Reducing water and energy tradeoffs by increasingwater and energy productivity:

Case study from the lift irrigation areas of the Syrdarya River midstream

A.Karimov, V.Smakhtin, A. Platonov, A. Korydjumaev, Kh. Khodjiev

International Conference: Water in the Anthropocene: Challenges for Science and Governance. Indicators, Thresholds and Uncertainties of the

Global Water System Bonn 21-24 May 2013

Water for Food and Energy Nexus in the Aral Sea Basin

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

Population Irrigated area Water intake per capita

Po

pu

lati

on

/Irr

igat

ed a

rea

(ha)

Inta

ke p

er a

rea(

m3/

ha)

/ p

er

cap

ita(

m3)

Increasing population in the Aral Sea basin:

Increased demand for food crop production, produced mainly under irrigation Increased demand for energy (the upstream states rely on hydropower or energy trade with the downstream states) The shift of the upstream reservoirs operation from irrigation to hydropower generation regime caused uncertainties in water management New upstream reservoirs are under consideration

Water for Food, Energy of both?

Current status: Agriculture

Alternative: Power generation

Improve water and energy productivity

For both: Agriculture and Power generation

Competition for water for irrigation and hydropower generation in the Syrdarya River basin

1992 1997 20020

20

40

60

80

100

120

Total drainage flow to Syrdarya river

Drai

nage

flow

, Mm

3/m

o

Drainage flow in the northern Tajikistan

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

19

25

19

30

19

34

19

38

19

42

19

46

19

50

19

54

19

58

19

62

19

66

19

70

19

74

19

78

19

82

19

86

19

90

19

94

19

98

20

02

20

06

years

Q s

um

me

r /Q

win

ter

0

10

20

30

40

50

1968

1977

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

Sto

rag

es,

km3

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Are

a, h

a

Storages Discharge Area

Syrdarya River basinRatio of summer flow to winter flow of Naryn River at entry point to the Fergana Valley

River flow discharge to Arnasai depression

Water and energy depletions under lift irrigation (А) and groundwater irrigation (B) in the Syrdarya River midstream

A. Lift irrigation B. Groundwater irrigation

Item Water Energy

Mm3/yr

MKwh/yr

Water lift from the river (А) 1355 786 Losses in the lift irrigation canals (Pc) 230 134

Supply to WUAs 1125 652 Losses at farm levels (Pf) 337 196 Evapotranspiration (ETc) 787 457 Crop transpiration (Tc) 583 338 Evaporation (Е) 204 139

Total losses (L = E+ (Pc+Pf)*0.3) 375 448

Energy expenses (Kwh/м3)   0.58

Process fraction of available resource, (Tc/A) 0.43 0.43

Non-process fraction of available resource (L/A) 0.28 0.57

Item Water Energy

Mm3/yr MKwh/yr GW extraction (A) 111 53

Losses at farm levels (Pf)

33.3 15.9

Evapotranspiration(ETc) 77.7 37.1

Crop transpiration (Tc) 57.6 27.5

Evaporation (Е) 20.1 9.6

Total losses (L= E +Pf *0.3)

30.1 25.5

Energy expenses (Kwh/м3)

0.48

Process fraction of depleted resource, (Tc/A)

0.52 0.52

Non-process fraction of available resource (L/A) 0.27 0.48

Water and energy productivity under lift (LI) and groundwater (GWI) irrigation at Samgar irrigation system

Crop Water productivity, kg/m3

Energy productivity (kg/Kwh)

  LI GWI LI GWI         

Cotton 0.19 0.21 0.25 2.1 Vegetables 0.59 1 1.65 7.93 Maize for silage 1.99 1.46 2.61 14.17 Sorghum 0.55 1.66 1.54 3.3 Alfalfa 0.59 0.78 0.78 1.56 Apricots 0.16 0.51 0.44 4.92

Grapevines 0.11 0.7 0.15 1.37

1992 1997 2002 2007 20120

2

4

6

8

10

Num

ber o

f new

wel

ls

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Water witdrawal Karamazarsai Return flowСт

ок ,

Mм

3/м

ес

GW irrigation Water Lift and return flow

Installation of new wells by farmers

LI – lift irrigation; GWI – groundwater irrigation

Water productivity (WP) and energy productivity (EP) under lift and groundwater irrigation at Kushatov Production

Cooperative

Cotto

n

Apric

ot

Grap

evin

e

Sorg

hum

Mai

ze fo

r sila

ge

Alfa

lfa

Qui

ence

00.40.81.21.6

2

LI GWICrop

WP,

kg/

m3

Apric

ot a

t fr..

.

Vege

tabl

es

Sorg

hum

Rice

Mel

on

00.40.81.21.6

2

LI GWICrop

WP,

kg/

m3

Apric

ot a

t fru

ti...

Vege

tabl

es

Sorg

hum

Rice

Mel

on

02.5

57.510

12.5

LI GWICrop

EP, k

g/kw

h

Cotto

n

Apric

ot

Grap

evin

e

Sorg

hum

Mai

ze fo

r sila

ge

Alfa

lfa

Qui

ence

0369

1215

LI GWICrop

EP, k

g/kw

h

First lift zone

Third lift zone

Improving water and energy productivity by improving farming practices

Conventional crop management practices and lift irrigation: WP = 0.11 kg/m3;EP = 0.70 kg/Kwh

Conventional practices and GW irrigation:WP = 0.15 kg/m3

EP = 1.37 kg/Kwh

WP = Y / (I + P) ; EP = Y / E

Crop WP EP

  kg/m3 kg/Kwh Grapevines of 2d year 0 0

Grapevines of 2d year and inter-row water melons 1.43 3.13 Grapevines of 3d year 0.19 0.67 Grapevines of 6th year 2.14 4.63 Grapevines of 6th year and minimal tillage 1.91 4.11

Pistachio 0.04 0.16

Improved crop production and GW irrigation

WP – water productivity; Y – yield, I+ P – irrigation and precipitation; EP – energy productivity; E- power consumption

Expenses of farmers for access to water (Kushatov Production Cooperative)

April May June July August0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

TogaevErmatovElmirzoevUsmonaliev

Tajik

som

oni/

ha

Togaev farm located in the 1t lift zoneErmatov farm located in the 3d lift zoneElmirzaev and Usmonaliev farms use GW for irrigation

Conclusions

Improving water and energy productivity on the lift irrigated areas of the Syrdarya River midstream will make coherent needs for water for agriculture and and energy;

Groundwater development within lift irrigation areas will reduce energy consumption and increase energy and water productivities;

Other measures, such as improved crop and soil management and introducing water saving technologies should be also considered

Conclusion :

Improving water and energy productivity, recovery water losses for irrigation within their area of origin and MAR can reduce

demand for water, by decreasing non-productive water depletions, and using additional storages. This way suitable environment can be created for converging competing interests in to cooperative actions

Thank You