1. Report on Survey GWP Statutes Update
2011-05-11
The Steering Committee decided to recommend certain changes to the GWP/GWPO Statutes
in May 2010. To enable comments from the partners when finalising the recommended
changes a survey was made and distributed on 21 April 2011 to Partners listserv, RWP listserv
and the CWP listserv. A total of 72 responses were received as follows:
Advisor / Other
Other GWP not listed 5
Entity 4
Regional/Count
ry/Other Water
Partnership 18
Partner 45
This pie-chart is based on a multiple-choice response. Persons responding were also asked to
write the name of their organisation. This list of organisations includes 59 partners and 9 GWP
Water Partnerships. The difference may be explained by people being engaged both in their
partner organisation and the regional/country water partnership.
In the following pages the survey questions are presented followed by a pie-chart of the yes/no
responses and the comments provided by those submitting the survey.
The proposed changes to the Statutes of GWP and GWPO dated 2011-05-11 that are included in
the documentation for the May 2011 SC meeting have taken the survey responses into account.

2. Article 2 OBJECTIVES
RATIONALE: The recommendation is to include GWP’s vision and mission in the GWP/GWPO
Statutes as they are currently not reflected.
REVISED WORDING: Include a new paragraph (1) in Article 2, Objectives, as follows:
“(1) The vision of the Network is for a water-secure world. Its mission is to support the sustainable
development and management of water resources at all levels.”
1. Do you agree with this recommendation?
No 1,39% Not Answered
2,78%
Yes 95,83%
1.1. If no, please explain:
Delete the words "at all levels". These are not necessary as it is implied in the rest of the vision.
I agree with the vision, but not sure if it takes into account protection of water resources.

3. Article 3 PARTNERS OF THE NETWORK
RATIONALE: The GWP Policy on Partners was adopted by the GWP Steering Committee in 2005 to
clarify the concept and position of a partner within GWP. The recommendation is to clearly state in the
Statutes that the GWP Steering Committee defines the concept and position of a partner, in order to
maintain consistency in GWP/GWPO governance documentation.
REVISED WORDING: Include a new paragraph (6) in Article 3, Partners of the Network, as follows:
“(6) The Steering Committee may further define the concept and position of partners.”
2. Do you agree with this recommendation?
Not Answered
No 5,56% 2,77%
Yes 91,67%
2.1. If no, please explain:
Partly yes - a lot of power is apssed onto the Steering Committee.
I would add to the paragraph: The Steering Committee will define the concept and position of partners
through the policy on partners.
Proviso....The concepts and positions of partners must be so articulated within the constitution that there
is no/little ambiguity. This should be the function of the general meeting/body. The regulation thereof
can be by the steering committee.
The definition of concept and position partners should count with the approval of the regional
committees as well.
The meaning of this statement not totally clear. What must be understood for "concept and position"??. It
seems to be a decision with a very wide scope of possibilities, that should not be a faculty of the steering
committee .

4. Article 5 GENERAL PROVISION ON ORGANIC STRUCTURE
RATIONALE: The GWP/GWPO Statutes state that the Network operates through relations with
accredited Regional Water Partnerships (RWP), Regional Technical Committees (R-TAC) and Country
Water Partnerships (CWP) but lack a definition of these water partnerships. The recommendation is to
include a definition of the RWPs and CWPs and make the distinction between the GWP Network and
GWPO clearer. Further the recommendation is to remove the reference to R-TACs, since the regional
technical function is integrated in the organisational structure of the RWPs.
REVISED WORDING: Amend Article 5, General Provision on Organic Structure, as follows:
“(1) The Network is a network of interested Partners, from the public sector, the private sector, and
civil society, concerned with water affairs around the world. The Network operates through co-
operation with Partners and through the Network Meeting and any groups and committees established
by it.
(2) Partners may be organised on a regional and country basis in Water Partnerships as the functional
part of the Network in that region or country. Such Regional and Country Water Partnerships become a
part of the Network provided they meet the conditions for accreditation as adopted by the Steering
Committee. Accredited Regional and Country Water Partnerships may use the GWP name and logo
and are an integral part of the Network but remain autonomous organisations.
(3) The Organisation consists of the Meeting of the Sponsoring Partners, the Chair, the Steering
Committee, the Nomination Committee, the Technical Committee, the Executive Secretary, the
Secretariat and such other organs that the Steering Committee may decide to establish in accordance
with these Statutes. Other entities operating with or within the Network are not parts of the
Organisation.
(4) The Network and its operations are managed by the Chair, the Steering Committee and other
organs of the Organisation as well as by the Network Meeting, as provided for in these Statutes.”
3. Do you agree with this recommendation?
Not Answered
No 6,94% 2,78%
Yes 90,28%
3.1. If no, please explain:
Water affairs is too vague a term

5. I`d like to see in the wording the "democratic" concept and mechanisms. For instance in item (4) I think it
would enrich and set the Network by saying: "The Network and its operations are democratically managed
by the Chair.....
Is the executive Secretary not part of the Secretariat? Does the organisation exist only when there is a
meeting of the listed organs? or it is made up of such organs? See (3) above.
CAWASA is already involved in similar activity with its members, seems like this will be duplicating or
conflicting. Seeing that it is a small region maybe CAWASA should be approach on the matter.
The problem stems from the difference between the network and hierarchical structure of the organization,
they are two different and incompatible organizational forms

