91651 v2 Strengthening Analysis for Integrated Water Resources Management in Central Asia: A Road Map for Action ANNEXES Final Central Asia Energy-Water Development Program (CAEWDP) Europe and Central Asia The World Bank In partnership with: United Nations (Economic Commission for Europe); and Swiss Cooperation September 2013 Table of Contents Annex 1: Phase 1A-Summary of Preliminary Findings from the Reconnaissance Mission with National Energy and Water Stakeholder ............................................................................ 3 Annex 2: Energy Water Linkages CAREC ESCC Workshop Summary .................................. 6 Annex 3: SWOT Analysis of the Regional Technical and Institutional Capacity ............. 9 Annex 4: Summary Report on the Series of National Consultations ................................. 11 Annex 5: Summary of the Hydrology of the Aral Sea Basin: First-Generation Demonstration Model based on Open and Public Source Data........................................... 23 Annex 6: Comparative Model Analysis – Executive Summary ............................................. 24 Annex 7: Executive Summary from Knowledge-Exchange " Strengthening Analysis for Integrated and Adaptive Water Resources Management in Central Asia" ..................... 25 Annex 8: List of Stakeholders from Central Asia Governments, Institutions and Organizations Engaged in National and Regional Dialogue ................................................. 28 2 Annex 1: Phase 1A-Summary of Preliminary Findings from the Reconnaissance Mission with National Energy and Water Stakeholder Executive Summary (September, 2010) Introduction. The overall aim of the ESCC Pillar 3 energy-water linkagesi is to build regional energy and water securityii through enhanced regional cooperation and strategic investment. This initiativeiii in the Central Asia Region (Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan) has the aim of strengthening regional cooperation in energy and water resources development and management.iv The conceptual approach is to develop a decision support system (DSS) to understand the energy-water linkages. The DSS combines the relevant physical, infrastructure, economic, social and environmental data and suitable analytical tools including models,v and supports a multilevel dialogue process among key policy makers and technical specialists in the region, both at the national and regional levels. The DSSvi would be based on a transboundary approach that reflects the unique basin hydrology of the region, the large existing and potential water storage capacity in the region, the uneven distribution of energy resources and agriculture potential across the region and their demand and supply characteristics, and the development needs of all the sectors that must utilize in a sustainable manner the water resources of the region. A World Bank reconnaissance mission visited Central Asiavii from August 21 to September 21 with the objective to meet with national energy and water technical specialists and begin formulating the technical and institutional baseline for an energy and water analytical and modeling framework for Pillar 3. Meetings were held with individual national design and institutions and in some cases ministerial counterparts.viii A consistent and open approach for discussion was maintained with each counterpart. The preliminary outcomes from the discussions are summarized below. Overall objectives and direction of energy water linkages Though the countries responded to the program proposals with tempered optimism, they uniformly welcomed the initiative, and recognized that despite the numerous “initiatives” and “models” that have taken place in and for the region, none addressed the critical question of energy and water together at a broader transboundary scale. The countries agreed with goal to develop an independent, more transparent and technically acceptable integrated energy-water model as the core analytical framework on which to base a dialogue on acceptable options to resolve current and future problems. There are numerous difficulties and issues from counterparts’ perspective as explained individually and in detail to the Bank mission. Nevertheless, they suggested that the effort had to be made, and suggested the World Bank facilitate the process. ESCC’s Pillar 3 analytical and modeling approach.All national counterparts emphasized the need to build a comprehensive and transparent analytical tool and database (the basis for a DSS) upon which the countries can technically agree. The DSS should enable a clear exposition of the facts and alternatives, linkages, and tradeoffs; it should be seen to reasonably representative of the physical and economic relationships and linkages, and it should foster a high level of technical acceptance.While details of the modeling systems that might be used were not discussed at these meetings, the discussions about developing and using models indicated that a basin model that represents all the relevant energy and water linkages can and should be developed. While some advocated using models already developed, others agreed that there is significant modeling experience to build on should it be decided to build a new model. In principle, data for the model is available, but accessibility varies. However, the lack of confidence in and acceptance of some data and the numerous past efforts to model the basins was apparent. The Bank mission emphasized any approach towards defining the regional transboundary model architecture and output variables will involve national technical and political level engagement and ownership. 3 Institutional approach and capacities. From the country discussions it became increasing apparent that the joint regional institutional framework, policies and rules of the former Soviet period, adopted immediately after independence for water and energy management, are breaking down in some important collaborative and technical aspects; there appears to be a widespread view that the current institutional arrangements should be reformed and strengthened, and made more transparent and effective. The World Bank observed challenges institutionally, as to: who might implement the proposed initiative in each country, lack of clarity of individual institutional mandates, current institutional operations and expectations. A specific institutional framework has not been defined for this effort. The Bank’s approach during this reconnaissance mission was to listen to national counterparts discuss current structures, and possible future structures for bilateral and transboundary collaboration. It became evident that for any analytical and modeling effort to be effective, requires that the approach be economic and robust, and new institutional arrangements will be needed to create the confidence of all parties that the proposed solution will be effective and avoid unintended consequences. Specific issues. Some specific issues identified by national counterparts:  The rise of national aspirations and development needs, the emergence of new and distinctive political cultures, as well as the drive for energy and water self-sufficiency has led to the breakdown of regional water and energy mechanisms borrowed from Soviet times. These difficulties have promoted an increasingly inward looking rather than regional and transboundary perspective. Bilateral agreements are not respected; rules are not followed between upstream and downstream riparians, and between downstream riparians.  Though water allocation issues are in the forefront of tensions, there was greater concern expressed about extreme conditions and debilitating risks from floods, increased volatility from releases, recurring drought, and the increased frequency of these events (i.e. most recently the drought of 2008 and the summer floods in 2010).  The balance between water allocation priorities for agriculture and energy appears to be shifting, but without the means to analyze options that would ease this shift and ensure benefits and support growth in each of the region’s countries. Moreover, while considerable attention has been focused on the need to meet present and future energy demand growth, other important changes that have implications for these tradeoffs are taking place: for example, transformations are taking place in the important agriculture sector that will lead to changes in cropping systems and possibly water demand and water supply reliability requirements.  Development and effective management of storage in the upper basin appears to be an option that might resolve problems of jointly managing energy and water – and joint management would appear to be essential – where and when to build, the size and characteristics, how to operate, and who should control the management of the storage are open but vital questions; currently, there no agreement on the location and no basis to explore possible agreements, size or operating modalities for this needed storage among the downstream and upstream countries, as well as between downstream riparians.  National stakeholders noted that numerous modelsix “initiatives” and “models” have been undertaken in and for the region however, none addressed the critical question of energy and water together at a broader transboundary scale. Though these models have degrees of limited accessibility, platforms are not transparent, and data is not accessible and not comprehensive. However, the national stakeholders requested any effort, if possible, should consider appropriate and relevant models.  There were considerable discussions on data sharing among countries and the need for transparency and verification of information.  In defining and evaluating priorities, trade-offs and options, it is imperative that the widest range of practical and pragmatic options be analyzed even though they are not presently favored by all countries. 4  The World Bank consistently heard that modeling and analytics are required to have a sound economic basis and be commercially viable. No country can afford uneconomic choices that do not promote growth and contribute to the solution of national development issues and priorities in the context of regional resources; options should address core aspirations and needs in each of the basin countries, and yield significant benefits to each country rather than benefits to some at the expense of others (without fair compensation). Next Steps. National level workshops with energy and water technical specialists and policy-makers are proposed to take place in January 2010, to continue the discussions on energy water linkage, followed by regional workshop in early 2011. Endnotes i The intense interest in what is called the Region’s “energy-water nexus” stems in part from the degree to which peak demand for water for irrigation (in the summer season) is out of synch with the peak demand for energy (in the winter months), and the uneven distribution of storage and energy generation potential (mainly in the upper basin particularly Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan) and irrigated agriculture (mainly in the lower basin on the arid plains in Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan) and the dilemmas this causes for the development and operation of necessary water storages to support both of these economically vital water uses. ii In the context of ESCC Pillar 3 the the World Bank Central Asia Energy Water Development Program (CAEWDP), references to the “region” or “regional approach” are referring to the Aral Sea Basin, which includes the Amu Darya and Syr Darya basins, a nd to a basin approach, that encompasses both of these basins. The present extent of the Central Asia (CA) regional electricity grid and the load sources are also limited to these two basins with the exception of exports (central Afghanistan and Iran) and parts of northern Kazakhstan). Note that the closed Zarafshan basin, which lies between the Amu and Syr Darya rivers in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, and northern Afghanistan are a part of the “region” and the Amu Darya basin. iii ESCC Pillar 3 water energy linkages is consistent with World Bank’s CAEWDP Component 3 energy water linkages. iv Pillar 3 had its genesis in the priority actions identified and adopted at the Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation (CAREC) Energy Sector Coordination Committee (ESCC) workshop in Almaty in September 2009 in which ESCC and donor members, and representatives of the Executive Committee of the International Fund for the Aral Sea (EC-IFAS) and the Scientific Information Center of the Interstate Water Coordination Center (SIC-ICWC), participated v There have been efforts to comprehensively model the region’s water supply and demand system in the past, but these have not generally been accepted and trusted and hence have not provided the