Lessons on cooperation building to manage water conflicts in the Aral Sea Basin; Technical documents in hydrology: pc-cp series; Vol.: 11; 2003

2.5.6. Elaboration of Joint Interstate Projects 
Starting from 1993, the ICWC together with representatives of IBRD prepared a set of 
programs (seven in all), which comprised nineteen different projects. This range of 
immediate projects was approved by the heads of state (decision of January 11 1994) 
and introduced to the first meeting of donors in Paris on June 1994. Although the 
meeting approved this “Program of Concrete Actions,” which had a total cost of US$41 
million, its implementation began with just the EU “WARMAP” project and the World 
Bank’s “Principal Provisions of Water Strategy of the Aral Sea Basin.” 
These two projects, which were chiefly organized by local specialists in 
collaboration with foreign consultants, enabled the technical staff of the WMOs from 
the five states to organize exchanges of opinion at roundtables and to prepare reports 
for development of new technology, which combined local and western approaches to 
water management. The most important parts of these projects were the information 
system (WARMIS), field survey and demonstration plots (WUFMAS), and “principal 
provisions of regional water strategy.” It became possible to introduce an effective 
collaborative style of work and create the framework for future development. 
Similar mutual, but less effective, projects were implemented by USAID (EPT 
project, EPIC project) in the fields of modeling, water–power relations, and so. The 
low efficiency of those projects stemmed from the low involvement of local initiatives 
and knowledge, and from lack of orientation towards practical results. 
A number of other projects were implemented that were significantly smaller 
than those of USAID in financial terms (≈ $US0.2–1.5 thousand). These were 
generally organized on the basis of programs and contents decided by local specialists 
27 

---

(the SIC and BWOs), with the assistance of sponsors: CIDA, SDC, NATO, INCO-
Copernicus, and others. The advantages of this kind of approach are the following: 
● direct connections with the implementing agency, which participates in 
preparation of projects 
● 
high efficiency of investments thanks to the low labor cost of local staff 
● 
ability to use western “knowledge” not in theory but to assist the real work of 
local specialists 
● 
orientation of the project to a principal goal that is of interest to the region 
● 
different states working on one project develop shared viewpoints and mutual 
commitment to the project.