Impacts from Sustainable Land Management Investments Case Study

Impacts from Sustainable Land Management Investments Case Study - Kyrgyzstan UNCCD CRIC - 5 Buenos Aires, Argentina March 2007

Outline • • • Introduction Desertification and Land Degradation Processes Kyrgyzstan Water Resources and Irrigation Water User Associations in the Kyrgyz Republic Case Study WUA Performance in Orok Village Conclusions

Objectives • What are – Impacts from investments in Sustainable Land Water Management (SLM)? – Linkages between SLM, economic growth, poverty reduction, and good governance? • Do investments in Natural Resources Management – Improve peoples’ livelihoods? – Decrease land degradation rates? – Strengthen local environmental governance? • Do Water User Associations (WUAs) – Achieve positive results in SLM?

Desertification and Land Degradation • Desertification is land degradation • Reduces ecosystem integrity – Productivity, biodiversity, and resilience • Causes – Multiple, complex, and varied – Over-exploitation of natural resources – Poor agricultural practices, overgrazing, deforestation, etc.

UNCCD in Central Asia • National Action Programs (NAPs) • Subregional Action Plan (SAP) – Monitoring and evaluation of processes – Drought early warning system – Improving water use in agriculture – Combating land degradation • Cooperation – Water-saving technologies in agriculture – Enterprises for agricultural technology – Water Users Associations (federations) – Best practices – Principles of free-market-oriented agricultural systems Country Area Arable land Irrigated land million ha Kazakhstan 271. 7 22. 5 3. 6 Kyrgyzstan 19. 8 1. 3 1. 1 Tajikistan 14. 3 0. 9 0. 7 Turkmenistan 48. 8 2. 2 1. 8 Uzbekistan 44. 7 4. 3 Central Asia 399. 4 51. 4 11. 4

CACILM Central Asian Countries Initiative for Land Management • ADB supported program to – Promote sustainable land management – Build capacity in land water resource management • National Programming Framework (2006 – 2016) – Capacity building • Agriculture, Forestry, Pastures – Research • Integrated resource management

UNCCD in Kyrgyz Republic • Joined 1997, ratified 1999 • Coordination Council - Leads in implementing UNCCD • National Action Plan – – – – – Natural resources management Public awareness Combat land degradation Land productivity Improve economy Promote rural tourism Restore pastures Reforestation Monitoring

Kyrgyz Land & Water Resources • Area – Total land - 19. 85 million ha – Arable land - 1. 3 million ha – Irrigated land - 1. 1 million ha • 2003 – – Highly saline 14, 900 ha Moderately saline 31, 600 ha Slightly saline 65, 200 ha Waterlogged 114, 100 ha

Kyrgyz Economy • Mountainous country – Ave. elevation 2, 750 m • Population - 5 million • Agriculture – 34% of GDP – 43% of work force – 20% of exports • Water Use – Agricultural • 9. 4 billion m 3 – Domestic and industrial • 0. 3 billion m 3 Kyrgyz GDP per capita 1995 -2004

Kyrgyz Land Reforms • Transition – From • Large, collective and state farms • Centrally planned economy – To • Many small-scale producers in a market economy Kyrgyz Agricultural Output, 1990 – 2005

Kyrgyz Farm Management • Shortage of – – – Support services Microfinance Inputs Infrastructure Marketing outlets • Small size of farms – Initial land distribution – Un-economic units Kyrgyz Agricultural Yields, 1990 – 2005

Kyrgyz Arable Lands • Problems – – – Soil erosion Salinity Waterlogging Loss of vegetative cover Weed cover • Caused by – Abandonment of farms – Unsustainable agricultural practices – Weak linkage between land users and state agencies and private sector – Decreased land reclamation – Poverty of rural population

Kyrgyz Irrigation Systems • Problems – – Secondary salinization Lack of Drainage Waterlogging Erosion • Caused by – low efficiency of irrigation networks due to poor maintenance – low efficiency of water use at the farm level – deterioration of drainage network – lack of financial and technical resources

