5. The creation of Capacity Development of interstate water collaboration in the Aral Sea Basin

by
Prof. Viktor A. Dukhovny, Scientific Information Center of Interstate Commission for Water Coordination in Central Asia, Tashkent

Abstract

The creation of Capacity Development of interstate water collaboration in the Aral Sea Basin

The unity of water resources from two principal rivers of the Aral Sea basin - the Amudarya and the Syrdarya is required from five former Soviet Union' States (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tadjikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) to develop a strong partnership in joint management and development of transboundary water resources immediately after achieving independence (September, 1991). The establishment of the Interstate Commission for Water Coordination (ICWC) was the first step towards building capacity to promote such cooperation (the interstate agreement was made on 18 February 1992). Capacity Building (CB) within the ICWC is developing in several directions: CB to cooperate; CB of regional organizations; and CB of national organizations.

The mainstream of this development has been fixed in “The Principal Provisions of Regional Water Strategy of Aral Sea basin” expanded in the form of:

Creation of regional and national information systems
Network of regional organizations and their branches
Training system of ICWC with several branches
Implementation of IWRM
Creation of regional and national communication networks
Implementation of SCADA system on the major structures on rivers
Organization of work for setting up the legal framework of collaboration

The inherent difficulties of capacity development for conditioned States transferred from a socialistic system to a market system should be based on the statement that it needs to include not so much new development but measures for saving old capacities and adopt them in a new situation. At the present time ICWC and all five states are carrying on “Strategic Planning of Future Development and Water Management” oriented to cope with influences of destabilizing factors for the next 25 years.

In addition to history of CB development the case study should include the following:

a diagnostic study of current problems in regional collaboration and national policies;
action plans for merging above mentioned directions of CB in a unified and complex manner;
overcoming difficulties of fundraising and weakness of some national economics;
involvement of donors in strategic planning and implementation; and
timetable for setting up CB programme.

Introduction

Background of the situation in the Aral Sea Basin

The Aral Sea Basin is located in arid and semiarid zones and covers the territory of the five former Soviet Union and now Central Asian states: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Northern Afghanistan, one of the oldest regions of world civilization, is also hydrologically and ethnically linked to the Aral Sea basin due to development of water and irrigation. The basin comprises the watersheds of the two great rivers: the Amudarya and the Syrdarya with their tributaries and many small rivers and creeks, which are now divided from their “foremother”, namely both rivers, as a result of intensive irrigation (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The Soviet system had built up on the basin territory a huge complex of water management structures: gigantic dams and water reservoirs, well-developed irrigation network, the biggest pump stations such as Karshi cascade, Djizak cascade and the longest canal, namely, the Karakum canal with a discharge 600 m³/sec and length of 1260 km. This complex as a whole was managed by a single institutional structure from “top to bottom” in accordance with strict procedure of water manipulation, water allocation and water compensation.

This system enabled delivery and allocation of water successfully by means of a huge water infrastructure coupled with vast sums of operational costs covered by the central government at inter-farm and even on-farm levels, including the costs of operation and maintenance of drainage. However, this water management system suffered from two immense shortcomings. Firstly, water users' and consumers' opinions have not been taken into consideration; as a result, the transition of Central Asian countries' agriculture and economies in general to market-oriented principles showed that many water users became insolvent and not self-sufficient. Secondly, environmental considerations were largely neglected in favour of the needs of water users; hence ecological and sanitary requirements, along with the environmental needs of deltas, Priaralye and the Aral Sea itself were not taken into account and the scope of the problems was understated.

Some aspects of Soviet heritage, however, have had positive impacts on current and future development of the region. They are:

high level of water education, science and skills combined to provide a firm basis for building capacity of specialists engaged in water management;
teamwork of water specialists of the former Soviet Union Republics - working under one leadership within one system according to similar standards, rules, methods and approaches - created good conditions for sustainable work of future generations: their aspiration has been to keep the coordinated approach that was formed in Soviet times; and
water organizations (BWOs) and allocation of huge investments to various projects, particularly to water supply and social improvements in 1986 (Figure 2) had an immense inertial effect, ensuring smooth operation and transition of water management from the former political formation to a different one - from imperfect socialism to other forms of primary accumulation of capital with various degrees of transition accomplished in different countries.

