Home >Documents >WATER GOVERNANCE : AN OECDPERSPECTIVE · 2019-05-06 · OECD Water Governance Initiative: From...

WATER GOVERNANCE : AN OECDPERSPECTIVE · 2019-05-06 · OECD Water Governance Initiative: From...

Date post:24-Apr-2020
View:0 times
Download:0 times
Share this document with a friend

    Hakan Tropp, OECDHead of Water Governance Programme

    23 January, Dialogues for a Water Secure Mexico

  • • Setting the scene• OECD Principles on Water Governance• OECD Indicator framework on water

    governance• Multi-level Water Governance Framework:

    The example of Mexico



  • OECD Water Governance Initiative: From vision and action to implementation!

    OECD Principles on Water Governance

    Indicator Framework

    50+ Water Stories

    2013-2015 Vision

    2016-2018 Action

    2019-2021 Implementation

    Promoting the use of existing indicators and developingimpact indicators

    Promoting capacity development and developing modules and activities

    Implementation of the Principles and


  • Operational activities OECD


    Working group


    Working group

    Capacity building

    Strategic guidanceChair & Steering Committee

    [Suez, ASTEE, INBO/OIEau, AEAS, WIN, SIWI, Transparency


    100+ Network Members

    Communication & outreach

    Structure of the WGI (2019-2021)

    Better Governance in the Water Sector

    Provide a Technical Platform

    Advise Governments on Reform

    Raise Profile of Governance in SDGs,

    COP, Habitat III,

    Implement Policy Standards and

    PracticesFoster Governance


    Global Water Agenda[SDGs, 9th World Water Forum, Habitat III,


  • Water crises are often governance crises

    ü Coping with water security, requires more than financing & hydrologyü Technical, financial & institutional solutions exist, but implementation

    is laggingü Governance : a means to an end : manage too much, too little and too

    polluted water

    ü Local and global issue, with multiple actors at different levels ü Capital –intensive, monopolistic intensity, market failuresü Interdependencies across multiple stakeholders are poorly managed

    No one-size-fits-all but a need to “mind” and “bridge” the gaps ü Beyond the question of WHAT to do to meet the water challenge,

    there is a need to think about WHO DOES WHAT, WHY, ATWHICH LEVEL and HOW

    Water, a fragmented sector that is sensitive to multilevel governance


  • OECD Principles on Water Governance




  • 1. Clearly allocate and distinguish roles and responsibilities for water policymaking, policy implementation, operational management and regulation, and foster co-ordination across these responsible authorities.

    2. Manage water at the appropriate scale(s) within integrated basin governance systems to reflect local conditions, and foster co-ordination between the different scales.

    3. Encourage policy coherence through effective cross-sectoral co-ordination, especially between policies for water and the environment, health, energy, agriculture, industry, spatial planning and land use.

    4. Adapt the level of capacity of responsible authorities to the complexity of water challenges to be met, and to the set of competencies required to carry out their duties.

    The effectiveness of water governance

  • 5. Produce, update, and share timely, consistent, comparable and policy-relevant water and water-related data and information, and use it to guide, assess and improve water policy.

    6. Ensure that governance arrangements help mobilise water finance and allocate financial resources in an efficient, transparent and timely manner.

    7. Ensure that sound water management regulatory frameworks are effectively implemented and enforced in pursuit of the public interest.

    8. Promote the adoption and implementation of innovative water governance practices across responsible authorities, levels of government and relevant stakeholders.

    The efficiency of water governance

  • 9. Mainstream integrity and transparency practices across water policies, water institutions and water governance frameworks for greater accountability and trust in decision-making.

    10. Promote stakeholder engagement for informed and outcome-oriented contributions to water policy design and implementation.

    11. Encourage water governance frameworks that help manage trade-offs across water users, rural and urban areas, and generations.

    12. Promote regular monitoring and evaluation of water policy and governance where appropriate, share the results with the public and make adjustments when needed.

    Trust and engagement in water governance


  • The Water Governance Indicator Framework

    Traffic light

    What Who How


    Yes No In development

    Action plan Medium term Long termShort term

    The Water Governance Indicator Framework

  • WHA

    T Existence and level of implementation of a water law

    WHO Existence and functioning of ministry, line ministry,

    central agency with core water-related responsibilities for policy making

    HOW Existence and implementation

    of mechanisms to review roles and responsibilities, to diagnose gaps and adjust when need be

    DescriptionThis indicator seeks to appraise the existence and level of implementation of a waterlaw, which can be at national level or subnational level depending on the institutionalfeature of the country (unitary or federal). The law should clearly assign and distinguishwater-related roles and responsibilities for policy making (especially priority setting andstrategic planning).

    DescriptionThis indicator seeks to appraise the existence and functioning of institutions in chargeof setting water-related policy goals and strategies and delivering them; these can be atnational or subnational level depending on the scale of the self-assessment and theinstitutional feature of the country (unitary, federal).

    DescriptionThis indicator seeks to appraise the existence and level of implementation ofmechanisms that can help identify areas of water management where there is no clarityon who does what; areas with incoherent and/or contradictory objectives; areas withdeficient implementation and/or limited enforcement; and/or areas with overlaps/duplication of responsibilities. They can take the form of analytical reports, regulatoryimpact assessments or regulatory reviews; open stakeholder consultations.




