0. 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

1. Study Location

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

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

10. 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

11. Results

12. Results
Landuse
Topography

13. 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!

14. Results – SWAT modeling
Water Yield mm ( )
ET mm ( )

15. Results- SWAT modeling
Sediment Yield t/ha ( )
Total N kg/ha ( )

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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
4.10%
25,472,689
Sprinkler Alfalfa (no subsidies)
2798.4
210
3.63%
9,755,575
Drip Cotton (with subsidies)
2293
4.43%
27,496,729
Sprinkler Alfalfa (with subsidies)
2596.4
3.91%
10,514,559
Drip Orchards
336
670
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) 

21. 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
8.21%
50,945,378
Sprinkler Alfalfa (no subsidies)
2798.4
210
7.26%
19,511,149
Drip Cotton (with subsidies)
2293
8.86%
54,993,458
Sprinkler Alfalfa (with subsidies)
2596.4
7.82%
21,029,117
Drip Orchards
336
670
60.45%
518,452,381

22. 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

23. Thank you V.Nangia@CGIAR.ORG