Figure 2. Chronology of the Aral Sea Basin events

On achieving independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, the five states faced a need to cope with new conditions by organizing joint corporative water management in the basin. To the credit of the governments of Central Asian states, such a decision was made - the Interstate Commission for Water Coordination (ICWC) was established in accordance with the Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Joint Management of the Use and Protection of Interstate Water Resources dated 18 February 1992, and approved by the heads of the states on 23 March 1993. ICWC is a collective body that manages transboundary rivers and is responsible for: water allocation among countries; monitoring and preparation of preliminary assessments of proposals on institutional, ecological, technical, and financial approaches, based on decisions mutually agreed by all sides. Two BWOs (Amu Darya and Syr Darya), the Scientific-Information Center, and ICWC Secretariat are executive bodies of the Commission.

ICWC took over responsibilities for water management in both basins directly from the former Soviet Ministry of Water Resources, but with appropriate changes reflecting the creation of five new independent states:

The Commission has five members appointed by the governments. They have equal rights and obligations. They meet once in a Quarter to decide on all issues related to their activities and responsibilities. The decisions are reached only on a consensus basis.
Two BWOs were transformed into the executive bodies of ICWC; in a similar way part of the Central Asian Scientific Institute for Irrigation (SANIIRI) was transformed into the Scientific-Information Center (SIC) of ICWC to act as a ‘think-tank’ for the commission.
All issues for the ICWC meetings, in accordance with their agenda, should be prepared by the executive bodies and disseminated among the members twenty days before the meeting; this allows each country to prepare its comments and opinions.
The principles of water allocation that existed in Soviet times have been retained for the purpose of annual planning until new regional and national water management strategies would be developed and adopted.

The activities of ICWC for the last 13 years is a unique example of collaboration among five states not only in joint planning, exchange of information, but also in real management, operation and monitoring of transboundary water resources in a single way.

Some of the reasons which formed the conditions for such collaboration are:

common historical, ethnic, customary and even religious roots of all nations in the states;
mutual activities in the Soviet period;
political will of leaders of the five states and understanding of decision-makers of the importance of water issues for the region; and
creation of proper “Aral Sea spirit” between water specialists and professionals, involved in water management in the region.

This platform, as was mentioned at the Jubilee ICWC Conference in 2002, enabled the organization of a smooth transition from the command style of water management to new and more democratic water collaboration on a regional basis (see Figure 2 above) with the following principal results of the Commission's activity:

Conflicts in water management, operation and allocation among the countries of the region have been avoided.
Thirty-two meetings of the Commission have been held, and have determined all activities undertaken by the ICWC and its bodies.
A range of important legal, financial and institutional proposals have been prepared and submitted to the governments of the states, defining the principles of interaction on water issues. Two of these documents have been signed by the heads of the states as international agreements.
The volume of water used in the region has been reduced from 110 to 103 km3.

In terms of the second contrasting challenge, three weaknesses of the social and economic situation of transient societies should be taken into account:

High rate of population growth and adverse economic conditions are the two principal destabilizing factors that have complicated improving the water situation, and simultaneously ask to solve the problems using low cost (mostly organizational and economic) methods.
Water, land and mineral resources are distributed inequitably among the states. On the one hand this initiated a tendency to “hydroegoism,” on the other hand it was argued that this induced the only way to guarantee survival and future development: close cooperation, collaboration, and the creation of a cooperative Central Asian market for food and agricultural production (perhaps together with Russia).
Some local and sectoral interests, aspiring to be the “nouveau riche” in the new economic market (sometimes a very erratic market), have speculated in water as they have done with oil, gas and fuel. This has created obstacles in the path of collaboration, but society needs to make such economic activity unviable.

As a whole ICWC has managed with all the complex situations of water supply and provision even during dry years without conflicts; however, in view of probable restrictions of options for the future, management procedures and capacity should be properly improved and created that would be adequate to change social-economic, political and nature conditions.

Analysis of problems

The first official identification of existing problems in water management and water use on behalf of ICWC was presented in “The Principal Provisions of Regional Water Strategy of Aral Sea Basin“ (GEF Project 1996–97, Prof. J. Kindler, Task Manager and Prof. V.A. Dukhovny, Regional Coordinator). This document was prepared by a working group comprising the representative of all five States on an equal basis, and then it was confirmed by the five governments. The problems were divided as international and national ones.

