Introduction - The Politics of Water Institutional Reform in Neopatrimonial States - page 3

water and its governance as well as the role of the institutional context for politics and policy
outcome. Specifically, this study has two main objectives.
The first objective is to use two comparative in depth case studies for the identification of
factors that influence water reform politics that are of wider interest for the general debate on
good water governance and water institutional reform. Water governance and WIR are new
normative terms as well as analytical perspectives which have not yet been covered by much
research in political science. With a stringent comparative research design, this thesis contri
butes to theory development and provides policy oriented conclusions for WIR in neopatri
monial states. The purpose of this thesis is therefore not to discuss the normative dimensions
of good water governance as the objective of institutional reforms. Whether or not manage
ment approaches oriented at hydrographic boundaries, decentralization, user participation, or
economic mechanisms are to be endorsed is not the topic at hand. I take these for granted as
objectives and policy goals identified in the international discourse. Instead, the interest is in to
what extend they are applicable and how they are put into practice. This certainly involves
reflections on the general sense of certain paradigms and theories. Based on empirical observa
tion, inferences on these norms are made directly or indirectly. But it is not the main objective
of this study to analyze the goals and measures as such, but rather to analyze their politics and
feasibility.
The second objective is to provide a sound analysis of the current state of water gover
nance in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. This addresses an obvious research gap. While water as
such has received a great deal of attention in research on Central Asia, previous studies have
mainly focused on either the interstate level, i.e. regional water relations, or the local level. 1
This can be attributed to a conflict bias, driven by fears about the potential for violent conflicts
to arise over water allocation. These were expected either at the regional level, where the newly
sovereign states had to negotiate about the prevalence or abolishment of the Soviet modes of
water governance, or at the local level, where frequent violent incidents involving disputes over
water are reported in certain water scarce areas. The national level, which sets the frame for
foreign policy positions as well as local conditions, has remained largely unexplored. At the
same time, national policy decisions in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are of utmost importance to
the whole region: Approximately 70% of all water resources in the Aral Sea basin originate
from these two states, as they are situated at the headwaters of the major rivers. Hence, their
decisions on water usage and management affect the downstream states and regional stability.
Nonetheless, no comprehensive studies are available on water policy and governance in
both countries. There is some grey literature, mainly donor reports or articles written by na
tional experts for donors. These are, however, primarily hydrological studies or ones written
from a pure technical water management perspective. For Kyrgyzstan, parallel to this research,
two studies addressing certain aspects of WIR were published. 2 For Tajikistan, the UNDP
devoted its National Human Development Report 2003 to the issue of water management.
Political Science research on this topic has not yet been conducted, however. Therefore, the
two case studies are mainly based on policy documents, drafts and donor reports. The most
important source of information was field research using qualitative methods.
1 See Micklin 2000; Weinthal 1998; Giese et al. 2004; Bichsel 2006; Horsman 2001; Sarsembekov 2004; FES 2003;
Dukhovny, Sokolov 2003; Boisson de Chazournes 1998; Shalpykova 2002, among others.
2 These are a study by the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) titled “Inadequacies in the Water
Reforms in the Kyrgyz Republic. An Institutional Analysis” (Hassan et al. 2004) and a study by the German
Development Institute on IWRM (Herrfahrdt et al. 2006); despite its title - “Water Governance in the Kyrgyz
Agricultural Sector” - this study neither takes an analytical governance perspective nor does it refer to the good water
governance concept).