GPR 57646 THE GLOBAL WATER PARTNERSHIP GLOBAL PROGRAM REVIEW Volume 4 Issue 3 THE WORLD BANK GROUP WORKING FOR A WORLD FREE OF POVERTY The World Bank Group consists of five institutions--the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the International Development Association (IDA), the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), and the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). Its mission is to fight poverty for lasting results and to help people help themselves and their envi- ronment by providing resources, sharing knowledge, building capacity, and forging partnerships in the public and private sectors. THE INDEPENDENT EVALUATION GROUP IMPROVING DEVELOPMENT RESULTS THROUGH EXCELLENCE IN EVALUATION The Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) is an independent, three-part unit within the World Bank Group. IEG-World Bank is charged with evaluating the activities of the IBRD (The World Bank) and IDA, IEG-IFC focuses on assessment of IFC's work toward private sector development, and IEG-MIGA evaluates the contributions of MIGA guarantee projects and services. IEG reports directly to the Bank's Board of Directors through the Director-General, Evaluation. The goals of evaluation are to learn from experience, to provide an objective basis for assessing the results of the Bank Group's work, and to provide accountability in the achievement of its objectives. It also improves Bank Group work by identifying and disseminating the lessons learned from experience and by framing recommendations drawn from evaluation findings. Global Program Review The Global Water Partnership July 2, 2010 Corporate and Global Evaluations and Methods http://www.globalevaluations.org ©2010 Independent Evaluation Group, The World Bank Group 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-458-4497 Internet: http://www.globalevaluations.org E-mail: grpp@worldbank.org All rights reserved This volume is a product of the staff of the Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) of the World Bank Group. It is part of an ongoing series that reviews global and regional partnership programs in which the World Bank is engaged as one of the partners. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this volume do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. IEG does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of IEG concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this publication is copyrighted. IEG encourages the dissemination of its work and permits these reviews to be copied or otherwise transmitted, with appropriate credit given to IEG as the authoring body. Cover image: River and terraced farmland in Bhutan. Photo by Curt Carnemark, courtesy of the World Bank Photo Library. ISBN-13: 978-1-60244-148-4 ISBN-10: 1-60244-148-0 Printed on Recycled Paper Independent Evaluation Group Communication, Learning, and Strategy (IEGCS) E-mail: grpp@worldbank.org Telephone: 202-458-4497 IEG Mission: Improving Development Results Through Excellence in Evaluation The Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) of the World Bank reviews global and regional partnership programs (GRPPs) in which the Bank is engaged as one partner among many for two main purposes: (a) to provide accountability in the achievement of the program's objectives by providing an independent opinion of the program's effectiveness, and (b) to identify and disseminate lessons learned from the experience of individual GRPPs. The preparation of a global or regional program review (GPR) is contingent on a recently completed evaluation of the program, typically commissioned by the governing body of the program. The first purpose above includes validating the findings of the GRPP evaluation with respect to the effectiveness of the program, and assessing the Bank's performance as a partner in the program. The second purpose includes assessing the independence and quality of the GRPP evaluation itself and drawing implications for the Bank's continued involvement in the program. Assessing the quality of GRPP evaluations is an important aspect of GPRs, since encouraging high quality evaluation methodology and practice more uniformly across Bank-supported GRPPs is one of the reasons why IEG embarked on this new product in 2005. IEG annually reviews a number of GRPPs in which the Bank is a partner. In selecting programs for review, preference is given to those that are innovative, large, or complex; those that are relevant to upcoming sector studies; those for which the Executive Directors or Bank management have requested reviews; and those that are likely to generate important lessons. IEG also aims for a representative distribution of GPRs across sectors in each fiscal year. A GPR is a "review" and not a full-fledged "evaluation." It assesses the independence and quality of the relevant evaluation; provides a second opinion on the effectiveness of the program; assesses the performance of the Bank as a partner in the program; and draws lessons for the Bank's engagement in global and regional programs. The GPR does not formally rate the various attributes of the program. A GPR involves a desk review of key documents, consultations with key stakeholders, and a mission to the program management unit (secretariat) of the program if this is located outside the World Bank or Washington, DC. Key stakeholders include the Bank's representative on the governing body of the program, the Bank's task team leader (if separate from the Bank's representative), the program chair, the head of the secretariat, other program partners (at the governance and implementing levels), and other Bank operational staff involved with the program. The writer of a GPR may also consult with the person(s) who conducted the evaluation of the GRPP. Each GPR is subject to internal IEG peer review, Panel review, and management approval. Once cleared internally, the GPR is reviewed by the responsible Bank department and the secretariat of the program. Comments received are taken into account in finalizing the document, and the formal management response from the program is attached as an annex to the final report. After the document has been distributed to the Bank's Board of Executive Directors, it is disclosed to the public on IEG's external Web site. i Abbreviations and Acronyms AsDB Asian Development Bank AfDB African Development Bank AP Associated Programs (GWP) ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations AWP Area Water Partnership (GWP) BNWPP Bank-Netherlands Water Partnership Program Cap-Net International Network for Capacity Building in IWRM (UNDP) CGAP Consultative Group to Assist the Poor CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research CP Consulting Partners CWP Country Water Partnership (GWP) DANIDA Danish International Development Agency DENR Department of Environment and Water Resources DFID Department for International Development (UK) DGF Development Grant Facility (World Bank) DGIS Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affaires DHI Danish Hydraulic Institute Water and Environment EC European Commission EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FPG Financial Partners Group GEF Global Environment Facility GPG Global public good GRPP Global and/or regional partnership program GTZ German Agency for Technical Cooperation GW-MATE Groundwater Management Advisory Team (World Bank) GWP Global Water Partnership GWPO Global Water Partnership Organization (the legal representative of GWP) HRM Human resources management HRW Hydraulic Research Wallingford IAHR International Association for Hydraulic Research ICID International Commission for Irrigation and Drainage IFI International financial institution IUCN World Conservation Union IWA International Water Association IWMI International Water Management Institute IWRM Integrated water resources management MDG Millennium Development Goal M&E Monitoring and evaluation NEPAD New Partnership for Africa's Development NGO Nongovernmental organization NORAD Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation PARC Performance Assessment Resource Centre (UK) PSP Private Sector Partnership PAWD Partnership for Africa's Water Development RTAC Regional Technical Advisory Committee RWP Regional Water Partnership (GWP) SADC Southern African Development Community SC Steering Committee (GWP) SDC Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation SIDA Swedish International Development Agency ii TEC (TAC) Technical (Advisory) Committee (GWP) TOR Terms of reference UNDP United Nations Development Program UNEP United Nations Environment Program USAID U.S. Agency for International Development WB World Bank WMO World Meteorological Organization WRCC Water Resources Coordination Council WSP Water and Sanitation Program WSSCC Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development WWC World Water Council WWF World Wide Fund for Nature WWFx World Water Forum; the "x" indicates the sequence (1, 2, 3, 4) Fiscal Year of Partnership January 1 ­ December 31 All dollar amounts are U.S. dollars, unless otherwise noted. Director-General, Evaluation Mr. Vinod Thomas Director, Independent Evaluation Group (World Bank) Ms. Cheryl Gray Manager, Corporate and Global Evaluations and Methods Unit Mr. Mark Sundberg Global Programs Coordinator Mr. Chris Gerrard Consultant Mr. George T. Keith Pitman iii Contents Preface..................................................................................................................................... vii Partnership at a Glance: Global Water Partnership (GWP) ..................................................... ix Key Bank Staff Responsible during Period under Review ...................................................... xi GWP Governance and Management ........................................................................................ xi Glossary ................................................................................................................................. xiii Summary ............................................................................................................................... xvii 1. Partnership Overview............................................................................................................ 1 Goal and Rationale ................................................................................................................ 1 Mission.................................................................................................................................. 2 Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 4 Governance ........................................................................................................................... 6 Financial Resources .............................................................................................................. 9 2. The External Evaluation of the GWP ................................................................................... 9 Background ......................................................................................................................... 10 Objectives of 2008 Evaluation ............................................................................................ 10 Scope ................................................................................................................................... 10 Evaluation Process .............................................................................................................. 11 Independence and Impartiality ............................................................................................ 12 Major Findings, Recommendations, and Impact of the Evaluation.................................... 14 Findings........................................................................................................................... 14 PARC's Recommendations ............................................................................................ 15 Impact of the Evaluation ................................................................................................. 16 3. The Effectiveness of the GWP during the 2004­2008 Strategy Period.............................. 18 Relevance ............................................................................................................................ 19 Relevance of Objectives ................................................................................................. 19 Relevance of Design ....................................................................................................... 21 Efficacy ............................................................................................................................... 23 Output 1: The establishment and consolidation of GWP partnerships at relevant levels was substantially achieved .............................................................................................. 23 Output 2: Development of IWRM water policy and strategy was successfully facilitated at relevant levels, but more slowly and in fewer countries than intended ...................... 29 Output 3: IWRM programs and tools were developed in response to regional and country needs, but there are questions about global and regional relevance .................. 32 iv Output 4: Linkages with other global frameworks were established but not as comprehensively as planned ........................................................................................... 34 Efficiency ............................................................................................................................ 34 Resource Mobilization .................................................................................................... 34 Expenditures ................................................................................................................... 36 Economic Valuation........................................................................................................ 40 4. Governance, Management, and Sustainability.................................................................... 41 Legitimacy and Accountability ........................................................................................... 41 Management Efficiency ...................................................................................................... 42 Transparency ....................................................................................................................... 46 Sustainability....................................................................................................................... 46 Financial Stability Is Not a Risk in the Short to Medium Term ..................................... 46 The Risks to Sustaining the GWP and Its Network Are Substantial .............................. 47 5. The Bank's Performance as a Partner ................................................................................. 49 At the Global Level ............................................................................................................. 49 At the Country/Activity Level ............................................................................................ 50 Oversight ............................................................................................................................. 51 Disengagement Strategy ..................................................................................................... 52 6. Lessons................................................................................................................................ 53 References ............................................................................................................................... 57 Boxes Box 1. The Dublin Principles for Water Development and Management ................................ 1 Box 2. Agenda 21 Sets the Stage for GWP .............................................................................. 2 Box 3. GWP's Strategy 2009­2013: Goals and Expected Outcomes ..................................... 17 Box 4. IWRM Remains Relevant Today ................................................................................ 19 Box 5. Going from Partnerships to IWRM Plans Needs Flexibility and Time ...................... 23 Box 6. Some CWPs Have Moved Beyond Advocacy to Action .............................................. 27 Box 7. There Is an Increasing Skills Gap for IWRM Planning and Action at the Country Level in Africa ............................................................................................................ 27 Box 8. GWP Restricted Funding Accelerated Moves toward IWRM in Africa ..................... 30 Figures Figure 1. Integrated Water Resources Management Links Uses, Users, and Institutions ........ 3 Figure 2. Governance and Management of the Global Water Partnership ............................... 7 Figure 3. GWP's Annual Income.............................................................................................. 9 Figure 4. Agreement about GWP's Approach to IWRM Correlated with Availability of Technical Resources through GWP ............................................................................ 20 v Figure 5. Participation in GWP Important to Advancing IWRM Globally ............................ 24 Figure 6. Interregional Learning Important, But Constrained by Infrequent Interaction ....... 28 Figure 7. Some Dissatisfaction with Availability of Regional Forums .................................. 28 Figure 8. Satisfaction with Regional Forums Correlated with GWP's Regional Budget Allocation .................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 9. GWP Financial Partners That Provide Core Funding ............................................. 35 Figure 10. Donor Funding of GWP Since 2001 ..................................................................... 36 Figure 11. The Pattern of Expenditures Since 2002 ............................................................... 36 Figure 12. Restricted Funding Effect on Regional Expenditures -- Sources of Regional Expenditures ............................................................................................................... 39 Figure 13. Most of Restricted Funding and Regional Expenditures 2005-2007 in Africa ..... 39 Tables Table 1. Condensed Timeline of the GWP ............................................................................... 2 Table 2. GWP's Outputs and Key Activities to Achieve Them, 2004­2008 ........................... 5 Table 3. GWP's Projected Budgetary Allocations in 2012 under Various Development Options ........................................................................................................................ 16 Table 4. GWP Expenditures, 2002­2008 ............................................................................... 37 Table 5. Administrative Costs of Five Network-Type Global Programs ............................... 38 Table 6. The Composition of 2008 Regional Expenditures Highly Variable ......................... 40 Annexes Annex A. Evaluation Framework for Global Program Reviews ............................................ 59 Annex B. GWP Strategy 2004­2008 ...................................................................................... 