International Year of Sanitation Presentation

Protection of Water Against Nitrate Pollution

Protocol on Water and Health 2006

Protocol on Water and Health

Joint Report Regional Wash Conference

Joint Report Sanitation Status

Documents from Bulgaria:

Access to Drinking Water and Sanitation G. Bardarska

CEHAPE Regional Priority Goal 1

Environment at a Glance Ukraine

Europe's Sanitation Problem

Sanitation is a Priority Presentation

Sanitation Profile Bulgaria

Stockholm Water Week 2008

Suatainable Sanitation for Rural Bulgaria

Достъп до информация за водите

ЕкоСан в България

План за управление на околна среда

Проект на Стратегия за устойчиво развитие на Република България

Стратегия за развитие на ВиК услугите на територията на Столична Община

Закон за регулиране на водоснабдителните и канализационни услуги

Национална стратегия за управление и развитие на водния сектор

Защо е важно да пестим вода

Documents from Kyrgyzstan:

Hygiene and Sanitation Rural Areas Kyrgyzstan 2008

Kyrgyzstan 2007

Policy Framework for Wnvironment and Sustainable Development Kyrgyzstan

Safe and Profitable Toilets

Safe Water and Sanitation

Suatainable Sanitation Otabek Bozarbaev

Swiss Development Cooperation in Water Sector

Проект по Гигиене и Санитарии в Сельской местности: 4, 5, 6

Сельский Проект Гигиены и Санитарии

Проект по Гигиене и Санитарии в Сельской Местности

Kонтрольный перечень вопросов при приемке туалетов

Сельское водопроводно -
канализационное хозяйство в
Кыргызской Республики

Безопасные и выгодные туалеты

Руководство по проектированию  санитарных сооружений

Стратегия Швейцарии по Центральной Азии в секторе водопользования на 2002 – 2006

Сельские бани и здоровье

Documents from Ukraine:

Heat Water Sanitation Ukraine

National Plans for Financing Water and Sanitation

Right to Water and Sanitation

Role of NGOs for Water and Sanitation

Rural Water and Sanitation Ukraine

Sanitation and Epidemiology

Urban Water and Sanitation Management

Water and Sanitation Coverage Ukraine

Water and Sanitation Planning

Water Supply and Sanitation Ukraine Vladimir Kuznyetsov

Вода, санітарія і гігієна для всіх

Опитът на Мама Мама--86’’ за въвеждане на сухи разделящи урината тоалетни в Украйна

Ефективно управление на канализационната
система

Documents from Uzbekizstan:

Access to Sanitation

Hygienic Aspects of Sanitation Uzbekistan Vietnam

Sanitation Profile Uzbekistan

Uzbekistan Case Study

Uzbekistan Policy of Water Management and Usage Presentation

Water and Sanitation Coverage Uzbekistan

Water and Sanitation for Schools Uzbekistan

Water Supply and Sanitation Uzbekistan

Water Critical Resource for Uzbekistan Future

Water Sanitation Hygiene Aral Sea Area

WB Status of Contracts Uzbekistan 2007

Всемирный Банк в Центральной Азии

Water - Critical Resource for Uzbekistan’s Future:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Вода - жизненно важный ресурс для будущего Узбекистана: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Сув - Ўзбекистон келажаги учун муҳим ҳаётий ресурс: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

WASH coalition in Bulgaria:

WSSCC National Coordinator: Diana Iskreva-Idigo
Executive Director Earth Forever, Bulgaria

Tel./Fax: +359 42 63 46 41
www.earthforever.org

diskreva@earthforever.org

WASH coalition in Kyrgyzstan:

WSSCC National coordinator: Zura Mendikulova

513 Frunze Street Apt. 5 Bishkek,Kyrgyzstan
Tel.: 996 312 215 853
zura1958@yahoo.com

WASH coalition in Ukraine:

WSSCC National coordinator: Anna Tsvietkova
Water and Sanitation Programme Coordinator
National Environmental NGO MAMA - 86

4 Yangel Academician Str., apt.126,
Kyiv 03057, Ukraine
Tel.: + 38 044 456 1338
Fax:+ 38 044 453 4796
atsvet@mama-86.org.ua

www.mama-86.org.ua

WASH coalition in Uzbekizstan

WSSCC National coordinator: Oral Ataniyazova

P. O. Box 27, ul. Sharafa Rashidova 39a, 742012 Nukus, Karakalpakstan, Uzbekistan
atoral@yandex.ru

Sanitation situation in Uzbekistan

Uzbekistan faces major problems in water supply and sanitation coverage. High  rates of infectious diseases, especially among children, reflect poverty, and poor access to water and sanitation facilities (see, for example, World Bank reports 1997, 2002, 2003; IMF, Uzbekistan, Recent Economic Developments 2000; UNICEF report, Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2000; Landenbrunner et al. 2002).

