CBA implementation in Kazakhstan

1
CBA implementation in Kazakhstan
Stanislav Kim, Svetlana Dolgikh Kingston, 3 July
2009
2
Observed changes in temperature in Kazakhstan
for the period 1936-2005
?
A annual temperature 0,26 ?C C/ per
10 years B winter temperature 0,44 ?C/per
10 years C summer temperature 0,14 ?C/per
10 years
B
C
3
Observed changes in precipitation in Kazakhstan
for the period 1936-2005
Annual total precipitation
Summer total precipitation
4
Changes in summer temperature and total
precipitation averaged over Kazakhstan expected
according to the different GHG emissions scenarios
temperature
Precipitation
5
Changes in mean annual temperature and annual
total precipitation averaged over Kazakhstan
expected according to the different GHG emissions
scenarios
temperature
precipitation
6
Climate change impacts in Kazakhstan

• Depending on GHG emission scenario, impacts are
  likely to include
• Temperature rise According to the medium GHG
  emission scenario (?-50) the expected change of
  average annual temperature will be
• by 2030 1.4?? (ranging from 1.3 to 1.9??)
• by 2050 2.7?? (ranging from 2.3 to 3.5??)
• by 2085 4.6?? (ranging from 3.8 to 5.9??).

7
Degradation of glaciers
Cumulative mass balance of Central Tyeksu glacier
for 1957-2006
8
Main features and impacts of expected climate
change

• Increase in seasonal temperature
• Increase in winter total precipitation and
  decrease in summer total precipitation
• Increase in warm spell duration and drought
  frequency
• Increase in portion of extreme events of
  precipitation (soil erosion)
• intensification of aridity in most part
  Kazakhstan
• Period with snow cover will decrease.
• Glaciers are projected to continue their
  widespread retreat during the 21st century in
  Kazakhstan, most of glaciers could melt to the
  end of the 21st century.
• Most of Kazakhstans rivers have glacier and snow
  water supply.
• Decrease in rivers flow on the plains as well as
  in mountain regions with small rivers
• Changes in within-year variability of mountain
  rivers flow
• increase during spring-early summer period as
  result of glacier melting water increase
• significant decrease during summer period.

9
Climate Change Impact in Kazakhstan
Changes in precipitation and the shift of natural
zones Rainfall isohyets are projected to move
northwards by as much as 200-300km, depending on
GHG emission scenario, and evapotranspiration
zones are expected to move northwards by a
similar amount. This will lead to increased
aridity throughout the country. Also the bulk of
precipitation decreases are expected to occur
during the summer which is the main growing
season.
10
Temperature rise, reduction of precipitation, and
shifting ecological zones will likely lead to the
following impacts

• Decreased resilience in rangeland vegetation and
  increasing risks of land degradation from
  livestock production
• Intensified wind and water erosion from
  increasingly intense winds and rainfall events
• Changes in the floristic diversity of rangelands
  and reduction of forage nutritive quality for
  both wild and domesticated animals
• Increased land degradation as livestock
  producers may become forced to increase of load
  on increasingly limited watered and
  higher-potential pastures
• Increasing rates of decomposition, leading to
  lower humus accumulation capacities in arable
  lands.

11
CBA Kazakhstan 2008-2009
The objective of the CBA program in Kazakhstan is
to implement the principles of sustainable
community management of natural resources in the
face of climate change.

• The Kazakhstans CBA program will focus on
  initiatives that will make a contribution towards
  securing global environmental benefits in land
  degradation area.
• Adaptation to climate change will entail
  adjustments to existing and introduction of
  new, climate resilient natural resource
  management practices in the agricultural, water,
  and livestock sectors.

12
CBA Kazakhstan projects localization
13
CBA Kazakhstan portfolio Demonstration projects

• Sadu Shakirova community- water and pasture
  management
• Lepsy community- pasture management
• Arnasai community- arable land management
• Sharkyn community- forest belts, pasture
  management
• Mukan Tubebaev community- forest and pasture
  management
• Zhuldyz community- pasture management

USD 291 140
14
Mukan Tubebaev community- forest and pasture
management
May 2009
15
Arnasai community- arable land management
June 2009
16
CBA Kazakhstan portfolioPlanning grants

• Kargaly community- pasture management
• Matybulak community- pasture management
• Priozernoe community- arable land management
• Burevestnik community- water management

17
GEF SGP Kazakhstan approach for CBA implementation

• Cooperation with partners for conducting of
  training and information dissemination
  activities(John Deer Company, Institute of Grain
  Production, Local Authorities, CIMMIT,
  KazAgroUnion, SGP granters and etc)
• Involving of experts (including former NSC
  members) to help LCs and NGOs to formulate ideas
  according to CBA requirements and in VRAs
  conducting

18
Difference from SGP grant process

• CBA is separate portfolio from regular SGP
• CBA work geographical localization in 2 zones
• Linked only with one 1 GEF thematic LD
• Need to do extra efforts for program objective
  and approaches (VRA and etc.)explanation to all
  category of stakeholders (scientists, LCs, NGOs
  and etc)
• Need to involve outside experts to help LCs
  formulate their ideas
• Need to have technical clearance from CBA HQ
  and correspondent high translation cost and delays

19
Challenges

• Low activeness of potential applicants because
  of
• 1/1co-financing requirements
• not clear understating what type of activities
  are adaptation, which one are not
• Difficult to achieve tangible results in project
  life time (VRA )
• Due to continental climate ordinary people (LCs)
  are not believe in CC risk
• There is no state support in CC and adaptation
  area
• Limited number of qualified experts who ready to
  cooperate.

20
Lessons learned

• Active work with former SGP granters is
  helpful
• With limited administrative budget cooperation
  with different parties is critically important
• CBA HQ support is needed
• Need to correct VRA methodology in order to use
  it for effective monitoring of changes in limited
  project life time
• Without outside expert consultation LCs cannot
  formulate appropriate projects
• On line volunteers are helpful but need to be
  duplicate by normal specialists