ғалладан 4–5 центнергача кўпайиши
кузатилди.
Ўзбекистон Республикаси Президентининг 2013 йил 19 апрелдаги “2013–2017 йиллар
даврида суғориладиган ерларнинг мелиоратив ҳолатини янада яхшилаш ва сув
ресурсларидан самарали фойдаланиш бўйича чора-тадбирлар тўғрисида”ги ПҚ-1958сонли қарори ва мазкур қарор асосида Вазирлар Махкамасининг 39-сонли қарори қабул
қилинди. Ушбу қарор билан 2013–2017 йиллар давомида суғориладиган ерларнинг
мелиоратив ҳолатини яхшилаш ва сув ресурсларидан самарали фойдаланиш дастурида
қуйидаги тадбирларни амалга ошириш режалаштирилган:
- 3,85 минг км очиқ коллектор-дренаж ҳамда 1,26 минг км ёпиқ-ётиқ дренажлар
тармоқларини, 907 дона тик дренаж, 35 та мелиоратив насос станцияси, 226 дона
гидротехник иншоотларни қуриш ва реконструкция қилиш;
- 2,1 минг км каналларни тозалаш, 96 дона гидротехник иншоот, 97 дона насос станцияси,
36 км насос станцияларнинг босимли қувурларини таъмирлаш, 36 км қирғоқларни
мустаҳкамлаш ишлари олиб бориш ва бошқалар;
- 75,5 минг км очиқ, 8,1 минг км ёпиқ-ётиқ коллектор-дренаж тармоқлари, 3639 дона тик
дренаж қудуқлари, 126 та мелиоратив насос станциялари, 7,5 минг дона гидротехник
иншоотларда тозалаш-таъмирлаш;
- СИУ ва фермер хўжаликлари ҳисобидаги 558,5 минг км узунликдаги суғориш
тармоқлари, жумладан 111,0 минг км бетон канал ва лотоклар, 174,1 минг гидротехник
иншоотлар, 11,5 минг дона насос агрегатлари, 252,6 минг дона сувни бошқариш
иншоотлари таъмирланади ва сув ўлчаш воситалари билан жиҳозлаш ишлари амалга
оширилади.
Дастур доирасида моддий-техника базасини мустаҳкамлаш мақсадида ихтисослашган
қурилиш ва эксплуатация ташкилотлари жами 836 дона мелиоратив техника, жумладан
303 та экскаватор, 122 та бульдозер, 99 та юк машинаси ва 214 дона махсус машина ва
механизмлар харид қилиш кўзда тутилган.
Сувни тежайдиган технологияларни жорий қилиш. Республика миқёсида сувни
тежайдиган илғор технологияларни, жумладан, томчилатиб суғориш, эгатга
плёнка тўшаб ҳамда ўқ ариқлар ўрнига эгилувчан кўчма қувурлар ёрдамида
суғоришни кенг жорий этишга алоҳида эътибор берилмоқда. Сўнгги йилларда
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
66
8,0 минг гектарга яқин майдонда томчилатиб суғориш тизими қурилиб,
муваффақиятли тарзда ишлатилмоқда. Шунингдек, 200 минг гектарга яқин
майдонда ғўзани эгатга плёнка тўшаб ва 2,1 минг гектарга яқин майдонда
кўчма эгилувчан қувурлар ёрдамида суғориш технологияси қўлланилиб, унинг
асосий қисми пахта майдонларини суғоришда ишлатилмоқда. Ўзбекистон
Республикаси Президентининг 2013 йил 21 апрелдаги “2013–2017 йиллар
даврида суғориладиган ерларнинг мелиоратив ҳолатини яхшилаш ва сув
ресурсларидан оқилона фойдаланишни янада такомиллаштириш чоратадбирлари тўғрисида»ги ПҚ-1958-сонли Қарорига асосан 2013–2017 йиллар
давомида жами 25 минг гектар майдонда томчилатиб суғориш тизими, 45,6
минг гектар майдонда эгатга плёнка тўшаб суғориш усули ҳамда 34 минг
гектар майдонда эса ўқ ариқлар ўрнига кўчма эгилувчан қувурлар ёрдамида
суғориш усуллари жорий этилиши белгиланган. Сувни тежайдиган замонавий
суғориш усулларини жорий этган қишлоқ хўжалиги товар ишлаб
чиқарувчиларини рағбатлантириш Ўзбекистон Республикаси Вазирлар
Маҳкамасининг 2013 йил 21 июндаги 176-сонли “Томчилатиб суғориш
тизимини ва сувни тежайдиган бошқа суғориш технологияларини жорий этиш
ва молиялаштиришни самарали ташкил этиш чора-тадбирлари тўғрисида”ги
Қарори билан тасдиқланди. Ушбу қарорда томчилатиб суғориш тизимини ва
сувни тежайдиган бошқа суғориш технологияларини жорий этган қишлоқ
хўжалиги товар ишлаб чиқарувчиларига тежалган сув ресурсларидан бошоқли
