Water Institutional Reforms in Kyrgyzstan - The Politics of Water Institutional Reform in Neopatrimonial States - page 96

To modernize the decision making system in order to overcome bureaucracy and
corruption;
To make participation of civil society and user groups a basis for effective water
management;
To make rehabilitation of infrastructure a priority in order to enhance effectiveness;
To differentiate the payment for water usage in the long term;
To reduce state funding in the long term;
To strengthen state bodies for control, protection, and monitoring;
To foster capacities and qualifications of staff and users by targeted programs (MISI,
FES 2003).
We see that the draft NWS addresses many issues of good water governance and indicates
clear requirements for water institutional reform. However, this draft was never approved. In
order to understand why, we will now take a closer look at the process of its formulation.
The National Committee on Water Strategy was established by the President in 1996/97.
It consists of experts from different ministries and agencies as well as scholars. The Interna
tional Institute for Strategic Studies under the President (MISI) was authorized to coordinate
the committee, which is chaired by the Prime Minister. Though characterized as a “think tank”
by some authors (Hassan et al 2004: 12; Herrfahrdt et al. 2006: 52), the working group does
not seem to have been working as team. Rather, the atmosphere in the group was described as
difficult and tense without real coordination. The DepVodKhoz drafted the basic proposals for
the NWS, which were the “Primary Suggestions of a National Strategy for the Usage of Water
Resources” in 1998 and the “Primary Concepts for a National Water Strategy (first draft)” in
2001 (Mamatkanov 2003: 101). Other documents included the “Conception of the Complex
Use and Protection of the Water Resources of the Kyrgyz Republic” developed by the Insti
tute of Water Problems and Hydropower (IWP&HP), as well as materials and documents from
international projects. The process of development and discussion is described as tedious due
to the numerous contradictions between ministries and agencies, at the national as well as the
international level. It did not succeed in reaching final consensus. In 2002, the chair of the
commission, the Prime Minister, was instructed to “bring it to an end”. 116
Subsequently, with support of the German Friedrich Ebert Foundation (FES), two
Round Table discussions were organized on 10/21/2002 and 01/21/2003. They were attended
by representatives of the Parliament, the Foreign Ministry, the DepVodKhoz , the Ministry of
Ecology and Emergency Situations ( MEChS ), the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Finance,
the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, the National Security Service, the State Agency on
Energetics, the State Agency on Geology and Minerals, the JSC “Power Stations”, the National
Academy of Sciences, and the Center for Transfer of Technology (MISI, FES 2003: 3). The
evolving version of the National Water Strategy was subsequently published in the summer of
2003 by MISI and FES (MISI, FES 2003). Since then, it has awaited its adoption by the gov
ernment and Parliament. This is reportedly blocked because one member of the committee is
against it and the government is waiting for his positive reaction. 117 So the process of the Na
tional Water Strategy has not been finalized. Two interviewees in 2004 consequently stated that
there would be no water policy at all: “We do not have a domestic policy to solve the water
problem” 118 and “There is no water policy, because water policy should be defined in a nation
116 Author's interview with a water expert at the MISI, Bishkek, 09/16/2003.
117 Author's interview with a local representative of an international NGO, Bishkek, 09/27/2004.
118 „ “. Author's interview with a local representative of
an international NGO, Bishkek, 09/27/2004.