The regional problems were listed as follows:

potential conflict between hydropower production and irrigation;
weak attention to ecological issues;
weakness of staff capacity since independence;
collapse of former Soviet information network and lack of a new one;
not all countries have their representatives in the regional organizations;
procedure for financial contribution from all states in support of regional organizations were not confirmed by the states; and
not all branches of water economy introduced in ICWC.

The national shortcomings vary depending on some common features that are listed below.

The water sector at the national level in its present form chiefly represents the interests of agriculture. National water organizations should represent equally the interests of irrigation and (particularly) hydropower, and set priorities for water supply, water storage, and similar measures.
The administrative principle that is still in force in the water sector and irrigation creates local pressures from provincial and district administrations' side on the principle of equal water supply that in turn affects all water consumers.
From the launching of water management and irrigation projects up to their implementation, relevant decisions are made only by the state agencies without any input from current or potential water users. As a result, there is a situation where the costs of irrigation systems and water structures, which are transferred (completely or partly) to water users, cannot be recovered by water users.
Policy of transferring operation and maintenance costs to water users depresses the maintenance system and simultaneously complicates issues related to the development, rehabilitation and upgrading of irrigation systems.
In respect of legislative and financial aspects, there are very vague and unclear issues, especially regarding distribution of responsibilities between users and state budgets in all countries.

The complicated process of capacity building for new water sectors in five states and on the interstate regional level cannot be analyzed as statistics - almost 15 years of functioning under new conditions led to big transformations in governance and the same in measures carried out in capacity development. From this point of view the dynamics of time and execution should be recognized.

The establishment of ICWC and its bodies was accompanied with an approval of the first Aral Sea Basin Programme (ASBP-1) by the five Central Asian states in 1994. Analysis of existing problems transformed in capacity building needs assessment enabled preparation of a “Diagnostic study”. This study generalized proposed measures, decisions and their implementation to four super problems and subsequent subproblems. The information about the results of this study contributed to a proper view of current problems, in particular, it has demonstrated on which points closer attention was given, and the points which were set aside (Table 1).

The conclusion is very clear - all the attention concentrated on smoothing out growing transboundary problems and decisions regarding reassessment of the new approach to management. Such priority on these two super problems caused by the danger of not guaranteeing water supply and delivery of water to huge irrigation networks, which are supplying the needs of 60 percent of the rural population, in one or other measures connected with agricultural production. Decision-makers could not ignore these urgent needs because it could create social disaster and catastrophic exposure of people to violence. However, subproblems related to next two super problems, namely a lack of financing, economic failure and environmental concerns, remain without action, because they deal with long-term vision, which are now out of sight and the hearts of decision makers. Nevertheless, the need to meet these requirements could not be completely out of spectrum of the national governments' plans, which approved in 2003 the so-called “Aral Sea Basin Programme - 2” (ASBP-2). ASBP-2 covers most of the indicated problems.

Table 1.

