Water Resources in Central Asia: International Context [1st ed.] 978-3-030-11204-2, 978-3-030-11205-9

This book outlines the current status of water resources management in Central Asia countries, and provides a review of

409 94 8MB

English Pages XII, 281 [284] Year 2018

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

Water Resources in Central Asia: International Context [1st ed.]
 978-3-030-11204-2, 978-3-030-11205-9

Table of contents :
Front Matter ....Pages i-xii
Introduction (Sergey S. Zhiltsov, Igor S. Zonn, Andrey G. Kostianoy, Aleksandr V. Semenov)....Pages 1-8
Water Resources of Central Asia: Historical Overview (Sergey S. Zhiltsov, Marina S. Zhiltsova, Nikolay P. Medvedev, Dmitry Y. Slizovskiy)....Pages 9-24
Legal Framework of Interstate Cooperation on Water Resources of Central Asia (Barbara Janusz-Pawletta)....Pages 25-39
Institutional Cooperation on Water Resources Management in Central Asia (Marton Krasznai)....Pages 41-60
Transboundary Rivers in Central Asia: Cooperation and Conflicts Among Countries (Sergej S. Zhiltsov, Igor S. Zonn, Oleg E. Grishin, Vladimir G. Egorov, Mark S. Ruban)....Pages 61-80
Application of the UNECE Environmental Conventions in Central Asia (Bo Libert)....Pages 81-101
Water-Energy-Food-Environmental Nexus in Central Asia: From Transition to Transformation (Shavkat Rakhmatullaev, Iskandar Abdullaev, Jusipbek Kazbekov)....Pages 103-120
US Policy in Central Asia: Water-Energy Nexus Priorities (Anna Y. Gussarova)....Pages 121-131
German Water Resources Policy in Central Asia (Oksana A. Boyarkina)....Pages 133-151
Water Transboundary Policy of Kazakhstan and China (Igor S. Zonn, Sergej S. Zhiltsov, Lidiya A. Parkhomchik, Elena A. Markova)....Pages 153-167
Water Resource Policy of Kazakhstan (Sergey S. Zhiltsov, Igor S. Zonn, Adelina S. Nogmova, Vladimir V. Shtol)....Pages 169-185
Contemporary Water Policy of Kyrgyzstan (Sergey S. Zhiltsov, Igor S. Zonn, Vladimir V. Shtol, Vladimir G. Egorov)....Pages 187-200
Impact of Water and Energy Problems on the Economic Development of Uzbekistan (Elena M. Kuzmina)....Pages 201-214
Soft Power of Tajikistan on the Water Agenda: Cross-Scale Dynamics (Jon Marco Church)....Pages 215-228
Turkmenistan Water Resources Policy in Central Asia (Igor S. Zonn, Andrey G. Kostianoy, Tatyana V. Lokteva, Vladimir V. Shtol)....Pages 229-242
Afghanistan Water Resources Policy in Central Asia (Igor S. Zonn, Aleksandr V. Semenov, Alla V. Nikonorova, Vladimir G. Egorov)....Pages 243-261
Conclusions (Sergey S. Zhiltsov, Igor S. Zonn, Andrey G. Kostianoy, Aleksandr V. Semenov)....Pages 263-275
Back Matter ....Pages 277-281

Citation preview

The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry 85 Series Editors: Damià Barceló · Andrey G. Kostianoy

Sergey S. Zhiltsov Igor S. Zonn Andrey G. Kostianoy Aleksandr V. Semenov Editors

Water Resources in Central Asia: International Context

The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry Founding Editor: Otto Hutzinger Editors-in-Chief: Dami a Barcelo´ • Andrey G. Kostianoy Volume 85

Advisory Editors: Jacob de Boer, Philippe Garrigues, Ji-Dong Gu, Kevin C. Jones, Thomas P. Knepper, Alice Newton, Donald L. Sparks

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/698

Water Resources in Central Asia: International Context

Volume Editors: Sergey S. Zhiltsov  Igor S. Zonn  Andrey G. Kostianoy  Aleksandr V. Semenov

With contributions by I. Abdullaev  O. A. Boyarkina  J. M. Church  V. G. Egorov  O. E. Grishin  A. Y. Gussarova  B. Janusz-Pawletta  J. Kazbekov  A. G. Kostianoy  M. Krasznai  E. M. Kuzmina  B. Libert  T. V. Lokteva  E. A. Markova  N. P. Medvedev  A. V. Nikonorova  A. S. Nogmova  L. A. Parkhomchik  S. Rakhmatullaev  M. S. Ruban  A. V. Semenov  V. V. Shtol  D. Y. Slizovskiy  S. S. Zhiltsov  M. S. Zhiltsova  I. S. Zonn

Editors Sergey S. Zhiltsov Diplomatic Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia

Igor S. Zonn Engineering Res. Prod. Center for Water, Management, Land Reclamation and Ecology Moscow, Russia

People’s Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), Moscow, Russia

S.Yu. Witte Moscow University Moscow, Russia

S.Yu. Witte Moscow University Moscow, Russia Andrey G. Kostianoy Shirshov Institute of Oceanology, Russian Academy of Sciences Moscow, Russia

Aleksandr V. Semenov S.Yu. Witte Moscow University Moscow, Russia

S.Yu. Witte Moscow University Moscow, Russia

ISSN 1867-979X ISSN 1616-864X (electronic) The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry ISBN 978-3-030-11204-2 ISBN 978-3-030-11205-9 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11205-9 Library of Congress Control Number: 2018966542 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Editors-in-Chief Prof. Dr. Damia Barcelo´

Prof. Dr. Andrey G. Kostianoy

Department of Environmental Chemistry IDAEA-CSIC C/Jordi Girona 18–26 08034 Barcelona, Spain and Catalan Institute for Water Research (ICRA) H20 Building Scientific and Technological Park of the University of Girona Emili Grahit, 101 17003 Girona, Spain [email protected]

Shirshov Institute of Oceanology Russian Academy of Sciences 36, Nakhimovsky Pr. 117997 Moscow, Russia [email protected]

Advisory Editors Prof. Dr. Jacob de Boer IVM, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Prof. Dr. Philippe Garrigues University of Bordeaux, France

Prof. Dr. Ji-Dong Gu The University of Hong Kong, China

Prof. Dr. Kevin C. Jones University of Lancaster, United Kingdom

Prof. Dr. Thomas P. Knepper University of Applied Science, Fresenius, Idstein, Germany

Prof. Dr. Alice Newton University of Algarve, Faro, Portugal

Prof. Dr. Donald L. Sparks Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Delaware, USA

The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry Also Available Electronically

The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry is included in Springer’s eBook package Earth and Environmental Science. If a library does not opt for the whole package, the book series may be bought on a subscription basis. For all customers who have a standing order to the print version of The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, we offer free access to the electronic volumes of the Series published in the current year via SpringerLink. If you do not have access, you can still view the table of contents of each volume and the abstract of each article on SpringerLink (www.springerlink.com/content/110354/). You will find information about the – – – –

Editorial Board Aims and Scope Instructions for Authors Sample Contribution

at springer.com (www.springer.com/series/698). All figures submitted in color are published in full color in the electronic version on SpringerLink.

Aims and Scope

Since 1980, The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry has provided sound and solid knowledge about environmental topics from a chemical perspective. Presenting a wide spectrum of viewpoints and approaches, the series now covers topics such as local and global changes of natural environment and climate; anthropogenic impact on the environment; water, air and soil pollution; remediation and waste characterization; environmental contaminants; biogeochemistry; geoecology; chemical reactions and processes; chemical and biological transformations as well as physical transport of chemicals in the environment; or environmental modeling. A particular focus of the series lies on methodological advances in environmental analytical chemistry. vii

Series Preface

With remarkable vision, Prof. Otto Hutzinger initiated The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry in 1980 and became the founding Editor-in-Chief. At that time, environmental chemistry was an emerging field, aiming at a complete description of the Earth’s environment, encompassing the physical, chemical, biological, and geological transformations of chemical substances occurring on a local as well as a global scale. Environmental chemistry was intended to provide an account of the impact of man’s activities on the natural environment by describing observed changes. While a considerable amount of knowledge has been accumulated over the last three decades, as reflected in the more than 70 volumes of The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, there are still many scientific and policy challenges ahead due to the complexity and interdisciplinary nature of the field. The series will therefore continue to provide compilations of current knowledge. Contributions are written by leading experts with practical experience in their fields. The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry grows with the increases in our scientific understanding, and provides a valuable source not only for scientists but also for environmental managers and decision-makers. Today, the series covers a broad range of environmental topics from a chemical perspective, including methodological advances in environmental analytical chemistry. In recent years, there has been a growing tendency to include subject matter of societal relevance in the broad view of environmental chemistry. Topics include life cycle analysis, environmental management, sustainable development, and socio-economic, legal and even political problems, among others. While these topics are of great importance for the development and acceptance of The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, the publisher and Editors-in-Chief have decided to keep the handbook essentially a source of information on “hard sciences” with a particular emphasis on chemistry, but also covering biology, geology, hydrology and engineering as applied to environmental sciences. The volumes of the series are written at an advanced level, addressing the needs of both researchers and graduate students, as well as of people outside the field of ix

x

Series Preface

“pure” chemistry, including those in industry, business, government, research establishments, and public interest groups. It would be very satisfying to see these volumes used as a basis for graduate courses in environmental chemistry. With its high standards of scientific quality and clarity, The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry provides a solid basis from which scientists can share their knowledge on the different aspects of environmental problems, presenting a wide spectrum of viewpoints and approaches. The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry is available both in print and online via www.springerlink.com/content/110354/. Articles are published online as soon as they have been approved for publication. Authors, Volume Editors and Editors-in-Chief are rewarded by the broad acceptance of The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry by the scientific community, from whom suggestions for new topics to the Editors-in-Chief are always very welcome. Damia Barcelo´ Andrey G. Kostianoy Editors-in-Chief

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sergey S. Zhiltsov, Igor S. Zonn, Andrey G. Kostianoy, and Aleksandr V. Semenov

1

Water Resources of Central Asia: Historical Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sergey S. Zhiltsov, Marina S. Zhiltsova, Nikolay P. Medvedev, and Dmitry Y. Slizovskiy

9

Legal Framework of Interstate Cooperation on Water Resources of Central Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Barbara Janusz-Pawletta

25

Institutional Cooperation on Water Resources Management in Central Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marton Krasznai

41

Transboundary Rivers in Central Asia: Cooperation and Conflicts Among Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sergej S. Zhiltsov, Igor S. Zonn, Oleg E. Grishin, Vladimir G. Egorov, and Mark S. Ruban Application of the UNECE Environmental Conventions in Central Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bo Libert

61

81

Water-Energy-Food-Environmental Nexus in Central Asia: From Transition to Transformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Shavkat Rakhmatullaev, Iskandar Abdullaev, and Jusipbek Kazbekov US Policy in Central Asia: Water-Energy Nexus Priorities . . . . . . . . . . 121 Anna Y. Gussarova German Water Resources Policy in Central Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Oksana A. Boyarkina xi

xii

Contents

Water Transboundary Policy of Kazakhstan and China . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Igor S. Zonn, Sergej S. Zhiltsov, Lidiya A. Parkhomchik, and Elena A. Markova Water Resource Policy of Kazakhstan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Sergey S. Zhiltsov, Igor S. Zonn, Adelina S. Nogmova, and Vladimir V. Shtol Contemporary Water Policy of Kyrgyzstan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 Sergey S. Zhiltsov, Igor S. Zonn, Vladimir V. Shtol, and Vladimir G. Egorov Impact of Water and Energy Problems on the Economic Development of Uzbekistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 Elena M. Kuzmina Soft Power of Tajikistan on the Water Agenda: Cross-Scale Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 Jon Marco Church Turkmenistan Water Resources Policy in Central Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 Igor S. Zonn, Andrey G. Kostianoy, Tatyana V. Lokteva, and Vladimir V. Shtol Afghanistan Water Resources Policy in Central Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 Igor S. Zonn, Aleksandr V. Semenov, Alla V. Nikonorova, and Vladimir G. Egorov Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 Sergey S. Zhiltsov, Igor S. Zonn, Andrey G. Kostianoy, and Aleksandr V. Semenov Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

Introduction Sergey S. Zhiltsov, Igor S. Zonn, Andrey G. Kostianoy, and Aleksandr V. Semenov

Contents References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Abstract This volume “Water Resources in Central Asia: International Context” is the first of the three volumes devoted to water resources in Central Asia which will be published in the book series “The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry,” Springer. In this volume we gathered 17 chapters describing the history of water resources management, the legal framework of interstate cooperation on water resources, the institutional cooperation on water resources, the cooperation and conflicts among the Central Asian countries, the application of UNECE environmental conventions, water-energy-food-environment nexus in Central Asia as well as the water resources policy of the USA, Germany, China, and Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Afghanistan in Central Asia.

S. S. Zhiltsov (*) Diplomatic Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia People’s Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), Moscow, Russia e-mail: [email protected] I. S. Zonn Engineering Research Production Center for Water Management, Land Reclamation and Ecology “Soyuzvodproject”, Moscow, Russia S. Yu. Witte Moscow University, Moscow, Russia e-mail: [email protected] A. G. Kostianoy Shirshov Institute of Oceanology, Moscow, Russia S. Yu. Witte Moscow University, Moscow, Russia e-mail: [email protected] A. V. Semenov S. Yu. Witte Moscow University, Moscow, Russia e-mail: [email protected] S. S. Zhiltsov et al. (eds.), Water Resources in Central Asia: International Context, Hdb Env Chem (2018) 85: 1–8, DOI 10.1007/698_2018_364, © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018, Published online: 13 September 2018

1

2

S. S. Zhiltsov et al.

Keywords Central Asia, Transboundary rivers, Water diplomacy, Water resources Central Asia is the territory connecting Europe and Near East, South, and East Asia (Fig. 1). This is a bridge between the East and West, the crossroad of civilizations, one of the key geopolitical regions that has acquired special importance after breakup of the Soviet Union. However, this is also the unstable region, a tough player threatening world peace [1]. Central Asia locates in complicated natural and climatic conditions where the key and vital natural resource is water which requires, on the one hand, its saving and, on the other, the permanent search for possibilities to increase its reserves. This is the region with the world’s highest rate of population growth – to 2.0% per annum. At present the population of Central Asia without Afghanistan is 70.6 million and with Afghanistan 105.2 million. The uneven distribution of water resources over the territory and their insufficiency and the constantly growing water consumption led to the competitive demand for water at the national and regional levels. The water deficit and deterioration of water quality are the serious challenges which have been faced by many regional

Fig. 1 Map of Central Asia including Afghanistan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Asia#/ media/File:Map_of_Central_Asia.png)

Introduction

3

countries. The key issue determining the internal stability in the region was and still remains the water-energy balance. After the Central Asian countries have become independent, the issue of waterenergy resource management has become very acute owing to breakup of the unified, centralized model of their management. The attempts to substitute the outdated systems of water resource management with the new ones based on regional integration have slowed down the appearance of obvious water conflicts, but they did not solve the problem in general. Having failed to develop the multilateral mechanism of sharing the water resources of transboundary rivers, the Central Asian countries tried to achieve a compromise in the bilateral format. However, such attempts have also proved ineffective, first of all, owing to the fact that every Central Asian country was not ready to take into consideration the interests of its neighbors. Unevenness in distribution of water resources in Central Asia has led to very acute rivalry and conflicts of interests of the key owners and suppliers of water having advantageous geographical position – locating in the river upstream basins (Fig. 2). Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan controlling 90% of water resources of the region are in economic and demographic terms inferior to their downstream neighbors – Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan which are the major water users. So, there is a vicious circle: hydropower priorities of the upstream countries contradict the agrarian interests of the downstream countries. The first needs power to cope with the social and economic problems, while the second needs water for

Fig. 2 Water resources in Central Asia (https://epthinktank.eu/2015/11/05/water-disputes-in-cen tral-asia-rising-tension-threatens-regional-stability/water-resources-in-the-aral-sea-basin/). Source: CAWater-Info

4

S. S. Zhiltsov et al.

development of irrigated farming. As an old shepherd once said: “It’s better to have the house in river upstream than the mirab father” (Mirab – a person responsible for water division). This struggle for water of the five Central Asian countries does not include Afghanistan which has been neglected so far because of military actions in its territory but, which, in the final run, will undoubtedly join the water sharing process for the Panj and Amu Darya rivers. There is also China where the Irtysh and Ily rivers originate. In addition, more than 20 small rivers flow to Kazakhstan and then to Russia. The Chinese plans to increase water intake in the upper reaches of the watercourses shared with Kazakhstan stir the greatest concern of the Kazakh side. In the recent years, Kazakhstan has been suffering deficit of freshwater supply. If the tendency of growing water intake from transboundary rivers persists, Kazakhstan may face the considerable reduction of power generation by the Irtysh HPP cascade. The growing water intake from the Ily River in China will lead, primarily, to shallowing of the Balkhash Lake as this river accounts for 70–80% of water inflow into the lake. In the future this may result in the Balkhash disaster similar to the Aral Sea that has occurred in the second half of the twentieth century. It should be noted that presently, Kazakhstan is seeking to settle the Aral problem taking actions for its restoration. Very important for sustainable water use is the legal framework of the joint use of transboundary rivers which water divides do not coincide with the existing administrative borders. At present there are more than 250 international river basins, and their water resources are used by 145 states. Many downstream regions and countries depend on the upstream users, and this is the case of the Central Asian countries. The just and sustainable management of cross-country water resources require special institutes capable to ensure the integrated approach to addressing this problem and to develop effective ways of its solution. Experience has shown that regardless of the existing problems arising in connection with joint use of the transboundary rivers, the conflicts usually give place to cooperation. The international community has managed to achieve considerable progress in understanding that the water has not only economic but also social, religious, cultural, and environmental value. Such clear-cut difference between the value of water, i.e., its general usefulness, and the price of water charged from users facilitates the objective approach to the choice of strategy to ensure access to water regardless of the social category of people. The economies of the Central Asian countries depend greatly on the use of transboundary water resources. In the basins of transboundary rivers, the greater part of the population is engaged in irrigated farming that produces practically the whole agricultural output. The region has also sufficiently developed mining, processing, and high-tech industries. Deficit of water and its pollution faced by many Central Asian countries pose the most serious problem for the economics of the region, and these challenges affect various aspects of regional cooperation and security. Depletion and pollution of water sources lead to deterioration of sanitary and environmental conditions, while the growing water deficit decreases the food supply and occupational opportunities for the population which, in general, makes it difficult to address the poverty problem in the region. Satisfaction of the nearest and

Introduction

5

future water needs requires development of strategic measures to meet the waterrelated challenges of sustainable development. These efforts should be based on international experience and recommendations of international community. Of special importance for the Central Asian countries is the policy of water saving having no alternative in this region for attainment of sustainable water use in the nearest and far future. In the recent years, the impact of climate change on water resources has acquired ever-growing significance (Fig. 3). This is seen in the obvious tendency to escalation of the extreme weather conditions accompanied by floods and droughts. The thawing of glaciers enhances the risk of floods and leads to serious reduction of freshwater reserves in summer. Investigations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) acting under the UN auspices have shown that from the early twentieth century, the total temperature in the Central Asian region has increased by 1–2 C and that in the next decades, further temperature rise by another 2–4 C should be expected. This region is officially recognized one two “hot points” on the globe where climate change will be extremely hazardous reducing significantly the available water resources. According to the World Bank, in the next two decades this may lead to the drop of the gross domestic product by 11%. Agriculture will suffer the most from the temperature rise. Forecasts say that by the mid-twenty-first millennia owing to glacier melting, the flow of the Amu Darya River will drop by 30% compared to the average flow observed in the recent decade. The picture will be as follows: floods in spring and droughts in hot summer months during vegetation period.

