E2175

REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN

FERGHANA VALLEY WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROJECT –

Public Disclosure Authorized PHASE 1

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Public Disclosure Authorized 14 March 2009

Public Disclosure Authorized

CONSULTANTS:

Various national and international (Team Leader Mr Wandert Benthem) Under Management of the Project Implementation Unit

Public Disclosure Authorized

REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND WATER RESOURCES PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT

This report has been compiled in accordance with guidelines of the World Bank for Environmental Assessment reports and guidelines of the Government of the Republic of Uzbekistan (Goskompriroda) for conducting State Ecological Expertise (SEE).

The present report has been prepared by a team of independent consultants. The findings, conclusions and interpretations expressed in this document are those of the consultants alone and should in no way be taken to reflect the policies or opinions of the World Bank or the Government of Uzbekistan.

Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Table of contents

1 Introduction ...... 1

1.1 Background ...... 1

1.2 Objectives...... 3

1.3 Methodologies ...... 5

1.4 Scope and Status of the Present Report ...... 5

2 Policy, Legal and Institutional Framework...... 7

2.1 Environmental Sector ...... 7

2.2 Uzbekistan EA Requirements...... 11

2.3 World Bank EA Requirements ...... 12

2.4 Irrigation and Drainage Sector...... 14

2.5 Regional Organisations ...... 24

3 Project Description ...... 26

3.1 General...... 26

3.2 Location of the Project Area ...... 26

3.3 Project Development Objectives and Key Performance Indicators...... 26

3.4 Project Components and Costs ...... 27

3.5 Conceptual Model Zones...... 29

3.6 Physical Interventions...... 31

3.7 Institutional, Agricultural Development and General Project Support ...... 31

3.8 Environmental and Social Context...... 31

4 Current Environmental Conditions...... 36

4.1 Physical Resources ...... 36

4.2 Water Resources...... 39

4.3 Land Resources...... 48

4.4 Biological Resources ...... 58

4.5 Social Resources...... 60

5 Assessment of Environmental Impacts ...... 64

5.1 Introduction...... 64

5.2 Impacts by (Physical) Intervention Type...... 64

5.3 Impacts by Project Location...... 67

5.4 Impacts during Project Implementation and Mitigation ...... 68

5.5 Impacts by Project Component...... 71

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 14.3.09 (ENG) i Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

5.6 Long-term Impacts and Mitigation Measures...... 73

5.7 Overall Project Impact in Phase 1...... 75

6 Analysis of Alternatives...... 78

6.1 Summary of Alternatives and Methods Used...... 78

6.2 “Without-Project” Situation...... 79

6.3 “With-Project” Situation...... 81

6.4 Proposed Alternative ...... 82

7 Analysis of Emergency Situations ...... 84

7.1 Type of Events...... 84

7.2 Mitigation ...... 84

8 Project Benefits...... 86

8.1 Benefits resulting from Improved Irrigation & Drainage Systems...... 86

8.2 Benefits from Institutional and Agricultural Development Support ...... 87

9 Environmental Mitigation Plan...... 88

9.1 General...... 88

9.2 Mitigation of Negative Impacts from Component A...... 90

9.3 Mitigation of Negative Impacts from Component B...... 91

10 Environmental Management Plan...... 93

10.1 General...... 93

10.2 Environmental Measures Related to the Construction and Rehabilitation Works ...... 93

10.3 Environmental Due Diligence ...... 97

10.4 Environmental Protection and Enhancement...... 97

10.5 Training...... 98

10.6 EMP Measures after Project Completion...... 99

11 Environmental Monitoring Plan ...... 100

11.1 Parameters ...... 100

11.2 Agencies...... 101

11.3 Equipment ...... 102

11.4 Costs ...... 103

12 Compliance of the Project with World Bank Safeguard Policies ...... 104

13 Consultation and Disclosure...... 106

14 Conclusions...... 108

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 14.3.09 (ENG) ii Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

List of annexes

Annex 1 List of References...... 109

Annex 2 List of Contributors to the EA...... 111

Annex 3 Consultation Log...... 112

Annex 4 Stakeholder Consultation Workshops – Programme and Participants Lists ...... 114

Annex 5 Water Quality Standards...... 128

Annex 6 Guidance to Drafting Tender and Contract Documentation ...... 131

Annex 7 Photos...... 142

Annex 8 Colophon ...... 145

List of tables

Table 2-1. Nature project and environment-related GoU norms/standards applicable to the Project...... 8

Table 3-1. Proposed physical Project interventions as per September 2008...... 32

Table 3-2. Summary of proposed physical interventions to I&D systems ...... 34

Table 4-1. Mean monthly and annual climatic parameters in Kokand and Ferghana meteorological stations (1890-1989)...... 36

Table 4-2. Hydrogeological parameters of the Project Area [Pavey, 2007]...... 38

Table 4-3. Annual water discharge of major rivers in Ferghana Valley...... 40

Table 4-4. Irrigation systems and command areas in the three Project Area raions...... 40

Table 4-5. Water use in the Project Area raions in the period 2003-2006...... 41

Table 4-6. Implemented works of the 2001 Feasibility Study as per 2008 ...... 44

Table 4-7. Average monthly variation in pollutant indicator levels in main water bodies in Ferghana valley in the period 1991-2001 ...... 47

Table 4-8. Average annual values of the ecological condition of water bodies in the region ...... 48

Table 4-9. Land areas per Project raion...... 50

Table 4-10. Farm situation in the three Project Area raions in 2006 ...... 51

Table 4-11. Crop yields per farm type in the three Project Area raions in 2006 (t/ha)...... 51

Table 4-12. Groundwater mineralization in the Project Area raions...... 54

Table 4-13. Soil salinity in the Project Area raions...... 54

Table 4-14. Ameliorative conditions in the Project Area raions...... 56

Table 4-15. Mineral fertilizers used in the Project Area raions, 2006...... 57

Table 4-16. Rare and endangered animal species included in the Uzbekistan Red Book (2003)...... 58

Table 4-17. Types of protected areas in Uzbekistan (a) and Ferghana Valley (b)...... 59

Table 4-18. Groundwater areas with Protected Nature Territory (PNT) status in Ferghana Valley...... 60

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 14.3.09 (ENG) iii Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Table 4-19. Water Protection Zones (WPZ) and associated river banks within Uzbekistan...... 60

Table 4-20. Population in the Project Area raions in 2006...... 61

Table 4-21. Potable water resources in the Project Area raions in June 2007 (% of the households)...... 62

Table 4-22. Access to communal services in the Project area raions in June 2007 (% of households)..... 62

Table 4-23. Health and education facilities in the Project Area raions in 2007 (per 10,000 people) ...... 63

Table 5-1. Project environmental impacts by proposed intervention type...... 65

Table 5-2. Expected environmental impacts per zone ...... 67

Table 5-3. Summary of overall impact of Project’s institutional interventions...... 72

Table 5-4. Potential and indirect impacts from small and medium farms...... 73

Table 5-5. Summary of overall impact of the Project ...... 75

Table 5-6. Pre- and post-Project situation of the environment in the Project Area...... 76

Table 6-1. Expected change of groundwater levels in the Without-Project situation...... 79

Table 6-2. Expected change in soil salinization in the Without-Project situation...... 80

Table 6-3. Expected change in soil fertility in the Without-Project situation ...... 81

Table 6-4. Expected change in water consumption and drainage run-off ...... 81

Table 9-1. Environmental Mitigation Plan ...... 88

Table 9-2. Some guidelines for sustainable agricultural development ...... 91

Table 10-1. Environmental Management Plan (EMP)...... 94

Table 10-2. Environmental protection and enhancement measures being part of the EMP ...... 97

Table 10-3. Recommended training programme for environmental protection and management ...... 98

Table 11-1. Monitoring of environmental parameters during Project implementation ...... 101

Table 11-2. Required equipment for the water and soil related monitoring activities ...... 102

List of figures

Figure 1-1. Location of the Project area (regional)...... 2

Figure 1-2. Location of the Project area (local) ...... 2

Figure 1-3. Irrigation and drainage network in Ferghana Valley...... 4

Figure 2-1. Environmental assessment and the World Bank project cycle ...... 13

Figure 2-2. Management structure of the Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources...... 17

Figure 2-3. Administrative structure for water resource management...... 18

Figure 2-4. Project Area in the Syrdarya Sokh BAIS...... 22

Figure 2-5. Location of the Project Area in the North-Baghdad Collector Atchikkul ...... 22

Figure 3-1. Conceptual model zones in the Project Area...... 30

Figure 4-1. Artesian groundwater in the Project Area ...... 37

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 14.3.09 (ENG) iv Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Figure 4-2. Main irrigation canals in the Project Area and surroundings, and command areas ...... 42

Figure 4-3. Water supply in the Project Area raions in the period 1995-2006...... 43

Figure 4-4. Diversion of Collector Drainage Water from the Project raions in the period 1993-2006 (million m³) ...... 44

Figure 4-5. Mineralization of Syrdarya river water in time and space (1932-1999) ...... 46

Figure 4-6. Monthly mineralization levels in Naryn, Karadarya and Syrdarya rivers ...... 46

Figure 4-7. Monthly mineralization levels in North Baghdad Collector...... 46

Figure 4-8. Protected territories in the vicinity of the Project Area ...... 49

Figure 4-9. Land use types and the use of arable lands in the Project Area...... 50

Figure 4-10. Change in groundwater depth in the Project Area raions (1996-2006)...... 52

Figure 4-11. Change of groundwater level in Baghdad raion in 2005 ...... 53

Figure 4-12. Soil salinization in the Project Area...... 55

Figure 4-13. Trends in soil salinization in irrigated lands in the three Project Area raions (1992-2006)..... 55

Figure 4-14. Soil pollution in the Project Area raions with pesticides (mg/kg soil) ...... 57

Figure 6-1. Quantitative and qualitative change of Syrdarya river water run-off after discharge of the NBC (year of 50% water probability) ...... 83

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 14.3.09 (ENG) v Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

List of abbreviations

AIS Administration of Irrigation Systems AMC Administration of Main Canals AOPP Altiarik Oil Processing Plant ASBP Aral Sea Basin Program BAC Big Andijan Canal BFC Big Ferghana Canal BAIS Basin Administration of Irrigation Systems BOD Biological Oxygen Demand BVO River Basin Water Management Organization CACLIM Central Asian Countries Initiative for Land Management CDW Collector Drainage Water CIS Commonwealth of Independent States COD Chemical Oxygen Demand EA Environmental Assessment EIA Environmental Impact Assessment / Energy Information Administration (US Department) EMM Euroconsult Mott MacDonald EMP Environmental Management Plan EU European Union FEA Framework Environmental Assessment FS Feasibility Study FV Ferghana Valley FVWRMP Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project GWL Groundwater level HGME Hydro-geological Meliorative Expedition ICWC Interstate Commission for Water Coordination I&D Irrigation and drainage IFAS International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea ISDC International Commission on Sustainable Development IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management KCP Kokand Chemical Plant MAL Maximum Allowable Limit MAWR Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources MMTS Mott MacDonald - Temelsu MOM Management, Operation and Maintenance NBC North Baghdad Collector NGO Non-governmental Organisation O&M Operation and Maintenance OP Operation Policy (of the World Bank) PAD Project Appraisal Document PDO Project Development Objective PIU Project Implementation Unit

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 14.3.09 (ENG) vi Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

PRW Pressure Relief Well SA Social Assessment SEE State Ecological Expertise SFC South Ferghana Canal SOD Chemical Oxygen Demand TOR Terms of Reference USD United States Dollar USSR Soviet Union UZS Uzbekistan Sum VDW Vertical Drainage Well WB World Bank WISF Water Investment Support Facility WUA Water Users’ Association

Glossary Adyr Lower slopes of foothills A/meliorative Term used in the context of improving the drainage conditions of soils Artesian Pressurized groundwater that if opened up above ground level, e.g. through a pipe, releases freely >> artesian well Collector Open channel taking drainage water from field drains to a point of disposal Dekhan Household farm Horizontal drainage An open or closed (buried) drain designed to lower the water table in the fields Permeability Property of a material (e.g. soil) to allow a fluid (e.g. water) to pass through Salinization High salinity level in soil and/or water impeding plant growth, also the term mineralization is used Shirkat Collective farm Transmissivity The rate at which groundwater can flow through an aquifer section of unit width under a unit hydraulic gradient. It is the average permeability of a section of the entire aquifer at a given location multiplied by the thickness of the formation. Tuman Raion/rayon: the smallest administrative district within Uzbekistan Vertical drainage A system of deep wells designed to control the water table Viloyat Oblast/province: the main division of administrative districts in Uzbekistan comprising several tumans Waterlogging Lands with high water table, impeding soil aeration and plant growth

Units g/l Gram per litre Ha Hectare Kg Kilogram km² Square kilometre km³ Cubic kilometre m asl Metre above sea level mg/l Milligram per litre Mm³ Million cubic metre T Ton (1000 kg)

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 14.3.09 (ENG) vii Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Executive Summary

INTRODUCTION

Ferghana Valley is densely populated and intensively cultivated. The main source of income is from agriculture. A major problem is the high water table which is attributable to the absence of an adequate drainage system, or a drainage system that is no longer properly functioning, and improper irrigation and farm management practices. This leads to widespread waterlogging and soil and water salinization, reduced crops yields, and lower income. Poverty is widespread particularly in the rural areas.

The Government of the Republic of Uzbekistan has applied to the World Bank (WB) for assistance in the preparation and funding of the Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1). The Project’s Development Objective (PDO) is to improve agricultural production in areas affected by waterlogging, and to reduce damage to housing and infrastructure from rising groundwater levels and salinity in the Project Area. This objective is to be achieved through the rehabilitation of the irrigation and drainage (I&D) system and through institutional capacity building in sustainable water resources management and agricultural production. The objectives would be measured by the following key performance indicators: (a) the lowering of the groundwater table, (b) an increase in production of major crops such as cotton and wheat, and (c) the reduction of land area flooded in settlements.

The Government of the Republic of Uzbekistan with support of EuropeAid and the World Bank has facilitated the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) of the Project. This activity has been managed by the Project Implementation Unit (PIU) under the Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources (MAWR). Uzbekistan is responsible for any environmental issues related to the Project.

The Project is a Category B project according to the World Bank Operational Policies (OP 4.01), and as a Category 2 project (moderate risk) according to Decree of the Uzbekistan Cabinet of Ministers No 491.31.12.2001: “On approval of the Regulation of the State Ecological Expertise”. The proposed rehabilitation and construction works under the Project are considered to generate substantial positive environmental impacts and only minor to negligible negative environmental impacts. The latter can mostly be mitigated through appropriate mitigation measures during the construction (implementation) phase of the Project.

PIU will submit the EA to Goskompriroda (State Committee for Nature Protection) for State Ecological Expertise (SEE).

INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

Environment sector. Many laws and regulations on environmental issues have been developed, the main guiding law being the Law on Environmental Protection (1992), establishing a legal, economic and organizational framework for environment protection, ensuring sustainable development and defining principles, including SEE.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 14.3.09 (ENG) viii Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Goskompriroda is the primary regulatory environmental agency. Reporting to the Parliament directly, Goskompriroda is responsible for supervising, coordinating and implementing the state’s control over environmental protection and the usage and renewal of natural resources, not only at central but also at the oblast and raion level. The mandate of Goskompriroda is based on the “Regulation on the State Environmental Committee of the Republic of Uzbekistan” as approved by Parliament on 26 April 1996. The organizational structure of Goskompriroda consists of a central body in Tashkent, oblast and rayon branches and agencies for scientific and technical support. In Tashkent, Goskompriroda consists of various authorities and departments. The authorities have responsibilities in the field of protection of air, water and land resources. The departments reflect other administrative and technical responsibilities related to environmental standards, environmental law, international relations, environmental fund, etc. Three units concern economics, publicity and governmental ecological review. The latter has the responsibility for EA and SEE.

Goskompriroda exercises the SEE review for projects and programs with potential adverse impacts to the environment, stimulates low waste technologies, arranges implementation of ecological regulations and standards, coordinates environmental programs, elaborates the structure for environmental monitoring, governs nature reserves, etc. As part of the SEE responsibility, Goskompriroda approves regulations proposed by the environmental committees at various levels. It also issues permits for pollution discharge emissions and may prohibit projects and construction works that do not comply with (environmental) legislation.

Environmental monitoring is distributed among a range of state agencies, coordinated by Goskompriroda.

Irrigation and drainage sector. The country’s water management policy targets rational water use and protection of water resources, increased efficiency, guaranteeing water delivery and necessary services to society and natural ecosystems by providing resources for reconstruction and operation and maintenance (O&M) of existing infrastructure. The sector is in a transition from a territorial management principle to a more flexible two-level system of water management, with creation of: (i) Basin Administrations of Irrigation Systems (BAIS); and (ii) Water User’s Associations (WUA). Progress made so far proves that this is a long and complicated process. Recent decrees pave the way for optimization of land size plots and changes in agricultural production, i.e. from cotton towards more food crops, which has implications for I&D infrastructure and management.

The institutional set-up of water management in Uzbekistan is complex. The most important central level institution in the field of irrigation and drainage is the Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources (MAWR). The ministry has subordinated executive bodies at the provincial (oblast) and the district (raion) level. Activities related to water management and land reclamation are the responsibility of a First Deputy Minister.

At the regional and local level there are institutional and capacity problems that result in weaknesses in the O&M and management of the irrigation and drainage networks. These are ascribed to a variety of issues including (i) water distribution is not responsive to needs; (ii) limited control over discharges; (iii) over- watering; (iv) weak finances; and (v) maintenance is inadequate.

The MAWR is responsible for project implementation under the direction of the Project Head, a Deputy Minister. Day to day responsibility for implementation rests with a Project Implementation Unit headed by a Director. The PIU will employ national and international consultants.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 14.3.09 (ENG) ix Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed Project is the first phase of a much larger undertaking envisaged by the Government of Uzbekistan to rehabilitate the irrigation and drainage systems of Ferghana Valley, and implement a program of institutional reform of the existing irrigation and drainage institutions. The current Phase 1 aims at improving farming conditions in about 48,000 ha of irrigated lands of three raions (i.e. Baghdad, Rishstan and Altiarik), of Ferghana oblast. The Project interventions are primarily to improve drainage and off-farm irrigation systems that are largely public goods.

The Project design addresses overall constraints to agricultural production in Uzbekistan, damage to public and private infrastructure, threats to the environment and public health due to shallow groundwater in the Project Area, and weak capacity for efficient water resources management in both public and private sectors. The Project includes three components, as described below. The total Project cost is estimated at USD 82.94 million, including contingencies. Out of the total cost, IDA would finance USD 67.93 million; the remaining USD 15.01 million (equivalent) would be financed by the GOU.

• Component A: Improvement of Irrigation and Drainage Network (total cost USD 74.60 million) This component aims at addressing the problem of high groundwater levels by financing improvements in the surface drainage network and irrigation system as well as the installation of vertical drainage wells. The component includes the following five sub-components: (i) improvement of the irrigation network; (ii) improvement of the drainage network; (iii) improvement of the vertical drainage network and groundwater development and management; (iv) environmental management activities; (v) detailed designs, construction supervision and contract administration.

• Component B: Institutional Strengthening and Agricultural Development Support (Total Cost USD 3.92 million) This component would cover institutional strengthening support to public and private institutions/ organizations involved in the enhancement of water resources management (I&D system O&M, water utilization) and agriculture production in the Project area. The component would finance training and study tours, outreach demonstration plots, field and O&M equipment, laboratory, IT and office equipment, and institution and training support consultancy services. The component will include the following sub- components: (i) institutional strengthening of public institutions; (ii) demonstration plots, institutional strengthening and training for WUAs; (iii) technical, institutional and training support consultancies.

• Component C: Project Management and Audit, and Monitoring and Evaluation of Project Impact (Total Cost USD 4.43 million) This component consists of operational expenditures for project management, consultancy services for auditing project expenditures and for the M&E of project impacts, and for the preparation of a future project. It will have four sub-components: (i) project management; (ii) annual audit; (iii) project monitoring and evaluation; (iv) preparation of Phase 2.

CONSULTATIONS AND DISCLOSURE

A structured public participation and consultation process was followed during project preparation for the social assessment (SA) and the EA, inter-alia, through in-depth interviews, focus group discussions and stakeholder seminars. There was a strong consensus that the Phase 1 project should be implemented as soon as possible to improve the waterlogging and soil salinity conditions.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 14.3.09 (ENG) x Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

With respect to the EA, two scoping sessions with stakeholders were held in Tashkent and Ferghana town on respectively 20 November 2007 and 12 February 2009 to discuss not only the environmental aspects of the project, but also the technical and social aspects. During both seminars, it was apparent that the main interest among the stakeholders was for physical, institutional and social (compensation) implications of the project.

Impact analyses were carried out during two periods. The first, from March to December 2007 under the EuropeAid-funded Water Investment Support Facility, and on the basis of indicative project interventions proposed by the Feasibility Study Team. The second during December 2008 to March 2009 on the basis of the Final Feasibility Report of September 2008. The EA report and Executive Summary were drafted in February/March 2009. Both documents will be made available in Russian to facilitate transfer of knowledge to and discussion of findings with regional and national organizations involved or affected by the project. The final EA study report in English and Russian, and its Executive Summary in English, Russian and Uzbek, will be placed in the World Bank InfoShop, made available at the World Bank office in Uzbekistan and will be widely disseminated within Uzbekistan.

PRESENT STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Ferghana Valley has a continental climate with hot summers and relatively mild winters. Annual precipitation is only 100-170 mm; evaporation is 6 times higher. The valley floor, where the Project will be located, is almost flat and consists of quaternary deposits with outwash debris cones near the valley foothills. Geological cross-sections show a consistent transition from single layered deposits of sands and gravels on the valley sides to a multi-layered sand/gravel and silt/clay layers towards the centre. Groundwaters are generally in close proximity to ground surface, some areas have artesian conditions. Soils are some of the most productive in Uzbekistan and combined with the climatic conditions these are the main reason for the area’s agricultural importance. Large parts of the Project Area have saline soils, with severe saline conditions towards the periphery of the debris cones and in the inter-cone depressions.

The irrigation and drainage network is fed by a range of rivers, the most important of which are the Sokh, Karadarya and Naryn, and natural run-off. Apart from this network there are no other natural surface waters in the Project Area. The bulk of the irrigation waters is conveyed by three main canals: Big Ferghana Canal, Big Andijan Canal and South Ferghana Canal. The inter-farm network is 387 km in length; the on-farm irrigation network in the three Project Area raions is 2,820 km. Of the latter only 5% is lined. The drainage network is 2,920 km in length. Although mineralisation of river waters is on the increase, monthly salinization levels of irrigation waters are below the set maximum of 1 g/l. Mineralisation of drainage waters is between 1-2 g/l which makes it usable, after mixing with irrigation waters for irrigation. Declining industrial activities in the post-soviet period and low consumption levels of agro- chemicals are believed to be the cause of a recorded improved quality of surface waters.

Some 75% of the land in the Project Area is used for agriculture while 15% is occupied by settlement. Wheat (43%) and cotton (41%) occupy area-wise most of the available arable lands. Areas used for winter wheat, perennial tree plantation and homestead are expanding recently, as does the number of leasehold farms. At present some 70% of the irrigated lands in the Project Area raions has the water table within 2 m below ground level. At this depth there is some risk of soil salinization through capillary rise but this has little direct impact through waterlogging on crop yields. Trends clearly show that the water table is rising. One reason for this rise is the excessive use of water for rice cultivation in higher areas, south of the Project Area in Kyrgyzstan.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 14.3.09 (ENG) xi Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

The hydrobiological conditions in the Project Area were defined on the basis of three locally-used indices. It was concluded that the current aquatic ecosystem (biocenosis) in Syrdarya river and the North Baghdad Collector is in a state of regression. As the original steppe ecosystem has virtually disappeared from Ferghana Valley only common plant and animal species have been recorded from the Project Area. There are no protected areas, or areas with such potential, in the Project Area.

The Social Assessment (SA) of the Project was, like the EA, conducted under EuropeAid-funding in 2007, on the basis of indicative project interventions, and finalized in the period December 2008 to March 2009, with independent consultants hired by the PIU. Some 489,000 people are believed to live in the Project Area raions, making up for 98,000 households. Some 80-90% of the rural population in the three Project Area raions is classified as rural. The ethnic composition is 81% Uzbek, 16% Tajik and Kyrgyz and 3% others. According to official statistics, some 80% of the population has connection to the piped-water system, however, survey data indicate much lower coverage. No historical monuments of importance are reported from the Project Area.

ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

Expected positive environmental impacts of the Project are improved drainage leading to reduced waterlogging and salinization problems (Table S-1). This impact will further be enhanced by lining of irrigation canals and improved water management. In Rishtan town, where the surface draining system will be rehabilitated this will result in reduced waterlogging and reduced damage to buildings and gardens, and the sanitation and health conditions are expected to improve in this town.

The negative environmental impacts of the Project are mostly temporary and local disruption due to construction and rehabilitation works, and construction of new access roads to work sites. Temporarily, the drainage water from the Project area will have an increased mineralisation content as accumulated salts will be leached. However, this will be a gradually process that is expected to have little or no impact on the downstream area. Most negative impacts can be mitigated by proper construction safeguards that include measures to minimize pollution, provide health care and protection to workers and the local population, proper handling of waste materials (excavated soil, concrete), traffic control.

The Feasibility Study considered a large range of possible (“hard”) solutions to the identified waterlogging and salinization problems in the Project Area, and from these recommended solutions were selected. All considered solutions will have the same or similar impacts, i.e. lowering the water table and reducing soil salinity. Therefore, basically two alternatives were considered for the EA: the “With-Project” and the “Without-Project” situation. Both situations have been compared in terms of changes to groundwater levels, soil salinization, soil fertility, water use and run-off, impacts on Syrdarya river, groundwater and waterlogging, and the biological resources. It is expected that in the “With-Project” situation the water volume draining from the Project Area will ultimately slightly increase (due to improved water management practices leading to less water being used for irrigation and discharge of excess groundwater of good quality) and that the mineralization of the drainage water leaving the area will slightly reduce. Therewith there will be no significant impacts of the Project on the downstream Syrdarya river hydrological systems.

The non-physical (“soft”) Project interventions, such a the establishment of demonstration plots, Farmer Field Schools, Support Centre, capacity building, training and technical assistance, are expected to have mostly indirect impacts on the environment. As all these interventions aim at sustainable farming techniques, it is expected that negative impacts will be low.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 14.3.09 (ENG) xii Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Table S-1. Project environmental impacts by proposed physical intervention type of the irrigation and drainage improvement component Intervention Abbr Application and features Positive Negative environmental Importance / Mitigation environmental impacts magnitude of impacts negative impact Drainage system

Provision of subsurface horizontal SHD Required as part of the intervention to reclaim saline soils. Field drainage Improved drainage Temporary and local disruption Low, prodived Construction safeguards – drain system may include only in areas of heavier soils. Minimal loss of land to drainage system. leading to reduced due to construction works, such safeguards are see FS, App. C interceptor pipes (perforated) waterlogging and as fuel and oil spills, dust, air Land take can be reduced further if buried collectors are used. implemented which discharge directly to the salinization pollution from machinery, effectively drainage ditches, or interceptor SHD can also be used as interceptor drains to intercept (for example) problems disposal of construction pipes flowing into collector pipes inflows from the adir area or canal seepage. materials, traffic and road (solid) which discharge into open damage, disruption of aquatic collectors and terrestrial ecology/habitats, impacts to crops and lands, impacts to ground and surface waters.

Rehabilitation of subsurface SHD Flushing and relaying SHD; rehabilitation of SHD outfalls and inspection As above As above As above As above horizontal drains chambers

Provision of deep open drains DOD Field drainage in areas of heavier soils. Potential significant loss of land As above As above As above As above to drainage system.

Rehabilitation of deep open drains DOD See “rehabilitation of drainage channel” below. As above As above As above As above (including interceptor drains)

Provision of interceptor drains ID Similar to deep open drains but specifically sited to intercept horizontal As above As above As above As above groundwater flows.

Provision of vertical drainage wells VDW Field and local district drainage; requires soils with suitably high As above As above As above As above permeability. Typically VDW are between 50 and 150 m deep.

Rehabilitation of vertical drainage VDW Test; Log using closed circuit television (CCTV); and seek to overcome As above As above As above As above wells clogging of screens and parent rock matrix. Refurbish or replace pump motors and impellers, electrical equipment and other well head equipment. Provide dipping point.

Change to Category II power Improved reliability of power supplies as less load shedding. The As above None associated infrastructure needs have not been determined at this

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 14.3.09 (ENG) xiii Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Intervention Abbr Application and features Positive Negative environmental Importance / Mitigation environmental impacts magnitude of impacts negative impact supply juncture, except Rishtan Town

Provision of pressure relief wells PRW Equivalent to VDW, but only suitable where piezometric head is high As above As above As above As above (close to, or above, ground level) such as in a confined or semi-confined aquifer situation. Typically PRW are between 30 and 50 m deep.

Provision of artesian wells AW Equivalent to VDW, but only suitable where piezometric head is above As above As above As above As above ground level (such as in a confined or semi-confined situation). They differ from PRW in that they will have a depth of 100 to 150 m.

Rehabilitation of drainage network Removing capacity constraints or addressing structural distress (including As above As above As above As above structures wear and tear deterioration), such as rehabilitation of culverts and siphons.

Rehabilitation of drainage channels - Cleaning and desilting, reforming channel section and restoring suitable As above As above As above As above longitudinal design water level profile.

Install piezometers For groundwater monitoring network. As above As above As above As above

Irrigation system

Rehabilitation and upgrading of - Restoring functionality of water control equipment. None identified Negligible irrigation water control structures Provision of measuring facilities. Construction of new outlets.

Rehabilitation of other irrigation - Removing capacity constraints or addressing structural distress (including None identified Negligible structures wear and tear deterioration), such as rehabilitation of culverts and aqueducts.

Rehabilitation of irrigation channels - Cleaning and desilting, reforming channel section and repair of lining None identified As above (concrete over impermeable sheeting).

On-field Deep ripping Removal of plough pans and other relatively shallow semi-permeable or As above Marginal impacts comparable to impermeable layers to improve field drainage to reduce incidence of normal farm ploughing works waterlogging. Required as part of the intervention to reclaim saline soils.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 14.3.09 (ENG) xiv Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

SOCIAL IMPACTS

The Project is expected to resolve the problems of land degradation and high groundwater levels, and enhance farming techniques, which combined, will lead to improved agricultural production, higher income, less damage to property and public infrastructure, enhanced health and sanitation conditions, and reduced poverty. The Project’s construction and rehabilitation activities will result in some adverse impacts, such as (limited) land take and affected standing crops. There will be no need for resettlement or replacement of people. A Resettlement Policy Framework and a Resettlement Action Plan has been prepared which outlines the required compensation measures to mitigate the adverse impacts for the first stage of project implementation. Various measures are proposed to assure involvement of the affected people, among others through the establishment and strengthening of Water User’s Associations. The broader socio-economic impacts of the Project and the mitigation measures are presented in a separate Social Assessment study (March 2009).

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

The EMP includes mitigation, management and monitoring activities. Environmental mitigation and management will primarily be conducted by the water management organisations, as well as the Contractors that implement the Project. Most of the mitigation measures relate to temporary and local disruption due to construction and rehabilitation works.

These mitigation measures will be part of the standard operational practices of Contractors during implementation of the Project. The Contractor contracts that will be prepared by the Project Management Consultant will include clauses on environmental protection and enhancement that will outline the obligations of the Contractor for environmental management. The costs for mitigation activities will be included in the bidding documents, and the Contractor contracts will include adequate budgets for implementation of the environmental mitigation measures. Guidelines for ensuring that environmental requirements are met and that environmental precautions be employed to prevent environmental damage are provided in the EA report.

Environmental mitigation and management will be monitored by the M&E Consultant, coordinated by the Goskompriroda. A set of monitoring indicators has been identified (Table S-2).

USD 0.95 million (about 1% of the total project costs) has been earmarked for implementation of the Environmental Management Plan, which includes environmental protection and enhancement measures needed to address unforeseen construction-related impacts (greening, habitat improvement) as well as capacity building (in PIU, raion and oblast institutions) and monitoring activities not covered by other Project components (e.g. pest management). The cost for environmental monitoring of the Project interventions are included in the USD 1.60 million set aside for the Project’s M&E activities.

Implementation of the EMP as well as the environmental monitoring activities will be overseen by Environmental Specialists (national and international) within the PIU. Implementation of the EMP includes a component ‘training’ for which various training modules have been proposed.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 14.3.09 (ENG) xv Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Table S-2. Environmental Management Plan (EMP) Mitigation Plan Monitoring Plan Activity / issue Environmental Mitigation measure Responsibility Extra Monitoring measure Responsibility Cost (USD) impact environmental cost (USD) Implementation of the Project (Year 1-5) Construction and Environmental Detailed specifications to be developed Project Management Costs of the Regular control and supervision M&E Consultant Costs included in rehabilitation activities hazards: for bidding documents; implementation Consultant prepares identified actions of implementation of the the USD 1.60 m of site-specific EMPs bidding documents and and requirements Contractor’s environmental reserved for M&E Contractor contracts, will be included in management activities Fuel and oil spills Proper transport, storage and handling including environmental the bidding clauses documents for the Quarterly reporting on monitoring Dust Dust prevention and protection of Contractors and the activities to the PIU. workers, personnel and the public Contractor prepares Site Contractor contracts Environmental PIU reports to Project Steering Air pollution from Protection of workers, personnel and Management and Health Committee. machinery the public and Safety Plans according to government Disposal of Designation of disposal sites regulations and guidelines construction provided in the EA materials Contractor and supervising Traffic and road Traffic control, road maintenance and Engineer are responsible damage repair for implementation of the environmental Health and safety Implementation of a Health and Safety management (due Plan diligence) Environmental Disruption of aquatic Preventive actions needed to address PIU, Contractors USD 0.95 million Needs assessment and M&E Consultant, Costs included in protection and and terrestrial unforeseen construction-related set aside for recommendations Goskompriroda the USD 1.60 m

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) xvi Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Mitigation Plan Monitoring Plan Activity / issue Environmental Mitigation measure Responsibility Extra Monitoring measure Responsibility Cost (USD) impact environmental cost (USD) enhancement ecology/habitats impacts (re-greening, habitat implementation of reserved for M&E improvement), and capacity building (in the EMP PIU, raion, oblast), pest management Groundwater level and Reduced agricultural Implementation of the technical and PIU, Contractors, Included in Project Monitoring groundwater levels M&E Consultant + Costs included in waterlogging productivity institutional interventions and supported by BAIS and costs and waterlogging areas and HGME and WUAs the USD 1.60 m participatory water management WUAs, and Uzhydroengio impact of mitigating measures; reserved for M&E quarterly reporting Salinity and pollution Reduced agricultural Implementation of the technical and PIU, Contractors, Included in Project Monitoring of salinity levels and M&E Consultant + Costs included in productivity institutional interventions and supported by BAIS and costs pollution and impact of mitigating HGME and WUAs the USD 1.60 m participatory salinity control; agricultural WUAs measures; quarterly reporting reserved for M&E extension Quality of ground and Risk of impacts on Promotion of integrated water MAWR, Goskompriroda, Included in Project Monitoring of ground and surface M&E Consultant + Costs included in surface waters downstream areas management, institutional support and supported by BAIS and costs water quality and impact of HGME, Glavhydromet the USD 1.60 m system rehabilitation; public awareness Uzglavhydromet mitigating measures; quarterly at Cabinet of Ministers reserved for M&E campaigns reporting Operation and Maintenance of the Irrigation and Drainage systems (Year 6 and beyond) O&M of irrigation and Improved O&M Preparation and distribution of manuals MAWR Government Training and education on MAWR and regional Government funding drainage infrastructure capacity and leaflets funding and WUAs integrated water management BAIS; non-government incl. the preparation and organisations (e.g. distribution of manuals and WUA, farmers) leaflets High groundwater Reduced agricultural Operation and Maintenance of the MAWR and regional Government Monitoring groundwater levels HGME, WUAs, local Government and levels and productivity Project interventions. institutions, WUAs at local funding and WUAs and waterlogging areas communities WUA funding waterlogging level Salt mobilization Increased salinity System maintenance and participatory MAWR and regional Government Monitoring of salinity levels HGME, WUAs, local Government funding

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) xvii Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Mitigation Plan Monitoring Plan Activity / issue Environmental Mitigation measure Responsibility Extra Monitoring measure Responsibility Cost (USD) impact environmental cost (USD) levels and land salinity management control. institutions, WUAs at local funding and WUAs communities abandonment level Quality of ground and Increased diffuse Public awareness campaigns to MAWR, Goskompriroda, Government Monitoring of water quality MAWR, Government funding surface waters and point pollution counteract pollution. Uzglavhydomet funding and WUAs Goskompriroda, Uzglavhydomet Flora and fauna Risk of biodiversity Promotion of diversity in farming MAWR, Goskompriroda, Government Monitoring of promotion and MAWR, Government funding loss, reduction of practice and local landscape, and and their regional funding awareness activities Goskompriroda, crop diversity and ensure environmental component departments Uzglavhydomet loss of gardens to measures; awareness campaigns agriculture

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) xviii Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

ANALYSIS OF EMERGENCY SITUATIONS

The Project zone is prone to natural disasters, such as earthquakes or exceptional weather conditions and river discharges. This may result in mudflows causing loss of life, destruction in settlements, and damage to hydraulic structures, roads, arable lands and other objects. The rivers Sokh, Shakhimardan and Altyaryksay are known to experience such events frequently.

The Project design does not include provisions to deal with emergencies that occur from causes other than the construction and operation of the Project works. One of the results of the Project will be to improve the safety of I&D operations, both by the provision - as far is reasonably possible - of improved physical structures and introduction of improved management, operation and maintenance (MOM) practices that take account of potential emergencies. The design process takes account of safety aspects, both the safety of a structure from outside threats, and the effect of a structure on third parties, by means of appropriate physical design and construction, and suitable MOM arrangements.

It is recommended to develop additional mitigating measures during the following Project phase of detailed project designs. These may include the assessment of high risk zones and structures that may be prone to flooding damage; modifications of the proposed designs, as needed; emergency potable water supply arrangements; campaigns to mitigate the occurrence and spread of infectious disease.

COMPLICANCE WITH WORLD BANK SAFEGUARDS

Once the required environmental (and social) mitigation and monitoring activities are implemented the Project is expected to comply with the following World Bank Operational Policies (OP):

Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01): The EA concludes that the Project will virtually have no negative environmental impacts, except for minor hazards that are normal during construction, which will be mitigated under the proposed Environmental Mitigation Plan (Chapter 9) and the Environmental Management Plan (Chapter 10). The M&E Consultant will monitor the implementation of the EMP (Chapter 11).

Natural Habitats (OP 4.04): For ages, the Project Area has been used intensely for agriculture and does not include any protected nature areas, or areas that are locally, nationally or globally considered as critical for the survival of any plant or animal species. Neither does the Project irreversibly affect areas considered ecologically unique. Species occurring are considered as common species. Small areas suffering from prolonged waterlogging and salinization currently have or may have some ecological value (e.g. for foraging birds) and are likely to be affected (e.g. drained). However, on a regional level this will not affect significantly plant and animal populations.

Water Resources Management (OP 4.07): The Project aims at avoiding waterlogging and salinization problems associated with irrigation and drainage, one of the key priority areas in the Bank’s policies for Water Resources Management. The Project has been designed in accordance with this OP.

Pest Management (OP 4.09): The Project is not expected to directly or indirectly support or change the use of pesticides. Enhanced farming conditions (due to disappearing waterlogged and saline areas) may result in increased application of agro-chemicals in the long-term, and therewith increased

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) xix Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

runoff of such chemical residues. The project includes integrated pest management in demonstration plots, as well as the monitoring of these.

Indigenous Peoples (OP 4.10): The Social Assessment concludes that there are no indigenous people in the Project area and therefore there is no impact on such groups.

Physical Cultural Resources (OP 4.11): The Project will not affect negatively any physical cultural resources. On the contrary, improved drainage will reduce the damage inflicted by salt intrusion in foundations of buildings.

Involuntary Resettlement (OP 4.12): The Social Assessment concludes that on the basis of selected interventions, there is no need to replace people as a result of the Project. Compensation for any lost assets will be provided according to government regulations.

Forestry (OP 4.36): Forest resources in the Project Area are limited to roadside- and small-scale homestead plantations. Some of these resources will be negatively affected (e.g. cutting to allow access; excavation of some channels). Compensation measures will be applied in accordance to government regulations.

Projects in International Waterways (OP 7.50): The Project Area ultimately drains into the Syrdarya river, and finally the Aral Sea, which are international waterways. In this respect the Project Area is not located ‘in’ an international waterway but connects to these through irrigation (intake) and drainage (outflow) canals, and is therefore connected to subsequently Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. Uzbekistan is in the process of joining the Convention of the Protection and Use of Trans-boundary Water Courses. The EA demonstrates that the Project will result in reduction of water consumption, a slightly increased drainage run-off and slightly reduced inputs to the salinity load of Syrdarya river. Altogether it is concluded that the Project will not significantly affect international waterways.

CONCLUSIONS

This Environmental Assessment shows that the implementation of Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management – Phase 1 project is expected to induce substantial positive environmental impacts and only minor to negligible negative environmental impacts. The negative environmental impacts are mostly expected during implementation (construction) of the Project, and can to a large extent be mitigated by application of the necessary safeguard measures that are to be taken by Contractors. Impacts of the Project on the downstream area, particularly on Syrdarya river, an international waterway, are both quantitatively as well as qualitatively expected to be negligible.

The Project is seen as a much needed step to enhance chances for economical development and poverty alleviation. Non-implementation of the Project would lead to further deteriorating farming conditions, declining health and sanitation, and increased poverty.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) xx Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

1 Introduction

1.1 Background Preparation of the Environmental Assessment The government of the Republic of Uzbekistan has applied to the World Bank (WB) for assistance in the preparation and funding of the Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1), hereinafter called the Project. A Feasibility Study (FS) for the project was conducted by a Joint Venture of Mott MacDonald from the United Kingdom and Temelsu from Turkey (in short: Mott MacDonald-Temelsu – MMTS). The Final Feasibility Report was submitted in September 2008.

Appraisal of the Project requires an independent Environmental Assessment (EA), implemented according to guidelines of the government of Uzbekistan and the World Bank. An initial Environmental Assessment1 of the Project was carried out as part of the EuropeAid (Tacis) Water Investment Support Facility (WISF). The WISF project was implemented from 2005-2007 by a consortium of consulting firms, i.e. Euroconsult Mott MacDonald (EMM)2 from the Netherlands as leading firm, and BCEOM from France, as its associate. A Framework Environmental Assessment report for the Project was submitted in December 2007.

As the WISF project terminated in end-2007, and because by that time the Feasibility Study had only advanced to its inception phase, the EA had to be finalized under a separate contract with independent consultants at a later stage. As requested by the Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources3, the Cabinet of Ministers approved4 the allocation of required funding for completion of the environmental (and social) assessment studies for the Project in such a way that these studies can be cleared by the World Bank before April 2009. The contract was concluded between the Project Implementation Unit (PIU) and independent consultants in mid-December 20085.