analytical platform needed to move the dialogue on regional cooperation forward. Whether by greater transparency, verification and testing of results or other mechanisms, this problem must be overcome. vi The DSS is a critical element in the approach because it serves two key purposes among others: first, to illuminate the value and tradeoffs among a wide range of strategic options including infrastructure investment; and second to inform the dialogue towards a mechanism by which the countries of the region can sustain energy and water security and economic growth. Moreover, such a DSS is an essential tool for determining vulnerabilities and risks associated with global warming (changes in temperature and precipitation) and to evaluating alternative adaptation options. vii The reconnaissance mission met with water and energy sector counterparts in: Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan; Astana and Almaty Kazakhstan; Dushanbe Tajikistan, Tashkent, Uzbekistan; and Ashgabat, Turkmenistan. One of the Bank’s consultants has extensive experience in Afghanistan and currently participated in completing a DSS system for Afghanistan water sector. viii Institutions included planning, design and research institutions for water and energy, national Hydromets, and water basin organizations (BVO) in some cases at the policy level Water and/or Energy Ministers, and Prime Ministers. ix To include and not limited to: National level GAMMS-based planning models, GEF Aral Basin (locked model), USAID TWEP- NASPI model, Syr Darya BVO, and EurAsEC water allocation and energy models of the Syr-Darya and Amu-Darya River Basin to name a few. 5 Annex 2: Energy Water Linkages CAREC ESCC Workshop Summary Energy-Water Linkages Analytical Foundations : Action Items Notes from the Workshop September 4, 2009 Almaty, Kazakhstan Introduction A workshop with representatives of EC-IFAS, SIC-ICWC, donors and the World Bank was held in Almaty on September 4, 2009. The purpose of the workshop was to identify priority actions to enhance understanding and analysis of energy and water issues. The workshop followed two previous sessions that laid the basis for needs and applications. The first of the two sessions was the meeting of the Energy Sector Coordinating Committee of CAREC, held on September 2,2009 . In that meeting the Committee approved a Central Asia Energy Action Plan. The action plan included a component on energy-water linkages, the objective of which is: To strengthen cooperation by integrating energy and water analysis. The three deliverables under this objective are: (a) strengthen Central Asian institutions to lead the dialogue and analysis on rational use of energy-water resources; (b) enhance integrated energy-water models, analytical tools and shared databases that enable assessment of options and impacts across both sectors; and (c) identify consensus projects to improve energy-water rational and effective use (e.g. irrigation and hydro-power rehabilitation and efficiency improvements). On September 3, water and energy professionals joined in a knowledge sharing session on the analytical foundations of energy-water linkages. The session included presentations from international and regional experts, and concluded with discussion on three topics: data and data sharing, modeling and analysis, and analysis for dialogue. This note documents the discussion on September 4, 2009, namely a discussion among representatives of EC- IFAS, SIC-ICWC, donors and the World Bank to identify priority actions to enhance understanding and analysis of energy and water issues. The note follows the structure of the agenda: Data and Data Sharing; Dialogue; Modeling; and Donors. It focuses on action items identified in the session. These action items will provide input to a work program for the ESCC energy action plan, IFAS ASBP3 and the World Bank’s Central Asia Energy-Water Development Program. Additional input will be provided by international experts and regional modelers and analysts, with review by the ESCC, IFAS and World Bank. Implementation of the work program will be rooted in regional institutions. It is expected that IFAS will take a leading role, collaborating with energy and other institutions to ensure technical credibility and inclusive dialogue. 6 Actions GENERAL  Undertake overview of current situation  Use/Needs analysis (water and energy)  Water productivity (energy, irrigation)  Quality assurance on existing data (on water needs/uses (e.g., are irrigation norms up to date?)  Use of own water resources (beyond Amy Darya and Syr Darya)  Include indirect effects  Incorporate Afghanistan in analytical efforts  Establish institutional arrangements  Include in models and analysis  Reach agreement between TAJ and AFH on hydromet data collection and sharing of responsibility  Establish International Panel of Advisors to assist in technical developments  Establish coordination group within IFAS (responsible to Board) to oversee analytical work (experts to build, another to test)  Develop strategy to better incorporate energy in IFAS and in analytical foundation Actions DATA AND DATA SHARING Undertake regional hydromet project  Expand surface climatology data  Strengthen data collection program (enhancement to Regional Hydromet project)  Explore opportunities to combine macro satellite data with local data for regional spatial scale analysis, ensuring resulting data provides adequate resolution for decision-makers  Reliability of streamflow data  Water quality  Additional SCADA instrumentation on the Amu Darya  Glacier monitoring  Monthly irrigation  Planning zones data  Flood plain mapping Improve data sharing  Develop standard data sharing sheet and methodology to assess projects Actions MODELING Review basic model  Assess relative usefulness of RiverTwin, GAMS, ASBmm-EC-IFAS models Establish regional specialist working groups (including energy) Develop additional modules (see over) Enhance transparency  Increase awareness and understanding of existing models among IFAS agencies (e.g., SIC presentation to EC-IFAS)  Consider establishing open models for building awareness  Increase training in regional offices 7 Additional modules/Model enhancements  Climate change impact on demand and supply/flow  Environmental demand/needs  Socio-economics (and commercial)  Needs of Aral Sea communities (e.g. potable water)  Energy  Safety of hydro facilities (including dams)  Water savings including irrigation options and hydropower options; Assessment of losses  Sedimentation  Groundwater  Dynamic balance of water  Water quality (surface and underground)  Multiple year regulation Actions DIALOGUE  Users  Range from experts + public + media to the IFAS management board to Heads of State  Input to analysis  Discuss analysis at IFAS Management Board:  Are output variables the important ones for decision-makers?  Are available models/analysis trusted and adequately understood by national and regional experts?  Allow for input from interested parties, including perspectives on trade-offs  Establish a coordination group of IFAS board to oversee analytical work (experts to build, another to test)  Transparency  Consider open models for building awareness  Training in regional offices  Link with other working groups  Decision tools  Explore application of decision tools to communicate analytical results and facilitate dialogue on trade-offs and synergies Actions DONORS  Seek support through donor conference and consultation  Match donor resources with plan  Divide short and long term investments  Use analysis to set investment priorities (but don’t prevent early wins) 8 Annex 3: SWOT Analysis of the Regional Technical and Institutional Capacity SWOT Analysis of the Institutional Capacity 1. IFAS has a renewed mandate from all 1. IFAS has a weak implementation history five presidents 2. limited progress on regional cooperation on water resources 2. It is an established institution with a management recognized forum for dialogue and 3. conflict within the IFAS / SIC-ICWC structure research 4. poor project management under ASBP 1 thus questionable value 3. A good understanding of the water and of continuing the ASBP in the current, changing water energy issues and the geopolitical management climate, with shift away from the Aral Sea itself Weaknesses problems within the two sectors role of IFAS as the organization leading ASBP 3 is perhaps no longer Strengths 5. 4. IFAS & SIC-ICWC cooperate but operate valid, thus attracting funding for ASBP 3 is more unlikely as independent organizations 6. currently, there appears to be no viable alternative to the overall 5. SIC-ICWC has sophisticated technical IFAS / SIC-ICWC structure capability 7. IFAS is a political forum for the presidents however, the long-term goal must be to depoliticize the management of water 8. perceptions that some of the regional institutions have certain interests or biases 9. information regarding operating plans and water releases from reservoirs not always shared in a timely manner 10. significant tensions exist among some of the parties engaged in the decision-making and operations processes 1. there is a need for strong leadership in 1. Importance to agree on a set of guiding principles, conventions, regional cooperation and water treaties and agreements, and develop set of policy and/or management, IFAS’s mandate needs to technical mechanisms to improve water management be revisited 2. imperative that the region have an organization which would be 2. discontinuing IFAS would require able to carry out analysis for what is best from a regional discussion and agreement at the perspective presidential level to do so, it is now a 3. the regional-game is such that cooperation is needed and will question of redefining the role of IFAS bring significant gains, while staying out of the process can be Opportunities for at least the short-term future while potentially costly Threats focusing on strengthening its capacity in 4. Investing in capacity building for water resources planning and the interim project development should be a priority and close the evident 3. Failure to coordinate could lead to capacity gap between the countries and within the regional investments based on local interests institutions that would eventually preclude a 5. capacity building approach should ideally be “learning-by-doing” coordinated regional approach;some 6. A two-phase approach (a) initially, workshops at a high-level project investments may prove wasteful would be optimal, (b) followed by technical teams from each and unnecessary in a system that could country that would mostly gather data and document practices. one day be better coordinated 7. Diffuse the influence of the two or three regional institutions by developing and strengthen “centers of excellence” in each country; a “hub-and-spoke” arrangement could also be considered. 9 SWOT Analysis of the Technical Capacity  The technical capability of SIC-ICWC and  There are data needs and maintenance needs for collection represents a very significant and platforms and gauging stations. impressive capability their modeling  There is insufficient openness and transparency for sharing capacity is quite sophisticated but that information and data. Weaknesses they have the “mentality and culture”  There is considerable work to do, especially if the data/modeling Strengths exists to actually do the work. nexus is to achieve stated objectives of the energy-water analytics.  The national technical teams are competent and knowledgeable, with a good understanding of the problems, with good analytical technical, and, modeling capabilities, with an understand the issues of data acquisition, and of data sharing.  Misperceptions on data and modeling  There is an opportunity to design a coordinated systems-approach and management operations are a to optimally allocate water resources and benefit each party, threat to cooperation in the region. investments should be opened and accessible, and to begin to  Currently irrigation seasons do not build the trust and confidence needed. coincide with peak energy demand  The overall modeling activities could be upgraded, through several  Immediate energy demands and low activities; and the models could be made more transparent and inflows have led to poor use if the inclusive, bringing other groups into the fold, and being more clear hydroelectric resources – about what is actually in the models being applied.  The greatest threat is if these sectors  The technical community should focus of technical work in the cannot be brought together to work short-term should not be “problem-solving,” but building common Opportunities towards adapting to the realities the technical platforms.  Gaming models can be very useful in such situations, because they Threats region faces.  