Fig. 3 Global water stress according to the World Resources Institute (https://potable.co.za/globalwater-stress-3/)

6

S. S. Zhiltsov et al.

The IPCC report of 2014 stated that in many regions of Central Asia, the high level of water stress had been already achieved which was connected with the temperature rise and reduction of precipitations. The risks threatening the security of dams and other waterworks, in particular large ones, are growing. The main likely impacts of climate change expected in the next decades include shift of the seasonal peak (1–2 months earlier) and increase of the total flow during about 50 years (while glaciers are melting) followed by complete dependence of flow on precipitations with unpredictable changes of their volume and distribution. The decrease of the river runoff in the low-water period leads to essential deterioration of the water quality due to the growing concentrations in it of hazardous substances and rise of its temperature. The recent assessments prove that climate change will increase by 20% the water shortage in the world. According to pessimistic scenarios already in the mid of this century, the water deficit will affect seven billion people and according to optimistic scenarios two billion people in 48 countries. Therefore, among the main causes of problem escalation are the following: the continuous growth of population, the global climate warming and, simultaneously, the growing probability of draughts; desertification threatening agricultural lands being low-productive as they are and the outdated water infrastructure. Addressing the water issues at the international level with regard to the provisions contained in the existing conventions, such as the Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes known as the Helsinki Water Convention of UN EEC (1992) and the Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses (1997), may become a key factor for political stability and promote economic development of the Central Asian countries and their neighbors. This will require revision of the positions taken by regional leaders who so far are not ready to give up their water egoism. The meetings of the Central Asian leaders held in 2017–2018 have demonstrated that there are the political will and endeavors to settle the existing water contradictions. However, the adopted decisions have not been supported by concrete mechanisms capable to take into consideration the interests of countries of the region. In the analytical note prepared by the results of investigation “Rethinking Water in Central Asia – The Costs of Inaction and Benefits of Water Cooperation” in 2017 and conducted by Adelphi Consult and the Regional Environmental Centre for Central Asia (CAREC) with the support of Swiss Water Initiative, it is noted that the lack of full-fledged cooperation on water issues entails considerable losses and serious risks undermining the future development of the region in general. Even if we do not account for all components, the losses due to ineffective cooperation will exceed 4.5 million USD per year. The young Central Asian states being in very complicated conditions have to seek the optimal balance between the national interests and the plans of all large foreign stakeholders. At the meeting in Luxembourg in June 2017, the foreign ministers of EU countries have agreed to develop the new foreign economic strategy of the European Union for Central Asia by 2019 that will substitute the existing document of 2007 “EU and Central Asia: Strategy for a New Partnership.” At the final meeting of the European Council on Foreign Relations held on June 19, 2017 [2], it was noted that EU considered the Central Asian countries to be very important partners

Introduction

7

and the relations with them needed further development and extension. Within the frame of this partnership, both previous mechanisms and initiatives which have proved their efficiency will be maintained, and the new ones will be developed. The EU Council focused on particular problems of Central Asia, such as water shortage, unemployment, poverty, inequality, and guarding of borders. This strategy is supported by considerable increase of assistance and contribution from EU. In this context the water resources management becomes the most acute and priority issue. This is confirmed by the EU approaches and the foreign policy rhetoric of the Central Asian countries in the recent 5 years. There is also the understanding that the water issues cannot be considered apart from climate change, agriculture development, and other problems. Here the integrated addressing of problems is required, the so-called NEXUS approach taking into consideration the water-energy-agriculture relationships. And the meaningful result in this respect is implementation of the project Promoting Dialogue for Conflict Prevention Related to Environment, Water Nexus Issues in Central Asia (CAWECOOP) (2015–2017) aimed to improve the transnational confidence and political involvement in the water-energy cooperation in the field of water resources management. All Central Asian countries, except Afghanistan, are members of not only the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) but also of the Organization of Economic Cooperation (OEO) and the Organization of Central Asian Cooperation (OCAC); they participate in the partnership and cooperation agreement with EU, EAEU. Four of them, except Turkmenistan, as well as Russia and China, are the members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) established not only to curb anti-terroristic activities but also to foster interaction and cooperation in the field of transport, energy, and mineral production. This facilitated the continuation of construction of hydropower plants on the Vakhsh and Naryn rivers. These countries are also the members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) ensuring security of the southern borders of Russia and Central Asian countries. At the same time, the integration efforts made in Central Asia in the water sphere are visibly ostensible and ineffective [3]. The economic upswing being observed in Central Asia in the recent decade and settlement of border disputes have decreased the probability of interethnic conflicts. However, the threat from the radical Islamic movements has not diminished. They still remain the important factor in development of the political situation in Central Asia, thus, influencing indirectly the water-energy relations of the countries here. Central Asia is one of a few world regions where the possibility of water wars is not only admitted but considered as a “working” option. There are several causes of such situation: the conflict of downstream countries, the conflict of independences, and the conflict of authoritarian regimes, tough interethnic contradictions, and growing pains [4]. Implementation of new transboundary projects among which the most important is the Great Silk Road or as it is also called Silk Road Economic Belt will require more water resources to ensure its infrastructure. This book may be regarded as continuation of the earlier books published by Springer, they are The Aral Sea Encyclopedia (2009), The Aral Sea Environment

8

S. S. Zhiltsov et al.

(2010), The Turkmen Lake Altyn Asyr, and Water Resources of Turkmenistan (2014). It should be added here that Springer Publishers turned more than once to the problems of water resources in Central Asia having published some book on this theme: Risk Assessment as a Tool for Water Resources Decision-Making in Central Asia. Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Risk Assessment as a Tool for Water Resources Decision-Making in Central Asia. Almaty, Kazakhstan. 23–25 September 2002. Edited by: Teaf Christopher M., Yessekin Bulat K., Khankhasayev Mikhail Kh. (2004) Implementing Integrated Water Resources Management in Central Asia. Editors: Wouters Patricia, Dukhovny Victor, Allan Andrew (2007) Transboundary Water Resources: A Foundation for Regional Stability in Central Asia. Editors: Moerlins J.K., Khankhasayev M.K., Leitman S.F., Makhmudov E.J. (2008) Water and Food Security in Central Asia. Editors: Madramootoo Chandra, Dukhovny Victor (2011) Novel Measurement and Assessment Tools for Monitoring and Management of Land and Water Resources in Agricultural Landscapes of Central Asia. Editors: Mueller Lothar, Saparov Abdulla, Lischeid Gunnar (2014) Security and Human Rights to Water in Central Asia. Authors: Perez Martin, Miguel Angel (2017) In conclusion it should be said that practically all publications related to the water resources in the Central Asian countries give different figures of the flow of major rivers and their tributaries. Such variance may be explained by the fact that after disappearance from the world political map of the Soviet Union, the unified system of hydrological surveys and their recording had been broken down. As a result, the national services appeared whose main objective was to defend the interests of their own countries. Moreover, the statistical reports in the Central Asian countries conceal partially the true data and intentionally increase and distort the figures to obtain additional volumes of water and donor assistance, often for political considerations and others. Many discussions of this problem are conducted in the professional community, but this does not change the situation, and the widespread of data still exists. Acknowledgments A. G. Kostianoy was partially supported within the framework of the Shirshov Institute of Oceanology, RAS, budgetary financing (Project No. 149-2018-0003).

References 1. Francopan P (2017) The Silk Road. M. “E” Publishers (in Russian) 2. Outcome of the Council Meeting (2017) Foreign Affairs, Brussels, p 11. http://data.consilium. europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10424-2017-INIT/en/pdf 3. Kurtov AA (2013) Central Asia: watercourses as new nodes of contradictions. In: Central Asia: problems and perspectives. Outlook from Russia and China. M. RISI, pp 155–199 4. Likhachev AB (2013) Water problem of Central Asia: the roles of Russia, Chiba and Iran. Asia Africa Today 2014(3):56–62

Water Resources of Central Asia: Historical Overview Sergey S. Zhiltsov, Marina S. Zhiltsova, Nikolay P. Medvedev, and Dmitry Y. Slizovskiy

Contents 1 2 3 4

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geographical Location of Central Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Water Resources and Irrigation in Central Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Water Resource Management in Central Asia in the Nineteenth to Twentieth Centuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 The Soviet Period: The Role of Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10 12 14 16 19 23 23

Abstract For several millennia the water resources had been the key issue for the development of Central Asia. They were used for the development of agriculture, water supply, fishery, navigation, and, generally, the national economies. They were also natural barriers for protection from enemies. With the economic development and population growth, the water had become the most deficit resource. Taking into consideration the above, the history of water relations in Central Asia was fraught S. S. Zhiltsov (*) The Diplomatic Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), Moscow, Russia e-mail: [email protected] M. S. Zhiltsova The Diplomatic Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia e-mail: [email protected] N. P. Medvedev and D. Y. Slizovskiy Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), Moscow, Russia e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] S. S. Zhiltsov et al. (eds.), Water Resources in Central Asia: International Context, Hdb Env Chem (2018) 85: 9–24, DOI 10.1007/698_2018_358, © Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018, Published online: 6 September 2018

9

10

S. S. Zhiltsov et al.

with acute struggle for water that was always the most vital resource in such arid intercontinental region located far from seas and oceans. With time, the population growth and progress in science and technology had changed the approaches to water resource management: construction of irrigation canals and hydraulic structures was developing, and new reservoirs and waterworks for water accumulation and redistribution were built. In general, the hydraulic structures had been built in Central Asia for many centuries and reflected the technological level. Water resources were used to meet the social and economic needs of the population. Waterways contributed much to the establishment of the Great Silk Road and Great Indian Road. They were very important in military terms as the troops were deployed by rivers. Waterways in Central Asia were also used for navigation which played a great role in the development of economy and trade, but the navigation here had some specific feature – it was of a closed nature which made it purely regional. The approaches to water resource management have not changed for many centuries. The extending irrigated lands required more and more water which initiated the construction of hydraulic structures. As a result, in the second half of the twentieth century, the irrigated areas in Central Asia really increased permitting these countries to become less dependent on purchase of cotton, to resolve their food supply problems, to provide the required quantities of water to the population, and to establish market relations in industry. Such policy has led to practically complete intake of water resources which deficit had intensified by the 1980s. Keywords Agriculture, Central Asia, Irrigation, Navigation, Water resources

1 Introduction Water resources had been used in Central Asia for several millennia. The major regional rivers – Syr Darya and Amu Darya – have contributed much to the development of the territories here. The Syr Darya and Amu Darya interfluve was the place where most ancient civilizations were seated (Fig. 1). In 6000–5000 BC, Central Asia showed wide development of basin irrigation in which applying rather simple water diversion technique provided water to particular land areas. The transition from primitive water use to regulation of seasonal water floods by diking some areas, diversion of excess water, and cleaning of silted channels of natural water streams had improved the efficiency of floodwater use and permitted extension of arable lands. Moreover, via simple irrigation systems, water was supplied to the areas located far from rivers. As a result, the basin irrigation gradually gave way to irrigation systems which reflected the technological level of that time. The key factors here were technological development that determined the level of irrigation structures and their capacity to transfer water to territories remote from rivers and the demographic situation. Therefore, although being in deficit, the water resources helped to cope with agricultural issues.

Water Resources of Central Asia: Historical Overview

Fig. 1 Central rivalries/)

Asia

11

(https://ccradvisorygroup.com/can-china-russia-overcome-central-asia-

Geographical remoteness of water resources from the territories suitable for irrigation had led to the development of irrigated farming in deltas of major rivers and simultaneously to the development of grazing animal husbandry practiced by the population. Such combination was explained by climatic conditions not conducive to long-term irrigation as well as inability to transfer water to great distances. Therefore, for many centuries the access to water resources for ensuring their supply in the required quantities to meet the needs of agriculture development and population water supply was limited. At the same time, the volume of water resources corresponded approximately to the number of the population. The irrigation systems in Central Asia had been permanently expanding. By the third century BC, the irrigated farming in Central Asia was practiced in deltas of plain rivers and, first of all, in the deltas of the Amu Darya and Syr Darya rivers. The constructed irrigation canals were several kilometers long and several meters deep. At the same time, the low technological level prevented from construction of longer canals, so the delta arms were used for irrigation purposes. For many centuries the irrigation systems had been constructed applying similar technologies. They were all characterized by great seepage water losses that could be as high as 50% of water intake. In general, the main irrigation systems in Central Asia were built by the first century BC involving such rivers as Amu Darya, Syr Darya, and Zarafshan in which basins the artificial canals and large irrigation systems were constructed. Apart from irrigation, the navigation over the rivers of Central Asia had been developing for several millennia. Unlike sea shipping, the navigation here had a

12

S. S. Zhiltsov et al.

closed, regional nature. As early as in 6000–5000 BC, the navigation over the Amu Darya had been practiced [1]. The Syr Darya was also used for navigation mostly for carriage of cargo and moving of people. Apart from this, fishery was very important for the population inhabiting the banks of Central Asian rivers.

2 Geographical Location of Central Asia The situation with the water resources in Central Asia is determined greatly by its geographical location and its natural and climatic conditions. The territory of Central Asia is a geographical part of Eurasia which from the fifth century BC got the name Turkestan. In the new history (until 1993), this region was called Central Asia and Kazakhstan. In the contemporary history, this territory includes Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan and is referred to as Central Asia. This region borders on Russia in the north, China in the west, and Iran and Afghanistan in the south (Fig. 1). Two countries – Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan – have exit to the Caspian Sea (in the west of the region). Its area is around 4 million km2. In general, the region’s countries locate in the Aral-Caspian drainless basin with prevailing continental climate and considerable amplitudes of average temperatures and meager precipitations. Central Asia locates in subtropical latitudes and the southern margins of temperate latitudes in the zone of inland deserts distanced for 1,000 km from seas and oceans. This determines the sharply continental and dry climate and the river network and river flow regimes. Central Asia and, primarily, its flat part are characterized by cold winter and hot, long summer. The temperatures are distributed following the zonal pattern. Generally, the sharply continental climate of Central Asia features maximum temperature variations and a great number of dry days. For this region the recurrence of low-water years is quite typical which aggravates the situation with water availability. The low-water periods occur every 3–4 years and last for 5–6 years, while the high-water periods are quite rare. High temperatures result in high evaporation (900–1,500 mm) that in some parts of the region exceeds 3–14 times the amount of precipitations. On the plains they average some 200mm/year, while in the central part, they account for not more than 100mm/year [2]. In views of such conditions, the role of climate in irrigated farming is great. Geographical location of the region and conditions of water resource formation – many-year regimes of rivers and their flow – are used to determine the specific features of its development. The rivers entering the plains of Central Asia lost their waters for irrigation, seepage, and evaporation and became gradually depleted. Moreover, there are certain specifics of river network formation. Such rivers as Amu Darya, Syr Darya, Chu, Talas, and Zarafshan take their origins in the mountains. Being fed with glacial meltwater, their flows feature a clearly cyclic, seasonal nature. The glacial flow is dependent on abundance of snow in the past winter. In

Water Resources of Central Asia: Historical Overview

13

Fig. 2 Amu Darya and Syr Darya rivers catchments (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 227574792_Climate_change_and_international_water_conflict_in_Central_Asia/figures?lo¼1)

general, the water potential of Central Asia was formed from surface runoff of several major rivers (Fig. 2), such as Amu Darya, Syr Darya, Chu, Talas, Ily, Tarim, Irtysh, Tobol, Ural, and Ishim [3]. The Amu Darya and Syr Darya rivers on which banks the irrigated farming was developing were of key significance for Central Asia. In addition, these rivers were important for navigation that had developed here from the first century AC. Unlike the Amu Darya, the Syr Darya had no any important near-delta oasis in its lower reaches. For a long time, the Syr Darya tributaries had been used for irrigation, making them more important than the river proper. Apart from the major rivers of Central Asia, other water courses and water bodies play their role, among them the Ily River, one of the largest in Central Asia. It originates from the Tekes and Kunges rivers on the northern slope in Tian Shan. After their confluence the river is called Ily and flows further for approximately 930 km and ends in the Balkhash Lake. The river’s width in some places may be as large as 1 km. Its tributaries are of great significance for irrigation, but when the river gets into a valley and does not have tributaries any more, it loses its importance for irrigation. Apart from rivers, the great contribution to the development of Central Asia was made by lakes receiving flows of the region’s major rivers and around which the farming was developed. The Aral Lake and the second largest Balkhash Lake into

14

S. S. Zhiltsov et al.

which the Ily and some smaller rivers bring their waters played a very important role in farming development. The Issyk-Kul Lake is one of the most important mountain lakes located at an altitude of 1,574 m above sea level. Its length is about 185 km, width up to 60 km, and depth up to 425 km. Issyk-Kul was always the closed, salt lake. In the history of this region, the oases which were always the densely populated areas played a very important role in its development. The largest oases are located in the valleys of the Amu Darya, Syr Darya, Chu and Ily rivers, and around the Issyk-Kul Lake [4]. The climate formed in them was very favorable for the life of people and for agriculture, too.

