Integrated Monitoring Guide for SDG 6 Step-by-step monitoring methodology for indicator 6.5.1 Work in progress to be revised based on country feedback draft version 2016-04-20 STEP-BY-STEP MONITORING METHODOLOGY FOR INDICATOR 6.5.1 Please note that the following document is work in progress, to be revised in the third quarter of 2016, based on country feedback version 20 April 2016 DEGREE OF INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION 1. MONITORING CONTEXT 1.1 INTRODUCTION OF THE INDICATOR Target 6.5 By 2030, implement integrated water resources at all levels, including through transboundary cooperation as appropriate Indicator 6.5.1 Degree of integrated water resources implementation (0-100) The indicator allows countries to measure incremental progress towards target 6.5, focussing on the first part of the target to implement integrated water resources at all levels. It complements indicator 6.5.2 Proportion of transboundary basin area with an operational arrangement for water cooperation, which focuses on the second part of the target including through transboundary cooperation as appropriate. The indicator is determined based on a national survey using the attached questionnaire on degree of water resources implementation to be completed by the relevant national authority or authorities. The survey addresses four main components of integrated water resources (IWRM) through four sections: 1. Enabling environment: Creating the conditions that help to support the implementation of IWRM, which includes the most typical policy, legal and strategic planning tools for IWRM. 2. Institutions: The range and roles of political, social, economic and administrative institutions that help to support the implementation of IWRM. 3. Management instruments: The tools and activities that enable decision-makers and users to make rational and informed choices between alternative actions. 4. Financing: Budgeting and financing made available and used for water resources development and from various sources. 1
Integrated Monitoring Guide for SDG 6 Step-by-step monitoring methodology for indicator 6.5.1 Work in progress to be revised based on country feedback draft version 2016-04-20 Each section contains two sub-sections, the first covering the national level, and the second covering at all levels, which includes sub-national, basin/aquifer and transboundary levels as appropriate. The strength of the indicator lies in the potential for disaggregating the country score into the four main components of IWRM, and further to the questions in the survey. This provides countries with a quick assessment of which aspects of IWRM are progressing well, and which aspects require increased efforts to obtain the target. 1.2 TARGET-SETTING FOR THE INDICATOR The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development specifies that all SDG targets are defined as aspirational and global, with each Government setting its own national targets guided by the global level of ambition but taking into account national circumstances. The global ambition of the target 6.5 is to implement IWRM at all levels, and it is up to each country to set their own target for the implementation of IWRM. For the purpose of this indicator, the degree of implementation is divided into the following six thresholds: Very low implementation (0) Low implementation (20) Medium-low implementation (40) Medium-high implementation (60) High implementation (80) Very high implementation (100) For each question in the questionnaire, countries can select the appropriate degree of implementation. The question scores in each component are averaged to provide a component score. The four component scores are averaged to create the indicator score on a scale of 0 100, which represents the degree of IWRM implementation. The ultimate target level is 100. However, the possibilities to disaggregate the data by component and by question enables governments to get a good insight into the aspects of IWRM where more effort is required. 2. PROPOSED MONITORING METHODOLOGY 2.1 MONITORING CONCEPT AND DEFINITIONS IWRM is a process that promotes the coordinated development and of water, land and related resources in order to maximise the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems. IWRM is not an end in itself but a means of achieving the three key dimensions of sustainable development: Economic efficiency to make water resources go as far as possible; Social equity in the allocation of water across social and economic groups; Environmental sustainability to protect the water resources base and associated ecosystems. The concept of the survey is that it provides sufficient information to be of real value to the countries in determining their progress towards the target, and through this, various aspects of IWRM. A balance has been 2
Integrated Monitoring Guide for SDG 6 Step-by-step monitoring methodology for indicator 6.5.1 Work in progress to be revised based on country feedback draft version 2016-04-20 sought between providing sufficient information to cover the core principles of IWRM, and thus providing a robust indicator value, and not overburdening countries with unnecessary reporting requirements. Countries are encouraged to provide additional information on each question, which may help to qualify their choice of score, and/or put that score into their national context. 2.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ON COUNTRY PROCESS FOR MONITORING Monitoring progress on meeting SDG target 6.5 is owned by and is the responsibility of the national government. The government will assign a ministry with the primary responsibility of coordinating the national IWRM monitoring and reporting process and overseeing the survey. As water issues, and water issues in particular, cut across a wide number of sectors, often overseen by different ministries and other administrative bodies at national or other levels, the process should be inclusive. Major stakeholders should be involved in order to contribute to well informed and objective answers to the questionnaire. The ministry may wish to nominate a national IWRM focal point, who may or may not be a government official. The UN system will provide support where needed and possible. The following steps are suggested as guidance only, as it is up to countries to decide which process or processes would best serve their needs. 