There appears to be no sound provide a gaming platform without any built scenarios, and framework and mechanisms for therefore are as neutral as possible. Building a gaming platform carrying out trade-off analysis for also often serves as a reason for parties to engage in validating its energy and water. underlying database, which is an important objective of the  Certain parties do not have confidence ongoing process. in the extant models and analysis.  A more rigorous, Aral Sea basin-wide, model could be established, with careful inclusion of data from multiple sources, including satellites. The output would be an improved evaluation of what water is where, for what purpose; it also seems too early to engage in development of simulation models of new infrastructure. However, simulation models of existing facilities could be developed in gaming mode and may prove useful. 10 Annex 4: Summary Report on the Series of National Consultations (Executive Summary) Understanding energy-water linkages in Central Asia: Designing effective analytical tools February 22 - March 26, 2011 Introduction and progress on energy water linkages The World Bank’s Central Asia Energy Water Development Program (CAEWDP) aims to build regional energy and water security in the Aral Sea Basin (the Amu and Syr Darya Basins 1 ) through enhanced transnational/transboundary cooperation and strategic investments. CAEWDP focuses on three sectors: energy development; water productivity; and energy-water linkages. It complements Pillar 3 of Energy Action Plan of the Energy Sector Coordinating Committee (ESCC) of the Central Asia Economic Cooperation (CAREC). The objective of the energy-water linkages component is to improve the understanding of the linkages between water and energy at the national and regional levels. As part of the energy-water linkages activities, in September 2009 and 2010 the World Bank held national discussions in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan with energy and water specialists about the problems associated with the linkages between energy and water management in the basin and the need and potential for the development of a regional or basin-wide transparent analytical tool, such as a decision support system (DSS that would support an informed dialogue to secure energy and water benefits, for all countries in the basin. A DSS is an analytical tool, based on mathematical computer-based models, which are supported by an information system, to help define one or more management options for integrated water and energy resources management. The model architecture of a DSS has three fundamental elements: (i) the data, a knowledge base and information system; (ii) the tools, a set of analytical tools and mathematical models with which the data can be analyzed; and (iii) the user, an output-user interface to display the results in a form that informs and supports decision making. Through a transparent multi-sectoral engagement, an energy-water DSS (EWDSS) for the Amu Darya and Syr Darya basins is proposed to reflect individual country energy water issues as well as a broader regional context. A World Bank reconnaissance and scoping mission visited Central Asia2 from August 21 to September 21, 2010 with the objectives of meeting individually with national technical energy and water technical specialists to begin assessing the technical and institutional baseline for an energy and water analytical framework. Meetings were held with individual national technical institutions and in some cases ministerial counterparts. While recognizing the challenges and history, the countries informally endorsed the concept and encouraged the World Bank to support and facilitate the process of developing an analytical basin-wide DSS. The specialists emphasized the importance of direct national level engagement so that any DSS that is developed reflects the priorities and issues of each country. 1 The Aral Sea Basin comprises all or parts of six countries – Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. 2 Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan 11 The preliminary results of the scoping mission were reported at the ESCC workshop held in Bishkek on September 22-24, 2010. Among the key findings from the scoping mission was the need to directly involve a wide range of national experts in the design of the model architecture of a DSS; this engagement requires ownership to ensure the national characteristic and priorities are taken into consideration. All national counterparts emphasized the need to build a comprehensive and transparent analytical tool to enable a clear exposition of the facts and alternatives, linkages, and tradeoffs upon which the countries can technically agree. Past efforts to model the Central Asia water system have been attempted, but existing models have not found common agreement or widespread use. The proposed approach, of national engagement in formulating a DSS through multi-sectoral national discussions in each country, was endorsed by the ESCC representatives at the Bishkek meeting, then later presented and approved at the CAREC Senior Officials Meeting (31 October, 2011) and later at the 9th Ministerial Conference of CAREC (2 November, 2010). Energy-water linkages national discussions The energy-water national discussions, in workshop format, were held 22 February – 26 March 2011, in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic and Tajikistan, and a one-day consultation was held in Afghanistan. Discussions will be held in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan at the disposition of each Government. The number of participants ranged from 19 in Kazakhstan to 29 in Tajikistan, 37 in Kyrgyz Republic and 40 in Afghanistan. The aim of these discussions was to bring together a multi-sectoral group of national technical experts. The participants included senior officials from the energy and water ministries as well as the technical institutes associated with these ministries, other concerned ministries and agencies, independent research institutes, academia and the Academy of Sciences, and NGOs. The discussions included both young and senior professionals from diverse disciplines. The objectives of the national discussions, in the context of the key parameters of a DSS, were to (i) identify and discuss, national priorities for water and energy in terms of key issues and identify criteria for the model architecture, and (ii) to review and discuss several case studies of DSS application to different planning problems. An additional day was designated for hands-on training on a hypothetical DSS developed by the World Bank Institute (Basin IT). It is important to note that these discussions were informal discussions with national technical energy and water experts, NGOs and civil society, and in no way reflected the official position of the Governments. National consultation agenda The typical two-day consultation agenda is shown in Annex A. There were three key sessions: Session 1 provides essential background on CAEWDP and ESCC Energy Action Plan and discusses the objectives and structure of the sessions; Sessions 2, deals with priority energy and water issues; and Session 5, focused on identifying criteria to define priority issues. The format of the key sessions included a brief introduction, small sub-group discussions (the participants were generally divided into three groups) followed by a plenary discussion. Supporting sessions included: Session 3 presented the World Bank Institute’s BASIN IT, on a demonstration DSS designed as a training tool to better understand trade-offs in water resources management; Session 4 reviewed the results of a survey of existing energy and water models in the region, and reviewed two case studies of DSS application in Afghanistan and Canada. The consultation concluded with a discussion of possible institutional interfaces, and a session of possible next steps based on a proposal by the World Bank team. 12 Main outcomes of the national discussions The outcomes from the national discussions were insightful and true to the individual national concerns and issues. There there was a remarkable common thread of issues and concerns related to water and energy, as there were unique differences among the countries. A synthesis of the small-group and plenary discussions is presented in the Table 1 below. Table 1highlights these key outcomes in terms of the national priority issues and criteria, the indicators to measure these issues. Annex B includes the corresponding complete table of issues, criteria and metrics developed by the small-groups at each of the national discussions. Despite the unique differences among the countries, there is a surprisingly high level of agreement among the countries about what issues are important and the criteria by which objectives are defined and alternatives are measured. The emphasis shifts slightly from country to country; for example while both Kyrgyz Republic and Tajikistan are concerned about the availability of winter energy and both are also concerned about total energy production, Tajikistan is also focused on exports. Afghanistan’s concerns are typical of a country in which the electricity system is totally inadequate and every aspect has to be improved including achieving production levels sufficient to achieve self-sufficiency. All the countries prioritize food security and achieving higher agricultural production and productivity, and priorities in domestic and industrial water supply are also very similar. Priority concern for the environment is present in all countries but it takes on a different dimension depending on the overriding issues. In Kazakhstan it is sustaining the restoration of the Northern Aral Sea; in Kyrgyz Republic it is protecting its waterways and reservoirs from accidental outflows from toxic tailings ponds; and in Tajikistan it is monitoring and protecting the glaciers that are the main source of water for the region. There is also another set of issues (the last two rows of the table below) that on the surface seem distinct with each country, but would likely be found to be more common among the countries after more detailed discussion. For example, Afghanistan’s focus on employment (jobs), poverty reduction and GDP and economic growth would no doubt be considered a high priority in several other countries of the region as the possible linkages between these development indicators and water and energy development are more clearly articulated. It is recognized that these outcomes from these national discussions are partial and a high priority is put on expanding the outcomes to include perspectives from Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. These two countries are critical downstream riparian and are likely to express needs and priorities within their own national context. 13 Table 1: Preliminary Identification and Comparison of National Issues, Objectives and Criteria Support Developing a DSS for the Amu and Syr Darya It is important to note that these discussions were informal discussions with national technical energy and water experts, NGOs and civil society, and in no way reflects the official position of the government Kazakhstan Kyrgyz Republic Tajikistan Afghanistan Turkmenistan Uzbekistan Restoration of northern Water quality risks Ecosystems Environment Discussions will be held at Discussions will be held at a Aral Sea  Glaciers a later date later date  Maintenance of water  Deforestation levels,  Natural reserves  Maintenance of water quality Energy Energy Energy  Production  Exports  Production  Distribution (especially in  Winter energy security  Reliability winter)  Security of hydro facilities  Access  Self-sufficiency & security Domestic Water Supply Domestic Water Supply Domestic Water Supply Domestic water supply and  Safe  Safe  Compliance with sanitation  Available  Available sanitary norms  Improved access and  Access  Access  Quality & access coverage  MDGs  Safe supply  Improved sanitation Agriculture Agriculture Food security Agriculture & husbandry  Food security  Food security,  Rehabilitation and  Food security  Agriculture production  Agricultural productivity upgrading of irrigation  Production  Fisheries and production systems  Reduced agriculture  Farm-household income  Expansion of irrigated  Conserving and improving imports agriculture land quality  Livestock  Soil quality  Fisheries Mgmt. of energy and Flooding and water logging Other Economic Growth water in a well functioning  Climate change  Poverty reduction legal framework  Water tourism  Household income  Joint monitoring of water  Employment resources  GDP growth  Stability Water security Cost and revenues for Security  Improved agriculture operation and maintenance  Social water use and efficiency of water infrastructure  Economic 14 From the discussion on future engagement, national participants acknowledged that a national technical team, specialists in modeling and appropriate