3 Water Resources and Irrigation in Central Asia Irrigation development in Central Asia required a great volume of earth-moving works and clearing of irrigation canals of sediments. Appearance of iron tools helped enormously in the construction of irrigation systems and, further on, spurred development of irrigated farming on delta plains of major rivers in Central Asia (Fig. 3). The farming had been developing in Central Asia by applying artificial irrigation using water from canals and other irrigation structures, primarily, in the valleys of large rivers and in oases. The largest centers of irrigated farming appeared in the deltas of Amu Darya, Zarafshan, and Murghab. Here many land reclamation facilities were built, and their choice was governed by the hydrographic conditions prevailing here: on mountain rivers rushing down steep slopes, the sepoy (rock-filled) water intakes were built; on smoothly flowing rivers, the fascine dikes Fig. 3 Irrigation ditch in Central Asia (http://news. fergananews.com/photos/ 2007_03/aryk/7.jpg)

Water Resources of Central Asia: Historical Overview

15

with gated water intakes were built. These structures of brushwood, stone, and earth with a diameter averaging 2 m and up to 8 m long were assembled on the bank and then lowered into water. As a result, they dammed the river. The period of the sixth to twelfth centuries was the new stage of irrigation and irrigated farming development. This was the time of the formation in Central Asia of large feudal states as well as the time of progress in science and technology. In this period large-scale irrigation facilities were built; the canals became narrower and deeper; different water-retaining dams and water dividers were constructed. The canals became longer – more than 100 km. This irrigation system is believed to have been destroyed by Genghis Khan in the thirteenth century [1], and it had been never restored. The ninth to tenth centuries were marked by the application of water-lifting structures which had improved significantly the efficiency of water use with simultaneous reduction of unproductive expenses. And the great contribution here was made by such sciences as hydraulic engineering, mathematics, and geometry. The irrigation construction machinery and materials had also reached a new level. The baked brick and binding mortar were applied in construction. In the same period, the mountain reservoirs were constructed capable to accumulate considerable volumes of water. One of these was the Khan Bandi dam constructed in the tenth century in the Pasttaga gorge 12–15 km northward of the Nuratin mountain foot (nowadays it is the territory of Uzbekistan). The dam was constructed of cut granite slabs based on lime mortar added with quartz sand. The length of the dam on top was 51.75 m and at the bottom 24.45 m, and its height was 15.25 m. The thickness on top was 2.30 m and at the bottom 8.2 m. Nine coneshaped holes made at different altitudes designed for various water levels in a reservoir were regulating the water flow. The created reservoir was 1.5 km long with the volume being 1.5 million m3. This permitted irrigation of around 1,500 ha. Such structures in the territory of Central Asia were created relying upon achievements in mathematics and geometry allowing for gradual extension of irrigated land areas. Thus, in medieval Central Asia, the irrigation construction was widely practiced taking water from large rivers for irrigation of remote areas. And a very important fact here is that the population was actively engaged in maintaining these irrigation systems in good working condition. Moreover, the people of Central Asia serviced the caravans carrying goods. At the same time, the fishery, river carrier’s trade, and shipbuilding were also developing dynamically. The role of rivers in navigation development in Central Asia has increased enormously. The main navigable waterways in the Middle Ages were the Amu Darya and Syr Darya which were the deepest and most full-flowing rivers. In 1558 British explorer Jenkinson who travelled to Khorezm mentioned in his notes the Amu Darya tributaries as navigable waterways. Russian Tsar Peter the Great paid much attention to navigation in Central Asia. He organized several research expeditions to Central Asia, in particular, headed by A. Bekovich-Cherkassky (1717), F. Beneveny (1718), and I. Unkovsky. Apart from exploring waterways to India, Peter intended to use the Central Asian rivers for trade

16

S. S. Zhiltsov et al.

and economic purposes. He sent some research expeditions to Central Asia with the task to find the ancient bed of the Amu Darya which, as legends said, ended in the Caspian Sea. With time, the role of water resources had been changing. Apart from shipping over large rivers of this region, the use of water resources in agriculture was constantly growing. This included wide-scale irrigation works in which a great number of people took part. Such situation was maintained till the mid-nineteenth century.

4 Water Resource Management in Central Asia in the Nineteenth to Twentieth Centuries The development of production in Russia and the need of new sales markets forced the Russian manufacturers to establish shipping companies for delivery of goods to Central Asia. Thus, in the mid-nineteenth century, Russia focused much on shipping development in Central Asia seeking to organize navigation on Central Asian rivers. In July 1847 Governor General of Orenburg region V. A. Obruchev constructed the Fort Raim in the Syr Darya lower reaches which laid the basis for expansion of the Russian influence in the Syr Darya basin. In spring 1848 the first schooner with two guns “Constantin” was built in Orenburg for the Aral fleet which was later moved to Syr Darya. The shipping traffic over the Syr Darya was opened in 1853. The fleet was created for protection from Khiva raids, prevention of Khiva raiders from crossing the Syr Darya and likely plunder, and also for support of land forces. In addition, there were plans to use this fleet for trade development in the Aral basin. Beginning from 1853 the Aral fleet was used not only for exploration of Central Asia but for military actions in this region which was politically very important for Russia. The ships of the Aral fleet moved upstream the Syr Darya to the most important anchorage place near Kazalinsk founded by Russia. The first ship had deep draft and had not enough power to move against strong current. In 1862 several more powerful ships were purchased, but still they were unable to sail upstream. As a result, in 1883 the shipping was closed, and, except some individual projects, the new attempts of navigation had not been taken. After abolishing the Aral fleet, the Russian navigation over the Central Asian rivers reappeared as the Amu Darya fleet. In 1886 the construction of tow-passenger vessels “Tsar” and “Tasritsa” and barges “Petersburg” and “Moskva” was ordered, and in 1888 they started sailing from Petro-Alexandrovsk to Kerki. Soon this fleet received four new tow-passenger vessels “Tsesarevich Alexey,” “Veliky Knyaz,” “Velikaya Knyazhna Olga” (Fig. 4), and “Emperor Nicholas II,” two steamboats, one steam launch, eight barges, and two iron “kayuks” (freight single-poster rowing boat). All these vessels were set afloat between 1895 and 1901. Moreover, three barges were transferred from the abolished Aral fleet.

Water Resources of Central Asia: Historical Overview

17

Fig. 4 “Velikaya Knyazhna Olga” on Amu Darya River (https://mytashkent.uz/2018/01/24/flotiliiv-turkestane-perioda-grazhdanskoj-vojny/)

The shipping in the rivers of Central Asia had numerous drawbacks, and one of them was its closed nature as waterways had no outlets into the seas. This explained the specific approach to water resource management. Water policy assumed the centralized use of water resources required for manufacturing of goods within the region and for sale. The same referred to the use of water resources for shipping that served the regional market and could not go beyond the region borders. After accession of Central Asia in the 1860s–1880s, Russia started systematic development of water resources. The problem of water supply had always existed in Central Asia, but beginning from the second half of the nineteenth century when many nomadic tribes had settled down [5], this problem acquired greater acuteness. For planned development of water resources, Russia and Khiva Khanate signed the treaty in 1873 stating that “Russian vessels, both governmental and private, were provided the right of free and exclusive navigation in the Amu Darya. This right may be used by Khiva and Bukhara vessels only on a special permission from the Russian authorities in Central Asia.” In the same year, the similar treaty was signed between Russia and Bukhara saying that “in that part of the Amu Darya that belonged to the Emir of Bukhara the right of free navigation was granted to Russian steamboats and other Russian ships, both governmental and private on a par with Bukhara vessels” [6]. In the second half of the nineteenth century, the expansion of irrigated lands had started. The options of turning this region into the main cotton-growing area were considered which supposed implementation of projects of Ferghana Valley development. This required a great volume of irrigation works which had been accomplished that time [7]. In 1872 the construction of the first main canal from the Syr Darya called “Kaufmansky” by the name of General K. P. Kaufman who led the conquest of

18

S. S. Zhiltsov et al.

Central Asia and later on, in 1867, was appointed Governor-General of Turkestan was started. In 1879 the works were suspended and in 1881 stopped. However, in 1891 the construction of the canal from the Syr Darya named after Russian Tsar Nicholas I was initiated. In 1895 this canal 80 km long was completed. It used a part of the Syr Darya flow to increase the irrigated lands for cotton growing. Some of the suggested projects had never been realized because of too enormous scales of works or due to technical miscalculations. Nevertheless inclusion of the Central Asian territories into the economic system of the Russian Empire had resulted in the growth of irrigation works and establishment of shipping companies which contributed to trade development. So, some projects had been accomplished which permitted increase of agricultural lands. After accession of Central Asia to the Russian Empire, the intensive explorations were initiated with a view to find potential areas for irrigation development. Research expeditions were sent to the basins of the major rivers – Amu Darya and Syr Darya. In 1874 the Russian Geographical Society (RGS) organized the expedition headed by researcher N. G. Stoletov to the Khiva Khanate with the task to investigate the territories on the coasts of the Caspian Sea and in the Amu Darya delta. At the same time, numerous research expeditions were sent to other Central Asian khanates for further exploration of Central Asia, including its waterways. Thus, in 1875 Staff-Captain A. Bykov with his expedition conducted reconnaissance studies of crossings on the Amu Darya. Later on he gave descriptions of the ships sailed in the Amu Darya [8]. In 1877 RGS sent to Central Asia the second expedition to study the Amu Darya delta. In the same year, “The Interim Rules of Irrigation in Turkestan” were published, and the position “irrigator of the region for water resources management” was established. This document stirred discontent of the local population, and these decisions were revoked. However, in 1886 the Regulations on Turkestan Area Management were issued which outlined the procedure of water resources use and conduct of irrigation works. The policy of the tsar government was aimed to development of cotton growing and, accordingly, to addressing the issues related to irrigation. In the next decades, the wide-scale researches of the possibilities for irrigation of vast lands were conducted, and the plans for populating the undeveloped territories and construction of industrial enterprises for agricultural product processing were outlined. At the same time, the plans of infrastructure development, including road construction, were devised. Investigations of waterways and the use of water for extension of agricultural lands were conducted for further integration of Central Asia into the single national economic complex of Russia. But the Central Asian rivers have lost more and more their significance as transport waterways because railway carriage development made easier the delivery of goods and people to the most remote territories. But the navigation on the rivers of Central Asia did not stop. The new ships for the Central Asian rivers were built taking into consideration the past experience of shipbuilding and navigation; in particular, they were of smaller size and with shallow draft and used oil as fuel. There were oil storages, slips, and workshops which were

Water Resources of Central Asia: Historical Overview

19

sufficient for capital repair of vessels. The urgent passenger and freight voyages between Chardzui and Petro-Alexandrovsk on one ship were organized. Five ships were navigating on the route Chardzhui – Kerki – Kelif – Termez. Some ships of the fleet went via the Aral Sea to the Syr Darya and upstream as far as Sarai. The floating oil storages were provided to fuel ships. In 1905–1908, on the average 77 voyages were made yearly transferring 17,000 passengers and around 9,000 tons of state and private freight. In general, several ships that were navigating in the Amu Darya in the late nineteenth century were used not only for trade but for military purposes as well. The merchant fleet was called, generally, to connect railway station Chardzhou with military forts and settlements along the river. As a result, in 1895 four steamers and eight other ships, mostly large barges, went in the Amu Darya River [9].

5 The Soviet Period: The Role of Water Resources The new stage in water industry development in Central Asia started after 1917–1918 after establishment of the Soviet power. Several resolutions were passed to develop irrigation in Central Asia. In May 1918 the Decree on Organization of Irrigation Works in Turkestan was signed. At the same time, the cotton growing remained in the focus of attention, and in November 1920 the Decree of the Council of People’s Commissars “On Restoration of Cotton Growing in the Turkestan and Azerbaijan Socialist Soviet Republics” was signed. In 1922–1927 the Soviet government formulated the task to extend the cotton growing which required enormous increase of irrigated land area and construction of irrigation and drainage facilities. The program of water and energy development in Central Asia for 1920–1930 was prepared being very important for further irrigation development in this region. In 1926 the implementation of irrigation projects was initiated in Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kirghizia, and Kazakhstan. In Uzbekistan the Yangi-Dorgonsky, Pai-Aryksky irrigation systems, the Pervomaisky dam on the Zarafshan River, and some canals were built. Kazakhstan implemented the projects of construction of the Sula canal and the Chardarinsky irrigation system; in Kirghizia the Samsonovsky canal and Krasnorechensky irrigation system were constructed. In 1930 Tajikistan launched the construction of the Vakhsh irrigation system designed for further development of cotton growing. This system was the first, really large irrigation and drainage project in the USSR which laid the basis for mechanization of hydraulic construction works. In the 1930s the problem of cotton-growing development was coped with. It supposed development of irrigated farming. As a result, the development of new lands in the Aral Sea basin has increased significantly the area of irrigated lands. In 1913–1915 it made 3,200 thousand ha, while in the late 1930s, it was already 4,300 thousand ha, first of all, due to lands in the Ferghana, Vakhsh, and Chu valleys, territories in Southern Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. This required

20

S. S. Zhiltsov et al.

construction of large water economy facilities: water reservoirs, water intakes, main canals, and drainage systems. In this period the large-scale irrigation and drainage projects had been accomplished. The Great Ferghana Canal in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan was constructed within a very short time – only for 45 days, from the 1st of August to the 15th of September 1939. This canal was 275 km long with the carrying capacity in the head 100 m3/s. The volume of earth-moving works during its construction reached 18 million m3. Then the canal was prolonged for 75 km in the territory of Tajikistan [10]. Thanks to the so-called method of public construction, there were built the Northern Ferghana Canal in Uzbekistan 165 km long and the Southern Ferghana Canal 105 km long as well as Kattakurgan reservoirs 660 million m3 in capacity in the Zarafshan Valley. In total, more than 170 large canals and irrigation systems were commissioned. In the mid-1940s the Chibaisky irrigation system and Kampyr-Ravat dam in Uzbekistan, the Vakhsh irrigation system in Tajikistan, the Tashkeprinsky reservoir in Turkmenistan, and Sasykbulaksky reservoir in Kazakhstan were constructed (Fig. 5). In the next decades, irrigation was further developed. In 1951–1965 the new irrigation, water supply systems were constructed in Central Asia. Great attention was paid to the development of cotton-growing regions in Central Asia and Kazakhstan. In 1956 the Resolution on Land Development in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan was adopted. There were plans to develop irrigation on 200 ha of virgin

Fig. 5 Charvak Dam and HPP in Uzbekistan (https://orexca.com/img/rivers_lakes/charvaq/33.jpg)

Water Resources of Central Asia: Historical Overview

21

lands in Uzbekistan which supposed further improvements in irrigation and drainage in order to re-distribute the water resources [11]. In the Soviet Union, Uzbekistan was in the focus of attention as it was considered the base for cotton growing. The new stage in irrigation and drainage development started after decisions of XXIII CPSU Congress and May Plenum of CC CPSU in 1966 and XXIV CPSU Congress in 1971. The plans for integrated use of water resources of the Amu Darya and Syr Darya were prepared. They were compared with the land stock areas and irrigation potential of water resources. The greater attention to the water infrastructure created in the previous decades was connected with very high water losses from irrigation systems constructed prior to the 1960s. One of the reasons of their low efficiency was their earth beds which resulted not only in enormous water losses for seepage while they carried water to the place of use but also in disturbance of the water-salt balance and groundwater rise. Only in the twentieth century when concrete chutes were applied and canals had concrete-coated beds the water losses decreased although they still remained too high. Lack of finance prevented from changing the situation within a short time. In 1966 the XXIII CPSU Congress adopted the program of increasing the agricultural crop yields and productivity of cattle farming. The most important prerequisite for crop yield growth was attainment of higher land fertility on the basis of irrigation and drainage improvements. For the first time, the question was raised about creation of large regions of commodity grain production on the basis of irrigation development in the arid zones in Kazakhstan. Special importance was given to irrigation and drainage development in Central Asia for production of cotton (Fig. 6) and other agricultural crops. The task was also formulated to meet the needs of the country in rice which required further irrigation development in the lower reaches of the Amu Darya, Syr Darya, and Ily. Implementation of measures outlined in the program adopted at the XXIII CPSU Congress permitted in the period from 1966 to 1970 to transfer to kolkhozes and sovkhozes additionally 1.8 million ha of irrigated lands and 4 million ha of drained lands, to supply water to 33.8 million ha of desert pasturelands and to reclaim arable lands, haylands, and pastures on an area of 7.4 million ha [10]. The XXIV CPSU Congress approved the integrated program of agriculture development. Special attention in this program was drawn to land reclamation in Central Asia. As a result, in the period 1971–1974, the irrigation systems on an area of 1.6 million ha were upgraded, and their water supply was improved; the collectordrainage network on an area of 1.7 million ha was constructed. Thus, during several decades, the large facilities had been constructed in the Golodnaya Steppe, Sherabad Steppe, the Amu-Bukhara Canal, the Nizhne-Sukhan water reservoir in Uzbekistan, the Karakum Canal named after V. I. Lenin in Turkmenistan, the Orto-Tokoy water reservoir in Kirghizia, and the Kairak-Kum water reservoir in Tajikistan. Extensive works on irrigation and drainage construction were performed in Kazakhstan. The period from the 1950s to the 1980s was marked in Central Asia by sharp increase of water intake for agricultural needs. They abandoned grain growing in favor of cotton cultivation. In the Central Asian republics this was declared the key policy and had led to increased water intake from the largest rivers of the region.

22

S. S. Zhiltsov et al.

Fig. 6 Cotton fields in Uzbekistan (http://sng.today/tashkent/419-hlopkovye-polya-v-uzbekistanestanut-fruktovo-ovoschnymi.html)

In the Soviet time, the water deficit was growing owing to ineffective water resource management and sharp increase of arable lands. In the 1980s the area of irrigated lands reached 7.4 million ha. The construction of hydropower facilities also contributed to the increased water intake which had negative environmental consequences. The apposite example here is the situation with the Aral Sea. In the 1960s the water level in this sea started dropping as a result of enormous water intake from the rivers flowing into it – the Syr Darya and Amu Darya. From the early twentieth century till the 1960s the water intake from these two rivers had nearly doubled. From 1961 the inflow of river water into the Aral Sea was decreasing which entailed quick water level drop and reduction of the water surface area and the volume of water [12]. As a result, in 1989 the sea broke into two isolated bodies – smaller and greater Aral Sea. Despite application of advanced technologies and technical solutions, the environmental equilibrium had been disturbed owing to depletion of water resources, lowering productivity of lands, and desertification on considerable territories. The negative environmental effects were also provoked by accelerated development of the economy of the Central Asian republics which often neglected the water resource condition.

Water Resources of Central Asia: Historical Overview

23

6 Conclusion The Soviet Union applied the centralized approach to the use of transboundary water resources, i.e., the distribution and use of water was regulated by the USSR Ministry of Land Reclamation and Water Management on the basis of the single plan of economy development in the region and in the USSR as a whole. The Soviet system of water relations among the republics was based on water quotas allotted to them and the balance of contractual obligations between the republics and the union center. Accordingly, the Central Asian republics were unable to form and pursue their own independent water policy. The regulation of transboundary river flow was targeted to ensure the balanced economic development of all five Central Asian republics combining the tasks of power engineering and agrarian development. The criterion of management of reservoirs was attaining the maximum common benefit. The reservoirs built in the rivers’ upper reaches regulated the flow going downstream which permitted to avoid inter-republican conflicts. The priority field in Central Asia development was irrigation and, primarily, the irrigated farming in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Thus, the Syr Darya flow was regulated by the Naryn-Syrdarya cascade of reservoirs by the irrigation schedule. The annual water releases from the Toktogul reservoir in summer should be 75%. In its turn, Kyrgyzstan received raw materials from Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Similar approach was taken to the Amu Darya flow that was regulated by the Nurek reservoir. The USSR disintegration opened a new page in the use of water resources. For the new independent states formed from the former republics of Central Asia, the most complex problem was water sharing. Breakup of the Soviet system had led to mutual unsettled claims of regional countries connected, first of all, with identification of water intake from transboundary rivers. Having declared independence and taking the course to the market economy, the Central Asian countries started pursuing independent policy in control and sharing of water resources. And the national water needs came to the fore. Each state in this region pursued its national interests neglecting how they harmonized with the interests of neighboring states and how they influenced the situation in general. The endeavors of the upstream countries to increase power generation contradict the interests of the downstream countries whose irrigation policy requires other approach to the water use. Such disagreements and conflicts of interests in the use of water and power resources intensify the tension in the region in general and among particular countries and have negative aftereffects for the whole system of interstate relations.

