How Market-Based Water Allocation Can Improve Water Use Efficiency in the Aral Sea Basin?

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in ABSTRACTIncreasing water demand due to population growth and economic development under the mounted investment costs for developing new water sources calls for efficient, equitable and sustainable management of water resources in many developing countries. This is more essential in the Aral Sea basin where the tremendous development in irrigation since the 1960s combined with unbalanced water resources management led to the destruction of the ecosystems in the delta zone and the gradual desiccation of the Aral Sea, once the fourth biggest lake of the world with a surface area of 68,000 km 2 and total water volume of 1,100 km 3 . Disintegration of the Central Asian states after the collapse of the Soviet Union also increased the tensions among up-and downstream users over sharing water resources. Insufficient investments in irrigation infrastructure, lack of economic incentives to adopt water-wise approaches, and inefficient water governance and institutions have been the main reasons of decreased water use efficiency in the post-Soviet period.Market-based water allocation is tested to deal with aggravating water conflicts in the Aral Sea basin. Aggregated integrated hydro-economic model is constructed to analyze the water market mechanism as an alternative option to the traditional administrative water allocation. Water users are allowed to trading their water use rights and increasing their benefits under this decentralized water management system. The analyses show the availability of additional gains amounted to US$ 373 to 476 million under inter-catchment water trading depending on the level of water availability. Similarly, additional gains of US$ 259 to 339 million are estimated under intra-catchment water trading. Furthermore, increased trend of additional gains from water trading along with decreased water availability are found. However, transaction costs of introducing tradable water rights are essential to judge the effectiveness of water market reforms and initiate appropriate institutional changes. According to our estimations, transaction costs of more than 5 ¢/m 3 of traded water use rights eliminate the potential benefits of the water trading option. Friendly relationships among the riparian countries and infrastructural improvements are suggested as a means of developing low cost enforcement of water trading contracts.

Reviving the Aral Sea: A Hydro‐Eco‐Social Perspective

“…If the conveyance coefficient is increased from the current 0.58 (Bekchanov, 2014; Global Environment Facility (GEF), 2002) to 0.68, and the field water application coefficient is raised from 0.69 under flood irrigation to 0.77 under drip irrigation, along with an increase in the drip irrigation area ratio from its current level (essentially 0%) to 50% (Table S4‐1 in Supporting Information S1), the volume of water saved can reach 23.2 km 3 /year in 2021–2050 and 22.0 km 3 /year in 2071–2100, respectively (Figure 3e and Table S4‐2 in Supporting Information S1).…”

Collaborative Management of Water‐Energy‐Food‐Ecosystems Nexus in Central Asia Under Uncertainty

“…Upper‐level objective: the upper‐level objective aims to maximize the system benefit, which includes the benefits of water allocation to multiple users (i.e., Bene User ), the benefits for hydropower and thermal power generation (i.e., Bene Ele ), the ecological benefit (i.e., Bene Eco ), the electricity consumption cost of pumping and distributing water for users except for electricity sector (i.e., Cost PDwater ), the cost of fertilizer (i.e., Cost Fert ), the fixed cost of agricultural cultivation (i.e., Cost Fix ), and the electricity consumption cost of pumping and distributing water for electricity sector (i.e., Cost PDwatoele ). The function of ecological benefit for Aral Sea is set according to Bekchanov (2014), who considered the economic benefits of delta wetlands, prevention of salt‐storm damage to agriculture, production of fish in the basin, recreation, prevention of dust damage to health, and water transportation. Since the Aral Sea, Balkhash Lake and Isser Lake have similar ecological values, in this study, the ecological benefit function was also used for the other two lakes.…”

Modeling Long-Term Water Allocation and Analysis of Alternative Strategic Scenarios in the Catchment Area of Bilate River, Rift Valley Lakes Basin, Ethiopia

“…Hence, effective water resource management and utilization are widely recognized as a crucial adaptation strategy. Besides, it helps to sustainable economic growth and reduces poverty (McCartney et al, 2010); mitigate the ongoing and upcoming water crisis (Bekchanov, 2013); alleviate the negative impact of climate change (Fitzhorn, 2012); and maximize the ecological, economic and social benefits (Stamou et al, 2015). Moreover, assessing the overall water resources potentials (Adgolign et al, 2016) and quantity-based water allocation criteria (Mutiga et al, 2010), determining water balance in the basins levels (Berhe et al, 2013), and designing best utilization mechanisms (modeling) through an area-based development plan on a watershed level (Dinar et al, 2013) are indispensable activities to ensure sustainable developments and equitable allocations of available water resources among users.…”

“…Hence, there is a need for devising new optimal water allocation approaches aimed at making available water supplies efficient and productive for different purposes. Many researchers addressed the problem of allocation of a limited water supply for various demands using applications of decision support system (Akivaga, 2010;Awadallah & Awadallah, 2014;Bekchanov, 2013;Berhe et al, 2013;Chinnasamy et al, 2015;Dinar et al, 2013;Mayol, 2015;Mc Cartney et al, 2013;Speed, R. Yuanyuan, L. Le Quesne, T. Pegram, G. Zhiwei, 2013;Tena Bekele Adgolign, 2015;Tesfatsion et al, 2011;You et al, 2011). Water resources planning tools like Water Evaluation and Planning (WEAP) software were used by many researchers whose focus was on water resources planning, decision making, and resource management.…”