67 Annex C. GWP Policy on Partners ......................................................................................... 79 Annex D. GWP Joint Donor External Evaluation: Terms of Reference ................................ 88 Annex E. Summary of GWP Performance Trends from the PARC 2008 Evaluation ............ 92 Annex F. Lessons Learned about the Effectiveness of the GWP at the Country Level ......... 96 Annex G. GWP Publications .................................................................................................. 98 Annex H. GWP Summarized Financial Information .............................................................. 99 Annex I. Bank Staff Responses to Questionnaire on the GWP ............................................ 106 Annex J. List of Persons Interviewed by IEG....................................................................... 110 Annex K. Response of the GWPO to IEG's Global Program Review ................................. 112 vii Preface The Global Water Partnership (GWP) was established by the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA), the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), and the World Bank in 1996 in response to international concern about deteriorating freshwater resources. The GWP's legal representative -- the Global Water Partnership Organization (GWPO) with offices in Stockholm -- was established as an independent intergovernmental organization under international law by a group of Sponsoring Partners in 2002. The initial mission of the GWP was to "support countries in the sustainable management of their water resources" by means of an advocacy network based on the principles of integrated water resources management (IWRM). Its initial objectives were (a) to clearly establish the principles of sustainable water resources management; (b) to identify gaps and stimulate partners to meet critical needs within their available human and financial resources; (c) to support action at the local, national, regional, or river basin level that follows the principles of sustainable water resources management; and (d) to help match needs to available resources. Following an initial external evaluation of its first six years in 2003, a Joint Donor Group requested a second evaluation covering GWP's 2004­2008 Strategy period. The evaluation was managed by the U.K. Department for International Development (DFID), the largest donor, which selected the same firm of consultants that had undertaken the first evaluation -- the Performance Assessment Resource Centre (PARC) in the United Kingdom. DFID paid for the evaluation, and Danida financed one of the six evaluation team members. This Global Program Review (GPR) assesses the quality and independence of the second evaluation of the GWP, provides a second opinion on the effectiveness of the GWP during the 2004­2008 Strategy period, assesses the performance of the Bank as a partner in the GWP, and draws lessons for the future. The GWP was chosen for a GPR because it provides lessons for the design and operation of advocacy networks and as an input into a concurrent IEG evaluation of the World Bank Group support for water-related activities in member countries. Because the governance and management of the GWP changed hands in 2008, the findings of this Review do not reflect on the current governance and management of the Partnership. The review follows IEG's Guidelines for Global Program Reviews (Annex A). The findings of this review are based on a desk review of relevant documents -- including the 2003 and 2008 evaluations and other evaluative material on the GWP -- a mission in October 2008 to the GWPO in Stockholm and PARC in the United Kingdom, 33 interviews with key stakeholders on a non-attribution basis, and a questionnaire survey of 225 Bank staff in February 2009. The lessons that are drawn from the experience of the GWP are common to many other global and regional partnerships in which the World Bank has been involved. IEG gratefully acknowledges all those who made time available for interviews and provided information for this GPR. The list of people interviewed is in Annex J. Copies of the draft GPR were sent to the Global Water Partnership, to the GWP Financial Partners Group, to the Bank unit responsible for the Bank's involvement with the GWP (the Energy, Transport, and Water Department), and to other Bank units that have responsibility for the Bank's engagement with global and regional partnerships more generally. Comments viii received were taken into account in finalizing this GPR. The formal response of the Global Water Partnership is found in Annex K. ix Partnership at a Glance: Global Water Partnership Start date The World Bank, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), and the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA) created the Global Water Partnership (GWP) in 1996. Mission and The overall development objective of the GWP during the 2004­2008 objectives Strategy period was to "achieve global water security as a contribution to eliminating poverty, improving well-being and protecting natural resources." The GWP mission was to "support countries in the sustainable management of their water resources." The immediate objective was "to ensure that Integrated Water Resources Management is applied in a growing number of countries and regions, as a means to foster equitable and efficient management and sustainable use of water." Outputs The intended outputs of the GWP during the 2004­2008 Strategy period were: 1. IWRM water policy and strategy development facilitated at relevant levels 2. IWRM programs and tools developed in response to regional and country needs 3. Linkages between the GWP and other frameworks, sectors, and issues ensured 4. GWP partnerships established and consolidated at relevant levels 5. GWP network effectively developed and managed. Principal The seven principal activities during the 2004­2008 Strategy period were: Activities 1. Organizing the Annual Network Meeting of GWP's partnership 2. Centrally generating and disseminating global knowledge about IWRM through Technical Committee publications and the GWP Web site, and regionally by and through regional technical committees 3. Advocacy and awareness-raising activities about IWRM at international, regional, and national levels through publications, multi-stakeholder seminars, and workshops 4. Facilitating the establishment of new Regional Water Partnerships (RWPs) and Country Water Partnerships (CWPs) 5. Overseeing and prioritizing RWPs' work programs and distributing funding to RWPs (which in turn distribute funding to CWPs) 6. Facilitating partnerships with donors for IWRM financing and technical assistance and with NGOs concerned with different aspects of water- related development to enhance knowledge and build local capacity 7. Improving M&E and conducting learning reviews. Partners More than 2,100 partners from 153 countries currently form a network of 74 Country Water Partnerships and 13 Regional Water Partnerships. WBG contributions The World Bank provided financial support for GWP from the Bank's Development Grant Facility (DGF) over the period 1996­2002. Total DGF grants were $5.66 million, which represented 18 percent of GWP's income from 1996­2002. x Other donor The number of donors has increased steadily from 3 in 1996 to 14 in 2008, contributions and the GWP's annual income has risen from $0.73 million to $9.68 million over the same period. Three donors -- the Netherlands, Sweden, and United Kingdom -- provided $28.47 million, or 69 percent of GWP's total income over this period. Three others -- Demark, Norway, and Switzerland -- provided $3.99 million. Some donors directly fund some of GWP's regional and country partnerships. In addition, some RWPs and CWPs receive funding from other sources, but these amounts are not reported to the center. Location The GWP has been based in Stockholm, Sweden, from the beginning. Web site www.gwpforum.org Governance and Until June 2002, the GWP Secretariat functioned as a unit of SIDA based in management Stockholm. In July 2002 the GWP became an independent intergovernmental organization known as the Global Water Partnership Organization (GWPO) with its own offices under a Memorandum of Understanding with the Swedish government. The GWPO provides support to the Network, now comprising individual partners that have grouped to form Regional, Country and Area Water Partnerships. An Executive Secretary manages the GWPO and is answerable to a Steering Committee that provides policy oversight and approves GWPO's work programs and budgets. The Steering Committee is accountable to the annual general meeting of the Sponsoring Partners on executive and fiduciary matters and to the annual meeting of the Consulting Partners on strategic and policy issues. It reports on all four issues to both meetings. Latest program- The Performance Assessment Resource Centre (PARC), U.K., Global Water level evaluation Partnership ­ Joint Donor External Evaluation, March 26, 2008. xi Key Bank Staff Responsible during Period under Review Position Person Period Global Program Task Team John Briscoe 1996­2005 Leader Vahid Alavian 2006­2009 Diego Rodriguez 2010 to present Director, Agriculture and Alex McCalla 1996­99 Rural Development Robert Thompson 2000­2002 Department Kevin Cleaver 2002­2007 Director, Energy, Transport, Jamal Saghir 2007 to present and Water Department Vice President, Sustainable Ismail Seregeldin 1996­1997 Development Network Ian Johnson 1997­2006 Katherine Sierra 2006 to present Trust Fund Operations Not applicable Not applicable Director, Global Programs & Margaret Thalwitz May 2004 to 2008 Partnerships Group Junhui Wu March 2009 to present GWP Governance and Management Position Person Period Chair Ismail Serageldin 1996­2000 Margaret Catley-Carlson 2001­2007 Letitia Obeng 2008 to present Executive Secretary Johan Holmberg (part-time 1996­1998 from SIDA) Maria Leissner (acting) 1998­March 1999 Khalid Mohtadullah March 1999­October 2003 Per Bertilsson (acting) October­December 2003 Emelio Gabbrielli 2003­May 2008 Martin Walshe (Acting) May 2008 ­ March 2009 Ania Grobicki March 2009 to present xiii Glossary Cosponsorship Cosponsorship of a program by international organizations such as the United Nations and the World Bank has historically been intended to provide an imprimatur of legitimacy for programs that are not based on formal international conventions. Cosponsors have typically had governance and management responsibilities, such as the selection of key office holders, oversight and management of secretariats and advisory committees, and evaluation. In the case of GWP, UNDP and the World Bank have played the role of cosponsors. Donors For the GWP, organizations or entities that have provided financial or in-kind resources to the Partnership. Efficacy The extent to which a global program has achieved, or is expected to achieve, its objectives, taking into account their relative importance. The term is also used as a broader, aggregate measure -- encompassing relevance and efficiency as well -- of the overall outcome of a development intervention such as a GRPP. Efficiency The extent to which a global program has converted or is expected to convert its resources/inputs (such as funds, expertise, time, etc.) economically into results in order to achieve the maximum possible outputs, outcomes, and impacts with the minimum possible inputs. Evaluation The systematic and objective assessment of an ongoing to completed policy, program, or project, its design, implementation, and results. The aim is to determine the relevance and achievement of its objectives, and its developmental effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability. Governance The structures, functions, processes, and organizational traditions that have been put in place within the context of a global program's authorizing environment to ensure that the program is run in such a way that it achieves its objectives in an effective and transparent manner. It is the framework of accountability and responsibility to users, stakeholders, and the wider community, within which organizations take decisions, and lead and control their functions, to achieve their objectives. Impacts Positive and negative, primary and secondary long-term effects produced by a development intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended. Independent An evaluation that is carried out by entities and persons free from the control evaluation of those involved in policymaking, management, or implementation of program activities. This entails organizational and behavioral independence, protection from interference, and avoidance of conflicts of interest. Indicator A quantitative or qualitative factor or variable that provides a simple and reliable means to measure achievement, to reflect the changes connected to an intervention, or to help assess the performance of a development actor. International Water resources that span political boundaries. In the context of the GWP, this water resources excludes the oceans but includes rivers that flow through several countries, lakes or inland seas with several riparians (such as Lake Victoria and the Aral Sea), and aquifers underlying two or more countries. These water resources may also be referred to as transboundary water resources. xiv IWRM Integrated water resources management refers to a process that promotes the coordinated development and management of freshwater, land, and related resources to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems. IWRM takes into account all sources and users of freshwater within a well- defined physical area, such as a watershed or a river basin. Legitimacy As a criterion for assessing governance and management, the way in which governmental and managerial authority is exercised in relation to those with a legitimate interest in a global program -- including shareholders, other stakeholders, implementers, beneficiaries, and the community at large. Logical A management technique that is used to develop the overall design of a framework program or project, to improve implementation monitoring, and to strengthen (logframe) evaluation by presenting the essential elements of the program or project clearly and succinctly throughout its cycle. It is a "cause and effect" model that aims to establish clear objectives and strategies based on a results chain, to build commitment and ownership among the stakeholders during preparation of the program or project, and to relate the program's or project's interventions to their intended outcomes and impacts for beneficiaries. Management The day-to-day operation of a global program within the context of the strategies, policies, processes, and procedures that have been established by the governing body. Monitoring The continuous assessment of progress achieved during program implementation in order to track compliance with a plan, identify reasons for noncompliance, and take necessary actions to improve performance. Monitoring is usually the responsibility of program management and operational staff. Outcomes The achieved or likely short-term and medium-term effects of the outputs of a development intervention. Oversight One of the core functions of the governing body of a global program: monitoring the performance of the program management unit, appointing key personnel, approving annual budgets and business plans, and overseeing major capital expenditures. Partners In most IEG Global Program Reviews, partners are understood as stakeholders who are involved in the governance or financing of the program (including the members of the governing, executive, or advisory bodies). In the case of GWP there are three types of partners. GWP Partners are individual entities that form the GWP Network. Sponsoring Partners are members of the intergovernmental organization GWPO, whose presence is required in the governance in accordance with the international law under which the GWPO was established. Financial Partners are those donors that support the GWP but have no official role in its governance. Regional, Country, and Area Partnerships are a key functional part of the Network, but are not themselves partners. Public goods Goods that produce benefits that are non-rival (many people can consume, use, or enjoy the good at the same time) and non-excludable (it is difficult to prevent people who do not pay for the good from consuming it). If the benefits of a particular public good accrue across all or many countries, then the good is deemed a global or international public good. xv Relevance The extent to which the objectives and design of a global program are consistent with (a) the current global/regional challenges and concerns in a particular development sector and (b) the needs and priorities of beneficiary countries and groups. Stakeholders The parties who are interested in or affected, either positively or negatively, by a global program. Stakeholders are often referred to as "principal" and "other," or "direct" and "indirect." While other or indirect stakeholders -- such as taxpayers in both donor and beneficiary countries, visitors to a beneficiary country, and other indirect beneficiaries -- may have interests as well, these are not ordinarily considered in evaluations unless a principal stakeholder acts as their proxy. Sustainability When the term is applied to the activities of a global program, the extent to which the benefits arising from these activities are likely to continue after the activities have been completed. When the term is applied to organizations or programs themselves, the extent to which the organization or program is likely to continue its operational activities over time. Transparency As a criterion for assessing governance and management, the extent to which a program's decision-making, reporting, and evaluation processes are open and freely available to the general public. This is a metaphorical extension of the meaning used in physical sciences -- a "transparent" objective being one that can be seen through. Source: For evaluation terms, Independent Evaluation Group, Sourcebook for Evaluating Global and Regional Partnership Programs: Indicative Principles and Standards, 2007. xvii Summary Mission, Origins, and Objectives 1. The initial mission of the Global Water Partnership (GWP) was to "support countries in the sustainable management of their water resources" through an advocacy network based on the principles of integrated water resources management. IWRM is defined as "a process that promotes the coordinated development and management of fresh water, land, and related resources in order to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems." IWRM is neither an instrument nor a blueprint to enforce coordination but a framework to guide thinking about and management of water resources that will vary according to geography, climate, and institutions. 