References 1. Rtveladze EV (2012) The Great Indian Road. Nestor-Istoria, Saint-Petersburg, p 43 (in Russian) 2. Sarsembekov TT et al (2004) The use and protection of transboundary rivers in the Central Asian countries. Atamura, Almaty, pp 35–38 (in Russian)

24

S. S. Zhiltsov et al.

3. Lebedeva MM, Borishpolets CP, Ivanova NA, Chepurina MA (2016) The Central Asia: social and humanitarian dimensions. Aspekt Press, Moscow, p 26 (in Russian) 4. International relations in Central Asia: events and documents (2011) Aspekt Press, Moscow, pp 37–38 (in Russian) 5. Mantusov VB, Sharifov BM (2014) Geostrategic importance of the Central Asian region for Russia in modern world economic relations. Nauchnaya kniga, Moscow, p 33 (in Russian) 6. Adamova EA (1952) Collection of treaties of Russia with other states (1856–1917). State Political Literature Publishers, Moscow, pp 129–139 (in Russian) 7. Bushkov V (2003) Water problems of the Central Asian region. Central Asia Caucasus 5:183–190 (in Russian) 8. Bykov AA (1879) Notes about crossings over the Amu Darya. Nauka, Tashkent, p 4 (in Russian) 9. Addwort E (2017) Russia: the breakthrough to the east. Press-Book, Moscow, p 275 (in Russian) 10. Shtepa BG, Kudrin BA, Zonn IS, Orlova VP, Volynov AM (1975) Land reclamation in the USSR. Kolos, Moscow, pp 20–26 (in Russian) 11. Faizullaev MA (2015) Historical and geographical aspects of integrated development of new lands in Uzbekistan for agriculture. Vestnik ARGO 4:187–194 (in Russian) 12. Zonn IS, Glantz MG (2008) The Aral encyclopedia. International Relations, Moscow, p 33 (in Russian)

Legal Framework of Interstate Cooperation on Water Resources of Central Asia Barbara Janusz-Pawletta Contents 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 The Regulation of Water and Related Resources in the Legacy of the Soviet Union . . . . . . 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 The Legal Status of Aral Sea Waters in the Soviet Period and the Nexus Approach to Regulation of Water Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Principles and Instruments of Regulation on Water Management in the Soviet Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 The Current Legal Framework of Interstate Water Cooperation in the Aral Sea Basin . . . . 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 The Legal Framework of the Regional Level of Interstate Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 The Legal Framework for Basin Level Interstate Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 The Bilateral Interstate Legal Framework Within the Aral Sea Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Bilateral Regulations on Syr Daria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Bilateral Regulations on Amu Daria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

26 27 27 27 28 29 29 29 36 37 37 38 39

Abstract More than 20 years after emergence of new independent states in the Aral Sea Basin, the legal basis for transboundary interstate cooperation needs strengthening and enhancement. The remnants from the Soviet legal settings are still recognizable in the todays biding legal framework for transboundary cooperation and presented in the chapter. Since the riparian states underwent in-depth changes in social-economical terms, it is needed to introduce the modern legal principles and procedures to facilitate the management and protection of transboundary waters in Central Asia. The current legal framework binding for the Aral Sea riparian states is made of different levels of regulations. The regional (Aral Sea Basin) level of interstate cooperation is based on the both (1) international water law (incl. application of the global multilateral environmental agreements and relevant multilateral agreements adopted within the Commonwealth of Independent States) and (2) multilateral legal acts adopted by the riparian states restricted B. Janusz-Pawletta (*) UNESCO Chair Holder in Water Management in Central Asia, Kazakh-German University, Almaty, Kazakhstan e-mail: [email protected] S. S. Zhiltsov et al. (eds.), Water Resources in Central Asia: International Context, Hdb Env Chem (2018) 85: 25–40, DOI 10.1007/698_2017_203, © Springer International Publishing AG 2018, Published online: 17 April 2018

25

26

B. Janusz-Pawletta

within the scope to the Aral Sea Basin. There are also a number of multilateral and bilateral transboundary agreements covering the interstate cooperation on the sub-basins of Syr Daria and Amu Daria. The assessment of existing legal framework in terms of inclusion of the modern principles and procedures of the international water law is presented in the chapter. Keywords Central Asia, International law, Transboundary water cooperation

1 Introduction The multidimensional challenges striking the water sector worldwide may be due to weak water governance [1].1 An inherent component of water governance is the management of water resources, which in a transboundary context must be based on interstate cooperation. It requires a clear and comprehensive regulatory framework, being flexible enough to accommodate current and future challenges facing water use in a number of sectors. This includes sectors such as the economic sector of a state economy, agriculture, energy, and so on. Central Asian waters are no exception. The Aral Sea Basin, which is the main basin of a transboundary character located in Central Asia (CA), provides water resources for a number of specific human needs, including food and energy. It also has an inherent ecological value, which must be protected. The need for water use for the strategic development of a state economy in each of these sectors impacts the availability of water and requires management of its resources based on coordinated planning a tall level. The interstate level of water cooperation among the CA states, which is the subject of research in this chapter, shall be pursued through the ongoing development and strengthening of the existing interstate legal framework. There is already a complex set of provisions in place regulating the allocation of water for different sectors of human activities among Central Asian states. This, however, requires improvements on the multilateral and bilateral basis of interstate cooperation within the Aral Sea Basin. Since the thematic scope of this paper refers specifically to integrated water management, it also touches upon the relevant energy regulations. Water and energy are inseparably linked within the regional power and irrigation systems of Central Asian states, with reservoirs regulating river flow to provide water for energy generation and irrigation purposes. The interstate system of water resource management in Central Asia during the Soviet period served as a basis for the centralized management of shared resources among the Soviet Republics of Central Asia until the beginning of the 1990s. Today’s legal framework for cooperation on transboundary waters among the independent states of Central Asia covers the following two levels of cooperation, which will be

1

As for definition of the notion water governance, please see for instance 2015 OECD Water Governance Principles. Access mode: http://www.oecd.org/governance/oecd-principles-on-watergovernance.htm (last update 10.09. 2017).

Legal Framework of Interstate Cooperation on Water Resources of Central Asia

27

elaborated on in this chapter: (1) |the Aral Sea Basin as a whole and (2) its main sub-basins of Syr Daria and Amu Daria. The previous (Soviet) and the newly (since 1990s) adopted legal commitments of both (1) multilateral and (2) bilateral character serve as legal sources for interstate cooperation in these basins. As for the multilateral regulatory framework, it comprises three types of acts: (1) global multilateral environmental agreements; (2) regional legal acts, which were adopted specifically for the Aral Sea Basin and its sub-basins before and after the collapse of the Soviet Union; and (3) interstate policy documents. The multilateral and bilateral acts setting up the legal framework for cooperation in the Aral Sea Basin will be the subject of the following elaboration. The institutional mechanisms of interstate cooperation will not be discussed here since they are subject of a separate chapter of this book.

2 The Regulation of Water and Related Resources in the Legacy of the Soviet Union 2.1

Introduction

The Soviet Union regulated water management in Central Asia on a basis of a “hydraulic mission’s” approach, where water resources were used to serve the purpose of Central Asia as the “cotton and bread basket” of the whole Soviet Union. Waters of the Aral Sea Basin in the Soviet period were regulated to prioritize irrigation purposes over and against energy and power generation. Nevertheless water allocation, electricity, and fuel exchange were legally interconnected among the five Soviet Republics into a fairly efficient system. However, the overexploitation of water for all purposes has led to severe challenges for today’s generations, among which are the irreversible environmental problems. The following assessment of the Soviet Union’s legacy for the management of the Aral Sea Basin addresses its two core elements: (1) regulations of water and other dependent resources, as well as a definition of their legitimate users and types of uses, and (2) substantive and procedural legal rules establishing rights and obligations in water management (basin principle, minimal flow, permission system).

2.2

The Legal Status of Aral Sea Waters in the Soviet Period and the Nexus Approach to Regulation of Water Management

According to USSR law, all waters were under state ownership. During the collective farming system, the “restricted water demand principle” was introduced; however a water rights system was absent. Respectively, water distribution was based on shortterm administrative decisions and seasonal (crop based) planning. During the Soviet

28

B. Janusz-Pawletta

period, central planning impacted water management on the ground through the control of state owned farms – kolkhoz and sovkhoz. Despite the formally collective character of state farms, in reality, their members’ meetings decided on water allocation according to the centrally planned economic targets. Soviet law also formally recognized other users, for instance: state, cooperative, and public enterprises, organizations, institutions, and USSR citizens (Art. 12 of USSR Water Code2). Water bodies had to satisfy many needs of the population such as drinking, social, medical, health, agricultural, industrial, energy, transport, fishing, and other government needs. Priority was given to drinking water needs. The water allocation quotas for the main sub-basins of the Aral Sea were defined in1984 by the USSR Ministry of Land Reclamation and Water Resources (Minvodkhoz), reflecting the centralized policy for the enhancement of irrigation in downstream territories over other uses (e.g., hydropower, sustaining the ecosystem of the Aral Sea Basin). In order to diminish the inequities in the assigned water rates and to solve the problem of competing claims of downstream countries related to their irrigation needs, and of upstream countries related to their power generation needs, a unified water-energy system was set up in 1986 under the competence of Basin Water Organizations(BWO) “Syr Daria” and “Amu Daria.” Respectively, the downstream republics of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan provided coal and gas for electricity generation to upstream Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan offered in exchange for storing water during winter and releasing it in summer. In the field of energy, the Central Asia Power System (CAPS) existed since 1970s as a common power network linking the Soviet Republics of Uzbekistan, Southern Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan with the goal of optimizing energy resources.3

2.3

Principles and Instruments of Regulation on Water Management in the Soviet Period

Within the Aral Sea Basin, despite the existence of institutions with a basin-wide geographical scope of competence (Rus: бассейновые (территориальные) управления), in practice, the regulation of water allocation was based on the principle of administrative boundaries of provinces (oblast) and districts (rayon). Water was allocated according to fixed quotas assigned to each republic by the USSR State Planning Committee and later divided up within provinces, districts, and state farms (kolkhoz and sovkhoz). Relevant water-dependent activities were undertaken based on the general and basin (territorial) schemes of complex usage, to meet future needs of the population and the national economy, as well as to protect the water resource itself. Special water use was allowed on the basis of permits issued by

2 Basics of Water Legislation of the USSR and the Union Republics (Основы водного законодательства Союза ССР и союзных республик), accepted by USSR Law in 1970. 3 Load Dispatch and System Operation Study for Central Asian Power System, World Bank, 2010.

Legal Framework of Interstate Cooperation on Water Resources of Central Asia

29

Minvodkhoz. There were no fees for water use during the USSR time leading to inefficient use lacking any environmental concern. The Soviet era set up a system of water resource management which did not survive the collapse of the Soviet Union. From the 1990s, the independent states of Central Asia, having kept some of the soviet legacy, were forced to create a new legal system to manage water passing the countries’ boundaries in the Aral Sea Basin, which turned out to be a challenge for regional cooperation.

3 The Current Legal Framework of Interstate Water Cooperation in the Aral Sea Basin 3.1

Introduction

The legal framework for interstate cooperation in the management of transboundary water resources in Central Asia is fairly well established and has been developing already for more than 25 years. The existing legal regime provides for the operating of transboundary waters on three levels of interstate cooperation: (1) multilateral regulations covering the whole Aral Sea Basin (see Sect. 3.2 for further details); (2) the sub-basin level of management, for the Syr Daria and Amu Daria (see Sect. 4 for further details); and (3) the bilateral level (see Sect. 5 for further details). The currently existing legal framework, however, requires modernization and strengthening of the weaknesses existing on all levels of interstate cooperation: regional, basin, and bilateral levels. The existing regime of interstate cooperation in the Aral Sea Basins nowadays subject to gradual but constant development, which will be discussed below.

3.2

The Legal Framework of the Regional Level of Interstate Cooperation

Close cooperation is required despite the undeniable, but not unlimited, states’ sovereignty over natural resources. A difficulty in proper implementation and enhancement of existing legal regulations of transboundary water courses can be viewed as an important indicator of current challenges to interstate cooperation and coordinated development of water resources at the regional level in Central Asia. The existing regulations of state cooperation on the transboundary water resources of the Aral Sea Basin derive from legal sources of three types to be discussed below. The first category consists of regulatory acts of global multilateral environmental agreements, including regulations of international water law, which remain obligatory for the Aral Sea Basin states. International customary law also applies here. The second group of acts has a regional territorial scope and covers acts which were

30

B. Janusz-Pawletta

adopted by the states of the Aral Sea Basin after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The third are high-level policy documents having a legal impact which lack binding legal force but envisage having strong political value. All three groups of documents build up a legal framework for interstate cooperation on transboundary watercourses in Central Asia and regulate the protection and use of waters for multi-sectoral purposes like agriculture and energy.

3.2.1

Obligations Originating from International Water Law

The legal framework for interstate cooperation in the Aral Sea Basin includes regulations deriving from international water law, which applies to transboundary watercourses guaranteeing principles and mechanisms for sustainable mutually beneficial interstate cooperation. International water law creates for the Aral Sea’s riparian states a binding framework regulating the use and protection of the transboundary waters. Two groups of legal sources are relevant here and provide for legal and institutional obligations among neighboring countries: (1) global multilateral environmental agreements and (2) agreements adopted in the framework of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), which all Central Asian states are members of. Both groups of these international legal sources are significant to the management of the Aral Sea Basin resources on both levels: (1) the interstate level for those of the riparian states which have previously committed to these agreements and (2) the national level of legislation of riparian countries, which must act in accordance with these states’ international commitments.

Global Multilateral Environmental Agreements Global multilateral environmental agreements, as discussed in more details in a separate chapter of this book, have divergent thematic scope covering a wide range of issues relevant for water management. One group of these agreements consists of two global conventions dealing directly with the management of the transboundary water courses, which are (1) the UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses of 1997 (UN Water Convention) and (2) the Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Waters and International Lakes of 1992 (UNECE Water Convention) and its Protocol on Water and Health. The first convention was signed in 1997 but entered into force only in 2014. It codifies the principles and mechanisms of international water law acknowledging the characteristics of particular international watercourses. Out of the riparian states of the Aral Sea Basin, only Uzbekistan is party to it so that its direct application in the basin is limited. The second convention, the UNECE Convention, provides for an obligatory institutional framework for cooperation and for mechanisms of resolving disputes based on the basin approach and the protection of ecosystems. It includes mechanisms to improve international cooperation and national measures for the protection and

Legal Framework of Interstate Cooperation on Water Resources of Central Asia

31

environmental management of transboundary surface waters and ground waters. Here all three of the downstream countries of the Aral Sea Basin – Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan – are parties to the convention, with the remaining two Central Asian states merely participants in this convention’s related activities. Therefore, its application to interstate cooperation in the Aral Sea Basin is also limited. The other group of global multilateral environmental agreements discussed here contains regulations governing merely some aspects relevant to the management of transboundary water resources. The Aral Sea Basin’s riparian states have already committed to a number of them, and in doing so they have agreed to the application of these provisions in the interstate management of transboundary waters. To name just a few of the most important global multilateral environmental agreements: (1) the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (EIA or the Espoo Convention) and its Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA Protocol), to which Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan are parties, and Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are preparing to ratify. The Espoo Convention is of great importance for ensuring the assessment of impacts on water resources. Where new projects in the fields relevant to water management, like agriculture and energy, have possible harmful environmental impacts, they must be discussed with potentially affected neighboring states; (2) the Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents (Industrial Accidents Convention) has Kazakhstan as its only member from among the Aral Sea Basin riparian states, but Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan are preparing to become parties to it. This convention protects human beings and nature from the frequent and severe effect of industrial accidents, especially in the sector of hydropower; (3) the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention) enjoys the widest participation among the Aral Sea riparian states (except for Uzbekistan). It provides the important condition for putting into effect the concept of nexus in the basin. Out of the regulations offered by modern international law, the Aral Sea Basin states also cooperate in the following frameworks: (4) the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar Convention, 1971) on Conservation and Wise Use of Wetlands, (5) the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992), (6) the Convention to Combat Desertification (1994), and (7) the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992) (Table 1).

Relevant Multilateral Agreements Adopted Within the Commonwealth of Independent States Some legal provisions regulating use of water and related resources among the Aral Sea Basin states come from subregional agreements concluded within the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). The CIS is a loose confederation with some legislative power formed by the nine former republics of the Soviet Union, which was created during its dissolution. The most basic and general in scope is the CIS Agreement on Interaction in the Field of Ecology and Environmental Protection signed in 1992, which widely covers interstate cooperation related to the environment. All Central Asian states became parties to this agreement. More specific rules of

32

B. Janusz-Pawletta

Table 1 Participation of the Aral Sea riparian states in the global multilateral environmental agreements Conventions Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in DecisionMaking and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Convention on Biological Diversity Convention on Combat Desertification United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Kyrgyzstan +

Tajikistan

Kazakhstan +

Uzbekistan

Turkmenistan

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Source: table prepared by author

the management of transboundary water resources are subject to the regulation of the Agreement between Belarus, Russia, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan on the Main Principles of Interaction in the Field of Rational Use and Protection of Transboundary Water Bodies, signed in 1998. It strongly emphasizes a state’s obligation to protect water resources.4 However, since out of the Aral Sea riparian states only Tajikistan is party to this agreement (Kazakhstan signed it but has not ratified it), it has a limited application for interstate cooperation in the Aral Sea Basin.

4

Article 2 The Parties are obliged: not to carry out water-related activities that can have a negative impact on the environment, including water bodies; establish the principles of cooperation on a regular exchange of information and forecasts of radio-ecological monitoring, hydrometeorology and hydrochemistry of water bodies, to determine the volume, programs, and methods of measurements, observations and processing of their results, as well as the place and time of work; take measures to prevent or eliminate contamination or depletion of surface and groundwater, including the appropriate means for cleaning, waste disposal, or other contaminated water that can enter the water; exercise on water bodies and measures to reduce liquidation of consequences of natural and man-made; define the general principles for the use and distribution of water resources of water bodies; and calculate the damage to adjacent water bodies associated with their use, on a single methodological basis.

