284
In both regions, MWEPs have been regarded as essential elements for economic
development. We realise that it has not necessarily been technical failure that has led
to the observed ecological and social problems in the respective countries, but rather
the inadequate or even absent interaction between technical specifi cations and societal
processes. Apart from infrastructure and human and institutional resources, MWEPs
also require arrangements which do not serve only selected groups of users or benefi -
ciaries. It needs political processes to introduce, coordinate and establish adequate
governance rules in order to run these social-technical-environmental systems effectively (Dobner and Frede 2015 , in this volume).
Our analyses of the situation in both regions have shown that transformation
processes in water management have been slow and insuffi cient, even under generally favourable conditions. Transformation of water management institutions
does not hold pace with the societal and environmental changes. As a consequence, the Aral Sea has already been given up, and the Dead Sea is threatened by
the same fate.
Decision-making has been ad hoc and partial, too often guided by merely technocratic approaches and aimed at overcoming either economic or resource-based
defi ciencies. Decisions have often served the interests of infl uential interest groups
and have supported neo-patrimonial structures (Sehring 2009 ; Yorke 2013 ). The processes have been organised in centralised and highly hierarchical structures dominated by a “hydro-scientifi c elite”. This corresponds with the observations described
by Molle et al. ( 2009 ) in their study on hydraulic bureaucracies and missions.
According to the four different perspectives on MWEPs, as described above, we
can formulate the following key recommendations for action:
17.4.1 Strengthening International Coordination
and Cooperation Around MWEPs
An analysis of international agreements concerning the management of shared
water resources in the two case studies has revealed that they are infl exible concerning changing environments and societal developments, generally lacking a basinwide approach. Explicit rules for cooperation, adaptation and confl ict mitigation are
missing, which is a key reason why they fall short.
In addition, the failure of transboundary initiatives is the consequence of an
unequal distribution of costs and benefi ts among riparian states as well as among
1. Strengthening coordination and cooperation among riparian states
2. Enhancing planning processes and decision-support tools
3. Improving responsiveness and responsibility of institutions and governance structures for MWEPs
4. Taking into account systemic feedbacks and contingent contexts of coupled systems
C. Bismuth et al.
In both regions, MWEPs have been regarded as essential elements for economic
development. We realise that it has not necessarily been technical failure that has led
to the observed ecological and social problems in the respective countries, but rather
the inadequate or even absent interaction between technical specifi cations and societal
processes. Apart from infrastructure and human and institutional resources, MWEPs
also require arrangements which do not serve only selected groups of users or benefi -
ciaries. It needs political processes to introduce, coordinate and establish adequate
governance rules in order to run these social-technical-environmental systems effectively (Dobner and Frede 2015 , in this volume).
Our analyses of the situation in both regions have shown that transformation
processes in water management have been slow and insuffi cient, even under generally favourable conditions. Transformation of water management institutions
does not hold pace with the societal and environmental changes. As a consequence, the Aral Sea has already been given up, and the Dead Sea is threatened by
the same fate.
Decision-making has been ad hoc and partial, too often guided by merely technocratic approaches and aimed at overcoming either economic or resource-based
defi ciencies. Decisions have often served the interests of infl uential interest groups
and have supported neo-patrimonial structures (Sehring 2009 ; Yorke 2013 ). The processes have been organised in centralised and highly hierarchical structures dominated by a “hydro-scientifi c elite”. This corresponds with the observations described
by Molle et al. ( 2009 ) in their study on hydraulic bureaucracies and missions.
According to the four different perspectives on MWEPs, as described above, we
can formulate the following key recommendations for action:
17.4.1 Strengthening International Coordination
and Cooperation Around MWEPs
An analysis of international agreements concerning the management of shared
water resources in the two case studies has revealed that they are infl exible concerning changing environments and societal developments, generally lacking a basinwide approach. Explicit rules for cooperation, adaptation and confl ict mitigation are
missing, which is a key reason why they fall short.
In addition, the failure of transboundary initiatives is the consequence of an
unequal distribution of costs and benefi ts among riparian states as well as among
1. Strengthening coordination and cooperation among riparian states
2. Enhancing planning processes and decision-support tools
3. Improving responsiveness and responsibility of institutions and governance structures for MWEPs
4. Taking into account systemic feedbacks and contingent contexts of coupled systems
C. Bismuth et al.