Problem	Sub-problem	Measures and solutions
1	2	3
1. Origin of transboundary conditions as a consequence of CAR countries gaining independence	Transboundary issues with water allocation Different priorities of downstream and upstream countries and sectoral trend Inter-sector contradictions in release regimen Difficulties of intestate financing of mutual services Difficulties in efficient water management Collapse of common system of water account and forecast Growing “ hydroegoism ”	•	Development of long-term policy and agreed objective criteria in water allocation and use
		•	Finding acceptable and equitable rules of management and regulation of basin management in different conditions
		•	Development and approval of financial rules for interstate structures and joint works
		•	Introduction of SCADA system and establishing basin committees with stakeholder participation
		•	Establishing regional hydrometservices under ICC auspice
		•	Development of common information management system at BWO, MAWR, ecologic NGOs with broad involvement of concerned parties
2. Collapse and weakening of strict “top-down” management and necessity for decentralized management	Increasing organizational losses Weakening control over water allocation, account and use Organizational weakening of management Losses and preparation of qualified staff Absence of attention to water conservation	•	IWRM introduction
		•	Public involvement to management, establishing WUAs, System Committees (Councils)
		•	Establishing new structures with participation of concerned parties
		•	Training system development
		•	Set of measures on water availability incentives creation (extension services, payment block system, privileges for water saving)
3. Economic decline and funding scarcity	Low water users' means involvement to fund water sector	•	Establish progressive scale of water charges
	Low water users' means involvement to fund water sector	•	Establish credit systems for water users to pay for water services
	States do not contribute to support interstate infrastructure States reduced interstate structures funding by 10 times; there is no means for its reconstruction and modernization	•	Developing and approving by states norms of O&M funding; support of interstate infrastructures and bodies; obligatory fulfillment of responsibilities; due to scarcity of funds fund-raising from donors and organization of priority funding for sustainable functioning
	Water users cannot pay for water delivery and services Collapse of irrigation and drainage network, especially at on-farm level Water sector lost its priority	•	Establish gradation of water users' involvement in water sector funding depending on their specific productivity; include payment for households
		•	Attract loans and grants from international financial organizations to improve water supply and fulfillment of priority obligations
		•	Introduce special programme on “Irrigated land drainage”
	Neglecting interstate needs for transboundary objects modernization	•	Increasing status of water-related organizations and their transformation into inter-sector bodies, providing their needs including interstate funding as priority driven.
4. Neglecting ecologic issues	Aral sea shrinking and delta desertification River water quality worsening Growing irrigated land salinization and waterlogging Flow formation zone degradation by erosion and deforestation	•	Approval of obligatory releases to the delta and Aral sea; strict observance of these releases by ICWC and BWO
		•	Set of nature protection measures for Priaralie new sustainable ecologic profile establishing
		•	Water conservation policy and return and groundwater utilization saving river water
		•	Strict limits for salt disposal to the rivers
		•	Priority-driven funding of organizational measures on drainage O&M improvement and irrigated land reclamation
		•	Development of strategy for flow formation zone conservation and establishing international programmes to support mountain landscapes and glaciers

CB needs assessment and lessons learned

The previous 12 years of activity of the regional and national organizations resulted in a large number of previous problems and subproblems getting addressed and decisions taken either fully, in part or in the initial stage. The remaining problems have been classified into five groups:

Legal and institutional aspects of interstate and national CB
Financial aspects of CB
CB for BWOs
CB for Hydrometservice
CB for ICWC

Legal and institutional aspects of CB

Preparation of legal tools for collaboration was started by ICWC decision in 1996 and led to the preparation of four agreements, which cover major directions of joint activities of the five states on the transboundary waters: institutional arrangement, information exchange, regulations of water use and environmental protection. During the period 1996–1999 drafts of these agreements were negotiated during the meetings of working groups represented by each state and regional organization.

The other framework agreement was signed in 1998 on the Syrdarya River, between Kazakh, Kyrgyz and Uzbek governments (later joined by Tajikistan) and agreed on conditions for release of water from the Toktogul reservoir in summer with delivery of gas, oil, coal and winter power. Although the Agreement of 1998 did not pass the test of time and its provisions has to be supplemented in reality each year by the interstate protocol, it played a proper role in the creation of legal conditions of water management on Syrdarya River.

Results of this activity

Water resources specialists as well as NGOs acquired extensive knowledge and orientation in principal provisions of International Water Law and proper experience in providing negotiations for single method preparation of mutual legal regulations. The experience of two framework agreements, signed by States, is positive and may serve as an indicator of political will to get a strong legal long-term base for mutual activity on the transboundary waters.

Decision on legal and institutional aspects of regional level should concentrate attention on:

preparation, agreement and approval by the national governments of principal interstate agreements such as “Agreement on the Exchange of Information and the Establishment of the Aral Sea Basin Database for the Transboundary Water Resources; Agreement on Strengthening the Institutional Structure for the Aral Sea Basin Transboundary Water Resources Management, Protection and Development; Agreements on the Rules for Water Use on the Amudarya and Syrdarya rivers (separately); and Agreement on the Ecological Sustainability of Transboundary Waters of Aral Sea Basin; and
assumption of the “common use” doctrine as a basis for inter-sectoral water relations.

Simultaneously strengthening regional bodies of ICWC along with enhancing their rights, authorities and responsibilities should be done. Institutional strengthening collaboration, described in a corresponding Agreement, will decide all aspects of first priority at the interstate organizing level.

The improvement of national water laws started with the New Water Code of Kazakhstan (2003), Kyrgyzstan (2004), Turkmenistan (2005), Decree of the President of Uzbekistan titled “The implementation of hydrographic methods of water management” (2003); and some other national legal documents.