Legal Framework of Interstate Cooperation on Water Resources of Central Asia

33

The CIS plays a more relevant role for regional cooperation in the Aral Sea Basin through the Agreement on Informational Cooperation in the Field of Ecology and Environmental Protection of 1998, which was ratified by Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. The nexus between water and energy is regulated by the agreement on the coordination of intergovernmental relations in the CIS power sector of 1992, and until today all central Asian states are parties to it. It provides principles for common electricity market operation and technical rules, as well as open access to transmission systems. It was complemented by the agreement on energy transit in the CIS of 2000 that was signed by Central Asian countries with the exception of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, and with exception of Turkmenistan all countries signed the agreement on mutual assistance in the CIS in the case of power system failures of 2002 [2].

3.2.2

Multilateral Legal Acts Adopted By All the States of the Aral Sea Basin

The legal framework for interstate cooperation, which covers the use of transboundary water resources in the Aral Sea Basin states, has been developing since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The greatest challenge to the newly set up framework was to retain in operation the system of regional water-energy cooperation. The legal development since the 1990s proved unable to solve the conflict of interests but remained strong enough to prevent its further escalation. At present, the existing framework of cooperation urgently needs strengthening and modernization to be able to properly answer to the needs of all sectors using water from the Aral Sea Basin. The main regional law source of a general nature – the Agreement on Cooperation in the Joint Management, Use and Protection of Water Resources of Interstate Sources – was adopted by all five Central Asian states immediately after the dissemination of the single water management system maintained by the Soviet Union before 1992. This and some other following legal agreements (see Table 2) have been contributing to the setting up of the legal system over water and related resources and to sorting out the most urgent issues in their use and allocation between the newly independent states of Central Asia. Unfortunately, nowadays this system – having only a declarative character (no adoption of foreseen additional protocols), being outdated or just improperly implemented – does not reflect current nexus relations at the regional level.5 The scope of the existing regional legal framework, which consists of the agreements envisaged in the above table, covers interstate cooperation including energy, agriculture, and the environment but is far from perfect. It directly refers neither to the legal principles

5 Strengthening the institutional and legal frameworks of International Fund for Saving Aral Sea: review and proposals, Discussion Paper of UNECE, GTZ, EC IFAS (draft), 2010.

34

B. Janusz-Pawletta

Table 2 Bilateral interstate agreements on transboundary waters in Central Asia Date of signature 1992

1992

1993

1996

1998

1998

1999

2000

2001

Title of the agreement Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan Concerning the Joint Use and Protection of Transboundary Waters Agreement between the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Republic of Uzbekistan, the Republic of Tajikistan and Turkmenistan on Cooperation in Joint Management of Use and Protection of Water Resources of Interstate Sources Agreement on Joint Action to address the problem of the Aral Sea and surrounding areas, environmental improvement, and socio-economic development of the Aral Sea region Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Uzbekistan and the Government of Turkmenistan Concerning Cooperation on Water Management Issues Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Uzbekistan and the Government of Republic of Kyrgyzstan on the Questions of the Use of Water Energy Resources of Naryn-Syr Daria’s Hydropower Stations Cascade Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Government of Kyrgyz Republic, the Government of the Republic of Tajikistan, and the Government of the Republic of Uzbekistan Concerning Use of Water and Energy Resources in Syr Daria River Basin Agreement on the Status of the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea (IFAS) and its Organizations Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Government of Kyrgyz Republic on the Use of Water Management Facilities of Intergovernmental Status on the Rivers Chu and Talas Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Government of the People’s Republic of China

Joint management mechanism Joint Commission

Interstate Commission for Water Coordination of Central Asia

Interstate Council for the Aral Sea Basin; Commission on Socio-Economic Development, Scientific, Technical, and Environmental Cooperation No new body established

Earlier established institutions

Earlier established institutions

Earlier established institutions

Joint Commission

Joint Commission

(continued)

Legal Framework of Interstate Cooperation on Water Resources of Central Asia

35

Table 2 (continued) Date of signature

2007

2010

Title of the agreement Concerning Cooperation in Use and Protection of Transboundary Rivers Agreement between the Government of Turkmenistan and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran on Joint Exploitation of the Dostluk Water Reservoir Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Tajikistan and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan on Hydrological monitoring and gauging stations on the River Panj

Joint management mechanism

Joint coordinating commission

Working Group

of equitable and reasonable utilization of resources nor to the basin management principle. Despite covering the Aral Sea Basin in terms of its geographical scope, it fails to address its catchments located in Afghanistan. Also, the current agreements do not regulate groundwater resources of the Aral Sea Basin. The existing legal framework reflects the obligation not to cause significant harm and includes provisions on protection of international watercourses and their ecosystems, which are however of a rather general nature. The dispute settlement system exists in the practice of state cooperation despite the absence of clear legal regulations. There are no regulations of the possible consequences of non-compliance, nor is its monitoring legally prescribed. The regional agreements recognize the need for creating joint bodies, which will be discussed in a separate chapter of this publication. The modern law precepts, while omitted in the obligatory legal documents, which were adopted among the Central Asian states, are better reflected in three nonlegally binding groups of documents. Firstly, the Framework Convention for the Protection of the Environment for Sustainable Development in Central Asia (2006) shall be referred to, but it is not in force yet. The second group of documents includes Regulations of Heads of States which were adopted by the Central Asia Presidents, and despite their rather uncertain legal nature, it impacts widely upon interstate cooperation. The third group is other “soft-law” documents issued by the Heads of the Central Asian states which define political directions of development for the entire Aral Sea Basin6 and enjoy high political significance. They, however, lack legal force.

6

The Nukus Declaration of Central Asian States on Sustainable Development of the Aral Sea Basin (1995), the Ashgabat Declaration (1999), the Tashkent Statement (2001), the Dushanbe Declaration (2002), and the Joint Statement of the Heads of State – Founders of IFAS (2009).

36

B. Janusz-Pawletta

4 The Legal Framework for Basin Level Interstate Cooperation The efforts to regulate the current regime of transboundary water and related resource’ management in Central Asia are rather limited at the basin level of the main transboundary watercourses such as Syr Daria and Amu Daria. Comparably more efforts were made within the Syr Daria Basin and are presented further on. In the first period after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Aral Sea riparian states tried to adhere to the water allocation quotas for the Syr Daria as defined in1984 in Protocol 413 of Minvodkhoz. Throughout the 1990s, seasonal allocations were set by the ICWC according to annual ad hoc arrangements [3] and controlled by the Basin Water Organization (BWO) Syr Daria. Since the existing system could not have offered sustainable solution for the countries, it became an impulse for concluding a separate Agreement on the Use of Water and Energy Resources in the Syr Daria River Basin in 1998, which was signed by Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan, and in May 1999 joined by Tajikistan. The 1998 Agreement regulates a reciprocal water and energy exchange regime, mainly of the Naryn-Syr Daria cascade of reservoirs, offering the main improvement over the previous ad hoc state cooperation on water-energy exchange. It included recognition of the need to compensate for the energy losses involved in the annual and multi-year storage of water in the reservoir and also included a foreseen mechanism of dispute settlement in the form of an arbitration procedure, which, however, was not defined in detail. The regulation of compensation did not clearly provide for payments, preferring instead to obligatory deliveries of equivalent energy resources such as electricity, gas, coal and fuel oil, or other products (barter). The 1998 Agreement retained the unsatisfactory interstate praxis, as well as provided an obligatory conclusion of annual operational agreements (on Toktogul Reservoir by Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan and Kayrakum Reservoir Operation by Tajikistan and Uzbekistan) defining volumes of water releases and compensations. They, however, were lacking the necessary long-term perspective and for similar reasons could not offer a sustainable solution for the riparian state. In terms of practical implementation, the annual agreements required long time periods to be adopted thus exposing risks to downstream agriculture. All state parties also fell short of the agreed level of supply, which lead to fear from upstream parties that they would not receive their compensatory fuel supply from the downstream parties until winter for water released for irrigation during summer. The operational agreements did not provide for any joint participation in the technical maintenance of facilities. It used to have 5-year validity and would have been automatically renewed. The practice in the implementation of the 1998 Agreement proved to be rather unsustainable, and since 2003, only ad hoc annual bilateral or multilateral agreements were concluded and lately only with the involvement of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. In fact, the implementation of this agreement has been gradually phasing out and the efforts of reviving relevant interstate cooperation – such as the development of a draft agreement on the Syr Daria proposed by the Asian Development Bank in 2005 – failed. In 1998, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan also concluded an Agreement on Cooperation in the Areas of the Environment and Rational Use of Natural Resources, stating for cooperation among other things on the protection, rational use, and prevention

Legal Framework of Interstate Cooperation on Water Resources of Central Asia

37

against pollution of transboundary water resources. It called for interstate normative and legal regulations in the area of environmental protection and the use of natural resources by providing the mechanism for compensation for damages and losses incurred by one Party to the other Party. It also called for the coordination of activities in the construction of new projects in the boundary zone and of projects which can cause adverse transboundary effects irrespective of their geographical location. Agreement on Cooperation in the Sphere of Hydrometeorology was signed on the 17th of June 1999 by all four riparian states. Also, the Agreement on the Parallel Operation of the Energy Systems of Central Asia (1999) was adopted. All three agreements were expected to complement each other and open up opportunities for closer cooperation. The legal framework for basin planning, including Syr Daria, lacks sufficient complexity. In the existing agreements, merely some elements of basin planning are envisaged. Such regulations for the Amu Daria Basin have never been developed.

5 The Bilateral Interstate Legal Framework Within the Aral Sea Basin In terms of the bilateral cooperation between basin states of the Syr Daria and Amu Daria rivers, there are a limited number of bilateral agreements. The existing ones require further development to introduce a more coordinated inter-sectoral approach to the management of water and related resources.

5.1

Bilateral Regulations on Syr Daria

A couple of agreement examples of such bilateral cooperation frameworks for the Syr Daria are the ad hoc operational agreements concluded annually for the purpose of the implementation of 1998 Agreement on the use of water and energy resources in the Syr Daria: (1) the agreement on the operation of Toktogul Reservoir between Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and/or Uzbekistan and (2) the agreement on the operation of Kayrakkum Reservoir between Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Both agreements define volume of water releases and compensations. At present, there are bilateral interstate negotiations on finalizing the agreement on cooperation in the use of international rivers between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, as well as a common investigation of the possibility to create a new power grid that does not involve transmission through Uzbekistan. In the framework of this agreement, a common water commission will be created, which will become a coordinating body of the parties’ cooperation in sustainable use, protection, and development of water resources of international rivers. Most of the functions of the future water commission will focus on international river basin planning, including the river

38

B. Janusz-Pawletta

Isfara and Khodjabakirgan. It will allow for some steps of progress in institutionalizing transboundary water cooperation. There are interactions where some of the Syr Daria riparian states carry out bilateral cooperation with the countries neighboring the basin and which could potentially have an impact on Syr Daria management. Such an example offers two agreements concluded between Russia and Kyrgyzstan in 2012. The first, on building and operating the Kambaratinskaya-1 Hydro Power Plant, stipulates construction and operation of an HPP, as well as building up power lines for the export of electrical energy generated there to adjacent states. The second, on building and operating the Upper Naryn cascade of hydropower plants, provides for building and operating four Upper Naryn cascade hydropower plants in Kyrgyzstan, Akbulunskaya, Narynskaya-1, Narynskaya-2, and Narynskaya-3 power plants.

5.2

Bilateral Regulations on Amu Daria

The Amu Daria, along with the Syr Daria, is the main tributaries to the Aral Sea Basin. The Amu Daria and flows from Afghanistan and Tajikistan to Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. The only existing bilateral legal framework among the Amu Daria riparian states exists between Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. It is based on the Agreement Concerning Cooperation on Water Management Issues adopted in 1996. According to this agreement, the state parties are obliged to share hydrological, water use, and other information and promote cooperation on scientific and technical developments in the field of water management, rational use, and conservation and protection of water. The agreement also foresees conditions for cooperation incl. [4] provisions like: (1) hydro-construction objects (canals and reservoirs) owned by one country, which are situated on the territory of another country. The land under such objects remains the property of the country on which territory these hydro-construction objects are situated and payment for use of the territory is due; (2) both countries shall do their best to properly operate such objects; (3) the water flow of the Amy Daria River (at the Kerki hydrological point) is equally divided in parts (50–50%), and proportional to this distribution, discharge to the Aral Sea is to be ensured; (4) both states shall jointly plan and implement land reclamation measures, reconstruction and rehabilitation of interstate collectors, improvements to irrigation systems and infrastructure, and construction of water diversion and water discharge networks; (5) both states agreed to develop and implement measure to prevent river bed deformations and flooding of adjacent territories while operating water regulating systems; (6) and discharge of drainage waters from both banks of the Amy Daria River shall be stopped. The bilateral relations between Afghanistan and Tajikistan cover priority areas like energy, trade, border control, and environmental and hydrological monitoring. These are being discussed regularly during mutual visits of experts and senior officials as well as in bilateral meetings in the framework of international projects conducted by development partners. This has allowed Afghanistan to engage in the

Legal Framework of Interstate Cooperation on Water Resources of Central Asia

39

Amu Daria Basin regional multilateral cooperation.7 Finally, in October 2010, an intergovernmental agreement on water cooperation was signed by both states. The main subject of the agreement is interstate cooperation on Panj/Amu rivers, especially on hydrological monitoring, disaster preparedness and risk reduction, and environmental protection. The bilateral regulations between Afghanistan and Turkmenistan on the Amu Daria River are not legally regulated [5]. The water monitoring system existing during the Soviet time collapsed with the outbreak of War in Afghanistan. The alert mechanisms of floods don’t function well, and the bilateral relations between Tajikistan and Uzbekistan on the Amu Daria River are not regulated by any special bilateral agreement. They are very tense due to the disagreement of Uzbekistan over Tajikistan’s planned construction of the Rogun Dam situated on the Vakhsh River. Being a tributary of the Amu Daria, it might impact the volume of water available for downstream Uzbekistan [6].

References 1. Sehring J (2009) Wasser-Governance in Zentralasien: institutionelle Rahmenbedingungen und Herausforderungen. In: Kramer M (ed) Integratives und nachhaltigkeitsorientiertes Wassermanagement. Kooperationspotentiale zwischen Deutschland und Zentralasien, Wiesbaden, pp 69–81 2. Electronic Source. EABR web-site. http://www.eabr.org/general//upload/CII%20-%20izdania/ Yerbook-2012/a_n5_2012_16.pdf (last update 1.10.2017), p 205 3. World Bank (2004) Water energy nexus in Central Asia: improving regional cooperation in the Syr Daria Basin, pp 8–9. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2004/01/6373007/waterenergy-nexus-central-asia-improving-regional-cooperation-syr-darya-basin 4. Volovik. Overview of regional transboundary water agreements, Institutions and Relevant Legal/ Policy Activities in Central Asia. http://www.cawater-info.net/bk/water_law/pdf/water-agree ments-in-central-asia-2011.pdf (last update 1.10.2017) 5. Church JM. International Cooperation of Turkmenistan in the Water Sector. In: Zonn IS, Kostianoy AG (eds) The Turkmen Lake Altyn Asyr and Water Resources in Turkmenistan, Hdb Env Chem. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/698_2012_173. http://www.envsec.org/news/docu ments/Church%202012%20International%20Cooperation%20of%20Turkmenistan%20in% 20the%20Water%20Sector%20.pdf (last update 1.10.2017) 6. Electronic Source. Diplomat J. https://thediplomat.com/2017/07/uzbekistans-changing-roguntone/ (last update 1.10.2017)

7

Hydrology and Environment Cooperation in the Upper Amu Daria River Basin. Access mode: https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/water/meetings/joint_bodies/presentations/3.3AFGTJK-presentation-unece-sep2013.pdf (last update 1.10.2017).

Institutional Cooperation on Water Resources Management in Central Asia Marton Krasznai Contents 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IFAS: A Successor of the Soviet System of Water Resources Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Birth of a New Institutional Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Establishment of the Inter-State Commission on Water Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Establishment of the Inter-State Commission on Sustainable Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . Establishment of the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Attempts to Create a More Unified Institutional Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . National Governance Systems that Shaped Regional Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of the Institutional Frameworks for Water Resources Management: The International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Institutional Weaknesses of IFAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1 Obsolete Legal Basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 A Management Structure Unable to Ensure Operational Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Reform Attempts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

42 43 44 46 47 49 50 52 53 54 54 55 57 59 60

Abstract The mandate, structure and functioning of Central Asian institutions of water resources management reflect the historic circumstances of their creation and evolution. Established on the remnants of the Soviet system of water resources management, the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea (IFAS) conserved the priority of irrigation over the energy sector and environment protection. Despite clearly expressed political will by the 2009 IFAS Summit, member states were unable to improve the obsolete legal basis and institutional weaknesses of the Fund. IFAS should undergo a thorough reform to enable Central Asian states to effectively address present and future challenges, like climate change adaptation. Keywords Aral Sea Basin Programme, Integrated water resources management, International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea, Inter-State Commission on Sustainable M. Krasznai (*) Center for Central Asia Research Budapest, Budapest Corvinus University, Budapest, Hungary e-mail: [email protected] S. S. Zhiltsov et al. (eds.), Water Resources in Central Asia: International Context, Hdb Env Chem (2018) 85: 41–60, DOI 10.1007/698_2017_194, © Springer International Publishing AG 2017, Published online: 30 December 2017

41

42

M. Krasznai

Development, Inter-State Commission on Water Coordination, Legal and institutional reform, National water governance, Water and energy consortium

1 Introduction The mandate, structure and functioning of international organisations, institutions or alliances, as a rule, reflect the historic circumstances of their establishment and the interrelationship among their founding members. At the same time, the international environment and relations among member states change with time. Those organisations, institutions or alliances which are unable to change and adapt to the new circumstances would lose their effectiveness and relevance and may become obsolete. The Security Council of the United Nations offers perhaps the most striking example. Established after the Second World War, it was unable to take on board new members despite tectonic changes in international political and economic relations. As a result, today Africa or Latin America are is not represented on it, and such important economic and political players as the European Union or Japan are also missing from among its members, not to speak of India, in a few years the most populous country in the world. The only subregional organisation in Central Asia that managed to survive a quarter of a century – the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea (IFAS) – is no exception. Its mandate, structure and functioning reflect the historic circumstances of its creation and were shaped by relations that existed among its members when it was created. To better understand why Central Asian regional institutions of water resources management are structured the way they are and function as they do, we need to have a closer look at the political, economic and security situation in Central Asia during the years when they were born. One should keep in mind that institution building was part of a much broader effort: “One of the implications of this premature birth was that the old economic and political ties established by the USSR ceased to exist, and with them the centralised Soviet resource distribution system that managed the exchange and allocation of water, energy, and food supplies among the republics. A whole new set of international relations emerged, and the newly formed Central Asian governments had to redefine the policies related to the exchange and sharing of their natural resources” [1]. New-born Central Asian states in the early state of nation building behaved rationally when they made every effort to assert national sovereignty over their resources. They defended their interests as they perceived them at the time when it came to the establishment of new regional organisations. Due to their different sizes, economic power, level of political stability and their scientific and expert capacity, their bargaining powers were different. But things have changed since the 90s of the last century. Central Asian countries have successfully established themselves as nation states and achieved a remarkable degree of economic and social stability. Their regional organisations need to change too. The strengthening and modernisation of regional organisations based on shared interests and cooperative solutions

Institutional Cooperation on Water Resources Management in Central Asia

43

would bring advantages to all member states. Improved regional cooperation would allow them to take full advantage of opportunities for economic development and address shared challenges like climate change more effectively.

