Simon Charre, Anna Inozemtseva, Srinivasan Raghavan, David Mulla Agricultural Water Management and Ecosystem Services in the Aral-Syrdarya Watershed - Searching for Novel Ways to Share Water and Improve Ecosystem Services in Kazakhstan 8th Conference of the Ecosystems Services Partnership Vinay Nangia November 10, 2015 Stellenbosch, South Africa Simon Charre, Anna Inozemtseva, Srinivasan Raghavan, David Mulla

Study Location

Chardara Reservoir was constructed: Background Chardara Reservoir was constructed: in southern Kazakhstan in 1965 for irrigation and hydropower generation reservoir also supports many fragile ecosystems such as: the fishery and livestock riparian forests and rangelands human population tourism

Farmers over irrigate due to an unreliable supply of water Background (cont’d) The Aral Sea is declining in area, water quality and habitat, as are large wetland complexes that receive irrigation return flows from farming villages in the Syr Darya River Basin Agriculture consumes large amounts of water for irrigation of cotton, corn, alfalfa, cucumber, potatoes and grapes Irrigation is inefficient, primarily flood irrigation is practiced - canals lose 30% of their water supply, while field level irrigation efficiency is only 50% Farmers over irrigate due to an unreliable supply of water

Hypothesis of the study Improving agricultural water management will lead to improvement of other downstream ecosystem services sharing same water, and through the identification and valuation of main water-related ecosystem services, a plan can be developed for payment for improvement of agricultural water management

Methodology –Soil Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) Modeling A GIS database of information about the study area includes information on elevation, land use, soil properties, agricultural management practices, reservoir inputs and outputs, water intake and supply These data were used with the Soil Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) to conduct detailed evaluation of water usage and other agricultural management practices and their impacts on crop yields and return flows

Methodology –Resource Investment Optimization System (RIOS) The objective of this component of study is to identify a suite of ecosystem services that are affected by the alternative agricultural practices modeled with SWAT, and then to evaluate changes in provision of these ecosystem services using the Resource Investment Optimization System (RIOS) model

RIOS Model The RIOS model allows users to identify a set of alternative land use management practices and then identify the ecosystem services that result when these practices are allocated in different ways across the landscape RIOS also allows users to optimize selected ecosystem services for a specified level of investment by identifying where on the landscape it is best to implement a suite of management practices

Alternative Practices Evaluated Better fertilizer management Better irrigation water management Substitution of existing crops with more water efficient crops Retirement or alternative uses for marginal crop land Improved or targeted policies and subsidies

Ecosystem Services Modeled Agricultural crop production Baseline water discharge from agricultural lands Water quality (nitrogen and phosphorus) in return flows

Value of Water We assess the value of water by evaluating how agricultural crop production differ for the village closest to the Chardara Reservoir relative to production in the village farthest from the Reservoir as water supply decreases Decreases in water supply may cause decreased household income, decreased land rental rates, increased use of fertilizer and/or increased costs to buy electricity for pumping of supplemental groundwater irrigation

Results

Results Landuse Topography

Results - Assessing linkages between women’s access to income and role decision making in relation to their access to natural resources Bugun - head of the canal, highest average land holding (three to five ha) – vegetables grown for home consumption Staryi Ikan - middle of the canal, less access to canal water (supplement with groundwater), and own between one and four hectares – vegetables grown for home consumption Karachik –the tail-end of the canal – have the least access to water (heavy reliance on groundwater – associated costs of pumping), mostly rent their land - family plots average one and a half to four hectares - Similar reproductive role but substantial difference in their productive role women in Karchik are the most economically vibrant –because of their proximity to the local market their contribution validates them as equal participants in budget discussions and other decision-making processes. Markets play a key role in women’s ability to capitalize on available resources!

Results – SWAT modeling Water Yield mm (2007-2013) ET mm (2007-2013)

Results- SWAT modeling Sediment Yield t/ha (2007-2013) Total N kg/ha (2007-2013)

Results - RIOS modeling Net cost (Cost - Income gained) Without Subsidies With Subsidies Cotton (flood) Cotton (drip) 2475.2 2293 Alfalfa (flood) Alfalfa (sprinkler) 2798.4 2596.4 Orchards (flood) Orchards (drip) 336

Results – RIOS modeling Scenario A, $100M 50% to Drip Orchards (20,000 ha) 30% to Drip Cotton (11,000 ha) 20% to Sprinkler Alfalfa (7,000 ha) Total Water Savings: 200,000,000 m3 Drip Irrigated Cotton Sprinkler Irrigated Alfalfa Drip Irrigated Orchards

Results Scenario B, $100M 70% to Drip Orchards (28,000 ha) 20% to Drip Cotton (7,000 ha) 10% to Sprinkler Alfalfa (3,000 ha) Total Water Savings: 230,000,000 m3 Drip Irrigated Cotton Sprinkler Irrigated Alfalfa Drip Irrigated Orchards

Results Scenario C, $100M 30% to Drip Orchards (12,000 ha) 50% to Drip Cotton (18,000 ha) 20% to Sprinkler Alfalfa (7,000 ha) Total Water Savings: 180,000,000 m3 Drip Irrigated Cotton Sprinkler Irrigated Alfalfa Drip Irrigated Orchards

Water Reduction (mm/yr) Example RIOS modeling $13,000,000 Budget Conversion Net Cost - $USD/ha Water Reduction (mm/yr) Land Converted (ha) Percent of Current Landuse Water Savings (m3/yr) Drip Cotton (no subsidies) 2475.2 485 5252.10 4.10% 25,472,689 Sprinkler Alfalfa (no subsidies) 2798.4 210 4645.51 3.63% 9,755,575 Drip Cotton (with subsidies) 2293 5669.43 4.43% 27,496,729 Sprinkler Alfalfa (with subsidies) 2596.4 5006.93 3.91% 10,514,559 Drip Orchards 336 670 38690.48 30.23% 259,226,190 An investment of $13 million would convert 38,690 ha (30%) of flood irrigated cotton into drip irrigated orchards (e.g. pomegranates).  This results in a water savings of 259 million m3/yr. (a 21% reduction relative to water used to flood irrigate cotton) 

Water Reduction (mm/yr) Example RIOS modeling $26,000,000 Budget Conversion Net Cost - $USD/ha Water Reduction (mm/yr) Land Converted (ha) Percent of Current Landuse Water Savings (m3/yr) Drip Cotton (no subsidies) 2475.2 485 10504.20 8.21% 50,945,378 Sprinkler Alfalfa (no subsidies) 2798.4 210 9291.02 7.26% 19,511,149 Drip Cotton (with subsidies) 2293 11338.86 8.86% 54,993,458 Sprinkler Alfalfa (with subsidies) 2596.4 10013.87 7.82% 21,029,117 Drip Orchards 336 670 77380.95 60.45% 518,452,381

Conclusions The is a work-in-progress but preliminary results indicate that: For women of farming communities, access to market is an important factor to capitalize on available resources Switching from flood to sprinkler or drip irrigation saves large amounts of water which can be used by non-Ag. users or for expansion of Ag. A choice experiment is planned to test willingness of beneficiaries to pay for better water availability (quantity as well as quality) Since there is no significant gain in yields for farmers and price of water is very low, farmers are unwilling to change their practices unless the change is paid for by government or the beneficiary Government needs to target subsidies according to the gain they can achieve in terms of benefit to the society and the environment

Thank you V.Nangia@CGIAR.ORG