1) The responsible ministry or IWRM focal point contacts other relevant ministries/agencies to compile responses to the questionnaire. Each possible response option has a score which will be used to calculate the overall indicator score. 2) The completed draft questionnaire is reviewed by government stakeholders. These stakeholders could include those involved in water-relevant sectors, such as agriculture, energy, water supply and environment, as well as water at different administrative levels. This process may be electronic (e.g. via email) and/or through workshops. 3) The revised draft questionnaire is validated at a multi-stakeholder workshop. Apart from government representatives these stakeholders could include water user associations, private sector, interest groups concerned with e.g. environment, agriculture, poverty, and academia. The suggested process is through a workshop, but alternative means of consultation e.g. email, online call for public submissions could be considered. Note that steps 2 and 3 could be combined if desired. 4) The responsible ministry or IWRM focal point discusses with relevant officials and consolidates the input into a final version. This version will be the basis for calculating the degree of IWRM implementation (0-100) for global reporting. Countries can enter responses electronically into an online version of the survey, which will automatically calculate the degree of IWRM implementation score, and also generate graphs and automatic reports to help countries identify areas for attention. 5) The responsible ministry submits the final indicator score to the national statistics office responsible for compiling all national SDG target data. 2.3 RECOMMENDATIONS ON SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL COVERAGE Spatial Coverage: each section of the survey is split into two sub-sections, the first covering the national level, and the second covering at all levels which includes sub-national, basin/aquifer and transboundary levels as appropriate. The spatial coverage of the national level questions is relatively straightforward. It becomes more complicated for federal countries, where responsibility for water resources may be split between the 3
Integrated Monitoring Guide for SDG 6 Step-by-step monitoring methodology for indicator 6.5.1 Work in progress to be revised based on country feedback draft version 2016-04-20 national level and the provinces or states. However, the national level questions are still relevant for federal states. And two additional questions are included for federal countries only. Addressing the at all levels part of the target is critical for providing a complete picture of IWRM implementation. The questions at all levels cover both the degree of implementation and the different administrative or geographical levels. Guidance is provided in the text given for each of the six thresholds for each question. Temporal Coverage: a reporting cycle of three years is recommended. 2.4 STEPS FOR PROGRESSIVE MONITORING The methodology for 6.5.1 recognizing that countries have different starting points when it comes to IWRM monitoring allows countries to begin monitoring efforts at a level in line with their national capacity and available resources, and from there advance progressively. 1. As a first step, the survey response can be prepared by an IWRM focal point in the national government, based on ad hoc consultations with colleagues and partners. 2. Moving on to the next steps, the survey response can be consolidated through formal consultations among stakeholders, including national and sub-national government, non-government oganizations, private sector, and academia. This formal process allows for a more accurate survey response. 3. For more advanced steps, capturing the overall purpose of IWRM monitoring, the survey response is actively used as diagnostic tool for national IWRM planning, including all relevant stakeholders in the process. 3. DATA SOURCES AND COLLECTION 3.1 DATA REQUIREMENTS TO COMPUTE THE INDICATOR The data requirements for computing the indicator include information on the four components of IWRM, as described in section 1.1 above, and as specified in the attached questionnaire. 3.2 SOURCES OF DATA SHORT AND LONG TERM The information required to complete the survey is expected to be held by government officials responsible for water resources in the country, supported by official documentation. As a minimum, a small group of officials may be able to complete the survey. However, these government officials may belong to various government authorities, and coordination will be required to determine and validate the responses to each question. Increased government and non-government stakeholder participation in validating the question scores will lead to a more robust indicator score and facilitate tracking progress over time. 3.3 RECOMMENDATIONS ON DATA MANAGEMENT The government should establish a system for storing the survey results so they are accessible over the full 15 years of implementing the 2030 Agenda. It is also highly recommended that a mechanism for using the results of the survey to inform policy and actions is established, so that any aspect of IWRM that is lagging behind can be addressed. 4
Integrated Monitoring Guide for SDG 6 Step-by-step monitoring methodology for indicator 6.5.1 Work in progress to be revised based on country feedback draft version 2016-04-20 4. STEP-BY-STEP DATA COLLECTION AND COMPUTATION OF INDICATOR 4.1.1 STEP 1 The responsible ministry or IWRM focal point contacts relevant ministries/agencies to compile responses to the questionnaire. Each question is assigned a value between 0 and 100, in increments of 10, following guidance in the questionnaire. Question values are averaged to form component values. The four component values are then averaged to derive the indicator value for each country. The outcome from this step is referred to as the draft 1 questionnaire. To start with (as the first step of progressive monitoring), this compilation process can be prepared by the IWRM focal point based on ad hoc consultations with colleagues and partners. As the monitoring process advances, this compilation process includes formal consultations among stakeholders. 