2 IFAS: A Successor of the Soviet System of Water Resources Management IFAS was established on the remnants of the Soviet system of water resources management. The highly centralised Soviet system concentrated decision-making in Moscow. In Central Asia, its main objective was to develop and manage large irrigation networks to maximise cotton production for military and civilian use and export. “The primary goal of regulating the flow of the Amu Darya and the Syr Darya was to provide a reliable water supply for agriculture during the irrigation season (April-September). In total, 60 reservoirs with a total storage volume of 64.5 km3 are located in the Aral Sea Basin. The Syr Darya runoff is almost completely regulated and the flow of the Amu Darya is regulated to about 80 percent” [2]. The institutional setup, too, served this objective: “In the official water governance structure of the Soviet Union, all water resources were controlled by the Union-wide Ministry of Melioration and Water Management (Minvodkhoz)” [3]. The management of all water resources, not only water used for irrigation but also water used by other waterdependent sectors, was centralised by the Minvodkhoz through a hierarchical and territorially based management system. Minvodkhoz assumed both the management of the resource and operational functions through its own structures. “Water resources of the Amu Darya and the Syr Darya were allocated between many irrigation projects, some of which extended over the administrative territory of several soviet republics, according to the quotas established by the USSR Ministry of Water Management and Land Reclamation (Minvodkhoz) and the USSR State Planning Committee (USSR Gosplan) in consultation with the five republics. In 1986 basin water management organizations (BVOs) were set up for the Amu Darya and Syr Darya basins. The BVOs were in charge of allocation of water resources in accordance with the water release schedules agreed by the republics and approved by USSR Minvodkhoz. The allocation schedules were adjusted twice a year to reflect the projected availability of water in both river basins over the next six months” [4]. The overly wide competences of the Minvodkhoz, without separation of regulatory and operational functions, led to limited control and hence less than optimal effectiveness. (It should be noted, however, that some aspects of centralised control of water resources management were more efficient than that of the fragmented and not fully coordinated regional system that replaced it.) Within the Aral Sea Basin, the implementing power of water policies, mainly in irrigation matters, was assigned to subdivision of the Minvodkhoz “Sredazirsovkhozstroy”, which was responsible for development of new lands, and the Ministries of Water Resources of Soviet republics. Lower levels of resource administration were conducted by the provinces

44

M. Krasznai

(oblast) and districts (rayon) by several subordinated agencies with overlapping and not clearly defined responsibilities, while the local administration was conducted by the kolkhozes and sovkhozes. The monopoly of the Ministry ensured that the Central Asian system of water resources management – including large reservoirs in upstream countries – was operated in irrigation mode. The Ministry of Energy and Electrification played second fiddle only, as energy production was not a primary objective. During the irrigation season when large volumes of water were released, electricity was supplied to the union-wide electricity grid connecting Central Asia with other regions of the Soviet Union. During the winter period, upstream countries received electricity from the unified Soviet energy system (allocated centrally from Moscow) as well as fossil fuels from downstream countries. Nor was the Ministry of Nature and Environment an equal player: in the spirit of the Soviet ideology of total human control over nature, the Ministry had quietly watched till the mid-1980s how one of the greatest environmental catastrophes in human history, the drying out of the Aral Sea, evolved and started to ring the alarm bell only when it was far too late. In Soviet Central Asia, in accordance with the priority given to irrigation, regional institutions of water resources management – e.g. the basin water organisations (BWOs) of Syr Darya and Amu Darya as well as several major academic establishments, like the Central Asian Scientific Institute for Irrigation (SANIIR) – were based in downstream countries, primarily in Uzbekistan.

3 The Birth of a New Institutional Structure After the five Central Asian countries became independent in 1991, the new governments realised that they urgently needed to establish some form of regional cooperation at least in key areas, first of all the management of their countries’ shared water resources. To this purpose they had to create regional institutions. On October 12, 1991 – even before Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan formally declared their independence – the heads of water authorities in Central Asia had issued a statement: “based on the historical commonness of Central Asian nations, and recognizing their equal rights and responsibilities with respect to the management of water resources in the region, they acknowledged that only combined and joint actions for coordination and management can effectively address the water problems of the region” [5]. The most pressing and urgent need was to replace the Soviet system of regional water resources management with new regional institutions – or an organisation – capable of agreeing on water release regimes of large reservoirs and make sure that water allocation quotas agreed in Soviet times were respected. Only a new regional institution, supported by a legal framework, could guarantee to downstream countries that reservoirs in upstream countries continue storing water during winter time and release it during the vegetation period in accordance with agreed regimes.

Institutional Cooperation on Water Resources Management in Central Asia

45

With the birth of five independent states, there appeared a historic opportunity to replace the highly centralised Soviet system with a new, modern, balanced network of regional decision-making bodies and institutions. Such a new system could have facilitated the integrated management of shared water resources, taking into account the interests of all major sectors – agriculture, energy production and communal use – as well as environmental considerations. But the difficult political, economic and social conditions of post-independence years combined with the inertia of bureaucracies inherited from the USSR did not encourage innovation. The newly created regional institutions’ mandate, structure and way of operation in many ways resembled the old Soviet institutional setup that served first and foremost irrigation. Hydro-energy and protection of ecosystems under severe political pressures were left aside. As a result, new institutions were ill-suited to support integrated water resources management. What prevented Central Asian countries to use this new start to develop a modern, balanced and efficient regional institutional framework? In the first years after independence, the governments of Central Asian countries were not ready to create strong and effective regional institutions, as this would have required giving up part of their sovereignty, taking enforceable legal obligations and ceding certain decision-making powers to bodies of technocrats. The 2005 Central Asia Human Development Report published by the UNDP points out: “This confluence of political, institutional and economic developments, particularly in the postindependence environment of economic recession, explains to a significant extent why regional cooperation in the early years after independence remained weak despite many statements at the top to the contrary. Leaders aimed to reinforce their control over national territory and were reluctant to share elements of their sovereignty” [6]. Another complicating factor was that the five governments that started to negotiate the series of documents that became the legal basis of new regional institutions found themselves in dramatically different situations, which heavily influenced their ability to formulate and defend their interest. Due to their political, economic and security problems, upstream countries were in a weaker negotiating position than their downstream partners during most of the period (1992–1999) when key documents that provided the legal basis of the new regional organisation, the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea and its institutions, were adopted. “Less than a year after independence, Tajikistan was engulfed in civil war. Between 20,000 and 60,000 people were killed in the first year of fighting when the war was at its peak, with most commentators judging that about 50,000 lives were lost between May and December 1992” [7]. Kyrgyzstan, the other upstream country, found itself in a difficult situation too. It had to cope with ethnic conflict and political and economic troubles. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Kyrgyzstan lost most of its markets. Its economic performance in the early 1990s was worse than that of most of other former Soviet republics. Both countries badly needed political and economic support by their larger Central Asian neighbours.

46

M. Krasznai

4 Establishment of the Inter-State Commission on Water Coordination The first initiative to create a regional institution came from the ministries of water resources and agriculture. As they were interested in water use for irrigation only, all other uses of water resources were left aside. The Inter-State Commission on Water Coordination (ICWC), a key framework for operational decision-making, was established by the “Agreement on cooperation in joint management, use and protection of water resources of inter-State sources” adopted by the Heads of State of the five countries on February 8, 1992. According to its mandate, it meets quarterly to decide upon water release regimes of large reservoirs of the Syr Darya and Amu Darya and water allocation quotas for the given year. ICWC later became part of the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea. The new system of water resources management was not built from scratch. The two basin water organisations (BWOs) that were created in the mid-1980s to directly control the distribution of water among the five republics in the basins of the Amu Darya and Syr Darya rivers continued to function after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The 1992 “Agreement on cooperation in joint management, use and protection of water resources of inter-State sources” integrated them in the newly created ICWC as its executive bodies. The mandate and composition of ICWC, the body that since 1992 has played a key role in regional water resources management, reflects the unequal balance of bargaining power of different sectors of the economy at its creation. Ministries of water resources and agriculture (especially that of downstream countries) were in the position to control the negotiating process, preventing the involvement of the energy sector and still weak institutions of environment protection. As a result, ICWC’s central task is to guarantee that large upstream reservoirs release water in due time and sufficient quantity to meet the needs of irrigated agriculture in downstream countries. Upstream countries, which had vital interest in ensuring the continuation of reliable energy supplies in winter time, were unable to achieve that the mandate of ICWC extends to cooperation in the energy field. Ministries of energy, which in upstream countries control the operation of large reservoirs, were excluded from ICWC. As a result – as an EC IFAS- and UNECEsponsored analytical study points out – “Having no representative either from the energy or from the environmental sector, ICWC cannot coordinate the management of water resources effectively, in particular the runoff pattern in the Amu Darya and Syr Darya basins. The jurisdiction of its executive bodies, Amu Darya Basin Water Organisation and Syr Darya Basin Water Organisation, covers only the middle and lower part of Amu Darya and the middle part of Syr Darya” [8]. This misbalance no doubt contributed to the decision of Kyrgyzstan to suspend its participation in the implementation of the 1992 Agreement. At the same time, there is no doubt that during its first two decades of existence, despite its obvious deficiencies, ICWC had been the most efficient decision-making body within what later became a broader IFAS structure. This effectiveness was based, among others, on high-quality decision support: the regular provision of data

Institutional Cooperation on Water Resources Management in Central Asia

47

by the two BWOs and the integration and analysis of this data by the Scientific Information Centre (SIC) of ICWC. SIC ICWC was established on December 5, 1992, by a decision of ICWC. It was created on the basis of three departments of SANIIRI (Central Asian Research Institute of Irrigation and Drainage), so it could use the research potential of one of the oldest and most prestigious research institutes in the region, established in 1925. Energy trade is part of economic relations between countries and as such in principle could be regulated by the market. As expected, the “invisible hand” of the market could not replace central, institutional control of water and energy management in Central Asia. In Soviet times, the management of water and energy resources in Central Asia lacked any economic mechanism, as water and energy were distributed centrally from Moscow based on a Soviet Union wide system of economic planning and governance. After 1991 Central Asian countries were not able to establish regional institutions to support and regulate economic and trade cooperation among themselves that could have included energy exports. And the market did not help either: the fluctuations of energy prices (the inflation adjusted price of crude oil rose from USD 33.04 in 1990 to USD 102.00 in 2008, just to sink back to the USD 30 range in the first half of 2016) combined with artificially low electricity prices set by the governments below cost did not allow for simple market based solutions. Barter agreements offered a stop-gap solution but they were not compatible with market conditions and as a rule, lasted only for a short period. The much-discussed idea of a water-energy consortium of Central Asia has not materialised so far.

5 Establishment of the Inter-State Commission on Sustainable Development The Inter-State Commission on Sustainable Development (ICSD) was established by the 1993 “Agreement on joint action to address the problem of the Aral Sea and surrounding areas, environmental improvement and ensuring socio-economic development of the Aral Sea region”. (This Agreement also established the now defunct Inter-State Council for the Aral Sea Basin.) Its original name was “The Interstate Commission on Socio-economic Development, Scientific, Technical and Environmental Cooperation”, changed to ICSD in 1995. According to the IFAS website, “the main purpose of the Commission is to coordinate and manage regional cooperation on the environment and sustainable development in countries of Central Asia. Its

48

M. Krasznai

tasks include developing a regional strategy and plans for sustainable development, and programs and plans for sustainable development, as well as coordinating activities to implement obligations of the Central Asian States under environmental conventions of a trans-boundary dimension” (http://ec-ifas.waterunites-ca.org). The ICSD consists of 15 members: the heads of environmental agencies of its five members states, deputy ministers of economy and representatives of the scientific community. The venue of meetings of the Commission rotates on a biannual basis: it is chaired by the representative of the host country. Historic circumstances had their mark on the mandate, structure and operational modalities of ICSD. The early 1990s, when ICSD was born, was the most difficult period of political, economic and social transition in Central Asia. Governments had to cope with tremendous economic and social problems: by this time the GDP of the new countries dropped to historic lows, threatening to destabilise fragile societies. Environment protection was very low on the priority list of political decision-makers. Governments were simply not in the position to allocate significant resources to address burning environmental problems within their own countries, let alone finance regional projects. This explains the obvious gap between the rather ambitious mandate of ICSD and the actual resources and political importance member states were able and ready to put at its disposal. Despite its quite ambitious mandate, ICSD has been able to provide a rather modest output in terms of concrete activities and projects. Basically, it remained a consultative body for the exchange of information on and coordination of national policies. But when it comes to regional projects, due to the lack of resources, it is to rely on donor support. Lacking an operational budget, ICSD has used donor support for holding its regular meetings (UNEP and GIZ have been among the donors that have been providing such assistance). ICSD throughout of its existence has struggled with the lack of proper decision support. Unlike its twin decision-making body, ICWC, it did not benefit from the regular provision of data by member states. SIC ICSD – understaffed and underfunded – lacked the capacity to collect, integrate and analyse data on the state of the environment of the Aral Sea Basin. It could not build – like SIC ICWC – on the institutional memory, historical data sets and pool of professionals from Soviet times, as environment protection received much less attention and resources within the USSR than water resources management, especially irrigation. Therefore, the work of ICSD has been limited to information exchange and general discussions on environmental problems in the basin, the implementation of international conventions, UN initiatives and programmes and the initiation or approval of projects – mostly proposed and funded by donors and international partners. Negotiation and adoption of the Regional Environmental Action Program (REAP) in 2002 should be mentioned as important achievement by ICSD. However, ICSD managed to attract only modest resources for the implementation of concrete REAP projects. The adoption of the Framework Convention on Environment Protection for Sustainable Development on November 22, 2006, in Ashgabat was another important achievement. However, till today the Convention has not entered into force.

Institutional Cooperation on Water Resources Management in Central Asia

49

6 Establishment of the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea During the 1990s, governments of all five newly independent countries had to cope with serious economic difficulties and various challenges in the political and social fields. Decision-makers had to realise that their countries lacked the resources to adequately address the consequences of the unprecedented environmental disaster caused by the drying out of the Aral Sea during the Soviet period, not to mention proactive steps towards restoring sustainability in the basin. That would have required huge resources that their countries could ill afford to spend. Establishment of a regional organisation to attract and use donor resources for national and regional projects was a rational and needed step in the right direction. Between 1993 and 1999, the governments of Central Asian states adopted a series of documents that set out “institutional rules” determining the status, structure, competence and areas of powers of the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea and its institutions. These included the Decision on “Founding the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea” of January 4, 1993, and the “Decision on Restructuring the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea” of February 28, 1997. The negotiation and adoption of these documents (like in the case of ICWC) had been influenced by the prevailing political and economic conditions. The negotiating positions of upstream countries remained weak between 1992 and 1999, during the period when most of the key documents establishing regional institutions and their umbrella organisation, the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea, were negotiated and adopted. Both Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan continued to face serious difficulties. “In addition to the incalculable human costs of war, Tajikistan’s already weak economy and infrastructure were devastated. Always the poorest of the former Soviet republics, social development and economic indicators have plummeted from the beginning of the 1990. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) decreased by more than half between 1992 and 1996” [9]. Kyrgyzstan was in a better situation, but it went through a period of hardship and instability too. While all Central Asian countries experienced serious economic difficulties after independence, Kyrgyzstan’s economic situation was especially grim. Kyrgyz GDP per capita (PPP) dropped from USD 3474.70 in 1990 to an all-time low of USD 1696.40 in 1995 (https:// tradingeconomics.com/kyrgyzstan/gdp-per-capita-ppp). As a result, upstream countries had a limited capacity for the advocacy of their interests during the 1990s. As a result, the establishment of IFAS did not correct previous imbalances: its mandate did not cover the energy sector, and the integration of ICWC into the Fund left the hegemony of the irrigation sector intact. In 1993 Central Asian States established IFAS, a regional organisation to deal with environmental challenges and achieve sustainable development in the Aral Sea Basin. “The stated objective of IFAS include establishing and maintaining an inter-

50

M. Krasznai

Sate environmental monitoring system, database and other information systems with the data on the environment of the Aral Sea Basin, mobilizing financing for joint activities to protect air, water and land resources, flora and fauna, as well as funding joint scientific and technological projects and measures for the management of transboundary domestic waters” [10]. The February 27, 1997, agreement on an overly generous IFAS budget has never been implemented: in fact, IFAS has throughout of its existence remained without an operational budget that would have covered at least the costs of daily functioning of its small Executive Committee. It is telling that the umbrella organisation for water resources management (ICWC) and environmental cooperation (ICSD) was not called an organisation but a fund. The most important concrete contribution of IFAS to achieving sustainability in the Aral Sea Basin were the three Aral Sea Basin Programmes (ASBP). These programmes combined national programmes and projects implemented with funding by state budgets and regional projects overwhelmingly depending on donor funding. Irregularities and less than efficient project implementation during ASBP-1 led to reduced donor interest when ASBP-2 was launched. Proactive and regular donor coordination by the Kazakh IFAS Chairmanship and the direct involvement of key donors in the elaboration of regional projects within the programme helped restore and invigorate donor interest in ASBP-3.

7 Attempts to Create a More Unified Institutional Structure By 1999 the weaknesses of a fragmented institutional setup created by a series of not fully harmonised legal instruments became evident. The implementation of the First Aral Sea Basin Programme adopted in 1994 by the Heads of State was marred by low efficiency and outright irregularities. The donor community became increasingly frustrated by the inability of regional institutions to provide effective support to project implementation. A 2002 analytical report by the International Crisis Group points to serious problems encountered by the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), bringing as an example the “World Bank Aral Sea Basin Program, a USD 17 M project that achieved hardly any tangible results” [11]. The ICG report also notes the lack of interest of upstream countries in GEF as “although it involves all five Central Asian states, there is little support in upstream countries because it is seen focusing too much on agriculture and the interests of downstream countries” [12]. Weak regional institutions had certainly played a role in the poor project implementation and the limited interest of upstream countries. Improving the coordination of the operation of regional institutions was perceived as a necessary step to regain the confidence of the donor community and ensure the continued flow of funds.

