Linking IWRM & WSS UNDP’s Kazakhstan Experience

1. Linking IWRM & WSSUNDP’s Kazakhstan Experience Juerg Staudenmann Water Governance Advisor World Water WeekEU Water Initiative – Special Session Stockholm, 24 August 2005

2. 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: Total USD 1.62 mil. • Norway (cash) USD 1.085 mil. • GWP (in-kind) USD 320,000 • UNDP (cash) USD 100,000 • DFID (cash) pounds 50,000 UNDP Regional Centre for Europe & CIS – Bratislava SK

3. 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% UNDP Regional Centre for Europe & CIS – Bratislava SK

4. 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 • “Water scarcity” as a result of ineffective management • (Johannesburg directive) UNDP Regional Centre for Europe & CIS – Bratislava SK

5. 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 = new compartmentalization of watersheds • “Low sympathy” for water pricing • Water-Energy Nexus dominates dialogue UNDP Regional Centre for Europe & CIS – Bratislava SK

6. The 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 • Allocative E.: economic efficiency, water to highest value user ( supply management), requires social responsibility; example: “release” water from agriculture for higher valued Drinking Water use ( lowering social/health costs, etc.) UNDP Regional Centre for Europe & CIS – Bratislava SK

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

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

9. (Preliminary) Conclusions & Lessons Learned • Before actually starting to draft the IWRM Plan, much more efforts than expected were required to actually prepare (all) partners for IWRM • Approach promising: • Bottom-up: build RBO & RBCs • “Inside-out” (build capacity before attempting (transboundary) IWRM • Decentralization: The right way to go • Some risk that it leads towards ambiguity about responsibilities & ownership of rural WSS systems, hence to low willingness to invest. • Kazakhstan Case: many country specific factors (e.g. 2003 Water Code) • careful when replicating! UNDP Regional Centre for Europe & CIS – Bratislava SK

10. Why Linking WSS & IWRM in Kazakhstan ? • 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  Best done through IWRM • Safe Drinking Water requires effective treatment • This requires “reasonable” raw water (surface & ground) quality, • ..is linked to (industrial & municipal) discharge policy • ..requires also capacity (CWR, RBOs, Vodokanals, Health Ministry, etc.) for coordination • Speaks to IWRM UNDP Regional Centre for Europe & CIS – Bratislava SK

11. WSS & IWRM Links • IWRM is not only about Quantity  Quality Aspects: • Quality-quantity trade-off: • Even if chances are good to provide adequate water quantities, the poor quality still limits accessibility to safe drinking water • WSS is causing and receiving side of pollution • In summary: WSS reveals … • … limited potentials for quantitative achievements per se, but • … a significant potential in Water Res. Management trough qualitative improvements (cost effectiveness; economic efficiency)  Outlook: Large Social Survey on WSS underway (MDG Strategy) • 7’500 Questionnaires+ 240 Semi-structured interviews & 16 Focus groups • Focusing specifically on IWRM-WSS links  Report expected in 2-3 months… UNDP Regional Centre for Europe & CIS – Bratislava SK

12. Thank You! For more Information: www.voda.kz www.undp.kzwww.undp.sk