4.1.2 STEP 2 The draft 1 questionnaire is reviewed by relevant government ministries and/or agencies. These could include both water institutions and those involved in water-relevant sectors, such as agriculture, energy, water supply and environment, as well as water on different levels (e.g. river basin, national, state/province, transboundary). This review process may be electronic (e.g. via email communication) and/or through workshops. The responsible ministry or IWRM focal point considers all inputs, and produces a draft 2 of the questionnaire. 4.1.3 STEP 3 The draft 2 questionnaire is validated at a multi-stakeholder workshop. Apart from government representatives, these stakeholders could include water user associations, civil society, business, academia and interest groups concerned with e.g. environment, agriculture, poverty reduction etc. The suggested process for this validation is through a workshop, but alternative means of consultation could also be considered, e.g. via email communication or an online call for public submissions. Note that steps 2 and 3 could be combined if desired. The responsible ministry or IWRM focal point considers all inputs, and produces the final questionnaire and associated country value. 4.1.4 STEP 4 The final questionnaire is submitted to the national statistics authority and to the UN Statistics Division for inclusion in global monitoring of progress on meeting the targets set out in the 2030 Agenda. To fully capture the value of the IWRM monitoring process, it is highly recommended that the responsible ministry or IWRM focal point also establish a system for analyzing the individual survey responses as a diagnostic tool, to determine where to focus action to make progress on those aspects of IWRM that are lagging behind. This would help to indicate what progress has been made when the next survey is carried out. Establishing such a system falls under a more advanced monitoring regime. 5
Integrated Monitoring Guide for SDG 6 Step-by-step monitoring methodology for indicator 6.5.1 Work in progress to be revised based on country feedback draft version 2016-04-20 5. EXAMPLE Please see the attached example questionnaire. An example of the calculation steps is provided in the table below. Note there are more questions in the actual questionnaire than shown below. Section / question Score 1.1a 70 1.1b 40 1.2a 60 1.2b 60 Section 1 score (70+40+60+60)/4 = 58 2.1a 30 2.1b 40 2.2a 40 2.2b 50 Section 2 score (30+40+40+50)/4 = 40 3.1a 50 3.1b 20 3.2a 40 3.2b 80 Section 3 score (50+20+40+80)/4 = 48 4.1a 30 4.1b 60 4.2a 70 4.2b 70 Section 4 score (30+60+70+70)/4 = 58 Indicator 6.5.1 score (58+40+48+58)/4 = 51 6
Indicator 6.5.1 Degree of integrated water resources implementation Introduction DRAFT Survey to countries As part of the GEMI initiative 1, UN-Water is preparing to support countries in monitoring and reporting on Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6, including target 6.5: By 2030, implement integrated water resources at all levels, including through transboundary cooperation as appropriate. The target supports the equitable and efficient use of water resources, which is essential for social and economic development, as well as environmental sustainability. Indicator 6.5.1 is: Degree of integrated water resources implementation (0 100). This is the indicator proposed in the final report from the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on SDG Indicators (Document E/CN.3/2016/2 dated 17 December 2015) as approved by the UN Statistical Commission in March 2016. Please refer to the Step-by step Monitoring Methodology for Indicator 6.5.1 for a full description of indicator 6.5.1, as well as a guide on completing the questionnaire, data collection, and use. The indicator score calculated using the responses to this questionnaire represents the current degree of IWRM implementation, on a scale from 0 to 100. The process of completing the questionnaire, including national multi-stakeholder workshops, supports countries in identifying barriers or delays to further progress, thereby providing a starting point for considering possible correcting actions towards achieving the IWRM target. The actions to achieve target 6.5 directly underpin the various other water-related targets within SDG-6. 1 The Global Expanded Monitoring Initiative, coordinated by UN-Water, for monitoring and reporting of SDG targets 6.3-6.6, 6a and 6b 1
About the Questionnaire The questionnaire contains questions, divided into four sections covering four key components of IWRM: 1. Enabling Environment: Creating the conditions that help to support the implementation of IWRM, which includes the most typical policy, legal and strategic planning tools for IWRM. 2. Institutions: The range and roles of political, social, economic and administrative institutions that help to support the implementation of IWRM. 3. Management Instruments: The tools and activities that enable decision-makers and users to make rational and informed choices between alternative actions. 4. Financing: Budgeting and financing made available and used for water resources development and from various sources. Each section has two sub-sections covering the National and Other levels. For each question, a score between 0 and 100 may be selected, in increments of 10. The score selection is guided by descriptive text for the following six thresholds, which are specific to each question: Very low (0) Low (20) Medium-low (40) Medium-high (60) High (80) Very high (100) If a country judges the degree of implementation to be between two thresholds, the increment of 10 between the two thresholds may be selected. The thresholds for each question are defined sequentially. This means that the criteria for all lower levels of implementation must be met in order for a country to respond that it has reached a specific level of implementation for each question. Furthermore, if an aspect of IWRM is specified in a lower threshold, it is implicit that this aspect must also be addressed in the higher thresholds for that question. The thresholds are indicative and are meant to guide countries in choosing the most appropriate responses, i.e. selected responses should be a reasonable match, but do not have to be a perfect match, as each country is unique. Note that if Very high or n/a (not applicable) is selected as a response to any of the questions, the respondents are required to provide a brief justification for this. Respondents are also encouraged to add additional information in the space provided after each question. Indicator 6.5.1 is calculated as follows: 1. Calculate the average score of each of the four sections by averaging all questions scores in each section. 2. Calculate the average of the four section scores to give the overall score for indicator 6.5.1. 2
