stakeholders in the country, as well as help monitor progress over time. Suggestions for the type of information required are provided. You may also provide further information you think is relevant, or links to further documentation. If ‘Very high (100)’ or ‘n/a’ is selected, a justification should be provided. 2. Institutions and Participation 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 National government authorities’ capacity for leading implementation of national IWRM plans or similar No dedicated government authorities for water resources management. Authorities exist, with clear mandate to lead water resources management. Authorities have clear mandate to lead IWRM implementation, and 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. Score or n/a: [Enter score] Justification/evidence [Enter text here. E.g. reference to authorities and mandates, levels of capacity, reports] b Coordination between national government authorities representing different sectors on water resources, policy, planning and management No communication between different government sectors on policy, planning and management. Communication: Information on water resources, policy, planning and management is made available between different sectors. Consultation: Information, experiences and opinions are shared between different sectors. Participation: Opportunities for different sectors to take part in policy, planning and management processes. Representation: Formal consultation between different government sectors with the objective of agreeing on collective decisions on important issues and activities. Co-decisions and co- production: Shared power between different sectors on joint policy, planning and management activities. Score or n/a: [Enter score] Justification/evidence [Enter text here. E.g. reference to mechanisms for cross-sectoral coordination, evidence of meetings, reports]
Very low (0) Low (20) Medium-low (40) Medium-high (60) High (80) Very high (100) c Public participation in water resources, policy, planning and management at national level. No communication between government and stakeholders on policy, planning and management. Communication: Information on water resources, policy, planning and management is made available to stakeholders. Consultation: Government authorities occasionally request information, experiences and opinions of stakeholders. Consultation: Government authorities regularly request information, experiences and opinions of stakeholders. Participation: Regular opportunities for stakeholders to take part in relevant policy, planning and management processes. Representation: Formal representation of stakeholders in government processes contributing to decision making on important issues and activities, as appropriate. Score or n/a: [Enter score] Justification/evidence [Enter text here. E.g. mechanisms for public participation, types of stakeholder groups that participate or any significant ones that do not, evidence of degree of participation.] d Business participation in water resources development, management and use at national level. No communication between government and business about water resources development, management and use. Limited communication between government and business about water resources development, management and use. Regular consultation between government and business about water resources development, management and use. Limited opportunities for private sector involvement established for water resources development, management and use activities. Regular opportunities for private sector involvement established for water resources development, management and use activities. Effective private sector involvement established for water resources development, management and use activities. Score or n/a: [Enter score] Justification/evidence [Enter text here. E.g. mechanisms for public participation, types of businesses that participate or any significant ones that do not, evidence of degree of participation] e Gender-specific objectives for water resources management at national level. 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. Score or n/a: [Enter score] Justification/evidence [Enter text here. E.g. reference to gender objectives in laws/policies/plans, programs to address gender objectives, reports]
Very low (0) Low (20) Medium-low (40) Medium-high (60) High (80) Very high (100) b Aquifer management instruments. No aquifer level management instruments being implemented. Use of aquifer level management instruments is limited and only through short-term / projects. Some aquifer level management instruments implemented on a more long-term basis, but with limited geographic and stakeholder coverage. Aquifer level management instruments implemented on a more long-term basis, with adequate geographic and stakeholder coverage. Aquifer level management instruments implemented on a more long-term basis, with effective outcomes and very good geographic and stakeholder coverage. Aquifer level management instruments implemented on a more long-term basis, with highly effective outcomes and excellent geographic and stakeholder coverage. Score or n/a: [Enter score] [Enter text here. E.g. reference to types of management instruments, evidence of implementation and effectiveness, geographic differences, level of implementation across different stakeholder groups.] c Data and information sharing within countries at all levels No data and information sharing. Limited data and information sharing on an ad-hoc basis. Data and information sharing arrangements exist on a more basis between major data providers and users. Data and information sharing arrangements implemented on a more long-term basis, with adequate coverage across sectors and the country. Data and information sharing arrangements implemented on a more long-term basis, with very good coverage across sectors and the country. All relevant data and information are online and freely accessible to all. Score or n/a: [Enter score] [Enter text here. E.g. reference to different data and information sharing arrangements, access to information.] d Transboundary data and information sharing between countries No data and information sharing. Limited data and information sharing on an ad-hoc or informal basis. Data and information sharing arrangements exist, but sharing is limited. Data and information sharing arrangements implemented adequately. Data and information sharing arrangements implemented effectively. All relevant data and information are online and accessible between countries. Score or n/a: [Enter score] [Enter text here. E.g. reference to different data and information sharing arrangements, access to information.] Average ‘Management Instruments’ score [Enter score here] In case of ‘n/a’ for any questions, they should be omitted from the average calculation. Financing This section concerns the adequacy of the finance available for water resources development and management from various sources.