Transfer to basin and sub-basin management uncovered the need to include in the National Law involvement of stakeholders at all levels of the water hierarchy. Public participation should create the atmosphere of transparency and openness, in which the probability of making decisions that do not meet public interest decreases. The broader public participation, the less favourable conditions for corruption and neglect of public interest. This would help to prevent local or agency level egoism in water use. This is a platform for equitable, responsible decisions on water allocation under growing water shortages with respect to the nature and other members of society.

Lessons learned

Setting up adequate legal framework on transboundary waters requires permanent activities of a working group, authorized by the national governments, delegating them strong responsibilities for similar works expected on the national levels.
The working group should be multisectoral with representatives of all stakeholders and ministries interested in water use to promote negotiations and mutual approaches.
Negotiation requires public participation and absence of personal ambitions.
Donor assistance is welcome to enable permanent activities of the working group on legal issues.

Financial aspects of CB

Financing of transboundary water (TBW) management and development regulated at the initial stage based on the agreement of 1992, where all expenses were allocated between states proportionally to water allocation. However, it was related only for BWOs and ICWC bodies for their operational activities. Many aspects and proposals remain without clear decisions, namely:

reliable financial support by the states for all water management agencies, hydrometeorological services, and nature conservancy authorities in flow formation and delta zones;
as a substitution for fuel/energy-water exchange, put into practice payments for flow regulation in reservoirs (over an annual, seasonal or other period) with participation by all countries of the Aral Sea Basin in covering expenses for flow formation, as well as protection of the deltas;
absence of financial tools for environmental management such as ecological flow support, responsibility for outtake of water from rivers above ecologically permitted limits; responsibility for pollution of TBW.

At the national level the financial situation remained more unstable, that depends on the different political and economic situation in the five States. As a result irrigation and drainage systems do not have resources for the recovery of much needed funds for operation, maintenance and rehabilitation. Initially some states tried to transfer the major part of financial pressure onto the shoulders of water users, but such a line of action caused failure of the capacity of water and irrigation systems, especially at the former on-farm level. Rehabilitation works required the big contributions supported partly by the different foreign loans, but were not enough - compared with the Soviet period, the investment in infrastructure rehabilitation had reduced by more than 10 times!

Lessons learned

Scarcity of financing resources of states forced financial bodies to concentrate attention only on the support of operation and maintenance in reduced size at the regional and national levels.
Attempts to minimize government contribution and the weakness of water users caused big difficulties for the work of operation staff and failure of such infrastructures as hydrometservice and drainage systems (especially vertical).
Payment for water became the common line, but the paying capacity of water users depends on the fiscal and agricultural policy of the different States.

Sustainable water management requires definition of strict rules for the payment allocations between stakeholders, governments and local authorities depending on the level of net benefit for water users.

CB of BWOs

BWOs are carrying out successfully annual planning, water allocation, operation and ongoing repair and maintenance of transboundary structures, that is clearly recorded for more than 15 years of activity. This work is, however, connected with big difficulties overcome by the skills and experience of staff:

lack of modern equipment and communication capacity;
low degree of accuracy of water forecast and lack of hydrological information sometimes, especially from the upper watershed states;
weak public participation; and
need to establish well-defined regulations for operating regional organizations under various conditions and in different situations (water scarcity, floods, etc.); to make these activities equitable, multinational and transparent.

CB of BWOs “Amudarya” and “Syrdarya” needs

Equipping the headquarters and their regional units with modern computers, telephone and communication network.
Organizing on this base dispatch service and information.
Equipping all head works of BWOs with automatic control and management system (SCADA) for the prevention of any possible uncontrolled water withdrawal from the river.

Lessons learned

The improvement of technical levels of equipment and monitoring especially SCADA implementation permitted to increase accuracy in water delivery on the equipped structures up to ± 2 percent instead of ± 10 percent before: such type of works are very efficient.
Spontaneous investment by donors in modernization work of BWO cannot decide long-term improvement - this requires contributions from states and donors.
Stakeholders greeted with much interest their involvement in BWOs activities. Organization of Public Council of the BWOs will assist in stabilizing this relationship.