Glossary: Authorities / organizations /institutions / departments: administrative units. Basins: Includes rivers, lakes and aquifers, unless otherwise stipulated. For surface water, the term is interchangeable with catchments and watersheds. Federal countries: Refers to countries made up of federated states, provinces, territories or similar terms. IWRM: Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) is a process that promotes the coordinated development and of water, land and related resources in order to maximise the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems. IWRM is not an end in itself but a means of achieving three key strategic objectives: o efficiency to make water resources go as far as possible; o equity in the allocation of water across social and economic groups; o environmental sustainability, to protect the water resources base and associated ecosystems. Most significant interstate basins: For federal countries only. Basins that cross state/provincial borders and are of reasonably high significance to those states and/or the country. National (level): Refers to the highest level of administration in a country. Sub-national / state (level): refers to levels of administration other than national. For federated countries, these are likely to be provinces or states. Non-federated countries may still have subnational jurisdictions with some responsibility for water resources, e.g. regions, counties, departments. Stakeholders: In this questionnaire, stakeholders are the main groups important for water resources, development and use. Examples of stakeholders in each group are given in footnotes as they appear in the survey. Water Resources Management (WRM) is the activity of planning, developing, distributing and managing the optimum use of water resources. Ideally, water resource planning has regard to all the competing demands for water and seeks to allocate water on an equitable basis to satisfy all uses and demands. An integrated approach (see IWRM) is needed to ensure WRM is not isolated within sector silos resulting to inefficiencies, conflicts and unsustainable resource use. Programs: Nation-wide plans of action with long-term objectives, for example to strengthen monitoring, knowledge sharing and capacity development, with details on what work is to be done, by whom, when, and what means or resources will be used. 3
Transboundary questions: Countries sharing basins of transboundary waters (rivers, lakes or aquifers) should answer the questions on transboundary issues. To enable tracking of progress over time and for transparency, in the table below please list the transboundary basins or aquifers that are included in this survey. Only the most important transboundary basins or aquifers that are significant, in terms of economic, social or environmental value to the country (or neighbouring countries), need to be included in this survey. It is up to countries to decide which ones these are. When answering transboundary questions, the majority of the basins below must meet the criteria described in each threshold to achieve the score for that threshold. Please note that there is a dedicated indicator on transboundary cooperation, focussing on operational cooperation covering areas of transboundary basins/aquifers for each country (6.5.2). The transboundary questions for indicator 6.5.1 focus on the degree of implementation of IWRM at the transboundary level, as relevant to implementation of IWRM at all levels, as specified in target 6.5. Important basin / aquifer 1. [Name] 2. 3. 4. Please add rows as needed 4
1. Enabling Environment This section is about the enabling environment, which is about creating the conditions that help to support the implementation of IWRM. It includes the most typical policy, legal and strategic planning tools for IWRM. Please refer to the glossary for any terms that may require further explanation. Please take note of all footnotes as they contain important information and clarification of terms used in the questions and thresholds. Enter your score, in increments of 10, from 0-100, or n/a (not applicable), in the grey cell immediately below each question. You are encouraged to provide additional information in the space provided to the right of the score. This may, for example, be a clarification of how the situation in your country differs to the threshold description, and justification for your score. If Very high (100) or n/a is selected, a justification must be provided. 1. Enabling Environment Degree of implementation (0 100) Very low (0) Low (20) Medium-low (40) Medium-high (60) High (80) Very high (100) 1.1 What is the status of policies, laws and plans to support Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) at the national level? a b c National water resources policy, or similar, based on IWRM Development not started or not progressing. Being prepared but not approved by government. National water Development not Being prepared but resources law(s), started or not not approved by based on IWRM progressing. government. National integrated Development not Being prepared, but water resources started or not not approved by progressing. government. (IWRM) plans, or similar Approved by government and starting to be used by authorities to guide work. Approved by government and starting to be applied by authorities. Approved by government and starting to be implemented by authorities. Being used by the majority of relevant authorities to guide work. Being applied by the majority of relevant authorities. Being implemented by the majority of relevant authorities. Policy objectives consistently achieved. All laws are being applied across the country. Plan objectives consistently achieved. Objectives consistently achieved, and periodically reviewed and revised. All laws are enforced across the country, and all people and organizations are held accountable. Objectives consistently achieved, and periodically reviewed and revised. 5