Institutional Cooperation on Water Resources Management in Central Asia

51

By the 1999 Agreement on the Status of the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea (IFAS) and its Organisations, which included the Fund, ICWC (with its Secretariat, Scientific and Information Centre, SIC and the BWOs) and ICSD (with its Secretariat and SIC), member states formally created a unified structure. The better integration of regional institutions into one organisation could have been the first step towards integrated water resources management at the regional level. The mandate of IFAS, which was supposed to become the umbrella organisation, was sufficiently broad to allow for starting progress towards IWRM. According to the regulations of April 1999, the main objective of the Fund is to “finance and credit joint practical measures, programmes and projects for saving the Aral Sea, ecological rehabilitation of the Aral Sea surroundings and the Aral Sea Basin, considering the interests of all States in the region”. At the same time, the powerful water and agriculture lobbies in downstream countries wanted to keep the decision-making process on water release regimes and annual quotas separate and shelve it from the influence of other sectors, be it the environment or – potentially – energy. Therefore, the 1999 Agreement did not create a truly integrated organisation. The “Agreement only lists the organizations under the auspices of IFAS, without specifying the hierarchy of their subordination and powers, and it does not regulate their relations and reporting” [13] (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 Structure of the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea

52

M. Krasznai

8 National Governance Systems that Shaped Regional Institutions The UNECE analytical study on IFAS points out: “Disunity of action at the regional level inevitably leads to a lack of synergy at the national level among ministries and agencies engaged in the memberships in regional organisations or participating in their activities. There are no coordinating units in the national governments, which could work out a single coherent national policy concerning participation of the country in IFAS” [14]. In fact fact the relationship between regional organisations or institutions and the governments of their member states is more of a two-way street: they mutually influence each other. During the 1990s of the last century when IFAS was established, IWRM has hardly been introduced in the national level management of water resources. Irrigated agriculture was of key importance for downstream countries: it ensured food security, offered employment for rapidly growing populations and generated hard currency through the export of agricultural produce, primarily cotton. As a result, ministries of water resources and agriculture of downstream countries had been pushing hard throughout the creation and existence of IFAS to make sure that regional institutions serve primarily the interests of irrigated agriculture. In upstream countries, the situation was different: large hydropower stations played a crucial role in ensuring that energy needs of the economy and the population were met at least partially in a situation when governments were not always able to afford the import of sufficient quantities of fossil fuels for the winter period. Therefore, in these countries the energy sector was the “hegemon”: it was in an equally strong or stronger position than other sectors participating in the management of water resources. The influence and status of the energy sector of upstream countries were further bolstered by much publicised plans of the governments to boost the development of their economies by building the huge new reservoirs planned still in Soviet times: Rogun in the case of Tajikistan and Kambarata I and II in the case of Kyrgyzstan. At the same time, the weakness of the negotiating position of upstream countries during the 1990s prevented their energy lobbies from projecting their influence within their own governments into the regional scene – at least when it concerned regional institutions. Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan managed to change the flow regimes of the Syr Darya and the Amu Darya: “water sharing problems became acute in 2008, as this year was a hydrologically dry year preceded by an extraordinary severe winter. Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan released extra large water quantities from their reservoirs to generate electricity to meet the needs of their populations” [15]. But the ability of the energy sector to push through major changes in the regional level management of water resources had not been accompanied by an ability to enforce similar changes in the institutional framework. The energy sector remained excluded from IFAS and its institutions, with serious negative consequences for their functioning. There was yet another peculiarity of governance structures in Central Asian countries that influenced the mandate and structure of regional institutions. These

Institutional Cooperation on Water Resources Management in Central Asia

53

structures remind a pyramid: decision-making is concentrated at the top. Lower level bodies, as a rule, need to get the preliminary approval of higher echelons of the hierarchy before they can take a decision which in other governance systems is taken at the same level. The structure and functioning of IFAS are in many respect the mirror image of national government structures. Policy decisions are taken at the level of the Presidents, by the Council of Heads of State. The main disadvantage of the top-level concentration of decision-making power is that it has made IFAS vulnerable to the fluctuations of political relations among its member states. When these relations were stable, Heads of States met regularly, ensuring the timely adoption of strategic decisions. When relations among two, or more member states cooled down, summits became less frequent. After the April 2009 IFAS Summit in Almaty started a long period with no meetings of the Council of Heads of State, paralysing the political decision-making of the Fund. Decisions of lesser importance are taken by the IFAS Board at the level of Vice Presidents. But the frequency of meetings at this level turned out to be dependent on the actual state of bilateral political relations among member states too. After its meeting in 2010 during the chairmanship of Kazakhstan, it was not possible to call a Board meeting up to the end of the Uzbek Chairmanship in 2016. As a matter of fact, the only permanently functioning institution of IFAS, the Executive Committee and the two bodies that meet several times a year, ICWC and ICSD, are not entitled to take policy decisions: they are authorised only to adopt operational/technical decisions (e.g. the signature of protocols on water release regimes by members of ICWC or the decisions of ICSD to permit international organisations to implement projects in the environmental sphere) or make declarations that do not include “hard” commitments.

9 Analysis of the Institutional Frameworks for Water Resources Management: The International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea As it was discussed above, IFAS was born in a period of transition of Central Asian countries from the Soviet system to independent statehood, characterised by political, economic and social instability, hardships and difficulties. This was inevitably negatively influencing the process of negotiation and adoption of the legal basis that defines the mandate, structure and operational modalities of the Fund and its institutions. What were (and still are) the main weaknesses of the Fund? The effectiveness of an international or regional organisation depends on the combination of a strong mandate that empowers representatives of member states to take meaningful decisions and the existence of an adequate secretariat, able to provide permanent support to the work of representative bodies. The Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) started as a series of meetings of participating States. It lacked a permanent secretariat or institutions; therefore, each

54

M. Krasznai

meeting was supported by the host country. When the CSCE was to host permanent negotiations and later conduct operational activities, it established a permanent secretariat in Vienna with a proper budget and internationally recruited staff. The change of its name to Organisation for Security and Cooperation of Europe only acknowledged the changes which had by that time (1994) been going on for several years. Although the tasks of managing shared water resources have become increasingly complicated, IFAS member states stopped short of establishing a wellfunctioning permanent secretariat to coordinate and support the activities of the Fund. The Executive Committee, which is called the permanent coordinating body of IFAS, seems to be somewhere half way between the stage of rotating meetings of States and a proper, permanent secretariat. There are several reasons why IFAS has not became a modern and highly effective regional organisation.

10 10.1

Institutional Weaknesses of IFAS Obsolete Legal Basis

Perhaps the greatest weakness of IFAS is its somewhat obsolete and incoherent legal basis. As the 2010 UNECE-GTZ-EC IFAS-sponsored discussion paper states: “The current legal framework for regional cooperation on water resources management in Central Asia created a system of existing regional organizations and played an important role in the early years after independence. However, by now it has largely become outdated. As it consists of insufficiently linked legal instruments, it needs to be improved, harmonized and updated. Key principles of integrated water resources management such as the “basin approach”, are not reflected in existing agreements, and the legal framework does not adequately govern the hierarchy and mechanisms for coordination and collaboration between existing organizations; does not clearly delineate their competence; does not pay enough attention to reporting procedures, decision-making and enforcement” [16]. As a result, the Executive Committee is unable to provide for effective information exchange and coordination among various institutions. As it was mentioned earlier, founding governments have never managed to fully integrate the three organisations that had been established at different times and with different mandates. Information exchange and coordination among IFAS, ICWC and ICSD have remained weak despite the adoption of several documents that were supposed to remedy institutional weaknesses.

Institutional Cooperation on Water Resources Management in Central Asia

11

55

A Management Structure Unable to Ensure Operational Coordination

In IFAS there are three levels of management: (1) the Council of Heads of Central Asian States and the President of the Fund; (2) the Board, consisting of Deputy Prime Ministers; and (3) the Executive Committee of IFAS. The Council and (to a lesser extent) the Board can take political decisions, but they are ill-suited for operational, day-to-day coordination as they don’t meet regularly. So, all the burden of coordinating the day-to-day work of IFAS falls on the Executive Committee. According to its mandate, EC IFAS not only coordinates the work of various institutions but also serves as an information hub of the whole institutional setup. There are several practical problems hindering EC IFAS in effectively discharging such duties. (a) During the last two chairmanships, it was not a fully representative body. According to its mandate, EC FAS is composed of the representatives of the five member states, and it is chaired by the representative of the country that holds the chairmanship of the Fund. But during the last decade, only four countries delegated representatives to participate on a permanent basis in the work of the Executive Committee. Kyrgyzstan decided not to send its representative neither to Almaty during the Kazakh Chairmanship (2009–2012) nor to Tashkent during the Uzbek Chairmanship (2013–2016). Bishkek became convinced that IFAS did not provide a level playing field and it was not a framework where it could effectively represent and promote its own interests. (b) Extremely long periods required for the rotation of the chairmanship. Because of the unnecessarily complicated procedure for approving the new chair country, EC IFAS has functioned only during 2/3 of the time of its existence. While a chairmanship of a country lasts 3 years, rotation, as a rule, takes at least a year and a half. Governments of member countries, in an extremely time-consuming manner, must approve first the candidacy of a given country and then the person nominated to chair the Executive Committee. Such approvals, as a rule, arrive with several months of delay. For example, during the chairmanship of Kazakhstan, the budget of the Executive Committee officially ran out in March 2011 (although EC IFAS continued to perform certain functions afterwards); Uzbekistan could step in as the new country chair only in August 2013. To make things worse during each rotation, a considerable amount of data, accumulated knowledge and institutional memory is lost, among others, due to the complete replacement of the staff. (c) Levels of hierarchies are not harmonised. EC IFAS has, as a rule, been chaired by persons who in their national administrations had the rank of deputy minister or occupied equivalent posts. At the same time, EC IFAS is supposed to coordinate the work of decision-making bodies, ICWC and ICSD, which – at least according

56

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

M. Krasznai

to their mandates – meet at the level of ministers. This lack of harmonisation of levels of decision-making did not facilitate effective coordination. Lack of adequate staffing. EC IFAS is expected to coordinate the work of institutions that deal both with water resources management and environment protection. In addition, the duties of EC IFAS would, in an ideal case, include donor coordination, the preparation and implementation of Aral Sea Basin Programmes (that include projects in the social and economic fields too), international advocacy and participation in international events as well as support to and coordination of research activities. It would be unrealistic to expect that the two representatives delegated by each member state could effectively perform all these tasks even under ideal circumstances. The host government could not be expected either to finance the rather sizeable expert staff that would be able to provide adequate professional support to such broad range of activities. Since IFAS lacks an operational budget, its Executive Committee is not in the position to recruit an adequate multinational staff composed of citizens of its member countries. Lack of a permanent seat and permanent secretarial support. According to its mandate, the chairmanship and seat of EC IFAS rotate every 3 years among the five member states. This leads not only to the loss of time as it was mentioned, but it is also costly and inefficient. Every time there is a rotation, the new host country must build up a secretariat from scratch. This is a time-consuming and expensive process. Office space, computer systems, vehicles, training of support staff, etc. need to be provided by the host country. And since IFAS has no operational budget, the host country needs to underwrite all these expenses. Lack of a budget. The Presidents of Central Asian States during their meeting in Almaty on February 27, 1997, decided to provide contributions to the budget of IFAS according to the following scale: in the case of Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan 0.3% of the total budget revenue of the country and in the case of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan 0.1% of the budget revenue of the country. No mechanism was established to assess, collect, manage and report on the use of such budgetary contributions. The scheme was unrealistic. If this decision would ever have been implemented, just the Kazakh contribution to the budget of IFAS would have been around USD 50 M in 2016. Countries, as a rule, under the 1997 Agreement present the cost of national programmes of water resources management, environment protection and even social expenses as their contribution to the budget of IFAS. All operational expenses of EC IFAS are covered by the host country. This is a considerable burden especially for smaller, economically weaker states. Uneven geographical distribution of institutions. As it was mentioned earlier, in Soviet times Uzbekistan became the regional hub for water resources management. Not only the two BWOs but key regional research institutes and institutes of higher education were based in Tashkent. As a result, Uzbekistan enjoyed a clear advantage in scientific research and technical know-how. The establishment of new regional institutions after Central Asian States became independent offered an opportunity to create a more equal geographical balance. Upstream

Institutional Cooperation on Water Resources Management in Central Asia

57

countries weakened by civil war, ethnic strife and economic crisis not only lacked the bargaining power to achieve a completely new geographical distribution of institutions, but their economic difficulties, lack of budgetary resources, expert pool and institutional memory hindered them in making the institutions that they hosted (e.g. the ICWC Secretariat in Dushanbe) a sizeable and efficient organisation on an equal footing with SIC ICWC. To be fair, one needs to recognise the considerable contribution downstream countries have been making since 1992 to sustain the institutions they host. While important permanent institutions remained in Uzbekistan, newly created decision-making bodies (EC IFAS, ICWC and ICSD) operated on a rotational basis.

12

Reform Attempts

By the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century, political, economic and security conditions in Central Asia changed to the better. The time seemed to be right for a comprehensive overhaul, modernisation and strengthening of a regional institutional framework that was less and less capable of ensuring the effective management of regional water resources. By the end of the 1990s, Central Asian countries had successfully overcome some major hurdles of political and economic transition and managed to post steady economic growth. Tajikistan achieved a remarkable degree of stability after the end of the civil war in 1997, and the subregion successfully prevented spillover of instability from neighbouring Afghanistan. Their societies became more resilient and living standards improved. Between 1990 and 2010, the GDP of Kazakhstan grew from USD 26 billion to over USD 120 billion, of Kyrgyzstan from USD 2.8 billion to around USD 5 billion, of Tajikistan from USD 2.63 to almost USD 6 billion, of Turkmenistan from USD 2.33 billion to over USD 20 billion and of Uzbekistan from USD 13.36 billion to USD 40 billion (https://data. worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MLTP.CD). By that time disputes over water resources management had become a major stumbling block to regional cooperation. The “collateral damage” of continued tensions over water resources was significant. Central Asian countries paid a high price in other areas – first of all economic and security cooperation – for their inability to find mutually acceptable and advantageous solutions to problems of regional water resources management. The 2005 Central Asia Human Development Report by UNDP RBEC gave a detailed analysis of these losses. It pointed out: “The benefits from reducing trade costs, increasing remittances from migrant workers, and more efficient use of water and energy resources could generate a regional economy twice as large and well off 10 years from now” [17]. Despite the clear benefits offered by more efficient and modern regional institutions, some Central Asian countries had difficulty in overcoming the lack of trust, shake off engrained political reflexes and generate the necessary political will to launch a reform process. Upstream countries supported the idea of institutional reform, hoping that the inclusion of the energy sector in IFAS would improve the

58

M. Krasznai

chances of a substantive dialogue on their plans to develop their huge hydroelectric potentials and better balance the use of existing installations. Thanks to the political and economic stabilisation of their countries, the governments of these countries felt that the time had come for the more forceful formulation and presentation of their interests in the management of regional water resources. The governments of downstream countries reacted cautiously to such demands. In the case of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, the all-powerful energy sectors helped balance the influence of the agricultural sector: these governments seemed to be open to limited institutional reforms to remedy some obvious weaknesses of IFAS and its institutions. In the case of Uzbekistan, the Ministry of Agriculture managed to preserve the monopoly of decision-making on IFAS-related matters: the government remained sceptical of the necessity and wisdom of opening the Pandora’s box of institutional reforms. As the need and demands to improve legal and institutional frameworks for regional water resources management started to be articulated more clearly, donors and international organisations were quick to offer assistance to Central Asian countries. At the “Water Unites” conference on April 1, 2008, in Berlin, German Foreign Minister Walter Steinmeier launched the Berlin Process, intending to support the efforts of Central Asian governments to improve regional water resources management, including a reform of IFAS and its institutions. It was followed on November 17–18 of the same year in Almaty by the international conference “Water Unites – Strengthening Regional Cooperation on Water Management in Central Asia” – co-organised by Kazakhstan, the incoming chair country of IFAS. While a considerable amount of consultations and expert work on possible institutional reform had been accomplished by early 2009, a clear expression of political will at the top level was needed to launch the actual work. This came at the April 2009 IFAS Summit in Almaty. In the Summit Declaration, Presidents of Central Asian countries “expressed their readiness to strengthen the institutional and legal framework of the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea (IFAS) so as to improve its efficiency and achieve greater interaction with financial institutions and donors”. Work on legal and institutional strengthening of IFAS started soon afterwards under the guidance of the Kazakh Chairmanship and with support by the German development agency GIZ and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). The first step was the development of a discussion paper “Strengthening the Institutional and Legal Frameworks of the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea: Review and Proposals”. Over 60 experts from all member states of IFAS participated in this work. The draft was discussed and finalised during the first meeting of the Working Group on Institutional and Legal Strengthening and Development of the Aral Sea Basin Programme 3 on December 10–11, 2009, in Almaty. Discussions on possible improvements to the legal basis and functioning of regional institutions of water resources management continued with two more meetings of the Working Group. Based on these discussions, international experts presented a draft institutional treaty (“Conceptual Elements”) to replace the more than two dozen loosely connected, obsolete and at times contradicting documents that serve till today as the legal basis of IFAS. The new treaty would have created a modern and potentially efficient regional organisation,

Institutional Cooperation on Water Resources Management in Central Asia

59

capable of managing shared water resources in an integrated way. While four delegations in general supported the draft, the delegation of Uzbekistan took a more cautious position. It felt that member states should be “pragmatic” and redouble their efforts to better manage shared water resources within the existing frameworks. How to explain that the clear political will expressed at the IFAS Summit was not sufficient to push through the legal and institutional strengthening of IFAS? In April 2009, Presidents, in view of the broad political, economic and security advantages of improved regional cooperation, agreed on the need to strengthen IFAS. This was a much-needed, far-sighted decision. Unfortunately, in some countries narrow sectoral interests creeped back into decision-making, effectively blocking progress.