energy, water, agriculture and environment sectors, should be formed. In all countries, the participants stipulated that any technical working group requires the involvement and support of senior government officials. Each country acknowledged the value of a regional entity, such as the proposed Modeling and Decision Support Technical Sub‐Committee, with the purpose to advise on and recommend refinements to energy‐water DSS. However, it was agreed that the specifics on such a sub-committee would be discussed further as the national advisory groups were formulated and secured. The World Bank team acknowledged the national participants stipulations and confirmed future engagement in this activity would continue to inform the senior national government officials. Other key messages from the discussions The countries generally reiterated their key message from the August-September, 2010 scoping meetings; namely that a new effort is needed to understand water and energy in the basins, and the need to develop transparent analytical tool, a DSS for the basins was also very important and they welcomed the proposed initiative. The DSS, in design and accessibility, should enable the countries to obtain a greater understanding of energy-water linkages and it should be used to support a new dialogue among the countries. The participants voiced the same caveat as before; that despite many past efforts common ground has so far eluded them and dialogue has not been successful, but they suggested that if the World Bank were provide the leadership for this effort they would support it. But they noted that although past efforts to develop models of the Aral Sea Basin (the Syr Darya and Amu Darya basins) were technically successful in many respects, however, the all important political process must underpin and support the process to develop and effectively use such models. Several countries noted the importance of building confidence and trust among the countries and in the technical analytical work and resulting models. They proposed that one way of doing this would be to launch joint monitoring of water flows in key locations; another is to address the issues concerning timely data sharing and collaboration in strengthening hydro-met services and data quality, particularly stream flow forecasting; and a third proposal was to have additional training and workshops on the principles of DSS. There was considerable interest among technical participants in the development of a regional DSS and a belief that such an effort could be successful, there is a definite need and the timing is right. They noted several efforts completed in 2002 and 2003 and the ongoing Swiss supported effort to SIC-ICWC; and World suggested that these models would provide a good starting point and basis for developing a new updated and upgraded DSS, and that those programs provide some important lessons that would help the Bank initiative to be successful. While the DSS case studies were greatly appreciated, it was pointed out that the direct transfer of models used elsewhere has rarely been successful in the Central Asia region. Any CAEWDP DSS needs to be developed in the region jointly by national technical specialists (using to the maximum practical extent existing models and DSS) and it needs to reflect the unique characteristics of the natural hydrologic and geographic systems, the development history and status of the region, traditional water use practices, and the challenges the countries face in the coming years. The participants in each consultation stressed the importance of the political dimension of water and energy management in the Central Asia region. While it is necessary to take considerable care to get the technical aspect correct, it is even more important to ensure that political decisions makers agree to the overall process and are kept informed of progress. One problem is that political attention to water issues often waxes and wanes according to the abundance of water. The highly variable hydrology of the region suggests those droughts are frequent, so that even if period of abundance one should be looking ahead to what might happen if a severe drought should occur. This situation is very typical of those for which a DSS is most suitable and most important. 15 Differing or unique issues Recognizing the commonalities is valuable, but the CAEWDP cannot ignore or discount the very major difference among the countries concerning the primary objective of water and energy management in the region. In the Soviet era it was possible to impose a single overriding objective on the region to maximize the downstream development of irrigated agriculture in the vegetative season. All infrastructures was built and operated to sustain this objective with other objectives such as energy production being secondary. Since independence in 1992, the Central Asia has become five independent sovereign states with different political systems and social and economic aspirations and goals. In this new context, priorities among varying Key issues shift to satisfy individual national demands in ways that make it difficult to meet the water regimes required by other riparians whose priorities are different. This is particularly true in the context of upstream and downstream riparian interests and priorities. Proposed energy water linkages discussions with Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, the two downstream riparian countries are currently pending, would individually benefit these countries in identifying their national issues and priorities, as seen by the discussions with the other countries to date, and would be an indelible value to the individual downstream riparians and the basin as a whole. It is important to highlight some unique attributes from the discussions. In Kazakhstan a DSS was piloted for the Nura-Ishim basin, indicating that DSS efforts have been initiated in the region. The Committee of Water Resources, has within its institution the Center for Water Resources Analysis for Kazakhstan, established to provide a focal point for future water resources modeling in Kazakhstan. In the Kyrgyz Republic discussions, there was considerable engagement from the environmental and social NGO community. Civil society’s engagement in the process provided a welcomed perspective of the impact of existing practices have on the community and the benefits improved resource management could have on community livelihoods. All national discussions included young professional staff, in Tajikistan however, the participation of the young professionals were fully supported by senior Government officials, resulting in a large cadre of young energy and water professional who participated in the discussions, the government. At the request of the Central Asia countries it is vital to engage Afghanistan in this process, as a key upstream riparian where Panj and Vaksh rivers join to form the Amu Darya; Afghanistan too expressed the need to be an equal player. There was an expressed willingness by the Water Ministry to begin bilateral cooperation of water monitoring with neighboring riparians. World Bank Observations The World Bank is extremely grateful and thanks all participants and supporting organizations for their time, wisdom, sincerity, and forthrightness. The World Bank offers the following observations based on the discussions across all four discussions. 1. The World Bank agrees with the conclusion, consistently expressed, that there is a need for a commonly agreed upon, transparent and rigorous analytical foundation for energy and water, and that such a DSS is an appropriate tool needed for informed dialogue on managing energy and water resources in CA. 2. The World Bank emphasizes that the need for commonly agreed analysis of energy and water issues will accelerate as: (i) climate change imposes more hydrologic variability; (ii) population and economic growth put additional stress on water use; and (iii) individual countries seek to invest in water infrastructure to address national goals. Furthermore, while current events draw attention to specific transnational/transboundary difficulties, discussions revealed that cross-border management issues are spread throughout CA. In short, the importance of understanding the limits and opportunities in the energy-water system – and consequence for economic security -- will grow. 16 3. There exists a strong technical basis for an updated energy-water decision support system:  The discussions, discussions and associated investigations revealed a number of existing models on which to build or adapt the proposed DSS. Some of these models were originally constructed to assess the entire region; but national efforts may also provide helpful components.  The commonality of issues and concerns, as reflected in the criteria, provide a basic structure for a DSS that will ensure each country’s aspirations are reflected, and can be analyzed, while establishing a regional network of concerns. 4. There is an important opportunity to secure and update human resources for energy-water analysis:  First, a strong cadre of senior experienced technical specialists can contribute on-the-ground experience and insights on past modeling efforts; equally important, the discussions revealed a younger cadre of interested professionals. Work on a DSS could bring these groups together and ensure wisdom of past years is effectively integrated into a technological future.  Secondly, the discussions brought together professionals who work on similar issues but had had little opportunity to share perspectives and knowledge providing a valued opportunity to discuss. Common to many countries specialists working in either energy or water issues, this collaboration is an important product of the DSS task, with national as well as regional benefits. 5. The lack of discussions in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan presents a gap. Although considerable understanding of the scope and criteria for an energy-water DSS can be gained from previous modeling and data efforts, and discussions, additional effort is needed to engage the two downstream riparians. 6. Additional discussions with senior government officials and policy makers in each country are also needed to determine their needs and interest in strengthening the analytical basis for informed policy- making and regional dialogue. These needs and interests will guide the existing strong technical base and dispel existing fears that good analytics will “gather dusk on the shelf”. Next Steps (1) At the request of the Government, the Bank will support a series of workshops in Afghanistan to help the country become better prepared for transboundary dialogue with its Central Asia neighbors. (2) The World Bank looks forward to engaging in consultations in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan at the disposition of the individual Governments. (3) The World Bank will continue an in-depth evaluation of existing basin models in preparation for a regional workshop. (4) The World Bank will facilitate a regional workshop to complete the Phase 1 energy-water linkages program. The workshop is tentatively scheduled for early September 2011 and would bring together national technical teams from the six countries to explore options for developing a framework for the regional DSS then discussed at the national level with a technical specialists and senior government officials. 17 CAEWDP Phase I National Discussions Typical Two-Day Agenda Time Program Purpose DAY 1: Introduction and Framework  Present activities leading up to the national discussions 10:00 Session 1: Introduction to national  Outline objectives of national discussions 11:30 discussions, participants and agenda  Introduction of participants; review of agenda Coffee/tea  Participants discuss what, in their view, are the key present 12:00 Session 2: National energy and water and future (longer term, say 20 years) issues for water and 13:00 issues discussion (Part 1) energy management Catered lunch 13:45 Session 2: National energy and water  Continuation of Session 2 15:00 issues discussion (Part 2) Coffee/tea  Discuss hypothetical basin demonstration model illustrating 15:00 Session 3:World Bank BASIN IT elements of a decision support system 17:00  Identify challenges to analyzing energy and water issues 17:00 Session 4a: A quick review of the Kabul 18:00 River Basin DSS DAY 2: Towards a Decision Support System &Future Engagement 10:00 Session 4: Overview of national model  Presentation of the findings from national model inventory 10:30 inventory undertaken in January 2011 by World Bank consultant Session 4b: Water use planning in  Two cases studies of how a DSS was applied for either 11:00 Western Canada water resources (Canada) or investment planning (Kabul 11:30 Session 4c: Kabul River Basin DSS Basin) Coffee/tea Session 5: Towards a energy water  Discussion on criteria and performance measures (output 12:00 decision support system variables), system features; and policy options for a decision 13:30 support system Catered lunch 15:00  Examples of user interface Session 6: User interface 16:00  Who are the national users?  