Water Resources Management in Ferghana Valley Ferghana Valley (the Valley) lies within parts of three Central Asian states: Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and the Kyrgyz Republic (Figure 1-1 and 1-2). Total land cover is about 2.6 million ha. Approximately 14 million people live in the Valley, of which two-third live in rural areas.

1 Actually a Framework Environmental Assessment was prepared. An Environmental Assessment is also called an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). 2 Euroconsult Mott MacDonald was formerly known as ARCADIS Euroconsult. It joined the Mott MacDonald Group on 1 April 2007. 3 Letter 04/97-353 dated 4.7.08 and 04/97-568 dated 13.10.08. 4 Letter 02/103-124 dated 27.10.08. 5 Similarly, under WISF also a Framework Social Assessment was conducted and submitted in December 2007, but for reasons explained above, this could not be completed either. Under separate contract between PIU and independent consultants the Social Assessment of the Project is presented in a separate report.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 1 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Figure 1-1. Location of the Project area (regional)

60° 62° 64° 66° 68° 70° 72°

46° N

W E

S

46°

Sy r D ary ARAL SEA a Riv 44° er KAZAKHSTAN

44°

42° #Y Nukus UZBEKISTAN Project Area 42° Urgench #Y Toktogul

Tuya-Muyun KYRGYZSTAN TASHKENT #Y A Uchkurgan m Chardara u Aidarkul Namangan #Y D Andijan a 40° r y #Y Andijan a Tuzkan Gulistan R #Y i Kairakkum v #Y Fergana e r Djizak Farhad Navoi #Y 40° Bukhara #Y #Y Samarkand TURKMENISTAN #Y

Karshi TAJIKISTAN Legend: #Y 38° International boundary Oblast boundary

#Y City 38° River IRAN Water body Zeyid 40 0 40 80 Kilometers #YTermez AFGHANISTAN 62° 64° 66° 68° 70° 72°

Figure 1-2. Location of the Project area (local)

71° 72°

N 41°

n 41° y W E s r

a a À-4 N m l S A Namangan Kara darya

C

h a r d e rya Riv a Syrda k

s a

y Andijan

E z e N v ort a he n rn ul B ikk W ag ch hd A e ad s Sh -2 t im co P Y l o G ll liy ec a a TAJIKISTAN an to z n r y a a c j i r v n o a i ja b n P d Yazyavan o i n s d A d h g o k 4 Õ i hok b oipc o Ê - B bK o o 2 ð b r - i or a 4 - - 1 z z n 4 Mo y

a Æ d F Ê a -4 d h

g U

Dangara a

y Ê B l

M i Á k Kuva r u Yangikurgan n ve l r a Ri ko Ø M y e yrdar b a S o h rg d t i T r lan agd o s Y i G a u N y nch Kokand a aK Gan n da Bulok o × g k è i l Tashlak a ì K D Markaziy O Novbakhor n 1 á a u a - c Langar ä î k y l î h y M á é d iddle Kyzyltep a î u o a collec n ð - S Baghdad tor Margilan å 2 n m a b o g l Ø k r na o h S B e a Karkidon ä b a u F c î o r a á Is r bo g n î e f ik lik i a ð v a B rg å Besharyk ra S Fe Øèé u th v u ì î ë o è S Ø Altyaryk Fergana Yaypan Ê Rishatan

Kurgantepa Avval

Kuvasay

I s f a Burgandi ogon y L ra m s a S y o k h I s R fa i KYRGYZSTAN Vuadil r v a e TAJIKISTAN r Legend: State boundary

S I h Oblast boundarys a f k a h y

im r Rayon boundarya

a m rd a s n River or canala

y Collector 40°

ra fa Lake 40° Is City

õ Project Area

ê

î

Ñ 6 0 6 12Kilometers

71° 72°

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 2 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

For the majority of the population, agricultural activities constitute the main source of income and livelihood. However, individuals have limited land available for productive use; poverty is widespread (poverty level is 30% in Ferghana region according to World Bank, 2003).

The main water-sources for the Valley are the Naryn, Karadarya (Qara Darya) and Syrdarya rivers, the latter is formed by confluence of the former two rivers (Figure 1-3). Additionally there are numerous rivers and mountain streams flowing in from the north, east and south.

The Valley has substantial groundwater resources that have developed over geological time. The underground waters associated with the rivers noted above, especially the Sokh and Isfara, form a main source of potable water supply for the population of the Valley.

A major problem is the high water table, especially in the lower and central parts of the Valley. This widespread problem is particularly associated with the irrigated areas. This has been attributed by the Uzbek Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources (MAWR) to:
Absence of an adequate drainage system, or
A drainage system that is no longer properly functioning, as the necessary rehabilitation and maintenance has not been carried out during the past two decades, and
The existing improper irrigation and farm management practices.

As a result, the area is suffering from substantial waterlogging and soil and water salinization. The high water table has mobilized salt in the soil which has resulted in destruction of buildings near the collector drains. For crops, it has resulted in lower yields and therefore lower income for people living in the area.

Agricultural production is furthermore hampered by:
Unreliable irrigation water supply;
Unreliable supply of fertilizers and seeds;
Inappropriate methods for crop cultivation;
Limitations in allocation of seasonal credits and funding of capital investments;
Limitations in marketing and produce processing;
Control of cropping patterns;
Weak informational services in the field of agricultural development.

1.2 Objectives The Project’s Development Objective (PDO) is to improve agricultural production in areas affected by waterlogging, and to reduce damage to housing and infrastructure from rising groundwater levels and salinity in the Project area. This objective is to be achieved through the rehabilitation of the I&D system and through institutional capacity building in sustainable water resources management and agricultural production. Achievement of project objectives would be measured by the following key performance indicators: (a) the lowering of the groundwater table, (b) an increase in production of major crops such as cotton and wheat, and (c) the reduction of land area flooded in settlements. Improved overall water resources management will be measured through increased quantity and reliability of flows in the Syrdarya basin on the basis of water balance studies.

The Project requires an Environmental Assessment (EA) according to World Bank Operational Policies (OP 4.01, 1999) and general guidelines provided in the Environmental Source Book, and procedures for completing the Uzbekistan State Ecological Expertise Review.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 3 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Figure 1-3. Irrigation and drainage network in Ferghana Valley

S y g a 71° 72° an n K h

kh s g

A a n

la a k N t m

Chus a N

W E an Pa G ang u kh am s a t g N i a i l S v B ab a y a41° s a a y l M Namanghan a C n h y a a n 41° a C s y d k r NAMANGHAN y a n a a s a Ka z a k s N j a e i s k d e R a m r n y l a A A s K k g D i O e B K

Ka ev ra aba c Zambark d unb ul ar er Akh ya iv S a R r y a k 1 s y lpak - u r araka P M a K iy k a s d l D ul ANDIJAN a nY a n r1 k y Ca y- m t a m a K a l zy n a i a S D a n rg k v e Ac A a S n F h n a r P c i r he k y rt is u -2 d o h l P j Andijan N kze u Fruno g r a ay a ns n ha c rik T A J I K I S T A N kh No ha T rt S h l N u B a o aynova m og r N ya d n th Kan a ad K a r s -4 C kiy O M n kh Z a H h j a iy C C i v - d y e i S 4 n a N a k A b r s y a y i a - i g n D m k i b a ju a s B n v g n d d u a a S - a a h K Kokand k y o d b a z k g a A l a y i l h o a z n - a Y Ca I m B y a s gan f y a Fer a Margilan n D s K F er r h Baghdad yzyltepins outh in kiy Middl S C c Karkidon res. s e k n i t y r al a Can l a rth rgan No FERGANA Fe Big Altyaryk Fergana

C a Rishtan Y Shakhimardan Nayman K Sokh-

l a A n c a h C i a s u Legend an rg e Ko F ig k B State boundary -Ya n g Basin Water authority a y k

a s a Oblast boundary s r

i

h

s

River or canal b I s n f a A a d r a zy S r Collector ilga o a h k C m h i

h Lake

I k K Y R G Y Z S T A N s a

f

h a

y City S

r

a m Project Area

s

c a c y Gauging station 40°

40° 5 0 5 10 15 20 Kilometers

71° 72°

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 4 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

The Project is expected to reverse the environmental and land degradation caused by mismanagement of land and water resources and inadequate drainage and hence will have an overall positive environmental impact. In fact the Project supports an environmental management and mitigation program for controlling waterlogging and soil salinization by improving the drainage system and water use efficiency on the irrigated land. In addition, the Project works concern mostly the rehabilitation of the existing drainage system. In addition, the Project triggers OP 7.50 as the Project area lays in the Syrdarya basin which is an international waterway of which Uzbekistan is a riparian state. With the above reasoning in mind, the Project is in World Bank’s environmental terminology a Category B project.

The objectives of the Environmental Assessment are to:
Review the state of the environment as an input to the decision making process;
Ensure that environmental concerns are recognized at an early stage and are taken into account in the identification and consideration of project alternatives, selection, detailed project planning and design; and
Identify ways of environmentally improving the project by preventing, minimizing, mitigating or compensating any adverse impacts.

1.3 Methodologies Fact-finding for the Environmental Assessment started in February 2007 (Photo 1, Annex 7). Data and maps were collected from various organisations, including the Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources and its design institutes (Uzgipmeliovodkhoz, Uzgiprovodkhoz), Ferghana Hydro-geological Meliorative Expedition, Uzdaverloiykha, Uzglavhydromet, Goskompriroda, and field visits were conducted. Data, some of which spanning considerable periods of time, were then analyzed by the EA study team. A Framework Environmental Assessment (FEA) report was submitted to the government of Uzbekistan and the World Bank in December 2007.

The findings of the FEA were presented during a stakeholder workshop held in Tashkent on 20 November 2007 to reach a consensus on how the issues raised in the EA (and the Social Assessment; SA) would be incorporated into Project design and implementation. Details of this workshop, and other consultations conducted, are provided in Annex 4, and are summarized in Chapter 13.

As noted above, completion of the EA started in mid-December 2008, on the basis of the Final Feasibility Report for the Project of September 2008. On 12 February 2009, a second stakeholder consultation workshop was held, this time in the project region (Ferghana town). Results of this event are also presented in Annex 4, and summarized in Chapter 13.

1.4 Scope and Status of the Present Report The present document presents the findings of the EA of the considered Project interventions as these were formulated by the Feasibility Study team in September 2008.

The report has been compiled in accordance with WB/OP 4.01 Annex B (content of an EA report) and guidelines provided by the Government of Uzbekistan.

Chapter 2 presents the relevant policy, legal and institutional framework for the environment and irrigation & drainage sectors in Uzbekistan.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 5 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3 provides a description of the Project design as per September 2008, while the relevant environmental setting is given in Chapter 4.

Chapter 5 presents the expected positive and negative environmental impacts from the envisaged Project, whereas Chapter 6 provides an analysis of alternative project interventions, which is basically a comparison between the ‘with-project’ and without-project’ situations. At the explicit suggestion of the Uzbekistan authorities two chapters deal with an analysis of emergencies situations (Chapter 7) and Project benefits (Chapter 8). The Environmental Mitigation Plan, the Environmental Management Plan and the Environmental Monitoring Plan are dealt with in three separate chapters, Chapter 9, Chapter 10 and Chapter 11, respectively. Chapter 12 provides an oversight of compliance of the Project with World Bank safeguard policies. Chapter 13 describes the consultation activities conducted by the EA team. Finally, Chapter 14 presents the main conclusions of the EA study.

Annexes provide subsequently the list of EA report preparers; used references; a record of interagency and consultation meetings; and other relevant information.

An Executive Summary has been prepared as an integral part of the Environmental Assessment.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 6 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

2 Policy, Legal and Institutional Framework

This chapter presents the policy, legal and institutional framework within which the EA was carried out. It also identifies relevant international environmental agreements to which Uzbekistan is party. The chapter furthermore reviews the relevant environmental policies of Uzbekistan and the World Bank.

2.1 Environmental Sector

2.1.1 Policy and Legal Framework National Environmental Policies – The main priority for the Republic of Uzbekistan during the on-going economic reforms is to ensure reliable social guarantees and measures for social security and environmental protection6. Nature protection policy and the implementing measures in the areas of rational use of the natural resources and environment protection are based on the following main principles:
Integration of economic and ecological policy aimed at conservation and restoration of the environment as the essential condition for improvement of the living standards of the population;
Transition from protection of individual natural elements to the general and integrated protection of ecosystems;
Responsibility of all members of society for environment protection and conservation of biodiversity.

General Legislation – Since independence Uzbekistan has established more than 100 laws, revisions of old legislation and resource management policies designed to address environmental problems and manage environmental resources. Relevant environmental laws and regulations in the framework of the present Project include:
“On Environmental Protection” (1992), establishing a legal, economic and organizational framework for environment protection, ensuring sustainable development and defining principles including SEE;
“On Water and Water Use” (1993), ensuring rational water use, protection of water resources, prevention and mitigation of negative impacts and compliance with national legislation;
“On Land Code” (1998) provides basic norms and rules for land use and stipulates the land rights;
“On the Concept of National Security” (1997), a principle framework for achieving national ecological security, etc.;
“On Ecological Expertise” (2001) provides for mandatory expert assessment of impacts on the environment and human health, as well as a legal basis for conducting expert assessments.

With the support of international organizations strategies and plans of actions with relevance to the Project have been developed, including:
National Environmental Action Program of the Republic of Uzbekistan for 1996-2010 (1999);
National Action Program to Combat Desertification (1998);
Mid-Term Strategy for Improving Living Standards (2003).

6“Uzbekistan: Towards 21-st Century”, Report about the 14-th Session of Parliament (Oliy Majlis).

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 7 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Decrees Affecting Water Resources and Nature Protection – Many important aspects of state management, use and protection of water resources are regulated by Decrees of the Cabinet of Ministers, such as:
“On approval of the Regulation of the State Ecological Expertise” (No 491, 31.12.2001);
“On approval of Provision on the State Environment Monitoring” (No 49, 3.04.2002);
“On rendering status of the specially protected natural territories of the republican importance to the fresh water aquifer formation zones” (No 302, 26.08.2002);
“On improvement of the Hydro-Meteorological Service” (No 183, 14.04.2004);
“On approval of the Provision for procedures for the cadastral division of territory of the RUz and formation of cadastral numbers for land plots, buildings and structures” (No 492, 31.12.2001).

Relevant nature protection and environment-related normative documents issued by government applicable to the Project are presented in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1. Nature project and environment-related GoU norms/standards applicable to the Project Nr GOU norm / standard Description Controlling institution 1 RD 118.0027719.5-91 “Procedure for elaboration and execution of draft standards on maximum Glavhydromet permissible emission of contaminants discharged to water bodies including drainage water” 2 RD 118.0027714.6-92 “Procedure for granting permission for special water use” Goskompriroda 3 RD 118.0027714.47-95 “Instruction for determining of damage caused to the national economy by Goskompriroda and underground water contamination” Uzbekgidrogeologiya 4 Temporary “Temporary recommendation on control of underground water protection of Goskompriroda and recommendation, 1991 the Republic of Uzbekistan” Uzbekgidrogeologiya 5 RD 118.0027714.24-93 “Instruction on the procedure for environmental impact assessment (EIA) in State Architecture and selecting sites, developing feasibility studies and construction projects Building Committee (reconstruction, extension and re-equipment projects) for business and enterprises” 6 CN & R 2.04.02-97 “Water supply external nets on cemeteries, livestock burial areas, landfills Health Protection Ministry, and landfill drainage structures, manure storage infrastructure, and other Health-Epidemiological sources of pollution” Service 7 CN & R 2.03.11-96 and “Protection of construction structural units and structures from corrosion” for Glavgosexpertiza by State CN & R 3.04.02-97 mitigation of negative impact on groundwater Architecture and Building Committee 8 CN & R 3.01.01-97 and “On measures for protection of soils” Goskompriroda CN & R 3.05.03-97 9 CN & R 2.01.03-96 “Construction in seismic districts” for anti-seismic measures for decreasing of Glavgosexpertiza by State seismic load and increasing of resistance to seismic impact” Architecture and Building Committee 10 O’z-DSt 950:2000 National Standards for Drinking Water Goskompriroda, Health Protection Ministry 11 RD 118.0027714.41-94 “Procedure for elaboration and principal requirements of recommendations Goskompriroda, Health to use waste water for crop irrigation” Protection Ministry

Trans-boundary Water and Energy Resource Management – Since independence Uzbekistan has been party to bilateral and multilateral agreements and a participant in regional initiatives in the area of

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 8 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

joint water and energy resources management in Central Asia. An important stimulus to strengthening of dialogue and cooperation amongst the Aral Sea basin countries is the signing of a number of intergovernmental agreements, such as:
Agreement between Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan about cooperation in water management issues (Chardjev; 16 January 1996);
Agreement between Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan about use of water and energy resources of the Syrdarya River Basin (Bishkek; 17 March 1998).

On 9 August 2007 the President of Uzbekistan signed a Decree “On joining the Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Water Courses and International Lakes”, and “On joining the Convention on the Right to Non-Navigation Use of Transboundary Water Courses”. This decree is important for the development of integrated water management principles and environmental-friendly use of the transboundary water resources at national and regional levels, and in the Ferghana Valley.

Global and Regional Agreements – In the context of the global environment, the Republic of Uzbekistan is a Party to three Rio Conventions: the Convention on Climate Change, Convention on Biological Diversity, and Convention to Combat Desertification, together with a number of other international Conventions, Protocols, Agreements, and Memoranda of Understanding in the areas of environmental conservation and sustainable development. Other global agreements to which Uzbekistan is party include:
Convention on Prohibition of Military or Any Aggressive Destructive Actions to the Environment (26.05.1993);
Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (22.12.1995);
Convention on Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (22.12.1995);
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (01.07.1997);
Bonn Convention on Conservation of Migrating Species of Wild Animals (01.05.1998);
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (30.08.2001).

In the framework of the CIS, Uzbekistan is member of the Inter-State Ecological Council for harmonization of environmental legislation, elaboration on EA and developing economic tools for environmental protection, and has established the Inter-state Environmental Fund for financing environmental protection in inter-state and regional programs.

A good example of multi-lateral and multi-donor partnership is the Central Asian Countries Initiative for Land Management (CACILM). The objectives of this program are to combat land degradation and reduce poverty in the Central Asian countries by helping to develop a comprehensive and integrated approach to the sustainable management of land and water resources.

2.1.2 Institutional Framework State Organisations – The State Committee for Nature Protection (Goskompriroda)7 is the primary environmental regulatory agency. It reports directly to the Oliy Majlis (Parliament), and is responsible, at central, oblast and raion levels, for coordinating the environmental and natural resources actions of other

7 In English translations also called ‘State Committee for Nature Conservation’, ‘State Committee for Natural Resources’, ‘Committee of Nature Control’, etc.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 9 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

national government bodies. The mandate of Goskompriroda is based on the Regulation “On the State Environmental Committee of the Republic of Uzbekistan” as approved by Parliament on 26 April 1996.

Goskompriroda is responsible for environmental and natural systems protection. It oversees the national system of protected areas, can initiate liability/damage actions, and administers an Environmental Fund, which receives pollution fees and penalties and supports pollution mitigation measures. There are also several scientific institutes attached to the Goskompriroda, which conduct analysis on environmental and natural resources problems and measures to address these in support of Goskompriroda’s work.

Goskompriroda also issues permits for pollution discharge emissions and may prohibit projects and construction works that do not comply with (international) legislation. Fees are collected at the regional level for the use of resources, for licences to discharge polluting material, and for waste disposal. Money collected from these sources enters into the nature control fund and is used for current expenditure on activities connected with environmental control. Fifty percent of the collected funds are used at the regional level for local projects, and rest is directed to the ‘republican fund for special projects.

The structure of Goskompriroda takes the form of a central body in Tashkent, with regional (oblast) and local (raion) branches and agencies for scientific and technical support. Regional level organisations have the same structure as those at national level. Different departments take responsibility for environmental standards, environmental law, international relations, environmental funding, economics, publicity, and governmental ecological review.

Non-Governmental Organisations – There are other national public organizations and national charity and international foundations (NGOs) in Uzbekistan. Their activities are aimed at supporting the health of the population and environmental protection, as well as development of entrepreneurship, establishment and strengthening of cultural relations and intellectual wealth. All NGOs with a mandate for environmental protection established a national program: ECOFORUM. In June 2004, Goskompriroda and ECOFORUM signed a Memorandum of Understanding and Cooperation.

There are a number of NGOs in Ferghana valley whose activities are directed to preservation of biodiversity, climate change, combating desertification, water resources pollution issues and ecological education of the local population.

2.1.3 Environmental Assessments The Goskompriroda Directorate for Ecological Review has responsibility for Environmental Assessments and State Ecological Expertise (SEE). SEE is carried out for projects and programmes with potential adverse impacts on the environment. As part of the SEE responsibility, Goskompriroda approves regulations proposed by environmental committees at various levels.

2.1.4 Environmental Licensing Large-scale development, such as the proposed Project, is implemented based on licences provided by the State Architecture and Construction Committee during official registration. Such licences are issued for 5 years with a possibility for extension. Licences determine the type of development as well as the official governmental norms and regulations that are applicable. In addition to above mentioned nature protection normative documents issued by government (Section 2.1.1) there are several specific norms and standards (which are to be adhered to by constructor organizations) that are included in Table 2-1.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 10 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Goskompriroda provides permissions for water intake according to an «Authorization on Special Water Supply». These permissions should be legalized during construction period.

2.1.5 Environmental Monitoring Responsibility for environmental monitoring is distributed among a number of state agencies, under the general coordination of Goskompriroda. The government approved Decree Number 111 of 3 April 2002 “On Approval of the Regulation on State Environmental Monitoring in the Republic of Uzbekistan” in order to establish a united environmental monitoring system. This system is overseen by an inter-agency committee with six members chaired by Goskompriroda. The various environmental information management functions, distributed by agency, can be summarized as follows:
Goskompriroda: pollution sources and surface eco-systems monitoring plus coordination of environmental information collection, management and dissemination;
Uzglavhydromet: atmospheric pollution, surface waters, soils and background monitoring;
Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources Management: monitoring of collector-drainage waters quality (mineralization) of main water courses;
Goskomzemgeodezcadastre: soil land monitoring and soil pollution control;
State Committee on Geology: underground water monitoring;
Ministry of Health: sanitary-epidemiological environmental monitoring; and
Ministries, departments and economic agencies: conduct departmental environmental monitoring.

Goskomzemgeodezcadastre coordinates the United Service of State Cadastres in Uzbekistan, and the information it collects is needed as the basis for fees assessed to support the nature protection system as well as land taxation.

2.2 Uzbekistan EA Requirements As stated earlier, State Environmental Expertise (SEE), i.e. review and approval (or rejection) of developments on environmental grounds, is regulated by Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers No 491.31.12.2001: “On approval of the Regulation of the State Ecological Expertise”. The main responsible organization is the Directorate for State Ecological Expertise (Glavgosecoexpertiza) of Goskompriroda. The Regulation stipulates 4 categories for development:
Category 1 – high risk;
Category 2 – moderate risk;
Category 3 – low risk;
Category 4 – local impact.

Appendix 2 to this Regulation details the types of development that fall within each Category. Category 2 (moderate risk) includes an item “45 - Reconstruction and melioration improvement of deteriorated irrigation lands with a space over 1,000 hectares”, which is applicable to the Project at hand (the total Project Area is 67,000 ha, of which about 48,000 ha is irrigated). Category 3 (low risk) includes an item “40 - Reconstruction and melioration improvement of deteriorated irrigation lands with a space from 100 to 1,000 hectares”.

State Ecological Expertise is conducted on:
Objects referred to Categories 1 and 2;
State program projects, concepts and development schemes;
Architectural designs for objects concerning a population exceeding 50,000 people;

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 11 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Designs for new machinery, technologies, materials, substances, produce;
Designs regulating activities related to natural resources use.

The project proponent itself conducts environmental impact assessments, or the State Ecological Expertise based on the submitted EA does this. The conclusion of the State Ecological Expertise is issued by the Deputy Chairman of Main State Ecological Expertise, and this provides the obligatory document for funding organizations and for execution organizations. The period in which State Ecological Expertise for types of activities referred to Categories 1 and 2 is to be conducted is 30 days. Depending on the project complexity, this period may be prolonged by the Chairman of Goskompriroda, but no longer than 2 months. Costs for conducting SEE depend on the Category and type of project. For the present Category 2 Project costs for SEE are minimal 50 salaries.

2.3 World Bank EA Requirements The World Bank distinguishes different types of environmental analysis:
Project-Specific EA (PSEA) to examine specific investment projects;
Regional EA (REA) may be applied where a number of similar but significant development activities with potentially cumulative impacts are planned within a certain region or e.g. catchments area;
Sector EA (SEA) is used for the design of sector investment programs.

Alternatives may be applied in cases where a full EA is not needed. Alternative approaches include:
Application of specific environmental design and/or siting criteria for small scale industries;
Full social assessment might be required in cases where large scale or serious sociological or socio- economic impacts are expected.

The level of detail of the environmental analysis depends on the scale of the works that are proposed and the magnitude of the environmental impacts. The following categories, based on best professional judgement, are applied:
Category A: a full EA is required in cases where significant adverse impacts are expected - large scale irrigation and drainage works are often Category A;
Category B: although a full EA is not required, an environmental analysis should be carried out, as the project may have adverse environmental impacts (which are however expected to be less significant than under Category A);
Category C: no EA or environmental analysis is required for projects without expected adverse environmental impacts.

Figure 2-1 presents the different steps in the project cycle and shows how the various EA phases fit in the project preparation process. The main EA phases concern screening, scoping, EA, and environmental management plan during and after implementation of the project - covering mitigation, monitoring and evaluation.

In the framework of World Bank lending programs, the preparation of environmental data sheets is required for proposed projects. These sheets contain the most essential environmental information, as well as the category determination.

The World Bank’s Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet (ISDS; of 17 January 2005) concludes that the Project at hand would reverse the environmental and land degradation caused due to mismanagement of land and water resources and inadequate drainage and hence would have an overall positive

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 12 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

environmental impact, and that there are no major concerns that may be addressed. The ISDS states that the Project would trigger OP/BP 7.50 – Projects on International Waterways, as the Project lies in the Syrdarya basin, which is an international waterway of which Uzbekistan, is a riparian. It adds that the Project works are of a rehabilitation nature and would not result in changes in water quantity or quality, affecting interests of any other riparian country. In addition, there is an existing Water Sharing Agreement among the riparian states that governs quantity and quality of Syrdarya waters. The ISDS concludes that the Project would be Category B, requiring a ‘partial assessment’.

The World Bank’s Project Concept Note (PCN; of 27 January 2006) reports on agreement reached with relevant safeguards staff of the government of Uzbekistan on the Category B of the Project.

Figure 2-1. Environmental assessment and the World Bank project cycle

Project Cycle Environmental Assessment

C No EA required Screening Pre-feasibility Study B A Scoping & Public Con- Identification Scoping & Public Consultation sultation (as appropriate)

ToR and EA Team ToR and EA Team Feasibility Study Selection Selection

EA Preparation: EA Preparation: - Examine alternatives - Assess impacts; and/or

Preparation - Mitigation plan; or Project Planning and - Assess impacts - Carry out Audit; or Detailed Design - EMP's - Assess hazards

Review Environmental Review EA Report & Project Appraisal Section in Appraisal Public Consultation

Appraisal Report

Loan Negatiation Negotiation Loan Approval

Monitoring Environmental Quality Project Implementa- tion and Supervision Monitoring Mitigation Implementation Measures

Implementation Completion Report Evaluate EA Report

Evaluate Mitigation Plan Evaluation Performance Audit and OED Evaluation Evaluate Institution Capacity

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 13 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Findings from the present Environmental Assessment confirm that the currently proposed Project interventions are expected to have an overall positive environmental impact and that there are no major concerns to be addressed. There will be temporary and local disturbance due to construction and rehabilitation works, but it is expected that these impacts can mostly be mitigated by proper construction safeguard measures. The EA results also indicate that no significant negative impacts are expected from the Project on the quantity and quality of Syrdarya river waters. Therefore, the EA study team confirms the Project as a Category B project.

2.4 Irrigation and Drainage Sector

2.4.1 Policy and Legal Framework Water Management Policy and Reforms – After independence, policy was directed to a social-oriented market economy. This resulted in the appearance of new government organisations, legal reform, privatization of state property, reform of agriculture, creation of market infrastructure, and environment protection.

The water management policy of the government targets rational water use and protection of water resources, increased efficiency, providing guaranteed water delivery and necessary services to society and natural ecosystems by providing resources for reconstruction and O&M of existing infrastructure. The main priorities for water management are:
Water savings in all consumption spheres and improved quality of water resources;
Development of water supply systems for potable water;
Restoration of soil fertility while maintaining a favourable water-salt regime in the root zone;
Preventing water and wind soil erosion;
Rational use and protection of vegetation cover of mountain-piedmont and desert-pasture zones;
Mitigating negative consequences of the eco-economic crisis in the Aral Sea region, on the basis of an interrelated regional and national approach.

Since 1991, a number of Presidential decrees were issued with regard to the rehabilitation and improvement of key I&D infrastructure, water conservation and land reclamation. In 2001, with the assistance of the World Bank, the Government prepared a strategy for the irrigation and drainage sub- sector. This strategy addressed the issues related to deterioration of the irrigation and drainage system in a systematic and planned manner and outlined a program to rehabilitate and improve I&D infrastructure. A two-phased approach was proposed, the first phase of 5 years (consolidation and emergency) comprised a public investment program to rehabilitate priority works of the main and inter-farm I&D systems, while a second phase of 20 years (rehabilitation and modernization) covered the full rehabilitation and upgrading of all I&D infrastructure. The total capital investment required for the full program was estimated at about USD 22 billion or USD 5,240 per hectare.

In 2001 a Masterplan was produced for the development of irrigated agriculture and water management during the period to 2015. Two key instruments in the drive to a two-level system of basin irrigation management, which includes introducing market relationships with regard to water use, are:
Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of 21 June 2003 (Nr 290) “On improvement of the activities of the Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources of the republic of Uzbekistan”;
Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of 21 July 2003 (Nr 320) “On improvement of water sector management”.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 14 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

The most important component of recent reforms in the water sector is a transition from a territorial management principle to a more flexible two-level system of water management, with creation of: (i) Basin Administrations of Irrigation Systems (BAIS); and (ii) Water User’s Associations (WUA). Based on this approach a key document was issued in 2004: the government strategy on improvement of water resource management and water use in agriculture and formation of WUA’s. Progress made so far proves that this is a long and complicated process.

Recently adopted government degrees related to water management improvement – The President of the Republic of Uzbekistan issued Decree № UP-3932 dated 29 October 2007 "On measures for fundamental improvement of land ameliorative system” defining priorities for agriculture development for the period 2008-2012, and its coordinating mechanism, the Republican Fund for Irrigated Land Ameliorative Improvement. The year 2009 is declared as the year of Upgrading Villages and Agriculture, which basically predetermines the country’s strategic priorities in these sectors.

Due to prolonged water shortages, and with the objective to further increase agricultural production and rural income, the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan issued a Decree on 20 October 2008 “On measures to optimize cultivation areas and increase of food crop production”. In accordance with this Decree, starting from 2009, production volumes for raw cotton are being reduced and the area for cereal and vegetables production is being increased. The President of the Republic of Uzbekistan issued Decree № F-3077 dated 5 October 2008 “On formation of the Special Committee for elaboration of proposals for measures for optimization of land plots size, that are under leasehold farms” aiming at more efficient operation of leasehold farms through optimization of land plot sizes.

Legal Framework - The main legislative document identifying the rights, obligations and regulations of natural resource use and environmental protection is the Constitution of the Republic of Uzbekistan, adopted in 1992. Water and nature protection relationships are regulated by a package of laws, adopted immediately after independence8.

The Law “On Nature Protection” (1992) is the fundamental legislative act regulating environmental protection. It provides the legal, economic and managerial basis for the conservation and monitoring of natural resources, the protection of ecosystems and the rights of citizens to a favourable environment.

At the same time a series of laws was adopted that regulate protection and use of natural resources: the “Land Law” (1993), “Law on Water and Water Use” (1993), “On the Specially Protected Nature Territories” (1993), “On the State Sanitary Inspection” (1992), as well as mechanisms for their execution specified in Government Decrees9.

The most important legal document is the “Law on Water and Water Use” signed by the President of Uzbekistan on 6 May 1993. Some corrections and amendments to the law were made later. The objectives of the law are regulation of water relationships, rational use of water for the needs of the population and the national economy, protection of water from pollution and depletion, prevention and elimination of other

8 In the soviet period water relations were regulated by the Law of the USSR dated 10 December 1970: ”Basis of water legislation of Soviet union and union republics”. 9 Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers “On approval of provisions on water protection zones of reservoirs and other water bodies, rivers, main canals and collectors, as well as the other water sources in the Republic of Uzbekistan “ No 174 of 7 April 1992.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 15 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

negative impacts on water, improvement of the condition of water bodies, as well as the protection of rights of enterprises, institutions, organizations, leasehold and dekhkan farms and citizens in relation to water.

In order to overcome the limitations of the existing legal system, in November 2004, a Special Government commission working jointly with stakeholders took the following decisions with regard to the development of WUAs:
To adopt the special law on WUAs and make the necessary amendments to the relevant laws and bylaws (stressing at the same time that at present the legal basis of WUA status and functions is insufficiently elaborated);
To strengthen the role of WUAs in planning and managing the rational use of water resources on irrigated lands and the promotion of sustainable and integrated water resource management;
To encourage WUAs to make better use of their own water resources through the introduction of advanced irrigation water application technologies which reduce the volume of water supplied per hectare;
To develop a special program for the introduction of modern irrigation water application technologies and a review of issues associated with financing of farmers; and
To assist WUAs in introducing water meters for precise measurement and calculation of water volumes used by farmers.

In line with government priorities, the Commission of the Oliy Majlis together with governmental agencies and stakeholders are preparing a law “On Water User Associations”, as well as a new versions of other laws and byelaws.

2.4.2 Overall Institutional Framework Under the supervision of the Cabinet of Ministers, management of water resources is the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources (MAWR), the State Committee for Nature Protection (Goskompriroda), the Centre of Hydro-Meteorological Services (Uzglavhydromet), and local bodies of state management under the leadership of the State Commission of Oliy Majlis.

Water use and water protection at the national level is overseen by the Main Department of Water Resources at the MAWR. Management of underground water is provided by the State Committee on Geology and Mineral Resources (Uzbekgidrogeologiya). The State Water Management Control (Gosvodhoznadzor) is responsible for inspection of the condition of irrigation and drainage infrastructure, and provision of proposals and measures to eliminate defects, reconstruct and improve the infrastructure.

During Soviet times, on-farm management of irrigation and drainage was done by state and collective farms (sovkhoze and kolkhoze) which fell directly under MAWR responsibility. These were supplanted by shirkats - collective farms, based on the same borders. Since 2003 most shirkats have been sub-divided into leasehold farms, typically of 10 to 60 ha, and dekhan farms, which are smaller still, based on household plots. At the start of 2006, there were reportedly 120,000 leasehold farms and 3.5 million dekhan farms in Uzbekistan [UNDP, 2007]. As the number of leasehold farms increased, Water User Associations (WUA) were formed to manage water supply and operation and maintenance (O&M) of the irrigation and drainage systems. Some WUAs are organised on a catchment principle, but some still retain the administrative boundaries of the shirkats on which they are based. WUAs mostly comprise leasehold farms, but include also other legal entities using water.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 16 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

2.4.3 Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources MAWR has regional (oblast) and district (raion) directorates for agriculture and water management, as well as divisions that are responsible for operation of the large irrigation and drainage systems. Regional directorates have the same structure as MAWR at the national level and perform the executive functions of MAWR. The management structure of MAWR is presented in Figure 2-2.

The ministry plays the key role in the management and use of water (as well as forest resources), and coordination of water resources management. Figure 2-3 shows the general administrative structure of MAWR at all levels for water resources management.

Figure 2-2. Management structure of the Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 17 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Figure 2-3. Administrative structure for water resource management

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 18 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

National level – The main tasks of MAWR at national level with respect to water management are:
Policy development for the agricultural and water resources sector;
Improvement and introduction of new technologies in the agriculture and water resources sector;
Coordination of services to institutions and enterprises (acting on the principles of a market economy);
Investment in irrigation and drainage systems for improved water resources management; Development of policies and procedures for basin organizations;
Assisting Water Users Associations;
Introduction of integrated management of water resources in river basins;
Creation of strong investigation divisions;
Providing training courses for improved on-farm water use.

The MAWR is responsible for preparing the annual budget for O&M of the irrigation and drainage system, but in budget allocations, electricity and salary costs are given priority over other costs components. At present there are no specific water charges but in future WUAs and leasehold farmers are expected to meet the costs of on-farm O&M. The government also plans to introduce gradually a system of water charges for the O&M of of-farm infrastructure.

The Main Administration of Water Resources within MAWR, working with the Water Management Council (National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage), oversees the administration of irrigation and drainage nationally. The Water Management Council is an interdepartmental and interregional collective body for state management, coordinating works for provision of irrigation and drainage in Uzbekistan. Members of the council are leaders of large water management enterprises and the deputy region khokims are responsible for water management issues.

Regional (oblast) and District (raion) levels – At oblast (regional) level, Basin Administration of Irrigation Systems (BAIS) are responsible for irrigation through -at raion level- Administrations of Main Canals (AMC) and Administrations of Irrigation Systems (AIS), and for drainage through Hydro(geological)- Meliorative Expeditions (HGME). BAISs are also directly responsible, where appropriate, for HGMEs at oblast level, pumping systems and electricity and communication management organisations.

The main tasks of a BAIS are, at oblast level:
Organization of rational use of water resources;
Conducting of a single technical policy in water management;
Organization of continuous and timely supply of water to consumers;
Rational management of water resources on the basin’s territory;
Providing trustworthy accounting of water resources use.

BAISs give support in the organization and development of WUAs; take part in the Constituent Assemblies of WUAs; organize meetings with the workers of WUAs to discuss water distribution problems, resource management, water saving methods, etc; and contribute to the extension training programs of MAWR for on-farm irrigation. Water is supplied to a WUA on the basis of a contract (concluded between the BAIS and the WUA) that defines the responsibilities and obligations of both sides for operation of the irrigation infrastructure.

AMCs are responsible for the management, operation and maintenance of the main canals that convey water from the source (river or pumping station) to the secondary or inter-farm canals managed by AISs. From the inter-farm canals water is delivered to WUAs and other water users.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 19 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

The main tasks of AIS are the same as BAISs, but at raion level:
Organization of rational use of water resources;
Conducting of a single technical policy in water management;
Organization of continuous and timely supply of water to consumers;
Rational management of water resources on the basin’s territory;
Providing trustworthy accounting of water resources use.

A Hydro(-geological) Meliorative Expedition (HGME) functions in each region under the supervision of the BAIS. The HGME and its sub-divisions (zones) are responsible for operation and maintenance and rehabilitation of main and inter-farm drainage systems (including drainage pumping stations). In addition they monitor the condition of drainage systems, groundwater levels, and soil and water salinization levels.

The establishment of WUAs is a critical component of the institutional reforms and reorganization within the water sector. With the rapid expansion of leasehold farms, effective WUAs are essential for the management, operation and maintenance of the on-farm I&D systems. By the end of 2005, more than 75,000 leasehold farms had established almost 900 WUAs on a voluntary basis. A typical area covered by a WUA ranges from 1,500 to 3,000 ha. However, their effectiveness is limited by the problems associated with: (i) ambiguous legal status, (ii) lack of qualified staff, (iii) inadequate machinery and equipment, and (iv) poor cost recovery resulting from low profitability of cotton/wheat production and farmers not willing to pay for I&D services. Although WUA formation is progressing at an acceptable rate, WUAs are fully established and it is evident that a number of issues need to be addressed before WUAs can function in an effective and financial sustainable manner.

The other significant factor restraining WUAs from providing services is that farmers and dekhans have no finance for rehabilitation and restoration of the on-farm I&D infrastructure. This work requires large investment that farmers and dekhans cannot afford individually. According to assessments of the World Bank (2002) the large majority of respondents (90%) have the unanimous opinion that the government should take over the responsibility for investments in irrigation and drainage system, as well as for its operation and maintenance. Taking into account the current level of income this fact does not surprise. Farmers are ready to invest if it is economically expedient and beneficial for them. Apart from this, people think that they themselves should participate in the decision-making on various aspects of water and land management.

2.4.4 Irrigation and Drainage Management in Ferghana Valley General – The Ferghana Valley comprises three oblasts: Andijan, Namangan and Ferghana. There are three BAISs, each with the same boundary as the oblast in which it is situated. In other words the BAISs are based on administrative and not on catchment boundaries; these are:

Oblast BAIS Number of AIS Andijan Naryn-Karadarya 5 Namangan Naryn-Syrdarya 6 Ferghana Syrdarya-Sokh 4

Working in parallel with the BAISs is the Main Canal System Authority (MCSA) for Ferghana Valley with United Control Centre, which is responsible for the AMCs of the Big Ferghana Canal (BFC), the Big

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 20 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Andijan Canal (BAC) and the South Ferghana Canal (SFC). Each BAIS supervises the operation of an oblast-based HGME, which is sub-divided into zones. Syrdarya-Sokh BAIS also supervises the work of an organisation called Pumping System Electricity and Communication Management, which is responsible for the O&M of main irrigation pumping stations, irrigation wells, and vertical drainage wells.

Project Area – The Project Area, which covers parts of Baghdad, Rishtan and Altiarik raions, is located in Syrdarya-Sokh BAIS (Ferghana oblast). It lies in the command areas of three AISs: Sokh-Aktepa, Naryn- Ferghana and Isfairam-Shahimardan (Figure 2-4). The Syrdarya-Sokh HGME has six drainage zones, but the Project Area lies entirely within one of these: North Baghdad Collector Atchikkul (Figure 2-5). Furthermore, there is a Pump Stations Department, controlled by the BAIS that is operating in the same raions as the AIS.

Water User’s Associations – Currently there are 166 groups of water users in the Project Area, including 35 WUA’s, 3 shirkats and enterprises of other economy branches, including urban authorities. These WUA’s were created in the period 2004-2007, i.e. 2 in 2004, 21 in 2005 and 12 in 2006 and 2007. There average size is 1,900 ha, the smallest is about 1,500 ha and the largest is 2,851 ha. Average area of farms in three Project raions is 20 ha. At present the main role of WUA’s is to allocate water among users.

No regular maintenance of drainage systems is carried out, but urgent repairs after emergency situations is done, and also fees are collected for irrigation services. Prevailing tariff for gravity flow water delivered according to reports is about UZS 8,000/ha/year (equiv. of about USD 5.3/ha/year in March 2009).