13

Conclusions

The history of the establishment, development and failed modernisation of institutional frameworks for water resources management in Central Asia convincingly demonstrates that organisations that don’t adapt to changing political, economic and social circumstances may weaken their ability to effectively respond to new challenges. The International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea and its institutions, born under very specific historic conditions, has not been able so far to reform themselves, and this has gradually eroded their ability to effectively fulfil their mandate. Modernisation has been hindered more by political problems than an irreconcilable clash of interests. On the one hand, it was the result of often tense and complicated bilateral relations among some member states, and on the other hand, it was caused by the lack of balanced participation of various sectors – water, agriculture, energy and environment – in national and regional decision-making. Only strong institutions and a modern legal framework would enable Central Asian states to effectively address such looming threats as climate change. Even a first-year student of water resources management would tell how much more efficient it is to store water for irrigation purposes high in the mountains in rocky valleys than in shallow reservoirs in the desert, where much of the water is lost through evaporation and seepage. But the first solution would require close regional cooperation, strong institutions and solid legal and probably financial guarantees. The second solution can be implemented on a national basis; therefore, it requires no political courage and vision. The effects of climate change are becoming more and more dramatic in Central Asia: improving water efficiency remains a vitally important strategic issue for the countries of the region. Therefore, modernising and strengthening regional institutions is not a question of if, but a question of when. A long-term, cooperative solution that resolves disputes over water resources would bring enormous added benefits. It would facilitate much-needed regional cooperation in many other areas like trade and economic relations, infrastructure development or security. A broad, high-level, inclusive political process – be it a sustained and successful water diplomacy initiative, a series of well-prepared, high-level meetings of IFAS

60

M. Krasznai

decision-makers or both – could kick-start a reform process capable of turning IFAS into a modern, highly effective organisation of continuous change and ceaseless adaptation to new circumstances and challenges. A great amount of work has already been accomplished during earlier attempts by the UN and key donors, like GIZ and the World Bank, to modernise and strengthen IFAS. When there is sufficient political will, the process of institutional and legal strengthening could easily restart and produce much-needed results within a short time.

References 1. Menga F (2017) Power and water in Central Asia, Rutledge, p 10 2. Libert B, Orolbaev E, Steklov Y (2008) Water and energy crisis in Central Asia. China Eurasia Forum Q 6(3):10 3. http://www.waterunites-ca.org/themes/8-waer-usage-and-water-management-in-the-soviet-union. htmp. p 1 4. Libert B, Orolbaev E, Steklov Y (2008) Water and energy crisis in Central Asia. China Eurasia Forum Q 6(3):10 5. http://www.waterunites-ca.org/themes/8-waer-usage-and-water-management-in-the-soviet-union. htmp. p 2 6. Central Asia Human Development Report (2005) Bringing down barriers: regional cooperation for human development and human security, UNDP RBEC, p 30 7. Akiner S, Barnes C The Tajik civil war, causes and dynamics. Conciliation Resources. www.c-r. org/accord-article/tajik-civil-war-causes-and-dynamics 8. Strengthening the Institutional and Legal Frameworks of the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea: Review and Proposals, Discussion paper 31 January 2010, p 4 9. Akiner S, Barnes C The Tajik civil war, causes and dynamics. Conciliation Resources. www.c-r. org/accord-article/tajik-civil-war-causes-and-dynamics 10. http://ec-ifas.waterunites-ca.org/aral-basin/institutions/ifas/index.html 11. Central Asia: Water and Conflict, ICSG, Asia Report No. 34, 30 May 2002, p 10 12. Central Asia: Water and Conflict, ICSG, Asia Report No. 34, 30 May 2002, p 11 13. Strengthening the Institutional and Legal Frameworks of the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea: Review and Proposals, Discussion paper 31 January 2010, p 14 14. Strengthening the Institutional and Legal Frameworks of the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea: Review and Proposals, Discussion paper 31 January 2010, p 20 15. Libert B, Orolbaev E, Steklov Y (2008) Water and energy crisis in Central Asia. China Eurasia Forum Q 6(3):13 16. Strengthening the Institutional and Legal Frameworks of the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea: Review and Proposals, Discussion paper 31 January 2010, p 4 17. Central Asia Human Development Report (2005) Bringing down barriers: regional cooperation for human development and human security, UNDP RBEC, p 1

Transboundary Rivers in Central Asia: Cooperation and Conflicts Among Countries Sergej S. Zhiltsov, Igor S. Zonn, Oleg E. Grishin, Vladimir G. Egorov, and Mark S. Ruban Contents 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Transboundary Rivers in Central Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Water Problems of Central Asia After the USSR Breakup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 The Role of Water Resources in Central Asia Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Central Asian Countries and Their Water Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Transboundary Watercourses of Central Asia and International Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 The Policy of the Central Asian Countries: The Irrigation-Hydropower Pendulum . . . . . . . . 8 Conflict Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

62 64 66 67 71 73 74 76 78 79

Abstract Nowadays many scientists and specialists say that in the twenty-first century, not hydrocarbons but water will be the key issue for economic development, well-being, S. S. Zhiltsov (*) Diplomatic Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia e-mail: [email protected] I. S. Zonn Engineering Research Production Center for Water Management, Land Reclamation and Ecology “Soyuzvodproject”, Moscow, Russia S.Yu. Witte Moscow University, Moscow, Russia e-mail: [email protected] O. E. Grishin Peoples’ Friendship University of Russian, Moscow, Russia e-mail: [email protected] V. G. Egorov G.V. Plekhanov Russian Economic University, Moscow, Russia e-mail: [email protected] M. S. Ruban S.Yu. Witte Moscow University, Moscow, Russia e-mail: [email protected] S. S. Zhiltsov et al. (eds.), Water Resources in Central Asia: International Context, Hdb Env Chem (2018) 85: 61–80, DOI 10.1007/698_2017_226, © Springer International Publishing AG 2018, Published online: 22 April 2018

61

62

S. S. Zhiltsov et al.

and quality of life. This fully applies to the Central Asian countries where historically the problems of water resources have been in the focus of attention as the main factors determining stability in all sectors of the economy. This is connected with their geographical location and specific natural conditions. The Central Asian states locate in a region with severe climate featuring very high temperatures, uneven spatial distribution of water resources, and their insufficiency as no mechanism for addressing water issues is available. By the early twenty-first century, all water supply reserves in the region have been practically exhausted. The situation is aggravated by the fact that the river basins in this region are transboundary and their watersheds do not coincide with the existing state borders. In addition, the economies of the Central Asian countries depend enormously on the use of transboundary water resources adding complexity to the water relations among these states which may be fraught with ethnic and social conflicts. The problem is aggravated by differing hydropower priorities of the countries located in the upper reaches of rivers, such as Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan that control more than 80% of all freshwater supplies, and agricultural needs of the downstream countries – Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan. In other words, some of the countries need electricity, while others water for irrigated farming. This problem remains in the focus of attention due to a number of factors typical of the Central Asian region: the apparent political stability of local elites tested periodically by civil confrontations, “smoldering” military conflict in adjacent Afghanistan, high population growth rates, and the presence of ecological disaster zones – drying up of the Aral Sea, desertification, etc. In addition, water management in the Central Asian countries is being adapted to the new economic conditions. There are also the imbalance between the number of the population and the amount of available resources required to meet their vital needs (food, water, etc.), acceleration of climate change processes leading to the growing number of extreme weather conditions such as floods and droughts, and contamination of water sources resulting in deteriorated sanitary conditions. Fair and sustainable management of shared water resources requires legal regulation, the institutions that are capable to ensure the holistic approach to this problem, and effective methods for solving it. Regardless of the surviving problems, the international experience has shown that in case of joint management of transboundary river basins, the interstate water conflicts usually tend to give way to cooperation. Depending on the emerging political situation, water problems can be a factor of rapprochement or disintegration of the Central Asian states. Keywords Central Asia, Conflicts, Cooperation, Hydropower, Irrigation, Security, Transboundary rivers

1 Introduction The interaction of different states in the joint management of rivers flowing through the territory of two or more states which also make borders among countries has a many-century history. Initially, the legal regulation of the common rivers concerned

Transboundary Rivers in Central Asia: Cooperation and Conflicts Among Countries

63

shipping, which had a great importance for development of trade and ensuring security. This gave impetus to the development of the contract law. This was the key factor until the early twentieth century. With development of engineering and technologies which had led to a dramatic increase of water consumption in industry and agriculture, it became urgent to define the international legal principles for the joint use of river waters flowing through the territory of two or more states. In the early twentieth century, the importance of economic use of river waters for industrial, agricultural, sanitary, domestic, and other needs increased significantly. With the progress in economy and transport, the importance of navigation on international rivers had declined. At the same time, the population growth pushed the increase of water resources use for household needs simultaneously augmenting the water use in agriculture and industry. In its turn, the industry development required the enhanced hydropower generation which gave a powerful impulse to construction of dams and other hydropower facilities. The role of international waterways was changing as well as the international law that regulated the use of waterways. From the mid-nineteenth century, the term “international river” referred to the rivers flowing through the territory of two or more states and having access to the sea. At the Barcelona Conference of 1921 devoted to navigation on international waterways, it was proposed to give international status to any rivers being of great importance for international relations. Thus, the 1921 Statute on Freedom of Transit on international navigable waterways (the Barcelona Convention) confirmed the principle of freedom of navigation. Later, in 1923, the Geneva Convention was adopted, which regulated the issues of non-navigational use of transboundary (international) rivers. In particular, it touched upon issues related to the hydropower generation. Issues of navigational and non-navigational use of water resources gave impetus to the development of international law which was required to regulate relations among the upstream and downstream countries of transboundary waterways. The emphasis was on addressing the use of water resources in the interests of industry and the control of pollution. As a result, several basic concepts were formulated that determined the principles of use of transboundary waterways, such as doctrine of absolute territorial sovereignty, the so-called Harmon Doctrine, which involved the unilateral use of transboundary rivers disregarding the consequences for other states; doctrine of absolute territorial integrity which viewed the transboundary river as a single whole and did not presume that any state could benefit with prejudice to the rights of other states; and doctrine that treated the river basin as a single economic entity and granted the right to its use to a certain collective body or distributed on the basis of agreement among riparian states. The Helsinki Rules on the Use of the Waters of International Rivers developed by the International Law Association (ILA) (Helsinki Rules) included the notion of “international drainage basin”: the geographical space covering two or more states within the drainage area of the system of watercourses, including surface and groundwaters, flowing into a common endpoint. In 1992, under the auspices of UNECE, the Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (Helsinki Convention) was

64

S. S. Zhiltsov et al.

developed. It presented definition of the concept “transboundary waters”: any surface or groundwaters which delineated or crossed the borders among two or more states or located on such borders. The transboundary rivers belong to the territories of border states and form a part of these territories. The sovereignty of a coastal state extends to that part of the border river that lies between the coast belonging to that state and the state border line that is usually drawn along the midline of the main fairway of the river. The most important element of transboundary waters is the waters of rivers, lakes, canals, reservoirs, and seas, groundwaters, soil moisture, ice water, and snow cover fit for use in economy. In 1997, the International Law Commission passed the UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses that defined the notion “international watercourse”: a watercourse whose parts locate in different states. This definition includes groundwaters that are linked with surface waters. The 1997 Convention entered into force in 2014. The status of transboundary water resources is defined in Agenda for the TwentyFirst Century. Section II of the Agenda on Conservation and Management of Resources for Development states: “18.4 Transboundary water resources and their use are important for coastal States. In this regard, cooperation between these states might be desirable in accordance with existing agreements and/or other relevant mechanisms, taking into account the interests of all relevant coastal states.”

2 Transboundary Rivers in Central Asia Water is a strategic resource for the Central Asian countries. The use of this resource has impact on the interstate relations, the social and economic development of all countries in the region. These are comprehensive problems capable to enhance tension both within each country and at the regional level. The territory of Central Asia located in the center of Eurasia includes Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan (Fig. 1) and covers a territory of about 4 million km2 (10% of the territory of Asia) (without Afghanistan). In the northwest, it borders Russia; in the south, Iran and Afghanistan; and in the east, Russia and China. The population of Central Asian countries is 70 million people (2016) (by 2025, 72 million people). The population of Afghanistan is 32 million people (2016). The main water resources in the region are rivers. The countries of the region locate in transboundary river basin being of interstate importance. These are the two largest rivers the Amu Darya and the Syr Darya flowing through the territory of six states in the drainage basin of the Aral Sea; the Talas and Chu rivers in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan; the Ili River in China and Kazakhstan; the Tarim River belonging to the Balkhash Lake basin and flowing through the territory of Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and China; the Irtysh River crossing China, Kazakhstan, and Russia; and also the Tobol, Ural, and Ishim rivers in Russia and Kazakhstan. There are also 23 small transboundary rivers flowing through the territory of Kazakhstan and China, as well as the Murgab River in Afghanistan and Turkmenistan; the Tejen

Fig. 1 States of Central Asia (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Caucasus_central_asia_political_map_2000.jpg/1200px-Cauca sus_central_asia_political_map_2000.jpg)

Transboundary Rivers in Central Asia: Cooperation and Conflicts Among Countries 65

66

S. S. Zhiltsov et al.

River in Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, and Iran; and the Atrek River in Turkmenistan and Iran. One of the characteristic features of the natural conditions of Central Asia is the extremely unequal water flow of rivers by years and high frequency of successive low-water years. All rivers of the region are mainly snow-fed rivers with a corresponding hydrological regime. For the countries of Central Asia, the problem of water resources has acquired a particular urgency. This is due to the fact that, on the one hand, river systems, like the inland seas (Aral and Caspian), unite the region, while, on the other hand, water shortage and the desire of each of the states to use them with maximum intensity and in their own interests increasingly exacerbate the situation in the region, up to interstate conflicts [1]. Earlier, former President of Uzbekistan Islam Karimov stated: “Water resources may become a problem tomorrow, around which relations will become aggravated and not only in our region. Everything can get so aggravated that it can cause serious, not simply confrontations, but real wars” [2]. A characteristic feature of the Central Asian region is the historically established spatial location of the former republics by hydrographic zones of flow formation. Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are completely in the mountain zone of flow formation; here small foothill parts of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan locate, too. Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan are located in the zone of flow scattering which due to flat topography and presence of fertile lands is most suitable for irrigated farming development [3]. The proximity of Afghanistan left a certain imprint on the countries of the region. The threats coming from the territory of this country are terrorism, drug trafficking, etc. that divert a significant part of the resources of the bordering countries – Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan – that could be used to resolve water problems. Taking into account that the Amu Darya originates in Afghanistan (the north of the country is a part of the Aral Sea basin – 14% of its area and population of 9 million people), the “key” of water supply can work in the forward and reverse directions.

3 Water Problems of Central Asia After the USSR Breakup The disintegration of the USSR has triggered the collapse of the “common stock” system. After appearance of new independent countries in Central Asia, the issues of water division turned out most difficult [4]. The Soviet system that collapsed overnight had led to mutual unresolved claims. First of all, they concerned determination of the volumes or limits of water intake in a market economy, the weakening of investment flows in the water consumption sector, changes in the working regimes of large reservoirs (changeover from irrigation to energy), and other issues. Thus, the pursuit to increase hydropower generation by the upstream countries came into conflict with the interests of the downstream countries whose irrigation policy requires a different approach to the use of water resources. Such inconsistencies and

Transboundary Rivers in Central Asia: Cooperation and Conflicts Among Countries

67

differences of interests concerning water-energy resources exacerbated the situation in the region and among individual countries which negatively affected the interstate relations in the region. Central Asian is the region with extremely uneven distribution of water resources. It is located in the natural zone featuring high temperatures and scarce precipitations, and it is subject to periodic droughts the consequences of which affect primarily the agricultural crops grown on irrigated lands. After proclaiming independence and taking a course toward building the marketbased states, the Central Asian countries started pursuing the independent policy in control and allocation of water resources. Their own plans for the use of waterenergy resources came to the fore. Each Central Asian state in pursuing its policy in water management was governed by national interests, not really caring how they relate to the interests of its neighbors and affect the situation in the region as a whole. It was during this period that endless disputes and disagreements over the joint use of the region’s water resources began that after the collapse of the USSR became transboundary. The policies of the Central Asian countries are greatly influenced by the factors related to their economic development and social processes. In addition, in this part of the world, all reserves for water supply are practically exhausted. According to various estimates, the annual river flow in the region is about 120 km3, which is provided by the region’s two largest rivers – Amu Darya and Syr Darya fed from glaciers and snow in the mountains of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan (Figs. 2 and 3). Meanwhile, the Amu Darya water flow is regulated for 96%, and the Syr Darya for more than 85%. And the greater part of water resources is used to satisfy the irrigation needs. Thus, water resources in the Central Asian countries are one of the main factors determining development of many sectors of the economy and, first of all, of agriculture. The scarcity of water and the declining quality of river flow complicate the solution of social, economic, and environmental problems. For this reason, the steady access to water resources has become one of the priorities for the countries of the region.

4 The Role of Water Resources in Central Asia Development Availability of water resources is one of the indispensable components of national security. Another component, the food supply, is closely linked with water resources. Thus, water and food are nearly always present in the internal and external political calculations of the regional countries as these are the permanent elements of the economy and the way of political pressure on neighboring countries. At the present stage, the intensification of agricultural production, accelerated industrialization, and growing urbanization lead to a tougher competition for water,

Fig. 2 Amu Darya and Syr Darya Rivers (http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/Brief/Europe%20and%20Central%20Asia/central-asia/aral-seabasin-735x490.jpg)

68 S. S. Zhiltsov et al.

Fig. 3 Upstream watershed of Amu Darya and Syr Darya Rivers. White areas are mountain glaciers (https://www.ethz.ch/content/specialinterest/usys/iac/ website-iac/en/group/climate-and-water-cycle/research/completed-projects/climate-variability-and-seasonal-forecasting-in-central-asia/jcr:content/par/ textimage/image.imageformat.lightbox.1487468119.jpg)

Transboundary Rivers in Central Asia: Cooperation and Conflicts Among Countries 69

70

S. S. Zhiltsov et al.

causing higher demand for this resource without which sustainable development cannot be achieved. The common natural water system predetermined the integration processes of the peoples living in the region for development of natural resources. In the Soviet period, these processes developed further: in the mountain zone of the flow formation (rivers’ upper reaches), hydropower stations and long-term storage reservoirs were constructed to meet the needs of irrigated farming developed in the zone of flow dispersion (in the lower reaches of rivers). High manageability of water resources was achieved through the centralized policy of limited water consumption where priority was given to the republics producing cotton and rice providing highest profits. This was due to the fact that the region included water-rich countries (Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan) located in the mountainous upper reaches where 50 and 30% of the Aral Sea basin flow is formed, respectively, and the river downstream countries – Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan – practicing irrigated farming that directly depends on the water coming from upstream countries. At the same time, Kyrgyzstan “controls” the Syr Darya River basin, while Tajikistan and Afghanistan the Amu Darya River, hence the conflict of interests between suppliers and consumers. The conflict-free coexistence of the republics was ensured by the well-functioning system of centralized supplies of energy sources and agricultural products. Disintegration of the Soviet Union and subsequent geopolitical changes, as well as transformation of the economy of the Central Asian region disrupted the former regional infrastructure of hydropower supply inherited from the Soviet times. The new independent states of the region have faced a real threat to national food and energy security. Under these conditions, the states of the flat part of the region with developed irrigated farming and availability of significant coal, oil, and gas reserves turned out to be in a more advantageous position. Despite the fact that their development was carried out at the expense of the union budget, the newly independent states became their monopoly managers having set prices for energy resources close to that in the world market. The key problem for Central Asia remains the demographic situation. Population growth in the conditions of water scarcity (