дон экинларидан бўшаган майдонларда қишлоқ хўжалиги экинлари ўстириш
учун фойдаланиш ҳуқуқи берилиши белгилаб қўйилган. Сувни тежайдиган
технологияларни жорий этадиган ер эгаларига суғориладиган ерларнинг
мелиоратив ҳолатини яхшилаш жамғармаси маблағлари ҳисобидан
ажратиладиган кредит линиялари орқали имтиёзли фоизларда кредит олиш
мумкинлиги белгиланган. Кредит бериш, энг кам ойлик иш ҳақининг 1000
бараваригача миқдорда, 6 ойлик имтиёзли давр билан, камида 3 йил муддатга,
хизмат кўрсатувчи тижорат банкининг маржаси ҳисобга олинган ҳолда,
имтиёзли фоиз ставкаси бўйича амалга оширилади. Шу билан бирга,
Ўзбекистон Республикаси Президентининг 2012 йил 22 октябрдаги
“Ўзбекистонда
фермерлик
фаолиятини
ташкил
қилишни
янада
такомиллаштириш ва уни ривожлантириш чора-тадбирлари тўғрисида”ги ПФ4478-сонли Фармони асосида томчилатиб суғориш технологиясини жорий
қилган юридик шахсларни, ушбу технология жорий қилинган ер майдони
бўйича 5 йил муддатга ягона ер солиғи тўлашдан озод этиш юзасидан Солиқ
кодексига ўзгартиришлар киритилди.
Бугунги кунда Орол денгизи ҳавзасидаги асосий сув манбалари трансчегаравий мақомга
эга. Дунёда мингдан ортиқ трансчегаравий мақомга эга бўлган сув объектлари мавжуд.
Трансчегаравий ва маҳаллий сув объектларининг сув ресурсларини ҳисобга олиш,
уларни тақсимлаш ва улардан фойдаланиш дунё миқёсида жуда кўплаб қабул килинган
турли (кўп томонлама, икки томонлама шарномалар, келишувлар, конвенциялар ва ҳ.к.)
меъёрий ҳужжатлар асосида амалга оширилмоқда. Шу кунгача дунё миқёсида ана шундай
сув объектлари сувини ҳисобга олиш, уларни мамлакатлар ўртасида тақсимлаш ва
улардан фойдаланиш бўйича мингдан ортиқ меъёрий ҳужжатлар қабул қилиниб, улар
асосида иш олиб борилмоқда. Шулардан энг асосийлари “Халқаро кўллар ва
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
67
трансчегарадош сув артерияларидан фойдаланиш ва муҳофаза қилиш Конвенцияси”
(Хельсинки шаҳрида 1992 йил 17 мартда қабул қилинган) ва “Халқаро сув оқимларидан
кема қатновисиз фойдаланиш ҳуқуқлари тўғрисидаги Конвенция” (Нью-Йорк шаҳрида
1997 йил 21 мартда қабул қилинган) ҳисобланади. Ушбу конвенцияларнинг асосий
тамойиллари бу – барча давлатларнинг манфаатларини бирдек ҳисобга олиш,
трансчегаравий сув ресурсларидан адолатли ва оқилона фойдаланиш ва қўшни
давлатларга “зарар етказмаслик”дир. Мазкур Конвенциялар асосида иш юритиш
транчегаравий дарёлардан фойдаланишда барча давлатларнинг манфаатларини бирдек
инобатга олиш асосида сув ресурсларини адолатли бошқариш имкониятларини яратади.
Мазкур конвенцияларнинг нормаларига таянган ҳолда трансчегаравий сув оқимларини
бошқариш билан боғлиқ барча ҳаракатлар томонларнинг ўзаро манфаатлари асосида
амалга оширилиши шарт.
Марказий Осиё ва Қозоғистон ҳудудида собиқ иттифоқдан кейин мустақил давлатлар
раҳбарлари томонидан амалга оширилган энг тўғри ва узоқни кўзлаб қабул қилинган
қарорлардан бири Орол денгизи ҳавзасида трансчегаравий мақомга эга бўлиб қолган
дарёларни бошқариш бўйича умумий қарорга келиниши, жумладан Оролни Қутқариш
Халқаро Жамғармаси (МФСА)нинг ташкил этилиши, давлатлараро сув ресурслари
бошқаруви ташкил этилиши, давлатлараро сув хўжалигини мувофиқлаштириш
комиссияси (МКВК) тузилиши ҳамда уларнинг фаолияти йўлга қўйилиши бўлди. Сувдан
фойдаланиш борасидаги дунё тажрибасини ўрганиш, илғор давлатлар билан тажриба
алмашиш ҳамда республиканинг сувдан фойдаланиш борасидаги позициясини дунё
ҳамжамиятига етказиш мақсадида сув хўжалиги соҳасидаги қуйироқда номлари санаб
ўтилган нуфузли халқаро ташкилотлар билан яқиндан алоқалар ўрнатилган.