Institutional and capacity problems – Both irrigation and drainage management institutions suffer from weakness and constraints emanating from either policies which are inappropriate given the conditions in the Project Area, or from the way prevailing policies are implemented, and a lack of experience, training or knowledge among practitioners, at all levels concerned with irrigation and drainage and agricultural activities. The ultimate consequences of this are that crop yields are lower than they would otherwise be, given the prevailing physical conditions; the resources used in operation and management of the irrigation systems are used inefficiently; and water is not used effectively. In other words, the institutional constraints directly result in the costs of achieving sustainable agricultural output being higher than they need to be. In addition, where the institutional and capacity-related weaknesses contribute to physical damage to infrastructure (such as roads and buildings), the weaknesses impose costs outside the agriculture and associated sectors.

The main issues which can be ascribed to institutional and capacity weaknesses in the operation, maintenance and management of the irrigation and drainage networks are (i) water distribution is not responsive to needs; (ii) limited control over discharges; (iii) over-watering; (iv) weak finances; (v) maintenance is inadequate, and (vi) drainage is given a low priority.

Recent changes – The changes to the institutional framework mentioned above have affected all institutions and organizations in one way or another. Some have had their responsibilities changed or amended, and some have been privatized or opened up to market forces in other ways, and some, e.g. WUAs, have been newly created. Change on such a scale is, at the best of times, traumatic for the organizations concerned and the people who work in them. When the changes come at a time of limited resources – insufficient and worn out infrastructure, office and laboratory equipment, transport and machinery – and very tight budgets, even more pressure is put on organizations and their staff. This is the situation in which water-related institutions in the Project Area find themselves. To add further to the problems faced by the current water institutions, the infrastructure is physically extremely complex.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 21 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Figure 2-4. Project Area in the Syrdarya Sokh BAIS

Naryn-Fergana

Sokh-Oktepa Isfayram-Shakhimardan Bagdad

Fergana Altyaryk Isfara-Syrdarya Rishtan

Project Border

Figure 2-5. Location of the Project Area in the North-Baghdad Collector Atchikkul

Yozovan North-Bagdad Tashlama Collector Atchikkul Pisharam K-4 Zovur

Bagdad Sari Djuga Fergana Altyaryk Sokh-Isfara Rishtan

Project Border

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 22 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Development of agriculture, now nominally privatized with land held on leases by individual farmers, has a different set of issues to address. Although land is nominally held by individuals, cropping on 80% to 90% of the area is controlled by the State through the cotton and wheat quotas. In theory, the land not under quota crops can be used for a crop to generate a cash income for farmers. However, water supplies for such activities are not always available, for either physical or administrative reasons.

Identified weaknesses with existing institutions – State Irrigation and Drainage Institutions. There are several evident problems affecting the state institutions directly engaged in the operation and management of the irrigation and drainage system: (i) their organisational complexity and the physical infrastructure the organisations are responsible for; (ii) financing constraints; (iii) limitations in the technical and managerial capacities of staff at all levels.

Generally, staff numbers are sufficient, but throughout the state I&D institutions, there is a shortage of finance for all purposes. As a result there is a shortage of reliable machinery for O&M, not enough funding to maintain and repair structures adequately, and only enough funds to do the most critical maintenance and repair tasks on drains and canals. Management and supervision are made very difficult by the lack of vehicles and communication equipment, which also results in inefficient use of staff resources and operation of the I&D system effectively.

In the case of electricity supply, a combination of lack of supply capacity and lack of funds has resulted in very low operating factors (as little as 20%) for vertical drainage wells. As a consequence it is not possible to control groundwater levels effectively. One pertinent issue is the power supply category (Category 3) applying to VDWs, which gives relatively low priority of supply. Upgrading to Category 2 would allow much more effective drainage which would benefit both agriculture and domestic and municipal infrastructure, albeit at a higher cost in electricity charges.

The capacity of the staff resource is inevitably compromised by the resource constraints identified above. In the absence of facilities to undertake day-to-day duties, skills will fall into disuse and motivation will be compromised. Recruitment is an issue; it clearly is a challenge to attract good calibre staff in the absence of resources to do the job they are recruited for unless there are other benefits. In this context the capacity of current institutions to respond effectively to the challenges of modern irrigation operation, management and maintenance demands is severely undermined.

WUAs. Field visits and interviews carried out by the FS team identified the following, which suggests that effort is still required to establish WUAs as effective organisations, which both understand their role and have the capacity to deliver on their obligations.

General: Lack of perception among WUA members of how a WUA should function, the concerns of other stakeholders – such as irrigators – are not represented independently at Councils, there is no clear definition of tasks between WUA organs, lack of planning and organisation is evident, etc. Assets: WUA facilities often are not adequate to the needs. Machinery and equipment are in use far beyond their design life, general lack of facilities such as workshop, tools, warehouse, etc. Financial: WUAs are financially weak. The fee collection rate is very low. This is because farmers do not have money to pay and shortfalls in the fee collection results in salaries not being paid. There is poor knowledge of the tax system. Staff: High staff turnover. This is attributed to low motivation (including erratic payment of salaries). Staff is poorly qualified.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 23 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

The socio survey undertaken as part of the parallel study provided additional insights that “households do not shy away from responsibility for the O&M of irrigation and drainage infrastructure”. Some 73% of land users believe that they should have the responsibility for maintenance of the drainage and irrigation systems on their own land. Among leasehold farmers, however, the willingness for ownership of O&M drops to 59%. This can be explained by the fact that leasehold farms are long-term leaseholders and are forced to follow the dictate of the State with respect to crop selection, production and sales. Therefore, they believe that bearing the full responsibility for maintenance of irrigation and drainage system would be unfair.

Overall, the socio survey shows that the farming community is aware of the challenges facing WUAs. It also shows that many farmers would consider supporting the WUAs more if the WUAs were able to deliver benefits of interest to the farming community. While WUAs are constrained to act in the primary interest of the state, or are hampered by constraints imposed by the state, this support will be weak.

Capacity to respond to Project opportunities – The FWRMP will include considerable investment in infrastructure. The supporting economic analysis is premised on the assumptions that:
Any construction works are implemented to comply with national (or international) standards and as a consequence are suitable for the intended purpose and are sufficiently durable to meet the Project’s needs, allowing for fair wear and tear;
After works are complete, they will be used in an appropriate way. This means that, for example, the farmers will be able to produce the expected yields, given any proposed improvements in the irrigation and drainage infrastructure. Similarly, it means that, say the drainage system operates as intended and is not permitted to deteriorate unduly.

2.5 Regional Organisations The total water demand of Uzbekistan, including Ferghana Valley, is to a very large extent (80%) delivered by the trans-boundary river systems of the Syrdarya and Amudarya, rivers that originate on the territory of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.

During soviet time the water resources of Central Asia were considered as a resource for the whole of the Soviet Union, and water use and distribution between republics was based on achieving maximal economic benefit for the whole Soviet Union. Realizing the need for a single Automated System Management (ASM) of the Water Management Complex (WMC) in the Aral Sea basin, the Ministry of Water Management of the USSR created two basin water management authorities (“BVO”), i.e. BVO Amudarya and BVO Syrdarya, as well as BVO Kirov Canal and BVO Zarafshan (now Zerdolvodkhoz). Water sharing for each republic was established in accordance with water division quotas, which were confirmed by Gosplan of the USSR on the basis of general plans10.

After independence, the five states of Central Asia aimed at improved development mechanisms for regional cooperation in management of interstate water resources. In 1992, the Interstate Commission for Water Coordination (ICWC) with its two executive organs, BVO Amudarya and BVO Syrdarya were formed, followed by the creation of an organizational-legal management structure in 1993.

10 Master Plan of Water Resources Management in the Amu Darya (1984), and Syr Darya (1987) rivers basins, and in the Aral Sea basin (1991).

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 24 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

With the development in the early-1990s of the World Bank-supported Aral Sea Basin Program (ASBP) and the associated International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea (IFAS), the Interstate Council for the Aral Sea (ICAS) was formed, and the principle of sharing water based on “existing water use” as agreed under the soviet Master Plans was approved. In parallel with the establishment of IFAS, the International Commission on Sustainable Development (ISDC) and the ICWC had been set up.

In 2003, the second phase of ASBP was approved, defining priorities for regional development up to 2010. By this time, the activities of the IFAS at the regional level had declined as the financial support of the donor community was reduced. However, Heads of the Central Asian Countries (CAC) created a new IFAS with an Executive Committee (EC IFAS), which continued the works on realization of ASBP projects. The new IFAS is a legal entity, having the status of an international organization. This is widely considered as an important step towards strengthening its organizational–legal basis of IFAS and its organizations.

As the impact of the Project on the Syrdarya is believed to be small to negligible (Chapter 5 and 6), the Project seems to be of limited relevance to these regional organizations.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 25 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

3 Project Description

This chapter concisely describes the proposed Project and its geographic, ecological and social context.

3.1 General As agreed during Pre-Appraisal, the Project Area is the same as the Study Area (in the present report reference is further made to ‘the Project Area’ only), i.e. 67,000 ha in the three participating Project raions (district, tuman), i.e. from west to east Baghdad (Bagdad), Rishtan and Altiarik (Altyaryk) in Ferghana oblast (violat) of Uzbekistan, of which about 48,000 ha is irrigated (Figure 1-2 and 1-3). The Project interventions are primarily to improve the drainage and off-farm irrigation systems that are largely “public goods”. Improvements in the remaining parts of the valley would be covered under subsequent phases of the Project.

3.2 Location of the Project Area Ferghana Valley is a large broad-bottomed valley surrounded by foothills of the western Tien Shan and Pamir mountains, which are in turn located at the western end of the Himalayas. The valley is almost totally encircled by substantial mountains, which rise to about 4500 m, with only a narrow mouth to the west through which the Syrdarya river drains the valley, first into Tajikistan, and then across the Uzbek and Kazakh steppes to discharge into the Aral Sea. The valley floor has an elevation of about 450 m above sea level (asl).

The Project Area is located in the south-central part of Ferghana Valley on the left bank of Syrdarya river roughly between 40° 20’ and 40° 38’ northern latitude and 71° 04’ and 71° 28’ eastern longitude (Figure 1-1 and 1-2). Part of the area sits on the Sokh and Shahimardan river debris cones in the northern foothills of the Alay-Turkestan mountain range.

Administratively, the Project Area covers most of Baghdad raion (excepting the extreme southern and eastern sections), about the northern half of Rishtan raion, and the middle section of Altiarik raion, all being part of Ferghana oblast, as well as the cities Baghdad, Rishtan and Altiarik. The borders of the Project Area are on the north – Middle Kizyltepe and North Bagdad Collectors; on the west and east – borders of Baghdad and Altiarik raions; on the south – the Burgandin massive of the Republic of Kyrgyzstan. This area slopes slightly from north to south and from east to west with land elevations from 490 to 370 m asl.

3.3 Project Development Objectives and Key Performance Indicators As stated in the Project Appraisal Document (PAD) the Project’s main objectives are to improve agricultural production in areas affected by waterlogging, and to reduce damage to housing and infrastructure from rising groundwater levels and salinity in the Project area. The objectives are to be

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 26 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

achieved through the rehabilitation of the I&D system and through institutional capacity building in sustainable water resources management and agricultural production. Achievement of project objectives would be measured by the following key performance indicators: (a) the lowering of the groundwater table, (b) an increase in production of major crops such as cotton and wheat, and (c) the reduction of land area flooded in settlements.

Improved water productivity is understood to mean greater agricultural output per unit of water used, and will be achieved through rehabilitation of drainage and irrigation systems, improved groundwater management, and measures to support local agricultural producers and communities. Improved overall water resources management will be measured through increased quantity and reliability of flows in Syrdarya basin on the basis of Water Balance studies. The Project’s objectives would contribute to Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) goals of increased agricultural production, employment and incomes, living standards and environment.

3.4 Project Components and Costs The Project design addresses overall constraints to agricultural production in Uzbekistan, damage to public and private infrastructure, threats to the environment and public health due to shallow groundwater in the Project Area, and weak capacity for efficient water resources management in both public and private sectors. The Project includes three components, as described below. The total Project cost is estimated at USD 82.94 million, including contingencies. Out of the total cost, IDA would finance USD 67.93 million; the remaining USD 15.01 million (equivalent) would be financed by the GOU.

Component A: Improvement of Irrigation and Drainage Network (total cost USD 74.60 million) This component aims at addressing the problem of high groundwater levels by financing improvements in the surface drainage network and irrigation system as well as the installation of vertical drainage wells. The component includes the following five sub-components.

Sub-Component A1: Improvement of Irrigation Network (USD 14.71 million). This sub- component would include but not be limited to: (i) rehabilitation and reconstruction of inter- and on- farm earthen canals; (ii) rehabilitation of lined canals; (iii) rehabilitation and construction of new culverts and bridges where necessary, repairs to the cross regulators and outlets, installation of new outlets where needed; and (iv) construction of water measuring structures.

Sub-Component A2: Improvement of Drainage Network (USD 29.56 million). This sub- component would improve the surface drainage system to enable it to remove surplus drainage water coming from the higher elevation to the floor of the Ferghana Valley, and properly dispose of the drainage effluent. The investments would include: (i) construction and rehabilitation of interceptor drains, culverts, aqueducts, and related works; (ii) construction or rehabilitation of elements of the surface drainage collector system, including culverts, bridges and siphons to collect and dispose of drainage from various sources (the inter-district and inter-farm collector drains would be rehabilitated and reconstructed where necessary for efficient functioning of the collection and disposal system); and (iii) construction or rehabilitation of sub-surface horizontal drainage systems covering over 1,000 ha.

Sub-Component A3: Improvement of Vertical Drainage Network and Groundwater Development and Management (USD 24.98 million). This sub-component would include investments in: (i) vertical drainage systems through a series of pumped tube-wells, artesian wells,

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 27 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

and pressure relief wells (possibly for the conjunctive use of surface and groundwater); and (ii) improvements to the extensive drainage system in Rishtan town where the city’s groundwater is very close to the surface, and there is standing water in most places during certain times of the year.

Sub-Component A4: Environmental Management Activities (USD 0.95 million). This sub- component would finance any preventive actions/mitigation measures needed to address unforeseen construction-related impacts as well as to build capacity in environmental management/monitoring in the PIU, raion and oblast institutions; and any monitoring activities (e.g. water quality/quantity, public health, pest management) not undertaken by GOU institutions in the Project area. A detailed EMP would be prepared shortly after the final design of the civil work interventions is available.

Sub-Component A5: Detailed Designs, Construction Supervision and Contract Administration (USD 4.40 million). This sub-component would cover national and foreign consultancy services for the preparation of detailed designs of all works included in this component, survey, investigations, preparation of tender/bidding documents, support in the procurement of goods and works, as well as construction supervision and contract administration during implementation. The consultancy services contract of this sub-component will also have overall responsibility for the two consultancies under Component B (see below).

Component B: Institutional Strengthening and Agricultural Development Support (Total Cost USD 3.92 million) This component would cover institutional strengthening support to public and private institutions/ organizations involved in the enhancement of water resources management (I&D system O&M, water utilization) and agriculture production in the Project area. The component would finance training and study tours, outreach demonstration plots, field and O&M equipment, laboratory, IT and office equipment, and institution and training support consultancy services. The component will include the following sub- components.

Sub-Component B1: Institutional Strengthening of Public Institutions (USD 0.52 million). The sub-component would include: (i) institutional strengthening and training support to the MAWR staff in project administration, and to local O&M institutions (BAIS and HGME) in managing day-to-day O&M of the I&D system in areas such as: (a) water management, irrigation scheduling, operation of canals, conjunctive use of surface and groundwater systems and water allocation and pumping to lower the groundwater levels; (b) preparation of asset management plans, and O&M plans for I&D systems; and (c) detailed design, contract administration, construction supervision, procurement, and financial management; and (ii) provision of office, IT and training equipment, vehicles, tools, and plants to facilitate O&M (flushing equipment) to BAIS and HGME.

Sub-Component B2: Demonstration Plots, Institutional Strengthening and Training for WUAs (USD 1.81 million). The sub-component would provide: (i) support for outreach Demonstration Plots (DPs) that would introduce agronomic and irrigation/drainage practices, training and education of practicing new farmers and action research, (ii) training program for farmers’ WUA leaders to enhance knowledge in establishment of WUAs, development, governance and management, planning of O&M of the system, and (iii) agro-melioration machinery to facilitate O&M.

Sub-Component B3: Technical, Institutional and Training Support Consultancies (USD 1.58 million). Under this sub-component, two local consultancy firms, one for technical support, and the other for institutional and training support, would be hired under the sub-component A5 (design and

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 28 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

supervision consultants) for support to the PIU in the preparation of training programs and processes, providing training in technical and O&M practices, institutional and organization aspects, as well as legal and fiduciary aspects covering the above-mentioned subjects.

Component C: Project Management and Audit, and Monitoring and Evaluation of Project Impact (Total Cost USD 4.43 million) This component consists of operational expenditures for project management, consultancy services for auditing project expenditures and for the M&E of project impacts, and for the preparation of a future project. It will have the following sub-components.

Sub-Component C1: Project Management (USD 1.40 million). This sub-component will support project management and coordination between MAWR oblast- and raion-level irrigation and agricultural administrations, undertaken by a project implementation unit (PIU-WI) in Tashkent and project management groups (PMGs) supported by technical assistance consultants under Components A and B.

Sub-Component C2: Annual Audit (USD 0.22 million). This sub-component would finance the hiring of an independent financial-auditing firm approved by the Bank for auditing annual project accounts.

Sub-Component C3: Project Monitoring and Evaluation (USD 1.60 million). This sub-component would support the hiring of an independent M&E consulting firm. The firm would be responsible for monitoring and evaluating project impacts and outcomes, and providing continuous feedback to the GOU, project steering committee (PSC), and implementing agencies on the project’s performance, implementation status, and impact of its various components.

Sub-Component C4: Preparation of Phase II (USD 1.20 million). This sub-component would support preparation of FWRMP Phase II to address similar issues in other parts of the FV, with a preliminary focus on areas adjacent to this project to take advantage of the Phase I investments and other improvements in the drainage network in this Project area.

3.5 Conceptual Model Zones The predominant physical problem affecting the Project Area is the raised groundwater level. There are also concerns over the high soil salinity found in parts of the Project Area, particularly in north of Bagdad raion. Furthermore, there are institutional concerns, which affect agricultural production, directly and indirectly, and hence contribute to depressing the crop yields.

The changes in groundwater table over time vary across the Project Area. For the purpose of conceptualizing the dominant mechanisms, the following are considered as separate zones. The zones of the Project Area in which the options are most likely to be applicable are indicated in Figure 3-1, and further explained below.

Zone 1. The northernmost part of the Project Area (mainly in Baghdad raion), characterised by both high groundwater mineralisation and high soil salinity, but generally not high groundwater levels.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 29 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Zone 2. Western-south-central Baghdad rayon. Here there is generally a high groundwater table, particularly in spring, soil salinity is moderately low while groundwater mineralisation improves from north to south, albeit moderately high across the whole zone. Zone 3. The southwestern border of the Project Area adjacent to the Sokh outwash fan. Zone 4. Lying between the Middle Kiziltepe and Baghdad Collectors, in recent times the groundwater table, groundwater mineralization and soil salinity have all been high here. Zone 5. South of the Middle Kiziltepe Collector: broadly, depth to groundwater, groundwater mineralisation and soil salinity are all relative good here. Zone 6. Part of Rishtan raion, lying between the Baghdad Collector and the BFC. Historically this was part of the marsh area (which also extended northwards). Groundwater tables are generally high, and recently groundwater mineralisation and soil salinity have been high here. Zone 7. The southern border of the Project Area around Rishtan town; here the groundwater table is generally high. Zone 8. The southern border of the Project Area, east of Rishtan town; here also the groundwater table is generally high. Zone 9. Altiarik, broadly along the line of the BFC. The area has relatively high groundwater. Zone 10. East Project Area, predominantly Altiarik, bordering the SSC and SFC. Broadly, depth to groundwater, groundwater mineralization and soil salinity are all relative good here.

These model zones have been delineated to follow physical and administrative boundaries for ease of presentation; in reality the driving mechanisms described in the conceptualization have far more fuzzy boundaries.

Figure 3-1. Conceptual model zones in the Project Area

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 30 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

3.6 Physical Interventions The selected physical interventions, as per September 2008, for dealing with the drainage issues and improving irrigation, and all being part of Project Component A, are set out in Table 3-1, together with a summary of underlying causes, benefits and estimated costs. A summary of the proposed physical infrastructure works is presented in Table 3-2. During subsequent Project design finalization phases these interventions may change marginally, or be presented in other formats (e.g. lumped or divided categories).

3.7 Institutional, Agricultural Development and General Project Support Physical interventions alone will not solve the problems in the Project Area. Substantial strategic, policy, institutional, agricultural development and general Project support issues at all levels, from central government downwards, have to be addressed, all being part of Project Components B and C. Most of these, if not all, are outside the direct scope of this environmental assessment study. The following interventions are included in the Project design:

Component B:
Formation of an Implementation Support Team;
Establishment of 9 Demonstration Plots (3 in each raion) were activities focus on practices that reverse the negative influences on crop yields by means of better water management and field distribution of water and improved soil fertility and increased organic matter;
Operation of Farmer Field Schools (FFS);
Value adding / income generating activities;
Strengthening of State Water Institutions through management of drains and canals and improving water management;
Strengthening of Water User’s Associations (WUA) through training courses and supply of materials and equipment;
Establishment and operation of a Farmer and WUA Support Centre;
General management and operation and maintenance (O&M).

Component C:
General Project management through the Project Implementation Unit (PIU);
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E);
Technical assistance and training.

3.8 Environmental and Social Context From an ecological point of view the Project will be located in an area that has been cultivated intensively over a long period: flora and fauna consist almost exclusively of common species, with little diversity. Within the Project Area there are no protected nature areas, or areas that have the potential to be established as such (see Section 4.4).

The Project Area is located in one of the most densely populated regions of Uzbekistan. The three districts had a population of 489,000 in 2007, meaning an average density of 385 people per km². By far most of these live in rural areas. Ethnicity of the population in the three Project Area raions is dominated by Uzbeks (81%) followed by Tajiks (16%) and others (3%). The social context is further detailed in the separate Social Assessment Report of March 2009, and Section 4.5.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 31 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Table 3-1. Proposed physical Project interventions as per September 2008

Key issue Underlying causes Proposed Interventions Benefits Estimated cost (million UZS) Zone 1. The northernmost part of the Project Area (mainly in Bagdad raion) Shallow water table; Former marsh area, reuse of drainage water many times, soil type and layering, deficient Rehabilitation of 12 VDW; 46 new PRW; deepening Removal of excess water 1,200 plus cost of soil and groundwater salinity O&M activities and impeded in-field drainage. the on-farm drains; 200 ha SHD rehabilitation; (5 mln m³) deepening the on-farm deep ripping across all of this zone Reducing salinity in the drains plus cost of deep problem area ripping Zone 2. Western-south-central Bagdad rayon Shallow water table Groundwater and other inflows from the Sokh outwash fan area and all types of losses Rehabilitation of 40 VDW; 200 new PRW Removal of excess water 3,400 and groundwater salinity from the BFC; influence of the marsh area to the north. (20 mln m³) Zone 3. The south western border of the Project Area adjacent to the Sokh outwash fan Shallow water table Cultivation in the gravel-pebble soils of adir lands and water coming from Sokh outwash Rehabilitation of 30 VDW; 100 new PRW; 12 km ID Removal of excess water 2,960 fan with a time lag of 4 to 6 months, decrease of operation ratio of VDWs from 0.7-0.8 to (38 mln m³) 0.2 in the last 10 years. Zone 4. Lying between the Middle Kiziltepe and Bagdad Collectors Shallow water table; The poor quality soils, historical lack of drainage system, almost the lowest zone of the Deepening of the on-farm drains; 500 ha SHD Reducing salinity in the 650 plus cost of deepening soil and groundwater salinity Project Area, therefore easily subject to waterlogging and consequent salinization in case rehabilitation; deep ripping across all of this zone problem area the on-farm plus cost of of CDN problems. deep ripping Zone 5., South of the Middle Kiziltepe Collector There is no significant problem in this zone; therefore no physical project works are proposed. Zone 6. Part of Rishtan raion, lying between the Bagdad Collector and the BFC Shallow water table; Water table levels appear to have always been shallow and historical salt accumulations. Rehabilitation of 5 VDW; 109 new PRW; Removal of excess water 5,600 plus deep ripping soil and groundwater salinity However, especially in the last 10 years, the increase in the severity of problems in 2 new AW; 1000 ha new SHD (nominally 100 m/ha at (8 mln m³); reducing cost Zone 7 (inflows from Burgandin massive etc) has spilled over into this zone. 2.5 m deep); 1000 ha SHD rehabilitation; deep ripping salinity in the problem area across all of this zone Zone 7. The southern border of the Project Area around Rishtan town Shallow water table Decrease of operation ratio of VDWs from 0.7-0.8 to 0.2 in the last 10 years; effect of Rehabilitation of 47 VDW; 550 new PRW; 8 new AW Removal of excess water 7,450

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 32 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Key issue Underlying causes Proposed Interventions Benefits Estimated cost (million UZS) influence of inflows from Burgandin area on the neighbouring Zone 8, lack of proper (45 mln m³) O&M of I&D network. Zone 8. The southern border of the Project Area, east of Rishtan town Shallow water table Decrease of operation ratio of VDWs from 0.7-0.8 to 0.2 in the last 10 years; effect of Rehabilitation of 40 VDW; 100 new PRW; 10 km ID Removal of excess water 3,160 influence of inflows from Burgandin area, lack of proper O&M of I&D network. (35 mln m³) Zone 9. Altiarik, broadly along the line of the BFC Shallow water table Decrease of operation ratio of VDWs from 0.7-0.8 to 0.2 in the last 10 years; effect of Rehabilitation of 10 VDW; 75 new PRW Removal of excess water 1,100 influence of inflows from Burgandin area on the neighbouring Zone 8, lack of proper (7 mln m³) O&M of I&D network. Zone 10. East Project Area, predominantly Altiarik, bordering the SSC and SFC Shallow water table Decrease of operation ratio of VDWs from 0.7-0.8 to 0.2 in the last 10 years, effect of Rehabilitation of 25 VDW; 231 new PRW; 3 km ID Removal of excess water 3,410 influence of cultivation in the adir lands, lack of proper O&M of I&D network. (25 mln m³) Rishtan Town Shallow water table Increase in the severity of problems in Zone 7 in the last 10 years, where Rishtan is town Rehabilitation of 33 VDW; change to Category II power Removal of excess water 3,000 (WT shallower than 1 m in located (inflows from Burgandin massive and considerably reduced use of VDW) had supply (18 mln m³) 500 ha) great influence on groundwater levels in the town. Irrigation Network Deficiencies in O&M and Lack of infrastructure in good working order, insufficient budgets and shortcomings in Three pilot WUAs were identified, one in each of the Increase the system 15,000 deficiencies inherent in original institutional capacity. study raions. Based on extrapolation of deficiency lists efficiency from 0.52, as designs provided by the WUA authorities, necessary currently officially reported, implementation works have been determined, as to say, 0.65, 0.70 and 0.75 follows: cleaning and reshaping of canals, repair of in 2010, 2020 and 2030 concrete linings, flumes, repair and construction of respectively; decrease of turnout structures, water measuring structures and diverted water to the culverts. Project Area from 750 to 650 million m³/yr, assuming the proposed

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 33 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Key issue Underlying causes Proposed Interventions Benefits Estimated cost (million UZS) future crop pattern is applied.

Drainage network Deficiencies in O&M and Lack of infrastructure in good working order and insufficient budgets. Some shortcomings Rehabilitation of the CDN shall include: (i) depths of Improvements in the 19,500 deficiencies inherent in original in institutional capacity. the collectors restored to design levels; (ii) cross- drainage disposal system designs sections rehabilitated so the design discharges can be are required to conveyed without raised water levels and CDW complement the area- backing up; (iii) drainage structure rehabilitated or based drainage upgraded to pass the relevant discharges without interventions identified for causing backwater affects. the zones discussed above.

Table 3-2. Summary of proposed physical interventions to I&D systems Item Unit Amount Item Unit Amount Inter-farm canals Inter-district collectors Rehabilitation of earth canal km 15 Rehabilitation of collectors km 65 Rehabilitation of lined canal km 140 Construction of new culverts (Q<0.5 m3/s) Nr 3 Construction of new measuring bridge Nr 85 Construction of new culverts (0.5

Repair of outlet type RVT-100 (Q=1.0 m3/s) Nr 155 Construction of new culverts (3.0

Rehabilitation of culverts Nr 5 Rehabilitation of collectors km 170 On-farm canals Repair of culverts (Q<1.0 m3/s) Nr 88

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 34 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Item Unit Amount Item Unit Amount Rehabilitation of earth canal km 2,000 Construction of new culverts (Q>1.0 m3/s) Nr 17 Rehabilitation of lined canal km 85 On-farm collectors Rehabilitation of flume km 80 Rehabilitation of collectors km 870 Repair of outlet type RVT-100 (Q=1.0 m3/s) Nr 78 Construction of new culverts (0.5

Repair of outlet type VOP-5 (Q=0.1 m3/s) Nr 328 Repair of existing SHD km 120 Construction of new outlet type VOP-5 (Q=0.1 m3/s) Nr 184 Flushing of existing SHD km 110 Construction of water measuring structure Nr 199 Installation of new SHD km 100 Repair of cross regulator Nr 56 Construction of SHD outfall Nr 300 Rehabilitation of culverts Nr 147 Repair of inspection chambers Nr 40 Interceptor drains Vertical drainage wells Construction of interceptor drains km 25 Rehabilitation of vertical drainage wells (Q=30 l/s with 0.2 efficiency) Nr 242

Construction of new culverts Nr 10 Pressure relief wells Construction of new aqueduct Nr 26 Construction of pressure relief wells (Q=2 l/s) Nr 1,411 Rishtan town (repair of 33 VDWs in Rishtan town has been included above) Artesian wells Installation of new transformer for Rishtan Nr 1 Construction of artesian wells (Q=6 l/s) Nr 10 Laying of power transmission lines to VDWs km 50 Piezometers Repair of water removal network (Flume type LR6) Nr 5,000 Installation of piezometers Nr 34

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 35 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

4 Current Environmental Conditions

This chapter assesses the dimensions of the Project Area and its immediate surroundings and describes relevant physical, biological and socio-economic conditions.

4.1 Physical Resources

4.1.1 Climate Ferghana Valley has a continental climate with hot summers and relatively mild winters with moderate frost. Average July and January temperatures in Ferghana oblast are 27 °C and -2.5 °C, respectively. Absolute minimum and maximum temperatures are -27 °C and +44 °C. The duration of the frost-free period is 215 days [FS, 2008].

Annual precipitation in the oblast ranges from 100 mm the west to 170 mm in the east, and 270 mm in the foothills. July-September has usually little or no rain (6% of the annual precipitation); most rain falls in March (16%). Evaporation is about 1220 mm annually, and thus exceeds precipitation by more than 6 times. Further climatologic data is provided in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1. Mean monthly and annual climatic parameters in Kokand and Ferghana meteorological stations (1890-1989) Station Year Months J F M A M J J A S O N D 1. Air temperature (°C) Ferghana 13.2 -2.4 0.8 7.7 15.5 20.6 25.0 26.9 25.2 19.8 12.7 5.6 0.4 2. Precipitation (mm) Kokand 109 13 11 17 12 11 7 3 2 1 8 13 11 Ferghana 172 20 18 27 19 18 10 5 3 2 12 20 18 3. Evaporation (mm) Ferghana 1134 16 27 62 105 156 185 189 157 134 61 27 14 4. Relative air humidity (%) Ferghana 63 81 79 70 59 52 44 45 51 56 66 75 81 5. Days with strong wind (>15 m/sec) Kokand 8.1 7.3 4.9 3.0 3.2 3.0 Ferghana 3.4 4.2 4.6 4.2 1.5 0.8 Source: Uzgvavhydromet, 2006

4.1.2 Geology and Hydrogeology The Ferghana basin is described as a compressional structural basin, expected to have extensive high- angle faults on its flanks. The latest large-scale tectonic movements occurred during the Miocene- Pliocene, with high-mountain growth along the basin’s margins. Debris from these mountains resulted in a

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 36 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

molasse of clastic materials in the centre of the basin, approaching a thickness of roughly 8 km [EIA, 1994].

The uppermost part of the geological profile (100 m or more thick) in and around the central valley varies with the location; it is primarily of Quaternary origin. The central part merges with outwash fans near the valley foothills. The Project Area sits partly on such outwash fans, i.e. the Sokh and Shahimardan river debris cones.

South-to-north geological cross-sections of the Project Area show a consistent transition from single layered deposits of ill-sorted sand and gravels, interspersed with boulders, to a multi-layered system of sand and gravel and silt / loam / clay layers further north. Away from the outwash fans the clay loam occurs at the surface, forming a confining layer. As this layer extends across the base of the foothills, where it becomes elevated above the valley floor, artesian conditions are formed (Figure 4-1). In some areas there are wells freely discharging from manifolds above ground level (Photo 7).

Figure 4-1. Artesian groundwater in the Project Area

Groundwater levels are generally in close proximity to ground surface in the Project Area, and groundwater gradients are a close reflection of the ground surface gradients. Important hydrogeological parameters in the Project Area are provided in Table 4-2.

Given the average ground surface gradient of about 0.005 and the transmissivity values shown in Table 4-2, one can conclude that groundwater flow would range from 2.5 to 7.5 m³/day per m in the upper zone to 0.5 to 1.5 m³/day per m in the middle zone. Based on these values Pavey [2007] concludes that groundwater inflows across the southern boundary of the Project Area would constitute of only 5 to 15% of

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 37 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

the total water consumption. Permeability values are well in excess of those needed to satisfy drainage requirements and indicate a good potential of the aquifer system for vertical drainage.

Table 4-2. Hydrogeological parameters of the Project Area [Pavey, 2007] Zone Permeability (m/day) Transmissivity Mineralisation Sand and gravel Loam/ silt / clay (m²/day) (g/l) Upper 10 to 20 Generally not present 500 to 1500 <1 Middle 4 to 10 ~0.1 to 0.5 100 to 300 <1 in deep sand horizons, locally >5 in shallower sand horizons Lower No data No data No data No data

Groundwater mineralization is variable, and depends like the aquifer characteristics on depositional characteristics. Although most of the upper and middle horizons of the Project Area have good groundwater quality, mineralisation is evident in some areas. It is likely that high mineralisation is natural and associated with natural evaporation.

4.1.3 Soils Ferghana Valley – Historically the soils in the valley have the reputation of being some of the most productive in Uzbekistan, and this, combined with climatic conditions, is the main reason for the area’s agricultural importance. Other factors contributing to this are the manageable river waters and adequate natural drainage.

The description of the soil characteristics is based on available data of the regional Hydro-geological Meliorative Expedition (HGME; 2006) and soil surveys of different organizations (Uzgiprovodkhoz, Uzgipromeliovodkhoz and Uzdaverloyiha, 2000). The assessment of soil types was conducted on the basis of the Uzbekistan soil classification system.

Project Area – The Project Area belongs to an ancient desert irrigated oasis, with a long history of intensive land use. Under the influence of long-term irrigation and hydro-geological influences, irrigated meadow and meadow-oasis saz soils, as well as mash-meadow irrigated soils developed. In comparison with other desert soils, these have a relatively high humus (1.4-1.7%) and nitrogen (0.08-0.11%) content throughout the profile. Lower horizons are marl and in some places have interlayers of gypsum or moss. Poor ground water transmissivity, and as a result, poor aeration, obstructs oxidation and mineralization of organic matter. Due to waterlogging, there are shallow gley horizons. Available phosphate (P2O5) varies from very low up to low, and potassium (K2O) is a little higher (200-300 g/kg), thus characterizing the soils as poor. The soils are furthermore, characterized by alkalinity and poor adsorption capacity.

Soil texture varies. At higher elevations above the valley floor and on higher peripheral parts of the debris cones, gravel-shingle horizons prevail, covered by layers of melkozem (up to 1 m thickness). In peripheral lower parts of debris cones and in the inter-cone depressions, soil thickness and the layering of the soil profile increases. Here heavy loams, in some places clays, dominate. On the upper part of the Project Area, light loams and sandy loams are dominant. Soils within the Project Area are heavy loams and loams (56%), and sands and sand-loams (44%).

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 38 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

As is typical of undrained irrigated lands in arid zones, the Project Area suffers from salt accumulation and secondary salinization. In the central part of the debris cones up to 70% of irrigated soils are classified as low saline and non-saline. Towards the periphery of the debris cones and in the inter-cone depressions, the soil salinization level increases significantly.

According to local soil bonitet classification11 the potential soil fertility rating in the Project Area is high at 84 points. However, existing fertility is essentially lower as a result of deterioration of soil water-physical characteristics, reduction of organic matter, soil salinity and waterlogging, etc. Approximately 60% of the Project Area soils are of ‘good fertility’ and about 30% - ‘average fertility’. Soils with ‘high fertility’ occupy only 10% of arable land, and are concentrated mainly in Altiarik district. Average soil fertility of the Project Area is currently 50 points.

4.2 Water Resources From a water resources perspective, Uzbekistan is the most vulnerable among Central Asian states. The Republic has the largest area of irrigated land, but 80% of the main surface flow is from trans-boundary rivers. After the break-up of the Soviet Union trans-boundary problems exacerbated. Earlier agreed water use in the basin was infringed. Particularly, this concerns the conversion of Toktogul reservoir operation into power generation mode. Infringement of earlier agreed reservoir operatives, as a flow regulator, created water deficits during summer periods and led to malfunctioning of the water management system of the basin. Meanwhile, there are unresolved conflicts in flow releases from Sokh reservoir as well.

4.2.1 Surface Water Main sources of surface water for the Project Area are the Naryn and Karadarya rivers, that form the Syrdarya river after their confluence, and furthermore Sokh and Shakhrikhansay rivers and a group of small mountain streams. All rivers are typical mountainous with snow/ice feeding, low flows in April-May, high flows from end-June till mid-August, with a wide range of discharge during day-and-night. To balance flows with irrigation requirements, main irrigation canals have been constructed, such as Big Ferghana Canal (BFC), Big Andijan Canal (BAC) and South Ferghana Canal (SFC), to transfer excess water from the rivers to zones with water deficits. In addition, river regulation and storage was provided by the construction of Toktogul, Kampirravat, Sokh, Kurgantepa and other reservoirs.

Summarized recorded surface inflow to Ferghana Valley is on average 26.6 km³/year, over 40% of which is from the Naryn, and about 15% from the Karadarya rivers. Average annual discharges of Sokh river are 1,305 mln. m³, for Isfairamsay – 635 mln. m³, Isfara – 442 mln.m³, and Shakhimardan - 299 mln. m³ (Table 4-3).

11 The fertility of soils is measured using the "Bonitet" index and is defined by a combination of soil properties including depth of the biologically active layer, agro-physical and agro-chemical properties, mechanical texture, depth of tilth, structure and gypsum content. Fertility groups are defined by dynamic factors including salinization, erodibility, moisture holding capacity, etc. One point on the 100 points Bonitet scale with regard to the main crop (cotton) is equal to 0.04 t/ha.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 39 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Table 4-3. Annual water discharge of major rivers in Ferghana Valley River Isfairansay Shakhimardan Sokh Isfara Karadarya Naryn Syrdarya

Gauging station Uchkurgan Paulgan Sarykanda Tashkurgan Andijan Uchkurgan Adjar

Catchment area (km²) 2,220 1,300 2,480 1,560 12,400 58,400 90,000

Mo (l/sec/km²) 9.8 7.4 16.9 9.3 9.3 6.1 5.3

Q50% 20.1 9.48 41.4 14.0 115 349 470

Flow Q75% 19.4 8.73 37.8 13.8 90.5 306 380

(m³/sec) Q90% 17.9 8.40 36.1 11.9 71.6 228 306

Qav 21.7 9.66 41.8 14.5 120 356 478

Annual V50% 635 299 1,305 442 3,635 11,008 15,600

flow V75% 611 275 1,190 425 2,851 9,651 14,824

(mln. V90% 560 266 1,140 375 2,258 7,191 12,050

m³) Vav 684 214 1,317 457 3,785 11,227 15,728 Source: Final FWRMP (2008) with references to FVWRMP – Phase I. Working Paper №6: Irrigation and Drainage

In accordance with the principle of inter-republican water allocation due to the trans-boundary character of river flows, limits on water were agreed upon, which for Ferghana valley is 9.43 km³/year. All these rivers supply irrigation water through an extensive network of canals (Section 4.2.3). As shown in Table 4-4, the most important supplies for the Project Area region are from the Sokh, Karadarya, and Naryn rivers, i.e. supplying waters to in total 80% of the Project Area’s irrigated lands.

Table 4-4. Irrigation systems and command areas in the three Project Area raions Feeding river Irrigation system Baghdad (ha) Rishtan (ha) Altiarik Total (ha) (ha) % Karadarya Big Ferghana Canal (BFC) 2,460 9,360 8,590 20,410 28 Naryn Big Andijan Canal (BAC) 11,160 2,870 2,040 16,070 22 Shakhrikhansay South Ferghana Canal (SFC) 8,970 8,970 12 Karadarya & Sokh BFC – Sokh 4,850 4,850 7 Sokh Sokh River 6,200 12,510 3,300 22,010 30 Shakhimardan Shahimardan River 0.770 0.770 1 Total 24,660 24,740 23,670 73,080 100 Source: MAWR, 2006

Apart from the artificial irrigation and drainage network, no lakes or other natural wetlands are present in or near the Project Area.

4.2.2 Groundwater Groundwater water forms a significant part of water resources in the Project Area – it provides a source for potable and agricultural water supply, including land irrigation. Groundwater containing soils in the Project Area are widespread, especially where these soils consist of pebble, sand and/or gravel. Groundwater forms through infiltration of irrigation waters, infiltration from underlying strata, and to some extent infiltration from precipitation. The groundwater table is usually at 1.5-2 m depth. A wide belt of the southern

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 40 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Project Area has “artesian groundwater”, i.e. an area where groundwater is close or even above ground level due to underground water pressure (Figure 4-1). A main reason for these high groundwater levels is the excessive use of water for rice cultivation higher up the foothills in Kyrgyzstan through which ‘profile filling’ occurs.

At greater depth, there are groundwater deposits. In the Project Area, these deposits are mostly located in the Golodnostepsky water-bearing stratum. These waters have a mineralization content of 0.2-0.3 g/l. There are two protected groundwater deposits near the Project Area, i.e. the Sokh River deposit in the west, and the Chimion Avval deposit in the east (Figure 4-8).

4.2.3 Irrigation and Drainage Networks Irrigation – The Project Area is served by canals in three Administration of Irrigation Systems (AIS): Sokh- Oktepa, Naryn-Ferghana and Isfayram-Shahimardan (Figure 2-4). The main irrigation canals and their command areas are presented in Table 4-4 and shown in Figure 4-2. Photo 5, 6 and 10 show irrigation canals in the Project Area.