Score or n/a: [Enter score] Justification/evidence [Enter text here. E.g. reference to adequacy of budget, significant budget gaps.] b National budget for the recurrent costs of the IWRM elements No budget allocations made for recurrent costs of the IWRM elements. Allocations made for only a few of the elements and implementation at an early stage. Allocations made for at least half of the elements but insufficient for others. Allocations for most of the elements and some implementation under way. Allocations include all elements and implementation regularly carried out. Planned budget allocations for all elements of the IWRM approach fully utilised. Score or n/a: [Enter score] Justification/evidence [Enter text here. E.g. reference to adequacy of budget, significant budget gaps.] Very low (0) Low (20) Medium-low (40) Medium-high (60) High (80) Very high (100) 4.2 What is the status of financing for water resources development and management at other levels? a Sub-national or basin budgets for investment including water resources infrastructure. No budget allocated In sub-national or basin investment plans. Budget allocated but only partly covers planned investments. Sufficient budget allocated for planned investments but insufficient funds disbursed or made available. Sufficient budget allocated and funds disbursed for all planned programmes or projects. Funding available and all planned projects under implementation. Budget fully utilised, programmes completed as planned and post evaluation carried out. Score or n/a: [Enter score] Justification/evidence [Enter text here. E.g. reference to adequacy of budget, significant budget gaps.] b Revenues raised from dedicated levies on water users at basin, aquifer or levels. No revenues raised at the sub-national level. Processes in place to raise local revenue but not yet implemented. Limited revenues raised from charges, but are not used for IWRM activities. Limited revenues raised from charges cover some IWRM activities. Revenues raised from charges cover most IWRM activities. Local authorities raise funds from multiple sources and fully cover costs of IWRM activities. Score or n/a: [Enter score] Justification/evidence [Enter text here. E.g. reference to types of revenues raised and mechanisms, and adequacy of revenues to meet requirements.]
c Financing for transboundary cooperation No specific funding allocated from the MS budgets nor from other regular sources. MS agreement on country share of contributions in place and in-kind support for the cooperation organisation / arrangement. Funding less than 50% of that expected as contributions and by regulation. Funding less than 75% of that expected as contributions and by regulation. Funding more than 75% of that expected as contributions and by regulation. Full funding of that expected as contributions and by regulation. Score or n/a: [Enter score] Justification/evidence [Enter text here. E.g. reference to financing arrangements, evidence of contributions.] Average ‘Financing’ score [Enter score here] In case of ‘n/a’ for any questions, they should be omitted from the average calculation. Indicator 6.5.1 score Please complete the following table based on scores calculated for the previous four sections. The indicator 6.5.1 score is the average of each of the section scores. Section Average Score Section 1 Enabling Environment Section 2 Institutions and Participation Section 3 Management Instruments Section 4 Financing Indicator 6.5.1 score = Degree of IWRM implementation (0-100) (Please remember: Questions where the score is 0 (zero) must be included. However, questions that are not applicable must not be included.) Interpretation of the score The score indicates the ‘degree of implementation of Integrated Water Resources Management’, on a scale of 0 to 100, with 0 signifying no implementation, and 100 signifying complete implementation. However, the true value of the questionnaire to countries lies within the scores and justification provided for the individual questions, as this helps to identify which actions need to be taken to move towards a greater degree of implementation of IWRM.