2. The World Bank, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), and the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA) created the GWP in 1996 in response to growing international concerns about deteriorating water resources and the need for new participatory institutional mechanisms to facilitate dialogue and action. The GWP was launched with four objectives: (a) to clearly establish the principles of sustainable water resources management; (b) to identify gaps and stimulate partners to meet critical needs within their available human and financial resources; (c) to support action at the local, national, regional, or river basin level that follows principles of sustainable water resources management; and (d) to help match needs to available resources. Governance and Organization 3. The GWP functioned as a unit of SIDA until June 2002. Then it changed its legal status in July 2002 to become an independent intergovernmental organization known as the Global Water Partnership Organization (GWPO) with its own offices in Stockholm under a Memorandum of Understanding with the Swedish government. Only the GWPO has a legal status as an intergovernmental organization based in Sweden. The GWPO provides support to the Network, now comprising individual partners that have grouped to form Regional, Country, and Area Water Partnerships. 4. The Steering Committee is the global governance body for the whole Network. The 10 Sponsoring Partners (WMO, World Bank, Argentina, Denmark, Chile, Hungary, Jordan, Pakistan, the Netherlands and Sweden) are the effective owners of the GWPO and appoint the Chair of the Steering Committee, respectively, as well as the members of the Steering Committee on the recommendations of the Nominations Committee. The governance arrangements in the regions and countries generally follow that of the center. However, the RWPs and CWPs do not represent the local Partners at the global level -- individual Partners participate in their own right at the annual Consulting Partners Network Meeting. 5. During the 2004-2008 Strategy period, the Steering Committee comprisesd 4 cosponsors, 12 non-donors, 2 donor observers, 5 ex officio members, and 1 permanent observer. The 12 non-donor members were elected from various constituencies for terms of up to three years, four of which typically rotated each year. They were proposed by Regional xviii and Country Water Partnerships, other organizations and individuals for consideration of the Nominations Committee. Serving in their personal capacity, they did not have a specific obligation to report back to their constituencies. Non-donor committee members were expected to commit at least four days a year excluding travel. The ex officio members were the Chair, the Executive Secretary, the Chair of the Technical Committee, the "chair of chairs" drawn from the Regional Water Partnerships (who revolved every two years), and one representative from the UN Sub-Committee on Water Resources. The permanent observer was from the World Water Council. 6. In 2008 there were 1,800 GWP Partners that constituted the interconnected global network of institutions which voluntarily grouped themselves into regional, country, and subnational level Water Partnerships. Each partner makes a commitment (a) to promote the concept of IWRM as a means of moving toward global water security; (b) to raise awareness among decision makers of the importance of water and the need for IWRM; (c) to share the experience and knowledge of IWRM among GWP Partners; (d) to provide advice and services to help GWP Partners where and when appropriate; (e) to proactively work with GWP Partners to identify water-related problems at regional, national, and local levels; and (f) to formulate priorities and devise and implement programs to resolve these priorities through IWRM approaches. 7. Following the second World Water Forum in March 2000, the GWP bundled the activities of the Partnership into a comprehensive work plan -- The Framework for Action -- covering the period 2000­2003. After the Partnership's first external evaluation in 2003, the GWP Steering Committee approved a new Strategic Plan for the period 2004­2008, which adopted the following objective for the period: "to ensure that Integrated Water Resources Management is applied in a growing number of countries and regions, as a means to foster equitable and efficient management and sustainable water use." When launching the Strategic Plan, the Steering Committee called for an evaluation of its impact after four years, which took place in 2007­2008. The Second External Evaluation of the GWP 8. A Joint Donor Group consisting of Danida, DFID, DGIS, GTZ, Norad, SIDA, and UNDP commissioned this second evaluation covering GWP's 2004­2008 Strategy period. The Terms of Reference were: "in simple terms the evaluation should focus on four questions: Is GWP doing the right things? Is GWP doing the right things well? What recommendations can be made to enhance GWP's effectiveness? How can the sustainability of GWP be ensured?" The evaluation took eight months and cost about $560,000 at 2007 exchange rates. 9. The PARC evaluation was independent and of high quality. The evaluation was managed and paid for by DFID, the largest donor, who selected the same firm of consultants -- the Performance Assessment Resource Centre (PARC) --which had conducted the 2003 evaluation. Having some members of the evaluation team familiar with the organization reduced the evaluators' learning curve about the GWP, which the Joint Donor Group saw as a positive advantage to the evaluation process. xix 10. However, the way in which the evaluation was procured created a number of potential conflicts of interest which were successfully mitigated. Specific concerns expressed were (a) that DFID might be protecting its own interests, and (b) that the 2008 team -- half of whose members had been involved in the previous evaluation -- might be evaluating their earlier recommendations from 2003. This created sufficient unease among the Joint Donor Group that the Danes and the Dutch proposed placing their own consultants on the team. The ensuing discussion, the subsequent resolution of these concerns in a transparent way, Danida's willingness to contribute toward the cost of the evaluation, and PARC's willingness to include additional consultants on the team clearly signaled that the evaluation would be heavily scrutinized and independent. The feedback that IEG received from the Joint Donor Group was that this was "a very participatory process that was open and not biased in any way." Frank opinions were expressed within the Group and the final Terms of Reference and Methodology Statement were fully endorsed by the whole Group. Even so, the way in which the evaluation was contracted does not represent good practice. The Effectiveness of the GWP during the 2004­2008 Strategy Period RELEVANCE 11. The international consensus regarding the need for integrated water resources management has increased since GWP was founded. World leaders at the World Summit for Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002 recognized water management as a top priority that was key to the achievement of many of the Millennium Development Goals, and the Summit Declaration included a statement that all countries should develop IWRM and water efficiency plans by 2005. As evidenced by the growing number of partners who joined GWP and formed Regional and Country Water Partnerships associated with GWP, there is strong demand among developing countries for support from GWP to raise awareness about and facilitate development of IWRM strategies and policies at the country level. This demand is stronger in some regions (such as West Africa, Southeast Asia, the Mediterranean, and the Caribbean) than in others (such as Central and Eastern Europe) whose water institutions are already well formed. Demand also depends on the ability of the GWP to meet or facilitate partners' needs and expectations for technical resources -- beyond simply advocacy and learning -- to undertake IWRM. 12. GWP does not appear to be undertaking activities that compete with the activities of its major (financial) partners. At the global level, it provides the Financial Partners with a gateway into a convening forum and network around the practical issues of water policy and management. The Network's regional and country partners provide first-hand knowledge of national issues, and particularly in Africa, the Financial Partners have turned to the GWP to bolster their development policies and programs on environment and water. There is also little evidence of competition or overlap with the mandate or activities of other global water programs, such as the World Water Council (WWC). The WWC is built primarily around its triennial global World Water Forum meetings that provide a global policy think-tank for discussion at the highest intergovernmental and NGO level. The GWP focuses primarily on building water knowledge and institutions that link regions, countries, and local areas in a common framework driven by the demands of its partners. xx ACHIEVEMENT OF OBJECTIVES 13. Overall, GWP's global policy leadership, while well established before 2004, continued to be recognized during the 2004­2008 Strategy period. However, there was a perception among some stakeholders that the organization lost some of its cutting edge, focus, and ability to drive the global policy agenda during the period. Governance arrangements tended to centralize power and decision making in Stockholm to the detriment of regional and country partners. Although there were notable advances in some countries toward more integrated management of their water resources, it was difficult to verify attribution to the GWP. While the regional partnerships were generally well funded, the performance of country-level partnerships was hindered by financial insecurity and small budgets. Significant earmarked funding by donors skewed the Partnership's budget allocation process. GWP mechanisms to synthesize lessons learned from a range of countries' experiences were ineffective. Taken together, these organizational trends posed the risk of the partnership becoming primarily a "talk shop" at the country level and thereby losing its relevance. 14. The objective of establishing and consolidating GWP partnerships at the relevant levels was substantially achieved. Partnership in the GWP tripled to 2,000 over the period 2003­2010, and awareness of IWRM increased across the Network. Partners came together voluntarily to form Country Water Partnerships that grew from 28 to 73. Similarly Partners voluntarily grouped into 13 Regional Water Partnerships that built upon what had been nine regional technical advisory committees. The number of Financial Partners increased from 3 in 1996 to 14 in 2008. GWP's annual funding rose steadily from $1.0 million in 1996 to $7.2 million in 2001 and $15.0 million in 2008, though a sizeable share of this funding was restricted -- rising from $3.1 million in 2002 to $4.5 million in 2005, and declining thereafter to $2.9 million in 2008. 15. The objective of facilitating development of IWRM water policy and strategy at relevant levels was achieved more slowly and in fewer countries than planned. Globally, the 2004­2008 Strategy aimed to facilitate preparation of IWRM frameworks/plans in at least 15 countries by 2005 and initiate implementation by 2006. A further 25 frameworks/plans were to be facilitated by 2007 and implemented by 2008. However, only 5 national IWRM plans were processed by 2008 and only 2 were approved by governments. More time was clearly needed for IWRM to take root. The biggest difficulty was ensuring that functional mechanisms for interministerial coordination were put in place, since most countries were not accustomed to working in a cross-sectoral manner. Engaging with lower-level stakeholders in the planning process also posed significant challenges since most bureaucracies have not traditionally carried out consultation on their plans with "outsiders." 16. The objective of developing IWRM programs and tools in response to regional and country needs was partially achieved, but there were questions about global and regional relevance. Stakeholders hold many differing opinions about what the GWP should be researching and publishing and how this should be done. Some interviewees said that the intellectual agenda had been captured by the top echelons on the Technical Committee, whose approach had been very top-down reflecting a "north" as against a "south" perspective. This needs to be challenged both by the supporting donors, who would like to see more attention to xxi water's role in overall development and in climate change adaptation, and by other stakeholders, particularly those in the regions. In other organizations, high-level research and publication committees are subject to independent external peer review and are not normally monopolized by the authors. 17. The objective of ensuring linkages with other global frameworks was achieved, but not as comprehensively as intended. The GWP has established more than 30 "Strategic Alliances," mostly with multi- and bilateral agencies (such as UN-Water, UNDP Cap-Net, WMO, and IWMI) and specialist organizations concerned with water (such as the Water and Sanitation Program, the Urban Environmental Sanitation Network, and GW-MATE). Ten of these organizations have entered into formal Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with the GWP to provide expert services to help the work of the partnership at all levels. The 2008 evaluation found that GWP Partners regarded this as the second most useful service provided by the GWPO. Even so, most of these are water-focused organizations, which fall short of the intent of encouraging dialogue about the interfaces between water and broader developmental issues, such as access to water, poverty, employment, trade, economic growth, and health. Governance and Management 18. The GWP had strong legitimacy during the 2004­2008 Strategy period derived from its partnership base (more than 1,800 Partners), its highly visible Annual Network Meeting, its associations with global water leaders (often represented on the Technical Committee), and its stakeholder model of governance in which membership on the Steering Committee was open to all stakeholders, not just financial contributors. This legitimacy enabled the GWPO to identify and promote bilateral partnering opportunities at the regional and country levels and encouraged donors to contribute substantial restricted funding. 19. However, the GWP's complex governance arrangements and its reliance on individual partners -- which excluded formal representation from country, regional, or area partnerships but included Sponsoring and Financial Partners, each with different roles and responsibilities -- reduced accountability to partners. The Annual General Meeting of the Consulting Partners was only modestly successful in holding the Steering Committee to account due to large attendance and crowded agendas that precluded considered decision- making. And the range of divergent interests on the Steering Committee, its large and frequently changing membership, and the poor dynamics between the donor and non-donor members also made this a very weak body, which was unable to set strategic directions and oversee management effectively. These weaknesses created a vacuum during the 2004­2008 Strategy period in which the Chair effectively became an Executive Chair, sharing power with the Executive Secretary. 20. When the new management took over in 2003, it focused initially on introducing sound fiduciary management and control systems for GWP's expenditures, which was essential to sustain the continued financial support from the Financial Partners. Once this was achieved, the senior management team turned to establishing GWP's operations in the regions in accordance with GWP's Vision to Action strategy. Together the Executive Secretary and Chair were very effective in promoting GWP in international forums and through networking among the donors. At the same time a more formal internal management xxii and communication style was introduced that, according to interviewees, did not fit easily with the earlier open-door policy of the Secretariat. The position of Coordinator of the Network was abolished, which undermined the synergistic learning that the Network had started to generate. The clash between a confidential culture more appropriate to a private- sector organization and the more open-door culture of international NGOs that are accountable to their members adversely affected the GWPO's staff morale and efficiency, which reduced the efficiency of the GWPO in overseeing the Network. 21. Sponsoring and Financial Partners, GWPO staff, and GWP Partners have all commented on the weak communications between the global and local levels of the GWP. None were happy with the tightly managed flow of information during the 2005­2007 period. GWP partners in the regions and at the country level have contributed little to global GWP discourse. Sharing of local experience, knowledge, and solutions has been modest. This has reflected the difficulty that most Partners have in communicating upwards to GWPO, constraints imposed by the regional governance structures, and resource issues. 22. Managerial effectiveness was weakened during the 2004-2008 Strategy period by the failure to evaluate outcomes and draw lessons. For most GWP activities, systematic and regular outcome monitoring against GWP's objectives and indicators has been weak, particularly for the RWPs and CWPs. Thus, most of the lessons learned by the GWPO have been based on anecdotal evidence and not well-defined logical frameworks or results chains. Clear indicators of outcomes through attribution, contribution, or influence have not been present and lesson-learning has been fraught with difficulty. A review of GWP's information systems revealed primarily input and output data, not outcomes or impacts. 23. Transparency was also weak in some aspects. The criteria and procedures for allocating core funds among regions were unclear during the 2004­2008 Strategy period. Information about RWPs and CWPs and their membership, activities, achievements, and outputs was also lacking on the main GWP Web site. Of the 13 RWPs active at the beginning of 2009, only 7 offered a full list of the CWPs and contact details. None provided membership lists or other information such as work plans, budgets, or annual accounts. LOOKING FORWARD 24. Strong and continued support from donors, conditioned on reform and improved monitoring and evaluation (M&E) arrangements, provide GWP with financial stability for the medium term. The current historically high levels of funding are probably guaranteed for the next 2­3 years, since the Sponsoring and Financial Partners have accepted the reforms proposed in the new 2009­13 Strategy. But future funding may be put at risk by changing assistance modalities among donors. Many donors now favor "budget support" at the country level over direct project-based financing and technical assistance. Since the GWP is more effective at the country level in the presence of parallel programming of technical assistance by donors, there is a risk of declining technical capacity to implement IWRM if budget support becomes the dominant development assistance mode. 25. Based on the findings of the 2008 evaluation and the present review, the risks to sustaining the GWP and its Network are substantial. The GWP maintains a risk register xxiii subject to regular review by the Steering Committee. Risk factors include (a) assisting the CWPs to mobilize their own resources, (b) clarifying GWP policies regarding its roles at the regional and country levels, (c) improving communications both vertically and horizontally within the Network, (d) clarifying GWP's comparative advantage in generating and disseminating global knowledge about IWRM, and (e) firmly addressing lingering concerns about the location of the global secretariat in Stockholm. 