Water is also taken for irrigation from farmers’ shallow wells, irrigation- and vertical drainage wells and the drainage network. Current water use in the three Project Area raions is presented in Table 4-5 for the years 2003 to 2006, and water supply in the raions for 1995-2006 in Figure 4-3.

Table 4-5. Water use in the Project Area raions in the period 2003-2006 Raion Year Amount of Water Used Source (in million m3) (million m3) Planned Actual Irrigation Canals Irrigation Vertical Drainage Open Collector Wells Wells Networks Baghdad 2002 321 258 253 2.23 6.56 2003 356 276 272 1.44 2.24 2004 367 269 258 2.48 7.89 2005 319 274 261 2.61 8.35 2.2 2006 228 234 219 3.55 11.47 Rishtan 2002 295 290 293 1.24 2003 315 290 286 406 2004 313 276 272 0.35 4.36 2005 327 272 264 0.31 6.42 0.41 2006 233 240 231 1.71 4.94 1.94 Altiarik 2002 293 274 263 6.53 3.09 2003 217 282 274 4.31 2.87 2004 316 270 267 1.03 1.5 2005 323 266 258 5.5 3.01 2006 224 230 224 1.74 3.64 0.26 Source: MAWR, 2006

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 41 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Figure 4-2. Main irrigation canals in the Project Area and surroundings, and command areas

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 42 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Figure 4-3. Water supply in the Project Area raions in the period 1995-2006

350

300

250 mln.m3

200

150

100

50

0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Bagdad Rishtan Altyaryk

Source: BAIS Syrdarya-Sokh, 2007

The lengths of the main canals in the three Project raions are BFC: 50 km, BAC: 20 km and SFC: 10 km. There are 387 of inter-farm canals, which are fed from the main canals; 220 km of these are lined to reduce seepage. The on-farm network has a total length of 2,820 km, only 5% of which is lined.

The irrigation infrastructure is in a poor condition and much of it is worn out. Main and inter-farm canals require reconstruction and use of anti-seepage measures. Rehabilitation of existing regulation structures and construction of new ones is needed as well as construction of outlet structures and flow measurement stations. Measures to improve the O&M system of the irrigation infrastructure are also needed. The on- farm network is very complex, passing through settlements and is frequently lined with trees, which complicates construction / re-construction works and O&M.

Collectors and drains – The Project Area lies within the HGME drainage zone of North Baghdad Collector – Atchikkul (Figure 2-5). There are two large main collectors – the Atchikkul that runs into the North Baghdad Collector, into which drainage run-off flows from inter-farm drains; these in turn are fed by on-farm drains. The North Baghdad Collector discharges into the Syrdarya. Photo 8, 9, 10, 15, 16 and 17 show drainage collectors. Collectors are often under-designed and poorly constructed and maintained which leads to bank failure.

At present the total area covered by the drainage network is 63,660 ha, or 82% of total Project Area raions area, including 27,800 ha served by vertical drainage, open horizontal drainage serving 30,000 ha, closed drainage of 5,900 ha. There are 495 vertical drainage wells and 74 irrigation wells in the 3 raions.

The total length of the collector-drainage network in the Project raions is 2,920 km. This includes a main- and inter-farm network of 743 km, and an on-farm network of 2,177 km of which 79% open- and 21% closed drainage. The largest closed drainage system is in Altiarik raion (205 km). A breakdown of collector drainage water from the Project raions for 1993-2006 is given in Figure 4-4.

From the irrigated areas of the Project raions between 770 and 980 million m³ of Collector Drainage Water (CDW) is discharged annually into the Syrdarya. This volume is the result of large seepage losses from canals and irrigated fields, and the unsatisfactory condition and maintenance of the drainage

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 43 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

infrastructure. Main collectors are cleaned seldom and inter-farm and on-farm collectors (theoretically) once in 3-4 years.

Figure 4-4. Diversion of Collector Drainage Water from the Project raions in the period 1993-2006 (million m³)

500 450 400 350

Run-off, mln.m3 Run-off, 300 250 200 150 100 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Bagdad Rishtan Altyaryk

Source: MAWR, 2006

4.2.4 Implementation of works resulting from the 2001 Feasibility Study Realized interventions as specified in the framework of Uzgiprovodkhoz Feasibility Study of 2001 on 18,000 ha area within the Project Area are given in Table 4-6. Although the interventions have resulted in improvements, particularly near the interceptor collectors, part of the impacts was less than expected due to insufficient maintenance.

Table 4-6. Implemented works of the 2001 Feasibility Study as per 2008

Type of intervention Unit Quantity Implementation (%)

Rehabilitation of VDWs Pcs 231 30 Construction of new interception collectors km 15 100 Reconstruction of main collectors with structures km 65 50 Reconstruction of syphons under BFC pcs 6 no Construction of new interception VDW pcs 30 100 Transition of СО to a work regime VDW pcs 69 no Wells intensifiers on the existing drainage network pcs 1,098 no New closed horizontal drainage km 31 no Observation wells 3 rows of piezometers pcs 24 30 ( in Rishtan district) Approximate construction cost - 1991 prices UZS ‘000 22,842 Source: Uzdavsuvloyiha, September 2007

4.2.5 Water Quality To assess the water quality and the ecological conditions of the surface waters in the Project Area the hydrological and hydrobiological data and information presented in the Final Feasibility Report was used.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 44 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

This data is based on investigations that use a number of government indices to assess water quality that are explained in Annex 5, i.e.:
Maximum Allowable Limit (MAL) to assess the allowable limits of various chemical concentrations in fish ponds, potable water, and other waters (Annex 5.1);
Degrees to express the level of pollution of waters (Annex 5.2);
Three indices to classify water quality, i.e. Saprobe Index (SI), Biotic Periphyton Index (BPI) and Modified Biotic Periphyton Index (MBPI) (Annex 5.3).

Mineralisation – For the investigation of the hydro-chemical quality and species composition of water bodies in the valley region 10 monitoring points were selected: i.e. (i) along the Syrdarya river (at Kal village, below the North Baghdad Collector offtake); (ii) Sokh river (Sarikanda station); (iii) NBC (above and below Altiarik Oil Processing Plant, and outfall). Hydro-biological information on Sokh river is limited.

The hydro-chemical quality of rivers is determined by natural and anthropogenic factors. The long-term trend of mineralization in Syrdarya river in time and in space is illustrated in Figure 4-5 and Figure 4-6.

As can be concluded from these figures, mineralization in Syrdarya river at Kal village is below 1,000 mg/l, i.e. the maximum permissible level. Highest levels are recorded in April (above 800 mg/l), when fields are prepared for sowing, and lowest in December (about 200 mg/l).

The chemical composition of Sokh river waters is less subject to anthropogenic impact. The monthly level of mineralization ranges between 184 – 291mg/l, notably less than the Syrdarya waters.

The mineralization of waters in the North Bagdad Collector is presented in Figure 4-7. Mineralisation levels vary roughly between 1,200 and 1,600 mg/l, i.e. well above the Maximum Allowable Limit of 1,000 mg/l set for drinking waters and fishponds.

Pollution – At the end of the 20th century, the concentration of polluting matters and pesticides exceeded the MAL values by many times: for phenol (3 times), oil products (3 times), nitrogen (6 times) and nitrate (21 times). However, during the last ten years the concentration of oil products and pesticides in all watercourses, particularly in the North Bagdad Collector, has considerably decreased. The trend of improved water quality and decreasing pollutant levels is believed to be the result of declining industrial activities in the post-soviet period, and low consumption levels of chemicals in the agricultural sector.

The average monthly variation of pollutants in the Syrdarya and the Sokh river, and in the North Bagdad Collector, is given in Table 4-7.

As compared to the MAL-values given in Annex 5, for the current concentration levels of various pollutants given in Table 4-7 the following is concluded: +
NH4 does not appear in the MAL table and cannot be compared. -
NO2 values are below the MAL values for fish ponds in Syrdarya and the Sokh river, and the NBC above the Altiarik Oil Processing Plant (AOPP), but are sometimes above the MAL values in the water below the AOPP and in the NBC outfall.
COD values are below the MAL values for fish ponds in Syrdarya and the Sokh river, the variation of COD values in the NBC suggests that most of the time these values are well above the MAL value.

BOD5 values are around the MAL values for fish ponds and other open waters with drinking water purposes.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 45 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Figure 4-5. Mineralization of Syrdarya river water in time and space (1932-1999)

2.5

g/l 2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0 1932-50 1951-60 1961-70 1971-80 1981-90 1991-99 Naryn+Karadarya Syrdarya-Kal Syrdarya-Kizilkishlak Syrdarya-Kzilorda Syrdarya-Kazalinsk

Source: Uzglavhydromet, 2006

Figure 4-6. Monthly mineralization levels in Naryn, Karadarya and Syrdarya rivers

1200

1000 mg/l 800

600

400 Naryn Karadarya Syrdarya MAL 200

0

y y il ly r r r r ne u st e er p u J u b ua ruar A May J m n b March Ja Aug ptembe Octob ce Fe e ovember S N De

Source: Uzglavhydromet, 2006

Figure 4-7. Monthly mineralization levels in North Baghdad Collector

1800

1600

1400

1200 mg/l 1000

800 NBC upper AOPP NBC lower АOPP MAL 600

y il e t r r r r n uly s e er J uary rua Ap May Ju gu tob mbe mb n b March u e Ja e A Oc v F September No Dece

Source: Uzglavhydromet, 2006

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 46 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Table 4-7. Average monthly variation in pollutant indicator levels in main water bodies in Ferghana valley in the period 1991-2001 Object Syrdarya river Sokh river NBC NBC NBC Collector Collector Collector Gauging station Kal village Sarikanda 1 km above AOPP 1 km below AOPP Outfall

Organic Matter (mg/l)

+ NH4 0.02 – 0.15 0.02 – 0.27 0.1 – 1.8 0.14 – 4.2 0.09 – 0.76

- NO2 0.007 – 0.019 0.012 – 0.063 0.024 – 0.069 0.027 – 0.393 0.085 – 0.327

COD 4.2 – 8.69 4.0 – 14.0 14.1 – 74.4 13.9 – 70 12.7 – 21.6

BOD5 0.76 – 3.32 1.43 – 4.10 1.79 – 6.63 3.75 – 10.25 2.05 – 3.11

Others (mg/l) Oil products 0.002 – 0.03 0.04 – 0.26 0.05 – 0.25 0.05 – 2.20 0.06 – 0.27

Pesticides 0 – 0.06 0 – 0.65 0 – 0.080 0 – 0.029 0 – 0.332

Fluorides 0.22 – 0.51 0.38 – 0.64 0.39 – 0.81 0.42 – 0.85 0.28 – 1.52

Note: AOPP = Altiarik Oil Processing Plant, COD – Chemical oxygen demand, BOD5 - Biochemical oxygen demand Source: Uzglavhydromet, 2007

Oil product levels in the Syrdarya are below the MAL threshold of 0.05 mg/l in fishponds, but in the other water bodies the data suggest that often this threshold is well surpassed. Particularly the difference between the upstream (max 0.25 mg/l) and downstream (max 2.2 mg/l) values near the AOPP are remarkable, and suggest leakage of oil products at the AOPP.
Pesticides range in all water bodies between 0 mg/l and at least 0.03 mg/l meaning that in all water bodies the MAL values for fishponds (0.001 mg/l) and other water bodies (0.01 mg/l) are at least periodically exceeded.
Fluoride levels in the Syrdarya and the Sokh river are below the MAL thresholds for fishponds. In the NBC these levels are higher but only at the NBC outfall the value exceeds the MAL value for drinking water.

Hydrobiology – The description of the hydrobiology is based on available monitoring data of Uzglavhydromet provided according to the guideline on hydrobiology monitoring of water bodies in Central Asia (P.Uz 52.25.32-97). Indices used to classify the hydrobiology (biocenosis12) in the region are presented in Annex 5.3. A technical description of the hydrobiology is also given in Annex 5.3.

At present, the biocenosis of the Syrdarya and the North Bagdad Collector is in a state of ecological regression. The water quality in the Syrdarya below the North Bagdad Collector outfall decreases to transit Class III-IV and there are changes in the composition and structure of indicator biocenosis, mainly in the low water autumn season. The ecological condition is classified as ‘transit’ (from satisfactory to unsatisfactory). The degradation of the original biocenosis structure becomes most apparent in the North Bagdad Collector, below the outfall of the Altiarik Oil Processing Plant. The recovery of the water ecosystem does not take place on the mouth section. Along the entire length of the collector, the water ecosystem is in an unsatisfactory state. Here water quality is assessed as Class IV (Table 4-8).

12 Biocenosis is a group of interacting organisms that live in a particular habitat and form an ecological community. Habitat: the physical location or type of environment in which an organism or biological population lives or occurs.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 47 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Table 4-8. Average annual values of the ecological condition of water bodies in the region Monitoring points Value and variation of formal indices* Ecological condition of SI BPI MBI biocenosis 1 Naryn River – 3 km above Uchkurgan town 1.61 (1.30-1.90) 6.26 (6-8) 5.3 (4-6) Background 2 Naryn River – 0.6 km above mouth 1.76 (1.61-2.05) 5.92 (5-8) 5.62 (5-7) Background 3 Syrdarya – Kal village 1.90 (1.74-2.03) 5.07 (4.5-6) 5.1 (4-6) Satisfactory -Transit 4 Syrdarya – above NBC 2.08 (1.82-2.27) 5 (4-6) 4.5 (4-5) Satisfactory -Transit 5 Syrdarya – below NBC 2.14 (2.1-2.18) 4.5 4 Transit 6 Syrdarya – below Sokh collector 1.94 (1.63-2.13) 4.9 (4.5-6) 4.57 (4-5) Satisfactory 7 Syrdarya – Passage Chilmohram 1.86 (1.67-2.07) 4.9 (4-6) 4.83 (4-5) Satisfactory 8 Collector NBC – above Altiarik outfall 1.96 (1.78-2.09) 5 (4.5-5.5) 5.09 (5-6) Satisfactory 9 Collector NBC - below Altiarik outfall 2.08 (1.89-2.4) 4.4 (4-5) 3.9 (3-5) Unsatisfactory 10 Collector NBC – mouth 2.06 (1.96-2.16) 4.5 (4-5) 4.2 (4-5) Unsatisfactory Source: Uzglavhydromet, 2007, based on the guideline for hydrobiology monitoring, 1997 Note: SI – Saprobe Index according to Pantle and Book, modified; BPI – Biotic Periphyton Index modified by Talskih; MBPI – Modified Biotic Periphyton Index – see also Annex 5.3

4.2.6 Protected Surface Water and Groundwater As per Resolutions 178 and 179 of the Cabinet Ministers of Uzbekistan, dated 13 April 2004, the following protected territories have been established near the Project Area (Figure 4-8):
Water Protection Zones of Naryn river in Namangan oblast (4,311 ha, including levees covering 459 ha) – located 70 km northeast of the Project Area;
Water Protection Zone of the Karadarya in Namanghan oblast (7,541 ha, including 1,213 ha of levees) – located 61 km northeast of the Project Area.

Protected groundwater sources in the Project Area and its surroundings are (Figure 4-8):
Isfara river (2,196 ha) – located 40 km west of the Project Area;
Chimion-Avval (17,036 ha) – located 20 km southeast of the Project Area;
Sokh river (16,913 ha) – located 10 km west of the Project Area.

4.3 Land Resources The description of the present condition of the land resources in the Project Area is based on information provided by relevant organisations, GIS data en field observations conducted in the framework of the EA study in the period January-September 2007. Available digital maps were updated during fieldwork, and based on these a series of thematic maps were prepared in a scale of 1 : 50,000.

4.3.1 Land Use Total land coverage in the three Project Area raions is 124,364 ha, including 73,147 ha of irrigated lands (Table 4-9).

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 48 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Figure 4-8. Protected territories in the vicinity of the Project Area

71° T 72° 73° Êî êñó o O st n oe solbek- u y s Say r Kaind r a u e N N T y a S C - k h Z e a e r n k e a - T c S h W E a y

a

t

A

a S h

s K d a a K Y R G Y Z S T A N s P A a a k n k bu sa u y B la -

k a y l

a A s i Chust district (96 ha) l Ka k r e as r u e n y T r a N TASHKENT Sum sar

G

a

v

a

s

a T

y a Naryn River (4310.7Uchkurgan ha) l d

i s a

a y h y

c a r K s a u z n k y y Chartakskoe a

a u y g d

l s m a a n y

j s

a b a n n S D s a h

ra a a Karadarya River (7540.7 ha) a a y ng h S n K

a g kh s A a n

la a k m

Chust a N

n P G a a g u man kh y 41° ren s a Na ig i ta a v B l a s a y ba k s a a d y a t y l n M e Namanghan a Bazarkurgan t C n T ge y an a h h a C n C 41° a s y d y k r NAMANGHAN a a n a a s Kanda k s z N ja a i s k e e d R a m r n l y a s A A k g DK i O e

K B K arad K ar la a ya ji ev Z ra D aba ambarku d unb l ar Minbulak district (1000 ha) r Akh ya Andijan ve S i a ANDIJAN R ry k s ya alpak -1 u r arak P M a K iy Andijansay k a V s d al D ul ak n r k nY a u a 1 a m C y- m ty z f a K a l y n a i h a S D a n rg A k v ac Fe c A a S o n h n a r r P i r p he ku y A rt is l -2 d o h P j Andijan N k e u runzo g Bulakb F r a y ashi a sa n an rikh N kh o ha T r th l S Ba u N kk Isfara (2195.9 ha) B a aynova al m og n or N ya d a th an K a a K K d C u r s -4 k s iy n O M k h ja h H Z i a iy r h a C C d v y b -4 n e i S a a N k A r A b s y a y i g - i i a n D k m k b a j b s u a B n v g u n d d u a r S a - a h a K a o Kokand k y d b k a z l g a A h y i a l o a - a z an I m Y C s B y na f y a rga a Margilan Fe s F rn D r h Kyz the i Baghdad yltepinskiy u C n Middl So Karkidon res. e s k n iy Legend t r l a ana l C th ana A or erg r N ig F a Ta B Altyaryk v ld FERGANA Fergana a StatePapan boundary res. i Yazyavan district (1962 ha) n k s a y C a Rishtan Y h-Shakhimardan Nayman Oblast boundary K Sok K a ra k o l l City na A e K a c il y m res. C h r i h g a s n u C y a z

rg K a Project Area e S o t F k a

g h i -Y

B a a

n n

g k a o y Protected Area

k l a s

s a y Sokh River (16913 ha) r

i

h

s Water protection zone

I b s n

a Chimion Avval (17036 ha)A far

d S r T A J I K I S T A N a y z a lga o Recharge zone of ground hi k C m h i

h

I k s water deposits

K Y R G Y Z S T A N a f

a h

y

S

r

a m State Nature Monuments s 40°

a y Sokh debris cone 40° 9 0 9 18 Kilometers

71° 72° 73°

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 49 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Table 4-9. Land areas per Project raion Total raion area Irrigated area Raion Area (ha) % of area Area (ha) % of area % of total area Baghdad 42,095 34 24,984 34.1 59 Rishtan 42,179 34 24,471 33.6 58 Altiarik 40,090 32 23,692 32.3 59 Total 124,364 100 73,147 100 59 Source: MA&WR, 2007

Nearly all available land, except land used for settlement and lands that have thick shingle soils, have been claimed for irrigated agriculture. Due to the low annual rainfall, rainfed agriculture is not practised. The main land use types in 2007 are presented in Figure 4-9. Due to lack of irrigation water, production of a second crop is limited.

Figure 4-9. Land use types and the use of arable lands in the Project Area a) Land use types b) Use of arable lands

Vegetables Melons Others 6,5% 0,1% Hayfield- Settlements Unfit to technical Forage Wheat pastures 15,1% irrigation crops 0,2% 7,3% 42,9% 1,2% 0,6% Potatoes Perrenial 0,8% plants 7,8% Arable land Cotton 75,3% 41,0% Maize 1,2%

Source: MAWR, 2006

During the last ten years, significant changes in land use have taken place. The share of cotton and alfalfa has reduced in order to increase the winter wheat area, and the areas of perennial tree plantations and homestead land have increased. Shirkat farms were sub-divided into leasehold farms, with individuals using the land based on medium / long-term leases. The leasehold farms have become members of Water Users Associations (WUA) in order to divide water rationally and fairly, and to organise O&M of on-farm infrastructure. In Baghdad and Rishtan raions, the number of leasehold farms increased rapidly. In Altiarik raion, these farms are less numerous due to specialization in viticulture and vegetable-growing (Table 4- 10).

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 50 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Table 4-10. Farm situation in the three Project Area raions in 2006 Baghdad Rishtan Altiarik Number of leasehold farms (unit) 1422 1598 890 Average size of leasehold farms (ha) 24.6 13.5 12.4 Area of leasehold farms, in % of total arable area 81 83.5 31.3 Share production of leasehold farms in gross agricultural production (%) 37.5 35.3 18.4 Number of dekhan farms 34,300 33,000 34,200 Average size of dekhan farm (ha) 0.15 0.13 0.14 Area of dekhan farms, in % of sowing area 16.4 14.3 14.6 Share production of dekhan farms in gross agricultural production (%) 61.6 64.4 72.0 Source: Goscomstat, 2006

As is illustrated in Table 4-10 dehkan farms are far more numerous than the leasehold farms, but these are also much smaller. The dehkan farms provide some 65% of the gross agricultural production, while occupying only 15% of the arable land. Productivity of still existing shirkat and leasehold farms is low (Тable 4.11).

Table 4-11. Crop yields per farm type in the three Project Area raions in 2006 (t/ha) Farm Cotton Wheat Maize Lucerne Potato Vegetable Fodder Orchards Vineyards /Grass Maize Leasehold 2,4 3.5 12 20 15 3 Dehkan 3.3 4.2 12 16.5 20 16 6 12.5

Source: Final FS report (2008) based on agro-economic survey (August/September 2007)

4.3.2 Drainage Conditions and Waterlogging Due to continuous waterlogging, agricultural lands are being abandoned and houses and other buildings are affected. This situation is particularly serious in Baghdad and Rishtan raions, where during the irrigation period the groundwater table is at or close to the surface (Photo 12).

At present about 67-70% of the irrigated area in the Project raions has the water table within 2 m below ground level. The area with a groundwater table in the range of 0 to 1.5 m has almost doubled in the period 1996-2006. Altiarik is worst affected (Figure 4-10). The trend in groundwater levels from spring to autumn in Baghdad raion is illustrated in Figure 4-11.

Of the existing vertical drains (347), only 42% are in working condition. The wells are not effective due to the absence of quality pump equipment, energy limitations, and lack of finances.

The existing open drainage network is shallow, 2.3 to 2.5 m deep, and in poor state due to siltation, collapse and erosion of slopes. Of the total length of inter-raion collector drainage network 40% is in unsatisfactory condition; for the inter-farm system, this is 31%. Cleaning of 39% of the inter-raion system and 27% of the inter-farm collectors is required.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 51 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Figure 4-10. Change in groundwater depth in the Project Area raions (1996-2006)

Bagdad

2006

2004 0-1,5 1998 1,5-2,0 2,0-3,0 1996 >3,0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Area, %

Rishtan

2006 0-1,5 1,5-2,0 2004 2,0-3,0

1998 >3,0

1996 0 20 40 60 80 100 Area, %

Altiarik

2006 0-1,5 1,5-2,0 2004 2,0-3,0 >3,0 1998

1996 0 20 40 60 80 100 Area, %

Source: MAWR, 2006

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 52 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Figure 4-11. Change of groundwater level in Baghdad raion in 2005

c ol N l. R is ht an ba gd W E ad April 2005

S Bogdod

B Gidrotekhnigi WUA ig A n d i ja Buvayda n C a district Yangikurgan n a Kushtegirmon l Matkulobod Gidrotekhnigi Murobi WUA W UA

l na a Kokand C an ij Yuldosh nd Kushtegirmon A ig Khaziniy WUA B Gidrotekhnigi WUA Big Ferg a na C Irrigator anal Bogdod W UA M.Ismoilov WUA

c

o Bogdod l Besh Uglon l Jurak . Okhunbabaev Bag Zamin WUA Obilazzat W UA Suv Yullari Shokhimardon d coll. Sred ne Kyz a yltepinskiy d yuksalish s

k

i y Nu Azimobod Zilol Bagdad Far Baraka Poloson Sho Chashma Suvi Mirzaobod Oltiaryk Belarik Sabib Ota Murobi WUA Khoji W UA Yagona Umom Chashmasi Bujay Jurak Suv Yullari Akhmad Kanda Zokhidjon Okhunbabaev al an Akhmad Kanda a CShokhimardon an rg Fe yuksalish 3 0 3 6 Kilometers g Rishtonsoy Bi Altiaryk Kurgoncha O

c ol N l. R is ht an ba gd W E ad July 2005

S Bogdod

B Gidrotekhnigi WUA ig A n d i Buvayda ja n C district Yangikurgan a n a Kushtegirmon l Matkulobod Gidrotekhnigi Murobi WUA W UA

l na a C Kokand n ija Yuldosh nd Kushtegirmon A ig Khaziniy WUA B Gidrotekhnigi WUA Big Ferg a na C Irrigator anal Bogdod W UA M.Ismoilov WUA

c

o Bogdod l Besh Uglon l Jurak . Okhunbabaev Zamin WUA Obilazzat W UA Ba Suv Yullari g Shokhimardon d coll. Sred ne Kyz a yltepinskiy d yuksalish s

k

i y Nu Azimobod Zilol Bagdad Far Baraka Poloson Sho Chashma Suvi Mirzaobod Oltiaryk Belarik Sabib Ota Murobi WUA Khoji W UA Yagona Umom Chashmasi Bujay Jurak Suv Yullari Akhmad Kanda Zokhidjon Okhunbabaev al an Akhmad Kanda a CShokhimardon an rg Fe yuksalish 3 0 3 6 Kilometers Rishtonsoy ig B Altiaryk Kurgoncha O

c ol N l. R is ht an ba gd W E ad October 2005

S Bogdod

B Gidrotekhnigi WUA ig A n d i Buvayda ja n C district Yangikurgan a n a Kushtegirmon l Matkulobod Gidrotekhnigi Murobi WUA W UA

l a a n C Kokand n ija d Yuldosh n Kushtegirmon A ig Khaziniy WUA B Gidrotekhnigi WUA Big Ferg ana C Irrigator anal Legend: Bogdod W UA M.Ismoilov WUA

c Groundwater Table o Bogdod l Besh Uglon l Jurak . Okhunbabaev Zamin WUA Obilazzat W UA Ba Suv YullariBagdad Rayon g Shokhimardon d coll. Sred ne Kyz ad ylte yuksalishpinskiy s k 0-1.0 m i y Nu Azimobod Zilol Bagdad Far Baraka Poloson Sho Chashma Suvi 1.0-1.5 m Mirzaobod Oltiaryk Belarik Sabib Ota Murobi WUA 1.5-2.0 m Khoji W UA Yagona 2.0-3.0 m Umom Chashmasi Bujay Jurak Suv Yullari Akhmad Kanda Zokhidjon Okhunbabaev3.0-5.0 m al an Akhmad Kanda a CShokhimardon an rg >5 m 3 0 3 6 Kilometers Fe yuksalish Rishtonsoy ig B Altiaryk Kurgoncha O

Source: EA team Prepared by EA team based on MAWR data, 2006

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 53 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

The poor condition of the collector-drainage infrastructure is one of the main reasons for flooding and waterlogging within the Project Area. These problems are aggravated by high infiltration losses from higher land (Burgandin massive of Kyrgyzstan and Ferghana adirs), as well as high seepage from canals.

4.3.3 Groundwater Mineralisation There are significant variations in groundwater mineralization within the Project Area raions; the range is from 0-1g/l to more than 10 g/l, i.e. from fresh to highly saline (Table 4-12). Over most of the area (70%) groundwater salinity is moderate (1-5 g/l). There is no substantial variation in salinity between seasons.

Table 4-12. Groundwater mineralization in the Project Area raions Raion Areas with groundwater mineralization (% of area), g/l 0-1.0 1.0-3.0 3.0-5.0 5.0-10.0 Baghdad 18 53 29 1 Rishtan 22 35 41 3 Altiarik 16 65 16 0 Average 19 51 29 1 Source: Final FS report (2008)

4.3.4 Soil Salinity and Salt Mobilisation The upper parts of the Sokh-Shakhimardan debris cone are non-saline or slightly saline, towards the central and northern parts soil salinity increases. As a rule, soils with a higher level of salinity are found in depressions. High soil salinity levels are in part due to natural conditions, but also result from incorrect water management and inappropriate farming techniques. At present saline lands (4 dS/m or more), occupy 90% of the lands in Baghdad raion, 67% in Rishtan raion, and 16% of the lands in Altiarik raion (Table 4-13). Soil salinity is furthermore illustrated in Figure 4-12.

Table 4-13. Soil salinity in the Project Area raions

Non-saline and slightly Saline Strongly saline Very strongly saline saline (0 – 4 dS/m) Raion (4 - 8 dS/m) (8 - 16 dS/m) * (>16 dS/m) (0 - 4 dS/m) Area (ha) (%) Area (ha) (%) Area (ha) (%) Area (ha) (%)

Baghdad 1,993 9 8,277 39 10,754 51 0 0 Rishtan 5,072 33 6,143 41 3,927 26 0 0 Altiarik 14,384 83 1,929 11 908 5 173 1 Total 21,449 40 16,349 31 15,589 29 173 0 Source: UZGIP, 2007. Data of Ferghana HGME, 2006 Note * Cotton yield will decline by 50% at this level of soil salinity [Maas 1986]; wheat for 15-70% [Maas and Hoffman 1977]

As it is seen from Тable 4-13, around 40% of the Project Area has non-saline or slightly saline soils, and that nearly 30% is strongly saline. The largest area of strongly saline lands is present in Baghdad raion, non-saline and slightly saline are mostly in Altiarik raion.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 54 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Figure 4-12. Soil salinization in the Project Area

N

c ol W E l. R ish tan S ba gd ad

Bogdod

B Gidrotekhnigi WUA ig A n d ija Buvayda n C Yangikurgan a district n a Kushtegirmon l Matkulobod Gidrotekhnigi Murobi W UA WUA

a l a n C n ija Yuldosh n d Kushtegirmon A Khaziniy WUA ig Gidrotekhnigi WUA B Big Ferga na C Irrigator anal Bogdod W UA M.Ismoilov WUA

c

o

Bogdod l Besh Uglon l Jurak . Okhunbabaev B Zamin W UA Obilazzat WUA a Suv Yullari g coll. Shokhimardon d Sredne Kyzylt a epinskiy d yuksalish s

k

i y Nurobod Lola Bagdad Azimobod Zilol Far Baraka Poloson Shokhimardon Chashma Suvi Mirzaobod Oltiaryk Belarik Murobi W UA Sabib Ota Okbuyra Zikhol Suvi Khoji W UA Yagona Umom Chashmasi Bujay Jurak Suv Yullari Akhmad Kanda Zokhidjon Okhunbabaev al an Akhmad Kanda a CShokhimardon an erg F yuksalish Rishtonsoy ig B Altiaryk Zulaykho Oltyaryk Kurgoncha Povulgon Obi Khayot l ana na C Gayrat erga n F Suv Yullari her Sout Ok Er Tuda Obikhayot Obi Khayot Rishtan Yangiarab Obi Khayot

Ðèø òàí

ë Obi Khayot êàí à í ñêèé ì àðäà Shokhimardon Ø àõè Ñî õ- Legend: Katput Soil Salinity

non saline K Y R G Y Z slightly S T A N average

high

3 0 3 6 Kilometers

Source: EA team based on MAWR and Fergana HGME, 2006

Figure 4-13. Trends in soil salinization in irrigated lands in the three Project Area raions (1992-2006) a) Baghdad

100% 90%

Area,% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1992 1994 1996 2000 2002 2004 2006 Not saline and slight Mean High

B) Rishtan

100% 90%

Area,% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1992 1994 1996 2000 2002 2004 2006 Not saline and slight Mean High

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 55 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

c) Altiarik

100% 90% 80% Area, % Area, 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1992 1994 1996 2000 2002 2004 Not saline and slight Mean High

Source: EA team based on Ferghana HGME data, 2007

Overall Land Condition – The analysis shows that about 38-67% of irrigated areas have unsatisfactory ameliorative conditions due to a high groundwater table. Some 30% of the area has strongly saline soils. A combination of these unfavourable phenomena is found on 12-33% of the Project Area lands (Table 4-14).

Table 4-14. Ameliorative conditions in the Project Area raions Land conditions Reasons of unsatisfactory conditions Raion Area Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Rising GWL Soil salinization GWL salinity ha ha % ha % ha % ha % ha % ha % Baghdad 24,856 7,483 30 11,494 46 5,895 24 3,502 59 1,710 29 683 12

Rishtan 29,023 11,908 41 11,130 38 5,985 21 2,301 38 1,709 29 1,975 33

Altiarik 23,597 4,410 19 14,431 61 4,740 20 3,195 67 785 17 760 16

Source: MAWR, 2006

4.3.5 Use of Agro-chemicals Use of mineral fertilizers in the three Project raions differs considerably. In Baghdad and Altiarik raions fertilizer application approximately corresponds to the recommended levels, but in Rishtan raion it is lower by 30-40% for all types of fertilizers. However, amounts of pesticides and mineral fertilizers used have decreased 3 to 4 times over the last 10 to 12 years.

Despite this, soil pollution problems caused by residual toxic materials still remain. Mineral fertilizers, together with chemicals used to control pests and diseases, pollute water and land. The main sources of pollution with pesticides are the former agricultural aerodromes, poison dumps and store houses of mineral fertilizers and chemicals. Table 4-15 shows fertilizer use and Figure 4-14 soil pollution dynamics in Ferghana valley, for the period 2000 to 2006.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 56 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Table 4-15. Mineral fertilizers used in the Project Area raions, 2006 Nitrogen Phosphate Potash No Total /Unit Ammoniu Urea Sulphate Ammop Super Potash m nitrate Ammonia hos Phosphate Salt

Rishtan 1 Cotton Area,ha 8928 Used amount ton 1393 830 464 393 554 36 Used per hectare kg/ha 156 93 52 44 62 4 2 Wheat Area,ha 7240 Used amount ton 926 673 224 413 369 43 Used per hectare kg/ha 128 93 31 57 51 6 Baghdad 1 Cotton Area,ha 7320 Used amount ton 3590 557 - 161,2 2637 115 Used per hectare kg/ha 490 76,1 - 22 360,2 15,7 2 Wheat Area,ha 8210 Used amount ton 2980 443,3 - 86,5 1229 31,3 Used per hectare kg/ha 363 54 - 10,5 149,7 3,8 Altiarik 1 Cotton Area,ha 8400 Used amount ton 2774 2085 29 647 2197 145 Used per hectare kg/ha 330 248 4 77 262 17 2 Wheat Area,ha 7900 Used amount ton 3011 915 - 116 1946 52 Used per hectare kg/ha 381 116 - 15 247 7 Source: FS Preliminary Report, September 2007

Figure 4-14. Soil pollution in the Project Area raions with pesticides (mg/kg soil)

Source: EA team based on FS data

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 57 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

4.4 Biological Resources The biological diversity of Uzbekistan is represented by approximately 11,000 species of plants and more than 22,000 species of animals. Of these animal species 184 are rare or endangered according to the Red Book of Uzbekistan (Table 4-16).

Table 4-16. Rare and endangered animal species included in the Uzbekistan Red Book (2003) Class Number of animal species Rare and endangered species recorded from Uzbekistan Number % Invertebrates 21,337 78 0,4 Fishes (Pisces) 83 18 21,7 Amphibia 3 - - Reptilia 59 16 27,1 Birds (Aves) 424 48 11,3 Mammalia 97 24 24,7 Total 22,003 184 0,8 Source: Goskompriroda, 2006

In all protected areas (Reserves and National Parks) in Uzbekistan some 1,115 species of plants have been recorded of which 66 rare species that are included in the Red Book.

4.4.1 Terrestrial Vegetation Floodplain forest (tugai) as well as the natural steppe ecosystem on the floor of the valley has practically disappeared as a result of agriculture. Fruit orchards and vineyards abound in and near settlements. Fields are mostly used for cotton and wheat production, and to a much lesser extent for growing vegetables and fruits. Tree plantations are present along roads and inside settlements usually consisting of elm, mulberry and poplar.

4.4.2 Terrestrial Zoology Due to intensive agricultural land use and disturbance of natural ecosystems, wild fauna is practically absent. The natural fauna of the Project Area is represented in the Ferghana region by common species, and includes rodents, birds, reptiles, insects and spiders. Here and there small pockets remain of ‘unused’ lands - usually waterlogged and abandoned farmlands, neglected canal banks or silted and overgrown canals - that still provide marginal habitat for wildlife, particularly birds. Pasturelands support domestic animals, i.e. sheep and cows.

4.4.3 Endemic Rare and Endangered Species Reportedly, there are no endemic wild animal species in the Project Area, neither have any rare or endangered species been reported. Approximately 20 km north of the Project Area, in the ‘Yazyavan Steppe’ which has the status of ‘State Nature Monument’, live three threatened endemic reptile species that are included in the Red Book of Uzbekistan, i.e. Straush’s Toad Agama Phrynocephalus strauchi; Ferghana Sand Racerruner Eremias scripta; and Rustamov’s Plate-tailed Gesko Teratoscincus scincus [Red Book of Uzbekistan].

4.4.4 Protected Zones of Ecological Importance Biological diversity is preserved in reserves, natural national parks and other particularly protected natural territories (Table 4-17).

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 58 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Table 4-17. Types of protected areas in Uzbekistan (a) and Ferghana Valley (b)

a) Uzbekistan Types of protected areas Number Total area (ha) State Protected Reserve Territory 9 220,760 National Park 2 598,700 Ecocentre Jeyran 1 5,140 State Reserve 9 1,223,920 State Nature Monument 2 3,480

b) Ferghana Valley Category Name Total Legal status departmental Number Total area including subordination (ha) irrigated FERGHANA II State Nature Monument of Central Ferghana 1 142 Oblast Directorate of State Nature Monument Yazyavan chullari 1 1,820 Agriculture and Water Resources Total Category II 2 1,963 III Water Protection Zone, including river bank 8 3,991 15 Oblast Directorate of protection strips Agriculture and Water Resources Total Category III 8 3,991 15 Total oblast (Cat. II and III) 10 5,954 15 ANDIJAN III Water Protection Zone including coastal protection 7 1,524 Oblast Directorate of strips Agriculture and Water Resources Total Category III 7 1,524 Total oblast (Cat. III) 7 1,524 NAMANGAN II State Nature Monument Mingbulak 1 1,000 - Oblast Directorate of Agriculture and Water Resources State Nature Monument Chust raion 1 96 29 Ministry of Culture Children's sanatorium "Chartak" 1 9 3 Ministry of Health Sanatorium "Chartak" 1 140 33 Directorate of Resorts Total Category II 4 1,245 65 III Botanical Garden of NSU 1 4 3 Ministry of Higher Education 32 17,658 12,094 Water Protection Zone, including river bank

protection strips Total Category III 33 17,662 12,097 Total in oblast: 37 18,907 12,162

Source: Goskompriroda, 2006

Note: Within the IUCN classification system for protected areas State Reserves are Category I; National Parks are Category II; Ecocentre Jeyran is Category III; State Reserves and State Nature Monuments are Category IV.

Zones of fresh underground water and all large rivers (such as Naryn and Karadarya) have the status of Protected Nature Territory (PNT) – see Table 4-18 and 4-19.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 59 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Table 4-18. Groundwater areas with Protected Nature Territory (PNT) status in Ferghana Valley Nr Oblast Name of formation Area (ha) Formation of oblast importance 1 Namangan Almas – Varzik, 22,665 Iskovot- Peshkur 49,677 2 Ferghana Isfara (besharyk site) 2,196 Sub-total 74,538 Formation of republican importance 1 Namangan. Narin 5,685 2 Andijan Osh-Aravan 35,294 3 Ferghana Chimion-Avval 17,036 Sokh 16,913 Sub-total 74,928 Overall total 149,466 Source: Goskompriroda, 2006

Table 4-19. Water Protection Zones (WPZ) and associated river banks within Uzbekistan Name (river) Nr Area (ha) Water Protected Zone River banks Karadarya 1 7,541 1,213 Naryn 6 4,311 459 Total 11,851 1,672 Source: Goskompriroda, 2006

Under the Law on Protected Nature Territories (3 December 2004), in the category ‘State Nature Monument’ the following areas were established in Ferghana Valley (Figure 4-8):
State Nature Monument of Mingbulak district in Namanghan region (1991; 1,000 ha) for preservation of flora and fauna of the area – located 20 km north of the Project Area;
State Nature Monument of Chust district (1991; 96 ha) for preservation of flora and fauna in the area – located 52 km north of the Project Area;
State Nature Monument Yazyavan Steppe in Yazyavan district (1994; 1,962 ha) for preservation of a unique natural sandy massive in association with desert habitats – located 27 km northeast of the Project Area.

In the Project Area, as in the rest of Ferghana Valley, there are no State Reserves – the reason being that in the plain section of the valley there are practically no sites with non-disturbed natural ecosystems.

4.5 Social Resources A sociological survey and analysis was conducted by the Social Assessment team in the three Project Area raions in May-September 2007 and December 2008 to February 2009. Key findings are presented below. Further detail is provided in the separate social survey reports [Social Assessment / Tahlil].

4.5.1 Affected Population and Households In 2007 the total population in the three Project Area raions was 489,000 or about 98,000 households (Table 4-20). Some 442,000 people (90%) of this population are expected to be affected by the Project.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 60 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Table 4-20. Population in the Project Area raions in 2006 Baghdad Rishtan Altiarik Total / average Population 165,000 157,000 167,000 489,000 Rural (%) 91.7 79.5 84.9 Households 34,000 35,000 29,000 98,000 Working age population 85,000 82,000 88,000 255,000

Source: Social Assessment study team, 2007

The rural population in the three Project raions varies from 80% (Rishtan) to 90% (Baghdad), which resembles the average region index (85%). The urban population lives in Rishtan and Khamza towns and in the smaller towns of Baghdad and Altiarik. All three Project raions have a high population growth rate particularly in the rural areas.

The working age population (256,000) is 52% of the total population (489,000), the level of employment is 76,5% (196,000). About 80% of the employed people in Baghdad and Altiarik work in the agriculture sector; in Rishtan this is somewhat lower (67%).

According to statistical data the Project raions have high indices of out-migration. In 2006 the number of people who left Rishtan district was 4,5%; in other raions this index is lower (2,5%).

The ethnic composition of the population in the targeted Project raions is 81% Uzbek, 16% Tajik and Kyrgyz, and 3% Slavonic, Tatar and others. The majority of the households (98,5%) have their own dwelling. On average the size of housing is about 14,5-16 m² per inhabitant. Dwellings in the Project Area are typically private one-storey houses and two- and more storey apartments in raion centres and towns.