What did we hear? 17:00 Session 7: Future engagement  How are we going to proceed at the national and regional 18:00 levels? Wrap Up 18 Kazakhstan Key Issues, Criteria and Metrics It is important to note that these discussions were informal discussions with national technical energy and water experts, NGOs and civil society, and in no way reflects the official position of the Government Key Issues Criteria Metric  Water flow into delta  m /s (varies monthly) 3 Restoration of northern Aral Sea and Syr Darya Delta  Water level of sea  elevation (meters above sea level)  Water quality - average salinity of  g/l sea  Delta ecosystem condition:  Delta forest extent and  Area (ha) health  Tree and fauna composition index  Fluctuation of delta lakes  Area (ha)  Aral Sea regional population  Population change (migration) Drinking Water Supply – safe,  Chemical and biological  mg/l and others available, access standards  Volume of water available  3 m /day Rural livelihoods  Household income  Tenge/month, year  Livelihood security and diversity  Livelihood vulnerability index  Socio-economic indicators:  ... incidence of water borne disease Agriculture - food security,  Agric productivity  tons/ha agriculture production, fisheries,  Food security  Reduction in food vulnerable livestock population (%) in critical rayons  Fisheries  Fish harvest  tons/month, year  Value of fish harvest  Tenge  Specie composition  Index  Livestock  Pasture condition  Index  Value added  Tenge  Winter feed availability  Tons/ 100 head equivalent Water security – improved  Water productivity  Tenge/MCM agriculture water use and efficiency  Water use efficiency  % 19 Kyrgyz Republic Key Issues, Criteria, and Metrics It is important to note that these discussions were informal discussions with national technical energy and water experts, NGOs and civil society, and in no way reflects the official position of the Government Key Issues Criteria Metric Water quality risks  Compliance with GOST (Government Standards)  Maximum Permissible  Vulnerability Concentration (MPC)  Index; number of people Energy production and  Consumer demand  Kwh distribution  Generation  Mw  Profitability  Net revenues  Reliability  #number of outages/year; percent of demand unserved  Damage due to construction of energy facilities  Kyrgyz Som (KGS) (loss of land, flooding)  Extent and depth  2 Flooding and water Area (km ); risk maps logging  Depth of groundwater level  Meters  Area of shallow groundwater  2 Km  People affected  #number of people  Material damages  KGS Drinking water supply –  Compliance with GOST - Government Std.  % from Maximum Permissible safe, available, access Concentration (MPC)   3 Consumption per capita m /day  Amount of consumption relative to production  %  Accessibility  % of population Food security  Gross agricultural production  Kg/person  Social: improved standard of living  KGS  Environmental: ensured environmentally clean  Quality of product/ton product Agriculture – agriculture  increased area of irrigated lands and improved  Area (ha); yield (tons/ha) productivity and performance production, and  Maximize productivity of irrigated areas under  Output (tons, net value added) per 3 expansion of irrigated specified volumes of water m or MCM  Minimum discharge (seepage) of irrigation  m /ha; MCM 3 agriculture water to groundwater  Utilization of modern or advanced technology  KGS (technology supported by for irrigated agriculture science)  Minimum use of water per unit of produce  m /ton or ha 3  Social: Access to water  m /ha 3  Water supply reliability  % of time supply equals or exceeds requirements  Environmental & economic: area of river run-off  km 2 Maintenance and operation of (area of glaciers) infrastructure and  Social: Resettlement, compensation fees due to  KGS/capita facilities flooding of fertile lands from construction of new facilities 20 Tajikistan Key Issues, Criteria and Metrics It is important to note that these discussions were informal discussions with national technical energy and water experts, NGOs and civil society, and in no way reflects the official position of the Government Key Issues Criteria Metric Energy  Exports  Production;  Billion KWh (GWh)  Winter energy security  Volume of exported energy;  Billion KWh (GWh); Value in million  Security of hydro facilities  Access for all category of consumers TJS  Availability of electivity  % of population with access to  Affordable electricity; electricity  Reliable supply of electivity  Capacity as % of peak demand;  Average TJS/KWh  Number of outages per (day, week, month) by season; Food security  Availability of food staples  Cost of consumer basket of food  Rehabilitation and upgrading of irrigation  Ha systems Land quality  Status of productivity of land  ha Drinking water  Compliance with sanitary norms- GOST  Standard measure (typically mg/l) (state standardization system)  Quality & access  l/person/day  MDGs  % of population with access to safe water supply   Area (km ), Size(km ); Melt flow 2 3 Ecosystems Changes in glacier; 3  Glaciers  Forest area; (m /s);  Deforestation  Ha or km ; 2  Forest specie composition;  Natural reserves  Condition, maintenance, preservation  Index;  Area (ha or km ); metrics designed 2 (including wetlands) according to the character and features of the area. Other  Temperature and rainfall trends;  Change in mean temperature (ºC; %);  Climate change rainfall volume (mm; %); change in 3  Water tourism glacial melt (m /s, MCM)  Joint monitoring of water  Snow depth and water content trends  m; ml/m resources  Number of tourists and touristic routes  Persons\month, season or year, (tours) number of tours 21 Afghanistan Key Issues, Criteria, and Metrics It is important to note that these discussions were informal discussions with national technical energy and water experts, NGOs and civil society, and in no way reflects the official position of the Government Key Issues Criteria Metric Standard of living &  Poverty reduction  Percent of population below poverty line (%) rural livelihood  Household income  Increased net farm-household income (Afs/yr) Economic Growth  Employment  Number of Jobs created (directly and indirectly (?) from water  GDP growth energy investments)  Stability  Total net economic benefit (from water and energy investment) (Afs/yr)  Growth of agriculture GDP (%)  Agri-business expansion ( # of SMEs in rural areas, annual turn-over in Afs/yr)) Domestic water  Improved access  Percent of population with access to safe water supply supply and and coverage  Protection of groundwater recharge zones sanitation  Percent of households with access to improved sanitation facilities  Safe supply  Improved sanitation Energy  Production  KWh produced (annually, winter season)  Reliability  Reduction in outages (#, % of time)  Access (coverage of  Percent of population with access to affordable electricity distribution system)  National production capacity exceeds national electricity demand  Self-sufficiency (with adequate reserves)  Security  Index (to be developed) Agriculture &  Food security  Reduction in # of districts with WFP IPC rating of moderate or husbandry greater risk  Production  Increase in volume of production of selected crop groups  Reduced agriculture (tons/year; spatial variations) imports  Increase in value added of agriculture production (Afs/yr)  Livestock  Change in food import volume (tons or Afs)  Fisheries  Improved watershed and pasture lands (ha, yield)  Annual fish catch (tons by survey) 22 Annex 5: Summary of the Hydrology of the Aral Sea Basin: First-Generation Demonstration Model based on Open and Public Source Data River Systems Research Group School of Oceanography University of Washington (Executive Summary - May 10, 2012) As part of the World Bank’s Central Asia Energy Water Development Program (CAEWDP), a first generation “demonstration” computer/information system model was developed, based solely on public domain platforms. The model would simulate and visualize water and water-energy linkages in the Amu Darya and Syr Darya river systems, with a purpose to provoke a dialogue and discussion with regional and national technical stakeholders. The model and its data sources and output variables would constitute the computational engine of an evolving Decision Support System (DSS). The modeling effort work draws on the emergence of a new generation of Earth System Science, based on the rapidly evolving capabilities for addressing global change issues through the use of satellites, new generations of dynamic, open and publically accessible computer models, and a thinking and practice of integrated systems. To keep track of the multiple information layers involved, and to provide the foundation for the DSS, a Dynamic Information Framework for the Aral Basin (AralDIF) was initiated, using recent advances in cyberinformatics. The core hydrology model (the computation engine of the DSS) is provided by the Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) model, a semi-distributed grid-based mesoscale to macroscale hydrologic model which represents explicitly the effects of vegetation, topography, and soils on the exchange of moisture and solar energy between land and atmosphere. To represent reservoirs, a submodel based on an optimization algorithm was coupled to VIC output. The submodel can handle both hydropower and irrigation, but the application here focused initially only on hydropower. Multiple types of information were acquired (primarily from global datasets based on satellite and climate model products) to support the model, including static data on basin properties (topography, soils, vegetation), dynamic climate forcing data, observed discharge, locations and properties of dams, and satellite data on changes in total water storage in the basins. Again, a very important condition for this work is that these data be derived only from public-domain data. Following calibration and validation of VIC at stations in the Amu Darya and Syr Darya basins, a time series of historical daily flows was computed (and animated). From the daily values, average seasonal flux patterns (1950-2006) were computed, and then the basins’ annual mean was computed, and partitioned by country. Results were consistent with literature values. Reservoir modeling showed how dams affect flow patterns. Climate scenarios from GCMs were analyzed, showing how precipitation, ET, and runoff might evolve. Results from the models were then compiled into an analysis of the changes in total water storage in the two basins, comparing results from the VIC modeling to results from the GRACE satellite. Overall results were incorporated into the prototype AralDIF. Though still a prototype model with preliminary results, the utilization of multi-source publically available datasets digested through the VIC modeling environment produced a considerably enhanced view of how the water resources of the Aral basin are partitioned. It is fair to conclude that the power of publically-available data and the capabilities to analyze such data provides not only fundamental new understanding of the complexities of the Aral basin, but new tools and systems of considerable power, in support of decisions on the water and energy resources of the region. More broadly, the value and key aspects to the AralDIF is that the synthesis of various public domain models are geospatially-explicit, meaning that they recognize the spatial heterogeneity of the watershed; they are scalable, not bound to explicit boundaries, in that that the can address the entire Aral Sea basin, or can be used at the national-level and sub-basin level. They are developed from public domain platforms, and are developed and supported through public funds, with no distribution restrictions, copyrights or patents apply. 