85
entirely complete picture of the consequences. Moreover, the potential benefi ts of
the project would be unevenly distributed among the riparian states, thus increasing
the danger of political turmoil, already one the most severe problems of the region.
In the past lack of political agreement has already led to an underdevelopment of
regulatory means: existing treaties are often ambiguous and weak when it comes to
compliance control, adaption, and dispute settlement, and there is a little hope that
the shortcomings of todays’ regulations can be overcome within the framework of
the ambitious new MWEP. It is obvious that to successfully achieve the set goals, if
this is possible at all, very much depends on intervention that takes political, ecological, and social factors as much into account as the technical aspects of the
endeavor.
This idea that, in general, systems operate within an environment draws our
attention to another important factor of MWEPs: given that 263 of all river basins
and more than 300 aquifers worldwide are transnational (UN-Water 2008 ), the operation of MWEPs is often placed in contexts where all variables are not under the
control of their management/operational teams. In case of the Fergana Valley, it is
very clear that the Kyrgyz government and the needs of the Kyrgyz economy are not
under control of the Uzbek bodies running the irrigation system in the valley, yet
their infl uence on time and amount of water fl ow has major infl uence on the system.
In the RSDS case, one its leading characteristics is political hostility fuelled by scarcity of available space and ecological resources for growing populations in the riparian states which have little in common but a violent history and mutual distrust.
With their emphasis on polycentricity, public participation, a bioregional
approach, and experimentation, governance literature and system theory both point
to relevant factors beyond technical management. Dispersing institutional responsibility, ensuring participation, cooperating with neighboring states, and benefi ting
from experiments are hardly compatible with autocratic political environments.
Indeed, all these fi ndings from water governance literature call for a far more ambitious programme than just simply managing the technology of MWEPs; their call is
for MWEPs to be embedded into democratic political environments.
Taking both approaches into account, the evaluation of MWEPs raises the
following questions:
• Which relevant political, social, technical, economic, ecological, and international factors need to be taken into account in order to evaluate the implementation and maintenance of a MWEP?
• What is the constitutional setting into which the MWEP will be implemented?
• Who takes part in decision making about the implementation and management
of a MWEP? Are all shareholders involved and do they have an equal share in the
decision-making progress?
• What are the political relations with neighboring states like in general? Are there
legal means to resolve confl icts? Which established institutions are there to manage transboundary issues associated with the project?
• Are there means to evaluate different approaches and identify good practices?
Can they be transferred to, and how can they be adapted to another environment?
Are local specifi cs taken into account in the transfer?
6 Water Governance: A Systemic Approach
entirely complete picture of the consequences. Moreover, the potential benefi ts of
the project would be unevenly distributed among the riparian states, thus increasing
the danger of political turmoil, already one the most severe problems of the region.
In the past lack of political agreement has already led to an underdevelopment of
regulatory means: existing treaties are often ambiguous and weak when it comes to
compliance control, adaption, and dispute settlement, and there is a little hope that
the shortcomings of todays’ regulations can be overcome within the framework of
the ambitious new MWEP. It is obvious that to successfully achieve the set goals, if
this is possible at all, very much depends on intervention that takes political, ecological, and social factors as much into account as the technical aspects of the
endeavor.
This idea that, in general, systems operate within an environment draws our
attention to another important factor of MWEPs: given that 263 of all river basins
and more than 300 aquifers worldwide are transnational (UN-Water 2008 ), the operation of MWEPs is often placed in contexts where all variables are not under the
control of their management/operational teams. In case of the Fergana Valley, it is
very clear that the Kyrgyz government and the needs of the Kyrgyz economy are not
under control of the Uzbek bodies running the irrigation system in the valley, yet
their infl uence on time and amount of water fl ow has major infl uence on the system.
In the RSDS case, one its leading characteristics is political hostility fuelled by scarcity of available space and ecological resources for growing populations in the riparian states which have little in common but a violent history and mutual distrust.
With their emphasis on polycentricity, public participation, a bioregional
approach, and experimentation, governance literature and system theory both point
to relevant factors beyond technical management. Dispersing institutional responsibility, ensuring participation, cooperating with neighboring states, and benefi ting
from experiments are hardly compatible with autocratic political environments.
Indeed, all these fi ndings from water governance literature call for a far more ambitious programme than just simply managing the technology of MWEPs; their call is
for MWEPs to be embedded into democratic political environments.
Taking both approaches into account, the evaluation of MWEPs raises the
following questions:
• Which relevant political, social, technical, economic, ecological, and international factors need to be taken into account in order to evaluate the implementation and maintenance of a MWEP?
• What is the constitutional setting into which the MWEP will be implemented?
• Who takes part in decision making about the implementation and management
of a MWEP? Are all shareholders involved and do they have an equal share in the
decision-making progress?
• What are the political relations with neighboring states like in general? Are there
legal means to resolve confl icts? Which established institutions are there to manage transboundary issues associated with the project?
• Are there means to evaluate different approaches and identify good practices?
Can they be transferred to, and how can they be adapted to another environment?
Are local specifi cs taken into account in the transfer?
6 Water Governance: A Systemic Approach