4.5.2 Infrastructure and Services The percentage of households that are connected to the potable (piped) water and natural gas systems in the Project Area is considered high (Table 4-21). According to official statistics not less than 80% of the households have access to piped-water. However, according to the survey results, only 11% of the households have safe running water, and half of these experience frequent supply cuts of on average 3.5 hours per day. Most households in the Project raions regularly use water that is unsuitable for consumption. Over the past 7-10 years the water supply network has collapsed in many settlements and many water supply tube-wells stand idle due to pump failings. Even in settlements where there is running water, residents are forced to use water from open water bodies, including drainage canals, due to irregular potable water supply. In Altiarik raion, 59% of the households take water from hand pumps that lift polluted water from shallow aquifers. In Rishtan raion, 36% of the households obtain water from irrigation canals, 8% use water from drainage canals, and 14% use community reservoirs (khauzes).

According to official statistics the centralized gas system supplies 69% of the population of Baghdad, 79% of population of Rishtan, and 92% of the population of in Altiarik, as compared to the average supply levels in Ferghana Valley of 81%. The installation of gasification and piped-water networks has taken considerable time reportedly, and is still ongoing. In 2006 for example, 17 km of gas networks and 50 km of the water network were constructed.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 61 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Table 4-21. Potable water resources in the Project Area raions in June 2007 (% of the households) Total Baghdad Rishtan Altiarik Piped water 59 97 46 38 River, irrigation canal 27 25 36 20 Small well equipped with hand pump 24 4 3 59 Community reservoir (khauz) 5 2 14 0 Drainage canal 3 0 8 1 Water vendors 4 0 13 0 Others 2 0 0 4 Source: Social Assessment study team, 2007 Note: sum exceeds 100%, as respondents can use more than one source of water supply

Contrary, according to the SA survey data, access to gas supply has only 46% of the Project Area households, but these have frequent supply irregularities (Table 4-22). The most favourable situation for gas supply is in Altiarik raion (68% have access to gas).

Table 4-22. Access to communal services in the Project area raions in June 2007 (% of households) Total Baghdad Rishtan Altiarik Centralized gas supply Available and operable 46 33 32 68 Operates but with frequent irregularities 33 38 32 29 Available but not functioning 12 15 23 2 Not available 9 14 13 1 Sewerage system Available and functioning 0 0 0 0 Centralized water supply Available and functioning 6 11 3 3 Operates but with frequent irregularities 6 6 2 8 Available but not functioning 2 0 3 2 Not available 87 83 92 87 Electricity supply Available and functioning 71 69 67 75 Operates but with frequent irregularities 29 30 32 25 Not available 1 1 1 0 Source: Social Assessment study team, 2007

Because of the low pressure in gas supply systems, powercuts, and voltage flaws most families drink water without boiling. Children that drink water without treatment from open sources are particularly a high- risk group. Another reason for rising sickness rates in the Project Area is the location of pit latrines in the immediate vicinity of wells from which households take water for drinking purposes, while sewage systems are not available at all.

Access to medical centres differs noticeably in the three Project Area raions (Table 4-23).

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 62 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Table 4-23. Health and education facilities in the Project Area raions in 2007 (per 10,000 people) Fergana region Baghdad Rishtan Altiarik Number of rural health centres 293 21 21 21 Number of ambulatory-polyclinic facilities 586 32 36 40 Number of hospitals 149 4 5 9 Number of kindergartens 874 57 74 45 Number of schools 917 55 65 46 Number of colleges 101 2 3 3 Number of universities 5 0 0 0

The number of hospital beds and ambulatory-polyclinic centres (per 10,000 people) is the most favourable in Altiarik (169), as comparing to Rishtan (123) and Baghdad (115). Health indicators in the Project raions differ only marginally from average indicators in the region. Morbidity and mortality rates are somewhat lower than on average in Ferghana region and the disability rate indicators in Baghdad and Rishtan raions are higher than the average indicator for the region. There is a wide range of education infrastructure in the Ferghana region, however in the Project raions there is limited access to compulsory vocational education and to higher education.

The largest industrial complex in the Project Area is the Altiarik Oil Processing Plant (see Textbox, below, and Photo 18). Although the plant uses water through an intake from the Big Ferghana Canal, is discharges its wastewater outside the Project Area. The plant is believed to have no impact on the Project Area.

Altiarik Oil Processing Plant (Photo 18)

The largest industry in the Project area is the Altiarik Oil Processing Plant that is located on a 95 ha plot in the northern outskirts of Altiarik town, north of the east-west railway line. The plant was constructed during Soviet times. It is currently operating at 20-25% of its capacity. The plant uses and stores Uzbek oil from among others the Bukara oilfield. At present the plant processes 800- 1,000 m³ per day, reportedly, which suggest that the maximum capacity is in the order of 4000 m³ per day.

Water intake for processing is from the Big Ferghana Canal. Maximum water intake capacity is 48,000 m³ per day but actual intake is in the order of 1,500 m³ per day, reportedly, which seems an odd ratio as compared to the stated oil production capacity. Wastewater is conveyed from the plant through an underground 800 mm diameter and 13 km long steel pipe to an open wastewater treatment system that still operates, albeit at reduced capacity. From there the water is discharged in a drainage collector, that according to a plant official, outfalls outside the Project Area.

The quality of the wastewater from the plant is monitored by the responsible state agency, the Ferghana Viloyat Goskompriroda. Water quality was at a low in the end of the soviet era, but due to reduced operation of the plant and improved treatment activity the quality of the waste water is now better. [EA study team field report]

4.5.3 Historical Monuments There are no historical monuments of importance reported within the Project Area.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 63 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

5 Assessment of Environmental Impacts

This chapter predicts and assesses the Project’s likely positive and negative environmental impacts. It also identifies general mitigation measures (that are further addressed in the Mitigation Plan – Chapter 9). It identifies and estimates the extent and quality of available data, key data gaps, and uncertainties associated with the presented predictions.

5.1 Introduction As the World Bank’s OP 4.01 – Environmental Assessment does not provide a prescribed format or structure for the actual impact assessment, such structure has been designed for specifically the FVWRMP. The assessment is made from different perspectives: • Impacts by Project intervention type (physical) – Section 5.2 • Impacts due to the Project location – Section 5.3 • Impacts due to Project implementation (construction) – Section 5.4 • Impacts by Project Component A, B and C – Section 5.5 • Long-term Project impacts (operation) – Section 5.6 • Overall Project impacts – Section 5.7.

5.2 Impacts by (Physical) Intervention Type On the basis of the selected physical interventions, as proposed in the Final Feasibility Report, Chapter 7.2.1, the expected positive and negative environmental impacts have been identified, and these are summarized in Table 5-1. The interventions are divided into three groups: the drainage system, the irrigation system, and the on-farm works.

As can be seen from Table 5-1, all interventions targeting the drainage system, and the on-farm works, are expected to lead to improved drainage and reduced waterlogging and salinization problems and are therefore considered as positive environmental impacts. Health and sanitation conditions in/near Rishtan town are expected to improve as well. A full oversight of all Project benefits is provided in Chapter 8.

Most drainage-related improvement works are expected to cause temporary and local disruption as a result of the construction works. These may include the (temporary) construction of access roads, increased traffic (dust, noise, vibration), pollution of soil and waters near worker camps and construction sites, dumping of waste materials, and health and safety problems. The magnitude of all these temporary and potentially adverse impacts is considered as low. As shown in Table 5-1, trough appropriate construction safeguards these negative environmental impacts can largely be mitigated (see Chapter 9).

Furthermore as shown in Table 5-1, the adverse impacts of the proposed irrigation and on-field interventions are mostly expected to be negligible.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 64 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Table 5-1. Project environmental impacts by proposed intervention type Intervention Abbr Application and features Positive Negative environmental Importance / Mitigation environmental impacts magnitude of impacts negative impact Drainage system

Provision of subsurface horizontal SHD Required as part of the intervention to reclaim saline soils. Field drainage Improved drainage Temporary and local disruption Low, prodived Construction safeguards – drain system may include only in areas of heavier soils. Minimal loss of land to drainage system. leading to reduced due to construction works, such safeguards are see FS, App. C interceptor pipes (perforated) waterlogging and as fuel and oil spills, dust, air Land take can be reduced further if buried collectors are used. implemented which discharge directly to the salinization pollution from machinery, effectively drainage ditches, or interceptor SHD can also be used as interceptor drains to intercept (for example) problems disposal of construction pipes flowing into collector pipes inflows from the adir area or canal seepage. materials, traffic and road (solid) which discharge into open damage, disruption of aquatic collectors and terrestrial ecology/habitats, impacts to crops and lands, impacts to ground and surface waters.

Rehabilitation of subsurface SHD Flushing and relaying SHD; rehabilitation of SHD outfalls and inspection As above As above As above As above horizontal drains chambers

Provision of deep open drains DOD Field drainage in areas of heavier soils. Potential significant loss of land As above As above As above As above to drainage system.

Rehabilitation of deep open drains DOD See “rehabilitation of drainage channel” below. As above As above As above As above (including interceptor drains)

Provision of interceptor drains ID Similar to deep open drains but specifically sited to intercept horizontal As above As above As above As above groundwater flows.

Provision of vertical drainage wells VDW Field and local district drainage; requires soils with suitably high As above As above As above As above permeability. Typically VDW are between 50 and 150 m deep.

Rehabilitation of vertical drainage VDW Test; Log using closed circuit television (CCTV); and seek to overcome As above As above As above As above wells clogging of screens and parent rock matrix. Refurbish or replace pump motors and impellers, electrical equipment and other well head equipment. Provide dipping point.

Change to Category II power Improved reliability of power supplies as less load shedding. The As above None supply associated infrastructure needs have not been determined at this

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 65 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Intervention Abbr Application and features Positive Negative environmental Importance / Mitigation environmental impacts magnitude of impacts negative impact juncture, except Rishtan Town

Provision of pressure relief wells PRW Equivalent to VDW, but only suitable where piezometric head is high As above As above As above As above (close to, or above, ground level) such as in a confined or semi-confined aquifer situation. Typically PRW are between 30 and 50 m deep.

Provision of artesian wells AW Equivalent to VDW, but only suitable where piezometric head is above As above As above As above As above ground level (such as in a confined or semi-confined situation). They differ from PRW in that they will have a depth of 100 to 150 m.

Rehabilitation of drainage network Removing capacity constraints or addressing structural distress (including As above As above As above As above structures wear and tear deterioration), such as rehabilitation of culverts and siphons.

Rehabilitation of drainage channels - Cleaning and desilting, reforming channel section and restoring suitable As above As above As above As above longitudinal design water level profile.

Install piezometers For groundwater monitoring network. As above As above As above As above

Irrigation system

Rehabilitation and upgrading of - Restoring functionality of water control equipment. None identified Negligible irrigation water control structures Provision of measuring facilities. Construction of new outlets.

Rehabilitation of other irrigation - Removing capacity constraints or addressing structural distress (including None identified Negligible structures wear and tear deterioration), such as rehabilitation of culverts and aqueducts.

Rehabilitation of irrigation channels - Cleaning and desilting, reforming channel section and repair of lining None identified As above (concrete over impermeable sheeting).

On-field Deep ripping Removal of plough pans and other relatively shallow semi-permeable or As above Marginal impacts comparable to impermeable layers to improve field drainage to reduce incidence of normal farm ploughing works waterlogging. Required as part of the intervention to reclaim saline soils.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 66 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

5.3 Impacts by Project Location The Project interventions will largely be undertaken in or around existing irrigation infrastructure and along existing irrigation and drainage network lines (main and inter-farm canals and drainage lines). In most parts of the Project Area, a combination of interventions (physical options) will be applied. Expected main positive and negative impacts of the physical Project interventions per identified zone are presented in Table 5-2. These zones are depicted in Figure 3-1.

Table 5-2. Expected environmental impacts per zone Zone Location Physical option description Positive Negative Mitigation environmental environmental impacts impacts 1 The northernmost part Rehabilitation of 12 VDW + 46 new PRW Removal of excess Temporary and local Construction of the study area + Deepening the on-farm drains + 200 ha water (5 mln m³) disruption due to safeguards (mainly in Bagdad SHD rehabilitation; Deep ripping across all and reducing salinity construction works rayon), of this zone in the problem area 2 Western-south-central Rehabilitation of 40 VDW + 200 new PRW Removal of excess Temporary and local Construction Bagdad rayon. water (20 mln m³) disruption due to safeguards construction works 3 The south western Rehabilitation of 30 VDW + 100 new Removal of excess Temporary and local Construction border of the study PRW + 12 km ID water (38 mln m³) disruption due to safeguards area adjacent to the construction works Sokh outwash fan 4 Lying between the Deepening the on-farm drains + 500 ha Reducing salinity in Temporary and local Construction Middle Kiziltepe and SHD rehabilitation. Deep ripping across the problem area disruption due to safeguards Bagdad Collectors all of this zone construction works 5 South of the Middle No physical project works no significant Kiziltepe Collector problem 6 Part of Rishtan rayon, Rehabilitation of 5 VDW + 109 new Removal of excess Temporary and local Construction lying between the PRW + 2 new AW ; Laying only interceptor water (8 mln m³) ; disruption due to safeguards Bagdad Collector and SHD pipes at a depth of 2.5 m in 1 000 ha Reducing salinity in construction works the BFC + 1 000 ha SHD rehabilitation; Deep the problem area ripping across all of this zone 7 The southern border of Rehabilitation of 47 VDW + 550 new Removal of excess Temporary and local Construction the study area around PRW +8 new AW water (45 mln m³) disruption due to safeguards Rishtan town construction works 8 The southern border of Rehabilitation of 40 VDW + 100 new Removal of excess Temporary and local Construction the study area, east of PRW + 10 km ID water (35 mln m³) disruption due to safeguards Rishtan town construction works 9 Altiarik, broadly along Rehabilitation of 10 VDW + 75 new PRW Removal of excess Temporary and local Construction the line of the BFC water (7 mln m³) disruption due to safeguards construction works 10 East study area, Rehabilitation of 25 VDW + 231 new Removal of excess Temporary and local Construction predominantly Altiarik, PRW + 3 km ID water (25 mln m³) disruption due to safeguards bordering the SSC and construction works SFC 11 Rishtan town Rehabilitation of 33 VDW + change to Removal of excess Construction

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 67 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Zone Location Physical option description Positive Negative Mitigation environmental environmental impacts impacts Category II power supply water (18 mln m³) safeguards 12 Downstream No interventions envisaged Temporary Temporary increased water increased salt discharges discharges, but insignificant to Syrdarya loads

For all 10 Project zones the positive environmental impacts are mainly improved drainage that will result in reduced waterlogging and reduced salinization problems. For Rishtan town the interventions will furthermore improve the health and sanitation conditions. The negative environmental impacts are mostly of a temporary and local nature and are due to construction works. As noted in Section 5.2 it is expected that the negative environmental impacts can mostly be mitigated by appropriate construction safeguards (see Chapter 9).

The downstream area is likely to experience a temporary and gradually increasing influx of water and salt, resulting from the drainage improvement works. Although the Project Area is not located directly on a trans-boundary water course, the rivers Sokh, Shahimardan and Narin are tributaries of the trans- boundary Syrdarya river. No significant long-term impact of the Project interventions on the downstream area, or Syrdarya river, is expected (see also Chapter 6).

A great part of the underground water resources are artesian waters, and are formed due to irrigation in adjacent lands at higher elevations, mostly in Kyrgyzstan. Although the aquifer underneath these higher lands and the Project Area is interconnected, it is not expected that that Project interventions will have a significant impact on the groundwater resources in higher lands.

The physical infrastructure, such as the interception collectors, vertical wells and horizontal drainage systems will be constructed and rehabilitated in line with applicable government regulations norms (Table 2-1). The location of new collectors will be selected in such a way that the environmental and social impacts will be minimal.

The source of irrigation water and salt balance will frequently be tested. Results of these quality tests must prove that the irrigation water is suitable as raw water to be used for irrigation and domestic needs.

All possible measures should be taken during the detailed design to avoid encroachment in irrigated and other agricultural lands, private buildings and houses. Concrete or steel pipes should be used for crossing rural infrastructure.

5.4 Impacts during Project Implementation and Mitigation Rehabilitation and small-scale construction works on irrigation and drainage networks, as in FVWRMP, usually cause little environmental impact, however these still demand special precautions. Environmental damage should be controlled, mainly with regard to:
Pollution of ground and surface waters through dumping of fuel, oil and lubricates;

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 68 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Health of workers and the local population connected with construction and transport and operation of machinery;
Handling of waste formed at construction sites, and resulting from cleaning and rehabilitation of collectors and wells;
Ecological disturbance in canals and collectors in and outside (downstream) of the Project Area (elimination feeding and breeding sites of fish, birds and other animals).

Assessments of the Project impact on the environment and general mitigation measures are given below.

5.4.1 Water Resources In construction or rehabilitation of irrigation and drainage systems, water resources may be polluted by the cleaning and construction of collectors and by wastes from construction sites. For the prevention of surface and underground water pollution, protection measures should be taken from possible pollution sources. This requires:
Following of repair-and-renewal standards and rules and use of modern technology for work implementation;
Diversion of surface and drainage run-off from the work sites;
Development and application of a plan for diversion of collector-drainage waters during reconstruction;
Timely cleaning of construction sites from construction wastes, and storing excavation sediments only in places, established by controlling authorities;
Establishment of Water Protection Zones at construction sites of new collectors based on norm CN&R 2.04.02-97;
After completion of repair and renewal works, the irrigation and drainage system should be cleaned.

Measures for the protection of all types of water resources from any possible source of contamination should be taken during the rehabilitation and construction works. Involuntary oil and fuel spills from reservoirs at construction sites as well as improper handling of lubricants during machinery maintenance operations are among the most possible sources of contamination of surface and groundwater at project sites. Environmental concerns related to water resources are considered as negligible. Nevertheless, measures for adequate waste management will have to be taken in order to prevent any accidental pollution occurring to water resources.

5.4.2 Land Resources Main environmental impacts on land resources during the rehabilitation and construction works are soil pollution with sediments, construction wastes and lubricates, as well as flooding of adjacent lands at possible dams breaks. Appropriate sites should be provided for the collection and storage of construction wastes and sediments to reduce negative environmental impact.

Soils may be exposed to contamination by the same sources of pollution as mentioned in connection with the water resources, namely: mishandling of solid and liquid waste and inadequate maintenance of machineries, particularly when changing oils and refuelling. Appropriate measures must be taken to prevent spillage and leakage into surface and groundwater resources at filling sites and during transportation.

Measures for protection of soils are to be enforced in accordance with the RU norms 3.01.01-97 and 3.05.03-97. During the construction of new collectors and wells, the organic topsoil, suitable for further

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 69 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

utilization will need to be removed and temporarily stored separately from the remaining removed earth material. After the completion of the collectors and installation of the wells, the organic soil will be placed on top of the backfilling material, duly compacted and restored for agricultural use.

5.4.3 Traffic, Atmospheric Air, Noise and Dust Temporary environmental impacts of rehabilitation and construction work on irrigation and drainage systems are connected with use of machinery for repair and renewal operations, and include increased traffic, dust formation, exhaust fumes, noise and vibration from machinery.

Traffic of heavy trucks employed for the transportation of construction materials will increase temporarily during the realization of the Project. Other temporary environmental concerns relate to the use of excavators, cranes, compressors and other machineries during the construction works and will include: (i) noise and dust from construction sites, and (ii) safety for workers and inhabitants. Measures will need to be taken to enforce strict observance of safety rules at main road crossings, along main roads, along the makhalla streets and near work sites. Temporary or permanent traffic lights in most sensible road crossings will need to be installed by the contractors, under the supervision of the PIU. Traffic police control will be intensified in makhallas during the rehabilitation/construction period and adequate warning will be provided to enhance measures of prudence among schoolchildren.

Suppression of dust formation during works and transportation should be considered through watering of work sites and roads. Work sites should be located as much as possible away from residential areas to minimize noise and vibration levels. All construction sites, passageways, should be cleaned after work completion.

5.4.4 Terrestrial Vegetation and Aquatic Flora and Fauna Rehabilitation works on open drains and collectors usually means that all vegetation will be removed and stored alongside the work sites. Obviously, this will also affect aquatic and terrestrial flora and fauna. Pumped Wells and Vertical Drainage Wells will be made to discharge into collectors and irrigation nets, thereby increasing water turbidity in surface waters, affecting the aquatic fauna (especially fish) and flora. These habitats will temporarily but seriously be disturbed. Appropriate measures should be taken to restore the affected habitats, for example by land levelling and replanting of canal levees with trees or shrub. Appropriate and realistic rehabilitation of animal habitat should be carried out.

5.4.5 Solid and Liquid Waste Management The following wastes will be formed during the repair-renewal operations in the collector networks:
Waste sediment from the mechanical cleaning of collector beds, composed of water vegetation, mineral salts and organic matter;
Earth waste from the preparation of sites for construction of hydro-technical structures and widening and deepening of collectors;
Wastes of damaged concrete material after repairing hydro-technical structures.

Utilization and storage of these wastes should be envisaged in the Project design. At the work sites various types of solid waste, including essentially wood, oil filters, plastic and cartons from equipment packaging will be produced. Measures will include the provision of refuse collection containers and used

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 70 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

oil collection containers, with further removal to specially allocated disposal and reclamation sites. After completion of rehabilitation and construction works, all jobsites will need to be cleaned and landscaped. Maintenance of machinery will be done exclusively within the premises of gasoline stations specifically equipped for the storage of used oils and other liquid contaminants. No on-site maintenance of equipment will be authorized.

If groups of workers are to remain at the work sites for extended periods, it will be necessary to construct temporary sanitary facilities including collectors for the evacuation of wastewater in selected sites.

Excavated earth and material from collector cleaning and construction should be laid in the wayside and should be levelled or could be transported to disposal sites or used for backfilling. Waste disposal sites should be located outside the sanitation and water protection zones of watercourses.

For concrete wastes, special locations should be established. After completion of works all sites must be cleaned and be brought back into a natural state, as far as possible.

5.4.6 Safety and Healthy Work Conditions Work techniques in rehabilitation and construction sites may create dangerous situations for workers and the population of nearby settlements. It is necessary to create healthy work conditions, security and protection regulations need to be followed. Fencing of work sites and bridges across trenches should be provided. Traffic control, emergency signals and lighting should be established according to local rules. If necessary, safety bypasses and crossings for pedestrians and cattle need to be installed. Further safety measures are detailed in Chapter 9 – the Environmental Mitigation Plan.

5.5 Impacts by Project Component

5.5.1 Component A – Improvement of Irrigation and Drainage Network It is expected that impacts of the considered Project on the environment will be mainly from the physical interventions that target the improvement of the irrigation and drainage systems – off-farm and on-farm. These impacts will be visible and felt both during the construction and operation phase of the interventions, but during each phase, the impacts will be of a different nature.

During the construction phase, the impacts on the environment will be mostly of a temporary and local nature, and will be associated with the movement and operation of excavation and construction vehicles and machinery, and people. In the first place one should think of increased traffic on rural roads (creating dust, noise, vibration, and safety concerns), impacts associated with drilling (VDW, PRW, AW), excavation (pipe laying, trench digging, canal and drain cleaning), and construction activities (concrete linings, hydraulic structures). Environmental impacts can be expected near and from worker camps too.

During the operation phase of the Project, the interventions start to become effective. This means that the excess waters from the Project Area will be removed (lowering the water table), mineralization will gradually reduce, and health and sanitation conditions will slowly enhance. Improvements to the irrigation systems will furthermore reduce the loss of waters, and herewith help in reducing the waterlogging problems. As a whole, the Project Area is expected to become dryer and less saline because of the Component A interventions, and therewith prospects for higher agriculture production increase.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 71 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

5.5.2 Component B – Institutional Strengthening and Agricultural Development Support Table 5-3 presents the main existing institutional constraints in the Project Area. Some of these constraints will be addressed by the Project but others are outside the Project scope. Table 5-3 also indicates the type of interventions needed to solve the constraints.

Table 5-3. Summary of overall impact of Project’s institutional interventions Existing Constraints Interventions / suggestions

Within scope of project Lack of application of best agronomic practices and good Demonstration plots and farmer field schools, Farmer and WUA Support Centre irrigation practices Poor inter-farm water management and monitoring Building capacity of state water institutions and training courses of targeted groups Lack of farmer knowledge and experience to crop Demonstration plots & Farmer Field Schools, supply of agricultural production inputs protections, management of pests, diseases and weeds Lack of consulting and informational services Demonstration plots & FFS, establishment of Farmer and WUA Support Centre Outside scope of project Ineffective WUAs Introduction by government of the WUA-specific law (in draft) would provide a better legal basis for fully functional WUAs. Project will support of WUA development Availability and age of machinery Revision by government of the regulations would remove this barrier to upgrading the machinery stock. Unreliable input supplies Further opening of the market to private business would be beneficial. Controls on cropping patterns Recently Government Degrees ( see Chapter 3) and relaxation of the quota system would have a positive effect Availability of credit and finance The allowance for WUA service fees is very low and non-existent Lack of marketing and processing facilities. Project promote (i) assistance in making traditional knowledge base of the small leasehold farming enterprises in growing fruits and vegetables for more domestic value adding activities; (ii) work very closely with institutions at all levels from oblast khokimiyats down to makhalla committees and Assemblies of Rural Citizens. Existing Constraints Interventions / suggestions

The proposed interventions under this Component focus on institutional strengthening and training and include the establishment of the Implementation Support Team and (9) about 5-ha demonstration plots, setting up Farmer Field Schools and income generating activities, strengthening of state water institutions, establishing and supporting Water User’s Associations, a Farmer and WUA Support Centre, and improve Management and Operation & Management. All these activities are to improve and enhance the impacts of the Component A interventions, and have thus indirect impacts on the environment. The Project will not provide or support large-scale provision of agro-chemicals (fertilizers and pesticides).

Community support through establishment of demonstration plots and creation of the Farmer and WUA Support Centre will impose an indirect impact on the environment. The Centre will consult farmers on farming techniques, water management, equipment use, proper handling of pesticides and fertilizers, etc. to avoid inefficient land use and minimize salinity and waterlogging problems. If these support services are not properly followed or applied, this may lead to environmental impacts that are summarized in Table 5-4.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 72 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Table 5-4. Potential and indirect impacts from small and medium farms Input resource Benefits Potential impact Impact significance level Agricultural produce Permission of local farmers for secondary produce, Local water pollution, harm Moderate processing providing by that ensured market and sustainable income. to safety and health Possibilities for entry to export market. Creation of working seats. Seeds Increased productivity; increased farmer income; Water and soil pollution by Low-moderate improvement of rural economy; contribution into national chemical fertilizers food safety Mineral fertilizers Increased productivity; increased farmer income; Water and soil pollution High-moderate improvement of rural economy; contribution into national food safety Livestock for fattening Increased productivity; increased farmer income; Excessive leakage of High improvement of rural economy; contribution into national pastures; forest food safety degeneration, water and soil pollution by waste from farms Land preparation (lease of Increased productivity; increased farmer income; Soil erosion Moderate-high tractors and machinery) improvement of rural economy; contribution into national food safety Tractors Reduce labour load on people in farms; increase farm Soil compaction and Moderate-high productivity; improve incomes and rural economy erosion Other agricultural equipment Reduce labour load on people in farms; increase farm No No productivity; improve incomes and rural economy Equipment for agricultural Added value stay in rural area, leads to improvement of Water and soil pollution Moderate produce initial processing local economy by provision with working seats; increased farmers income; reduction of transportation costs and consumption of fossil fuel Veterinary service Healthy household livestock, increased productivity, Hormones and chemicals in Moderate increased farmer income meat

5.5.3 Component C – Project Management, Audit and M&E of Project Impact Like the Project interventions envisaged under Component B, this component includes works that are to support the physical Project interventions that target to reduce the waterlogging and salinity problems in the Project Area. Direct environmental impacts of this Component are not expected.

5.6 Long-term Impacts and Mitigation Measures

5.6.1 Land Occupation The Social Assessment of the Project [Social Assessment / Tahlil, March 2009] indicates that displacement of people due to Project implementation will not be necessary. Some land take will be necessary for which compensation measures will be put in place. To minimize impacts, all Project objects have been designed as much as possible along existing irrigation and drainage network lines and along linear structures such as roads. The rehabilitated vertical wells and drainage infrastructure are located

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 73 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

around agricultural fields that will minimize environmental and social impact. The construction of infrastructure required for the Project is not expected to conflict with other types of existing utility infrastructure such as roads, rural infrastructure, neither during construction nor in the long range.

5.6.2 Historical and Cultural Sites and Landscape There are no historical monuments or cultural landmarks reported within or along the alignments within the Project Area. The location of elevated structures will be selected in order to minimize any disruption of the surrounding landscape and existing village architecture.

5.6.3 Impacts Caused by the Project Infrastructure Operation Basically, the operation of the irrigation and drainage infrastructure does not imply significant risks. The Project envisages anti-corrosion measures for mitigation of negative impact on groundwater. Anti- seismic measures, directed for decreasing of seismic load and increasing of resistance to seismic impact, will be provided by the Project.

Preventive measures connected with health protection of personnel engaged in operation of Project objects, envisages strict observation of safety rules and normative documents on operation of I&D infrastructure. Personnel engaged in O&M will be specially trained.

The proposed rehabilitation of the irrigation infrastructure is expected to have negligible to minor positive environmental consequences. Health and sanitation are expected to improve locally due to reduced leakage of the systems.

5.6.4 Impacts on the Downstream Area The water balance studies conducted for the Project Area indicate that, once the current dilapidated surface and subsurface drains are rehabilitated, during implementation, it can be expected that the high groundwater level will be lowered back to its steady state position.

As outlined in Section 6-3 (‘With-Project’ situation), this would release surplus groundwater of ambient water quality as drainage at an estimated volume of about 187.4 million m³ annually (equal to on average 6 m³/sec), which ultimately drains into Syrdarya river. As compared to the average annual Syrdarya river discharge volumes, this is about 0.1%, and therefore, from an environmental perspective, considered as insignificant. Because of the large volume of these additionally discharged drainage waters, the salt load of Syrdarya river downstream of the discharge point will be reduced from 0.59 g/l to 0.58 g/l. From an environmental point of view, this reduction is considered as negligible.

5.6.5 Potential Impacts of Climate Change The possible impact of climate change on the Project Area and the hydrological systems on which it is based is complex and is difficult to determine. Assessing the impact would require an analysis of weather parameters, discharge volumes of rivers, canals and drains, and forcasts, etc., over a long period. This has not been attempted. A possible scenario would be that the area becomes warmer as a result of global warming. This might result in higher annual precipitation and greater discharge volumes in the long term. It is expected however, that changes due to global warming will not have a significant impact on the hydrological systems of the Project Area within the Project’s effective lifetime, say 25 years.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 74 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

5.6.6 Environmental Issues not or indirectly Caused by the Project Some negative impact on the environment, although not directly caused by the Project results, may be expected. These are:
Possible quantitative and qualitative change of trans-boundary underground waters, as well as hydraulic connections of surface and underground waters – given the constant profile loading outside the Project Area and at higher elevation, it is not expected that the Project will significantly change quality and quantity of groundwater resources, other then that the groundwater level will be lowered in loations with high GW tables;
Possible quantitative and qualitative change of water resources depending on the discharge of domestic sewage into collectors, irrigation canals and on land surfaces – discharge of sewage is not part of the Project design, however ‘improved water management’ is also expected to support better managed domestic waste water discharges;
Change in agricultural patterns and intensity due to future fertilizer and pesticide use – large-scale application of agro-chemicals is not part of the Project design, and is not expected to materialize as a result of improved farming techniques. Component B specifically targets improved farming techniques, including the proper use of agro-chemicals.

5.7 Overall Project Impact in Phase 1 The overall impact of the Project is expected to be enhancement of drainage, which will result in reduced waterlogging and salinization, and indirectly in increased crop yields, higher income, and reduced poverty. This will not only be attributable to the technical interventions of physically constructing and rehabilitating irrigation and vertical and horizontal drainage systems, but also to improved water management. The latter are mostly institutional interventions that are to be achieved through development of Water User’s Associations, leading to increased water-use efficiency; training in improved irrigation practices resulting in increased land productivity; creation of enterprises in processing of agricultural products, leading to higher profits; and through effective Project management and monitoring, which will result in the sustainability of Project outputs. A detailed listing of the expected Project benefits is provided in Chapter 8.

The overall Project impact is summarized in Table 5-5.

Table 5-5. Summary of overall impact of the Project Project intervention Impact Value 1. Rehabilitation of irrigation and drainage systems Rehabilitation of main and inter-farm collectors, Enhancement of drainage, reducing waterlogging and Positive wells and canals salinization, increased soil fertility, and increased agricultural production; improved water quality; reduced damage to houses and infrastructure; improved health and sanitation conditions; reduced water mineralization in the downstream area (Syrdarya) New and rehabilitated lining, improved water Increased irrigation efficiency from 0.52 at present to 0.75 Positive management techniques in 2030; increased agricultural production; improved water quality; reduced damage to houses and infrastructure 2. Regulation of groundwater flow Rehabilitation of old available wells and Lowering the groundwater and salinization levels, Positive construction of new wells and putting them into improved land conditions for crop growing due to effective irrigation regime irrigation

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 75 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Project intervention Impact Value 3. Support of agricultural development WUA development Increasing the water-use efficiency due to improved O&M Positive and water resources management Training Increased land productivity due to introduction of Positive improved irrigation practice Better farming techniques Increased crop yields, higher household incomes, better Positive living standards Creation enterprises on processing of products Profitable 4. Project management and monitoring Design and supervision of construction, institutional Increased sustainability of Project outputs Positive strengthening, monitoring of Project impact

An analysis of the existing environmental conditions before, during and after Project implementation is given in Table 5.6. In summary, groundwater levels will go down which is favourable for agriculture and soil fertility. Soil salinity will also reduce thereby increasing the soil fertility and crop yields. Surface water quality will temporarily deteriorate due to earth works (siltation, turbidity) and increased salinity levels due to salt leaching but will improve after Project completion. The health and sanitation conditions will improve due to lowered groundwater levels and improved sewerage systems, particularly in Rishtan town. Conditions for limited flora and fauna, if anyway present, in the intensely cultivated and densely populated Project Area, and mostly associated with neglected collector drains, will deteriorate as collectors will be cleaned and herewith the reed habitat will disappear. However, species that are present are all common species in Ferghana Valley, part of the species will be able to migrate to other parts of the valley. The atmospheric air conditions will temporarily and locally, i.e. near construction sites, deteriorate (dust, smoke) but will resume normal levels once the works are completed. The landscape will not significantly be changed as a dense network of canals and collectors is already in place. Moreover, most of the Project interventions are rehabilitation of existing systems.

Table 5-6. Pre- and post-Project situation of the environment in the Project Area Environment Before Project Implementation During Project After Implementation of the Component Implementation Project Interventions Groundwater High groundwater level, flooding and Gradually lowering of Favourable groundwater level for waterlogging of lands; poor soil groundwater level, improvement agriculture; improved soil properties, properties and unfavourable condition in of land ameliorative conditions increased soil fertility root zone for crop growth Soil salinity Increasing soil salinity, poor soil Desalinization process; Reduced salinization; improved soil properties and low fertility; Improving land ameliorative properties; increased soil fertility low crop yields conditions and crop yields Surface water (Syrdarya River water salinity/mineralization is not Temporary increase of turbidity Decreased turbidity, salinity and river, irrigation net and high. Water blooming in collectors, and water salinity in other diffuse pollutants coming from CDW siltation, abundant vegetation growth, downstream irrigated areas. Improvement of river water clogging water quality Health and sanitation Contamination with malignan microbes Gradual decreasing Less distribution of contagious and bacteria due to high groundwater groundwater level. Insufficient diseases due to lowered level and insufficient sewerage systems sewerage systems groundwater level. Sewerage issues remain.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 76 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Environment Before Project Implementation During Project After Implementation of the Component Implementation Project Interventions Flora and fauna Overgrowing of canals and collectors Obliterating of aquatic and Rehabilitation of bank vegetation, with aquatic and terrestrial vegetation bank vegetation, zoobentos and gradual overgrowing of collectors which are the feeding and breeding periphiton, infringement of fish, habitat for fish and other animals. birds and small animals habitat.

Atmospheric air Current air conditions Temporary increase of dust As before-Project levels content and exhausts from operating techniques Landscape Negligible contamination with domestic Additional contamination with Cleaning from solid waste, returning and agricultural wastes construction and reconstruction to the landscape natural condition. waste Downstream hydrological River systems affected by numerous Influx of excess water volumes, Marginally increased water influx systems upstream water storage and water salt and silt (from excavation and marginally reduced salt loading power facilites, irrigation and drainage works), but in insignificant due to improve water management systems, discharge of urban, rural and quantities techniques industrial wastes

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 77 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

6 Analysis of Alternatives

This chapter considers alternatives to the proposed Project interventions in terms of their potential environmental impact, the feasibility of mitigating these impacts and their suitability under the local conditions. For each of the alternatives it quantifies the environmental impacts to the extent possible. The chapter also states the basis for selecting the Project design proposed.

6.1 Summary of Alternatives and Methods Used The proposed Project will be implemented under conditions of change in the national agriculture and water management sector. As noted in Chapter 2 the water sector of Uzbekistan is in a transit period from administrative-territorial management of water to management on a hydrological (basin) principle. Thus, the EA should take into account development dynamics and expected effects from implementation of the Project interventions.

The Feasibility Study has considered a large range of possible solutions to the identified waterlogging and salinity problems in the Project Area. First of all the Project Area has been divided in 10 zones, whereby each zone has its specific shallow water table-, salinity- and groundwater mineralisation problems that are closely related to the local geographical conditions. Within each zone the Feasibility Study has furthermore considered a range of possible technical solutions (interventions), and from these the recommended solutions have been selected. Time and resources available for the Environmental Assessment did not allow assessing the environmental implications for all the possible solutions. It is felt that this was neither necessary, because all the possible solutions will broadly have the same or similar impacts: i.e. lowering the water table and reducing salinity. The differences between the possible solutions lie merely in their effectiveness, and their costs. The Feasibility Study has recommended (selected) those solutions that are both reasonably effective at a feasible cost.

This meant that for the Environmental Assessment study only two Project alternatives have been considered:

Alternative 1: “Without-Project” – the environmental consequences are outlined in the following Section 6.2.

Alternative 2: “With-Project” – interventions are described in Chapter 3, environmental impacts described in Chapter 5. Further implications are explained in Section 6.3.

Both alternatives have been analyzed by the EA study team based on the findings of the FEA and the Final Feasibility Report (2008). These analyses resulted in predictions of changes in for example groundwater levels, soil salinity, soil fertility, waterlogging, etc. after 3, 5, 8, 10 years. These predictions are based on manual evaluation of existing data and maps from mostly the Ferghana HGME that included soil property maps, hydro-geological maps showing water in/outflow, groundwater level map, salinization map, etc. Results were then plotted on a digital ‘GIS hydro-model map’ from which the size of areas could be generated.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 78 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

6.2 “Without-Project” Situation In the “Without-Project” situation, or the “Zero Variant”, no rehabilitation of the existing irrigation and drainage systems in the Project Area will be executed and no new constructions for these systems will materialize. This will lead to further deterioration of the systems, crumbling of the concrete hydraulic structures; silting up of the canals, pumping stations will gradually all be out of order. This will lead to the following environmental consequences.

6.2.1 Groundwater Table The groundwater table will gradually rise, where anyway possible. Estimations on the rise in groundwater have been made by the EA team based on a trend analysis and GIS mapping of the hydrogeological and soil conditions. These are presented in Table 6.1.

These estimates show that after 5 years the area with groundwater levels up to 1.5 m make up 40-50% of total area, and after 10 years covers 60-70% of the area, including 22-35% waterlogged lands with GWL up to 1 m. After 10 years the lands with GWL 2-3 m remain on only 1-3% of the area.

Table 6-1. Expected change of groundwater levels in the Without-Project situation GWL Existing area Expected area (ha) (m) (ha) after 3 years after 5 years after 8 years after 10 years ha % ha % ha % ha % Baghdad 0-1.0 10 903 4.3 2,113 10.1 4,853 23.1 7,410 35.2 1.0-1.5 4,464 6,051 28.8 9,134 43.4 8,521 40.5 7,114 33.8 1.5-2.0 12,400 10,733 51.1 7,090 33.7 5,744 27.3 5,870 27.9 2.0-3.0 4,066 3,253 15.5 2,602 12.4 1,822 8.7 546 2.6 3.0-5.0 83 83 0.4 83 0.4 83 0.4 83 0.4 >5.0 1 1 0.005 1 0.005 1 0.005 1 0.005 Total 21,024 21,024 100 21,023 100 21,024 100 21,024 100 Rishtan 0-1.0 336 968 6.4 1,887 12.5 2,963 19.6 4,105 27.1 1.0-1.5 3,160 4,596 30.4 5,382 35.5 5,709 37.7 5,723 37.8 1.5-2.0 10,340 8,524 56.3 7,020 46.4 5,778 38.2 5,073 33.5 2.0-3.0 1,259 1,007 6.7 806 5.3 645 4.3 194 1.3 3.0-5.0 47 47 0.3 47 0.3 47 0.3 47 0.3 Total 15,142 15,142 100 15,142 100 15,142 100 15,142 100 Altiarik 0-1.0 98 433 2.5 1,286 7.4 2,445 14.1 3,759 21.6 1.0-1.5 1,675 4,266 24.5 5,794 33.3 6,572 37.8 6,831 39.3 1.5-2.0 14,632 11,904 68.4 9,681 55.7 7,871 45.3 6,652 38.2 2.0-3.0 989 791 4.5 633 3.6 506 2.9 152 0.9 Total 17,394 17,394 100 17,394 100 17,394 100 17,394 100 Source: EA team, calculated by analysis of hydrogeology and soil properties in the aeration zone

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 79 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

6.2.2 Soil Salinization Project rejection will lead to increased water losses, intensification feeding of groundwater and subsequently to secondary soil salinization. The area of saline lands will increase. The expected spread of saline lands in the Project Area, as calculated by the EA team based on a trend analysis and GIS soil salinity mapping, is given in Table 6-2.