23 Annex 6: Comparative Model Analysis – Executive Summary Central Asia’s Aral Sea basin consists of two major rivers, the Amu Darya and Syr Darya, both of which increasingly are subject to water stress. This increased pressure affects energy-water linkages play a central role in the future in terms of economic development, poverty alleviation, food security, public expenditures and cooperative relations. The World Bank initiated the “Central Asia Energy and Water Development Program,” a comprehensive multi-phase and multi-sectoral long-term technical assistance program, designed to strengthen mutually beneficial regional cooperation to build energy and water security in all countries of Central Asia. The program’s energy-water linkages component, which is also part of the Energy Action Plan of the Energy Sector Coordinating Committee of CAREC3, aims to better inform water resources management and build a base for dialogue among the countries sharing the basin through enhanced analytics and decision support. During the past 20 years, considerable effort has been dedicated to constructing models and analysis of basin-level water allocation; however, few models are used and even fewer are accepted across all countries. Taking into account the request from national technical counterparts to build on existing analytical tools/models (rather than build a new model), a comparative analysis was undertaken of key existing water- resource models prepared for Central Asia. The objective of the comparative analysis is to build awareness of these existing models and distill their features – model structure, similarities and differences – to assist specialists in identifying the most effective and highest priority developments for strengthening analysis for integrated water resources management at the national and regional levels. From an inventory of existing national and basin models, nine models were selected for the comparative analysis. To broaden the scope of the analysis, a series of general public-domain models, not specific to Central Asia but commonly used for water modeling, were included as well (as the tenth model). Each model was described against a set of 18 descriptors, with the purpose to view the individual features of the models through discrete lenses. In order to capture key features of these models and to present a succinct review, the outcomes from the individual model reviews were transposed to a “Synthesis Matrix” after which the models were described against eight of the 18 descriptors. The analysis of the individual model reviews together with the Synthesis Matrix exhibited a series of trends and characteristics -- common features, model strengths and range of opportunities for expansion -- while also identifying model limitations. In short, the analysis explores the databases and modeling tools used to address the inherent complex systems with many interdependent components in the river basins. The review does not recommend a single model, rather seeks to identify choices and options. Furthermore, it is also important to consider the regional coordination/dialogue needed on common cross-country interests, specifically: flood forecasting and early-warning systems, flood management and prevention, climate change, and adequate environmental flows. By stimulating discussion on the most relevant features of existing models and on the ways which existing models, as well as their modules/features, can be used for establishing a strategic framework for an integrated water-resources, the review will help define common modeling and analytical needs to support Central Asian countries strengthen water resources management. 3 Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation program 24 Annex 7: Executive Summary from Knowledge-Exchange " Strengthening Analysis for Integrated and Adaptive Water Resources Management in Central Asia" (July 4-6, 2012) Challenge of water resources management. The six countries of Central Asia depend on the water resources of the Syr Darya and Amu Darya river basins, the two basins of the Aral Sea, and the stock of infrastructure built around these resources. Challenges from growing demands on limited resources, population pressures, and impacts from a changing climate, place increasing importance on effective and efficient resource management as these countries pursue sovereign development priorities and aspire for both water and energy security Effective resource management requires a modern knowledge base that takes full advantage of existing systems and capacity in the region, while maximizing the appropriate application of emerging technologies and analytical tools, including open source platforms and models that transform data into accessible information. Workshop to exchange knowledge. The World Bank and its partners, Swiss Development Corporation (SDC) and UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), hosted a knowledge-exchange workshop, “Strengthening Analysis for Integrated and Adaptive Water Resources Management in Central Asia”, July 4-6, 2012 in Almaty, Kazakhstan. The workshop builds on two years of national engagement and consultations with Central Asia riparians, which assessed the challenges and opportunities to improve the quality and transparency of analysis and decisions for water resource management. These consultations indicated that the data systems are neither transparent nor reliable, and data sharing is difficult. Technical counterparts recognize that recent advances and innovations in water resource management both in the Basin and internationally can improve the understanding and management of resources and so support an informed dialogue to secure energy and water benefits, for all countries in the two basins. Workshop objective and outcome. The objective of the workshop was to build on individual national level efforts and, through a multi-national and multi-sectoral format, define a way forward for strengthening analysis for integrated and adaptive water resources management in Central Asia. The 34 national delegates from all six countries of Central Asia, with support from 40 international experts and development partners, were diverse in sectoral expertise, gender, and included technical representatives and policymakers. The key workshop outcome is the delegates’ intent to approach the challenges of water resource management differently. Structured within a preliminary road map, with actions and activities to strengthen analysis for integrated water resources management in a decision support system, this approach takes into consideration national sovereign issues, while tackling the issues of common basin-wide concern. Workshop agenda - data, modeling, analysis, institutions, and capacity building. The workshop agenda had four main themes: data, modeling (and analysis), institutions and capacity building. The national delegates explored current approaches and emerging analytical tools, including a range of available data and information sources, modeling platforms, the importance of the information interface and opportunities available to further develop individual and national capacity. The data and information management session demonstrated the value of standardized, internationally accepted exchange standards while integrating open source ‘top-down’ with locally-sourced ‘bottom-up’ data. The modeling session reviewed the level of effort undertaken in the two basins, and presented the outcomes from national consultations and the comparative model review of existing models for the basins. It demonstrated opportunities emerging from new modeling technologies and software, including applications in transboundary river basins. An overview of the current institutional structure in Central Asia provided recommendations for a more effective legal framework and transparent institutions to build cross-border trust regarding data exchange. The national delegates provided their personal priorities (through questionnaires) and discussed common needs capacity development in the context of integrated water resources management. 25 Appropriate tools for the two basins. Feedback from the modelers-roundtable on existing models in the Basin confirmed that not just one model is adequate for addressing the complexity of water issues: a; instead of talking about “the model”, a modeling framework or system of models is preferable. A regional system of models, from which it is possible to “drill down” to sub-catchment and local scales, could be developed for informed decision making across a range of issues to improve outcomes and livelihoods for individuals. The delegates expressed an interest in familiarizing themselves with existing models and model approaches. They confirmed there are a few newer models that are worth exploring in more detail (e.g. ASBmm, BEAM, AralDIF) but they also acknowledged it is important to keep an open mind and explore different modeling opportunities and agreed that the knowledge base and modeling tools, developed by the Aral riparians and development partners over the years could be supplemented/complemented by new technologies, and approaches. Strategic approach to address common concerns. The participants discussed key priorities of common concern across the basins that would benefits from focused analysis. These included storage management; need for water use efficiency and conservation technologies; sustainability of water ecosystems; rehabilitation and restoration of water infrastructure; balancing hydropower and irrigation; increased flood risks and drought management and other risks from a changing climate. Focusing on these common concerns can catalyze the development of the appropriate analytical tools that building national perspectives and support operational decision-making. Pulling it all together - a road map to strengthen analysis for water management. A synthesis of key messages of the workshop discussions indicates concurrence on a need to do things differently, articulated by a set of agreed principles and priority activities. Eight fundamental principles emerged from workshop discussions and agreed upon by the delegates: Principles of Proposed Roadmap Cooperation 1. Balance of regional and national ownership in all six countries 2. Emphasis on national and regional consultation Knowledge outputs 3. Basin modeling addresses regional and national priorities and constraints 4. Presentation of information/outputs in a user-friendly accessible format Open Source 5. Emphasis on open source data, information products and models placed in the public domain 6. “Top down” and “bottom up” data appropriately integrated Capacity and 7. Existing human and technical resource combined with emerging technology Institutions 8. Institutional and financial sustainability The principles guide a three-year (2013-2015) “road map” of priority actions and activities at both regional and national levels. National level activities will be discussed with each country. The workshop focused on a regional roadmap covering: 1) Improving data and information management and exchange: Augment the continuing hydromet modernization projects, by constructing a web-based data portal, improving data flows (e.g., elimination of g breakpoints), digitizing and modernizing data storage, and integrating “top-down and bottom-up” data; 2) Building a system of models: At the basin level, familiarize technical and policy specialists with different models and sectoral modules to identify a range of modeling approaches and, if appropriate, jointly prepare a Terms of Reference to upgrade or build effective models systems for basin analysis. In addition, the focus on developing tools to address immediate, common, operational issues including flooding and disaster risk management, water conservation and preservation, and water quality and, with a longer term perspective, climate change; 26 3) Strengthening capacity: Expand technical awareness and capacity for data and information management systems and modeling, as well as specific issues of water conservation, climate change and disaster risk management through seminars, workshops, institutional exchanges and individualized training; and build a professional cadre, and 4) Enhancing governance and the coordination process: IFAS offers an existing organization that could provide a base for analysis if support for IFAS reforms aligned with the principles articulate in the workshop, supplemented by the opportunity to engage beyond government staff to establish regional knowledge hubs. Ownership and consultations. The delegates underscored that their participation in the regional workshop had the support of policy makers; however, they noted that opinions at political decision-making level should be acknowledged/included in the early technical stages to inform and foster ownership of the way forward. The delegates underscored the importance for each of them to share workshop outcomes and seek the concurrence of decision makers within their country. The role of civil society was noted. IFAS role. Delegates agreed that IFAS could play a key role, possibly with EC IFAS as coordinator of the roadmap development and implementation as elements of the work program complement and are compatible with the ASBP3. Continued work on the institutional and legal strengthening of IFAS would support this role. Feedback from participants: At the closing session of the workshop, participants were asked several questions to evaluate the workshop. A strong majority of participants felt the workshop was very useful and offered new insights and knowledge. Of particular note, more than 80 percent were optimistic about working with their riparian neighbors’ in future on water resources management issues and there was a request to further development the roadmap. Next steps for the road map. The road map is proposed to be a three-year window (2012-2015) on a basin- wide program. Delegates agreed that the preliminary roadmap was a reasonable starting point but that it needs further development, with early actions and national consultations beginning in the fall 2012 The delegations greatly appreciated the efforts of the World Bank, SDC and UNECE and the donor community for their support in promoting and maintaining a dialogue on integrated water resources management in the countries of the Aral Sea basin. The World Bank thanks the Governments of Switzerland and United Kingdom for their financial support through the Central Asia Energy-Water Development Program Multi-Donor Trust Fund, and the institutional guidance of the Executive Committee of IFAS (EC IFAS) and CAREC Energy Sector Coordinating Committee (ESCC). Acknowledgements This workshop and effort in its preparation would not have been possible without the support of many people. The World Bank would like to thank our donor partners, SDC and UNECE, for their contribution to workshop preparation and contribution to this report. Collectively the World Bank and its partners would like to acknowledge the support and engagement of all riparian counterparts, and the support of IFAS, and guidance from the EC-IFAS chairperson SaghitIbatullin. Additionally, the World Bank would like to thank USAID for their support of BEAM model architects. 