26. There are also challenges relating to the balance and scope of GWP's activities under the 2009­13 Strategy. In terms of budget allocations, the new Strategy appears to be somewhere between the "business as usual" and the "re-energize, re-strategize, and re- organize" options presented in the 2008 evaluation that proposed reduced central expenditure. Consistent with the new Strategy, the GWP is undertaking a review of the Technical Function of the GWPO -- and the Technical Committee which is part of this function is the largest item of global expenditure -- to determine the best way to revamped internal knowledge and learning. The budget implications of this review are not yet known. In contrast, the attention needed to improve Network connectivity and quality will require more, not fewer resources at the center. 27. The question about the balance between the countries' demand for tangible activities and advocacy/learning still hangs in the air. While this issue may be addressed on a region- by-region basis in the spirit of subsidiarity, the GWP needs to develop a well-reasoned global policy position that takes into account the regions' different resource endowments and needs. Failing to do this may reduce incentives at the country level for continued participation in the GWP. The Bank's Performance as a Partner 28. The World Bank was one of the three founding partners of the GWP in 1996 and it remains one of the ten Sponsoring Partners and an observer on the Steering Committee. It was a financial contributor from inception through 2002 -- providing $5.7 million from 1996­2002 -- and has been the major lender to the water sector in developing countries. 29. At the global level, the Bank has helped to shape GWP's advocacy agenda by, for example, playing an important role on the Camdessus Panel on financing future water investments, which are essential to meet the MDGs. The Bank has also been a target of GWP advocacy, which has reinforced some of the new strategic directions at the Bank, such as the Water Resources Sector Strategy of 2003 and the establishment of the Municipal Fund in 2003. 30. At the country level, such mutual reinforcement has been less evident. Following the "principled pragmatism" of its 2003 Water Strategy, the Bank has tended to focus on provision of infrastructure to meet immediate needs and the MDGs, and to deal with more general cross- sectoral issues incrementally as these have emerged as problems rather than through IWRM master plans. The majority of the Bank's water sector staff have seen the GWP as only modestly effective and useful to the Bank, given the Bank's focus on basic service provision and given the availability of the Bank-Netherlands Water Partnership Program trust funds to finance short-term operational needs such as technical assistance. As a result, linkages between the GWP and the Bank's country-level operations have been almost nonexistent. xxiv 31. Although the Bank continues to have a legal responsibility to contribute to GWP's governance and management oversight, IEG found that the Bank has effectively been a silent partner since it stopped contributing financially in 2003. Despite this, the other Sponsoring Partners and the Financial Partners have indicated that they wish the Bank would be more involved because this would provide a greater legitimacy and relevance from the development perspective. It would also mitigate the concern of some interviewed by IEG that the GWP has become dominated by a few well-intentioned bilateral donors to support their own aid programs, since the Bank is seen as intellectually honest, neutral, and capable of bringing good practice to the discussions. Overall, the Bank has contributed far less than it could have to the GWP. Its performance has been poor relative to the commitments which it made in relation to the governance of the program, and relative to what the Bank's performance could have been in playing up to its comparative advantages in relation to other partners. 32. Individual Bank staff have been continuously involved in the GWP since its inception. Several have served on the Technical Committee, and the new Chair of the Steering Committee is an ex-Bank director. But these staff have served in their individual capacity, as the Bank's representative has effectively done also. Lessons 33. The evaluation and review of the Global Water Partnership offers a number of lessons for the GWP that they are already taking on board. These lessons also offer learning opportunities for other network-type global programs, and for the World Bank's engagement in global programs more generally. These lessons refer to the 2004­08 Strategy period after which the lessons from the PARC Evaluation were integrated into a new Strategy which has been under implementation since 2009. 34. The main lessons from this Global Program Review for consideration of the GWP Partners, the Steering Committee, and the GWPO are the following: The evaluation of global programs needs to be transparently independent. This is not only important for credibility but also to provide an example of good practice for the Network. Good practice would be for the governing body to appoint an evaluation contractor through open competition using a common financing pool. The governing body should approve the selection criteria, terms of reference, methodology and reporting, and prepare a program response to the final report based on a formal review of its findings and recommendations. Weaknesses in GWP governance and management during the 2004­2008 Strategy period raised issues of transparency, and efficiency. The GWP did not appear to have a global framework to identify where the needs were greatest, what levels of support were required, or transparent rules governing regional allocations. The packed agenda of annual meetings did not enable considered debate and decisions, particularly of budgets, and representation from the regions and countries was uneven. This lack of transparency was counterproductive to the health of a global partnership network. Better governance would also have enhanced the legitimacy of xxv the GWPO and helped to mitigate concerns that its location in Stockholm contributed to its perceived isolation from regional and country concerns. The credibility of a global partnership program can be adversely affected by the politicization of office-holders and use of resources at the regional and country level. The GWP needs to address the politicization of some regional and country partnerships by strengthening the Network's governance and its focus on partnerships for development of global and regional public goods. The GWP also needs to undertake a review of the legal status of CWPs regarding their contractual involvement in water operations, and provide better guidance on these issues to CWPs. Global partnership programs should have transparent processes in place to ensure the allocation of financial and human resources to where they are most needed. The GWP needs to be more selective in supporting country-level efforts and recognize that one size does not fit all. Currently, apart from Africa, the uniform approach to central management of the Network does not appear to have taken into account the substantial differences in financial resources and local capacity to implement IWRM. Greater selectivity based on accurate assessments of local needs and capacity could increase the GWP's relevance in the most water-short and water- management-challenged regions and countries. Good communication is the lifeblood of networking. Global, interregional, and intraregional communications is vitally important since it provides opportunities for GWP's country-level partners to gain and exchange knowledge, meet peers, and receive global approval of strategies and plans, which legitimizes the work carried out in the regions and countries. For many, the convening power of the GWP and the recognition it may bestow is the primary incentive for becoming a GWP Partner, particularly for partners in those countries that are less developed. The GWP experience has been that frequent and two-way communications enable networks to be more effective. Better monitoring and evaluation is essential to generate both global knowledge and self-knowledge. In the 13 years of GWP's existence a significant body of experience has been generated in the regions and among GWP's country stakeholders and partners. Little of this has been gathered together and used. While outcome mapping may help provide a clearer understanding of how GWP's inputs contribute to positive outcomes, there are also many unlearned lessons about how GWP can improve its own institutional efficiency and impact. This requires a much greater level of self-examination and an increased recognition that effective feedback processes are important for nurturing good practice. 35. The main lessons from this Global Program Review for consideration of the World Bank are the following: The Bank needs to clearly establish its position in the GWP among the Sponsoring Partners to avoid raising false expectations and reputational risks. xxvi The Bank's substantial body of experience as a partner in global programs has not, in recent years, been applied to the GWP even though it has a continuing responsibility as a Sponsoring Partner for the GWP's legitimacy and effective governance. In general, the Bank needs to ensure that its representatives are made aware of the Bank's responsibilities for good governance of global programs and that their responsibilities are more than just technical. The Bank needs a more comprehensive and coherent policy and approach toward its engagement in global water programs. The experience to date indicates that its approach has been ad hoc, opportunistic, and overly focused on short to medium-term operational benefits. As a result, there has been some duplication among the global water programs in which the Bank is currently involved that has reduced the perceived relevance of the GWP to the Bank and its staff, particularly at the country level. 1 1. Partnership Overview Goal and Rationale 1.1 The Global Water Partnership (GWP) was conceived as an international network to support developing and transition countries in the sustainable management of their water resources by advocating and facilitating the good practices being promoted by several international agreements on water. International concern for the poor state of water management was first raised at the UN Conference on Water at Mar del Plata in 1977. Subsequently, the International Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Decade (1981­1990) put a spotlight on improving access of the poorest to potable water. While the provision of safe drinking water and sanitation remained at the top of the agenda -- as evidenced by the World Summit on Children (New York 1990) and the Global Consultation on Safe Water for the 1990s (New Delhi 1990) -- there was increasing recognition that safe water and the proper means of waste disposal should be embedded in a more comprehensive strategy of integrated water resources management. 1.2 Even so, institutional responsibilities were typically fragmented at the national level, and lacked coordination and coherence. And although a multitude of agencies dealt with water resources policy and management at the international and national levels, communication among them was poor and responsibilities were unclear. There was no international institution or focal point charged with providing guidance on water policy and good practice that would lead to integrated water resources management. And degradation of water resources was moving faster than dialogue to redress failings. 1.3 Accordingly, an International Conference on Water and the Environment in Dublin (January 1992) established a set of principles for water development and management (Box 1) and the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro (June 1992) fully endorsed the move toward more integrated and comprehensive water resources management (Box 2). The Rio Declaration also proposed "establishing a new and equitable partnership through the creation of new levels of cooperation among States, key Box 1. The Dublin Principles for Water sectors of society and people." Together, Development and Management these conferences established the rationale "1. Fresh water is a finite and vulnerable for a global partnership to provide guidance resource, essential to sustain life, development to water management and development. and the environment. 2. Water development and management should 1.4 The GWP was formally proposed in be based on a participatory approach, involving Stockholm in December 1995, at a meeting users, planners and policy-makers at all levels. of 56 organizations, including governments, 3. Women play a central part in the provision, multilateral development banks, UN management and safeguarding of water. agencies, professional associations, and the private sector. Over 75 participants present 4. Water has an economic value in all its at the meeting agreed to form an Interim competing uses and should be recognized as an economic good." Committee to move the idea forward. Sponsored by the World Bank, the United Source: Dublin Statement on Water and Sustainable Development, January 1992. 2 Nations Development Program (UNDP), Box 2. Agenda 21 Sets the Stage for GWP and the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA), GWP formally came into "The holistic management of freshwater and the being in 1996 (Table 1). integration of sectoral water plans and programmes within a framework of national economic and social policy are of paramount Mission importance for action in the 1990s and beyond." 1.5 The overall development objective Source: Agenda 21, Section 2, Chapter 18. or long-term goal of the GWP during the 2004­2008 Strategy period was to "achieve global water security as a contribution to eliminating poverty, improving well-being and protecting natural resources," and its mission was to "support countries in the sustainable management of their water resources." These were to be achieved through an advocacy network based on the principles of integrated freshwater resources management (IWRM) which is defined by the GWP as "a process that promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land, and related resources in order to maximize the resultant of vital economic and social welfare in an equitable Table 1. Condensed Timeline of the GWP Date Event 1995 UNDP, SIDA, and the World Bank proposed a Global Water Partnership 1996 Interim Steering Committee formed a Technical Committee to create the analytical framework for sustainable water resources management 1996 GWP established. A Secretariat to manage the GWP was set up in the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA) 1996 GWP Southern Africa Regional Technical Committee established 1997 GWP Southeast Asia Regional Technical Committee established 1997 Network of Regional Technical Committees formed 1998 Country Water Partnerships initiated 2000 Framework for Action was launched at the Second World Water Forum at the Hague 2000 Start of transformation of Regional Technical Committees into Regional Water Partnerships 2001 Area Water Partnerships initiated 2002 GWP Secretariat becomes an intergovernmental organization based in Sweden called the Global Water Partnership Organization (GWPO) 2002 The World Summit on Sustainable Development called for all countries to establish national integrated water resources management (IWRM) and water efficiency plans by 2005 2002­2003 First external independent evaluation of GWP 2003 GWP Regional Partnerships covered 11 regions: Central America, South America, Mediterranean, Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia, China, Southeast Asia, South Asia, East Africa, West Africa, Southern Africa 2008 13 Regional Water Partnerships coordinate 70 Country Water Partnerships that together include 1,800 partners 2007­2008 Second external independent evaluation of GWP Source: Prepared by IEG based on documents provided by GWP. 3 manner without compromising the sustainability ecosystems" (Figure 1).1 IWRM is neither an instrument nor a blueprint to enforce coordination -- it is a framework that guides thinking about and management of water resources, which will vary according to geography, climate, and institutions. The IWRM framework applies to all freshwater resources, both national and international (such as shared lakes and transboundary rivers), and includes precipitation, surface water, and groundwater. Figure 1. Integrated Water Resources Management Links Uses, Users, and Institutions Source: GWP 2000. Integrated Water Resources Management. 1.6 It was anticipated that the GWP would help improve the collaboration of all parties at the global, regional, and country levels that were interested in the sustainable development of water resources. The envisaged value the partnership would add was twofold: (a) regional partners would harmonize their policies and activities by means of the facilitated information exchange provided through the partnership; and (b) donors would coordinate their actions, particularly at the country level.2 GWP's coordination and facilitation was also expected to embrace all local and external stakeholders within any region or country, enabling them to discover and voice common concerns, develop joint negotiation processes, and learn from each other. GWP's facilitation of information exchange was expected to reveal overlapping and unstructured approaches promoted by governments and donors that frustrated good water resources management. It was also expected to clarify where donors' financial resources were most needed. 1.7 The challenge was more than just better information management and coordination. It also included providing technical advisory services and building capacity. Accordingly, the GWP established an international panel of water experts -- the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC, later renamed the Technical Committee, TEC) -- whose primary role was to garner global experience, standardize terminology, and at partners' request, tailor findings 1. GWP, 2000, Integrated Water Resources Management, Technical Paper No.4, March 2000. Definition given in Box 2. 2. GWP, 1996, "Why Join the Global Water Partnership, A Note on the Value Added," CG August 1996 (CG 96/02). 