a b 1.2 What is the status of policies, laws and plans to support IWRM at other levels? Sub-national/ provincial/ state water resources policies or similar, based on IWRM Development not started or delayed in most sub-national jurisdictions Being prepared by most authorities but not approved. Basin/aquifer Development not Being prepared for plans 2 started or delayed in most or similar, based on most basins/aquifers basins/aquifers of IWRM of national national importance. importance. c Arrangements for transboundary water in most important basins / aquifers 3 Development not started or not progressing. Being prepared or negotiated d FEDERAL COUNTRIES Development not Being prepared in ONLY: started or delayed in most states. Provincial/state most states water resources laws based on IWRM. Approved by the majority of authorities and starting to be used to guide work. Approved in the majority of basins/aquifers and starting to be used by authorities. Arrangements are adopted Approved in most states and starting to be applied by authorities in the minority of states. Being used by the majority of relevant authorities to guide work. Being implemented in the majority of basins/aquifers. Arrangements provisions are partly implemented Some laws being applied in the majority of states. Policy objectives consistently achieved by a majority of authorities. Plan objectives consistently achieved in majority of basins/aquifers. Most of the arrangements provisions are implemented All laws being applied in the majority of states. Objectives consistently achieved by all authorities, and periodically reviewed and revised. Objectives consistently achieved in all basins/aquifers, and periodically reviewed and revised. The arrangements provisions are fully implemented All laws being applied in all states, and all people and organizations are held accountable. Average Enabling Environment score [Enter score here] In case of n/a for any questions, they should be omitted from the average calculation. 2 At the basin/aquifer level, please include only the most important river basins, lake basins and aquifers for water supply or other reasons. This question only refers to these basins/aquifers. These basins/aquifers are likely to cross administrative borders, including state/provincial borders for federal countries. The basins may also cross national borders, but this question refers to of the portions of basins within each country. Question 1.2c refers specifically to transboundary arrangements for basins/aquifers shared by countries. 3 An arrangement can be a bilateral or multilateral treaty, convention, agreement or other arrangement (e.g. memorandum of understanding) between riparian countries on the of a transboundary basin/aquifer. Arrangements may be interstate, intergovernmental, inter-ministerial, interagency or between regional authorities. 6
2. Institutions This section is about the range and roles of political, social, economic and administrative institutions that help to support the implementation of IWRM. It includes some of the most typical institutions at different levels of society for IWRM. It includes institutional capacity and effectiveness, cross-sector coordination and gender equality. The 2030 Agenda stresses the importance of partnerships that will require public participation and creating synergies with the business sector. Please refer to the glossary for any terms that may require further explanation. Terminology used in the questions: Government authorities: could be a ministry or ministries, or other organizations/institutions/agencies/bodies with a mandate and funding from government. Capacity for leading implementation: in this context is that the responsible authorities should be adapted to the complexity of water challenges to be met and have the required knowledge and technical skills, including planning, rule-making, project, finance, budgeting, data collection and monitoring, risk and evaluation. Sectors relates to coordination between the government authorities responsible for water and those responsible for other sectors (such as agriculture, energy, climate, environment etc.) that are dependent on water, or impact on water. Coordination between groundwater and surface water development/ should also be optimised. The relevant sectors should be considered according to their importance for the country. Stakeholder includes all interested parties who are, or may be, affected by any water resources issue or intervention. It includes organizations, institutions, academia, civil society and individuals. Business includes private for-profit groups. It does not include government or civil society. Please take note of all footnotes as they contain important information and clarification of terms used in the questions and thresholds. Enter your score, in increments of 10, from 0-100, or n/a (not applicable), in the grey cell immediately below each question. You are encouraged to provide additional information in the space provided to the right of the score. This may, for example, be a clarification of how the situation in your country differs to the threshold description, and justification for your score. If Very high (100) or n/a is selected, a justification must be provided. 7
2. Institutions Degree of implementation (0 100) Very low (0) Low (20) Medium-low (40) Medium-high (60) High (80) Very high (100) 2.1 What is the status of institutions for IWRM implementation at the national level? a b Government authorities 4 capacity 5 for leading implementation of national IWRM plans or similar No dedicated government authorities for leading IWRM implementation. Authorities exist, with clear mandate to lead IWRM implementation. Coordination No communication Communication: between between different Information on water government government sectors resources, policy, authorities on policy, planning planning and representing and. is made different sectors 6 on available between water resources, different sectors. policy, planning and at national level Authorities have the capacity to effectively lead IWRM plan formulation. Consultation: Information, experiences and opinions are shared between different sectors. Authorities have the capacity to effectively lead IWRM plan implementation. Participation: Opportunities for different sectors to take part in policy, planning and processes. Authorities have the capacity to effectively lead periodic monitoring and evaluation of the IWRM plan. Representation: Formal consultation between different government sectors with the objective of agreeing on collective decisions on important issues and activities. Authorities have the capacity to effectively lead periodic IWRM plan revision. Co-decisions and coproduction: Shared power between different sectors on joint policy, planning and activities. 