27 Annex 8: List of Stakeholders from Central Asia Governments, Institutions and Organizations Engaged in National and Regional Dialogue September 2009 – July 2012 Annex 8 is a list of stakeholders Central Asia government, institutions, and organizations who engaged in the national and regional dialogue on integrated water resources management throughout the diagnostic phase. The list is a compilation of well over 200 national and regional participants at the various IWRM knowledge and capacity strengthening events. September 4, 2009 CAREC ESCC Water Energy Linkages Workshop EC IFAS (Executive Committee of the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea) 1. Mr. Saghit Ibatullin- chairman of the EC IFAS 2. Mr. Demessin Nurmaganbetov, Deputy Chairman of the EC IFAS 3. Mr. Murat Bekniyazov- special representative, member of the EC IFAS from Republic of Kazakhstan 4. Mr. Marat Narbayev- special representative, member of the EC IFAS from Republic of Kazakhstan 5. Mr. Khayrullo Ibodzoda - special representative, member of the EC IFAS from Republic of Tajikistan 6. Mr. Mavlon Kazakov-special representative, member of the EC IFAS from Republic of Tajikistan 7. Mr. Kurbangeldy Ballyev - special representative, member of the EC IFAS from Turkmenistan 8. Mr. Normukhammad Sheraliyev- special representative, member of the EC IFAS from Republic of Uzbekistan Regional Center for Hydrology 9. Ms. Svetlana Shyvareva, Director, Department for Methods of Prognosis and Ecological Research, KazHydromet 10. Ms. Valentina Popova, Lead Scientific Specialist, KazHydromet 11. Mr. Khamidulla Shamsiev, Head, Coordinating Dispatch Center of CA (NGO) Scientific Information Center of International Commission on Water Coordination (SIC ICWC) 12. Mr. Viktor Dukhovniy, Head, Scientific Information Center of International Commission on Water Coordination (SIC ICWC) 13. Mr. Anatoliy Sorokin, Sr. Specialist, Scientific Information Center of International Commission on Water Coordination (SIC ICWC) 28 September 2010 – Regional Reconnaissance Name Affiliation Coordinates Notes KAZAKHSTAN 1. Saghit Ibatulin Chairman, Executive Committee, +7.727.387.34.31 (Regional) Almaty International Fund for Saving the +7.701.313.95.50 Aral Sea 2. Ballyev Kurbaneldy Representative of the +7.727.387.34.31 (Regional) Almaty Turkmenistan, Executive +7.701.787.69.66 (facilitating the Committee, International Fund for modeling efforts) Saving the Aral Sea 3. Anton Krutonov Consultant for IFAS-3ASBP (Regional) Almaty 4. M. Kalinin Consultant for IFAS – 3ASBP +7 701 951 3700 (Regional) Almaty kamu@tut.by (modeling specialist, potential candidate to review EC-IFAS modeling inventory TOR and coordinate) 5. Leonid Dmitriev KAZGIPROBVODHOZ Production + 7 727 279 16 10 Almaty Cooperative + 7 727 279 35 22 (recommended by kazgipro@mail.ru Committee for Water Resources) 6. Baurzhan Jaxaliyev Director, Department of +7.7172.790563 Astana (Dzhaksaliyev) Management of Electric Power B.DZhaksaliyev@s-k.kz Assets JSC "National Welfare Fund "Samruk-Kazyna 7. Murat Beisenov Deputy Chairman Astana Committee for Water Resources under the Ministry of Agriculture 8. Ms. Azia Chief Expert, Division for Usage Astana Shamshieva Regulation and Protection of Water Resources Committee for Water Resources under the Ministry of Agriculture 9. Zhakyp Bokenbayev Director, Department for Coal Astana Development and Electricity Ministry of Industry and New Technologies 10. Askan.Smailov Head, Division for Power Industry Astana Development; Ministry of Industry and New Technologies 11. Bolot Tyakbayev, Expert, Division for Power Astana Industry Development Ministry of Industry and New Technologies 12. Ms. Anargul Deputy Chairman, Astana Kalelova Kazgidromet 13. Berel Baiagambetov Director, Hydrology Department Astana Kazgidromet 14. Dinara Kussianova, Director of Ecology Department Astana KYRGYZSTAN 15. Akylbelk Chief, Dept of Perspective akyltymon@mail.ru Tiumenbaev Development and Innovation, +996.312.561295 Ministry of Energy (MOE) 16. Baratali Koshmatov Chairman, State Committee for baratali52@mail.ru Water Resources (CWR) +996.312.549095 17. M. Omorov Kyrgyz Permanent Representative Based in Bishkek rather 29 Name Affiliation Coordinates Notes to IFAS than Almaty at EC-IFAS (EC-IFAS) 18. Zaryldyk Itibaev Director, Kyrgyz Hydromet Service (interesting historic records) 19. Kubanychbek Deputy General Director, JSC Energy Emergency Ismailov National Electric Grid of Operation Kyrgyzstan Director, PIU for Emergency Recovery Operation 20. Samat Aldeev Head of Foreign Affairs Electric Energy Emergency Power Plants Operation-safeguards and PIU contact 21. Darman Alibaev Director, WB Water Management Improvement Project PIU 22. Shamil Diykambaev Director, Kyrgyz Science Technical +996.312.510349 Center of Energetics, Ministry of Energy (MOE) 23. Makov Oleg PTKI (Vodoprovoravtomtic (main 996-312-54-11-50 *Recommended by Steponovich design institute under ICWC, for SANARI in Tashkent measurements)) 24. Ashok Raut SMEC Team Leader, Water Ashok.Raut@smec.com Contractor for WB Management Improvement +996-312-549074 project Project +996-559-110026 (mobile) 25. Dyuchen Director of Institute of Water iwp@istc.kg - approximately 15 Mamatkonov Problems and Hydroelectric +996 312 32 39 28, additional staff Power – National Science +996 312 32 37 27 attended and Academy of Kyrgy Republic articulated their research speciality (high altitude glacial lakes, economics of water, modeling climate change, not all names were obtained) 26. Satylkanov 1 Rysbek Chairman of the Renewable r.satylkanove@gmail.com Attended meeting with 2 Energy Association +996312 32 37 35 the National Science . +996 550 992911 Academy TAJIKISTAN 27. Sulton Rahimov First Deputy Minister, Ministry of Sulton30@mail.ru Met with full team (CO Melioration and Water Resources +992.37.235.9914 will provide translated (MMRW) list) 28. Akram Suleimanov Deputy Minister, Ministry of s.akram@mail.ru Met also with three Energy and Industry +992.37.221.3798 others (CO will provide a translated list) 29. Nabiev. Ozorovich Director, Tajikgiprovodhoz, nabievtj@mail.ru Ministry of Land Reclamation and tajikgiprovodhoz@mail.ru Water Resources +992.37.236.6679 +992.907.71.67.47 (mobile) 30. Mahmad Safarov Director, State Administration for mahmad@meteo.tj Hydrometeorology (Hydromet) office@meteo.tj +992.37.221.5191 31. N.A. Ozorovich Director, Ministry of Land nabievtj@mail.ru Met with full team (CO Reclamation and Water Resources +992.37. 236.66.79 will provide translated (TAJIGIPROVODHOZ) +992.907. 71.67.47 (mobile) list) 32. Palatov General Director, Hydrometric Yarhashevych and Melioration Design Institute 33. Valamat Gafarouich Staff, Department of Energy, Ministry of Energy and Industry 34. Kholnazarov Head of Electroenergy Dept. Dustovich Ministry of Energy and Industry 30 Name Affiliation Coordinates Notes 35. Goibov Sohibovich Assistant Head of Electroenergy Dept. Ministry of Energy and Industry 36. Greogy Petrov Hydropower Specialist, The geomar@bk.ru Recommended by KAZ, Academy of Sciences of the +992.918.62.05.36 KYG, UZB specialists Republic of Tajikistan 37. Yarash Pulatov Director, NPO-TajikNIGiM Recommended by (Scientific Research Institute of SANIRI in Tashkent Hydraulic Engineering and Melioration) TURKMENISTAN 38. Lenni 1 Montiel Resident Coordinator, United +993 12 35 02 25/42 52 50 Nations in Turkmenistan (office) +993 66 30 12 32 Lenni.montiel @ undp.org 39. Amb. 2 Miroslav Special Representative of the +993 12 48 16 12 Jenca Secretary General Head of the jenca@un.org Regional Center UN Regional Center for Preventive Diplomacy for Central Asia Armands Pupols 40. 3 Political Affairs Officer UNRCCA +993 12 48 16 12 (office) +993 66 30 44 92 (mobile) pupols@un.org UZBEKISTAN 41. Sakhib Saifnazarov Assistant to Deputy Minister, +998 71 232 64 57 Ministry of Economy Ssaifnazarov@mineconomy.uz Head of Economic Modernization and Industry Development 42. Sergey Myagkov, Deputy Director General +998 71 235 83 29 NIGMI, Hydrometservice nigmi@albaatros.uz under Cabinet of Ministers sergik1961@yahoo.com 43. Sergey Klimov Head, Hydrometeorological data provision unit 44. Aida Kocheva Specialist, Protocol Unit, Hydrometservice 45. Umid Abdullaev Director, Uzgipromeliovodkhoz @roundtable (UZGIP) 46. Ms. Gulchrkhra. Chief, Department of Irrigation g.khasankhanova@mail.ru Khasankhanova and Land Reclamation (DILR) UZGIP 47. Andrey Savitskiy Chief Computer Specialist, DILR, andresavit@yandex.ru Gams modeling UZGIP andre_savit@yahoo.com 48. Stanislav Rudnev Chief, Advanced Engineering Rudnev.uzgip@yahoo.com Department, UZGIP 49. Shavkat Rakhimov General Director +998 71 265 18 53 @roundtable Scientific Research Institute of saniiri@mail.ru Irrigation (SANIIRI) 50. Ismail Begimov (modeling) , Scientific Research begimov@icwc-aral.uz Gams modeling Institute of Irrigation (SANIIRI) 51. Umar Karimov Chief Dispatcher, United Power +10 998 71 233 59 88 System of Central Asia; Central karimov@udc.uz Dispatch Center (CDC) 52. Dr. V. Dukhovniy Head, Scientific Information dukh@icwc-aral.uz Center (SIC), Interstate www.cawater-info.net Commission on Water +998.71.265.9295 Coordination (ICWC) 53. A. Sorokin Expert in Water Management, sorant@mail.ru modeling Scientific Information Center (SIC), sda@icwc-aral.uz Interstate Commission on Water +998.71.265.2557 31 Name Affiliation Coordinates Notes Coordination (ICWC) 54. Marat Najimov Director, UzSuvloyikha @Roundtable 55. Yulian Gasanov, Senior Consultant, UzSuvloyikha @Roundtable 56. V. Glavatskiy Chief Engineer, Uzdavsuvloyiha; @Roundtable Feasibility & economic studies 57. Sergey Jigarev Head, Gidroproekt @Roundtable 58. M. Beylinson Unit Head, Department of Water- @Roundtable Energy Projections, Economic, Environmental and Social Issues (Gidroproekt) 59. A. Morozov Chief Specialist, JSC Department @roundtable of Water-Energy Projections, Economic, Environmental and Social Issues (Gidroproekt) 60. M. Khamidov, Head of BVO “Sirdarya Spring 2011 – National Consultations Afghanistan National Consultations - List of Participants March 15, 2011 # Name Position Organization 1. H.E. Sahibi Advisor President Office 2. H.E. Mr. Shojuadin Ziaie Deputy (Water) MoEW 3. H.E. Mr. Ghulam Faruq Qazizadah Deputy (Energy) MoEW 4. H.E. Mr. Najib Yamin DDG NEPA 5. Abdul Wahab Arian Head of Borders MoFA 6. Madame Zia Gul Saljuki Director of Planning MoEW 7. Sultan Mahmood Mahmoodi MoEW 8. Naseer Ahmad Fayez Director of Irrigation MAIL 9. Abdul Hashim Hekmat Head of Department MoEW 10. Dr.Gul Afghan Saleh Projects Manager (Water) USAID 11. Fazel haq MoEW 12. Mohammad Naim Eqrar Dean of Faculty Kabul University 13. Professor KBL Polytechnic Dr. Mohammad Hassan Hamid University 14. Professor KBL Polytechnic Dr. Mohammad Qasim Sedeqy University 15. Abdul Saeed Amiri 16. Mohd Ebrahim Barekzai Deputy Head of Border MoFA 17. Sayed Sharif Shobair NPC/CE FAO 18. Azad Mohammadi 19. Mohammad Hashem Head of Planning for CASA-1000 MoEW 20. Shah Mohammad Head of Development Project MoEW 21. Sayed Raskhudin 22. Mohammad Halim Alim Head of Energy and Water Water Rights 23. Chris Knoecki Team Leader/ AWARD MoEW 24. Eng. Mohammad Tamim Project Member MoEW 25. Akhter Nikzad Reporter MoEW 26. Lute Obaidy ITA MoEW 27. Ab. Wali Matmal Economic Dept. MoFA 28. Asad Yousuf Deputy of DGEH MoM 29. Ainudin Ehsan PPU MoEW 30. Ahmad Walid H Deputy Team Leader FSP 32 Afghanistan National Consultations - List of Participants March 15, 2011 # Name Position Organization 31. Danny Dualy Pro. Specialist MEW Award 32. Eng. M. Zarif Director of PPU MEW PPU 33. Sayed Karim Eng. PPU MEW PPU 34. Eng. Rauof Member of PPU MEW PPU 35. Eng. Homa Member of PPU MEW PPU 36. Eng. Malalai Member of PPU MEW PPU 37. Anuddin Member of PPU MEW PPU 38. M. Naim DD PPU MEW PPU 39. Eng. Naqibullah Sorat Member of PPU MEW PPU 40. Mohammad Kabir Jaji MOJ 41. All of the IT IT MEW 42. All Team of Media MEW 43. Lufullah WPPU Eng MEW WPPU 44. M.Nasim WPPU Eng MEW WPPU 45. M.Hakim WPPU Eng MEW WPPU 46. Abudullah WPPU Eng MEW WPPU Kazakhstan National Consultations February 23-24, 2011 # Name, Surname Position Ministry/Organization Goverment, ASTANA Division for Usage Regulation and Protection of 1. Ms. Azia Shamshieva Chief Expert Water Resources, Committee for Water Resources under the Ministry of Agriculture Division for Usage Regulation and Protection of Water Resources, Committee for Water Resources 2. Mr. Daniyar Sagadiyev Expert under the Ministry of Industry and New Technologies Department of Power and Coal Industries 3. Mr. Anuar Omarov Expert Development, Water Resource Committee, Ministry of Industry and New Technologies 4. Mr. Syrym Nurgaliev Project Coordinator Climate Change Coordination Center ALMATY International organizations, Research Academies & Institutes Ms. Alina R. Water Resources Department, Water Industry 5. Expert Vagapova Research Institute Mr. Alexander 6. Ivanovich Senior Engineer KAZGIPROBVODHOZ Production Cooperative Tverdovsky Mr. Alexander 7. Senior Engineer KAZGIPROBVODHOZ Production Cooperative Yefimenko Mr. Mr. Vitaly Senior Engineer, Water 8. KAZGIPROBVODHOZ Production Cooperative Medvedev Resources Specialist Project Manager / CIM The Regional Environmental Centre for Central Asia Dr. Martin integrated expert 9. (CAREC) Lindenlaub Water Initiatives Support Program Mr. Vladimir Head of Modeling of 10. Institute of Hydrogeology and Hydrophysics Panichkin Hydrodynamical and Geological 33 Processes, Laboratory 11. Mr. Igor Malkovsky Deputy Director Institute of Geography Ms. Lidiya Head of the Natural Systems 12. Institute of Geography Toleubayeva and Water Problems Laboratory 13. Mr. Kairzhan Head of Department Institute of Geography Karzhaubayev Institute of Geography 14. Mr. Zhambul Leading Engineer Yessimseitov Kazakh National IHP Committee, Scientific head of 15. Mr. Igor Severskiy Chairman laboratory of glaciology, honorary director of Kazakhstan’s Institute of Geography Ms. Gulsum Association for Development of Civil Society in 16. Board Chair Kakimzhanova Kazakhstan Mr. Alexander G. 17. Lead Hydrogeologist KazHYDEC Kuchin Mr. Amangeldy Candidate of Technical Science, 18. Kazakh Agency of Applied Ecology Dzhumagulov Lead Specialist Mr. Igor 19. Consultant UNDP Project Shenberger, Kyrgyz Republic National Workshop - List of Participants March 1-2, 2011 # Name Position/Organization 1. Avtandil Kalmambetov First Deputy Minister of Energy 2. Elmar Dyikanov Chief Specialist, Water Energy Regulation Department, Ministry of Energy of the Kyrgyz Republic 3. Almaz Stamaliev Head, Department of Long-Term Development and Innovations, Ministry of Energy 4. Aigul Tynalieva Chief Specialist, Water Conservation Systems Operation Unit, State Committee of Water Resources and Amelioration 5. Gulnura Atakulova Chief Specialist, Water Use Planning and Control Unit, State Committee of Water Resources and Amelioration 6. Nargiza Osmonova Chief Specialist, Water Resources Protection Monitoring Unit, State Committee of Water Resources and Amelioration 7. Albina Torusova Leading Specialist, Water Use Planning and Control Unit, State Committee of Water Resources and Amelioration 8. Esen Jusumatov Deputy Chairman, State Committee of Water Resources and Amelioration 9. Chyngyz Uzakbaev Deputy Chairman, State Committee of Water Resources 10. Gulfiya Shabaeva Ministry of Natural Resources of the Kyrgyz Republic 11. Emil Kudanaliev Head, Supervisory Service, National Electric Grid of Kyrgyzstan (NESK) 12. Kubanychbek Djeyentaev Leading Engineer, Power Plants JSC 13. Tatyana Solovieva Chief Specialist, Hydrology Unit, KyrgyzHydromet 14. Olga Kalashnikova Head, Hydrometeorological Forecasts, KyrgyzHydromet 15. Baratali Koshmatov PIU WMIP Acting Director 16. Damira Sydykova Water Management Specialist, PIU WMIP 17. Shamil Dikambaev Director, Kyrgyz Research Center “Energy” 18. Kubanychbek Kulov Director, Kyrgyz Irrigation Institute 34 Kyrgyz Republic National Workshop - List of Participants March 1-2, 2011 # Name Position/Organization 19. Rafael Litvak Kyrgyz Irrigation Institute 20. Alik Bekenov KyrgygzGiproVodKhoz 21. Gennadi Tolstikhin Kyrgyz hydrogeology expedition, Candidate of Science 22. Duishen Mamatkanov Director, Institute of Water Problems 23. Ermek Sharsheyev Head of Laboratory, Institute of Water Problems 24. Valery Kuzmechenok Head of Laboratory, Institute of Water Problems 25. Gulnara Shalpykova Research Officer, Institute of Water Problems 26. Ryskul Usubaliev Research Officer, Unit 2 “Climate and Water”, Central Asian Institute of Applied Geosciences (CAIAG) 27. Oleg Pechenuk NGO “Independent Ecological Expertise” 28. Ilya Domoshov Ecological Movement “BIOM” 29. Nurzat Abdyrasulova Civic Environmental Foundation “UNISON” 30. Adyljan Djumabaev PIU DHMP Director 31. Azamat Toktokunov M&E Specialist, PIU DHMP 32. Farida Abdyldaeva Programme Coordinator on Transparency, “Citizens against Corruption” 33. Askar Sydykov “Citizens against Corruption” 34. Maya Eralieva NGO Forum on ADB 35. Anara Dautalieva NGO “Taza Tabigat” 36. Zulfia Marat “Human Rights Bureau” 37. Kalkash Batyrkanov Former Minister of Water Resources, Retired Tajikistan National Workshop - List of Participants March 9-10, 2011 # Name Organization 1. Mr. Sulton Rakhimov Ministry of Melioration and Water Resources Management 2. Mr. Akram Suleimanov Ministry of Energy and Industry 3. Mr. Timur Valamat-zade Ministry of Energy and Industry 4. Mr. Kadriddin Mirzoev Ministry of Energy and Industry 5. Mr. Rashid Gulov OJSHC Barki Tojik 6. Mr. Farrukh Djumaev OJSHC Barki Tojik 7. Mr. Hamidjan Arifov OJSHC Barki Tojik 8. Mr. Kholnazarov OJSHC Barki Tojik 9. Ms. Rafika Musaeva Power Engineering Specialists Association 10. Mr. Karimjon Abdualimov Tajikhydrometservice 11. Mr. Yarash Pulatov Hydraulic engineering and Melioration Institute (TajikNIIGIM) 12. Mr. Murod Amindjanov Hydraulic engineering and Melioration Institute (TajikNIIGIM) 13. Mr. Aziz Pirandozov “Tojikobloihakashi” 14. Mr. Karimov Rakhmatullo Center of Irrigation systems rehabilitation 15. Ms. Dilorom Saidova Norwegian Center 16. Mr. Furkat Kadirov Norwegian Center 17. Mr. Zafar Usmanov Mathematics Institute 18. Mr. Sobir Navruzov Mathematics Institute 19. Mr. Hayot Isoev Hydraulic engineering and Melioration Institute (TajikNIIGIM) 20. Mr. Qutbiddin Olimov Hydraulic engineering and Melioration Institute (TajikNIIGIM) 21. Mr. Georgiy Petrov Academy of Science of RT 22. Mr. Zainalobudin Kobuliev Institute of Water Problems, Hydroenergetic and Ecology 23. Mr. Bakhtier Rakhimov “Youth Ecological Center” 35 24. Mr. Sukhrob Nuriddinov “Youth of the 21 century” 25. Mr. Bobisho Azizov Agriculture and land using Department 26. Mr. Ilhom Rajabov Climate Change and Ozone Center 27. Mr. Kahramon Bakoev Sociological and Research Center "Zerkalo" 28. Mr. Ruslan Sadykov Swiss Cooperation Office (SDC) 29. Mr. Phillipe Floch ADB June, 2012 Pre-Workshop National Consultations Pre-workshop consultations took place in June 2012 in all six countries: a) in Afghanistan by Kabul-based World Bank staff and workshop participants, b) in Kazakhstan, a meetingwith Vice Minister (Agriculture) Mr. Tolbayev; iii) in Kyrgyz Republic, Bank staff and the Director Water Resource Committee, Mr. Tashtanaliev and Deputy Director Uzambaev; iv) in Tajikistan with Vice Minister (Water) Mr. Rahimen and World Bank staff; v) inTurkmenistan, an informal roundtable discussion with non-government water and environment specialists; and vi) Uzbekistan with three of six designated workshop participants and World Bank staff. July 4-6, 2012 Knowledge-Exchange Workshop: Strengthening Analysis for Integrated and Adaptive Water Resources Management, Almaty Republic of Kazakhstan COUNTRY DELEGATIONS Name Title Organization AFGHANISTAN 1. Mr. Ahmad Tawfiq Power Department Engineer, Water and Ministry of Energy and Water (MEW) Kohistani Power Engineering Company of Afghanistan(WAPECA) 2. Mr. Azizullah Omar Deputy and Acting General Director of Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) Economic Affairs 3. Mr. Hayat Khan Shams Head of Irrigation Department Ministry of Agriculture , Irrigation & Directorate of Research Institute Livestock (MAIL) 4. Mr. Mazeedullah Shirzad Head of Renewable Energy Department National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) 5. Mr. Sayed Rasekhudin Water Resources Planning Unit Director, Ministry of Energy and Water (MEW) General Planning and Donor Coordination Department 6. Mr. Shir Mohammad Head of Surface Water Unit, Water Right Ministry of Energy and Water (MEW) Noori Department, G. Directorate of Water Resources Management KAZAKHSTAN 7. Mr. Anatoly Ryabtsev Advisor to Chairman Water Resources Committee 8. Mr. Bolat Kabykenovich Director General Scientific Production Association Bekniaz "Eurasian Center of Water" 9. Mr. Kairat Meirembekov Acting Director Natural Resources Department, Ministry of Agriculture 10. Mr. Orazkhan Head, Water Management Department Water Management Research Institute Karlykhanov 11. Mr. Zhumakhan Head Deputy Aral Syrdarya Basin and Water Nurseitov Resources Department 12. Ms. Lidiya Nikiforova Head, Hydro Forecast Department KazHydromet 36 COUNTRY DELEGATIONS Name Title Organization 13. Ms. Rystai Tuleubayeva Head, Planning and Analyses Division, Strategic Planning and Monitoring Department, Ministry of Environment Protection 14. Ms. Saule Tanatbayeva Lead Expert, Water Resources Committee Water Resources Committee, Ministry of Agriculture KYRGYZSTAN Name Title Organization 15. Mr. Kanat Imanaliev 2nd Secretary, International Economic Ministry of Foreign Affairs Cooperation Department 16. Ms. Anna Specialist, Power Generation and Ministry of Energy and Industry Arkhangelskaya Transmission Unit 17. Ms. Asel Raimkulova Chief Specialist, Department of State State Agency for Environment and Expertise Forestry under the Government 18. Ms. Ekaterina Sakhvaeva Head, Information and Analytics Unit Department of Water Resources under the Ministry of Agriculture 19. Ms. Gulmira Water Resources Specialist Department of Water Resources under Satymkulova the Ministry of Agriculture 20. Ms. Yulia Antonovich Chief Meteorological Specialist, State Fund KyrgyzHydromet of Hydro Meteorological Data Unit TAJIKISTAN 21. Mr. Alikhon Karimov Director of Science and Research Committee for Water Resources Protection 22. Mr. Azim Khisoriev Head of State Agency for Hydromeliorative Ministry of Melioration and Water Expedition Resources 23. Mr. Rakhmonkul National Consultant PCU M&E Consultant for "Fergana Rakhmatilloev Valley Water resources management" 24. Mr. Timur Valamat-Zade Senior Specialist of Energy Department Ministry of Energy 25. Ms. Tojinisso Nosyrova Focal Point for Sustainable Land Ministry of Agriculture Management PPCR, Head of Agriculture Department TURKMENISTAN 26. Mr. Taganmurad Нead Department of technical control Muhammedov Ministry of Agriculture of Turkmenistan 27. Mr. Shageldy Atayev Lead specialist Ministry of Water Resources Turkmenmelioratiya Institute 3-d department 28. Mr. Toyly Nazarov Lead engineer Ministry of Water Resources Turkmengiprovodhoz Institute 1-st department 29. Mr. Batyr Mammedov Senior staff scientist Ministry of Nature protection National institute of forestry 30. Mr. Myrat Deputy Head Gidrometeorologiya Orazmammedov National Committee under Cabinet of Ministers of Turkmenistan UZBEKISTAN 31. Mr. Avaz Head Group on Strengthening Relations with Khudayberdiev International Public Organizations and Movements 32. Mr. Saidirasul Sanginov Deputy Chairman Ecological Movement of Uzbekistan 37 COUNTRY DELEGATIONS Name Title Organization 33. Mr. Zhasurbek Deputy Head, Department of Monitoring of Ministry of Agriculture and Water Abdullayev the Quality of Design and Estimate Resources Documentation and Projects Implementation 34. Mr. Zokir Ishpulatov Head, National Information Department of Ministry of Agriculture and Water the Central Technologic and Monitoring Resources Division 35. Ms. Guljamal Director Analytical agency "Ynanch-Vepa" Nurmuhammedova (Turkmenistan) REGIONAL INSTITUTIONS 36. Mr. Anatoly Sorikin Director SIC-ICWC 37. Assel Kenzheakhmetova EC IFAS specialist EC IFAS-USAID Project "Economic analysis of water resources use 38. Mr. Saghit Ibatullin Chairman EC - IFAS 39. Mr. Vadim Sokolov Deputy Director SIC-ICWC 40. Mrs. Svetlana Shivareva Executive Director Regional Hydrology Center 38