4 to the specific needs and languages of partnership regions and countries.3 The GWP aimed to become a forum for exchange of experience, not only between industrialized and developing countries but also among developing countries. Capacity building among partners was expected to be enhanced by this exchange of experience and learning from good practice, aided by conferences, seminars, and workshops. Capacity building was supported directly by three Advisory Centers -- the Danish Hydraulic Institute (Denmark), Wallingford Hydrology Center (UK), and the International Water Management Institute (Sri Lanka). Objectives 1.8 The immediate objective for which GWP was accountable during the 2004­2008 Strategy period was "to ensure that integrated water resources management is applied in a growing number of countries and regions, as a means to foster equitable and efficient management and sustainable water use." This immediate objective was to be achieved by means of a series of five outputs. Table 2 summarizes the principal activities intended to achieve these outputs. Performance indicators are detailed in Annex B. 1.9 These objectives and priority activities have evolved since GWP was founded in 1996 in response to gains in knowledge and experience. Initially, GWP had four objectives: (a) clearly establish the principles of sustainable water resources management; (b) identify gaps and stimulate partners to meet critical needs within their available human and financial resources; (c) support action at the local, national, regional, and river basin level that follow principles of sustainable water resources management; and (d) help match needs to available resources. 1.10 Over the period 1996­99, GWP established eight regional partnerships, the first in Southern Africa, and undertook a "mapping" of the global water sector that identified gaps, ranking their importance and developing action plans to address them.4 A major concern was balancing the growth of the partnership with the ability to maintain quality, manage expectations, and initiate and finance at least one service-delivery program in each active region. 1.11 Following the second World Water Forum in March 2000, GWP bundled the activities of the partnership into a comprehensive work plan -- The Framework for Action -- covering the period 2000­2003. This introduced GWP's overall development objective or long-term goal "to achieve global water security as a contribution to eliminating poverty, improving well- being and protecting natural resources." Following internal review of the Partnership's first independent evaluation in 2003 (para. 2.2), the GWP Steering Committee approved a new Strategy for the period 2004­2008 and stated that GWP intended "to reorient itself through 3. According to the Executive Secretary of GWP, "The TAC is the principal operating arm of the Partnership and provides a significant part of its value added. The performance of this group will in large measure determine the usefulness of GWP." Global Water Partnership Semi-Annual Consultative Group Meeting, Marrakesh, 20 March 1997. 4. A meeting was held in Copenhagen in October 1997 with the participation of 75 senior water professionals, including the full TAC and representatives from all GWP constituencies. Over three days, the participants identified 19 major gaps in water resources management services within and across the windows and recommended 13 cross-sectoral actions. 5 more action, more decentralization of operations both in terms of resources allocation and funding sources, and a relentless quest for excellence in network management."5 Table 2. GWP's Outputs and Key Activities to Achieve Them, 2004­2008 Outputs Key activities (summarized) 1. Facilitate Strengthen IWRM awareness generation with an emphasis on consolidating political development of will IWRM water policy Facilitate participatory multi-stakeholder process for policy dialogues toward effective and strategies at water governance and strengthening river basin organizations relevant levels Coordinate process to develop joint action programs for regional management through GWP's regional, national, and provincial Frameworks for Action Provide procedural and technical support [on IWRM] to regional and national policy formulation aimed at poverty alleviation and economic development Evaluate and monitor policies and strategies and produce guidelines on steps and methodology involved in incorporating IWRM principles in key policy processes 2. Develop IWRM Partner with selected regional and national organizations to develop and strengthen programs and tools their capacity using TEC and Associate Programs, particularly Cap-Net in response to Develop a robust and decentralized knowledge management system using the GWP regional and Web site and the IWRM Toolbox country needs Foster regional thematic networks based on Associate Programs to facilitate solution of institutional and technical issues hindering IWRM Work on development of financial instruments that provide the means to develop tools and programs 3. Ensure linkages Support and contribute to sector dialogue and integrating water and IWRM in plans between GWP and that focus on achievement of the MDGs and programs from other sectors and other frameworks, frameworks (e.g., international financial institutions (IFIs), UN agencies, IUCN, and sectors, and issues World Climate Program) Build strategic alliances with regional commissions (e.g., EC, SADC, IUCN/WWF) Strengthen synergy with the World Water Council Partner with knowledge-generating professional associations 4. Establish and Develop a vision of GWP partnership and corporate policy for RWPs, CWPs, and consolidate GWP AWPs and monitor against agreed development criteria partnerships at Develop the Network's capacity to support partnership and partnership building relevant levels Build capacity to facilitate participatory approaches, conflict resolution, knowledge management, fund raising, team building, and planning Seek cooperation and partnership with like-minded and /or experienced organizations, networks, and companies to synergize effectiveness Encourage cross-fertilization of experiences and operating models between regions and countries 5. Develop and Convene Annual General and Network Meetings for consultation with partners manage the GWP Develop and share operational guidelines on governance issues Network effectively Develop an efficient management information system and databases Produce long-term work plans that encourage buy-in by governments and donors globally and through traditional bilateral country programs Develop clear priority-setting systems for allocating central resources to regions Enhance capacity and skills of GWP staff at all levels Source: Annex B, summarized and reorganized from the GWP Strategy, 2004­2008 for this IEG review. 5. GWP, Global Water Partnership Strategy 2004-2008, December 2003. The Strategy was prepared over the period March-December 2003 in consultation with 11 regional groups (some constituted as RWPs and some still operating as RTACs), and the draft was discussed at the Annual Consultative Meeting in Stockholm in August. It was approved by the Steering Committee in December 2003. 6 1.12 The 2004­2008 Strategy emphasized that the GWP was a facilitating organization to assist others and not an implementing agency. It also cautioned that GWP's strategic priorities were not fixed because these would need to be carefully tailored and appropriately adjusted to emerging socioeconomic realities. GWP's engagement with partners would be at three levels: At the global level in partnership with the UN system and other global actors in development At the multicountry level in partnership with the regional or subregional political bodies, such as SADC and ASEAN, the regional IFIs, and other initiatives involving more than one country, such as the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), transboundary basin initiatives, and major NGO programs At the country level in partnership with national and subnational political bodies as well as all relevant stakeholder groups and actors, including in-country river basin frameworks. Governance 1.13 The Sponsoring Partners are those states and international organizations that have signed the Memorandum of Understanding that established the GWPO in 2002 as a legal intergovernmental organization based in Sweden.6 The GWP Network (Figure 2) does not have a legal personality. Only one of the regional structures has their own legal status: West Africa. 1.14 There are 10 Sponsoring Partners: The 10 Sponsoring Partners (WMO, World Bank, Argentina, Denmark, Chile, Hungary, Jordan, Pakistan, the Netherlands and Sweden) are the members and effective owners of the GWPO and appoint the Chair of the Steering Committee, as well as the members of the Steering Committee on the recommendations of the Nominations Committee taking into account professional background, geographical representation, gender, and level of development of the each member's home state.7 They provide global legitimacy and meet at least annually. 1.15 The Steering Committee (SC) is the global governance body for the whole Network and meets twice a year. It is accountable to the annual meeting of Sponsoring Partners on executive and fiduciary matters and to the annual Consulting Partners meeting on strategic and policy issues. It reports on both aspects to both meetings. It guides the cooperation between the partners within the Network. It is charged with developing the strategic directions and policies adopted by the Network Meeting at their annual convocations and making strategic decisions about the organization's direction and executive planning. It provides fiduciary oversight and management of the GWPO and holds the GWPO and the Technical Committee. Importantly, it appoints the Executive Secretary and the members of the Nominations Committee that shortlists and recommends candidates for the Steering Committee. 6. GWPO, 2002, Statutes for the Global Water Partnership Network and the Global Water Partnership Organization, Stockholm, December 12, 2002. 7. Cosponsorship of a program by international organizations such as the United Nations and the World Bank has historically been intended to provide an imprimatur of legitimacy for programs that are not based on formal international conventions. Cosponsors have typically had governance and management responsibilities, such as the selection of key office-holders, oversight and management of secretariats and advisory committees, and evaluation. In the case of GWP, UNDP and the World Bank have played the role of cosponsors. 7 Figure 2. Governance and Management of the Global Water Partnership External World GWP Partners Regional Water Partnerships Country GWP Global Steering Sponsoring Program Secretariat Committee Water Partners Services TEC Area Partnerships Water Partnerships GWP Program Linkages and alliances GWP Governance Source: GWP, 2004­2008 Strategy, p. 14. 1.16 During the 2004-2008 Strategy period, the Steering Committee comprised 4 cosponsors, 12 non-donors, 2 donor observers, 5ex officio members, and 1 permanent observer. The 12 non-donor members were elected from various constituencies for terms of up to three years, four of which typically rotated each year.8 They were proposed by Regional and Country Water Partners, other organizations and individuals for consideration of the Nominations Committee. Serving in their personal capacity, they did not have a specific obligation to report back to their constituencies. Non-donor committee members were expected to commit at least four days a year excluding travel. The ex officio members were the Chair, the Executive Secretary, the Chair of the Technical Committee, the "chair of chairs" drawn from the Regional Water Partners (who revolved every two years), and one representative from the UN Sub-Committee on Water Resources. The permanent observer was from the World Water Council. 1.17 The Nominations Committee consists of five to seven members as decided and appointed by the Steering Committee for a term of three years, renewable once. Candidates for the Steering Committee, nominated by the Nominations Committee, are reviewed by all GWP Partners, and their comments are put before of the Sponsoring Partners for election.9 8. http://www.emwis.net/thematicdirs/news/PDF/20080330_LetterGWP. 9. The information is circulated to the GWP Partners three months before the Annual Meeting of the Sponsoring Partners and to the Sponsoring Partners one month before their meeting. 8 1.18 The Technical Committee (TEC) consists of up to 12 internationally recognized professionals selected for their experience in different disciplines relating to integrated water resources management. This committee provides professional and scientific advice to GWP's constituency and Consulting Partners through (a) performing analyses of strategic issues affecting water management; (b) facilitating and supporting the development of GWP programs; (c) giving advice and guidance on IWRM priorities and development of IWRM proposals; and (d) identifying and undertaking performance evaluation of the Associated Programs. All the members of the GWP Technical Committee serve in their personal capacity for about 30 working days per year. They may serve no more than two 3-year terms. 1.19 The GWP Partners. The Partners are the 2,000 entities that constitute the inter- connected global network of institutions that voluntarily come together at regional, country, and subnational levels to form Water Partnerships (Annex C).10 Each partner participates in its own right at the annual Consulting Partners Network Meeting. 1.20 Any entity, except individuals, ranging from States, academic and research institutions to public sector service providers and NGOs, may become a partner. No fee is required to be paid. Partner means "partner of the global network GWP" and can be at any level -- regional to local -- irrespective of the presence or not of a regional or country water partnership. The Executive Secretary of the GWPO approves all Partnership applications. Partners make a commitment to actively participate in the GWP Network, as follows:11 Promoting the concept of IWRM as a means of moving toward global water security Raising awareness among political and decision-making levels of the importance of water and the need for IWRM Sharing the experience and knowledge of IWRM among GWP Partners Providing advice and services to help GWP Partners where and when appropriate Proactively working with GWP Partners -- within the framework of the Water partnerships -- to identify water-related problems at regional, national, and local levels Formulating priorities and devising and implementing programs to resolve these priorities through IWRM approaches. 1.21 The governance arrangements in the regions and countries generally follow that of the center. Generally, each RWP and CWP has its own Steering Committee (or equivalent) and an elected Chair, and each has its own administrative structure, operational strategy, and work plan. However, RWPs and CWPs do not represent local partners at the global level. Depending on the available resources, the administration of each RWP and CWP may be full or part-time and may be voluntary. All Secretariats of the RWPs are formally attached to international or national host institutions. Host institutions administer GWPO and local donor funding and employ staff in a secretariat on behalf of the partnership.12 Typically, the RWPs 10. Subnational partnerships are called Area Water Partnerships in some regions, such as India. In China there are Provincial Water Partnerships. 11. http://www.gwpseatac.ait.ac.th/public/MembershipBrochure(Website).pdf. 12. A Host Institution Agreement with GWPO is signed that defines the fee and details accounting principles and standards. Re: September 2008: http://www.gwpsudamerica.org/docs/publicacoes/doc_115_en.pdf. For example, the Secretariat of the Central Caucasus and Central Asia RWP has an agreement with the International 9 include a regional coordinator, a communications officer, and other staff as needed and affordable. CWPs may be attached to host institutions and their operations may replicate that of the RWPs depending on size and resources. Financial Resources 1.22 GWP is funded by the Financial Partners, by funding from Figure 3. GWP's Annual Income donors known as "restricted funds," Total Income and through voluntary funds raised in 20 US$ millions Restricted revenues the Regional and Country Water from all Donors Partnerships. In 2008, the relative 15 contributions were 63 percent, 21 percent, and 16 percent respectively. Regionally raised In addition, there are in-kind 10 contributions -- typically sponsored or seconded staff and office 5 accommodation -- but many other contributions go unreported. From Core - Financial Partners Only initial annual funding of $1.0 million - in 1996, overall annual funding has 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 grown to $15.0 million (Figure 3). Cumulative funding provided up to Source: GWP October 2008. Note: Data for 2008 are provisional. 2008 was almost $116 million. 1.23 There are three main categories of expenditures. In accordance with the target in the 2004­2008 Strategy, regional expenditures by the GWP Regions (financed by grants from the GWPO as well as regionally raised funds) have increased from $4.6 million in 2002, when the GWPO was founded, to $9.9 million in 2008, and their share of total expenditure has increased from 45 percent to 66 percent over the same period -- a notable achievement. In contrast, global expenditures for the Steering and Technical Committees, Advisors and Advisory Centers, and knowledge management fell from $3.2 million to $1.7 million over the same period. Secretariat expenses have grown steadily in line with overall expenditures from $2.5 million in 2002 to $3.6 million in 2008, representing about one-quarter of all expenditures (Annex Table H-2). 2. The External Evaluation of the GWP 2.1 This chapter describes the scope and design of the external evaluation, assesses its independence and quality, and summarizes its major findings and impact. Water Management Institute (IWMI) in Tashkent, while the Southern Africa RWP Secretariat is hosted by IWMI in Pretoria. In the Myanmar CWP, the Irrigation Department is the host, and the East African RWP Secretariat is hosted by the Nile Basin Initiative Secretariat, Entebbe. In Zambia, the host is the University of Zambia's School of Mines. 10 Background 2.2 In 2002 the GWP commissioned the first External Review for the first six years of the partnership to provide a baseline for the in-coming Executive Secretary. The United Kingdom's Department for International Development (DFID), the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA), and the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs and commissioned the Performance Assessment Resource Centre (PARC) -- a UK-based non-governmental organization -- to carry out a Scoping Study and to lead the External Review process. Its findings and recommendations were presented in June 2003.13 2.3 This first External Review made five recommendations: (a) the GWP should continue to be supported since it was a cost-effective and valuable instrument for progressing reform and awareness at all levels; (b) it should give more attention to improving communications, decentralizing, increasing local engagement, and completing its regional structures; (c) it also needed better regional engagement with international agencies and stronger regional links to the global level; (d) it needed greater ownership of capacity development; and (e) the donors should commit to 3­5 years' financial support to provide a more realistic planning horizon. 