Uzbek government, supported by international financial organisations has made its major task to improve water and sanitation in the country. Rehabilitation and technical assistance projects address empowerment of local governments and local communities to manage water suppliers and away from centralized government agencies. The projects inspire institutional reforms and opens the doors for private sector in water and sanitation services.


Discharge of University

Private sector participation is the most popular modern trends in the development of water supply economics. It is disputable though whether privatisation can improve service quality, reduce water and sewage spillage, accelerate repair rates, remove water shortages and stabilize water pressure. It is well-knrivatization own that privatisation is a foundation for price increase and enforcement of service payment, possibly resulting in excluding the poor from water and sewage utilities.

After achieving the independence, water and sanitation sector was identified as one of highest priority in various program documents of the Uzbek government.

In 1998, the National Environmental Action Plan identified three broad pillars for environmental policy actions, addressing a number of priorities included:

  • Mitigation of environmental health impacts: a) drinking water and sanitation; b) municipal and hazardous waste management; c) integration of air pollution concerns into transport policies; d) phasing out leaded gasoline; e)improvement of food quality; f) prevention of industrial pollution; and g) improving the environmental performance of the energy sector, development and introduction of renewable energy sources (solar, water, wind, biogas, etc.).
  • Improved use of land and water resources: a) reforming the agricultural sector; b) diversifying crop structure; c) increasing land productivity; d) better maintenance of irrigation and drainage networks; e) development of integrated land, water and salinity management; f) promoting watershed management approach on a pilot basis; and g) improving the economic mechanism of environmental protection and use of natural resources.
  • Regional and global environmental problems: a) biodiversity conservation and desertification control; b) improving protected area management; c) development and implementation of a regional water resource management strategy for the Aral Sea basin; and d) joining multilateral conventions and developing domestic mechanisms for compliance.
  • The State Committee on Environmental Protection had identified the following priorities:

  • Economic instruments for environmental and natural resource management;
  • Water quality management in transboundary water courses;
  • Renewable energy;
  • Recovery and treatment of waste and persistent organic pollutants.
  • Formulating the national MDGs, Uzbek government aims toimplement strategies to achieve tangible improvements in improving living standards in Uzbekistan by 2010. Based on the evidence, rural development deserves the greatest attention from government and development donors.

    Most interested for the water and sanitation perspectives is the formulation of Target 9 and 10 of the National MDGs:

  • Target 9: Integrate the Principles of Sustainable Development into Country Policies and Programs and Reverse the Loss of Environmental resources by 2015, and
  • Target 10: Increase the share of Urban and Rural Population with Access to an Improved water Source and Sanitation by 2015.

    EcoSan School Toilet
  • The problem of the Aral Sea is defined as the biggest environmental challenge for Uzbekistan. By the late 1990s, the Aral Sea had reportedly lost 90 per cent of its volume.

    The government of Uzbekistan has developed and adopted a number of strategic documents to address environmental challenges:

  • National Environmental Action Plan;
  • State Program for Environmental Protection and the Rational Use of Natural Resources;
  • National Strategy and Action Plan for Biodiversity Conservation;
  • National Action Program to Combat Desertification;
  • Decree to strengthen agriculture reforms;
  • National Strategy on Renewable Energy.
  • The government of Uzbekistan has developed and adopted a number of strategic documents to address environmental challenges:

  • National Environmental Health Action Plan;
  • State Program on Provision of Rural Population with Drinking Water and Natural Gas for the period 2000-2010;
  • National Waste Management and Action Plan;
  • The UN system and other donors are active in the field of water resources management.
  • The principal source of water has historically been the Amu Darya and Syr Darya rivers and their associated irrigation canals, augmented by groundwater in areas far from the rivers. Since the 1960s, increasing use of the Amu Darya and Syr Darya rivers for agriculture, particularly cotton growing, has resulted in greatly reduced volumes of water entering the Aral Sea and excessive contamination from leached salts and agricultural chemicals. The diversion of water from the Aral Sea was an ecological disaster.

