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