2.4 Following discussion of the 2003 External Review, the GWP Steering Committee approved a new Strategic Plan for the period 2004­2008 (Annex B). At the same time IEG undertook a case study of the GWP based on the External Review as part of its evaluation of the World Bank's involvement in global programs.14 When launching the Strategic Plan the Steering Committee called for evaluation of the impact of the 2003 External Review after four years. The next section reviews the subsequent 2008 evaluation. Objectives of 2008 Evaluation 2.5 A Joint Donor Group consisting of DFID, SIDA, Norad, DGIS, GTZ, UNDP, and Danida commissioned the second evaluation, which covered GWP's 2004­2008 strategy period. The Terms of Reference (TOR) stated: "the evaluation should focus on four questions: Is GWP doing the right things? Is GWP doing the right things well? What recommendations can be made to enhance GWP's effectiveness? How can the sustainability of GWP be ensured?" These were similar to the questions asked in 2003. Scope 2.6 The audience for the evaluation was the GWP Partners and Financiers. The rationale for the evaluation was twofold: (a) to satisfy the undertaking given in 2003 that there would be an evaluation of the achievements of the Strategic Plan; and (b) to provide a comprehensive assessment of the progress, contributions, achievements, and impact of GWP 13. R. Hoare, Bert van Woersem, Gabor Bruszt, Doug Flint, and Juliet Pierce, 2003, External Review of the Global Water Partnership ­ Final Report, the Performance Assessment Centre Project No. 78. The review team comprised evaluators from PARC plus team members from the Netherlands and Sweden. 14. IEG, 2004, "The Global Water Partnership ­ Case Study" for Addressing the Challenges of Globalization: An Independent Evaluation of the World Bank's Approach to Global Programs. The author of the current Global Program Review was a peer reviewer of that case study. 11 during the strategy period 2004­2008. The evaluation also encompassed the Joint Donor Group's concern to evaluate the governance and management of the GWP Network.15 The outcome of the evaluation was expected to provide "a basis and recommendations for enhancement and improvement of both governance and the performance of the GWP." 2.7 The TOR was demanding, comprehensive, and complex. All aspects of the GWP were thoroughly covered (Annex D). The attention to governance and management reflected concerns that GWP's formative years within SIDA (1996­2002) had not adequately dealt with these issues. The attention to outcomes and impacts reflected donors' requirements for information to justify continued political support and financing. As discussed later, this was without regard to realistic timetables in partner countries for learning, capacity building, and reform in water sector institutions, and may therefore have been premature.16 Evaluation Process 2.8 Following the precedent of 2003, DFID again contracted the evaluation to PARC. The selection of PARC was sole-source. The rationale was that PARC had been established by DFID in 2001 to undertake independent evaluation, that they already knew GWP from the previous evaluation, and that therefore they could start work immediately.17 The six-member evaluation team included three members involved in the 2003 evaluation. Having some members of the evaluation team familiar with the organization reduced the evaluators' learning curve about the GWP, which the Joint Donor Group saw as a positive advantage to the evaluation process. 2.9 The detailed design began with a scoping phase to identify the breadth of the evaluation, methods, and the number and location of countries and regions for field visits. A clear and transparent evaluation framework was established to guide the broad lines of enquiry. An investigation phase conducted two surveys, one of all partners and the other of central actors: GWP's core staff, GWP committee members, Sponsoring and Financial Partners, the TEC, the Advisory Centers, and professionals within the broader water development community. The multilingual country questionnaire response rate was 4 percent with 71 responses covering 50 countries; the response rate from central actors was 7 percent representing only 12 responses. Field visits were carried out in 10 countries during which interviews were conducted with key actors in five RWPs and 10 CWPs and within the 15. The Joint Donor Group was concerned that management had become "semi-dysfunctional." This was the phrase used by DFID, but four other donors made similar comments to IEG. 16. Moving from the introduction of IWRM concepts to effective river basin management considering the needs of all users can take a long time. In France, for example, following the 1964 Water Law establishing river basins, integrated river basin planning was only initiated in 1992, and the first plans were implemented only after 2000 -- a gestation period of 36 years. 17. PARC was established in 2001 using DFID seed grants to provide independent evaluation services to DFID. All DFID grants ceased in 2007. All of its employees are openly recruited and none are ex-DFID. In collaboration with others, PARC has worked with the Finnish agency DIDC on forestry, with the World Bank on the Cities Alliance and with several other international agencies. In 2003 about 80 percent of its work was from DFID; by 2008 this had reduced to 30 percent. PARC is managed by two full-time directors who recruit consultants as needed. 12 national agencies and organizations concerned with water development and management.18 Four of these 10 countries had been part of the 2003 evaluation.19 Independence and Impartiality 2.10 The PARC evaluation was independent and of high quality. This was the result of successfully resolving a number of potential conflicts of interest that could have jeopardized its independence and impartiality.20 PARC's 2003 evaluation had made recommendations that PARC subsequently reviewed in the 2008 evaluation and half the current team members had been involved in the previous evaluation.21 2.11 For these reasons representatives of Danida and DGIS became concerned about DFID's dominance in the evaluation. As the largest funder of GWP, DFID could have been construed as trying to protect its own interests. To mitigate any impressions that the evaluation team was a "DFID team" both Danida and DGIS wanted their own independent consultants as core evaluation team members. Consequently, Danida proposed to contract its own consultant for the PARC team with a dual role: assisting with the evaluation and reporting to Danida on evaluation team findings. However, the PARC team leader refused to accept this proposal on the grounds that it would compromise the independence of the evaluation. Subsequently, Danida agreed for their consultant to be contracted by PARC, for Danida to reimburse PARC, and for the consultant to have no formal relationship with Danida. And PARC satisfied DGIS's concerns by independently contracting a Dutch consultant who was paid for by DFID. 2.12 The tensions around the appointment and staffing of the PARC team, and the subsequent transparent resolution of them gave a strong and healthy signal that the independence of the team would be respected. And the full TOR also had the following inserted to increase transparency: "Evaluators from the Joint Donor Group countries may accompany the Team during the evaluation as observers." Even so, the way the evaluation 18. Each RWP and CWP visit was undertaken by two team members. Individuals in each two-person team were systematically rotated to ensure that a standardized approach evolved. 19. The RWPs were China, East Africa, South Asia, South East Asia, and West Africa. The countries were: Bangladesh, Benin, Cambodia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Kenya, Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam. Those in bold had been part of the 2003 external review. Country visits were typically 2-4 days. 20. See the World Bank, Global Programs and Partnerships Group, "Identifying and Addressing Partnership Conflict of Interest in Global Programs and Partnerships," August 2007. A conflict of interest can occur when one's ability to exercise judgment in one role is impaired by one's obligation in another role or by the existence of an interest. A conflict of interest is "potential" if a person is not yet in a situation where he must make a conflicted judgment, and "actual" if he is already in such a situation. 21. In response to IEG's questions on apparent conflicts of interest, DFID stated (October 2008), "It was not a terminal evaluation but part of a normal project cycle; it was effectively a second-phase review." And "it was a mid-term performance study supported by the Joint Donor Group as an input into decision-making to establish a new direction." DFID also stated they would not have used PARC if this had been a terminal evaluation -- a semantic difference that is difficult to understand given that global programs like GWP are typically established without a fixed end point. Concerning the consultants, DFID also stated that those on the earlier evaluation only played a minor role in this evaluation -- which proved to be substantially the case. 13 was contracted does not represent good practice. 22 It would have been better to have appointed an evaluation contractor through open competition and a common financing pool that was overseen and reviewed by the Joint Donor Group as a whole. 2.13 The draft TOR was initiated by DFID in August 2007. PARC responded and, during the two-month scoping phase, suggested modifications, which were discussed openly by the Joint Donor Group and with the Steering Committee until a consensus was reached in September 2007. The Joint Donor Group approved a very detailed Methodology Statement, which elaborated the TOR and defined the approach to gathering evidence, analysis of findings, and framing conclusions and recommendations. This also provided a detailed evaluation plan and description of the evaluation team and its management. 2.14 While the GWPO was unhappy about the explicit review of Secretariat performance in the TOR, this had no effect on GWPO's subsequent cooperation with PARC.23 The feedback to IEG from the Group was that this was "a very participatory process that was open and not biased in any way." Frank opinions were expressed within the Group and the final TOR and Methodology Statement were fully endorsed by the whole Group. As SIDA summarized: "this process created a high degree of ownership by the Group." 24 2.15 Findings from field visits and on GWP management were initially presented to the GWP's Steering Committee (SC) Meeting and the Joint Donor Group separately. The presentation to the Manila SC Meeting in November 2007 provided feedback to the evaluation team that required greater attention to the evidentiary chain for the initial findings -- more issues of fact than challenging evaluative logic. Subsequently, there was a one-on- one discussion with DFID and a telephone conference with the Joint Donor Group. This led to some of the initial conclusions being challenged "to enhance the robustness and clarity of the findings." Throughout the evaluation review process some team members interacted with the donors individually, specifically in response to queries by Danida, DFID, DGIS, and UNDP, who wanted the final evaluation report to present strong and prescriptive recommendations on what should be done to inform GWP's new strategy for 2009­2012. Countering this, PARC responded that being less prescriptive would lead to greater debate among stakeholders, and that the gestation period would give time for more considered 22. The IEG/DAC Sourcebook for Evaluating Global and Regional Partnership Programs has identified a number of issues with joint donor evaluations of GRPPs in comparison with those commissioned by the governing body of the program -- in particular, issues of ownership and conflicts arising from donor's own policies and procedures. See paragraphs 2.10-2.11, 3.13, 7.10-7.13, and 7.22 in the sourcebook. 23. The major tension was that the initial TOR did not highlight performance evaluation of the Secretariat. The Nordic donors and UNDP argued successfully that this should be a major focus and their view eventually prevailed. 24. Commenting on an earlier draft of this report, GWP noted: "From GWP's perspective, the Independent Evaluation produced an extremely useful assessment of GWP over the 2004-2008 Strategy Period. The fact that some Evaluation team members were involved in the 2003 Evaluation may be seen as a positive advantage to the evaluation process. GWP is a complex network which does not fit any usual organizational model. The learning curve is steep for an Evaluation Team to understand the nature of the organization so as to undertake an effective evaluation. Having some of the Evaluation team familiar with the organization significantly reduced the learning curve. The leadership of the Evaluation Team was new to GWP and brought a thoroughly professional approach to the work. GWP believes that the independence and impartiality of the Evaluation was not compromised in any way." 14 thought from which sounder reform proposals would emerge. Members of the Donor Group told IEG that this approach worked well. Overall, most of the stakeholders interviewed by IEG stated that PARC did an excellent job and produced an independent and unbiased report. 2.16 The final report was issued in March 2008. The evaluative process and findings were extensively reported and fully disclosed. GWPO issued a management response to the Steering Committee, which passed it on to the Joint Donor Group. The Group then provided GWPO and the Steering Committee with its response at the April 2008 Finance Group Meeting. The GWPO management response was posted on the GWP Web site in June 2009 -- fifteen months after the PARC evaluation was published and six months after the 2009­ 2013 Strategy was finalized.25 2.17 The evaluation was originally planned for 9 months over the period April to December 2007, which was reduced to 8 months over the period August 2007 to March 2008. The overall cost of the evaluation was Ł267,000, or about $560,000 at exchange rates prevailing in late 2007. Major Findings, Recommendations, and Impact of the Evaluation FINDINGS 2.18 The PARC evaluation found that partnership in the GWP had tripled over the period 2003­2007 and that the awareness of IWRM had increased across the Network. The number of country and regional partnerships had increased significantly; CWPs had grown from 28 to 71; and 13 RWPs had been created from nine regional Technical Advisory Committees. Financial management and accountability had significantly improved. Overall, they found that the recommendations of the 2003 evaluation had been substantially addressed (Annex E). 2.19 GWP's global policy leadership, while well established before the current evaluation, continued to be recognized. The evaluation found little evidence of confusion or overlap between the mandates of different global water organizations, and GWP retained its clear niche in facilitating multi-stakeholder dialogues on IWRM. However, there was a perception among some stakeholders that the organization had lost its cutting edge, focus, and ability to drive the global policy agenda. 2.20 The major growth area of the GWP had been at the country level, with the maturing of country partnerships, the development of national IWRM plans, and the facilitation of bilateral funding to support IWRM initiatives. Most of the financial support for the work at the country level was through the "restricted funding" granted to Sub-Saharan Africa. While there had been some notable advances in terms of countries moving toward more integrated management of their water resources, it was difficult verify attribution to the GWP. 25. Commenting on an earlier draft of this report, the GWP noted: "the GWP Management Response to the Evaluation was developed through wide consultation within the Partnership and is incorporated as part of a review of the 2004­2008 Strategy period, which is publicly available on the GWP Web site." This was publicly disclosed in June 2009 as Annex A of GWP's Strategy Period 2004­2008: Report on Achievements. 15 2.21 Governance. The PARC evaluation found the Network governance structure overly complicated, exclusive, and not very accountable to its Partners. Partners of the GWP had very little say on the governance of the organization. Many rules and procedures were unclear and several conflicts of interest were noted. 2.22 Management. PARC found that the GWPO was functioning well and had grown appropriately to manage the evolving and expanding Network. However, an internal top-down management style had marred the effectiveness of the GWPO and reduced communication and networking. The PARC found that the GWP's fundraising was effective, particularly in garnering restricted funding that enabled a redistribution of the GWP budget to countries that were not beneficiaries of these grants. However, lack of prioritization and of coherence to policy objectives was evident. While monitoring of finances was found excellent, monitoring and evaluation of the results chain and outcomes remained poor. This made lesson learning difficult. 2.23 Knowledge management and communication. The TEC was found effective in disseminating global IWRM knowledge to countries and supporting Toolbox case studies. On the contrary, there had been no implementation of internal communication strategies to monitor and to collate lessons learned from GWP partners to feedback into the global knowledge arena, or to facilitate south-south communication and lesson learning. PARC'S RECOMMENDATIONS 2.24 Overall, PARC judged the GWP's objectives and activities relevant but with reservations. Although the GWP had been critical in global advocacy around integrated water resources management, it appeared to have lost its direction and passion to facilitate country- level uptake of the IWRM message. PARC therefore recommended that GWP retain IWRM as its central message but more actively demonstrate policy leadership on how cross-cutting themes of water, environment, and broader development concerns related to IWRM. Cross- cutting themes that could be considered were climate change adaptation; water for food; engagement with private water users; and facilitation of IWRM implementation. This last factor reflected the need of partners at the country level to demonstrate action rather than just talk. 2.25 The PARC evaluation believed that GWP was operating "behind its own reality" in that Network governance was falling short of the existing and potential demands of individual partners. It recommended that the GWP consider three options: Option 1: Complete its current mission and fade away through a managed withdrawal over a period of about four years. GWP activities would then be continued under country water partnerships. Option 2: Continue with business as usual and to continue spreading the IWRM message and facilitating its implementation. No change was envisaged to GWP's structure, although a greater priority would be given to fundraising. Option 3: Re-energize, re-strategize, and re-organize. This would see a radical shift in the way GWP operated. IWRM would remain the core message, and significant efforts would be placed on raising GWP's technical profile. The main 16 drive would be to become a leader among other water institutions in demonstrating the impact of climate change or population growth on water resources, focusing on the impacts on developing countries on a global scale and identifying some priority mitigation measures and actions. Network expansion would occur but only after funding had been secured primarily through regional and country-level fund raising. Expenditures would be predominantly at the country level, and the size of the Stockholm Secretariat would be reduced. There was also a strong recommendation that the Secretariat be relocated to a region to bring it closer to partners. 