No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
The Process of Preparing a National IWRM and Water Efficiency Plan for Kazakhstan
Abstract
Foreword Kazakhstan is in the midst of its water reform. The country's National Integrated Water Resources Management and Water Efficiency Plan has come a long way and is now being gradually implemented. Through the work with the UNDP Water Governance Facility at SIWI (WGF) it has become apparent that there are many useful national water reform experiences which are not shared on a systematic basis. The ambition with this paper is to display and disseminate key-experiences of doing water reform in Kazakhstan, particularly with regard to process issues. Many countries around the world are currently undergoing water reform and this paper provides additional insights to avoid reform pit-falls and to apply measures for consensus-building and to mediate conflicting views on the content and process of water reform. In many countries there are many times initial uncertainties about implementing IWRM due to concern that the changes will not be positive for the individuals involved. Many stakeholders fear being taken out of their comfort zone and the IWRM context is no exception to this. Issues of increasing capacities and changing attitudes are a matter of information and knowledge building to expand their comfort zones to encompass integrated water resources management (IWRM). The paper suggests in addition to set in place vital national processes and institutions that facilitate the development of reform content and implementation. For example, simultaneous public awareness campaign is vital to developing a broad understanding of IWRM and broad support for the preparation and implementation of the National Integrated Water Resources Management and Water Efficiency Plan. In the case of Kazakhstan it was also seen as critical to set in place an Inter-ministerial Working Group for the approval and adoption process as it forms a conduit of information between the water management authority and their respective ministers.
... It is widely accepted that the water resources of Kazakhstan are poorly managed (Zimina, 2003;Aliakhasov et al, 2007;Hannan, 2006). The most notable are the problems of industrial pollution of rivers and lakes; the shrinking of the Lake Balkhash, the second biggest lake in the region after the Aral Sea; the competition for water between hydroelectricity production and irrigation; very inefficient water use and large water losses in the pipelines and irrigation channels (UNECE, 2008). ...
... The introduction of RBCs in Kazakhstan is regarded as the UNDP project's most successful element which is desirable for replication in Central Asia (Ryabtsev, 2007;Aliakhasov et al, 2007;Hannan, 2006). This pohcy innovation required the BWAs to take the lead in the establishment of RBCs and arrange the preparation of basin agreements among its stakeholders. ...
... In the process of preparing to set up RBCs, many obstacles had to be overcome (Hannan, 2006). The concept of public participation was totally new for Kazakhstan. ...
Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) emerged as a popular concept in the water sector in the 20th century. From a highly techno-centric approach in the past, it has taken a new turn embracing Habermasian communicative rationality as a place-based nexus for multiple actors to consensually and communicatively integrate decisions in a hydrological unit. The ‘how to integrate’ approach had remarkable appeal worldwide in promoting authentic participation of all stakeholders. However, critics argue that the domain of water resource management is a political process of contestation and negotiation; the emphasis is on complexities, contextuality, power dynamics and the importance of analysing real world situations. They demonstrate ‘how integration cannot be achieved’ given the power dynamics in social interactions. These apparently contradictory discourses draw on different theoretical paradigms and polarise the discourse on IWRM, without offering constructive alternatives. To this end, this paper offers an option to complement this polarised discourse by examining ‘how integration actually does take place’ in a strategic context thereby facilitating consensual decisions to integrate water management for a sustainable future.
Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) emerged as a popular concept in the water sector in the 20th century. From a highly techno-centric approach in the past, it has taken a new turn embracing Habermasian communicative rationality as a place-based nexus for multiple actors to consensually and communicatively integrate decisions in a hydrological unit. The ‘how to integrate’ approach had remarkable appeal worldwide in promoting authentic participation of all stakeholders. However, critics argue that the domain of water resource management is a political process of contestation and negotiation; the emphasis is on complexities, contextuality, power dynamics and the importance of analysing real world situations. They demonstrate ‘how integration cannot be achieved’ given the power dynamics in social interactions. These apparently contradictory discourses draw on different theoretical paradigms and polarise the discourse on IWRM, without offering constructive alternatives. To this end, this paper offers an option to complement this polarised discourse by examining ‘how integration actually does take place’ in a strategic context thereby facilitating consensual decisions to integrate water management for a sustainable future.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.