CB of hydrometservice

The collapse of the Soviet Union practically destroyed all existing systems of hydrometservice in the five States through failure of many monitoring stations on the rivers, climatic stations, mountain monitoring networks on glaciers and snowfall in upper watersheds. The most dangerous consequences became the cutoff system of information exchange between national hydrometservices and the brain drain. Proper measures for combating these disadvantages were carried out with the assistance of GEF, WB, SDC project. Twenty-four hydrometrological stations and a station on the Fedchenco glacier were rehabilitated; and republican hydromet organizations received a large quantity of modern equipment. Now the needs of CB of Hydrometservice at regional and national levels are:

rehabilitation of existing and construction of new hydrological monitoring stations on the transboundary waters with installation of modern equipment;
rehabilitation of monitoring stations on main glaciers, which are indicative points for both rivers;
organizing satellite network communication between monitoring stations and national centers;
organizing a Regional Hydromet Center which can merge forces with national Hydromets and join them with end water-users (BWOs, ministries of water, etc.);
improvement of the system of river forecast by using modern models of precipitation and flow formation; and
arranging general public awareness, especially end-users in forecast and real data.

Capacity building of ICWC consists of some principal items

Information network between ICWC members and their partners as well as within the states and from top to bottom.
Information network “ICWC - foreign partners”.
Training activities.

Major information network interlinked regional bodies and national water-related agencies. This network is maintained by SIC-ICWC and interconnects ICWC with many international organizations such as WWC, ICID, INBO, IWRA and serves as a direct way to world water community and donors' windows.

ICWC developed some interconnected information systems within each national ministry, BWOs and SIC ICWC. Setting up these systems was done by single hierarchic methods and as a result got single format and interconnected views thanks to the assistance of SDC through the CAREWIB (Central Asia Regional Water Information Base) project. This project has broad dissemination tools in e-net, internet, printed form and based on the pyramid of information sieve from down to top which is supported by information fed from different projects and sources, implemented by SIC-ICWC as well as other ICWC bodies.

Lessons learned

It should have a clear and convincing interface and be accompanied by training of users from the inception (“roots”).
It is necessary to include models and modules to stimulate interest of users to support the system.

Training system

Training needs have been very high as a result of the collapse of the Soviet system's professional education.

In 1999 SIC-ICWC, in cooperation with McGill University, submitted to CIDA a programme for permanent training of specialists of Central Asian water agencies at the interstate level. This programme, namely ICWC Training Center establishment, was approved by CIDA and started its activities in 2000 in Tashkent. Later two branches of the Training Center were established: in Urgench for the Amudarya lowlands - Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan with assistance of CIDA; and in Osh for all seven provinces of the Fergana valley in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan with the assistance of SDC.

During the past five years the CIDA and ICWC Training Centre has become a center of improvement, which promotes advanced methods of water resources management and environmental protection in Central Asian region. Over 1 500 specialists were trained in the Tashkent office and in the branches.

Some difficulties in this activity were connected with:

a need to cross the national boundaries for participation in training;
unequal educational level of participants; and
lack of experimental base.

Lessons learned

Training should be developed more broadly to meet current demand for training which is in fact ten times greater.
Training should be organized for specific audience not only for water specialists, but also for water users.
Gender perspectives in water use and management should be considered.
Training activities should have a separate item in the budget of national and regional water organizations.

CB of national organizations in water

These constitute the most complex aspect of CB in national organizations in water that depends on the political and economic policy of States and their financial capacity. The principal direction of this part of CB transformed in the last 3–4 years in a specific programme titled “The implementation IWRM”, that is being developed under the umbrella of GWP in close collaboration with ICWC, national water organizations and GWP Caucuses and Central Asia (GWP CACENA). Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) is a combination of all possible organizing, managing and technical measures which can be used as the principal tool to involve stakeholders in the measures for fighting against “hydroegoism” in different forms. IWRM, from our point of view, is a system of management which is characterized by the principal features of transition.

Plan of action - road map of future development and implementation

Action plans can be built up taking into account the provisions of new recommendations based on the “Diagnostic study” problems analysis. This process we describe as “Road map”, allows us to indicate which problems, how and when they will be solved.

The principal role in providing and carrying out this plan should belong to “The Strategic planning of regional collaboration”, which started during the roundtable meeting arranged by ICWC and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in April 2005 as the kick-off meeting of the project ADB RETA. The project aims to prepare a strategic vision of future strengthening CB of ICWC. Five heads of the national WMOs signed a protocol that is a decision of ICWC in which the main contents of the project was determined as follows:

“The RETA project, within its tasks regarding water-related policy development and improvement, should first of all at the regional level encompass both Syr-Darya and Amu-Darya river basins. ICWC and the regional bodies must evaluate through concerted efforts existing shortcomings and set off necessary measures. Previous activities within the framework of “Main Provisions of Water Strategy”, SPECA and GEF projects should be accepted as a basic material for this work”.

