Presentation of the revised water governance indicator framework, OECD

1. (DRAFT)
OECD WATER GOVERNANCE INDICATORS
2ND CONSULTATION
9th meeting of the OECD Water Governance Initiative
3 July 2017

2. Indicators as a tool to support the
OECD Principles on Water Governance
www.oecd.org/governance/oecd-principles-on-water-governance.htm

3. The role of indicators in the “water policy cycle”
One cannot improve
what cannot be
measured
 Accountability
 Transparency
 Bench-learning
 Adjusting
Systemic framework to measure
water governance

4. A two-year bottom-up and multi-stakeholder
process
• April 2015 : Session at the 7th World Water Forum
• October 2015: Inventory of existing indicators
• November 2015: 6th WGI meeting, Paris, Scoping note
• June 2016 : 7th WGI meeting, The Hague – Approach
• Sept-Oct. 2016: 67 suggestions from WGI - Inputs
• January 2017: 8th WGI meeting, Rabat- 1stconsultation
• Feb.–March 2017 : Revised framework
• May-June 2017: 12 Pilot-tests
• July 2017: 8th WGI meeting, Rabat- 1stconsultation

5. Progress since the 8th WGI meeting
(Rabat, January 2017)
• A means to an end
• Tool for dialogue
• Self-measurement framework, but not the assessment itself
• Voluntary approach
• No benchmarking nor systematic monitoring / reporting
Clarification of the objectives
• Approach
• Number of indicators
• Link between static and dynamic
Simplification and streamlining
• Open call to WGI (April 2017)
• Multi-stakeholder workshops (May 2017)
• Synthesis reports & Webinar (June 2017)
Pilot -test

6. Changes since the 8th WGI meeting
8th WGI Meeting
12-13 Jan. 2017
9 WGI meeting
3-4 July 2017
Concept
Level 1 : framework
Level 2: progress
Level 3 : impact
Traffic light
Checklist
Key data
Number More than 340+
36 indicators
100+ questions
28 numbers
Nature
Mix of prescriptors &
indicators
Measurable indicators
Open questions for dialogue
Data visualisation

7. Indicator framework Type of data Possible visualisation
Traffic light
• Policy framework
• Institutions
• Instruments
36 indicators
Existence+ level of
implementation
(current status and
future expectations)
Checklist
100+ questions
Yes or No
Examples / details
Key data
28 indicators Quantitative
A three-component indicator framework

8. List of (12) Pilot-Tests
Authority Scale Pilot name Country Workshop
Selangor Water Authority Basin Selangor Malaysia 25 May
Sebou River Basin Agency Basin Sebou Morocco 18 May
WWF Colombia Basin
Rio Nare in
Antioquia
Colombia 30 May
National Water Authority National Peru Peru 30 May
International Secretariat for Water Basin Rimac Peru 10 and 17 May
Association of Water Utilities Basin Segura Spain 7 June
Jucar Hydrographic confederation Basin Jucar Spain 1 June
Scottish Government Region Scotland Scotland 25 May
National Water Authority National Cabo Verde Cabo Verde 26 May
Association for Water & Gas National Austria Austria 23 May
Global Water Partnership City Kinshasa RDCongo 29 June
Deltares Province
Eindhoven &
Helmond
Netherlands 24 May

9. Milestones of the Pilot-Test
1
• 12 pilot-test multi-stakeholder workshops to discuss indicators
and gather feedback (May 2017)
2
• A dedicated Webinar to discuss lessons learned and
adjustments needed (June 2017)
3
• 2nd consultation at the 9th WGI meeting (3-4 July 2017) and
finalisation of the indicator framework
4
• Data collection from pilot-tests based on the final indicator
framework (September 2017)
5
• Launch of the Water Governance at a Glance Report (8th
World Water Forum, March 2018)

10. Feedback on the methodology
(Traffic light)
Pros
• Easily understandable
• Helpful to prioritise actions
• Effective and structured form of
organising opinions
Challenges
• Difficulty in reaching consensus on the
implementation in some cases
• Sometimes several nuances per
indicators to agree on a colour
Alternatives
• DPSIR
• Smiley and sad faces
• Weight the scale before
• Disaggregated indicators

11. Feedback on the 5 options of the traffic light
Pros
• Stimulus for dialogue
• Most situations are captured
Challenges
• Tendency towards the yellow colour
• There may be a missing category between
“partly implemented” and “functioning”
• Difficult to agree on green and yellow
Alternatives
• Differentiate the concept “exists” with “degree of
implementation”.
• Consider arrows to show expected improvements
• Rules to decide the colour should be defined a
priori
• Possible specification of “unanimously adopted”
(or not)
• The clearer the indicator the easier the consensus
YES
80%
NO
20%
Are you comfortable
with the 5 options of
the traffic light for
assessing policy
frameworks,
institutions and
instruments?
YES
55%
NO
45%
Are all dimensions of
the traffic light
clearly
understandable?

12. Feedback on the guidance from Secretariat
50%
20%
30%
Categorisation of the
colours of the traffic light
Specific guidance
should be
provided by the
Secretariat the
colour
categorisation
End users should
be left free to
decide the key
objective facts
for each colour
Both
50%
30%
20%
Use and implementation of
the indicator framework
More detailed
methodological
guidance and
definitions should
be provided
Users should be
free to interpret
questions their
own way to adapt
to their contexts
Both
[strong] [acceptable] [weak]
Reporting stakeholders’ view
Reporting trend over the coming 3 years
Revised
version

13. Feedback on the relevance for all scales
and water management functions
YES
73%
NO
27%
In your view, are the
indicators proposed in the
traffic light system
relevant to all scales
(e.g. national, basin,
regional, local)?
YES
70%
NO
30%
Do you agree the traffic
light should not only
provide a static picture of
the current performance
but also an indication of
the expected trend over
the coming 3 years?

14. Feedback on Checklist & Key data
78%
22%
Regarding the relationship
between checklist and
traffic light, would you say
that:
Overall the
checklist and the
traffic light are
complementary and
serve each other
Complementarities
and overlaps YES
80%
NO
10%
NA
10%
Are the key data relevant
to provide for data
visualisation in a
given city, basin, region,
or country?

15. Resources needed to use indicators
YES
64%
NO
36%
Would you need to
produce new data to
document the checklist
and supply the
quantitative indicators?
YES
82%
NO
18%
Were any
stakeholder
groups or
representatives
missing?
YES
100%
Were the human
resources sufficient
for carrying out the pilot
test?

16. • Overall support of the current framework
– Strong buy-in from stakeholders
– Further clarification, rewording
• Need for further guidance from Secretariat
– Terminology, definitions
– Process (e.g. stakeholders to be involved)
– Lack of consensus
Stock-taking of pilot-test results

17. • July: 3rd draft of the indicator framework
• Sept-Oct: 2nd phase of the pilot-test
– Workshops
– Data collection
– Draft report
• 20-21 Nov: 10th WGI Meeting
• March 2018: Water Governance at a
Glance (Launch in Brasilia)
Next steps

18. • Do you agree with the revised version of
the indicator framework?
• How to make the most of the Checklist and
connect it to the traffic light?
• Which kind of guidance or methodological
support should we develop?
• Who would like to contribute to the 2nd
phase (data collection)?
Questions for group discussion

19. THANK YOU