6. Article 6 THE GLOBAL WATER PARTNERSHIP CHAIR
RATIONALE: Although the general understanding is that the GWP Chair will serve up to two terms
only, the Statutes are not explicit about this. The recommended change is to state that the Chair’s term
of office may only be renewed once.
REVISED WORDING: Amend paragraph (2) in Article 6, the Global Water Partnership Chair as
follows:
“(2) The Chair shall be appointed by the Annual Meeting of the Sponsoring Partners for a period that
shall not exceed three years, which may be subject to renewal once only.”
4. Do you agree with this recommendation?
Not Answered
No 5,56% 2,77%
Yes 91,67%
4.1. If no, please explain:
If the work of Chair is good or mark able then, we should not bound his renewal of one time only.
Rewording: "....which may be renewed for another three-year term only"
The term of office should be reduced to two years with renewal only once.
Yes, but please clarify: The chair will be selected based on the criteria that agreed by Sponsoring
Partners and appointed by them.
Chair should be appointed by the all partner members and not only the sponsors

7. Article 7 THE STEERING COMMITTEE, PARAGRAPH 2-4
RATIONALE: The recommendation is to update the Statutes as the UN subcommittee on Water
Resources has been succeeded by UN Water. Further a reference to the procedures for selection of the
RWP representative in the Steering Committee should be made.
REVISED WORDING: Amend paragraph (2-3) and include a new paragraph (3) in Article 7, the
Steering Committee, as follows:
“(2) The Steering Committee shall consist of a minimum of eleven and a maximum of twenty-one
members, as decided by the Meeting of the Sponsoring Partners. The Steering Committee shall include,
as ex officio members, the Chair, the Executive Secretary and the chair of the Technical Committee.
(3) The Chair of UN Water, or a senior representative from within UN Water as appointed by the Chair
of UN Water for the duration of the UN Water Chair's appointment, is entitled to participate as a
member of the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee shall also include one member
representing all Regional Water Partnerships appointed in accordance with the procedure adopted by
the Steering Committee.
(4) Other members of the Steering Committee shall be appointed by the Annual Meeting of the
Sponsoring Partners for a period that shall not exceed three years, which may be subject to renewal
one time. The terms of the first members shall be staggered in order to establish gradual rotation of
membership.”
5. Do you agree with this recommendation?
Not Answered
No 4,17% 5,55%
Yes 90,28%
5.1. If no, please explain:
- para (2), 2nd sentence should read: "The Steering Committee shall include,.as ex officio members, its
Chair and the Executive Secretary, and the chair of the Technical Committee". - para (4), 1st sentence,
last phrase: rewording: which may be renewed
As per q. 4
(3) In my opinion, GWP's impact on the ground is dependent on the effectiveness of Regional Water
Partnerships in implementing the GWP strategy (ies). They cannot thus be effectively represented by just
one person out of 11 - the minimum, given 13 regions

8. Article 7 THE STEERING COMMITTEE, POINT (7) l)
RATIONALE: The recommendation is to remove the reference to R-TACs since the regional technical
function is integrated in the organisational structure of the RWPs.
REVISED WORDING: Remove the word “Regional Technical Committees” in bullet point (7) l) in
Article 7, the Steering Committee.
6. Do you agree with this recommendation?
Not Answered
No 1,39% 5,55%
Yes 93,06%
6.1. If no, please explain:
Regional is more specific
Provided the make up of each structure is clearly defined elsewhere

9. Article 7 THE STEERING COMMITTEE, POINT (7) q)
RATIONALE: Audit reports are not physically distributed to the Partners. They are sent electronically,
are included in the Steering Committee’s Annual Report to the Sponsoring Partners and are made
generally available on the GWP website. The recommendation is to remove the requirement to
distribute the audit report to the Partners in this point.
REVISED WORDING: Amend bullet point (7) q) in Article 7, the Steering Committee, as follows:
“q) Comment on and distribute the audit report or reports to the Meeting of Sponsoring Partners.”
7. Do you agree with this recommendation?
Not Answered
5,56%
No 11,11%
Yes 83,33%
7.1. If no, please explain:
I do not quite understand the proposal
GWP is said to be a transparent organization/network. Lead by example.
Recommend wording that establishes that the audit report will be electronically distributed
Partners shall receive a copy of the audit report or annual report, either in electronically or printed
format.
This will not be in keeping with our principles of transparency and accountability
Some partners are not a corporation with an infrastructure to develop detailed audit reports. Many are
small community groups.
I think the audit reports should be shared by the SC to the partners in the anual network meeting.
All partners