It is expected that RETA will give an incentive to programme and agreed content of future legal and institutional works described in the scheme. The first phase should produce a document 1S – as revised provisions of Regional Water Strategy that will include reassessment of the proposed structure of regional organizations. On the basis of this document proper legal work on the finalization and approval of draft agreements prepared earlier and their organization and implementation would be developed. The next step is a strategy for future improvement 2S including simplification of the structure of regional bodies to avoid duplication of their activities and mandates, a feasibility study for setting up a “Water Energy Consortium”, and inclusion of all transboundary waters under the jurisdiction of ICWC and interconnection with Hydrometservices.

This strategic work should lay the foundation for a start of preparation of “The transboundary water code”. Approval of 1L will open the door for institutional final reform “3”, as well as a ratification of the “Water code” (2b) – same as for reform “4”, including setting up of the “Water Energy Consortium”.

Strategic work needs to be developed in the direction of analysis of ongoing changes in the results and situation as well as a proper plan of development activity in information, for example especially in IWRM as the main tool for penetration of ideas to increase water productivity at all strata of the water hierarchy (3S).

The detailed measures, long-term actions and outputs from each action included in the “Road map of CB” are introduced in Table 2.

Figure 3. Road map for future development of CB ICWC

Table 2. Diagnostic study and road map on capacity development of water resources in Aral Sea Basin during the period 2000–2020