Payment for Water • Farmers pay – $0. 75/1000 m 3 • Parliament won’t increase to – $2. 50/1000 m 3 • Cost of irrigation system and service – $58/ha – 6 x more than expenditures Irrigation fee for different regions of Kyrgyzstan

Water User Associations • Land privatization – Land Code – Law on Farming 1999 • WUAs – 1995 – 2002 • On-farm irrigation systems transferred to WUAs – 2005 • Water rights based on hydrological basins • Tariffs reflects irrigation and drainage system O&M costs Development of Kyrgyz WUAs 1999 – 2007

IMT in Kyrgyzstan • IMT to WUAs – 1991 • 504 irrigation systems • 1 million irrigated ha – 2005 • 430 WUAs • 708 thousand irrigated ha – Successful where • cash crops are grown • favorable economic conditions • water-short areas – Improvements expected • • Rule of law Financial management Water user awareness Farmer participation Irrigated land under Kyrgyz WUAs

WUA Sustainability • Establish & collect fees – Cover O&M, and administrative costs – Water service fees • In kind payments – Allowed up to 30% – Running 50% - 80% ISF Collection Rates in of Kyrgyzstan

Case Study: Orok Village • Orok Village Administration • Jantai Tush WUA – Irrigated land 1, 247 ha – Water use 8, 500, 000 m 3 – Debt $3, 108 – 6833 inhabitants • 1931 families • • 1867 have no conveniences 210 Poor Families ($186/person/year) 65 Moderately Poor ($124/person/year) 28 Extremely Poor ($44/person/year) – Livestock has increased inn last 4 years

WUA State & Activities • Established 2002 • Canal network – 65 km – 50 km unlined • Net value $55, 334 • O&M $907 - $1, 295 • Staff – – Director Accountant Hydraulic technician Ditch riders (seasonal) Farmers: Where can we get good seeds?

WUA Water Supply • Interfarm irrigation system – – Ala-Archa river Kirovsky canal Jantai main canal Canals P-1 and P-2 • Some flumes are damaged • Water delivery difficult Irrigation for seedling emergence Water Intake and Supply (thousands m 3 )

Irrigation Systems • Water Use in Irrigation & WUA Effectiveness – ~100% using furrow and border strip irrigation – 65% measured volume with a weir – 35% measured volume "by eye“ – ~100% water distributed appropriately Irrigation Service Payments

Crop Yields • Farmers have – – 7 tractors 2 harvesters 3 balers 6 trucks Crop Yields (% of 2003)

Farm Animals (2004 as % of 2002)

Farm Microcredit • Some farmers obtained loans ($958 - $5, 180) • Some farmers did not – – High rates (up to 30%) Difficult document preparation Repayment difficulty Length of loan period

Some Problems • Shortages of – Funds (farmers, village, WUA) • Maintenance of machinery, irrigation systems and structures. • New machinery and equipment – Processing and storage facilities – Markets – Pastures • Shortcomings of land agrarian reform – Break-up of large enterprises – Reduction of • Management services • Technical knowledge • Seed farming • Lack of knowledge about – Farming – Effective use of water

Conclusions • Problems of WUAs – Tariffs for irrigation services are too low – Excessive "in kind" payment of irrigation service fees – WUAs • • • Passive Lack physical infrastructure Management not aware of authority and responsibility Incomplete managerial functions Lack management transparency Poor auditing conditions

Conclusions • Benefits of WUAs – Water users • • Use irrigation water more responsibly Understand that excessive use of water for irrigation has a cost Participate in water management Undertake mutually agreed activities for resource management Participate in establishing tariffs for irrigation water supply Control operation and maintenance of irrigation systems Take responsibility for decision making and implementation Reduction of moisture-loving crops – WUAs • • • New institutions have demonstrated potential and vitality Set example of proper management of local associations Provide input to water sector reform Assist in restructuring water resources management Improve water distribution Advise on irrigation methods