Water Institutional Reforms in Kyrgyzstan - The Politics of Water Institutional Reform in Neopatrimonial States - page 98

competencies of Parliament, government, and local authorities. The main differences between
this and the previous one are that the sovereign Kyrgyz Republic is now solely responsible for
and has ownership of the water resources (§ 5); the introduction of economic mechanisms of
water usage, such as the payment for the service of water delivery (excluding the agrarian sec
tor) and for sewage discharge (§ 39); and the possibility to lease water facilities (§ 39).
The law is basically a framework law providing guidelines that would have required con
crete bylaws and enforcement mechanisms. These, however, were missing until the time it was
replaced. It was considered to be weak and neglecting important aspects of the new conditions
but rather still reflecting the old Soviet style of management. It lacked clear assignments of
competences to certain agencies and mechanisms for coordination and consultation among
them. Additionally, important regulations were absent. These included provisions for the per
formance of inspections and keeping registers on licenses as well as regulations on flood con
trol or glacier monitoring. Increasingly, there were contradictions with laws issued subsequent
ly (Dzhajlobaev 2003: 69; Tursunaliev 2002). Some amendments and changes to the law were
made in order to improve the situation. This, however, led to more than 40 laws concerning
water, which were partly still from Soviet times, and partly new ones, which were often contra
dictory. Out of all these reasons there was a general agreement that the legislation is unsatisfac
tory and that a new, sound water law is needed.
This discontent led to the development of a new Water Code that was approved by the
Zhogorku Kenesh (Parliament) on January 12, 2005. The Water Code is a collection of legal doc
uments aimed at providing the legal basis for the reform of water policy. Its main changes
opposite the old Law “On Water” are:
Administration along hydrographic principle (§ 5 and others);
Legal regulations for contracts on water delivery and right to water for 15 years (§ 34
and others);
Establishment of a National Water Council ( Natsionalnyy Sovet po Vode ) to coordinate
all activities in the water sector, develop a National Water Strategy as well as laws,
policy recommendations, and implementation mechanisms (§ 9);
Establishment of a State Water Administration to be in charge of water management
and I&D activities (§ 11);
Participation of stakeholders in basin councils (§ 10). 122
The Water Code aims to overcome administrative fragmentation by establishing a water man
agement structure oriented toward hydrographic principles. It provides more detailed prescrip
tions for important aspects that were unclear before, such as competencies of different state
bodies, contracts on water delivery, ownership questions of water facilities, and prosecution in
the case of violation. It includes mechanisms for user participation and it defines water rights
for the first time.
However, Kyrgyz water experts view the Water Code skeptically at least, sometimes they
even totally object to it. 123 Apart from representatives of the concerned ministries, who mainly
held a neutral view, none of the experts interviewed had a positive opinion of it. As reasons
have been mentioned that the Water Code would be too blurry, a framework without concrete
norms (especially as long as it is not supplemented with concrete bylaws, implementation me
chanisms etc.). Old laws would be annulled before providing concrete new regulations and
mechanisms, causing a legal vacuum. Also, its prospects for realization were highly questioned.
Finally, another point of criticism was that it involved no directives on international water
122 See Vodnyy kodeks Kyrgyzskoy Respubliki (Water Code of the Kyrgyz Republic).
123 All interviews were conducted before the Water Code was approved by Parliament.