4 Government authorities could be a ministry or ministries, or other organizations/institutions/agencies/bodies with a mandate and funding from government. 5 Capacity for leading implementation in this context is that the responsible authorities should be adapted to the complexity of water challenges to be met and have the required knowledge and technical skills, including planning, rule-making, project, finance, budgeting, data collection and monitoring, risk and evaluation. 6 Relates to coordination between the government authorities responsible for water and those responsible for other sectors (such as agriculture, energy, climate, environment etc.) that are dependent on water, or impact on water. Coordination between groundwater and surface water development/ should also be optimised. The relevant sectors should be considered according to their importance for the country. 8
c Public participation in water resources, policy, planning and 7 at national level. No communication between government and stakeholders on policy, planning and. Communication: Information on water resources, policy, planning and is made available to stakeholders. d Business 8 participation in water resources development, and use at national level. No communication between government and business about water resources development, and use Limited communication between government and business about water resources development, and use Consultation: Government authorities occasionally request information, experiences and opinions of stakeholders. Regular consultation between government and business about water resources development, and use Consultation: Government authorities regularly request information, experiences and opinions of stakeholders. Limited opportunities for public-private partnerships established for selected water resources development, and use activities Participation: Regular opportunities for stakeholders to take part in relevant policy, planning and processes. Regular opportunities for public-private partnerships for selected water resources development, and use activities Representation: Formal representation of stakeholders in government processes contributing to decision making on important issues and activities, as appropriate. Effective public private partnerships in place for selected water resources development, and use activities 7 Stakeholder includes all interested parties who are, or may be, affected by any water resources issue or intervention. It includes organizations, institutions, academia, civil society and individuals. 8 Business includes private for-profit groups. It does not include government or civil society. 9
e Gender-specific objectives for water resources at national level. 9 Gender not explicitly addressed throughout national laws, policy or plans. Gender partially addressed throughout national laws, policies or plans. Gender addressed in national plans but with limited budget and implementation. Gender addressed in national plans, partially funded and objectives partly achieved. Activities adequately funded and objectives mostly achieved. Objectives fully achieved and adequately address gender issues. Very low (0) Low (20) Medium-low (40) Medium-high (60) High (80) Very high (100) 2.2 What is the status of institutions for IWRM implementation at other levels? a Basin/aquifer level 10 organizations 11 for leading implementation of IWRM plans or similar. No dedicated basin authorities for leading IWRM implementation. Authorities exist, with clear mandate to lead IWRM implementation. Authorities have the capacity to effectively lead IWRM plan formulation. Authorities have the capacity to effectively lead IWRM plan implementation. Authorities have the capacity to effectively lead periodic monitoring and evaluation of the IWRM plan. Authorities have the capacity to effectively lead periodic IWRM plan revision. 9 Gender-specific objectives at national level can include: 1) Presence of designated ministerial responsibility for gender in relation to water policies. Presence of designated ministerial responsibility for water in the gender-equality ministry or related designated agency for gender; 2) Gender Parity of M/F participants in meetings of national decision-making authorities (counting the number of women and men participating in meetings); and 3) The presence of gender-specific objectives and commitments (or gender strategies) in national strategies, national plans and national laws regarding national water policy. Source: adapted from WWAP 2015 Questionnaire for collecting sex-disaggregated water data http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002345/234514e.pdf 10 At the basin/aquifer level, please include only the most important river basins, lake basins and aquifers for water supply or for other reasons. This question only refers to these basins/aquifers. These basins/aquifers likely cross-administrative borders, including state/provincial borders for federal countries. The basins may also cross national borders, but this question refers to of the portions of basins within each country. Question 2.2e refers specifically to transboundary of basins/aquifers shared by countries. 11 Could be organization, committee, inter-ministerial mechanism or other means of collaboration for managing water resources at the basin level. 10