Table 6-2. Expected change in soil salinization in the Without-Project situation Current Expected area (ha) Soil salinization area after 3 years after 5 years after 8 years after 10 years (ha) ha % ha % ha % ha % Baghdad Non saline 1,992 1,992 9 1,394 7 697 3 209 1 Slightly saline 8,277 5,794 28 4,074 19 3,549 17 2,618 12 Medium saline 10,754 12,162 58 10,831 52 8,804 42 7,582 36 Highly saline 0 1,075 5 4,509 21 6,857 33 7,441 35 Very high saline 0 0 0 215 1 1,117 5 3,174 15 Total 21,024 21,024 100 21,024 100 21,024 100 21,024 100 Rishtan Non saline 5,072 5,072 33 3,550 23 1,775 12 533 4 Slightly saline 6,143 4,300 28 4,102 27 4,646 31 4,030 27 Medium saline 3,927 5,377 36 5,484 36 5,069 33 5,407 36 Highly saline 0 393 3 1,927 13 3,187 21 3,752 25 Very high saline 0 0 0 79 1 464 3 1,420 9 Total 15,142 15,142 100 15,142 100 15,142 100 15,142 100 Altiarik Non saline 14,384 14,384 83 10,069 58 5,034 29 1,510 9 Slightly saline 1,929 1,351 8 5,125 29 8,622 50 8,697 50 Medium saline 908 1,396 8 1,517 9 2,600 15 5,269 30 Highly saline 173 264 2 630 4 959 6 1,451 8 Very high saline 0 0 0 53 0 179 1 466 3 Total 17,394 17,394 100 17,394 100 17,394 100 17,394 100 Source: EA team, based on trend analysis of soil salinity and salt balance

The worst situation is expected in Baghdad raion where at present medium saline lands already occupy half of irrigated area. After 10 years the non-saline land category has practically vanished and has become saline land. Medium and highly saline lands cover then more than 80% of irrigated lands in Baghdad raion. The situation depends on current land conditions. In Altiarik raion the situation is less severe where at present 83% of land is classified as non-saline.

6.2.3 Soil Fertility Without-Project interventions, progressing salinization and waterlogging will cause further land degradation and will reduce soil fertility (as assessed with the Bonitet Fertility Index). The expected changes in soil fertility of irrigated lands during the next 10 years are given in Table 6-3.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 80 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Table 6-3. Expected change in soil fertility in the Without-Project situation Raion Current fertility Change of Fertility Bonitet Score after: Bonitet Quality 3 years 5 years 8 years 10 years Score Rishtan 50 Reduced 47 44 40 36 Baghdad 49 Reduced 46 42 37 32 Altiarik 50 Reduced 49 47 45 45 Source: EA team calculations according to land evaluation guidance

The analysis shows that in the Without-Project situation after 10 years the fertility of irrigated soils will fall by 5-17 points and that the lands have been transferred into declined and low fertility soils (32-40 score). At this level of soil fertility the cotton and grain yields will not be higher than 1.26-1.6 t/ha. Yield decline in combination with unfavourable marketing conditions, structural price formation and fixed overheads will lead to increased farm non-profitability.

6.3 “With-Project” Situation In the With-Project situation the envisaged interventions are expected to result in lowered water table and reduced soil salinity while soil fertility remains at least at its current levels. Meanwhile, irrigation efficiency is expected to improve, water demand for irrigated agriculture will reduce, and crop yields are expected to increase.

6.3.1 Water Consumption and Drainage Run-off The rehabilitation-construction works are expected to reduce the water consumption required for irrigation, and therewith this will lead to reduced volumes of drainage run-off. This is reflected in Table 6-4.

Table 6-4. Expected change in water consumption and drainage run-off Area (ha) Water use (million m³/year) Drainage effluent (million m³/year) Without-Project With-Project Without-Project With-Project Baghdad 24,471 255.8 255.8 230.4 230.4 Rishtan 24,984 227.1 227.1 279.9 188.4 Altiarik 23,692 274.0 274.0 288.1 205.3 Total 73,147 756.9 756.9 798.4 624.1 Source: EA team estimates, based on state manual and data from FS report (2008)

The analysis shows that an increase in irrigation system efficiency (approximately from 0.52 as currently officially reported, to 0.65 in 2010) will lead to reduced filtration losses and drainage run-off. Total water demand will not be changed, but drainage run-off diverted from the Project Area will decrease from 798 to 624 million m³/year, assuming that the proposed future crop pattern will be applied. Furthermore, 187.3 million m³/year of excess will be removed from the Project Area. This brings to the total run-off from the Project Area on 811.5 million m³/year, which will have an average salt load of 1.5 g/l (Figure 6-1).

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 81 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

6.3.2 Syrdarya River The impact of discharge of the North Baghdad Collector (NBC) on Syrdarya water salinity was analyzed for mean water years (50% water probability = average year). Expected quantitative and qualitative changes between the Without-Project and With-Project situation are presented in Figure 6-1.

After project implementation, groundwater level will be at its desired level, i.e. a few metres below surface. The water balance study conducted for the Project Area indicates that because of the Project interventions the collector drainage water discharge (including the 187.4 million m³/year of excess water) will increase from 798.4 to 811.5 million m³/year (or 13.1 million m³/year) which drains ultimately into Syrdarya river. As compared to the average annual Syrdarya river discharge volume (15,200 million m³/year), this is less than 0.1%, and therefore, from an environmental perspective, considered as negligible.

As the total collector drainage discharge volume of 811.5 million m³/year in the “With-Project” situation has an average salt load of 1.5 g/l, i.e. lower than the 1.65 g/l in the “Without-Project” situation, the salt load of Syrdarya river downstream of the discharge point will be reduced from 0.59 g/l to 0.58 g/l. Although this is must be considered as a positive impact from an environmental point of view, in practice this reduction is considered as insignificant.

6.3.3 Groundwater and Waterlogging As noted above, the drainage systems proposed by the FS are to ensure a stable regime of groundwater in the Project Area. Rehabilitation of vertical drainage, use of existing wells for irrigation along the pinching out zone of groundwater and remodelling of the NBC will intercept a significant part of underground flow of the Burgandy massive and Sokh adyrs. This will reduce the drainage load, ameliorative condition of lands and will eliminate flooding of some sites in the Project Area.

6.4 Proposed Alternative As will be clear from the previous sections, in the “Without-Project” situation lands with high groundwater table will increase, as do salinity levels, and soil fertility will further drop. As shown in Chapter 5, these effects will be reversed in the “With-Project” situation. The “With-Project” alternative is recommended.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 82 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Figure 6-1. Quantitative and qualitative change of Syrdarya river water run-off after discharge of the NBC (year of 50% water probability)

а) Without-Project Q = 15,200 mln m 3 /year 0.53 g/l Salt = 8,056,000 ton/year

Syrdarya river before NBC

CDW runoff from Project Area 3 Q = 15,998 mln m /year 3 0.59 g/l Q = 798.4 mln m /year Salt = 9,374,000 ton/year 1.65 g/l Salt = 1,318,000 ton/year Syrdarya river after NBC

Site of Kayrakum water reservoir

B) With-Project

3 Q = 15,200 mln m /year 0.53 g/l Salt = 8,056,000 ton/year

Syrdarya river before NBC

CDW runoff including removal of Q = 16,011 mln m3/year 187.4 mln m³/year of excess water 0.58 g/l 3 Salt = 9,273,000 ton/year Q = 811.5 mln m /year 1.50 g/l Syrdarya river after NBC Salt = 1,217,300 ton/year

Site of Kayrakum water reservoir

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 83 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

7 Analysis of Emergency Situations

This chapter is a requirement for Environmental Assessment reports for this type of projects in Uzbekistan. It reflects on possible emergency situations that may arise as a result of natural disasters such as earthquakes and mudflows (i.e. “Acts of God”).

7.1 Type of Events In the Project zone a potentially dangerous situation may arise in the event of natural disasters, such as earthquakes or exceptional weather conditions and river discharges. This may result in mudflows causing loss of life, destruction in settlements, and damage to hydraulic structures, roads, arable lands and other objects. The rivers Sokh, Shakhimardan and Altyaryksay are known to experience such events frequently. Mudflows may occur in the events of intense rainfall and rapid melting of snow in the nearby mountains. Bursting mountain lakes and mudflows have been destructive repeatedly in Fergana province. These events are almost annual phenomena, reportedly.

7.2 Mitigation For mitigation of these emergencies, comprehensive constructions have been put in place in Fergana province, such as mudflow reservoirs and derivation tracts. In the Project zone, possible emergency situations may affect irrigation canals, the drainage system and structures crossing canals. Impact may not only concern physical damage to structures but this may also involve the spread of infective diseases.

The Project design has not attempted to include provisions to deal with emergencies that occur from causes other than the construction and operation of the Project works. One of the results of the Project will be to improve the safety of I&D operations, both by the provision - as far is reasonably possible - of improved physical structures and introduction of improved management, operation and maintenance (MOM) practices that take account of potential emergencies. The design process takes account of safety aspects, both the safety of a structure from outside threats, and the effect of a structure on third parties, by means of appropriate physical design and construction, and suitable MOM arrangements.

An example of the first would be a canal running along a steep slope, where there might be risk of a land- slip that would endanger the canal, however this is not the case in FWRMP. For the second, one could give as an example a major breach in the embankment of one of the big main canals, which could cause extensive flooding. The only realistic project intervention would be to include such an eventuality in the MOM manual. The project cannot, for example, provide emergency spillways on existing canals that should - under standard western practice - have been included in the original design, for reasons of its defined scope and cost; but can help the operating authorites prepare contingency plans to deal with such an eventuality.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 84 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

The project will be (re-)constructing drainage siphons under such canals and so would have to ensure that the design, construction and operation of these would not affect the integrity of the canal above.

Additional measures may be developed during the following Project phase of detailed project designs. These may include the following:
Assessment of high risk zones and structures that may be prone to flooding damage;
Modifications of the proposed designs, as needed;
Emergency potable water supply arrangements;
Campaigns to mitigate the occurrence and spread of infectious disease.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 85 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

8 Project Benefits

The Project is expected to result in certain benefits, both during the construction phase (implementation) as well as during the operational phase. To a large extent the Project benefits have already been addressed in Chapter 5 and 6, however, as Project appraising authorities in Uzbekistan require an oversight of Project benefits, these are summarized in the present chapter. These benefits have mostly been stated in the Final Feasibility report (2008) already.

8.1 Benefits resulting from Improved Irrigation & Drainage Systems These include the following:

Irrigation Systems: Efficiency of the irrigation systems in the Project Area is expected to increase from 0.52 at present to 0.65 in 2010; 0.70 in 2020; and 0.75 in 2030. This is mostly due to reduced water losses, resulting from new and rehabilitated lining, and improved water management techniques.

Drainage Networks: Rehabilitation of existing and construction of new subsurface horizontal drainage systems, drainage wells and collectors will increase the drainage capacity in the Project Area, and therewith their contribution to relieving the waterlogging and salinization problems.

Soil Salinity: After rehabilitation of the drainage network and application of appropriate salt leaching regimes, high and medium salinity soils will be transformed into slightly and non-saline soil. Ten years after completion of all project interventions, the area of non-saline lands will have increased from 21,449 ha (40%) to 39,709 ha (72%) of the Project Area’s irrigated lands.

Soil fertility: The proposed technical measures directly aim at reduction and stabilization of the groundwater level and salinity and this lead to increased soil fertility. Expected is that the soil Bonitet index for soil fertility will increase by 30 points, i.e. from 50 at present to around 80 after 10 years. Such fertility level would allow for yields of about 3.7 ton of cotton per ha.

Agricultural Production: As a result of the reduced waterlogging and salinization problems and increased soil fertility, as well as improved farming techniques, agricultural production will increase. The farming intensity of dekhan farms will be increased from approximately 135% to 145%.

Water quality and ecology: As a result of lower salinity levels in drainage canals, water quality is expected to improve. This will also result in an enhanced development of water ecology (biocenosis).

Reduction of Damage to Housing and Communal Services: Damage to houses and infrastructure due to impounding and flooring, and therewith the costs for repairs and replacement will be reduced.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 86 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Improved Health and Sanitation Conditions: Lowered water levels will generally improve the health and sanitation conditions, particularly in Rishtan town. The incidence and spreading of infectious diseases will be reduced.

Water Mineralization: In the upper reaches of Kayrakkum reservoir water and below the inflow from the North Baghdad Collector, mineralization is expected to reduce by 0.01 g/l, i.e. from 0.59 g/l to 0.58 g/l in a medium water year.

8.2 Benefits from Institutional and Agricultural Development Support These include the following:

Advanced Agricultural Techniques: Through training courses, the Project will increase the farmer’s capacity to apply improved agronomic practices and irrigation technologies.

Water Efficiency and Availability: As a result of the rehabilitation and construction of irrigation infrastructure the availability of water to farms will increase, actual water consumption and losses will reduce, and timely water delivery to the fields will be ensured.

Yield Increase: Production is expected to increase, especially on leasehold farms. Gradually farmers will be in the position to purchase better quality seeds, fertilizers and other necessary inputs.

Income Generation and Living Standards: The farm analysis show that the Project will lead to higher household incomes, and thus better living standards. This will increase farmer’s willingness to contribute to O&M costs. The Project will facilitate the introduction of fees for water and system services.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 87 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

9 Environmental Mitigation Plan

Often, environmental mitigation, -management and -monitoring are intertwinned and, to prevent repetition, dealt with in an Environmental Assessment report in one chapter: the Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan (EMMP), and so was this plan presented in the Framework Environmental Assessment (December 2007). As government regulations require a separate Mitigation Plan, Management Plan and a Monitoring Plan, the EMMP is divided in three separate chapters, i.e. Chapter 9, 10 and 11.

9.1 General Measures required for mitigation of the expected negative environmental impacts of the Project have been identified in Chapter 5. These measures are summarized in Table 9-1, both for the Project implementation (Year 1-6) as well as for the post-Project period (Year 7 and beyond).

Most of the mitigation measures relate to temporary and local disruption due to construction and rehabilitation works. These mitigation measures will be part of the standard operational practices of Constructors during implementation of the Project. The Feasibility Report (September 2008) includes in its Volume 2, Appendix C, a template for a so-called Site Environmental Management Plan (SEMP). This SEMP will be prepared and implemented by the Contractor(s) and is to prevent or reduce negative impacts to acceptable levels or enhance environmental conditions.

Table 9-1. Environmental Mitigation Plan Activity / Environmental Mitigation measure Responsibility Extra issue impact environmental cost (USD) Implementation of the Project (Year 1-6) Construction Environmental Detailed specifications to be Project Management Consultant prepares Costs of the and hazards: developed for bidding documents Contractor bidding documents and identified actions rehabilitation contracts, including environmental clauses and requirements activities Fuel and oil spills Proper transport, storage and will be included in handling Contractor prepares Site Environmental the bidding Management Plans according to documents of the Dust Dust prevention and protection of government regulations and guidelines Contractor workers, personnel and the provided bidding documents and contracts contracts public Contractor and supervising Engineer are Air pollution from Protection of workers, personnel responsible for implementation of the machinery and the public environmental management (due diligence) Disposal of Designation of disposal sites

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 88 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Activity / Environmental Mitigation measure Responsibility Extra issue impact environmental cost (USD) construction materials Traffic and road Traffic control, road maintenance damage and repair

Health and safety Implementation of Health and Safety Plan Groundwater Reduced agricultural Implementation of the technical PIU, Contractors, supported by BAIS and Included in level and productivity and institutional interventions WUAs, and Uzhydroengio Project costs waterlogging and participatory water management Salinity and Reduced agricultural Implementation of the technical PIU, Contractors, supported by BAIS and Included in pollution productivity and institutional interventions WUAs Project costs and participatory salinity control; agricultural extension Quality of Risk of impacts on Promotion of integrated water MAWR, Goskompriroda, supported by Included in ground and downstream areas management, institutional BAIS and Uzglavhydromet Project costs surface support and system waters rehabilitation; public awareness campaigns Environmental Disruption of aquatic Establishment of alternative PIU, Contractors Included in the protection and and terrestrial conservation areas (e.g. green USD 0.95 million enhancement ecology/habitats belts along constructed set aside for collectors, and promotion of implementation of multi-purpose trees) the EMP Operation and maintenance of the Irrigation and Drainage systems (Year 7 and beyond) O&M of Improved O&M Preparation and distribution of MAWR Government irrigation and capacity manuals and leaflets funding and drainage WUAs infrastructure High Reduced agricultural Operation and Maintenance of MAWR and regional institutions, WUAs at Government groundwater productivity the Project interventions. local level funding and levels and WUAs waterlogging Salt Increased salinity System maintenance and MAWR and regional institutions, WUAs at Government mobilization levels and land participatory salinity local level funding and abandonment management control. WUAs Quality of Increased diffuse and Public awareness campaigns to MAWR, Goskompriroda, Uzglavhydomet Government ground and point pollution counteract pollution. funding and surface WUAs waters Flora and Risk of biodiversity Promotion of diversity in farming MAWR, Goskompriroda, and their regional Government fauna loss, reduction of crop practice and local landscape, departments funding diversity and loss of and ensure environmental gardens to agriculture component measures; awareness campaigns

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 89 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

The Feasibility Report furthermore provides in its Volume 2, Appendix D, a template for a Health and Safety Plan, also to be prepared and implemented by the Contractor(s), aiming at keeping health standards and safety conditions for workers and the public at acceptable levels.

The bidding documents for the Contractors and later, the contracts, prepared by the Project Management Consultant will include clauses on environmental protection, health and safety that will outline the obligations of the Contractor for environmental, health and safety management. The Contractor’s bidding documents and contracts will include the measures to be implemented, and the costs for these. Annex 6 provides some guidelines for preparation of the bidding documents for the Contractors and contracts. As recommended by the Feasibility Study team, these bidding documents and contracts will include provisions to cover not less than those set out in Annex 6. The Project Management Consultant is to modify the current tender documents before these are issued.

9.2 Mitigation of Negative Impacts from Component A The following provides some further explanation on mitigation of expected adverse impacts resulting from the interventions in irrigation and drainage systems (Component A).

9.2.1 Environmental Protection The Environmental Mitigation Plan includes tentatively measures for environmental protection and enhancement (e.g. green belts along collectors, replanting communal trees, pond re-construction, etc.). These measures will be funded from the budget of USD 0.95 million that has tentatively been set aside for implementation of the Environmental Management Plan. At this stage it is not possible to further specify the needed interventions. The Project Management Consultant and Goskompriroda will conduct a needs assessment and provide recommendations at a later stage (see Section 10.4).

9.2.2 Resettlement and Land Take As emerging from the Social Assessment study, resettlement of people due to Project implementation will not be necessary. In order to minimize impact, all Project objects will be designed as far as possible along existing I&D network and along linear structures, such as roads. Rehabilitated vertical drainage wells and drainage infrastructure will be located around agricultural fields that will minimize ecological and social impact.

9.2.3 Historical, cultural objects and landscape There are no monuments or cultural objects on the Project area, therefore significant mitigation measures are not needed.

9.2.4 Operation and Maintenance As a whole, I&D infrastructure operation imposes little or no significant risks to the environment. The Project envisages using anticorrosive materials to prevent a negative impact on groundwater. The Project will provide anti-seismic measures aimed at reduction of seismic impact.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 90 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

9.2.5 Preventive Measures Related to Protection of Personnel Health In accordance with governmental normative rules and regulations, strict observation of safety rules will be followed; both during implementation of the Project as well as during the operation phase (O&M). Personnel involved into O&M will be specially trained. Works under rehabilitation and construction might create dangerous situations for workers and population. Promotion of fencing of working sites and bridges across canals will be envisaged. Traffic regulation, emergency signals and lighting will be based on local rules. If necessary, safe bypass roads and passes for pedestrians and livestock will be installed.

9.2.6 Impacts on Downstream Areas As noted earlier, the main impacts on the downstream area, particularly on Syrdarya river, is an slightly increased volume collector drainage water and slightly reduced salt loading. Both quantities are considered as insignificant as compared to the annual discharge and salt load of Syrdarya river.

9.3 Mitigation of Negative Impacts from Component B Mitigation of adverse environmental impacts of Agricultural Development Support activities will be the responsibility of various actors, to be coordinated by the Project (PIU). Table 9-2 provides some guidelines for mitigating adverse environmental impacts that may be further detailed and implemented, as needed, in sustainable agricultural development by the Project parties.

Table 9-2. Some guidelines for sustainable agricultural development Items / Activities Recommendations Seeds
Select seeds that require minimal use of chemicals for high yields.
Select seeds that are least subject to agricultural pest impact and diseases, carry out strict sanitary control while importing seeds.
Strict sanitary control while exporting seeds.
Consult on correct use of fertilizers and pesticides, everywhere possible services on assistance to sustainable agricultural activities, including plant protection from pests, soil cultivation with minimal ripping, contour ploughing, crop rotation and green fertilizers. Fertilizers
Select best fertilizers for the prevailing soil conditions.
Use according to recommendations of manufacturers and services suppliers. Pesticides
Private Finance Investors (PFI) and Agricultural Consultation Groups, while selecting applications for credits and grants, will provide funding only for purchase of pesticides that are allowed for use.
Program of PFI personnel training should include familiarization with the list of state approved pesticides.
Advise on plant protection from pests and safety rules for handling and use for farmers and personnel involved in agro-business, in accordance with directions of information-consulting services, Component 2 and agricultural support services. Livestock for slaughtering
Zero waste (used as fertilizers). Tractors
Purchase of tractors with efficient engines, that provide high capacity and fuel saving.
Tractors with highly efficient control of exhaust gas.
Purchase of tractors with capacity not more than required for planned work. Land preparation
Contour ploughing, minimal ploughing, covered with turf waterways and etc. Small equipment
Should be economical. Irrigation equipment
Maximal efficient equipment.
Equipment facilitating efficient irrigation.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 91 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Items / Activities Recommendations Buildings and facilities for
Buildings should be located at sites that are safe for storage. livestock, machinery and
Economical design of facilities, including heating and ventilation. chemicals
Buildings are designed with minimal use of materials, and use of environmentally sound materials.

Equipment for processing
Highly efficient equipment with low emission of fuels (ex: gas, diesel).

F&L, spare parts
Safe storing of F&L and chemicals. Veterinary service
Minimal use of medicines. Agricultural produce
Should not be located in ecologically vulnerable sites. processing enterprise
System of efficient waste processing on the spot.
Efficient processing of solid waste.
Safety means at site. Other objects of agro-
Mariculture: use of non-exotic species. business
Efficient use of animal waste.
Use of local raw materials.
Avoid use of vulnerable waterways.
Not locate objects at vulnerable sites.
Efficient waste processing.
While constructing use systems and measures of safety.
Emission and effluent control. Procurement branches:
Should not be located in ecologically vulnerable sites. forestry and fishery
Production should be conducted without direct or indirect damage to ecosystem.
Forestry and fishery should be on sustainable base.

Component B will play an important role in increasing the knowledge and experience of farmers and agro- business with applying best practices, in order to exclude or reduce adverse impacts on the environment.

For assuring that best practices are used to prevent any adverse impacts from the handing and use of pesticides, it is important to promote the use of existing detailed national (and international) manuals that provide a wealth of practical information. It is assumed that the promotion and use of such manuals will standard practice in implementation of the Component B activities.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 92 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

10 Environmental Management Plan

As outlined in Chapter 9, government regulations require a separate Mitigation Plan, Management Plan and a Monitoring Plan, i.e. Chapter 9, 10 and 11. Unavoidably, this results in some repetition.

10.1 General The general objectives of environmental management are:
Implementation of measures to prevent or reduce any negative impacts to acceptable levels;
Implementation of measures that help ensuring that the environmental actions are in phase with engineering and other project activities throughout implementation;
Implementation of measures to deal with risks that arise during construction and O&M stages;
Supervising and monitoring significant issues during rehabilitation/construction and operation.

As such, environmental mitigation (Chapter 9) and environmental monitoring (Chapter 11) are both integral parts of environmental management.

A long-term Environmental Management Plan (EMP) is proposed as necessary to sustain the Project outputs. The EMP is to ensure that possible significant negative environmental problems are avoided or kept as limited as possible. Specific objectives of the EMP are to: (i) obtain samples and data collected within the Project Area; (ii) collect and process additional samples and data needed to build up and maintain a transparent and effective data analysis and information reporting system with which the impacts of the Project can be measured; (iii) provide members of WUAs and the community with information generated by the data analysis and reporting system; and (iv) provide project managers with information required to evaluate the success or failure of the Project’s activities, and adjust the Project activities where needed.

Main EMP issues and activities have been listed in Table 10-1. This table contains the mitigation / enhancement measures (on the left) and monitoring measures (on the right) as well as the proposed responsible organizations. Indicated costs for implementation of the EMP are for the construction / rehabilitation phase only (Year 1-6). Required EMP measures after completion of the Project (Year 7 and beyond) are to the extent possible indicated as well.

10.2 Environmental Measures Related to the Construction and Rehabilitation Works The identified technical enhancement measures relate to construction and rehabilitation activities during project implementation. These are measures that are to minimize possible environmental hazards, such as fuel and oil spills, dust formation, air pollution, disposal of construction materials and traffic problems. Responsibility of these measures is with the Contractors.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 93 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Table 10-1. Environmental Management Plan (EMP) Mitigation Plan Monitoring Plan Activity / issue Environmental Mitigation measure Responsibility Extra Monitoring measure Responsibility Cost (USD) impact environmental cost (USD) Implementation of the Project (Year 1-5) Construction and Environmental Detailed specifications to be developed Project Management Costs of the Regular control and supervision M&E Consultant Costs included in rehabilitation activities hazards: for bidding documents; implementation Consultant prepares identified actions of implementation of the the USD 1.60 m of site-specific EMPs bidding documents and and requirements Contractor’s environmental reserved for M&E Contractor contracts, will be included in management activities Fuel and oil spills Proper transport, storage and handling including environmental the bidding clauses documents for the Quarterly reporting on monitoring Dust Dust prevention and protection of Contractors and the activities to the PIU. workers, personnel and the public Contractor prepares Site Contractor contracts Environmental PIU reports to Project Steering Air pollution from Protection of workers, personnel and Management and Health Committee. machinery the public and Safety Plans according to government Disposal of Designation of disposal sites regulations and guidelines construction provided in the EA materials Contractor and supervising Traffic and road Traffic control, road maintenance and Engineer are responsible damage repair for implementation of the environmental Health and safety Implementation of a Health and Safety management (due Plan diligence) Environmental Disruption of aquatic Preventive actions needed to address PIU, Contractors USD 0.95 million Needs assessment and M&E Consultant, Costs included in protection and and terrestrial unforeseen construction-related set aside for recommendations Goskompriroda the USD 1.60 m enhancement ecology/habitats impacts (re-greening, habitat implementation of reserved for M&E

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 94 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Mitigation Plan Monitoring Plan Activity / issue Environmental Mitigation measure Responsibility Extra Monitoring measure Responsibility Cost (USD) impact environmental cost (USD) improvement), and capacity building (in the EMP PIU, raion, oblast), pest management Groundwater level and Reduced agricultural Implementation of the technical and PIU, Contractors, Included in Project Monitoring groundwater levels M&E Consultant + Costs included in waterlogging productivity institutional interventions and supported by BAIS and costs and waterlogging areas and HGME and WUAs the USD 1.60 m participatory water management WUAs, and Uzhydroengio impact of mitigating measures; reserved for M&E quarterly reporting Salinity and pollution Reduced agricultural Implementation of the technical and PIU, Contractors, Included in Project Monitoring of salinity levels and M&E Consultant + Costs included in productivity institutional interventions and supported by BAIS and costs pollution and impact of mitigating HGME and WUAs the USD 1.60 m participatory salinity control; agricultural WUAs measures; quarterly reporting reserved for M&E extension Quality of ground and Risk of impacts on Promotion of integrated water MAWR, Goskompriroda, Included in Project Monitoring of ground and surface M&E Consultant + Costs included in surface waters downstream areas management, institutional support and supported by BAIS and costs water quality and impact of HGME, Glavhydromet the USD 1.60 m system rehabilitation; public awareness Uzglavhydromet mitigating measures; quarterly at Cabinet of Ministers reserved for M&E campaigns reporting Operation and Maintenance of the Irrigation and Drainage systems (Year 6 and beyond) O&M of irrigation and Improved O&M Preparation and distribution of manuals MAWR Government Training and education on MAWR and regional Government funding drainage infrastructure capacity and leaflets funding and WUAs integrated water management BAIS; non-government incl. the preparation and organisations (e.g. distribution of manuals and WUA, farmers) leaflets High groundwater Reduced agricultural Operation and Maintenance of the MAWR and regional Government Monitoring groundwater levels HGME, WUAs, local Government and levels and productivity Project interventions. institutions, WUAs at local funding and WUAs and waterlogging areas communities WUA funding waterlogging level Salt mobilization Increased salinity System maintenance and participatory MAWR and regional Government Monitoring of salinity levels HGME, WUAs, local Government funding levels and land salinity management control. institutions, WUAs at local funding and WUAs communities

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 95 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Mitigation Plan Monitoring Plan Activity / issue Environmental Mitigation measure Responsibility Extra Monitoring measure Responsibility Cost (USD) impact environmental cost (USD) abandonment level Quality of ground and Increased diffuse Public awareness campaigns to MAWR, Goskompriroda, Government Monitoring of water quality MAWR, Government funding surface waters and point pollution counteract pollution. Uzglavhydomet funding and WUAs Goskompriroda, Uzglavhydomet Flora and fauna Risk of biodiversity Promotion of diversity in farming MAWR, Goskompriroda, Government Monitoring of promotion and MAWR, Government funding loss, reduction of practice and local landscape, and and their regional funding awareness activities Goskompriroda, crop diversity and ensure environmental component departments Uzglavhydomet loss of gardens to measures; awareness campaigns agriculture

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 96 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

The Project Management Consultant will prepare environmental clauses in the Contractor contracts, based on which the Contractors prepare Site Environmental Management and Health and Safety Plans that will form the basis for minimizing the environmental hazards that result from the construction and rehabilitation works. These contracts and plans will be prepared in accordance with existing government regulations, and in line with best practice of international construction firms. Costs of these measures will be included in the bidding documents and contracts. Further background on these plans is provided in Appendix C of the Feasibility Report (2008), and on health and safety plans in Appendix D, and in Annex 6.

10.3 Environmental Due Diligence Environmental due diligence is incorporated in the project implementation to control the residual risk of accidental environmental damage and to prevent the negative environmental impacts during construction. The Contractor(s) and the Construction Supervising Engineer will have the primary responsibility for the environmental due diligence. Mitigation measures will be reflected in the project’s final designs and will be included in the tender documents and Contractor contracts. Supervision of EMP measures, including activities requiring environmental due diligence, will be done by the M&E Consultant within the Project Implementation Unit (PIU). The M&E Consultant will report to the PIU on a quarterly basis. The PIU is expected to report to the Project Steering Committee.

10.4 Environmental Protection and Enhancement The main Project interventions, i.e. the technical and institutional measures to mitigate the waterlogging and salinization problems, are considered as a part of the EMP, as these are the main Project interventions that are to result in positive environmental impacts. Responsibility for implementation of these measures is with the PIU, the Contractors, BAIS, WUAs and involved technical institutions. During implementation of the Project (Year 1-6), the impact of the interventions will be monitored by the M&E Consultant, HGME and WUAs. In a way, the entire Project must be considered as one large undertaking to implement a huge ‘environmental management plan’, requiring an investment of USD 83 million.

Nevertheless, the ecological and social importance of the Project Area warrants the implementation of specific environmental protection and enhancement measures for which a budget of USD 0.95 million has been set aside, or about 1% of the total project costs. This budget would finance preventive actions or mitigation measures needed to address unforeseen construction-related impacts as well as to build capacity in environmental management / monitoring in the PIU, raion and oblast institutions, and any monitoring activities (e.g. water quality/quantity, public health, pest management) not undertaken by government institutions in the Project Area. These activities are to be further specified once the detailed designs of the civil work interventions are available. Various measures may be implemented under this budget – these are listed in Table 10-2.

Table 10-2. Environmental protection and enhancement measures being part of the EMP Measure Indicative Cost (USD) Habitat protection and management (e.g. green belts, water protection zones, planting trees along canal, 300,000 social forestry, creation of alternative reedbeds/natural waste water filters, multi-purpose ponds, etc.) Capacity building in environmental management / monitoring in PIU, raion and oblast institutions, including 300,000 training (USD 100,000 – see Table 10-3) Monitoring activities (e.g. water quantity/quality, public health, integrated pest management, trials on 350,000 alternatives to agro-chemicals) Total 950,000

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 97 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Measures may include habitat protection and management of Water Protection Zones. The EA team suggests the creation of green belts along the constructed intercepting collectors for enhancing environmental and social forestry. In addition, the creation of alternative reed beds (to replace the reed beds currently existing in the drainage collectors) should be considered, for example in small multi- purpose water ponds that may be created on suitable locations. However, it still needs to be confirmed where such interventions are socially desirable and acceptable. Measures may also include the monitoring of residues of agro-chemicals in ground- and surface waters, if not already covered by other Project components.

Implementation of the EMP as well as the environmental monitoring activities will be overseen by Environmental Specialists (national and international) within the PIU. Implementation of the EMP includes a component ‘training’ for which various training modules have been proposed (Section 10-5).

10.5 Training A training program targeting the PIU, WUAs and farmers will be implemented in the framework of the Project’s institutional component. It is recommended that some of the training modules will specifically be dedicated to environmental issues and to procedures and methods for the implementation of the EMP. These modules are presented in Table 10-3. Costs for this training programme, provisionally estimated at USD 100,000, are included in the EMP implementation costs (Table 10-2).

Table 10-3. Recommended training programme for environmental protection and management Nr Training Module Duration Trainees/ Department Proposed Training (Days) Location/Centre 1 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 5 Goskompriroda and its departments Fergana, Goskompriroda 2 Environmental Protection & Mitigation Measures 3 Goskompriroda and its departments Fergana, Goskompriroda 3 Environmental Measurement and Monitoring 3 HGME Fergana HGME 4 Laboratory Training for Equipment Handling 5 UZGIP, HGME Fergana HGME 5 Environmental Legislation 3 Goskompriroda Fergana, Goskompriroda 6 Socio-economic Surveys and Gender Analysis 5 Tahlil, Fergana NGOs Fergana 7 Economic Assessment and Cost/benefit Analysis 3 MAWR, TA and Fergana Fergana, Agricultural Department Oblselvodkhoz 8 Measures for Protection and Conservation of Soils 3 Scientific Soil Institute Tashkent 9 Participatory Irrigation Management 3 MAWR, UZGIP, HGME Fergana HGME 10 Motivation, Leadership & Management of WUAs 3 MAWR, BAIS Fergana HGME 11 Integrated Ground Water Resource Management 5 Uzhydroingeo, MAWR Fergana HGME 12 Environmental and Social Impacts of Ground Water 5 Uzhydroingeo, MAWR Fergana Development 13 Economic Aspects of Ground Water Development 5 MAWR, Uzhydroingeo Tashkent 14 Stakeholder Involvement in Integrated Ground Water 5 MAWR and regional department of Fergana Management Uzhydroingeo 15 Conjunctive Use of Surface Water and Groundwater 5 MAWR, UZGIP Fergana BAIS/HGME

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 98 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

10.6 EMP Measures after Project Completion Once all Project interventions have been completed (after 6 years) the improved irrigation and drainage systems are expected to operate and the processes of water table lowering and reducing the soil salinity are ongoing. To sustain the Project outputs the main mitigation measures will then be operation and maintenance of the irrigation and drainage infrastructure, where necessary with participation of the user groups (WUAs, farmer associations). It is expected that considerable further effort will be needed to inform the users through awareness and training campaigns. In addition, efforts will be needed to promote farming diversity and environmental protection and enhancement. Responsibility for these after-Project measures will be with the MAWR and its regional institutions, as well as with the Goskompriroda, and WUAs. As the Project funds will have been exhausted by then, all funding for these activities is to come from government, and where possible WUAs. Responsibility for monitoring of the after-Project interventions is among others with MAWR, its regional branches, HGME, WUAs, and local NGOs.

Implementation of the EMP will ensure that the Project has a beneficial affect on the four basic natural resources, i.e. surface water, groundwater, soil and biodiversity. The EMP was developed in collaboration with the Fergana Goskompriroda and WUA representatives and takes into account input from farmers made during public consultations. The EMP will provide members of WUAs and local governance with information on the soil and water conditions in the Project Area. The EMP will be adjusted and refined were and when necessary, together with the main involved organizations.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 99 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

11 Environmental Monitoring Plan

As outlined in Chapter 9, government regulations require a separate Mitigation Plan, Management Plan and a Monitoring Plan, i.e. Chapter 9, 10 and 11. Unavoidably, this results in some repetition.

The Final Feasibility Report (September 2008) includes in its Volume 2, Appendix F, a draft Terms of Reference for independent Project Monitoring and Evaluation, which, by March 2009, was in the process of revision. The latest version was reviewed by the EA team. The measures outlined below must be considered as a further specification of what is needed, and be built in into the final version of the M&E TOR.

11.1 Parameters Those activities of the Project that impose, or may impose, a significant negative impact on the environment, and negative environmental impacts that result from operation of the infrastructure after Project completion, must be monitored so that appropriate action can be taken to prevent or minimize environmental damage. Such measures are included in the EMP in Table 10-1, i.e. on the right side of this table.

The following parameters are recommended for monitoring during Project implementation (Year 1-6):
Pollution of ground- and surface waters by Project waste;
Condition of Water Protection Zones around construction and rehabilitation sites;
Handling of soils during earth removal works at excavation and storage sites;
Handling of waste including fuel, lubricants and construction wastes;
Air quality (dust, exhaust fumes) near work sites;
Traffic movement and safety control;
Impacts on flora and fauna;
Groundwater level and waterlogging;
Salinity and pollution;
Application of agro-chemicals, both fertilizers and pesticides;
Quality of ground- and surface waters – this may include analyses of agro-chemical residues.

During operation (Year 7 and beyond) of the irrigation and drainage infrastructure, monitoring is required of:
Training and education on integrated water management;
Groundwater levels and waterlogging;
Land salinization;
Ground and surface water quality inside the Project area and downstream;
Flora and fauna;
Quality of ground- and surface waters – this may include analyses of agro-chemical residues.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 100 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Monitoring of the interventions and impacts related to Sustainable Agricultural Extension are accommodated in the M&E TOR of March 2009. These include various agricultural-, social-, and economic aspects of the Project.

11.2 Agencies Recommended monitoring agencies that will or should be involved in monitoring are:
State Committee of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Nature Protection (Goskompriroda) – pollution sources monitoring and land ecosystems monitoring;
Centre of the Hydrometeorology under Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan – monitoring of atmosphere pollution, pollution of surface (natural waterways) waters, soils and background monitoring;
Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources of the Republic of Uzbekistan – monitoring of quality (mineralization) of drainage water of main waterways;
State Committee on Land Resources of the Republic of Uzbekistan – land pollution monitoring;
State Committee of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Geology and Mineral Resources – groundwater pollution monitoring and dangerous geological processes;
Health Ministry of the Republic of Uzbekistan – sanitary hygienic monitoring of environment.

However, it is expected that these governmental organisations will not have the will and the resources available to conduct monitoring activities for specifically the Project on a frequent basis (including cost for travel and accommodation for staff). It is therefore likely that most project-related monitoring activities will be carried out by the M&E Consultant. To the extent possible, the M&E Consultant will work closely with the above-mentioned government agencies. As noted in Chapter 2, coordination of environmental monitoring is conducted by Goskompriroda.

Required monitoring activities, as well as responsible agencies for monitoring are given in the Table 10-1. Further detail on the required monitoring works is provided in Table 11-1.

Table 11-1. Monitoring of environmental parameters during Project implementation Issue Responsible Indicators Location and organization frequency Environmental M&E Consultant Pollution of ground- and surface waters by Project waste; Work sites; hazards on/ near work Condition of Water Protection Zones around construction and quarterly sites rehabilitation sites; Handling of soils during earth removal works at excavation and storage sites; Handling of waste including fuel, lubricants and construction wastes; Air quality (dust, exhaust fumes) near work sites; Traffic movement and safety control. Environmental M&E Consultant, Disruption of aquatic and terrestrial; ecology, habitats, greenbelt Work sites, protection and Goskompriroda establishment, construction of alternative multi-purpose ponds quarterly enhancement Groundwater level and M&E Consultant, Water table level, waterlogging extent. Project zone, waterlogging Fergana Hydro- quarterly geology Meliorative Expedition, WUAs

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 101 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Issue Responsible Indicators Location and organization frequency Soil salinity and M&E Consultant, Mechanical composition, humus content, mobile and gross NPK, dry Project zone, pollution Fergana residue, pН, ions of salts (sulphate, hydrocarbonates, Cl, Na, K, Ca, twice annually Uzgiprozem and MG), mineralization, hardness, BOD, COD, nitrates, nitrites, HGME, and WUAs ammonium, phosphates, pesticides, oil products, phenol Quality of ground and M&E Consultant, Groundwater mineralization, pН, suspended sediment, EC, ions of Project zone, surface waters HGME, salts (SO4, CO3, Cl, Na, K, Ca, Mg), mineralization, hardness, BOD, twice annually Glavhydromet at COD, nitrates, nitrites, ammonium, phosphates, pesticides, oil Cabinet of Ministers products, phenol; application of agro-chemicals, both fertilizers and pesticides

11.3 Equipment It is recommended that the on-site M&E Consultant (in the Project Area region) will be provided with a set of equipment to be able to perform the required monitoring tasks. The minimum requirements for environmental monitoring in the region are presented in Table 11-2. It is assumed that the costs for these requirements are included in the Project’s M&E budget of USD 1.60 million.

Table 11-2. Required equipment for the water and soil related monitoring activities Item M&E/PIU Baghdad Rishtan Altiarik Total Cost Total cost (USD) Ferghana (USD)

I. Computer equipment 1. Computer, monitors, UPS 1 1 1 1 4 1,000 4,000

2. LaserJet Printer1022 1 1 1 1 4 500 2,000

3. Stationary and spares 10,000

II. Field and Laboratory Equipment

1. Photometer NOVA 60A with set of 1 1 5,000 5,000 test kits, Germany

2. Kit of tests and standard solutions 25 25 200 5,000

3. Portable Conductivity/pH meters 2 3 3 3 11 300 3,300

4. GPS 1 1 1 3 200 600

5. Training equipment 1,000

Total 30,900

Contingencies (7%) 2,100

TOTAL 33,000

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 102 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

11.4 Costs All costs for environmental monitoring are included in the budgeted Project cost for M&E, i.e. USD 1.60 million.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 103 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

12 Compliance of the Project with World Bank Safeguard Policies

Once the required environmental (and social) mitigation and monitoring activities are implemented the Project is expected to comply with the following World Bank Operational Policies (OP):

Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01): The EA concludes that the Project will virtually have no negative environmental impacts, except for minor hazards that are normal during construction, which will be mitigated under the proposed Environmental Mitigation Plan (Chapter 9) and the Environmental Management Plan (Chapter 10). The M&E Consultant will monitor the implementation of the EMP (Chapter 11).

Natural Habitats (OP 4.04): For ages, the Project Area has been used intensely for agriculture and does not include any protected nature areas, or areas that are locally, nationally or globally considered as critical for the survival of any plant or animal species. Neither does the Project irreversibly affect areas considered ecologically unique. Species occurring are considered as common species. Small areas suffering from prolonged waterlogging and salinisation currently have or may have some ecological value (e.g. for foraging birds) and are likely to be affected (e.g. drained). However, on a regional level this will not affect significantly plant and animal populations.

Water Resources Management (OP 4.07): The Project aims at avoiding waterlogging and salinization problems associated with irrigation and drainage, one of the key priority areas in the Bank’s policies for Water Resources Management. The Project has been designed in accordance with this OP.