10. Article 9 THE NETWORK MEETING
RATIONALE: The recommendation is to clarify (a) that it is the Network Meeting that decides if the annual
Network Meeting should not take place and (b) that the Network Meeting, as with other statutory meetings,
may be held through distant communication.
REVISED WORDING: Amend Article 9, the Network Meeting, as follows:
“(1) The Partners shall hold an Annual Network Meeting on the convocation of the Steering Committee, unless
otherwise decided by the Network Meeting. An extraordinary Network Meeting shall be convened: a) When the
Steering Committee finds it necessary; b) Upon the request of one fifth of the Partners.
(2) At the Annual Network Meeting the Partners shall: a) Adopt the strategic directions and policies for the
Network; b) Recommend action to be taken by the Steering Committee on the basis of the adopted strategic
directions and policies; c) Comment on the yearly activity report and the yearly financial statement of the
Steering Committee; d) Consider and decide on the expulsion of Partners from the Network, after
recommendation of the Steering Committee.
(3) The Network Meeting shall be governed by rules proposed by the Steering Committee and adopted by the
Network Meeting.
(4) The Partners may hold the Annual Network Meeting or extraordinary meetings through distant
communication in accordance with rules established by the Network Meeting.”
8. Do you agree with this recommendation?
Not Answered
No 1,39% 5,55%
Yes 93,06%
8.1. If no, please explain:
This maybe an economical move but maybe not an effective one.

11. Article 10 THE MEETING OF THE SPONSORING PARTNERS,
POINT (5) a) (new)
RATIONALE: In order to conduct business in-between Sponsoring Partners’ meetings (i.e. the meeting of the
states and intergovernmental organisations that established GWPO), there is a practice of having the
chairperson of the Sponsoring Partners being appointed, not only for the meeting but also for the period
between meetings. The recommendation is to establish this practice in the Statutes.
REVISED WORDING: include a new point (5) a) in Article 10, the Meeting of the Sponsoring Partners, as
follows:
“a) Select a Sponsoring Partner representative to act as Chairperson of the Sponsoring Partners for a
maximum period of three years, which may be subject to renewal.”
REVISED WORDING: Amend paragraph (10) in Article 10, the Meeting of the Sponsoring Partners, as
follows:
“(10) Absent Sponsoring Partners may communicate their vote in advance to the Chairperson of the
Sponsoring Partners.”
9. Do you agree with this recommendation?
Not Answered
No 5,56% 2,77%
Yes 91,67%
9.1. If no, please explain:
- para (a) last phrase, rewording: "... for a period of three years, which may be subject to renewal"
Term should be 2 years. Voting in advance should be by proxy to the Chairperson.
provide written communication of their vote
Do not understand the reason why the Substantive Chairperson cannot perform that role.

12. Article 10 THE MEETING OF THE SPONSORING PARTNERS, POINT
(5) b-d)
RATIONALE: As the governing body of the GWPO, the Sponsoring Partners are expected to approve the
yearly activity and financial reports submitted by the Steering Committee. The audit report on the other hand
cannot be approved by the Sponsoring Partners, but it is received and considered. The current Statutes state
this incorrectly, hence the auditors have recommended correcting this wording.
REVISED WORDING: Amend point (5) b-d) in Article 10, the Meeting of the Sponsoring Partners, as follows:
“b) Receive and approve the yearly activity report of the Steering Committee; c) Receive and approve the
yearly financial statement of the Steering Committee; d) Receive and consider the audit report or reports;”
10. Do you agree with this recommendation?
Not Answered
No 1,39%
2,78%
Yes 95,83%
10.1. If no, please explain:
Does consider in d) means to approve? The SPs should accept/approve the audit report/reports.

13. Article 10 THE MEETING OF THE SPONSORING PARTNERS, POINT
(5) e) (new)
RATIONALE: The GWPO auditors have recommended that the Statutes should specify that the Sponsoring
Partners decide whether to discharge the Steering Committee members of liability.
REVISED WORDING: Include a new point (5) e) in Article 10, the Meeting of the Sponsoring Partners, as
follows:
“e) Consider if the members of the Steering Committee shall be discharged of liability for the decisions of the
preceding year and decide accordingly;”
11. Do you agree with this recommendation?
Not Answered
No 2,78%
2,78%
Yes 94,44%
11.1. If no, please explain:
Not clear

14. Article 11 THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY AND THE SECRETARIAT
RATIONALE: The recommendation is to clarify and specify that the GWP Chair’s instructions to the Executive
Secretary are to be within the GWP Chair’s mandate.
REVISED WORDING: Amend bullet point (3) b) in Article 11, the Executive Secretary as follows: "b) Execute
instructions from the Chair relating to the Chair’s position as spokesperson of the Network and the
Organisation;"
12. Do you agree with this recommendation?
Not Answered
No 1,39%
2,78%
Yes 95,83%
12.1. If no, please explain:
1st line, last word, mistyping preposition "of"

15. Article 15 EXTERNAL AUDITOR
RATIONALE: The recommendation is to change the heading to “audit” as this Article is about the audit itself
as well as about the external auditor.
REVISED WORDING: Amend the heading of Article 15 to “Audit”.
13. Do you agree with this recommendation?
Not Answered
2,78%
Yes 97,22% No 0,00%
13.1. If no, please explain: