1. United Nations Development Programme Regional Centre for Europe & CIS – Bratislava / Slovak Republic National IWRM Planning in Kazakhstan UNDP’s Experience Juerg Staudenmann Water Governance Advisor EUWI-EECCA Meeting Yerevan, 15 November 2005

2. UNDP Regional Centre for Europe & CIS – Bratislava SK 6/4/2015/JS page 2 UNDP’s Water Governance activities in the region  Approach:  Focusing on water governance (national & transboundary);  Human Development (and Human Rights) / Poverty-reduction / MDGs  National & WFD approach; linking IWRM & WSS  Projects in Europe & CIS:  Transboundary (regional) level: IWRM in Danube/Tisza & Black Sea, Caspian Sea, Dnipro, Kura-Aras (S. Caucasus), Lake Peipsi & Prespa, Central Asia (Upper Syr Darya), …  UNDP Bratislava Regional Centre, mainly GEF (approx. US$ 75 Mio. over last decade) & EU/bilateral co-funded  National level: IWRM & WSS interventions  implemented through UNDP Country Offices … … for example: Kazakhstan – National IWRM & Water Efficiency Plan

3. UNDP Regional Centre for Europe & CIS – Bratislava SK 6/4/2015/JS page 3 The Project: “National IWRM & WE Plan for Kazakhstan”  Time Frame: 2004-2007  Partners:  Kazakh Committee for Water Resources (CWR)  Government of Norway  Global Water Partnership (GWP)  Department for Int’l Development (DFID)  Co-funding: TotalUSD1.62 mil. Norway (cash)USD 1.085 mil. Norway (cash)USD 1.085 mil. GWP (in-kind)USD 320,000 GWP (in-kind)USD 320,000 UNDP (cash)USD100,000 UNDP (cash)USD100,000 DFID(cash)pounds 50,000 DFID(cash)pounds 50,000

4. UNDP Regional Centre for Europe & CIS – Bratislava SK 6/4/2015/JS page 4 Kazakhstan Context  Water Use by sector:  71% Agriculture (85% of which irrigation)  24.4 %Industry / 0.6 % Fisheries  4 % Domestic Use  44% of water comes from neighboring countries (6 out of 8 river basins in KAZ are transboundary)  WB Study in 66 local communities reported hard ship & conflicts over water, land & energy use in 50%

5. UNDP Regional Centre for Europe & CIS – Bratislava SK 6/4/2015/JS page 5 Why IWRM ? (Kazakhstan Context II)  Water Resources Management in K. is:  … Fragmented (Committee for Water Resources (CWR) in MoA, yet: monitoring  management; separate quality/quantity monitoring; surface  groundwater management; water services  sanitation providers)  … Under-funded  MAIN REASON: WRM not seen as revenue earning area.  … Poorly governed (new Water Code (2003): good potential for IWRM, but currently not used / enforced)  At present, no organization has the responsibility to manage Kazakhstan’s water resources  Perceived “Water scarcity”: a result of ineffective water management  (Johannesburg directive)

6. UNDP Regional Centre for Europe & CIS – Bratislava SK 6/4/2015/JS page 6 Kazakhstan context III: Main Barriers towards IWRM  Poor public understanding & involvement,  Poor governance, capacity (govt. investment; RBOs), transparency, …  Water Info: Lacking, poorly accessible and/or managed  Education Gap (water-related expertise / national capacity)  “Soviet Legacy”:  Vanish of central resource allocation & management  New borders = division of (natural) watersheds  “Limited readiness” for water pricing  Water-Energy Nexus dominates CA water dialogue

7. UNDP Regional Centre for Europe & CIS – Bratislava SK 6/4/2015/JS page 7 Guiding Principles  IWRM is about Governance!  Integrating government policies through governmental, institutional & legislative reforms (e.g. agricultural with environment & water policies; Environment with municipal WSS policies; poverty reduction with water policies, etc.)  IWRM is a Process!  IWRM speaks to Efficiency – 2 Types: Technical E.: efficient use, minimizing waste (  demand management) example: decrease irrigation losses Technical E.: efficient use, minimizing waste (  demand management) example: decrease irrigation losses Allocative (economic) E.: water to highest value user, on basis of social responsibility (  supply management) example: “release” water from agriculture for higher valued Drinking Water use (  lowering social/health costs, etc.) Allocative (economic) E.: water to highest value user, on basis of social responsibility (  supply management) example: “release” water from agriculture for higher valued Drinking Water use (  lowering social/health costs, etc.)