2.26 The financial implications of these options were significant (Table 3). Table 3. GWP's Projected Budgetary Allocations in 2012 under Various Development Options Annual budgetary allocation (US$ millions) PARC's options for the future of the GWP Global and Regional Country Total Secretariat 1. "Complete" and fade away 4 1 1 7 2. Business as usual 10 3 2 15 3. Re-energize, re-strategize, re-organize 1 5 10 16 Source: PARC 2008. IMPACT OF THE EVALUATION 2.27 The GWP issued a new Strategy in January 2009 covering the period 2009­2013. All the findings and recommendations of the PARC evaluation were considered, and the Strategy was developed with GWP Network-wide participation and consultation. The Strategy was endorsed by the Steering Committee and the GWP Annual Network Meeting. Subsequently it was welcomed by the GWPO Sponsoring Partners and endorsed by the GWP Financial Partners which includes the Joint Donor Group that commissioned the evaluation. Already, the GWP has reintroduced the positions of Deputy Executive Secretary and truncated the executive authority of the Chair. Thus the Executive Secretary is now responsible for external coordination and strategic planning and the Deputy Executive Secretary for internal day-to-day management and coordination.26 2.28 The Network-wide consultation in 2008 generated and endorsed four strategic goals that would be pursued by the Partnership during 2009­2013: an operational goal, an advocacy goal, a knowledge goal, and a partnering goal. All were equally significant. For each goal, GWP identified the strategy it would adopt to achieve the desired outcomes (Box 3). 2.29 The GWP plans to develop the role and structure of the Steering Committee and Nominating Committee during the new strategy period, initially to improve the ways of working and subsequently through a planned process during the first three years of the strategy period to implement changes that may be needed to the GWP statutes. 26. Since April 1, 2010, there is no longer a Deputy Executive Secretary in the GWPO. When the DES position was vacated, the ES chose to reassign some of the responsibilities while maintaining the function of Network Head. 17 Box 3. GWP's Strategy 2009­2013: Goals and Expected Outcomes GOAL 1: Promote water as a key part of sustainable national development. This goal focuses on improving water resources management, putting IWRM into practice to help countries towards growth and water security emphasizing an integrated approach, good governance, appropriate infrastructure and sustainable financing. Expected Outcomes Where policies and plans are in place, governments incorporate them into national development processes and implement them with support from others. Where policies and plans are not in place or weak, governments develop them, incorporate them into national development processes and implement them with support from others. Non-government actors, including GWP, civil society and external support agencies, work together to build local capacities and help governments implement their policies and plans. GOAL 2: Address critical development challenges. This goal focuses on contributing to and advocating solutions for critical challenges to water security, such as climate change, growing urbanization, food production, resource related conflict and other challenges as they emerge. Expected Outcomes National and regional policy makers, civic organisations, water managers and international development agencies take into account the links between water and climate change, and develop solutions for adapting the management of water resources to climate change. National and regional policy makers, civic organisations, water managers and international development agencies address critical development challenges, particularly food security, urbanisation and conflict resolution. International actors and multi-lateral policy processes work with a clearer understanding of the options available for tackling emerging and on-going challenges facing water resources through objective and incisive intellectual contributions from GWP and its partners. GOAL 3: Reinforce knowledge sharing and communications. This goal focuses on developing the capacity to share knowledge and to promote a dynamic communications culture, so as to support better water management. Expected Outcomes Global entities such as UN agencies, multi- and bi-laterals, and the corporate world are better informed through GWP knowledge dissemination about issues related to managing the world's water resources. Stakeholders, including governments, finance and planning ministries, NGOs, the private sector and youth, have better access to relevant and practical knowledge, and more capacity to share that knowledge. GWP embeds a communications culture across the Partnership, and stakeholders at all levels take up strategic information and key messages. GOAL 4: Build a more effective network. This goal focuses on enhancing the network's resilience and effectiveness through stronger partnerships, good governance, measuring performance to help learning and financial sustainability. Expected Outcomes GWP strengthens and builds the capacity of RWPs so they carry out their work plans more effectively, and provide support to the Country Water Partnerships. The Global Water Partnership Organization and the Regional Water Partnerships undertake a change process to improve organisation and management, and streamline financial, administrative and governance structures across the Partnership. GWPO and the RWPs fully incorporate an Outcome Mapping approach as a way to plan, monitor and evaluate the success of annual work plans. GWPO, RWPs and Country Water Partnerships access new and diverse sources of funding for GWP activities while increasing funding from traditional sources. Source: GWP 2010. 18 3. The Effectiveness of the GWP during the 2004­2008 Strategy Period 3.1 This chapter presents IEG's second opinion of the effectiveness of the GWP since the first external review in 2003 and in relation to the Partnership's immediate objectives during the 2004­2008 Strategy period. This assessment is based on the two PARC evaluation reports, available literature and research, and 34 interviews with a cross-section of GWP's stakeholders: the donor community, outside observers, the PARC evaluator, and GWPO staff. Additional triangulation is provided from research conducted by Katherine Parrot of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology27 and the Program Evaluation of the Partnership for Africa's Water Development that was implemented by the GWP.28 3.2 The MIT research assessed stakeholder alignment in the GWP through the application of a Lateral Alignment Framework to study three different levels of stakeholder alignment -- behavioral, functional/structural, and systems/culture/values -- and the GWP's effectiveness in achieving its mission and goals. The primary research question at the regional level was "which dimensions of lateral alignment support GWP objectives, and how do they compare across regions?" At the global level the primary research question was "which dimension of lateral alignment support GWP's objectives at the global level?" A mixed quantitative- qualitative survey was administered in 2006 to 590 individual GWP partners -- halfway through the 2004­2008 Strategy period. A total of 31 regional-level surveys from three GWP regions and 45 global-level surveys from eight GWP regions were returned and analyzed -- a response rate of 13 percent. The GWPO facilitated this research. 3.3 The independent evaluation of the $10 million PAWD looked at the effectiveness of the GWP in five African countries (Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Senegal, and Zambia).29 Specifically, the evaluation assessed how well PAWD was assisting these countries to manage their water resources in a sustainable manner in order to contribute to poverty reduction, human well-being, and the protection of natural resources. The PAWD focused on support to: national IWRM frameworks; institutional development of existing, new and emerging multi-stakeholder national and regional water partnerships; and integration of water into Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRSPs) or their equivalent. The evaluation was routine and was not triggered by any special concerns. Their findings were based on 84 interviews, field visits and evaluation workshops in all five countries, as well as interviews with the 27. Katherine W. Parrot. 2007. Lateral Stakeholder Alignment in the Global Water Partnership. MSc. Thesis, MIT. Correspondence reflecting the facilitation of this research by the GWPO is provided in Appendix 3 of the thesis. 28. Plan:Net Limited and Mosaic International. 2008. "Program Evaluation of Partnership for Africa's Water Development Program ­ Global Water Partnership ­ Final Report." This was prepared for the Canada Fund for Africa and CIDA. 29. Commenting on an earlier draft of this review, GWP has stated that "the specific objective of this independent evaluation was to look at the project/PAWD and was conducted in the interests of documenting final results, ensuring a smooth wrap-up and contributing to lessons that might inform future CIDA programming in integrated water resource management. The intention was that recommendations arising from the evaluation would offer an opportunity for CIDA, GWP and other major stakeholders to address any challenges and/or weaknesses associated with the IWRM approach." 19 major external stakeholders. The evaluation found that by and large PAWD was a success, delivering substantially on 4 of the 6 program outcomes, and demonstrating the value of multi-stakeholder participation in policy and planning. Relevance RELEVANCE OF OBJECTIVES 3.4 The GWP's immediate objective during the 2004­2008 period -- "to ensure that integrated water resources management is applied in a growing number of countries and regions, as a means to foster equitable and efficient management and sustainable water use" -- remains relevant but was too ambitious. 3.5 International consensus. The international consensus regarding the need for IWRM has increased since GWP was founded. World leaders at the World Summit for Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002 recognized water management as a top priority that was key to the achievement of many of the Millennium Development Goals, and the Summit Declaration included a statement that all countries should develop IWRM and water efficiency plans by 2005. Indeed, the GWP was instrumental in placing IWRM and water efficiency planning requirements on the Johannesburg agenda. Since 2002 global awareness of the impacts of climate change on humanity and the related threats to water access and security has significantly increased (Box 4). And the urgency to address the main economic and geopolitical water issues likely to arise in the next two decades was discussed at the 2009 Davos World Economic Forum.30 Box 4. IWRM Remains Relevant Today "Water today is under threat from a variety of sources. Human beings rely on water to survive, yet, often people are water's worst enemy. . . With population increasing and cities expanding, more pressure will be placed on water supply. Industrial development will require more water, and as countries look to increase their energy supply, more water will be diverted to generate hydro- electricity. The pollution of lakes, rivers and underground reservoirs reduces the supply of clean /1 water. Climate change adds another variable to the already unstable equation." "World population will grow from around 6.5 billion today to over 9 billion in 2050. This poses a major challenge for world agriculture: to produce more food to feed a growing world population while using limited water resources more efficiently. The competition for scarce water resources will increase in future, as the demand for water from industry and private households will rise. Feeding the world in a sustainable way, also responding to growing climate change threats, requires new /2 concepts and a strong political will to solve the world's growing water problems." Sources: /1 Ger Bergkamp, Director-General, World Water Council. /2 Alexander Müller, Assistant Director-General, FAO. These quotes are from the FAO Rome meeting (January 21­23, 2009) that was part of preparations for the 5th World Water Forum held in Istanbul, Turkey, March 16­22, 2009. The World Water Forum is the largest international event in the field of water. The Rome gathering was the third in a series of high-level meetings to prepare for the ministerial conference on water that would be part of the World Water Forum. 30. World Economic Forum, 2009, World Economic Forum Water Initiative ­ Managing our Future Water Needs for Agriculture, Industry, Human Health, and the Environment. 20 3.6 Beneficiary country demand. Figure 4. Agreement about GWP's Approach The GWP is demand-driven within a to IWRM Correlated with Availability of supply framework, providing advocacy, Technical Resources through GWP (n = 75) learning and technical support on demand from partners. There is 6 increased interest by entities within W. Africa countries for support from GWP to raise 5 SE Asia Mediterranean & Caribbean awareness about and facilitate S. America Extent of 4 development of IWRM strategies and agreem ent C & E Europe C & S Asia S. Africa about the policies at the country level, as GWP w ay of 3 C & E Africa evidenced by the growing number of doing IWRM partners who joined GWP and formed 2 Regional and Country Water Partnerships associated with GWP. This 1 demand is stronger in some regions than 1 2 3 4 5 6 in others and appears to be related to the Availability of technical resources through GWP ability of the GWP to meet or facilitate Key: 1 = low ; 6 = high partners' needs and expectations for Source: Parrot 2007, Appendix 5. technical resources -- beyond simply advocacy and learning -- to undertake IWRM (Figure 4). West Africa, Southeast Asia, the Mediterranean, and Caribbean regions show the highest agreement with GWP's advocacy and support for the IWRM approach. The modest levels of agreement in Central and Eastern Europe and Southern Africa on GWP's approach to IWRM reflects a greater level of maturity in these regions, a desire to stand on their own feet, and an ability to undertake GWP-type activities more efficiently themselves. 3.7 Southern Africa was the first RWP, and Central and Eastern Europe's water institutions were already well-formed. The low rating of GWP's relevance in the pooled score for Central and Eastern Africa has been disproportionately affected by the governance issues in Kenya over hosting arrangements and financial management. In some regions, GWP's technical resources and funding are essential; in others, the maximum value added is from access to the global water community and knowledge. These findings argue for greater selectivity over the level of GWP support for countries and regions. 3.8 Subsidiarity. GWP does not appear to be undertaking activities that compete with the activities of its major (financial) partners. At the global level, it provides the Financial Partners with a gateway into a convening forum and network around the practical issues of water policy and management using its network. The Network's regional and country partners provide first-hand knowledge of national issues and, particularly in Africa, the Financial Partners have turned to the GWP to enhance their development programs on environment and water. The one area where GWP seems to be less relevant is on international water issues -- except in Southern and Western Africa -- partly because of insufficient central resources to do the work, and partly because political influence is strong in some regions and RWPs, in South Asia for example. Thus multilateral donor agencies (including GEF, UNDP, the World Bank, AsDB, and IDB) continue to be seen as neutral 21 interlocutors on these issues, helped by their ability to mobilize coordinated financing for technical assistance and investment. 3.9 Within the GWP partnership there are very mixed views about how effectively the GWPO supports, facilitates, and coordinates activities outside Stockholm. According to the 2008 PARC evaluation, the prevailing view among partners is that GWPO increasingly centralized decision-making on management policy and finance over the period 2002­2007. However, in contrast to this, it also enhanced regional responsibility for technical decision- making on IWRM. 3.10 Alternative sources of supply. The GWP has developed a strong brand and there are no alternative sources of IWRM advocacy, knowledge, and consensus-building at the regional level. Concerns expressed in the late 1990s that the GWP and the World Water Council seemed to have overlapping mandates and activities (and thus duplication) are not sustained. Initially, the WWC and GWP pursued the same agenda to provide a sound and coherent framework and standards for water resources management, but each established clearly separate roles after the Hague WWF2 in 2000. Both WWC and GWP still aim to raise the importance of water on the political agenda to generate political commitment and reform, and both subscribe to achievement of the water-related Millennium Development Goals by 2015. The WWC is built primarily around its triennial global World Water Forum meetings that provide a global policy think-tank for discussion at the highest intergovernmental and NGO level to reach a consensus of actions to achieve global water security. In contrast, the GWP's role has matured to focus primarily on building water knowledge and institutions that link regions, countries, and local areas in a common framework for national IWRM plans driven by the demands of its partners. RELEVANCE OF DESIGN 3.11 Partnership design has been appropriate for advocacy and knowledge networking on IWRM. The overall approach that used the TEC and RTACs to plant the seed of knowledge, aided by international networking, produced country partners that coalesced, with few exceptions, into officially recognized country partnerships. And the subsequent conversion of the RTACs into RWPs successfully followed a similar process. In the process, however, Partnership design did not generally spot the need to bolster technical support to replace capacity lost to the management of regional partnerships. The growth of the restricted funding instrument has been relevant and timely, but its coverage has been uneven. Where present, restricted funding has supported country-level interventions that have reinforced the policy messages and built the capacity of CWPs to work with all stakeholders. 