Pest Management (OP 4.09): The Project is not expected to directly or indirectly support or change the use of pesticides. Enhanced farming conditions (due to disappearing waterlogged and saline areas) may result in increased application of agro-chemicals in the long-term, and therewith increased runoff of such chemical residues.

Indigenous Peoples (OP 4.10): The Social Assessment concludes that there are no indigenous people in the Project area and therefore there is no impact on such groups.

Physical Cultural Resources (OP 4.11): The Project will not affect negatively any physical cultural resources. On the contrary, improved drainage will reduce the damage inflicted by salt intrusion in foundations of buildings.

Involuntary Resettlement (OP 4.12): The Social Assessment concludes that based on the selected interventions, there is no need to replace people as a result of the Project. Compensation for any lost assets will be provided according to government regulations.

Forestry (OP 4.36): Forest resources in the Project Area are limited to roadside- and small-scale homestead plantations. Some of these resources will be negatively affected (e.g. cutting to allow

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 104 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

access; excavation of some channels). Compensation measures will be applied in accordance to government regulations.

Projects in International Waterways (OP 7.50): The Project Area ultimately drains into the Syrdarya river, and finally the Aral Sea, which are international waterways. In this respect the Project Area is not located ‘in’ an international waterway but connects to these through irrigation (intake) and drainage (outflow) canals, and is therefore connected to subsequently Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. As noted earlier (Section 2.3.4) Uzbekistan is in the process of joining the Convention of the Protection and Use of Trans-boundary Water Courses. The EA demonstrates that the Project will result in reduction of water consumption, reduced drainage run-off and marginally reduced inputs to the salinity load of Syrdarya river. Altogether it is concluded that the Project will not significantly affect international waterways.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 105 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

13 Consultation and Disclosure

Consultation activities carried out during the Environmental Assessment study are presented in Annex 3. Two important consultation events took place during the ESA study. The first event was held in Tashkent on 20 November 2007, when key stakeholder organizations gathered to respond to the tentatively proposed Project interventions and expected social and environmental impacts. The second event took place in Ferghana town on 12 February 2009, and focussed on getting feedback on the technical, social and environmental aspects of the Project from particularly the stakeholders in the Project Area region. The programmes of these events are presented in Annex 4, together with the list of stakeholders that were invited and that actually participated in these events. For the Ferghana workshop the meeting minutes are provided as well.

Environmental issues During the Tashkent workshop Dr Gulchekhra Khasankhanova presented the EA study objectives, the study components, gave a description of the environment in the Project Area and the main environmental problems, and summarized the expected positive and negative impacts that the Project may have, as well as the proposed mitigation and management measures. The presentation of the preliminary environmental assessment of the Project provoked only one question of the participants, i.e. based on which data the assessment had been made and who actually participated in the assessment. Dr Khasankhanova gave an elaborate clarification of the data sources used and on the institutes that have been involved in the assessment (see e.g. Section 1.3 and Annex 2).

Other relevant observations made during the stakeholder meeting
Participants stressed the limited awareness among the target groups about the Project and recommended that more consultations would be needed, particularly in the Project areas. Concern was expressed that if the target groups are not properly informed about and involved in the Project that then the large investment will be wasted.

Many questions were raised regarding the technical interventions, meaning that further consultation is required on informing the targeted groups on these aspects of the Project.

Concern was expressed by the participants about the possible damage the Project might inflict on property, farms and gardens. It was suggested to impose fines to constructors who cause damage. The Feasibility Study team leader responded that proper care will be taken that no such damage will be caused and that if damage is unavoidable that then appropriate compensation will be provided in accordance with government regulations in this respect.

The representative of the ABD stressed the importance of the involvement of women in the Project consultation and implementation as they are the group that is heavily involved in the use of water.

The Deputy Hakhim expressed his concern that the existing construction and rehabilitation equipment in the Study area is not sufficient to implement the Project, and requested the Project preparation team to take this into consideration.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 106 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Several participants requested to shorten the time required for preparation of the Project as the need for interventions is very high. The Feasibility Study team leader responded that also the World Bank and the government have been pressing to speed up the preparation but due to the complexity of the problem this is not possible.

Several participants pointed out that not only the technical interventions are important but the institutional interventions too. Particularly the WUAs require training and improvement (new equipment), among others for operation and maintenance of the infrastructure. The Feasibility Study team leader acknowledged that the WUAs face great difficulties due to lack of funds but that improving their financial situation is beyond the scope of the present Project.

The EU/UNDP representative recommended to take advantage of the lessons learned from the Programme Enhancement of Living Standards in the Project region.

After the meeting the EA team was asked whether the EA and SA reports could be made available. The World Bank representative informed that the present report is considered not as a World Bank document but as a document of government and that therefore the government is to decide on its distribution.

During the second stakeholder consultation workshop in Ferghana town the main interest of the participants was for the technical specifications and social aspects of the Project: the EA study manager gave a presentation of the environmental aspects, but there were neither questions nor comments.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 107 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

14 Conclusions

The proposed Project interventions have been selected by the Feasibility Study Team based on effectiveness and cost. These interventions aim at reduced waterlogging and soil and water salinization problems, improved health and sanitation conditions (at least locally, for example in Rishtan town), and reduced damage by salinization to buildings and infrastructure. These are also the expected main positive environmental impacts of the Project.

This Environmental Assessment shows that the implementation of Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management – Phase 1 project is expected to induce substantial positive environmental impacts and only minor to negligible negative environmental impacts. The negative environmental impacts are mostly expected during implementation (construction) of the Project, and can to a large extent be mitigated by application of the necessary safeguard measures that are to be taken by Contractors (e.g. to prevent pollution, dust, noise, erosion, etc.). Impacts of the Project on the downstream area, particularly on Syrdarya river, an international waterway, are both quantitatively as well as qualitatively expected to be negligible.

The cost for environmental mitigation measures will be included in and be part of the Contractor’s contracts. USD 0.95 million (about 1% of the total project costs) has been earmarked for implementation of the Environmental Management Plan, which includes environmental protection and enhancement measures needed to address unforeseen construction-related impacts (greening, habitat improvement) as well as capacity building (in PIU, raion and oblast institutions) and monitoring activities not covered by other Project components (e.g. pest management). The cost for environmental monitoring of the Project interventions are included in the USD 1.60 million set aside for the Project’s M&E activities.

The Project is seen as a much-needed step to enhance chances for economical development and poverty alleviation. Non-implementation of the Project would lead to further deteriorating farming conditions, declining health and sanitation, and increased poverty.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 108 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Annex 1 List of References

Anonymous, 2001 Land Reclamation Feasibility Study in Rishtan, Altiarik and Bagdad Districts of Ferghana Province.

Central Scientific-Research Institute on Complex Use of Water Resources, 1986 Methodological manual on establish of water consumption and water abstraction norm system in irrigated agriculture.

EIA, December 1994 Oil and Gas Resources of the Ferghana Basin (Uzbekistan, Tadzhikistan and Kyrgyzstan). Report DOE/EIA-0575(94). Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585.

Goskompriroda, 2006 Red Book of Uzbekistan.

Kovda, V., et.al., undated Local classification of soil salinisation.

Pavey, J.F., June 2007 Ferghana Valley Groundwater Study – Draft Final Report. Mott MacDonald.

Schaap, O., October 2007 Water institutions report – 1st draft. Project Preparation Feasibility Study. Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project – Phase 1.

Soil and Agricultural Chemistry Institute, 1989 Learners’ guide on irrigation land evaluation.

Sredazgiprovodkhlopok, 1977 Methodological Guide on Drainage Design in the Central Asia.

Tahlil, et.al., 2007 Social Survey report for the Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1).

UNDP, 2007 Water – Critical Resource for Uzbekistan’s Future. 124 pp.

World Bank, 1999-2006 Operational Manual.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 109 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Euroconsult Mott MacDonald, December 2007 Framework Environmental Assessment of the Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1).

Social Assessment / Tahlil, December 2007 Framework Social Assessment of the Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1).

Mott MacDonald – Temelsu, September 2008 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project – Phase 1: Project Preparation and Feasibility Study, Final Feasibility Report.

Social Assessment / Tahlil, March 2009 Social Assessment of the Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1).

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 110 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Annex 2 List of Contributors to the EA

Name Position Organisation Wandert Benthem Study Manager / Environmentalist Independent Consultant Dr Gulchekhra Khasankhanova Deputy Study Manager / Environmentalist Uzgipromeliovodkhoz, MAWR Tatyana Khamzina Groundwater Specialist Uzgipromeliovodkhoz, MAWR Rustam Ibragimov GIS/RS Specialist Uzgipromeliovodkhoz, MAWR Raisa Taryannikova Institutional Specialist Uzglavhydromet Vladislav Talskikh Hydrobiology Specialist Uzglavhydromet Larisa Frank EMMP Specialist State Goskompriroda Anvar Ganiev Hydrogeology Specialist Ferghana Hydrogeology Expedition

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 111 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Annex 3 Consultation Log

Date Location Stakeholders Participants Issues discussed Tashkent Spring 2006 Tashkent Ministries and involved Study Manager Ties van Kempen Organization of the study and implementation arrangements organisations 20 July 2007 World Bank office Representatives of the national About 20 participants; presentation prepared by WISF Presentation of the Project and the Environmental Assessment and their financing media Team Leader McDonnell, presented by Study Manager mechanisms. Benthem 20 November 2007 Uzbekistan Hotel, National stakeholder meeting 66, of which 22 from the Ferghana region – see Annex Technical, social and environmental aspects of the Project. Tashkent 4 16 February 2009 World Bank office World Bank staff PIU, SA and EA teams Briefing on workshop results and ESA deliverables.

Ferghana Viloyat level 1 March 2007 Fergana town Fergana Oblast Khakim WIFS Team Leader McDonnell, Study Manager Introduction of the Project and preparation teams Benthem and Deputy Study Manager Khasankhanova; Feasibility Study team members; representatives of involved organisations 8-9 July 2007 Fergana town Syrdarya-Sokh BAIS Deputy Deputy Study Manager Khasankhanova, Feasibility Study area water and I$D infrastructure issues and fieldwork within selected project areas Head Study team members 22 August 2007 Fergana town Syrdarya-Sokh BAIS Deputy Deputy Study Manager Khasankhanova, Feasibility Discussions of the technical intervention and environmental impacts Head and HGME Chief Study team members Engineer 24 September 2007 Fergana town Goskompriroda Head and Benthem, Khasankhanova Plant and animal species occurring in the Project area, protected areas, possible impacts,

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 112 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Date Location Stakeholders Participants Issues discussed other representatives collaboration 12 February 2009 Ferghana town Oblast, raion, village and Study Manager Benthem, SA Deputy Study Leader General technical, social and environmental issues during the second stakeholder farmer representatives Asminkin, FS Team Leader Davey workshop. Rishtan 1 March 2007 Project area Rishtan Rayon Hakim; oblast WIFS Team Leader McDonnell, Study Manager Explanations on the Project and the EA; identification of potential impacts, field branch office Irrigation Benthem and Deputy Study Manager Khasankhanova; assessments. Department Feasibility Study team members; representatives of involved organisations, including Goskompriroda 25 September 2007 Project area Benthem, Khasankhanova Site visits

Baghdad 1 March 2007 Project area Baghdad Rayon Hakim; oblast WIFS Team Leader McDonnell, Study Manager Explanations on the Project and the EA; identification of potential impacts, field branch office Irrigation Benthem and Deputy Study Manager Khasankhanova; assessments. Department Feasibility Study team members; representatives of involved organisations, including Goskompriroda

Altiarik 2 March 2007 Project area Altiarik Rayon Hakim; oblast WIFS Team Leader McDonnell, Study Manager Explanations on the Project and the EA; identification of potential impacts, field branch office Irrigation Benthem and Deputy Study Manager Khasankhanova; assessments. Department Feasibility Study team members; representatives of involved organisations, including Goskompriroda 23 August 2007 Project Area, AOPP Altiarik Rayon Irrigation system Khasankhanova; Feasibility Study team members and Water intake and outfall of the Altiarik Oil Processing Plant Head HGME representative

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 113 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Annex 4 Stakeholder Consultation Workshops – Programme and Participants Lists

Programme of the 20 November 2007 stakeholder meeting held in Tashkent

Tuesday, 20 November 2007

08.45 - 09.30 Registration 09.30 - 09.45 Consultation Workshop Opening: Welcome address Mr Sh. Primov, MAWR Mr A. Abdunazarov, Deputy Khokim of Ferghana region 09.45 - 10.00 EuropeAid WISF-03 in Uzbekistan: Mr Wandert Benthem

10.00 - 10.30 Fergana Water Resource Management Project (Phase 1): Feasibility Study objectives, components and planned technical Interventions: Mr Robert Davey 10.30 – 10:45 Responses and questions from participants

10.45 - 11.00 Coffee break 11.00 - 11.30 WISF-03 Social Assessment: Social issues, project benefits: Mr Yakov Asminkin 11.30 - 11.40 Responses and questions from participants 11:40 – 12:25 Consultation and proposed Participation Plan, Discussions of Participation Plan, Ms Olga Nemirovskaya 12:25 – 13:00 Responses and questions from participants

13.00 - 14.30 Lunch 14.30 - 15.00 WISF-03 Environmental Assessment: Environmental Issues, Project Impacts and Environmental Management, Monitoring and Mitigation Plan: Dr Mrs G. Khasankhanova Responses and questions from participants 15.00 – 15.15 General discussions, recommendations and resolutions. 15.15 – 16.00 Consultation Workshop Closing

16.00 – 16.30 Coffee break 16:30 – 18:00 Possibility for individual discussions and consultations Note: During the workshop there was synchronous translation (English<< >>Russian)

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 114 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Invited / actual participating stakeholders in the workshop held in Tashkent on 20 November 2007

Invited to workshop Visited workshop Nr Name Position and workplace Name Position and workplace Ministries and agencies 1 Sh. R. Hamraev MAWR, Deputy Minister Sh. A. Primov MAWR, Main Department of Water Resources 2 P.B. Bekniyazov MAWR P.B. Bekniyazov MAWR 3 A.H. Salimov Ministry of Economics, Deputy Minister Sh. Mirhabibov Ministry of Economics, Head of Department 4 N.V. Karaleva State Committee for Nature Protection

5 V.E. Chub Uzglavhydromet Yakovlev Uzglavhydromet

6 A. Abduazizov Goskomzemgeodezkadastr Bobomurodov Goskomzemgeodezkadastr

7 A. Mavlonov Uzhydroingeo A. Mavlonov Uzhydroingeo

8 H.U. Umarov Republican Water Inspection "Uzsuvnazorat" H.U. Umarov Republican Water Inspection "Uzsuvnazorat" 9 Sh. H. Rahimov SANIIRI Ganiev SANIIRI

10 H.K. Kabilov Vodproekt H.K. Kabilov

11 U.V. Abdullaev UZGIP U.V. Abdullaev UZGIP

12 Pulatov UZGIP Pulatov UZGIP

International organizations

13 Mahwash Wasiq World Bank

14 Dilshod Hidirov World Bank Dilshod Hidirov World Bank

15 Anvar Nasritdinov UNDP, Head of Environment and Energy Unit Anvar Nasritdinov UNDP, Head of Environment and Energy Unit 16 Laura Rio EU/UNDP Programme Enhancement of Laura Rio EU/UNDP Programme Living Standards, Coordinator Enhancement of Living Standards, Coordinator 17 Kodir Babadjanov EU/UNDP Programme Enhancement of Kodir Babadzhanov EU/UNDP Programme Living Standards, Advisor Enhancement of Living Standards, Advisor 18 Mekhri ADB Uzbekistan, URM, Gender Specialist Mekhri Hudaiberdieva ADB Uzbekistan, URM, Gender Hudaiberdieva Specialist 19 R. Abdukayumov ADB Uzbekistan, URM, Portfolio Manager

20 Manfred Ziewers Implementation and Management Support Office - Liaison Office of the EC in Uzbekistan 21 Iskandar Abdullaev IWMI

22 Lu E China National Machinery Import & Export Lu E China National Machinery Import & Corporation Export Corporation Stakeholders, Fergana Region

23 A. Abdullaev Khokim, Fergana oblast A. Abdunazarov Deputy Khokim, Fergana oblast

24 H. Komilov Khokim, Altyarik district H. Komilov Khokim, Altyarik district

25 A. Honkeldiev Khokim, Baghdad district Turakulov Deputy Khokim, Baghdad district

26 G. Mamadaliev Khokim, Rishtan district G. Mamadaliev Khokim, Rishtan district

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 115 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Invited to workshop Visited workshop Nr Name Position and workplace Name Position and workplace 27 M. Babahajaev Ferghana branch of State Committee for Avliekhonov Ferghana branch of State Nature Protection Committee for Nature Protection 28 K. Mamasoliev Head of MAWR of Fergana region Tursunov Deputy Head of MAWR of Fergana region 29 M. Musaev Head of Altyarik branch of MAWR M. Musaev Head of Altyarik branch of MAWR 30 J. Ahmedov Head of Baghdad branch of MAWR J. Ahmedov Head of Baghdad branch of MAWR 31 S. Ruziev Head of Rishtan branch of MAWR S. Ruziev Head of Rishtan branch of MAWR 32 P. Rasulov Deputy Head of BAIS Syrdarya-Soh P. Rasulov Deputy Head of BAIS Syrdarya-Soh

33 O. Sobirov Head, HGME O. Sobirov Head, HGME

34 J. Kuziboev Deputy Director, Department of Energy and J. Kuziboev Deputy Director, Department of Communication of Pumping Stations Energy and Communication of Pumping Stations 35 M. Mingboev Chairperson, «Makhala» Fund of Altyarik M. Mingboev Chairperson, «Makhala» Fund of district Altyarik district 36 I. Yunusov Chairperson, « Makhala » Fund of Baghdad I. Yunusov Chairperson, « Makhala » Fund of district Baghdad district 37 A. Shokirov Chairperson, « Makhala » Fund of Rishtan A. Shokirov Chairperson, « Makhala » Fund of district Rishtan district 38 S. Hatamov Association of Dekhkan and Farm S. Hatamov Association of Dekhkan and Farm Households, Ferghana oblast Households, Fergana oblast 39 Yu. Ahmedov WUA “Okbuira ziloli” from Altyarik district Djuraev WUA “Bujai Akhmad Kanda” from Rishtan district 40 M. Yuldoshev WUA “Bagdod obi lazzat” from Baghdad M. Yuldoshev WUA “Bagdod obi lazzat” from district Baghdad district 41 T. Masharipov WUA “Bujai Akhmad Kanda” from Rishtan T. Masharipov WUA “Bujai Akhmad Kanda” from district Rishtan district 42 Z. Mamasoliev Farmer, Altyarik district Z. Makhmudov Farmer, Altyarik district

43 M. Nabiev Farmer, Baghdad district S. Umarov Farmer, Bagdad district

44 S. Kosimov Farmer, Rishtan district S. Kosimov Farmer, Rishtan district

Feasibility study, environmental and social assessment teams

45 B.A. Yusupov Technical Director, PIU B.A. Yusupov Technical Director, PIU

46 B.M. Yusupov Technical Specialist, PIU B.M. Yusupov Technical Specialist, PIU

47 A.I. Kuilibaev Technical Specialist, PIU A.I. Kuilibaev Technical Specialist, PIU

48 V.M. Belozertsev Uzgiprovodhoz, Technical Consultant

49 V.I. Kim Uzgiprovodhoz, Technical Consultant V.I. Kim. Uzgiprovodhoz, Technical Consultant 50 M. Najimov Uzgiprovodhoz, Technical Consultant M. Najimov Uzgiprovodhoz, Technical Consultant 51 W. Benthem Study Manager of EU WISF-03 W. Benthem Study Manager of EU WISF-03 Environmental and Social Assessment Environmental and Social Assessment 52 R. Davey Feasibility Study Team Leader, Technical R. Davey Feasibility Study Team Leader, Consultant Technical Consultant

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 116 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Invited to workshop Visited workshop Nr Name Position and workplace Name Position and workplace 53 S. Velioglu Temelsu Director, Technical Consultant S. Velioglu Temelsu Director, Technical Consultant 54 B. Boz Deputy Team Leader, Technical Consultant

55 G. Khasanhanova Deputy Leader of Environmental G. Khasanhanova Deputy Leader of Environmental Assessment Team Assessment Team 56 T. Hamzina Environmental Assessment Team T. Hamzina Environmental Assessment Team

57 Y. Asminkin Deputy Leader of Social Assessment Team Y. Asminkin Deputy Leader of Social Assessment Team 58 O. Nemirovskaya Social Assessment Team O. Nemirovskaya Social Assessment Team 59 N. Asminkina Social Assessment Team N. Asminkina Social Assessment Team

60 B. Mavlanov Social Assessment Team B. Mavlanov Social Assessment Team 61 J. Kurbankulov Social Assessment Team J. Kurbankulov Social Assessment Team

Mass-media

62 S. Haknazarov “Ahborot” redaction, 1st channel “Uzbekiston” S. Haknazarov “Ahborot” redaction, 1st channel radio, Correspondent “Uzbekiston” radio, Correspondent 63 V. Popov Poytaht radio station, news department, Chief V. Popov Poytaht radio station, news Editor department, Chief Editor 64 H. Atakulov Oriyat radio station, Correspondent H. Atakulov Oriyat radio station, Correspondent

65 T. Yarkulov Mashal radio station, Chief Editor T. Yarkulov Mashal radio station, Chief Editor

Translators

66 A. Djuraev Interpreter A. Djuraev Interpreter

67 A. Davidova Interpreter A. Davidova Interpreter

Total people invited: 65 (without translators), including 22 from Ferghana Total people visited: 58 (without translators), including 22 from Ferghana

Colour key: Replacements Not visited and no replacements

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 117 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Environmental and Social Assessment Studies Second Stakeholder Consultation Workshop – Ferghana town: 12 February 2009

Workshop minutes

Objective: A second stakeholder consultation workshop was organized13 with the main objective to inform particularly stakeholders from the Project Area region on the latest project developments and to get their response on these.

Organisation: As agreed between the PIU and the EA and SA teams, and in consultation with the World Bank, the PIU had the responsibility to organize the event, to invite all participants and to pay for all workshop costs.

Participants: A list of invited and actual participants is attached herewith. In total 100 people were invited (excluding 2 interpreters), 89 people participated. Four invited participants had themselves represented by others. Of the participants 16 were from Tashkent, the rest were from the Ferghana region. All participants were male.

Programme: The programme of the workshop is given below.

Thursday 12 February 2009 08.45 - 09.30 Registration of participants 09.30 - 09.45 Opening of the workshop. Introductory words: Mr. Sh Ganiev, Khokim of Fergana province 09.45-09.55 Mr. Shavkat Khamraev, Deputy Minister, MA&WR RU 09.55-10.00 Mr. Azamjon Rakhmatillaev, Head of Syrdarya-Sokh BISA 10.00 - 10.30 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase1): Objectives, components and planned technical actions, Mr. Robert Davey, V. Belozertsev 10.30 – 10:45 Questions of workshop participants 10.45 - 11.00 Coffee-break 11.00 – 11.45 Social Assessment: Social issues, project benefits, consulting: Mr. Yakov Asminkin, Mrs. Olga Nemirovskaya 11.45 - 12.15 Questions of workshop participants 12.30 - 13.30 Lunch 13.30 - 14.00 Ecological assessment: Environmental issues, project impact, environmental risks management, Monitoring and risk mitigation plan. Mr. Wandert Benthhem, Mrs. Gulchekhra Khasankhanova 14.00 – 14.30 Questions of workshop participants 14.30 – 15.00 General discussion, recommendations. 15.00 – 15.15 Coffee-break 15:15 – 17:00 Time for discussions and consultancies with separate specialists (if necessary)

13 The first ESA stakeholder consultation workshop was held in Tashkent on 20 November 2007.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 118 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Opening: The workshop was opened by introductory words of PIU’s Technical Specialist Mr B. Yusupov, and then followed by brief addresses of First Deputy khokim of Fergana province Mr Sh. Ganiev and Head of Ameliorative Department of the Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources of the Republic of Uzbekistan Sh. Primov.

A. Summary of the presentation on the Feasibility Study – Mr Robert Davey

The project area, the overall project objectives and project components were described and the physical works outlined. These physical works were also summarised in the Workshop programme, prepared in Uzbek for the information of the participants, with full description of project components, interventions and financing issues. It was pointed out that, although the “hard” physical works comprise by far the largest cost item of the project, they are relatively easy to design and execute.

Then the institutional strengthening and agriculture and water management training components of the project were described, emphasising that these are all vital to the success of the project, and that the investment in the physical works will be wasted if the “soft” components are not given sufficient importance during implementation. The cost of these absolutely essential activities is very small, but they are very difficult to implement successfully. All parties would have to work very closely together if success is to be achieved.

All training and support activities are designed to build on and improve what exists, rather than introduce new and expensive technologies – particularly with respect to the agriculture demonstration plots, where it is not realistic to think that ordinary farmers can get access to modern machinery in the foreseeable future. Instead the emphasis is on returning to a system of basic good agricultural practice through emphasis on integrated soil and water management. The result will be improved soil quality and more efficient use of water.

Currently there is perceived to be a shortage of irrigation water in the project area, although groundwater levels are in many places very high. In fact there is more than enough water, but much of it is wasted, which is a major cause of the high water table. The reason for this perception is partly physical – lack of sufficient appropriate water control structures; but largely organisational, in that the linkage between the high level organisations (basin and main canal administrations, still under government control) and farm level organisations (where shirkats have been replaced by leasehold WUAs, without provision of sufficient training and support) has been broken. Until the water management system is fully integrated - which can be envisaged in the medium to long term, given full support by GoU – “water shortages” and water-logging of land will continue.

It was also emphasised that the project is designed to benefit as many households as possible, not just the approximately 4% (before farm optimisation) that have leasehold farms. This will be done by working at Makhalla level with communities and WUAs to improve access to water, water management and horticultural practices on household and dekhan plots. Full involvement of communities and their leaders is intended to assist WUAs to perform the function for which they were created, but which they are unable to perform, largely for lack of finance and support from raion administrations.

The intention from the start of the implementation process is to ensure that all parties to the project would continue to be fully consulted and involved as appropriate in any review of project design made necessary by changes in physical and / or institutional conditions between the time of Feasibility Study and Tender Design and the start of implementation.

Finally, all parties were thanked for their constructive contributions to project design and encouraged to play a full role in the eventual implementation of the project.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 119 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Questions/comments of the workshop participants and responses:

Q1: Mr Kh. Umarov (SANIIRI) – Could you explain what were the GWL on demonstration plots under legumes and water use for irrigation?

R1: Mr Davey – One reason for growing legumes was that we wanted to improve soil quality. As far as I remember, GWL was from 1.2 to 1.5 m, yields sometimes were good, sometimes not, but this depended upon how much water was accessible, but we did not carry out control studies, we carried out working studies to demonstrate to the Government and farmers the issue on the use of secondary crops, i.e. integrated soil and water resources management.

Q2: Mr P. Rasulov. Syrdarya-Sokh BISA Deputy Head – The Project envisages institutional development support in water management, how will it be organized to involve public in water management inside WUA and on inter-farm and main canals?

R2: Mr Davey – Let us start with the inter-farm system. We are going to work closely with BISA and HGAE, and also with structures on canal management, in order to improve management of this complicated system. At the level of communities the project will closely cooperate with communities in order to improve water supply, and we will pay attention that each community is included in a WUA. This will be a great force, not only in Uzbekistan, but also in other countries. If we are going to improve general water management then we have to use all strengths of communities. WUAs need help for correct functioning, and the Project will assist WUAs and communities in improvement of their work.

Q3: Mr G. Mamadaliev. Khokim of Rishtan raion – When will funding start and when construction works will be completed?

R3: Mr Yusupov, PIU/WI Technical specialist – As you may be aware, during earlier World Bank missions, housing problems in the town of Rishtan were visited. We all know that it is very issue needs to be solved urgently, but on the other hand there internal procedures of the Government and the World Bank that have to be followed. We are planning to start funding by the end of this year or in the beginning of the next one. The Project duration is six years. One of the priorities are the proposed measures for Rishtan town.

Q4: Mr G. Mamadaliev – We would like to start project implementation earlier.

R4: Mr Yusupov – We want as well and we hope for an early start of project implementation.

Q5: Mr G. Mamadaliev – Who will operate objects after project completion?

R5: Mr Davey – I will add to what Mr. Yusupov just said. As a part of our work we prepared a large package of interventions that include all activities in Rishtan town, and as soon as all administrative issues with the Government and World Bank are solved, the tender will be launched for the first package. Concerning operation and management, after completion of the constructions the same organizations will operate these as is currently the case. Here we have issues that we faced in South Karakalpakstan, and then we found that they had neither personnel nor farmers to operate these structures, which affected the project impact. This was related to the general financial and political setting under which this project was implemented.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 120 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Q6: Mr K. Karabayev, Head of Altyaryk Water Department – You were talking about our Sokh-Shakhimardan system. After independence in 1991, 15 km length of our canal could not be repaired, reconstruction of this canal with machinery became impossible. Is the rehabilitation of such objects included in the Project?

R6: Mr Davey – No. The design was completed in December last year, and project implementation is expected to start in the middle of 2010. One of the main issues the Consultants and the PIU will consider are the changes occurred after project completion and during construction, and the problem you are talking now might be considered at that time, as there will be many changes and we should consider them all, this is realistic world and we have to be adjusted to all changes. But for sure we all should do what is on paper. This is one of the issues I am not aware of, but consultant will consider it during implementation.

Q7: Mr J. Kuchkarov, Associate Professor of Tashkent State Agrarian University – Sure we will support this project. This project is important for the Fergana region. The project cost is USD 85 million which is not a small amount. How will it be reimbursed in case if project does not give expected results?

R7: Mr Davey – I am optimistic, and I believe that you and the farmers will make everything possible for the project becoming successful, and for that purpose you will need administrative support here and in Tashkent. Our responsibility is the project implementation, and while we are doing that technically correct and within the budget, we will make all efforts to achieve the project objectives. While we are implementing we should not worry about paying money back. Individual farmers will not be charged for payback for the works carried out in his farm. Our objective is the increase of Uzbekistan national income, and this will come out of increased cotton yields, and if we achieve this Uzbekistan will be able to pay the loan back.

B. Summary of the presentation on the Social Assessment Study – Mr Yakov Asminkin

At the beginning of the presentation it was stressed that Social Assessment activities were conducted in two stages: at the beginning of the FS in early 2007, and after completion of the FS in January 2009. This included the incorporation of the SA recommendations and findings of the surveys for the FS report. After that, the objectives of both two stages of SA were described, and all the project components were described with the relation to socio-economic problems and to the policies/guidelines of the World Bank on SA and resettlement issues.

After that, the more common/broad SA recommendations were presented, including matters like participatory approach, involvement of dehkans/households into water management, infrastructure problems related to the Project, assets ownership issues, WUAs development issues and others. Also the project risks, associated with the Project Components A, B and C were presented (stakeholders potential, using of machineries, tenders related problems, weaknesses in appealing procedures, etc.).

The second part of the presentation focussed on concrete measures suggested in the final FS report (September 2008), namely on:

(1) Interceptor drain construction and related land acquisition issues. Because all the farmers under potential land acquisition were invited to the workshop, it was possible to present and to discuss the suggestions of the SA group about the mechanisms of land acquisition and compensation. The results of the survey of all farmers and of FGDs with all farmers and government officials conducted on the stage of SA fieldwork (January 2009) were also presented. Using the results of the survey two variants of compensation (with and without additional land plots allocation to farmers) were discussed again and the most appropriate variant was agreed with farmers for the RAP/RPF preparation finalization. Also all the risks related to the construction of interceptor drains and OP 4.12. were discussed using the results of farmers survey and qualitative research.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 121 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

(2) The construction of 100 km of sub-surface drainage pipes was discussed in terms of potential risks and possibility to prevent land temporary acquisition/crop losses during the construction. (3) The same was done for the subcomponent of rehabilitation of 1150 km of existing drainages and 2500 km of canals. (4) The planned works in Rishtan city were also discussed, with a focus on preventing damages/losses of private properties during the construction of new 50 km of electricity lines and a new transformer. The SA component raised again the necessity to look more precisely on the project effect on Khamza settlement, flooding of which was highlighted during the first stage of SA in 2007. (5) Demonstration plots and farmers’ schools components were also discussed using the findings received from stakeholders during consultations in FGDs and in-depths interviews.

The last part of the presentation focused on M&E issues and information sharing/participation issues sounded in the Public Participation Plan which was agreed with stakeholders during the previous ESA workshop in 2007.

All questions and suggestions addressed to the SA team were closely related to Component A (the necessity of cleaning of 15 km of Sokh-Shakhimardan canal situated on the territory of Kyrgyz Republic, parameters of the transformer to be installed in Rishtan city, etc.) and re-addressed to PIU/Feasibility Study Team representatives.

Questions/comments of the workshop participants and responses:

Q1: Mr T. Ibragimov, Deputy Head of Oblast Electric network – Presently we are carrying out replacement of electric transmission lines with the account of actual costs. Could you provide us with the information on capacity of transformer envisaged by the project for Rishtan town, then we would be able to put its capacity into our project.

R1: Mr B. Yusupov, PIU/WI Technical specialist – Due to capacity shortage of transformers, vertical drainage wells are working insufficiently, as a result there is waterlogging in the territory of Rishtan and adjacent areas. Thus the project envisaged the construction of a more powerful transformer substation. During design, the design-engineers have submitted to you a request for technical specifications but still we did not get a response from you. The information on additional requirements in electric power we will submit you, and we’ll define the necessary capacity with you.

Q2: Mr Y. Shakirov. Farmer «Kalaynov-Shamis – Sure that project is rather good and necessary for farmers of Rishtan raion. As everybody knows, our farms are supplied by water from canals «Navruz» and «SShK», but every year the water comes before 1 July from the Sokh river, so we are forced to use drainage water. Due to this fact land salinity is deteriorating annually. After water delivery from the Sokh river we should release drainage water, and for that purpose it is necessary to construct escape structure on drainage network. We propose to include that into the Project.

R2: Mr Yusupov – Before starting the project, we had meetings with WUA representatives, farmers, and we got proposals from them and included these into the Project. We know that there are still many issues that are not included into the project. Our project is in the stage of feasibility study, after this we’ll start preparation of bidding documents and detailed design, during that we will consider together with you whether these are necessary, and if these are necessary then it will be included into the project.

After the workshop, the ESA team and PIU/FST team had a discussion with khokims of raions and representatives of MAWR and BAIS.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 122 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Also the SA team and PIU had a meeting with the head of Ferghana Giprovodkhoz to clarify all the issues related to RAP, especially about the work done on pegging out of future interceptor drain routes, and the procedure for farmer involvement into this work, done by Giprovodkhoz.

C. Summary of the presentation on the Environmental Assessment Study – Mr Wandert Benthem

At the start of the presentation it was explained that large-scale infrastructure projects such as FVWRMP require elaborate Environmental and Social studies to be undertaken, for which both the World Bank as well as the Government of Uzbekistan have developed detailed guidelines. One of these requirements is to organize stakeholder consultations. The timeframe of the Feasibility Study and the ESA studies (and financing sources: EU and PIU/World Bank) was explained, as well as delays encountered in finalizing these studies and expected appraisal of the project.

The EA study objectives were outlined, as well as the EA study components. The Project Area was defined and briefly described, especially from an environmental point of view (environmental constraints). Examples were given of the data collected for the EA study, such as for groundwater variation over time and soil salinity and how this data was visualized in maps. The main project interventions were defined and how these are distributed over 10 model zones.

The various ways of assessing environmental impacts were outlined (e.g. by location, intervention type, construction phase, operation phase), and the main positive as well as the main negative environmental impacts of the project were outlined. Possible ways to mitigate the adverse impacts were expressed, and the EMMP was presented.

At the end of the presentation the participants were encouraged to ask questions or give comments.

Questions/comments of the workshop participants and responses:

There were no questions and no comments.

List of invited and actual participants

Nr Invited to workshop Visited workshop Name Position and workplace Name Position and workplace Ministries and agencies, Tashkent 1 Sh. Khamraev MA&WR, Deputy Minister B. Abzalov MA&WR, Department of Pumping Stations, Energy and Communication 2 Sh. Kuchkarov MA&WR, Department of Water Balance 3 Sh. Primov MA&WR, Department of Sh. Primov MA&WR, Department of Amelioration Amelioration 4 Kh. Umarov SANIIRI Kh. Umarov SANIIRI

5 М. Najimov Uzgiprovodkhoz

6 Kh. Kimsanbaev Vice-chancellor of Agrarian Kh. Kimsanbaev Vice-chancellor of Agrarian University University 7 J. Kuchkarov State Agrarian University, J. Kuchkarov State Agrarian University, Tashkent Tashkent 8 U. Norkulov State Agrarian University, U. Norkulov State Agrarian University, Tashkent

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 123 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Nr Invited to workshop Visited workshop Name Position and workplace Name Position and workplace Tashkent

9 Z. Artulmetov State Agrarian University, U. Norkulov State Agrarian University, Tashkent Tashkent 10 О. Kakhhorov State Agrarian University, О. Kakhhorov State Agrarian University, Tashkent Tashkent 11 Kh.. Umarov Republican Water Inspection Kh.. Umarov Republican Water Inspection

Stakeholders, Fergana Region 12 Sh. Ganiev First Deputy Khokim, Fergana Sh. Ganiev First Deputy Khokim, Fergana region region 13 I. Nosirov Chairman of Regional Committee I. Nosirov Chairman of Regional Committee on on Nature Protection Nature Protection 14 R. Musaev Head of regional department on R. Musaev Head of regional department on agriculture and water resources agriculture and water resources 15 N. Nabiev Head of Regional Department of Communal Services 16 Kh. Niezov Head of Regional Department on Kh. Niezov Head of Regional Department on Land Cadaster Land Cadaster 17 А. Teshaboev Head of Regional Department Т. Ibragimov Deputy Head of Regional Department «Electric Network» «Electric Network» 18 А. Rakhmatillaev Head of BISA «Syrdarya-Sokh» P. Rasulov Deputy Head of BISA «Syrdarya- Sokh» 19 О. Sobirov Head of HGAE О. Sobirov Head of HGAE

20 U. Abdullaev Head of PSD U. Abdullaev Head of PSD

21 А. Kuziboev Deputy Head of Regional А. Kuziboev Deputy Head of Regional Department Department on Agriculture and on Agriculture and Water Resources Water Resources 22 Kh. Komilov Khokim of Altyaryk raion Kh. Komilov Khokim of Altyaryk raion

23 I. Saidov Chairman of Nature Protection I. Saidov Chairman of Nature Protection Committee of Altyaryk raion Committee of Altyaryk raion 24 А. Khakimov Head of Communal Services А. Khakimov Head of Communal Services Department of Altyaryk raion Department of Altyaryk raion 25 А. Khaitov Head of Altyaryk raion А. Khaitov Head of Altyaryk raion Department Department on Land Cadastre on Land Cadastre 26 Z. Nurmatov Head of Department «Electric Z. Nurmatov Head of Department «Electric Network» of Altyaryk raion Network» of Altyaryk raion 27 Kh. Nishonov Head of Department on Kh. Nishonov Head of Department on Agriculture Agriculture and Water Resources and Water Resources of Altyaryk of Altyaryk raion raion 28 K. Koraboev ISA «Isfairam-Shakhimardon» K. Koraboev ISA «Isfairam-Shakhimardon»

29 М. Gofurov RHGAE, Head of section М. Gofurov RHGAE, Head of section

30 I. Urinbaev PSD, Head of section I. Urinbaev PSD, Head of section

31 G. Turaboev Deputy Head of Department on G. Turaboev Deputy Head of Department on Agriculture and Water Resources Agriculture and Water Resources of of Altyaryk raion Altyaryk raion

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 124 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Nr Invited to workshop Visited workshop Name Position and workplace Name Position and workplace 32 О. Khikmatov Director of MTP "Zulaikho- О. Khikmatov Director of MTP "Zulaikho-Madadkor" Madadkor" of Altyaryk raion of Altyaryk raion 33 K. Makhmudov Chairman of WUA «Zulaikho- K. Makhmudov Chairman of WUA «Zulaikho- Oltiaryk", Altyaryk raion Oltiaryk", Altyaryk raion 34 B. Sheraliev Chairman of WUA «Katput-suv B. Sheraliev Chairman of WUA «Katput-suv tamiaty», Altyaryk raion tamiaty», Altyaryk raion 35 I. Abdullaev Chairman of WUA «Yangiobod- I. Abdullaev Chairman of WUA «Yangiobod- Obihayet", Altyaryk raion Obihayet", Altyaryk raion 36 Olimov Rakhmonkul Farmer "Yuldoshali ugli Olimov Rakhmonkul Farmer "Yuldoshali ugli Rakhmonkul Rakhmonkul " " 37 Odilov Zakir Farmer, "Odiljonbobo Ergash" Odilov Zakir Farmer, "Odiljonbobo Ergash"

38 Mamajonov Zakir Farmer, "Zokirjon bogbon" Mamajonov Zakir Farmer, "Zokirjon bogbon"

39 Salokhitdin Sirojitdin Farmer, " Salokhitdin Sirojitdin " Salokhitdin Sirojitdin Farmer, " Salokhitdin Sirojitdin "

40 I. Abduraimov Farmer, "Abdurakhmonov Tojiboy" I. Abduraimov Farmer, "Abdurakhmonov Tojiboy"

41 Sh. Salokhitdinov Farmer, "Salokhitdinov Sh. Salokhitdinov Farmer, "Salokhitdinov Shokhobitdin" Shokhobitdin" 42 U. Djumaev Farmer, "УUlug Ikbol baraka" U. Djumaev Farmer, "УUlug Ikbol baraka"

43 Kh. Boymatov Farmer, "Dekhkonov Khabibullo" Kh. Boymatov Farmer, "Dekhkonov Khabibullo"

44 М. Dadaboev Farmer, «Otakhon ugli М. Dadaboev Farmer, «Otakhon ugli Muradkhon» Muradkhon» 45 Sh. Turakulov Khokim of Bagdad raion Sh. Turakulov Khokim of Bagdad raion

46 Т. Beknazarov Chairman of Nature Protection Т. Beknazarov Chairman of Nature Protection Committee of Bagdad raion Committee of Bagdad raion 47 Sh. Tukhtasinov Head of Communal Services Sh. Tukhtasinov Head of Communal Services Department of Bagdad raion Department of Bagdad raion 48 S. Azimov Head of Bagdad raion Department S. Azimov Head of Bagdad raion Department on on Land Cadastre Land Cadastre 49 А. Otajonov Head of Department «Electric А. Otajonov Head of Department «Electric Network» of Bagdad raion Network» of Bagdad raion 50 G. Abdurakhmonov Head of Department on G. Abdurakhmonov Head of Department on Agriculture Agriculture and Water Resources and Water Resources of Bagdad of Bagdad raion raion 51 М. Akhmedov ISA "Norin-Fargona" М. Akhmedov ISA "Norin-Fargona"

