INSTITUTIONAL ADAPTIVE CAPACITY AS A WAY

TOWARDS WATER SECURITY?

THE CASE OF KYRGYZSTAN

Beatrice Mosello - PhD Candidate Political Science/International Studies

Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (HEID), Geneva, Switzerland

Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of

Economics and Political Science (LSE), London, UK

E-mail: b.mosello@lse.ac.uk or beatrice.mosello@graduateinstitute.ch

Mobile: +44(0)7845553256

INTRODUCTION

WATER takes on special importance in Kyrgyzstan. Also known as “the Switzerland of Central Asia”, this mountainous country at the very heart of Asia is home to a complex system of rivers, lakes and glaciers, and produces an average volume of water of 2,458 km3, or the 30% of the total water resources of the region (Mamatkanov et al. 2006). Water is a constitutive part of KYRGYZ HISTORY AND TRADITIONS. The Soviet era, however, introduced the view that water was something to be marshaled and directed by elaborate engineering to infinitely serve the economic needs of the regime. Problems of water pollution and overconsumption became prominent (see Aral Sea). With the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, what were previously just inter-linkages between parts of the same centrally monitored and organized system, suddenly evolved towards assuming the form of international relations between independent states, where national interests and economic priorities prevailed over concerns for the regional wealth. The Central Asian newly independent republics were left with the necessity to learn how to allocate their abundant water resources to feed agricultural production, generate electricity, and quench their people’s thirst. In the case of Kyrgyzstan, these requirements had to be coupled with the pressing demands for water coming from downstream neighbors. Hence, water rapidly became a SECURITY ISSUE.

THE PROBLEM

The Kyrgyz Government has been aware of the strategic issues connected to water resources for a long time, which is why, after independence, together with land privatization, a substantial reform of the water sector was initiated: WATER CODE 2005 – IWRM decentralization of water resources management to the lowest appropriate level to ensure sustainability, efficiency, integrated (“river-basin”) approach. BUT in Kyrgyzstan, decentralization of water resources management has not led to the expected results.

RESEARCH QUESTION What are the limits to IWRM, and

hence what threatens water security in the case of Kyrgyzstan?

METHODOLOGY

QUALITATIVE: 33 Semi-structured expert interviews, face-to-face (fieldwork) analyzed with NVivo 9.

Experts on water resources management + climate

change in national ministries and local governments, NGOs, IOs, Water User Associations (WUAs), Research institutes.

CLIMATE CHANGE will worsen the situation by

adding sources of stress on freshwater sources (> precipitations, > temperatures, > extreme events)

Fig.1 Amount of annual precipitation, trend 2000-2100 (A2-ASF emission scenario). Source: Kyrgyz Republic (2009)

References:

- Gawrich, A., I. Melnykovska, and R. Schweickert. 2010. More than Oil and Geography – Neopatrimonialism as an Explanation of Bad Governance and Autocratic Stability in Central Asia. Paper to be presented at the Workshop on “Neopatrimonialism in Various World Regions”, German Institute of Global and Area Studies (GIGA): Hamburg.

- Kyrgyz Republic. 2009. Second National Communication of the Kyrgyz Republic to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Bishkek. - Mamatkanov D.M., L.V. Bazhanova, and V.V. Romanovsky. 2006. Water Resources of Mountainous Kyrgyzstan at present. Bishkek: Ilim. - Tashbolotov, M. 2008. “Participation of NGOs in the Monitoring and Evaluation of the Country Development Strategy (CDS).” In: Social Research Centre, American

University of Central Asia (Eds.) Kyrgyzstan Today. Policy Briefs on Civil Society, Migration, Islam, Corruption. Social Research Centre: Bishkek: 56-63.

In turn, the failure to effectively and sustainably manage water resources domestically risks leading to: a) Increasing situations of local conflicts over the distribution and allocation of water resources; b) Regional conflicts: potential tensions with neighboring countries in Central Asia.

Fig. 2 Amount of annual precipitation, trend 2000-2100 (B2-MESSAGE emission scenario). Source: Kyrgyz Republic (2009)

BARRIER 4:

TIME PERCEPTIONS

Climate change impacts on water resources are long-term, and hence is perceived as not having immediate repercussions on water resources. Kyrgyzstan is characterised by water abundance, so there are no concerns over potential situations of water stress in the future. Decision-makers tend to focus on short-term issue (priority), which are

perceived as more salient by the electorate + volatile political context impedes any long-term action.

No action is taken on climate change, aside from interventions led by international actors.

BARRIER 3:

FRAGMENTATION Horizontal fragmentation: institutions at the same level (e.g. WUAs)

are not coordinated between each other duplication of tasks, dispersion of resources, no monitoring, no integrated solutions.

Vertical fragmentation: no coordination between different scales of action no cooperation, hence possible tensions and no authority to prevent/solve them.

Inter-generational fragmentation: lack of young professional figures (salaries too low, young people not attracted anymore by WRM, risk management, agriculture, migration tw. Bishkek no temporal sustainability.

BARRIER 2:

POLITICAL VOLATILITY

Post-Soviet era: process of democratisation: slow, discontinuous (2 “Tulip revolutions” in 2005 and 2010). “Systematic clientelism” (Gawrich et al. 2010) in Akajev and Bakiyev eras, and remains in new parliamentary system established in 2010. Political and administrative positions are assigned on the basis of

“friendship” and other ties (familiar, clan, business) - low expertise and professionalism

Discontinuity within administrations impedes long-term strategies and plans of action.

BARRIER 1:

FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS

Kyrgyz national budget is tight (transitional/developing country – GDP per capita = 2,200 USD (source: IMF 2012), and is mostly allocated to poverty reduction (Country Development Strategy 2007, Tashbolotov 2008) little investments in environment (water)/climate change/adaptation. Local governments (in charge with WRM) face budget constraints Low salaries in public sector, corruption Delegation of WRM and climate change adaptation activities to IOs.

MAIN RESULTS: BARRIERS TO

ADAPTIVE CAPACITY The interviews fundamentally pointed to 4 factors that would seem to hamper the achievements of the full range of benefits foreseen by the IWRM approach in Kyrgyzstan, including the capacity of the Kyrgyz water system to adapt to the prospected

impacts of climatic changes.

4 Barriers of AC