Бироқ сўнгги йилларда минтақадаги дарёларнинг юқори оқимида жойлашган
давлатларнинг сув сиёсати дарёлар сув оқимининг жиддий ўзгаришларига сабаб бўлди.
Натижада қиш даврида оқим бўйлаб пастроқда жойлашган мамлакатимизнинг айрим
ҳудудларини сув босиши юзага келган бўлса, суғориладиган майдонларида ёз мавсумида
сунъий сув тақчиллиги юз бера бошлади. Сув ресурсларининг танқислиги, сифати
ёмонлашиб бориши ҳамда турли ўзаро тафовутлашувчи томонларнинг сувга бўлган
талаблари ўсиб бориши шароитида минтақада умумий сув ресурсларидан биргаликда
фойдаланиш ва уларни бошқариш масалалари тобора мураккаблашиб бормоқда. Айрим
мамлакатлар ўз тараққиёт дастурларида йирик гидроэнергетик лойиҳаларга
асосланаётган бўлса, бошқалари бундай қарорларнинг минтақа экологияси, иқтисоди ва
хавфсизлигига таъсиридан хавотирга тушмоқда. Мазкур муаммоларнинг тўғри ҳал
этилиши минтақавий барқарор тараққиётнинг асосий шартларидан бири ҳисобланади.
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
68
Адабиётлар:
Халқаро кўллар ва трансчегарадош сув артерияларидан фойдаланиш ва муҳофаза қилиш
Конвенцияси” (Хельсинки шаҳрида 1992 йил 17 мартда қабул қилинган).
Халқаро сув оқимларидан кема қатновисиз фойдаланиш ҳуқуқлари тўғрисидаги
Конвенция (Нью-Йорк шаҳрида 1997 йил 21 мартда қабул қилинган).
Ўзбекистон Республикаси Президентининг 2007 йил 29 октябрдаги ПФ-3932-сонли
Фармони.
Ўзбекистон Республикаси Президентининг 2013 йил 19 апрелдаги “2013–2017 йиллар
даврида суғориладиган ерларнинг мелиоратив ҳолатини янада яхшилаш ва сув
ресурсларидан самарали фойдаланиш бўйича чора-тадбирлар тўғрисида”ги ПҚ-1958сонли қарори ва мазкур қарор асосида Вазирлар Маҳкамасининг 39-сонли қарори.
Ўзбекистон Республикаси Президентининг 2012 йил 22 октябрдаги “Ўзбекистонда
фермерлик фаолиятини ташкил қилишни янада такомиллаштириш ва уни
ривожлантириш чора-тадбирлари тўғрисида”ги ПФ-4478-сонли Фармони.
Ўзбекистон Республикаси Вазирлар Маҳкамасининг 1993 йил 395-сонли Қарори.
Ўзбекистон Республикаси Вазирлар Маҳкамасининг 2003 йилдаги 320-сонли Қарори.
Ўзбекистон Республикаси Вазирлар Маҳкамасининг 2013 йил 19 мартдаги “Ўзбекистон
Республикасида сувдан фойдаланиш ва сув истеъмоли тартиби тўғрисидаги Низомни
тасдиқлаш ҳақида”ги 82-сонли қарори ва “Ўзбекистон Республикасида сувдан
фойдаланиш ва сув истеъмоли тартиби тўғрисида”ги Низом.
Ўзбекистон Республикаси Вазирлар Маҳкамасининг 2013 йил 14 июндаги “Сувдан махсус
фойдаланиш ёки сувни махсус истеъмол қилиш учун рухсатнома бериш тартиби
тўғрисидаги Низомни тасдиқлаш ҳақида”ги 171-сонли қарори.
Ўзбекистон Республикаси Вазирлар Маҳкамасининг 2013 йил 21 июндаги 176-сонли
“Томчилатиб суғориш тизимини ва сувни тежайдиган бошқа суғориш технологияларини
жорий этиш ва молиялаштиришни самарали ташкил этиш чора-тадбирлари тўғрисида”ги
қарори.
The publication of this InDeCA discussion paper series was financed by:
InDeCA Discussion Paper Series 3/2015
69