    The water industry in Uzbekistan is an example of a state monopoly. A number of different government agencies and ministries have responsibility for the provision of water and sewage services in Uzbekistan. Two separate departments of the Ministry of Communal Services, one for the municipal water and sewage agencies  (Vodokanal) and one for the inter-regional trunk pipeline agencies, are in charge of overall supervision and management, including sector planning and regulatory aspects.

    Water and sewage services in Uzbek rural areas fall within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Agriculture, which oversees and coordinates the activities of the  regional rural water agencies (Agrovodokanals) through its department of Agrovodokanals.

    In the past, the central authorities in Uzbek capital of Tashkent control the entire activities associated with the production and distribution of water. In the period of transition, responsibility for overseeing the distribution of water was delegated to the provincial level, with the central government still overseeing all aspects of the treatment and transport of surface water from large reservoirs, including its delivery to distributing agencies.

    The inter-regional water supply pipeline systems are managed by separate entities and responsible for operating the main water supply pipelines and  water treatment plants and sell the piped water to the Vodocanals and Agrovodokanals, which distribute the water secondary and tertiary networks to domestic, industrial, and commercial consumers. The Vodokanals operate and maintain water supply and treatment facilities and pumping stations. Capital investment for the construction of main pipelines and for the distribution and treatment facilities is provided from the central government budget, and the operation and maintenance costs of the bulk water agencies are also highly subsidized by the central government. Highly subsidized  water supplied provides a pervasive incentive for the Vodocanals to source their water supply from these pipelines, rather than operating their own local facilities.

    The deepest problems lay not only in the management arrangement but in the lack of basic adequate installation and operation systems which leads to low water use efficiency.

    46% of the population does not have access to running water in their own dwelling or have their own well at national level; 12 percent of the population relies on untreated water from rivers and canals. The low level of access to water and  sewerage in the country is especially evident in the rural areas. It is a major reason for the high prevalence of childhood diarrheal diseases, gastrointestinal infections, viral hepatitis, and typhoid outbreaks. The number of people diagnosed with hepartitis in Uzbekistan in 1996 was three times higher than the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) average and 26 times higher than the European Union average.

    Expansion of the cotton crop, diversions of water flows, and use of fertilizers and pesticides have led to water pollution and soil degradation and have contributed to the poor and declining quality of drinking water particularly in rural areas. The salinization of the land and extensive use of pesticides may also pose hazards. Water supplying companies experience water scarcity, especially during drought periods.

    To date the government of Uzbekistan supported by many international organizations such as the World Bank, IMF missions have undertaken several projects aimed to improve water supply and sanitation service: Water Supply, Sanitation and Health, implemented from 2002 to 2007; Bukhara and Samarkand Water Supply is under implementation, etc. In December 2008, Uzbek government announced the start up of two other large projects in water and sanitation area.


    Sanitation situation in Karakalpakstan

    The Republic of Uzbekistan is a semi-arid country, Once had a large-scale heavy industrial producer, today Uzbek agriculture is the dominant economic activity in the country. Only 10 percent of the land is cultivated, yet the country is the world's third largest exporter of cotton.

    Agriculture in Uzbekistan depends almost entirely on irrigation. The Amu Darya and Syr Darya river systems provide 95 percent of the water for irrigation. In 1954 with the completion of two canals, the rivers were diverted entirely for agriculture. This accelerated the decline of the Aral Sea. The sea that used to be the world's fourth largest inland body of water with a fishing industry employing 60 000 people and a thriving tourist trade is nowadays biologically dead and has shrunk by approximately 70 percent in volume and 50 percent in area. Fishing town such as Muynak are now 60 kilometers inland.

    The Republic of Karakalpakstan is located entirely in this deteriorated part of the Aral Sea Basin.

    By mid 1960s, potable water quality and quantity in the area had decreased to such an extent that alternative water sources were needed. A dam was built about 400 km with a reservoir of 2 340 million cubic meters providing water for irrigation and drinking. Pumping is responsible for about 55 percent of total costs given the long distance, the lack of intermediate pumping stations, and the 310m increase in altitude. This reservoir provides 85 percent of the potable water in Karakalpakstan.

    The shortages of funds in the period of transition led to inadequate maintenance and a lack of essential operating supplies such as chlorine. Piped water supply is limited to several hours a day in many settlements. In the larger distribution networks, system pressures are roughly half the optimal pressure as the distribution systems are old and corroded.