    Indicators for Principle 1:

  • Base

    line Framework



    y thr

    ee ye

    ars Expected



    -term Impacts

    Not applicable

    Not in place

    Framework underdevelopment

    In place, not implemented

    In place, partly implemented

    In place, functioning

    Distance from the baseline situation

    Water governance impacts (effectiveness, efficacy, inclusiveness)

    Water sector performance

    Socio-economic impacts

    OECD Principles on Water Governance





    IndicatorsThe evaluation framework

  • What is the current situation?Are changes expected in three years’ time?














    Current status

    Expected progress( 3 years)

    Notes: 0) Not applicable; 1) Not in place; 2) Framework under development; 3)In place, not implemented; 4) In place, partly implemented; 5) In place, functioning; 6) Expected to function better compared to the baseline assessment.

  • A 10 step assessment methodology













    Check the roles and responsibilities of the lead institution

    Understand the principles and indicators framework

    Set objectives and scope

    Map stakeholders andtheir core motivations

    Appoint a facilitator

    Agree on the rules of the procedure

    Organise the multi-stakeholder workshops to assess the water governance system

    Link actions to existing policy frameworks, strategies and plans

    Set up an accountability process

    Consider repeating the assessment in three years’ time

  • • Make sure that the process is transparent and open. go beyond the “usual suspects” and involve emerging actors and unheard categories, such as women, youth and civil society organisations.

    • Be aware of various methodological challenges, such as Complexity of process, data availability, stakeholder perceptions, comparability

    • Make sure stakeholders buy-in to the process and trust the lead institution. If the assessment is not fully owned by the leading institution it will be very difficult to take actions based on the results. It is important to establish ownership for the self-assessment by explaining Principles and indicators.

    • Make sure the process is forward-looking and action oriented.

    Framework conditions: some lessons learned

  • OECD Water Governance Indicator Framework:

    • 36 input and process indicators within a traffic light system

    • 100+ guiding questions within the Checklist

    • Action Plan

    Evolving practices on water governance:

    • Around 5 continents • Across water functions • National, regional, basin

    and local scale• Across all types of

    stakeholders from central governments to indigenous groups

  • Check the on line map!11 pilot test results of the water governance indicator framework

    54 water governance practices

    Wide geographical coverage

    Range of water functions At different scales

    All types of stakeholders




    Based on:OECD, 2013, “Making Water Reform Happen in Mexico”

  • OECD’s Evidence Base

    National Policy dialogues

    Thematic work


    OECD Multi-level Governance Framework :“Mind the Gaps, Bridge the Gaps”

    OECD 2011 : Water Governance in OECD Countries : a Multi-Level Approach

  • A complex water institutional landscape in Mexico

    OECD (2013) Making Water Reform Happen in Mexico

  • Multi-level governance gaps in Mexico’s water sector

    Type Description and examples Administrative gap Mismatch between administrative and functional units (water bodies,

    municipalities, metropolitan areas, regions, states) and hydrological boundaries and imperatives.

    Information gap Asymmetry of information across stakeholders, limited standardisation, incomplete REDPA and metering system => public disclosure and harmonisation are key concerns

    Policy gap Misaligned policies across water, energy, agricultural and territorial development policies Scattered planning tasks and capacity

    Capacity gap High turnover among water professionals, limited training programs for technical, administrative and management staff

    Funding gap Very limited own-source revenues at sub-national level; Huge reliance on federal programmes and CONAGUA resources.

    Objective gap Lack of continuity of public policy at local level because of limited political mandates (3-year term of Mayors); Contradictory motivations of RBO and RBC leadership

    Accountability gap Limited stakeholder engagement in WRM (farmers and indigenous communities) and WSS (users and consumers); Limited official mechanisms to channel’ demands Source

    (OECD 2013a)

  • • Mexico needs to bring more flexibility into its water policies to ensure they are well-placed to meet future challenges. Governance responses, economic instruments, green and smart infrastructures can help address current challenges.

    • Set up mechanisms and incentives for enhancing water policy outcomes in the current decentralisation framework. They should leave sufficient flexibility to adjust to the features of each state and basin institutional structure. This will require capacity building at all levels.

    • Fully exploit the benefits of existing economic instruments in line with four principles the OECD has identified as necessary to underpin the effective financing of water resources management: PolluterPays, Beneficiary-Pays, Equity and Policy Coherence.

    • Clarify the regulatory framework for water services to address overlaps and gaps in regulatory functions, clearly assign responsibilities at each level of government, strengthen enforcement and compliance, and increase the focus on the quality and efficiency of service provision.

    • Strengthen the role and autonomy of river basin councils so that they can design context-tailored policies, develop real basin plans, identify and prioritise projects and generate the resources needed to carry out their duties. Again, a tailored approach may be required as basins are faced with specific challenges and are endowed with distinctive capacities.

    • Establish platforms to share the good practices at basin, state and municipal levels

    • Foster transparency, information sharing and public participation for more inclusive decisionmaking processes, better evaluation, monitoring, integrity and accountability in the water sector.

    Examples of policy suggestions in Mexico based on OECD report, 2013.

  • • What does water security mean for Mexico?

    • What governance related actions are seen as prioritised to achieve water security?

    • What are the respective roles of government, private sector and civil society? Who should do what?

    • What are the major information and knowledge gaps to achieve water security?

    Some questions for your consideration


of 27/27
WATER GOVERNANCE : AN OECD PERSPECTIVE Hakan Tropp, OECD Head of Water Governance Programme 23 January, Dialogues for a Water Secure Mexico
Embed Size (px)