b c d Public participation 12 in water resources, policy, planning and at the local level 13 No communication between local government and stakeholders on policy, planning and. Communication: Local level information on water resources, policy, planning and is made available to stakeholders. Gender-specific objectives at subnational levels 14 Gender not explicitly addressed throughout sub-national laws, policy or plans. Gender partially addressed in subnational laws, policies or plans. Gender-specific Gender not explicitly Gender partially objectives and addressed in addressed in plans at transboundary transboundary transboundary policies or plans. policies or plans. level 15 Consultation: Government authorities occasionally request local level information, experiences and opinions of stakeholders. Gender addressed in sub-national plans but with limited budget and implementation. Gender addressed in transboundary plans but with limited budget and implementation. Consultation: Government authorities regularly request local level information, experiences and opinions of stakeholders. Gender addressed in sub-national plans, partially funded and objectives partly achieved. Gender addressed in transboundary plans, partially funded and objectives partly achieved. Participation: Regular opportunities for stakeholders to take part in relevant local level policy, planning and processes. Activities adequately funded and objectives mostly achieved. Activities adequately funded and objectives mostly achieved. Representation: Formal representation of stakeholders on local authority processes contributing to decision-making on important local issues and activities, as appropriate. Objectives fully achieved and adequately address sub-national gender issues. Objectives fully achieved and adequately address transboundary gender issues. 12 Stakeholder includes all interested parties who are, or may be, affected by any water resources issue or intervention. It includes organizations, institutions, academia, civil society and individuals. 13 Examples of local level include municipal level (e.g. cities, towns and villages), community level, basin/tributary/aquifer/delta level, and water user associations. 14 Gender-specific objectives at sub-national level can include: 1) Proportion of seats held by M/F in local water authorities executive boards; 2) Gender Parity of M/F participation in meetings of sub-national decision-making authorities (counting the number of women and men participating in meetings); 3) The presence of gender strategy in local plans and local implementation policies. Source: adapted from WWAP 2015 Questionnaire for collecting sex-disaggregated water data http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002345/234514e.pdf 15 Gender-specific objectives at the transboundary level: 1) Presence of a specific gender strategy in transboundary agreements, in other transboundary arrangements, in their implementation plans and in all transboundary water impact assessments; 2) Gender Parity of M/F participants in meetings of transboundary decision-making authorities (counting the number of women and men participating in meetings. Source: adapted from WWAP 2015 Questionnaire for collecting sex-disaggregated water data http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002345/234514e.pdf 11
e f Organizational framework for transboundary water for most important basins and aquifers 16 No organizational framework(s) Organizational framework(s) being developed. FEDERAL No dedicated Authorities exist, with COUNTRIES ONLY: provincial/state clear mandate to Provincial / State authorities for lead IWRM authorities leading IWRM implementation. responsible for implementation. WRM Score or n/a: Further info. or reason for n/a Organizational framework(s) established. Authorities have the capacity to effectively lead IWRM plan formulation. Organizational framework(s) mandate is partly fulfilled Authorities have the capacity to effectively lead IWRM plan implementation. Organizational framework(s) mandate is fulfilled for the most part Authorities have the capacity to effectively lead periodic monitoring and evaluation of the IWRM plan. Organizational framework(s) mandate is fully fulfilled Authorities have the capacity to effectively lead periodic IWRM plan revision. Average Institutions score [Enter score here] In case of n/a for any questions, they should be omitted from the average calculation. 16 An organizational framework can include the existence of a joint body, joint mechanism or commission for transboundary cooperation. 12
3. Management Instruments This section includes the tools that enable decision-makers and users to make rational and informed choices between alternative actions. It includes programs, monitoring water resources and the pressures on them, knowledge sharing and capacity development. Terminology used in the questions: Limited, Adequate, Very good, Excellent: are terms used describe the status, coverage and effectiveness of the instruments assessed in this section. Respondents should apply their own judgement based on the best-practice descriptions of instruments in the glossary, the section introduction, and through footnotes. For example, adequate may imply that the basic minimum criteria for that particular instrument are met. Respondents are encouraged to provide qualifying information to the question score in the further info. cell immediately below each question. Management instruments: Can include regulations, financial incentives, monitoring, plans/programs (e.g. for development, use and protection of water resources), as well as those specified in footnotes on questions and thresholds below. Monitoring: collecting, updating, and sharing timely, consistent and comparable water-related data and information, relevant for science and policy. Effective monitoring requires ongoing commitment and financing from government. May include a combination of physical data collection, remote sensing, and modelling for filling data gaps. Short-term / Long-term: In the context of instruments, short-term includes ad-hoc activities and projects, generally not implemented as part of an overarching program with long-term goals. Long-term refers to activities that are undertaken as part of an ongoing program that has more long-term goals/aims and implementation strategy. Please take note of all footnotes as they contain important information and clarification of terms used in the questions and thresholds. Enter your score, in increments of 10, from 0-100, or n/a (not applicable), in the grey cell immediately below each question. To achieve Very high implementation (100) for any of the questions in this section, any instruments should have ongoing commitment and financing from government, and be periodically reviewed and revised, in addition to the threshold text for each question. You are encouraged to provide additional information in the space provided to the right of the score. This may, for example, be a clarification of how the situation in your country differs to the threshold description, and justification for your score. If Very high (100) or n/a is selected, a justification must be provided. 13