    There are approximately 2.2 million inhabitants in the area mostly damaged by the Aral Seadegradation: 59 percent have access to piped water systems. In rural areas, the most common form of water supply is the hand pump; both coverage and quality are inadequate with the average of 59 people sharing a single hand pump. The ground water in many areas is salty.

    In the last decade of the previous century, the infant mortality rate for Uzbekistan was 44 deaths per 1 000 births. In the Aral Sea basin, the infant mortality rate was even higher: 51. Maternal mortality rates in the Aral Sea area double those in the rest of Uzbekistan. Respiratory ailments, hepatitis and acute intestinal diseases are all prevalent.

    The water sector of Karakalpakstan and Khorezm Oblast is organized around two bulk water providers, Tuyamuyan-Nukus and Tuyamuyan-Urgench. They supply approximately 85 percent of the potable water for via four distribution companies. Two agencies (Vodokanals) distribute water to the urban areas of Karakalpakstan and Khorezm Oblast. Two separate agencies (Agrovodokanals) distribute water to the rural areas of Karakalpakstan and Khorezm Oblast.

    bulk water supply is supported by large government subsidies due to high pumping costs and a wide-spread poverty. The two bulk water suppliers covered only 15 percent of their operating costs with tariff revenues in 1995. The water distributing agencies to some extent covered their cost of operation and to a limited extent the cost of maintenance. Given the limited payment capacity of the population, it is doubtful, whether tariff levels can be raised to cover all operating and maintenance costs.Analysis of the situation proved that water demand management and leakage reduction programs were to be addressed rather than increased water production. For rural sanitation, improved on-site facilities proved to be a more economic alternative than creating or expanding centralized, water-borne sewerage systems in the condition of low population density.

    In 1996 a 100 million USD project was innitiated by the Uzbek government in Karakalpakstan and Khorezin Oblast with the main goal to improve water supply and distribution (68 percent of total base cost): replacement or rehabilitation where appropriate sections of the distribution systems in Karakalpakstan and Khorezm Oblast; sanitation, health and hygiene; technical assistance; and project management, design and supervision. Other project components included: rehabilitation and expansion of 2 water treatment plants; rehabilitation of 5 ground water sources; building of additional trunk pipelines in Karakalpakstan; rehabilitationof the rural distribution centers in Karakalpakstan and Khorezm Oblast. Additional to this, the project covered also provision of spare parts for about 300 desalinization units in Karakalpakstan as well as training for the operators of the desalinization plants; rehabilitation and development of ground water sources in Karakalpakstan and Khorezm Oblast; expansion of demand-based rural water supplies in
    Karakalpakstan and Khorezm Oblast; metering trials to test different approaches to metering water usage along with a consumer awareness program to provide practical advice on means of reducing losses and optimizing water use; funds to implement the most economic means of leakage reduction; installation of hand washing facilities in selected households, schools, primary health care services, canteens and public places in selected collective farms; provision of around 7,500 improved latrines and handwashing facilities, covering about 5 percent of the rural population in both regions; health promotion and education activities; improvement of water quality monitoring, and sanitation and hygiene inspection of households and communal facilities.

    The project provides basis for institutional strengthening of water utilites: a program for carrying out regularly preventive maintenance; a program for monitoring and reducing operating costs; a program for reduction and management of accounts receivable; design and operation of a utility accounting system, including cost accounting; and in-house and foreign training programs. These programs include consultancy services and training of trainers.

    Another project component would deal with financement of a water and sewerage tariff study for the introduction of new water and sewerage tariff rates for the various consumer groups.

    An integral part of the project was community participation in selecting and implementing water supply improvements. Using a demand-based approach, communities selected various options (hand pumps, piped water supply, desalinization, etc.) based on their willingness to pay for the improved water supply. Communities were expected to cover the full operations and maintenance cost of the schemes which designed and costed with the participation of the selected communities according to the level of service they choose. Community Water User Associations were formed to represent the communities in negotiations with the contractors for project implementation and operation.

    Through the program of technical assistance, the project was meant to lead to substantial improvements in operations and maintenance of the water agencies, and increased sustainability of the water sector in Karakalpakstan and Khorezm Oblast. To what extent financial sustainability can be achieved will remain to be seen. In many parts of the project area, up to 90 percent of household cash income is used to buy food. The political will to significantly increase water tariffs for domestic customers is also not present.

    Earth Forever
    WSSCC
    Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council WSSCC
    WSSCC
    Earth Forever home home
    Bulgaria
    Kyrgyzstan
    Ukraine
    Uzbekizstan