The document discusses the challenges of managing water and energy resources in the Syrdarya River basin, focusing on the competition between agricultural irrigation and hydropower generation. It presents a case study highlighting the need to improve water and energy productivity through better farming practices and groundwater utilization. Recommendations include adopting water-saving technologies and enhancing overall resource management to align agricultural and energy needs.

1. Reducing water and energy tradeoffs by increasing
water 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

2. Water for Food and Energy Nexus in the Aral Sea Basin
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
19801985199019952000200520072008200920102011
Intakeperarea(m3/ha)/per
capita(m3)
Population/Irrigatedarea(ha)
Population Irrigated area Water intake per capita
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

3. Water for Food, Energy of both?
Current status:
Agriculture
Alternative: Power generation
Improve water and
energy productivity
For both:
Agriculture and
Power
generation

4. Competition for water for irrigation and hydropower
generation in the Syrdarya River basin
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1992 1995 1998 2001 2004
Drainageflow,Mm3/mo
Total drainage flow to Syrdarya river
Drainage flow in the northern Tajikistan
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1925
1930
1934
1938
1942
1946
1950
1954
1958
1962
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
years
Qsummer/Qwinter
0
10
20
30
40
50
1968
1977
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
Storages,km3
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Area,ha
Storages Discharge Area
Syrdarya River basin
Ratio of summer flow to winter flow
of Naryn River at entry point to the
Fergana Valley
River flow discharge to Arnasai depression

5. 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

6. Water and energy productivity under lift (LI) and
groundwater (GWI) irrigation at Samgar irrigation system
Crop Water productivity,
kg/m
3
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
0
2
4
6
8
10
1992 1997 2002 2007 2012
Numberofnewwells
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Сток,Mм3/мес
Water witdrawal Karamazarsai Return flow
GW irrigation Water Lift and return flow
Installation of new wells
by farmers
LI – lift irrigation; GWI – groundwater irrigation

7. Water productivity (WP) and energy productivity (EP) under lift
and groundwater irrigation at Kushatov Production Cooperative
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2
Cotton
Apricot
Grapevine
Sorghum
Maizefor
silage
Alfalfa
Quience
WP,kg/m3
Crop LI GWI
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2
Apricotat
fruting
stage
Vegetables
Sorghum
Rice
Melon
WP,kg/m3
Crop LI GWI
0
2.5
5
7.5
10
12.5
Apricotat
frutingstage
Vegetables
Sorghum
Rice
Melon
EP,kg/kwh
Crop LI GWI
0
3
6
9
12
15
Cotton
Apricot
Grapevine
Sorghum
Maizeforsilage
Alfalfa
EP,kg/kwh
Crop
LI GWI
First lift zone
Third lift zone

8. 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

9. Expenses of farmers for access to water
(Kushatov Production Cooperative)
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
April May June July August
Tajiksomoni/ha
Togaev
Ermatov
Elmirzoev
Usmonaliev
Togaev farm located in the 1t lift zone
Ermatov farm located in the 3d lift zone
Elmirzaev and Usmonaliev farms use GW for irrigation

10. 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

11. 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