8. UNDP Regional Centre for Europe & CIS – Bratislava SK 6/4/2015/JS page 8 UNDP’s Strategic Approach  Basis:  Johannesburg Directive;  Build on Kazakhstan Water Code (2003);  Assist Committee for Water Resources (CWR).  Designate Water Quality Management  Responsibility of River Basin Organisations (RBO) (= Subsidiary Principle)  Adopt EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) approach

9. UNDP Regional Centre for Europe & CIS – Bratislava SK 6/4/2015/JS page 9 Main objectives & Milestones 1. National IWRM and W.E. Plan [End 2005], and IWRM Plans for all River basins [2007] 2. Establish 8 River Basin Councils [2006] 3. Preparation of a Strategy for Achievement of MDGs for WSS [End 2006] 4. Improving cooperation and development of partnerships at regional and country levels Mid-/long-term outlook:  2007-2010: Schemes for comprehensive use & protection of Water Resources  2010-2015: Fully adapting EU WFD

10. UNDP Regional Centre for Europe & CIS – Bratislava SK 6/4/2015/JS page 10 1. National IWRM & WE Plan: 4 Initial Focus Areas 1. Instituting Management of Water Quality & Ecology  Responsibility, information gaps, cooperation 2. Achieving the MDGs for WSS (2015)  Safe DW through better/cheaper raw water quality;  Capacity development, etc. 3. Addressing Water Use Efficiency  Mind shift: Water pricing and institutional cooperation 4. Preparing for Transboundary IWRM  Start small (simpler bi-lateral agreements, bring RBOs up to speed, address “in-house” issues first)  IWRM & WE Plan: primarily institutional (organizational, financial) in scope, not infrastructural or operational

11. UNDP Regional Centre for Europe & CIS – Bratislava SK 6/4/2015/JS page 11 2. How to set up River Basin Councils  What is it?  Advisory body for River Basin Organizations (RBO), NOT responsible for water resources management  Expanded participation  Instituted in 2003 Water Code (Art. 43)  Key issues requiring serious consideration:  Funding  Information (basis for functioning & effective counseling for RBO)  Reliability & Trust: for stakeholders to participate as RBC members, (assurance that this is a tool to truly influence RBO & RB decisions)  Since there’s no model: “Learning by Doing”  Set-up step by step to truly include/represent all water users, and cautiously empower to provide effective RBO advice

12. UNDP Regional Centre for Europe & CIS – Bratislava SK 6/4/2015/JS page 12 3. Strategy for Achieving Water MDGs  Achieving MDG target (10) = “Potential” (= can be achieved on time given appropriate effort & support!)   Complete working plan with concrete projects & full financial streaming 2007-15 – Main steps: 1. Define “Sustainable Access to Safe DW & Sanitation” 2. Quantifying Current Level of Access 3. Determining priorities, specific works, financial requirements 4. Determining strategy to meet financial costs 5. Outlining strategy  Strongly linked to Objective 1 (IWRM & WE Plan):  Basis for Plan development  Involvement of all stakeholders required (CWR, RBO, etc.)

13. UNDP Regional Centre for Europe & CIS – Bratislava SK 6/4/2015/JS page 13 (Preliminary) Conclusions & Lessons Learned  Before actually starting to draft the IWRM Plan, much effort (more than expected) was required to actually prepare (all) partners for IWRM  Approach seems promising:  Bottom-up: build RBO & RBCs  “Inside-out”: build national capacity before attempting (transboundary) IWRM  Decentralization: The right way to go!  Some risk though: Low willingness to invest in (rural) WSS systems, based on ambiguity regarding responsibilities & ownership  Kazakhstan Case based on country specific factors (e.g. 2003 Water Code)  careful when replicating!

14. UNDP Regional Centre for Europe & CIS – Bratislava SK 6/4/2015/JS page 14 Links between WSS & IWRM  IWRM is not (only) about Quantity  Quality Aspects important:  Quality-quantity link: Even if chances are good to provide adequate water quantities, the poor quality still limits accessibility to safe drinking water  Fulfillment of WSS MDGs will require more Water for People (as will economic growth) BUT: Kazakhstan’s absolute Water Resources unlikely to increase in future  Increased demands can only be met by improving efficiency: DEMAND SIDE MANAGEMENT (  IWRM !)

15. UNDP Regional Centre for Europe & CIS – Bratislava SK 6/4/2015/JS page 15 Links WSS & IWRM (cont.)  Safe Drinking Water requires  effective treatment & “reasonable” raw water (surface & ground) quality, ..linked to (industrial & municipal) discharge policy ..requires capacity (CWR, RBOs, Vodokanals, Health Ministry, etc.) for coordination  IWRM  WSS is important aspect of Water Res. Management, trough qualitative achievements (  cost effectiveness; economic efficiency)  Large Social Survey on WSS–IWRM link underway (MDG Strategy)  7’500 Questionnaires+ 240 Semi-structured interviews & 16 Focus groups

16. UNDP Regional Centre for Europe & CIS – Bratislava SK 6/4/2015/JS page 16 Outlook: 2006 ff.  Reinforced (multi-stakeholder) dialogues planned (national level) in Kazakhstan  Knowledge Management – Learning from the experience (e.g. “WaterWiki”, new regional GEF- project, etc.)  Replication of Kazak experience to Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,..?  Expansion of UNDP’s water governance portfolio in Europe & CIS (national & transboundary IWRM, WSS)  New partnerships with bilateral & other partners (incl. private sector & banks) over the coming years…

17. United Nations Development Programme Regional Centre for Europe & CIS – Bratislava / Slovak Republic Thank You! For more Information: www.voda.kz www.undp.kzwww.undp.kz www.undp.sk www.undp.sk www.undp.kzwww.undp.sk