Problem	Sub-problem	Capacity needs	Measures and solutions short herm	Long term actions	Outcomes
Problem	Sub-problem	Capacity needs	Measures and solutions short herm	Long term actions	1L	2L
1.Legal and institutional aspects of CB	Regional interstate relations not clear in all	Rules of management and regulations of basin management and operation Avoiding intersector competition	1L The Agreement on water management and operation of Amudarya river Revision of the Agreement of 1998 for the Syrdarya river Creation of Water Power Consortium	2L Trans boundary Water code of Aral Sea Basin	Agreed rules of operation, management Regulation of interstate activity Providing conditions for sustainable functioning of all regional organizations and network Regulation of information activity	Ground water and return flow are managed by ICWC, including management of quality BWOs manage all rivers with special divisions in deltas Mechanism for constructions and rehabilitation on TBW Targets of water saving Conflict resolution
	Regional interstate relations not clear in all	Internationalization of regional water bodies Public participation in BWOs Diplomatic status of regional bodies	3L The Agreement about institutional strengthening of regional water bodies, information exchange	4L Second stage of institutional restructuring	3L Creation of water council of basins Internationalization of regional bodies Openness and mutual trust of states and principal stakeholders	4L Spreading institutional capacity of bwos and their scope of responsibilities Avoiding duplication and overlapping in regional organization activities
	National legal frame work should be accepted for new water policy and interrelations	Creation of policy for implementation of IWRM and public participation Legal framework of new organizational forms-WUAs, system councils	1L* New national Water Codes	2L Amendments to national water codes	15 National Plan of IWRM approved by national Law	16 IWRM approved as single legal approach in all states
			* Laws on WUAs	2L Amendments to national water codes	15 National Plan of IWRM approved by national Law	16 IWRM approved as single legal approach in all states
	Regional and national environment instability	Acceptance of environment priority Environment flow of rivers and deltas to satisfy ecological needs Transfer to management return flow Decision on salinity of waters and lands	1L The Agreement on ecological sustainability of Aral Sea Basin. Drainage programmes at the national levels	5L Preparation of legal framework for transfer to Ecologico-Water Integrated resource management (IEWRM)	1L Creation of managing bodies for the deltas of Amudarya and Syrdarya	Creation of environment water council of sub-basins Limitation of pollution on rivers Hydroecological complex of upper watershed
2. Financial aspects of CB	Difficulties of interstate financing of mutual services	Development and approval of financing rules for interstate structures and joint works Financial tool for environmental management	6 a Regulations on financial framework of interstate activity Water - power consortium establishment	6 b Payment for regulation of water in reservoirs Principle "polluter-pays"	6b Trade off interstate rights on waters	6 b Interstate Fund transform Interstate Basin Bank for regional projects.
2. Financial aspects of CB	National infrastructure does not have sustainable financing for operation, maintenance and rehabilitation	Involvement of stakeholders Government contribute stable and follow proper rules Donors' contributions	Implementation payment for water; Payment to wmos connected with productivity of water and water saving Donors project increase efficiency	State, provincial and local municipalities participates together with stakeholders in financing IWRM	Block system of payment
3. CB of BWOs	Lack of modern equipment for operation Low degree of monitoring accuracy Weak public participation	SCADA and modeling system implementation all structures Approach to monitoring net of Hydromet o All principal stakeholders in work of wmos	10 SCADA Project got full financing Connection Hydromet net through satellite	11 Interstate Groundwater and return flow include in sphere of activity BWOs	10 Rehabilitation of all monitoring section on TBW Implementation of SCADA and dispatch serving on all TBW Improvement of water management quality	11 Development of extension services and water saving BWOs managed quality of water and allocation Public Council of BWOs
4. CB on ydrometservice	Weakness of previous monitoring network Interconnections national Hydrometservices has no stability Accuracy of forecast did not satisfy water users	Rehabilitation of existent and construction of new hydrological and climate stations Rules of exchange in formation between Hydrometservices Monitoring network in glaciers and upper watershed	7 Programme of national "Hydrometservice network" support by states Regional Hydromet Center created and served ICWC and BWOs Models of watershed flow developed	8 All monitoring network completed including quality of waters Satellite system of information implemented	7 Approach to regional DB on rivers and climate for BWOs and ICWC Coordination CAREWIB and RHMC	8 Creation nieve of data from "bottom - to top" Increase degree of correctness hydrological forecast
4. CB on ydrometservice	Regional information system did not connect with national Weak information system at all levels of hierarchy	Information exchange organized on all levels and interconnected in transparent view	7 CAREWIB completed at regional levels and approached Plan development of national system approved by states	National information system created at all levels of water hierarchy Nieve data from "bottom to top"	7 Transparency and openness information to stakeholders of basin Preparation of a single approach of MIS, GIS for implementation at the national level	Preparation of a framework for assessment consequences any actions on the TBW
5. CB on ICWC	Training system required increase of capacity for education and training all staff	Sustainability Headquarter Training Center ICWC and organizing its 5 branches	9 "Training programme“ approved by states and supported by states and donors	Training serves WMOs and stakeholders	9 Self-sufficiency of HQ TC and branches Improvement of water education in colleges and universities
5. CB on ICWC		Managerial Land technical performance	15 Introduction pioneer level	16 National system guarantee of approach to potential productivity	15 Increase financial potential of WMOs Allocation of expenses between government and stakeholders; Business plan of WMOs	16 Communication network of low-level WMOs Connecting with WUAs

Implementation of this “road map” should permit:

Stabilization of interstate water management to 2010.
Creation of legal and institutional framework up to 2015.
Creation of national CB plan up to 2015.
Achievement of broad implementation of IWRM to 2015 with full overlapping of all water branches of economy to 2020–2025.
Donors and recipients are partners: both participate in the development of action plans and common methodology, and they work together in the same way.
Broad use is made of local expertise and project implementation under the control of an independent steering committee, with participation of donors. SDC, for example, authorized ICWC and BWO “Syrdarya” to contract the local company “Sigma,” which operated a SCADA system for years at a cost per gate of only $6 000 per unit (instead of the $30–40 000 expended on similar structures by other donors using their own labour and equipment).
Payment for work should be made only after its completion and after acceptance of the output by the beneficiaries.

Conclusions

CB of interstate collaboration should be assessed as the framework for successful movement to a sustainable water and environmental situation on the basin and in all riparian states.
Development of CB is the process of planning, implementation and monitoring, which follows the dynamic changes of situation and requirement and adopts planning measures to strengthen the CB possible to be in line with demands of time.
Development of CB should be a combination of CB at all levels of water hierarchy in a simultaneous combination. The CB Plan needs to be based on the penetration from top to bottom and meeting destabilizing factors of development.
The role of donors in CB is very high from the position of covering, by donors and beneficiaries, financial resources and supporting it through proper technical assistance required in practice.