3. Management Instruments Degree of implementation (0 100) Very low (0) Low (20) Medium-low (40) Medium-high (60) High (80) Very high (100) 3.1 What is the status of instruments to support IWRM implementation at the national level? a b Monitoring water availability 17 (includes surface and/or groundwater, as relevant to the country). No national monitoring systems in place. Monitoring systems established for a limited number of short-term / ad-hoc projects or similar. Long-term national monitoring is carried out but with limited coverage and limited use by stakeholders. Sustainable and No Use of Some efficient water instruments being instruments is limited instruments use implemented. and only through 18, short-term / ad-hoc more long-term basis, (includes surface projects or similar. but with limited and/or coverage across groundwater, as different water users relevant to the and the country. country). Long-term national monitoring is carried out with adequate coverage but limited use by stakeholders. Management instruments are long-term basis, with adequate coverage across different water users and the country. Long-term national monitoring is carried out with very good coverage and adequate use by stakeholders. Management instruments are long-term basis, with very good coverage across different water users and the country, and are effective. Long-term national monitoring is carried out with excellent coverage and excellent use by stakeholders. Management instruments are long-term basis, with excellent coverage across different water users and the country, and are highly effective. 17 See definition of monitoring in Terminology. 18 Management instruments include demand measures (e.g. technical measures, financial incentives, education and awareness raising to reduce water use and/or improve water-use efficiency, conservation, recycling and re-use), monitoring water use (including the ability to disaggregate by sector), mechanisms for allocating water between sectors (including environmental considerations). 14
c Pollution control No instruments being implemented. d Use of instruments is limited and only through short-term / ad-hoc projects or similar. Management of No water-related instruments being ecosystems. 19 implemented. Use of instruments is limited and only through short-term / ad-hoc projects or similar. Some instruments more long-term basis, but with limited coverage across sectors and the country. Some instruments more long-term basis, but with limited coverage across different ecosystem types and the country. Management instruments are long-term basis, with adequate coverage across sectors and the country. Management instruments are long-term basis, with adequate coverage across different ecosystem types and the country. Environmental Water Requirements (EWR) analysed in some cases. Management instruments are long-term basis, with very good coverage across sectors and the country, and are effective. Management instruments are long-term basis, with very good coverage across different ecosystem types and the country, and are effective. EWR analysed for most of country. Management instruments are long-term basis, with excellent coverage across sectors and the country, and are highly effective. Management instruments are long-term basis, with excellent coverage across different ecosystem types and the country, and are highly effective. EWR analysed for whole country. 19 Water-related ecosystems include rivers, lakes and aquifers, as well as wetlands, forests and mountains. Management of these systems includes tools such as plans, the assessment of Environmental Water Requirements (EWR), and protection of areas and species. Monitoring includes measuring the extent and quality of the ecosystems over time. 15
e Developing IWRM capacity 20 at the national level No capacity development specific to water resources. Occasional capacity development, generally limited to short-term / ad-hoc activities. Some long-term capacity development initiatives are being implemented, but geographic and group coverage is limited. Long-term capacity development initiatives are being implemented, and geographic and group coverage is adequate. Long-term capacity development initiatives are being implemented, with effective outcomes, and geographic and group coverage is very good. Long-term capacity development initiatives are being implemented with highly effective outcomes, and geographic and group coverage is excellent. Very low (0) Low (20) Medium-low (40) Medium-high (60) High (80) Very high (100) 3.2 What is the status of instruments to support IWRM implementation at other levels? a Basin instruments. 21 No basin level instruments being implemented. Use of basin level instruments is limited and only through short-term / ad-hoc projects. Some basin level instruments more long-term basis, but with limited coverage across the country. Basin level instruments more long-term basis, with adequate coverage across the country. Basin level instruments more long-term basis, with effective outcomes and very good coverage across the country. Basin level instruments more long-term basis, with highly effective outcomes and excellent coverage across the country. 20 IWRM capacity development: refers to the enhancement of skills, instruments, resources and incentives for people and institutions at all levels, to improve IWRM implementation. Capacity needs assessments are essential for effective and cost-effective capacity development. Capacity development programs should consider gender balance and disadvantaged/minority groups in terms of participation and awareness. Capacity development is relevant for many groups, including: local and central government, water professionals in all areas - both public and private water organisations, civil society, and in regulatory organisations. In this instance, capacity development may also include primary, secondary and tertiary education, and academic research concerning IWRM. 21 Basin and aquifer : involves managing water at the appropriate hydrological scale, using the surface water basin or aquifer as the unit of. This may involve basin and aquifer development, use and protection plans. It should also promote multi-level cooperation among users, stakeholders and levels of government for the of water resources. To achieve Very high (100) basin and aquifer scores, surface and groundwater must be integrated. 16