52 А. Usmonov RHGAE, Head of section А. Usmonov RHGAE, Head of section

53 U. Mamasidikov PSD, Head of section U. Mamasidikov PSD, Head of section

54 М. Yuldoshev Chairman of WUA "Bogdod М. Yuldoshev Chairman of WUA "Bogdod obilazzat", Bagdad raion obilazzat", Bagdad raion 55 М. Butaev Chairman of WUA "Matkulobod М. Butaev Chairman of WUA "Matkulobod mirobi", Bagdad raion mirobi", Bagdad raion 56 А. Yuldashev Chairman of WUA "Yuldashota А. Yuldashev Chairman of WUA "Yuldashota Khoziniyi", Bagdad raion Khoziniyi", Bagdad raion 57 B. Ruzimatov Farmer,"Khusnitdin Nuritdinov B. Ruzimatov Farmer,"Khusnitdin Nuritdinov Bakhritdinovich" Bakhritdinovich"

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 125 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Nr Invited to workshop Visited workshop Name Position and workplace Name Position and workplace 58 N. Tokaliev Farmer,"Bogdod Shermat ota" N. Tokaliev Farmer,"Bogdod Shermat ota"

59 S. Azizov Farmer,"Firdavs Gulshani" S. Azizov Farmer,"Firdavs Gulshani"

60 А. Soliev Farmer,"Nasiba" А. Soliev Farmer,"Nasiba"

61 Sh. Egamov Farmer,"Shukhrat" Sh. Egamov Farmer,"Shukhrat"

62 А. Kukonov Farmer,"Ergash ota Siymosi"

63 М Abdurakhmonov Farmer,"Sanobar" М Abdurakhmonov Farmer,"Sanobar"

64 Kh. Shamsakov Farmer,"Gani ota"

65 А. Otajonov Farmer,"Samandarak zarshunosi"

66 М. Imomov Farmer,"М.Imomov" М. Imomov Farmer,"М.Imomov"

67 Y Temurov Farmer,"Temurov Zainullo" Y Temurov Farmer,"Temurov Zainullo"

68 S. Mukhamadaliev Farmer,"Mukhamadali ota bogi" S. Mukhamadaliev Farmer,"Mukhamadali ota bogi"

69 R. Khomidov Farmer,"Usmonov Bekhzod" R. Khomidov Farmer,"Usmonov Bekhzod"

70 М. Mamasidikov Farmer,"Mirzaubaydullo bogi " М. Mamasidikov Farmer,"Mirzaubaydullo bogi "

71 B. Ruzimatov Farmer,"Khusnitdin Nuritdinov Bakhritdinovich" 72 Y. Juraev Farmer, «Iygim» Y. Juraev Farmer, «Iygim»

73 Kh. Sharafutdinov Farmer, «Asimali Davron» Kh. Sharafutdinov Farmer, «Asimali Davron»

74 Kh. Ziyatov Farmer, «Mukhamadrokhim Kh. Ziyatov Farmer, «Mukhamadrokhim khodji» khodji» 75 G. Mamadaliev Khokim of Rishtan raion G. Mamadaliev Khokim of Rishtan raion

76 Т. Akhmedov Chairman of Nature Protection Т. Akhmedov Chairman of Nature Protection Committee of Rishtan raion Committee of Rishtan raion 77 Kh. Khaidarov Head of Communal Services Kh. Khaidarov Head of Communal Services Department of Rishtan raion Department of Rishtan raion 78 I. Olimov Head of Rishtan raion Department I. Olimov Head of Rishtan raion Department on on Land Cadastre Land Cadastre 79 М. Mamasidikov Head of Department «Electric К. Aminov Deputy Head of Department Network» of Rishtan raion «Electric Network» Rishtan raion 80 S. Ruziboev Head of Department on Agriculture and Water Resources of Rishtan raion 81 R. Djuraev ISA "Sokh-Oktepa" R. Djuraev ISA "Sokh-Oktepa" 82 О. Akramov RHGAE, Head of section О. Akramov RHGAE, Head of section 83 А. Ermatov PSD, Head of section А. Ermatov PSD, Head of section 84 K. Khakimov Deputy Head of Department on K. Khakimov Deputy Head of Department on Agriculture and Water Resources Agriculture and Water Resources of of Rishtan raion Rishtan raion 85 А. Turdikulov Chairman of WUA "Rishtosoy А. Turdikulov Chairman of WUA "Rishtosoy Kurgancha" Rishtan raion Kurgancha" Rishtan raion 86 N. Kholboev Chairman of WUA "Zokhidon N. Kholboev Chairman of WUA "Zokhidon Akhmadkanda" Rishtan raion Akhmadkanda" Rishtan raion 87 R. Nabiev Chairman of WUA "Yagona- R. Nabiev Chairman of WUA "Yagona-Ummon-

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 126 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Nr Invited to workshop Visited workshop Name Position and workplace Name Position and workplace Ummon-Chashmasi" Rishtan Chashmasi" Rishtan raion raion 88 Y. Shakirov Farmer, «Kapay Nav Shamis» Y. Shakirov Farmer, «Kapay Nav Shamis» 89 М. Rakhmonov Farmer, "Rakhmonov Olimjon" М. Rakhmonov Farmer, "Rakhmonov Olimjon" 90 Sh. Azizov Farmer, "Kimyo" Sh. Azizov Farmer, "Kimyo" 91 D. Ganieva Farmer, "Sadri Jambul" D. Ganieva Farmer, "Sadri Jambul" 92 G. Salomov Farmer, "Abdumalik А.А." G. Salomov Farmer, "Abdumalik А.А." FST/ESA Teams 93 Yusupov B.A.. PIU on WI, Technical Director

94 B. Yusupov PIU on WI, Technical Specialist B. Yusupov PIU on WI, Technical Specialist

95 А. Kuyliboev PIU on WI, Procurement Expert А. Kuyliboev PIU on WI, Procurement Expert

96 Belozertsev V.M. Uzgiprovodkhoz (Feasibility Study Team) 97 R. Davey International Consultant R. Davey International Consultant

98 W. Benthem International Consultant, ESA W. Benthem International Consultant, ESA Study Study Team Leader Team Leader 99 G. Khasankhanova Deputy EA Study Team Leader

100 Y. Asminkin Deputy SA Study Team Leader Y. Asminkin Deputy SA Study Team Leader 101 B. Rozikhodjaev Translator B. Rozikhodjaev Translator 102 Y. Makaryev Translator Y. Makaryev Translator

Total people invited: 100 (without translators), including 21 from Tashkent or abroad Total people visited: 89 (without translators), including 16 from Tashkent or abroad

Colour key: Replacements Not visited and no replacements

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 127 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Annex 5 Water Quality Standards

Annex 5.1 Maximum Allowable Limits (MAL) of chemical parameters in three types of water sources according to government regulation RD 118.0027719.5-91 and GD 49.3.04.2002 Nr Parameter Unit MAL 1 MAL 2 MAL 3 Fish ponds Piped potable Open water for water drinking 1 Oxygen mg/l 6.0 - 0.005

2 BOD5 mg О2/l 3.0 - 6.0

3 COD mg О2/l 15.0 - - 4 Nitrogen nitrite mg/l 0.02 - 3.0 5 Mineralization mg/l 1000 - 1000 6 Chloride mg/l 300 350 350 7 Sulphate mg/l 100 - 500 8 Magnesium mg/l 40 - < 40 9 Sodium mg/l 120 - 120 10 Total hardness mg.eq/l 7.0 7.0 7.0 11 Copper mkg/l 1.0 1.0 1.0 12 Zink mkg/l 10.0 5.0 1.0 13 Chromium VI mkg/l 1.0 - 0.5 14 Phenols mg/l 0.001 - 0.01 15 Oil products mg/l 0.05 - 0.05 16 Fluorides mg/l 0.75 1.5 1.5 Source: Goskompriroda, 2002; Uzglavhydromet, 2006

Annex 5.2. Water Pollution Degrees according to government regulation RD 118.0027719.5-91 and GD 49.3.04.2002 Nr Parameter Unit of Pollution load class measurement I II III IV V very weak weak mean high very high (absent) (catastrophic) 1 Water pollution index WPI 0.3-1 1-3 3-4 4-6 6-12 2 Water pollution index WPI specific 0-0.5 0.5-1.0 1.0-2.0 2.0-3.0 3.0-4.0 with specific matters Source: Goskompriroda, 2002; Uzglavhydromet, 2006

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 128 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Annex 5.3 Water Classifiers, according to government regulation PYa 52.25.32-97

А) Saprobe Index (SI) Class of water Water quality Value

I Very pure < 1,0 II Pure 1,1 – 1,5 III Moderately polluted 1,6 – 2,5 IV Polluted 2,6 – 3,5 V Dirty 3,6 – 4,0 VI Very dirty > 4,0 Source: Uzgalvhydromet, 1997

B) Biotic Periphiton Index (BPI) Class of water Water quality Value of BPI Ecological condition I Very pure 10-9 Background (standard) II Pure 8-7 Background (good) III Moderately polluted 6-5 Satisfactory III-IV Transit class 4,5 Transit condition IV Polluted 4 Unsatisfactory V Dirty 3-2 Bad VI Very dirty 1-0 Not permissible (full degradation of genepool) Source: Uzgalvhydromet, 1997

С) Modified Biotic Periphytic Index (MBPI) Class of water Water quality Value of MBPI Ecologic condition of biocenosis I Very pure 10 Background (standard) II Pure 9-7 Backgound (good) III Moderately polluted 6-5 satisfactory III-IV Transit class 4,5 Transit condition IV Polluted 4 Unsatisfactory V Dirty 3-2 Bad VI Very dirty- 1-0 Not permissible (full degradation of genepool) Source: Uzgalvhydromet, 1997

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 129 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Hydrobiology of the Surface Waters in the Ferghana Valley Region

Syrdarya Typical for the river are the high turbidity and instable bottom sediments, mainly presented by loose deposits of sand and clay, reason why the bottom biocenosis is poorly developed. Water quality in the upper section of Syr Darya (near Kal village) corresponds to III class of the SI Index, and at locations further downstream, mainly due to the North Bagdad Collector outfall transit III-IV class. The mean value of the SI index is in the range of 1.86 – 2.14, while the BPI and MBPI indices range from 4 to 6. The ecological condition becomes notably worse below the NBC outfall.

The periphyton consists of eurybathic and saline water species of algae, the number of which increases in the autumn, mainly in the NBC impact zone. Dominant species are algae from genera such as Coscinodicus, Melosira, Coccones, Diatoma, Gyrosigma, Navicula, Nitzschia, Rhoicosphenia, Amphiprora, Bacillaria, (Cladophora, Spirogyra) and blue- green filiform algae (Oscillatoria, Phormidium). The bentofauna includes saprobe species (Baetis, Caenis), Hydropsyche, Hydropptila, Diptera (Simuliidae, Ceratopogonidae) beetles (Bidessus) and hypochylia (Naididae). The zoobentos fauna in Syr Darya River differs. In the upper parts (near Kall village) a significant impact of Naryn river is noted: more varieties in zoobentos and the presence of Diptera species (Dicranomyia, Tipula). Below the NBC outfall these species disappear for the bottom fauna, and zoobentos is only presented by a complex of eurysaprobe species, with the presence of shrimps, beetles, bugs, and shellfish species.

North Badgad Collector The hydrobiology is to an considerable degree affected by pollution that results from the Altyarik Oil Processing Plant. Upstream of Altyarik city, the NBC waters classify as III in the SI Index. Downstream of the AOPP the waters are transit III-IV class on the SI Index. The average value of the EC index is in the range of 1.96 – 2.08. The value of the BPI and MBPI indices varies from 4.5 – 6 (in the upper point) to 3 – 5 scores (in lower points). The ecological condition of the NBC varies from satisfactory to unsatisfactory. The peryphiton coenosis is moderately developed and is presented by euvybionit mesosaprobic algae species. Dominant diatom algae include Cocconeis pediculus, Melosira varians, Synedra ulna, Rhoicosphenia curvata, as well as filiform green and blue-green algae from the family of Cladophora, Rhizoclonium, Phormidium. The bottom coenosis is represented by species such as Baetis, Caenis, caddis flies (Hydropsyche, Hydropptila), Dipteras, freshwater shrimps, dragonfly, chironomids.

Downstream of the AOPP outfall the silt deposits are often polluted with oil products. Diatomaceous algae are less frequent. The main background includes varieties of Navicula, Nitzschia, Gyrosigma. In the summer-autumn period saline water varieties develop – Rhoicosphenia curvata, Amphiprora paludosa, as well as heterotrophic bacteria and the simplest animal organisms. The zoobentos is in decline – only some single organisms are present, typical for the upper point (dayflies, mosquito hawks, mollusks). In the bottom cenosis saprobe varieties are dominant. Near the NBC outfall no restoration of the periphytic and zoo bentos biocenosis is observed; these groups remain here in a state of ecological regress.

Dr Vladislav Talkish, September 2007

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 130 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Annex 6 Guidance to Drafting Tender and Contract Documentation

This Annex 6 has been prepared to provide guidance in the drafting of Tender and Contract documentation for construction of the of the irrigation and drainage rehabilitation works.

1 INSTRUCTIONS to BIDDERS and BID FORMS

1.1 Site visit The Instructions to Bidders should include a requirement that they should visit the site for familiarisation, e.g.:

The Bidder acknowledges and shall verify that he has visited the site and location of the Works and is familiar with: the environmental sensitivity and socio-economic conditions of the site and surrounding areas; the conformation of the ground; the character, quality and quantity of the materials to be encountered; the character of equipment and facilities needed preliminary to and during the execution of the Works; the equipment to be furnished and installed and all other matters affecting the Works, in particular the need to work closely, in planning and executing the Works, with Water Users’ Associations and Neighbourhood Democratic Councils.

1.2 Environmental Protection and Health and Safety Declaration Bidders should submit a detailed preliminary statement on measures they propose to adopt with regard to environmental protection both on site and in the vicinity, and health and safety conditions on site, as follows:

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION / HEALTH AND SAFETY Project implementation and related activities shall be executed in a manner which minimises adverse impacts on the natural and socio-economic environment in the Project Area.

The Bidder shall therefore submit a detailed preliminary statement of the policy he proposes to adopt in regard to environmental protection both on site and in the vicinity and to health and safety conditions on the site. The statements shall be entitled ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STATEMENT and HEALTH AND SAFETY STATEMENT. The Bidder shall list below the documents submitted in support of the policy as well as any other relevant references.

The Bidder hereby confirms that he has made himself familiar with the environmental sensitivities of the Site and surrounding areas. Within one month of establishing himself on the Site, the successful Bidder shall submit a FULL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN and a FULL HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN, with operational details for approval by the Employer/Engineer.

The Employer and the Engineer will routinely inspect the Contractor's compliance with the statements of this Form and the FULL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION and the FULL HEALTH AND SAFETY PLANS and throughout the construction period.

The Tenderer's signature shall be confirmation that the statements have been submitted and conform to the requirements of the Conditions of Contract and the Specifications.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 131 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

2. CONTRACTOR’S STATEMENTS

2.1 Environmental Protection Statement The Tenderer shall submit a Statement concerning his proposals with respect to environmental protection on the Site. The information should be submitted in sufficient detail to allow an assessment of the general adequacy of the Tenderer’s proposals. Diagrams should be included where necessary for clarification of the description (e.g. organisational relationships, flowcharts for waste treatment and disposal). Details and descriptions shall be provided of the following:

2.2.1 General 1. The Tenderer’s environmental policy 2. An outline of the Environmental Protection Plan to be drawn up under the Contract, including but not limited to: • Details of the Contractor’s proposed environmental monitoring procedures, to ensure facilities are operating satisfactorily and that problems are being dealt with promptly • Details of the Contractor’s environmental awareness training programme proposed for the workforce • Details concerning work camps, borrow pits, spoil disposal sites and fire control • A requirement that all method statements include a section on environmental impacts and mitigation • Details of the records to be kept to demonstrate compliance with the EPP • A formalised mechanism to audit the effectiveness of the EPP 3. Qualifications and experience of the staff member nominated as Environmental Officer

2.2.2. Solid Waste Disposal 1. Proposals for collection, treatment and disposal of solid waste of all types.

2.2.3 Liquid Waste Disposal 1. Sanitary installations and sewage treatment (cross-reference Data Sheet 6). 2. Disposal of used oils, hydraulic fluid etc.

2.2.4 Prevention of Pollution 1. Proposals to identify and implement working practices and physical measures that will minimise the risk of pollution.

2.2.5 Emergency Response 1. Equipment, systems and training for emergency response for pollution events, including spills of any hazardous materials.

2.2.6 Haul Traffic Planning 1. Location of haulage routes for bulk materials, including both road and river transport and transhipment locations.

2.2.7 Site Restoration 1. Qualifications and experience of any land reclamation specialist proposed by the Tenderer. 2. Proposals for measures to ensure full restoration of all land used temporarily to its original condition or better.

2.2.8 Community Relations 1. Proposals for establishing and maintaining good community relations.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 132 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

2.3 Health and Safety Statement The Tenderer shall submit a Statement concerning his proposals with respect to health and safety on the Site. The information should be submitted in sufficient detail to allow an assessment of the general adequacy of the Tenderer’s proposals. Diagrams should be included where necessary for clarification of the description (e.g. organisational relationships, flowcharts for risk assessment). Details and descriptions shall be provided of the following:

2.3.1 General 1. The Tenderer’s health and safety policy 2. An outline of the Health and Safety Plan to be drawn up under the Contract

2.3.2 Communication and Management of the Work 1. Management structure and responsibilities 2. Health and safety goals for the project and arrangements for monitoring and review of health and safety performance 3. Arrangements for: • Regular liaison between parties on site • Consultation with the workforce; the exchange of design information between the Employer, designers, the Engineer, principal contractor and other contractors on site • Handling design changes during the project • The selection and control of sub-contractors • The exchange of health and safety information between parties • Security, site induction and on site training • Welfare facilities and first aid • The reporting and investigation of accidents and incidents including near misses • The production and approval of risk assessments and method statements 4. Site rules 5. Fire and emergency procedures

2.3.3 Arrangements for Controlling Significant Site Risk 1. Safety risks: • Services, including temporary electrical installations • Working in confined spaces • Preventing falls • Work with or near fragile materials • Control of lifting operations • Dealing with services (water, electricity and gas) • The maintenance of plant and equipment • Poor ground conditions • Traffic routes and segregation of vehicles and pedestrians • Storage of hazardous materials • Dealing with existing unstable structures • Accommodating adjacent land use • Other significant safety risks 2. Health risks: 1. Manual handling 2. Use of hazardous substances 3. Reducing noise and vibration

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 133 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

4. Removal of asbestos 5. Dealing with contaminated land 6. Other significant health risks

2.3.4 Safety 1. Qualifications and experience of the Safety Officer and his Deputy 2. Procedures for identification of safety risks including hazardous equipment and materials, fire, and explosives 3. Proposals for training workers in safe working practices 4. Procedures for ensuring implementation of safe working practices

2.3.5 First Aid 1. Proposals for provision of first aid facilities and skills 2. Proposals for ambulance service and medical evacuation 3. Proposals for training workers in first aid

2.3.6 Medical 1. The qualifications and experience of the Medical Officer and his Deputy 2. The number and qualifications of any other medical staff to be provided by the Contractor 3. Any other medical facilities to be provided in addition to the first aid provisions required by the Contract

2.3.7 Welfare on Site 1. Proposals for provision of changing facilities, rest areas, washing areas, drinking water and sanitation for workers at work sites

2.3.8 Health and Safety File 1. Layout and format 2. Arrangements for collection and gathering of information 3. Storage of information

3 CLAUSES FOR PARTICULAR SPECIFICATION

3.1 Contractor's Facilities 3.1.1 General 1. Unless otherwise specified, the cost of all measures needed to comply with these requirements shall be deemed to be included in the Contractor’s rates.

3.2 Environmental Protection 3.2.1 General 1. In the performance of his works under the Contract the Contractor shall take all practicable steps necessary to conserve and protect the environment on and in the vicinity of the Site. Particular topics for consideration include: • Minimisation of disruption to local residents and communities • Avoidance of pollution (air, land, and water, whether surface or underground) • Preservation of flora and fauna • Avoidance of nuisance and hazard from noise and dust • Safe disposal of all liquid and solid wastes 2. Unless otherwise specified, the cost of all measures needed to comply with this requirement shall be deemed to be included in the Contractor’s rates.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 134 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

3.2.2 Suppliers Environmental Certificates 1. Where materials and equipment of equal quality are available from more than one supplier, preference shall be given to those suppliers certified as implementing environmental management systems under ISO 14000, BS 7750.

3.2.4 Environmental Protection Plan 1. The Contractor shall implement an Environmental Protection Plan on the Site which shall be based on the Environmental Protection Statement submitted in the Tender. The Plan shall include operational details, and shall be in force throughout the duration of the Contract. The Plan shall be submitted together with the Detailed Programme of Works and shall be subject to the approval of the Engineer.

3.2.4 Environmental Officer – BoQ item 1. The Contractor shall have on his staff on Site for the duration of the Contract a designated officer qualified to promote and maintain sound environmental management during construction and specifically to implement the approved Environmental Protection Plan. This officer shall have authority to issue instructions and shall take precautionary measures to prevent environmental damage, including but not limited to the establishment of environmentally-sound working practices, pollution prevention systems, pollution incident response and clean-up systems and equipment, and the training of staff and labour in these matters.

3.2.5 Community Relations 1. In siting and operating his plant and facilities and in executing the works the Contractor shall at all times bear in mind and to the extent practicable minimise the impact of his activities on local communities. To this end, he shall liaise with the Water Users Associations and Neighbourhood Democratic Councils on relevant matters. Any problem which cannot be resolved by the Contractor shall be referred to the Engineer. If required by the Engineer, a senior representative of the Contractor’s staff shall participate in any meeting and sit on any committee set up to deal with community relations and social issues.

3.2.6 Privately or Community-Owned Services and Structures 1. The Contractor shall take all necessary precautions to ensure that no public or private services, utilities or similar facilities are damaged or interrupted by the Works. These precautions shall include but not be limited to liaison with public and private service providers, Water Users Associations, Neighbourhood Democratic Councils, Regional Democratic Councils, and private owners; a condition survey of all affected services; provision of a satisfactory alternative service whilst the Works are carried out; and reinstatement of a satisfactory permanent facility after completion of the Works in each area. 2. No services or utilities shall be disturbed or cut before arrangements have been made for a satisfactory alternative service, or the Contractor has obtained agreement in writing from the service provider or owner to a temporary cessation of service. 3. Not less than 14 days before commencing site clearance in accordance with his agreed Programme of Work, the Contractor shall supply the Engineer for his approval a copy of his condition survey of all utilities and services to be affected, copies of any agreements with service providers and owners, his plans for providing temporary service, and his plans for reinstating permanent service following construction of the Works. 4. Provision of temporary and permanent services shall be to at least the pre-existing level of service and to the satisfaction of the Engineer.

3.2.7 Prevention of Water and Soil Pollution 1. The Contractor shall ensure that his activities do not result in the contamination of any surface water, groundwater or agricultural soil by polluting substances. The Contractor shall design and implement the necessary physical and

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 135 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

operational measures including but not limited to bunds of minimum 110% capacity around fuel, oil and solvent storage tanks and stores, collection and recycling or safe disposal of used engine, hydraulic and shuttering oils, oil and grease traps in drainage systems from workshops, vehicle and plant washing facilities and service and fuelling areas and kitchens, sanitary solid and liquid waste disposal systems, the maintenance in effective working order of these systems, and emergency response procedures and equipment for pollution events, all in accordance with normal good international practice and to the satisfaction of the Engineer. 2. To prevent damage to agricultural soils, the Contractor shall strip and stockpile topsoil from all areas of the Site where damage from traffic, construction activities, building work, etc. could occur, for subsequent use in Site reinstatement. The depth of topsoil to be stripped shall be as instructed by the Engineer. Stripping, soil handling and soil storage methods shall be as specified under Earthworks in the Particular Technical Specifications. 3. Should any pollution arise from the Contractor’s activities including the improper deposition of sediment he shall clean up the affected area immediately at his own costs and to the satisfaction of the Engineer, and shall pay full compensation to any affected parties.

3.2.8 Prevention of Air Pollution and Hazards 1. The Contractor shall take all reasonable steps to minimise air pollution, whether from exhaust emissions, construction processes, construction traffic, or site operation. 2. The Contractor shall at all times operate his Equipment and vehicles so as to minimise exhaust emissions and in any case within the limits established by the EPA or other government authority. If in the opinion of the Engineer the exhaust gas emissions of any of the Contractor’s Equipment or vehicles are excessive, whether due to poor engine adjustment, low fuel quality, inefficient operating conditions or other rectifiable cause, the Engineer may instruct that such Equipment or vehicles cease operation until adequate corrective actions have been carried out, and the Contractor shall comply with such instruction immediately. 3. Burning of materials resulting from site clearance and grubbing, and burning of combustible construction waste, will only be permitted when atmospheric conditions are considered by the Engineer to be suitable. 4. The Contractor shall take appropriate measures to minimise the generation of dust as a result of his activities, and to prevent dust originating from his operations from causing nuisance or health hazard to persons or animals and from damaging crops and dwellings. For work in confined spaces and for specific activities giving rise to potentially hazardous airborne particulates or fumes these measures shall include a risk assessment and an appropriate response to the assessment to prevent hazards to health, including but not limited to the use of dust extractors, wet drilling, and personal protective equipment. For generalised dust including but not limited to dust from construction traffic, excavations, stockpiles, backfill areas and materials handling, these measures shall include but not be limited to sheeting loads, watering stockpiles and access roads, and the establishment of temporary vegetative cover on soils. 5. The Contractor shall take appropriate measures to avoid the release to the atmosphere of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). All new air-conditioning, refrigeration, freezing and cooling units supplied by the Contractor for use on or off the Site including those in vehicles shall be CFC-free. The Contractor shall include in his workforce a technician trained in and equipped for the maintenance, refilling and recycling of CFC-based and other refrigerants.

3.2.9 Prevention of Noise Pollution and Hazards 1. The Contractor shall take appropriate measures to minimise nuisance to local residents from noise, and in any case shall control or protect against loud sounds so that no workers are subjected to excessive noise. For this purpose excessive noise shall be a daily personal exposure to noise of 85 dB(A) in the sense of the U.K. Noise at Work Regulations 1989. Where in the opinion of the Medical or Safety Officer or the Engineer the daily noise exposure of a worker is likely to exceed this level, the Contractor shall carry out a noise assessment, provide personal protective equipment, control noise at source, designate ear protection zones, and otherwise, all in accordance with best international practice for avoiding damage to workers’ hearing.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 136 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

2. All plant and machinery shall be effectively silenced, and in no case shall the Contractor operate machinery or vehicles with defective or missing silencers, mufflers or exhaust pipes.

3.2.10 Protection of Trees and Vegetation 1. Unless otherwise provided in the Specifications, the Contractor shall ensure that no trees or shrubs or waterside vegetation are felled or harmed except for those required to be cleared for execution of the Works. The Contractor shall protect trees and vegetation from damage to the satisfaction of the Engineer. The Contractor shall be responsible for obtaining any necessary felling permits and for ensuring the disposal of felled trees in accordance with prevailing regulations. No tree shall be removed without the prior approval of the Engineer and any competent authorities. Should the Contractor become aware during the period of the Contract that any tree or trees designated for clearance have cultural or religious significance he shall immediately inform the Engineer and await his instructions before proceeding with clearance. 2. In the event that trees or other vegetation not designated for clearance are damaged or destroyed, they shall be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Engineer.

3.2.11 Protection of Wildlife and Fish 1. The Contractor shall take all practicable steps to prevent his activities from affecting wildlife and fish in the vicinity of the Site. The Contractor shall ensure that his staff and labour do not engage in any unlicensed hunting, shooting, trapping or collecting of any wild animal or bird or in any unlicensed fishing on or near the Site, and shall inform his employees of any rare or endangered species of wildlife which they may come across and that such species are to be protected. These species include all non-domesticated birds, and other species as listed by the EPA or informed by the Engineer. Contravention of these requirements by any member of the workforce shall be grounds for dismissal. 2. Before commencing any process or activity which might affect fish habitat, the Contractor shall formally review his proposed action to determine whether an adjustment to the timing, location or methods employed could reduce potential impacts on such habitat. Such reviews shall form part of the details of methods to be submitted to the Engineer under the General Conditions of Contract Sub-Clause 8.2 (Site Operations and Methods of Construction) and shall cover but not be limited to dredging, installation, operation and removal of pipelines, placement of materials in river and coffer dam removal.

3.2.12 Fire Prevention 1. In addition to the provision of adequate fire-fighting equipment at his base camp and other facilities to the satisfaction of the Engineer, the Contractor shall take all precautions necessary to ensure that no vegetation outside the area of the permanent works is affected by fires arising from the execution of the Works. These precautions shall include: • The prevention of fires for any purpose in the vicinity of the Works except where expressly permitted by the Engineer • The provision of approved fire fighting equipment at points designated by the Engineer. Such equipment will include a minimum of 5 back-pack water-sprayers, 20 flame-beaters, 20 shovels, 10 machetes, and 10 mattocks at each point. 2. Should a fire occur in the crops or natural vegetation to the Works for any reason, the Contractor shall immediately suppress it. In the event of any other fire emergency in the vicinity of the Works the Contractor shall render assistance to the civil authorities to the best of his ability. 3. Areas of damaged by fire considered by the Engineer to have been initiated by the Contractor's staff or labour shall be replanted and otherwise restored to the satisfaction of the Engineer at the Contractor's expense.

3.2.13 Protection of Works from Floods and Tides

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 137 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

1. The Contractor shall take appropriate measures to manage stormwater originating in and flowing across and from the Site so as to avoid causing damage to the works or to other property whether by runoff or flooding or erosion or sedimentation, such property to include fields, water channels, dwellings and other tangible assets. The Contractor shall repair any such damage at his own cost to the satisfaction of the Engineer and pay full compensation to any affected party. 2. The Contractor shall take the action necessary to prevent damage by tides to the Works or to any other property, private and public.

3.2.14 Timber Certificate 1. Any new timber used by the Contractor whether for temporary or permanent purposes shall be rejected by the Engineer unless originating from a concessions licensed by both the GFC and the EPA.

3.2.15 Use of Wood as Fuel 1. The Contractor shall not use or permit the use of wood as a fuel for the execution of any part of the Works and to the extent practicable shall ensure that fuels other than wood are used for cooking, space and water heating in all his camps and living accommodations. Any wood so used must be harvested legally, and the Contractor shall provide the Engineer with copies of the relevant permits if required.

3.3 Health and Safety 3.3.1 Health and Safety Plan (i) General 1. Within one month of his arrival on site the Contractor shall submit a Health and Safety Plan with operational details of his proposals to the Engineer for his approval. The plan shall be based upon the Health and Safety Statement submitted in the Tender. 2. Unless otherwise specified, the cost of all measures needed to comply with this requirement shall be deemed to be included in the Contractor’s rates.

(ii) Aggregate Supply – BoQ item 1. General The Health and Safety Plan shall specifically recognise and make provision for health and safety at all locations from which the Contractor obtains coarse and fine aggregates and other granular materials for the works, whether directly operated by him or not. Particular attention shall be paid to health and safety at labour-intensive operations and shall include but not be limited to the minimisation of hazards, establishment of safe working practices and blasting procedures, provision and use of protective equipment and clothing, provision of first-aid equipment and care, transport of accident victims, and on-site welfare arrangements such as sanitation and drinking water. 2. Corrective Measures Where the Engineer is not satisfied that adequate measures are being taken at any such source of granular materials to ensure appropriate levels of health, safety and welfare he may direct that corrective measures be taken at the Contractor’s expense or reject materials from that source or order an immediate review of the situation by the Health and Safety Committee. 3. Costs of Medical Treatment Before purchasing granular materials from any quarry or borrow pit the Contractor shall ensure that the workforce at that site is adequately covered by insurance for the treatment of accidents and illness arising from their work. Proof of such insurance coverage shall be supplied to the Engineer at his request. 4. Labour Before purchasing granular materials from any quarry or borrow pit the Contractor shall ensure that the conditions of employment of the workforce at that site shall be not less than those required by the relevant legislation in force at the time. He shall pay particular attention to the wages paid to the different classes of workers, hours of work and overtime, retentions, and avoidance of child labour. Where the Engineer is not satisfied that the conditions of employment are adequate he may reject materials from that source.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 138 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

5. Haulage and Construction The provisions of Clause 6.1.4 shall apply to granular materials supplied from quarries and borrow pits not owned and operated by the Contractor as if they were owned and operated by the Contractor.

3.3.2 Accident Prevention Officer and Accidents – BoQ item 1. Due precautions shall be taken by the Contractor to ensure the safety and protection against accidents of all staff and labour engaged on the Works, local residents in the vicinity of the Works, and the public travelling through the Works. 2. The Contractor shall have on his staff on Site a designated full-time officer qualified to promote and maintain safe working practices. This officer shall have authority to issue instructions and shall take protective measures to prevent accidents, including but not limited to the establishment of safe working practices and the training of staff and labour in their implementation. 3. The Contractor shall be responsible for all costs including medical treatment, transport, accommodation etc. incurred by any member of the public or his labour force whether on direct contract or sub-contract as a result of injuries or illness arising from the execution of the Works.

3.3.3 Protective Clothing and Safety Equipment – BoQ item 1. The Contractor shall provide protective clothing and safety equipment to all staff and labour engaged on the Works to the satisfaction of the Engineer. Such clothing and equipment shall include, at a minimum, high visibility vests for workers directing traffic, protective footwear for workmen undertaking concrete mixing work, protective footwear, safety glasses or goggles and filter masks for workmen undertaking screening, crushing or grinding, and otherwise as appropriate to the job in hand and to the Engineer's satisfaction. 2. If the Contractor fails to provide such clothing and equipment the Employer shall be entitled to provide the same and recover the cost from the Contractor.

3.3.4 Medical and First-Aid Facilities – BoQ item 1. The Contractor shall provide and maintain throughout the duration of the Contract, a medical examining room and sick bay together with all necessary supplies and equipment to be sited in the Contractor's main camp. The rooms shall be used exclusively for medical purposes and shall be of good quality construction with electric lighting and otherwise suitable for their purpose. The sick bay shall have at least two beds, and shall be provided with adjacent washing and sanitation facilities. 2. The Contractor shall employ permanently on Site at least one fully trained medical aide, nurse or para-medic who shall be engaged solely for medical duties. 3. The Contractor shall provide first aid equipment at all camps and work sites to the satisfaction of the Engineer, and shall ensure that at all camps and work sites where 40 or more persons are engaged on the Works there shall at all times be a person qualified in first-aid with access to appropriate first-aid equipment. 4. The location of the medical room and other medical and first-aid arrangements shall be made known to all employees by posting suitable notices at prominent locations around the site and by verbal instruction upon recruitment. 5. The Contractor's arrangements for complying with this Section shall be subject to the approval of the Engineer and also to the approval of any qualified Medical Officer designated by the Government to inspect or supervise medical arrangements on the Site.

3.3.5 Supply of Drinking Water, Sanitation – BoQ item 1. The Contractor shall provide on the Site an adequate supply of drinking water for all staff and labour engaged on the Works, together with sanitary facilities (portable toilets or latrines), to the satisfaction of the Engineer. The Contractor shall thoroughly disinfect and fill all latrine pits, sumps and trenches when no longer required.

3.3.6 Health and Safety File

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 139 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

1. On completion of construction work the Contractor shall submit to the Engineer a Health and Safety File. This shall be in both hard copy and digital format and shall be a record of information focusing on health and safety risks specific to the main structures that will need to be dealt with during subsequent maintenance, repair and construction work. 2. The contents of the File will be agreed in advance with the Engineer and may include but not be limited to the As- Built drawings, the design criteria, details of construction methods and materials used, details of the equipment and maintenance facilities within the structure, maintenance procedures and requirements for the structure, manuals produced by specialist suppliers for plant and equipment installed as part of the structure, and details of location of utilities and services, including emergency and fire-fighting systems. 3. The File will contain a summary or introduction which presents the key elements of the File and acts as a guide to where the relevant information is stored.

3.4 Earthworks 3.4.1 General 1. Unless otherwise specified, the cost of all measures needed to comply with these requirements shall be deemed to be included in the Contractor’s rates.

3.4.2 Method of Working 1. At least 14 days prior to commencing excavation in any particular drainage/irrigation channel the Contractor shall submit to the Engineer for approval his intended method of working. In developing his methodology the Contractor shall consult the Water Users Association, the Neighbourhood Democratic Council, and the Engineer if necessary, to ensure that agricultural, social and technical factors are taken fully into account. This shall include but not be restricted to: • Sequence and method of excavation • Conservation of topsoil • Location and means of disposal • Location of any stockpiles • Location of disposal sites approved in advance by the Engineer. Note The Engineer's approval of any spoil disposal site shall not in any way relieve the Contractor of his responsibility, inter alia, for land acquisition, provision of temporary access, works preparatory to spoiling, management of the spoiling operation, and making good after completion of spoiling. 2. No earthworks will be permitted until the method of working for that particular area has been approved by the Engineer in writing.

3.4.3 Clearing and Grubbing 1. Clearing operations shall be strictly limited to the area to be occupied by the permanent works and approved borrow areas and quarries unless otherwise directed or approved by the Engineer. Clearing operations shall only be undertaken immediately prior to the commencement of the Works in the area concerned. 2. Subject to the provisions of the Conditions of Contract all materials arising from Site Clearance which are surplus to or unsuitable for use in the Works shall become the property of the Employer and shall be disposed of by the Contractor either off the Site to an approved disposal area, or on the Site in an approved manner as directed by the Engineer.

3.4.4 Conservation of Topsoil 1. Where shown on the Drawings or directed by the Engineer the Contractor shall remove topsoil. The depth of the topsoil to be stripped shall be as directed by the Engineer. Where directed by the Engineer the Contractor shall, prior to removal of topsoil, excavate trial holes of a sufficient depth to enable the Engineer to measure the depth of topsoil. Topsoil shall be stripped and stockpiled in locations safe from erosion, mixing with other materials, or

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 140 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

compaction by construction traffic. The Contractor shall maintain a record of the volume and location of topsoil stockpiles.

3.4.5 Disposal of Sediment 1. Options Sediment excavated or dredged from drainage and irrigation channels shall be disposed of by spreading on adjacent field, spreading along the top of the respective dam, at a spoil disposal site, or by a combination of these options. Note Spoil shall not be permanently deposited on the formation or surface of an access road. 2. [Exceptionally, sediment containing more that the allowable minimum of pesticide residue shall be removed to an approved toxic waste disposal site. Note More to be added once the scope of any potential problem has been identified.]

3.4.6 Disposal of Vegetation 1. Normal disposal of vegetation is to the channel banks, where the weeds shall be spread and allowed to dry out and decompose. 2. In cases where it is envisaged that the quantity of vegetation will be too great for this means of disposal, the Contractor shall propose a suitable alternative in his Method of Working for consideration by the Engineer. 3. Clearance of woody vegetation shall be minimised, but when necessary, disposal shall be by piling, drying and burning. Any useable timber shall be removed prior to burning, for local use.

3.4.7 Turfing and Sowing Grass 1. Turf used for turfing shall be freshly cut grass sods of rectangular form and at least 50 mm thick, or similar cohesive blocks of topsoil interlaced with live grass roots capable of growth, to the satisfaction of the Engineer. 2. Grass seed used for sowing grass shall be a mixture of different species of grass and legumes having horizontal as well as vertical rooting systems. The Contractor shall propose his mixture to the Engineer for approval. 3. Both turf and grass seed shall be of species appropriate to the specific planting site. 4. Turfing and sowing grass shall be measured in square metres of covered slope surface completed, established as a uniform complete and vigorous layer, and accepted by the Engineer. 5. Turfing and sowing grass shall be carried out as shown on the Drawings or directed by the Engineer. 6. The area to be planted shall have been previously constructed to the required slopes and cross section. The surface of the area shall be loosened, freed of all stones larger than 50 mm, sticks, stumps and any undesirable foreign matter and brought to a friable texture to a depth of not less than 50 mm for receiving the plants. 7. Where directed by the Engineer topsoil shall be spread over the area to be planted. Topsoil shall be material stripped and stockpiled under Clause 6.4.4 of these Particular Specifications or as otherwise approved by the Engineer. Prior to placing the topsoil the area shall be scarified to a depth of 50 mm or as directed by the Engineer. Topsoil shall be spread to a uniform thickness of 75 mm or as directed by the Engineer. Topsoil shall not be spread when the ground is excessively wet. 8. Turfing: the prepared bed shall be moistened to the loosened depth, if not already sufficiently moist, and the turf shall be placed thereon to form an unbroken mat as soon as practicable after cutting. 9. Sowing Grass: the prepared bed shall be moistened to the loosened depth, if not already sufficiently moist, and fertilised if necessary. The approved grass seed mixture shall be spread evenly on the bed at an appropriate rate and raked in or covered with a thin layer of soil. After sowing the soil shall be lightly compacted with hand tampers. 10. Following turfing or sowing grass the planted areas shall be given all attention necessary until well established to encourage growth, including as applicable fertilisation, watering, trimming, fencing, the erection of signs and protection from livestock and trafficking. Watering shall be done so as to avoid erosion and wheel damage.

Areas failing to show uniform growth or that are damaged shall be replanted at the Contractor's expense and maintained until acceptance by the Engineer.

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 141 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Annex 7 Photos

1. Fact finding – February/March 2007 2. Rural setting – September 2007

3. Cotton harvest 4. Melon sale

5. Big Ferghana Canal in Rishtan raion 6. Field level irrigation canal alongside cotton fields, road and Kokhand-Ferghana railway line

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 142 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

7. Artesian well 8. Neglected drainage collector -providing marginal wildlife habitat-, alongside brick making activities

9. Neglected drainage collector, excavated soil, and 10. Field irrigation canal crossing drainage collector orchard

12. Waterlogging, i.e. groundwater level at field surface

11. Mixing of drainage (left) with irrigation waters

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 143 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

13. Salt formation (not frost or snow!) on agricultural field 14. Waterlogging and salt formation in garden – March 2007

15. Bank erosion underneath bridge over drainage 16. Undersized drainage collector culvert underneath Big collector Ferghana Canal, north of Rishtan town

17. Bank erosion in drainage collector 18. Altiarik Oil Processing Plant

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 144 Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1) / Environmental Assessment

Annex 8 Colophon

Project Title Preparation of the Ferghana Valley Water Resources Management Project (Phase 1), Uzbekistan

Project Financing Agency World Bank

Project Contact Person Mahwash Wasiq

Study Environmental Assessment

Study Financing Agency Project Implementation Unit, Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources

Beneficiary Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources

Beneficiary Contact Person Project Implementation Unit B.A. Yusupov

Study Manager Wandert Benthem

Deputy Study Manager Gulchekhra Khasankhanova

Final EA Ferghana Valley project 9.3.09 (ENG) 145