3.12 However, there was a significant change in the immediate objective of the 2004­2008 Strategy from aiming to "support" countries in the sustainable management of their water resources -- that of first phase GWP (1996­2004) -- to aiming to "ensure" that integrated water resources management is applied in a growing number of countries and regions. This may have raised expectations that the GWP was not able to fulfill. 3.13 This change in the 2004­2008 Strategy was the result of unresolved tensions about GWP's role that go back to its founding, when it tried to reach a decision concerning which 22 demands it should consider responding to. "The GWP was conceived to...provide the first global forum for action-oriented decision-making, with a focus on putting the international agreements into practice and supporting developing countries in the sustainable management of their water resources."31 While the phrase "action-oriented" was subsequently dropped from the GWP's global objective, it was expected that active intervention to support GWP's partners -- who at that stage of development were primarily the Financial Partners that had extensive multilateral and bilateral aid programs -- would lead to research programs and project implementation.32 Thus the GWP effectively had three roles: knowledge management; facilitation of multi-stakeholder dialogue; and action-oriented coordination serving the Financial Partners' interests. But in public documents this latter role was not presented. 3.14 Setting a specific timetable for introducing IWRM plans, in the quest to remain relevant to demand, was also unrealistic. A pragmatic assessment of the time and resources needed to effect water reforms was missing. GWP's relatively modest staff and financial resources could not sustain the effort required and, given the still-evolving Network, it may have been better to focus its efforts where it had a comparative advantage. 3.15 As the IWRM planning experience in Africa demonstrates, the GWP has less impact when it promotes the development of plans with insufficient flexibility and recognition of institutional constraints. Its strength is advocating interactive and flexible procedures to achieve results (Box 5). Not surprisingly the global IWRM plan targets were not met, and these made the GWP appear ineffective, lowering the perceived effectiveness of its advocacy.33 This was a case where the need to gain political capital soon after GWPO's independence overrode practical realities.34 31. GWP, The Global Water Partnership, Minutes of the First Consultative Group Meeting ­ Stockholm, August 9, 1996, CG96-2. 32. GWP, 1996, CG96-2. "Two features of the GWP will help mobilize both external and internal resources. First, the GWP, through its process of review, consultation and priority-setting, will encourage qualitatively high standing projects and research programmes. The impartial review of the TAC [now the TEC] will give donors and recipients confidence that their financial resources are used in a productive and responsible manner. Second, the innovative reinforced network approach of the GWP will ensure that resources are handled in an efficient and effective manner with result-oriented actions as the prime focus. By joining the GWP and adhering to its principles of sustainability in water resources management, members create credibility for their own activities and mutual trust. This will lead to increased mobilization and improved application of both internal and external financial resources in the water sector." 33. UN-Water (2008). Status Report on IWRM and Water Efficiency Plans for CSD16. By 2007 about 68 percent of developed, but only 38 percent of developing countries had IWRM plans completed or had them under preparation. There was very little progress on implementation of water efficiency plans. In Bangladesh, for example, the first IWRM plan was approved in 1987, revised in 1992 and updated again in 1994. It is still not implemented -- it is merely a guide of what could have been achieved, and it provides a framework against which to measure multisector cooperation and progress. 34. IWRM plans are not the only way to ensure sustainable management of water resources. Sound water management is ensured, for example, in Europe and North America not through top-down planning but from the synergy generated by the combined impact of regulatory and pricing instruments. Properly priced water tends to be conserved and used more efficiently, and a transparent price regulation system generally ensures good management and low overhead costs. When supported by environmental regulation and standards for water 23 Box 5. Going from Partnerships to IWRM Plans Needs Flexibility and Time The independent evaluation of the Partnership for Africa's Water Development (PAWD), a $10 million grant to GWP, found that "the Country Water Partnerships in all countries have played a decisive role in creating IWRM plans that are well anchored to relevant enabling policy and to multi- lateral commitments." However, it also found that PAWD's focus on producing IWRM plans to a strict timetable neglected to account for the newness of the water partnerships. As a result, problems of local capacity and the need to build experience of working together toward a common cause slowed implementation. More flexible work planning arrangements would have provided room to develop and grow, while working within a broad procedural rather than the production focus established by the GWP. While progress has been slow, Mali for example, completed its IWRM plan in 2008. Sources: Plan:Net Limited and Mosaic International, 2008, Program Evaluation of PAWD. Efficacy 3.16 The overall GWP objective -- "to ensure that integrated water resources management is applied in a growing number of countries and regions, as a means to foster equitable and efficient management and sustainable water use" -- was partially achieved. The following section reviews the achievements of the GWP against its first four outputs for the period 2004­2008: 1. Establish and consolidate GWP partnerships at relevant levels 2. Facilitate development of IWRM water policy and strategies at relevant levels 3. Develop IWRM programs and tools in response to regional and country needs 4. Ensure linkages between GWP and other frameworks, sectors, and issues 5. Develop and manage the GWP Network effectively. The achievement of the fifth output is reviewed in the "Governance and Management" section below. OUTPUT 1: THE ESTABLISHMENT AND CONSOLIDATION OF GWP PARTNERSHIPS AT RELEVANT LEVELS WAS SUBSTANTIALLY ACHIEVED 3.17 This recognizes that partnerships are the main vehicles for change in policy and practices within countries. Only through strong partnerships with broad legitimacy involving different stakeholders is it possible to achieve other objectives. The aim of the GWP is to build autonomous, self-regulating, self-financing bodies for the development and implementation of IWRM action plans. quality and land management, and permits for abstraction and discharge to and from water bodies, these generally lead to sustainable water management. Thus it may also have been relevant to aim for the more easily achieved and incremental approach using lower-level instruments to achieve IWRM. Much depends on the level of a country's development. A single approach does not fit all circumstances or needs. 24 3.18 The GWP has been very successful in expanding its partnership and its rapid development hastened attention to defining more clearly its corporate policy on partners. A new policy on partners was formulated in 2005, inter alia, to clarify the position of individuals and non-registered institutions that wished to become associated with the GWP Network.35 Individuals and non-registered institutions can participate in and serve on committees of Country Water Partnerships (CWPs) or Regional Water Partnerships (RWPs), and can also serve in an advisory capacity, but they cannot have a vote and do not have decision-making powers. In addition, standardized rules and procedures on qualification for, use of, and accounting for GWP grants have been developed and disseminated. 3.19 Generally there is greater agreement about working well in the regions to further IWRM than there is on the participation in GWP. Requisite knowledge was successfully disseminated by the GWP and the outcome is that the principles of IWRM have a high degree of acceptance among stakeholders in all GWP regions. Apart from Central and South Asia, all stakeholders also agreed that participation in the GWP was important for advancing IWRM globally (Figure 5). As a result, the number of regional and country partnerships has grown significantly, which is a major achievement. Ensuring the application of these principles, however, has been partial. This depends on the GWP's relevance to country needs, level of stakeholder inclusion, the influence of key stakeholders, such as senior government policymakers and leaders within the partnership, and exogenous factors, including alignment with bilateral and multilateral donor programs and projects Figure 5. Participation in GWP Important to that provide much-needed financial Advancing IWRM Globally support. 6 3.20 Central GWP policies and S America SE Asia activities are widely publicized. Public C & E Africa 5 W Africa communications about the GWP have Major Mediterranean relied on the papers and presentations Stakeholders in the GWP's & Caribbean made by the Chair and Executive regions have 4 C & S Asia C & E Europe w orked w ell Secretary at international events, such as together to the World Water Forum, the Davos advance 3 IWRM on a Economic Forum, and GWP's own global scale global and regional activities, including 2 annual meetings. This is backed up by an extensive Web site covering all 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 aspects of GWP's work. Stakeholders in the regions agree that participation in the GWP is important for advancing IWRM globally 3.21 In contrast publicity about Network activities is modest. The Key: 1 = don't agree; 6 = complete agreement overall impression from the GWPO Source: Parrot 2007, Appendix 5. Web site is that the regions, with one exception, are not particularly interested -- or are unable -- to let non-GWP stakeholders know what they do, and that all useful information is centrally managed. Only one site (Central and Eastern Europe) provided (in May 2009) a link to its newsletter. Thus while 35. www.inbo-news.org/gwp/GWP_Policy_on_Partners.pdf. 25 searches of the World Wide Web reveal extensive amounts of information and publications produced by some RWPs, not all of this material is referenced on the main GWPO Web site. 3.22 Rotating regional secretariats has lowered effectiveness. Several regions moved the location of their Regional Secretariats either in response to political pressure or unresolved management difficulties. 36 The main stakeholders appear to be the CWPs, each organization functioning more as a collection of independent and competing entities than a group coming together to pursue a larger regional common goal. In South Asia, for example, where the Secretariat has moved every 2­3 years to ensure each member country has an opportunity to host it. While egalitarian, this has disrupted institutional continuity and memory and has raised the issue about the real purpose of the partnership and its common goal. It took two and a half years to move the Regional Office from Aurangabad to Dhaka. It subsequently moved to Bangalore for 28 months. And in January 2010 it moved to the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) in Colombo for three years. All these moves have seriously sapped the effectiveness of the regional partnership and were a wasteful use of scarce funding. Political considerations have similarly inspired office rotation in Central America from Cost Rica to Honduras; that Secretariat now wants to move to Panama. 3.23 Secretariats have also moved when the host institution's interests overrode those of the GWP. The Southern African RWP Secretariat moved from Zimbabwe to South Africa. The Kenyan CWP Secretariat moved from the Kenya Water Institute to the Ministry of Water and Irrigation due to managerial and financial problems, but only after a long hiatus that almost nullified the CWP's effectiveness. And financial responsibility for the Kenya CWP was transferred to the RWP in Entebbe, Uganda. While it is likely that some regional hosting arrangements will not succeed, the GWPO's lack of policies on risk identification and their management other than on an ad hoc basis could undermine the notion of a partnership and pose risk to GWP's image and brand identity. 3.24 The GWP Conditions of Accreditation provide operating principles for legal registration of RWPs and CWPs either directly or through a host institution, and thereby the legal status that is required to operate bank accounts and enter into contracts to work with donors wanting to use CWPs. The lack of the CWP's own legal identity in Ethiopia, for example, was overcome when USAID used the CWP host, Water Aid, for this purpose. However, IEG found that the lack of CWPs' own legal status has constrained the effectiveness of some CWPs. Where the CWP does not have legal status and an intermediary organization is not available, the CWP has been left in a dilemma about how to engage in donor programs. GWPO advised during the 2004­2008 Strategy period that CWPs should stay away from actual implementation since this detracted from their advocacy role and might carry unforeseen risks. For example, involvement in contracts where expediency required fixed delivery dates might involve shortcuts that were against IWRM principles, and risks to a CWP's neutrality. Even so, some CWPs have wanted to become involved in water operations and some have done so. 36. Commenting on an earlier draft of this Review, GWP has noted that "the transition from RTACs to RWPs was achieved during the strategy period. Furthermore, since RWPs are autonomous, each has to find its own way forward, with the support of the GWPO and this is an ongoing process. Some established fixed secretariats immediately and others have initially explored other ways forward." 26 3.25 Regional politics sometimes curtail effectiveness. The South Asian RWP successfully promoted awareness of IWRM and its acceptance in government and water circles, influenced policies and plans, initiated a stakeholder and partnership network and developed country and area water partnerships. The primacy of water and irrigation issues, the rising population, widespread poverty, and the sanitation crisis in South Asia make a regional body crucial ­ especially one that can work in the spirit of cooperation and coordination around and above the "official" stances and formal positions taken by the governments in the region. Despite this, regional politics affected the development and structure of RWP and the effectiveness of this partnership to promote IWRM. 3.26 Based on a GWP Learning Review and the 2008 evaluation, the situation which emerged during the 2004­2008 Strategy period was one in which Regional Council members seemed more concerned with defending "national interests" and dividing the financial pie among CWPs than with reviewing and addressing regional priorities collectively.37 A rigid hierarchical structure, personal connections and rivalries, and a politically-driven rotation of the regional steering committee within the region caused governance issues that overshadowed the program agenda and its effectiveness. The main stakeholders appeared to be CWPs, each organization functioning more as a collection of independent and often competing entities than a group coming together to pursue a larger common goal. Inconsistent understanding of IWRM across the country partnerships, perceptions that cronyism was at play, management structures of the CWPs that tended to be dominated by one or two individuals, and other substantive and managerial shortfalls were unfortunate for GWP's image. Together these reduced the vigor of regional and country programs and impaired the RWP's ability to promote IWRM. There was a clear expressed need for more "quality control" from the GWPO. 38 3.27 There is an unresolved dilemma between advocacy and action. A request that arises at almost every Annual Meeting from both regional and country partners is that GWP needs to be more proactive in applying IWRM principles through pilot projects instead of just advocating them and IWRM processes. Country partners argue this could generate a body of practical knowledge that could nourish the national planning process and provide concrete results that would bolster the credibility of IWRM as well as the CWP's ability to attract essential local funding. Some CWPs have already become involved in implementation (Box 6). 37. For example the GWP-provided budget was allocated to countries by the RWP on a formula basis in the ratios of India 2.0, Pakistan 1.5, and Bangladesh 1.0, and not on the merits of particular initiatives. 38. These findings on South Asia Regional Water Partnership are drawn from the South Asia Regional Partnership (GWP-SAS) Learning Review, 2005, conducted by GWP, and the 2008 PARC evaluation. 27 Box 6. Some CWPs Have Moved Beyond Advocacy to Action In Ethiopia there were successful outcomes in the three pilot watershed interventions sponsored by USAID; in contrast the Zambia CWP was unsuccessful in the Chalimbana watershed because of long delays in the release of funds from the CWP's host. Zambia was also a country where GWP was forced to take sides when Danida pushed for reform: if they had had sufficient resources to wait while the conflict was resolved they could have remained neutral. The involvement of the Senegal CWP in the Lac des Guiers was successful because most of the risk was taken by the Senegal River Basin Water Resources and Environment Management Project financed by the World Bank with cofinancing from the Netherlands. A similar success is reported from Vietnam where the CWP successfully challenged government plans that were not in accord with IWRM good practice. Each case is different. A useful part of the M&E process would be to collate lessons to inform good practice in different institutional contexts. Sources: PARC 2008 and Plan:Net 2008. 3.28 There is a growing IWRM skills gap. As the CWPs grow and create local networks and expectations of what the IWRM process will deliver, they have generally run into capacity constraints (Box 7). Generating local funding or entering into contractual arrangements does provide funding to finance essential training -- but demand greatly exceeds supply. Box 7. There Is an Increasing Skills Gap for IWRM Planning and Action at the Country Level in Africa "The demand for certain kinds of training has grown exponentially [in Africa] as the IWRM plans have been developed and discussed/tested among widening groups of stakeholders -- normally district officers and community leaders. Indeed the demand has far outstripped the capacity of a regional training delivery model. At the same time, the CWPs have not yet positioned themselves to either deliver their own capacity-building process, or find others to provide this service. In other words, across the board, there appears to be a gap emerging between rising demand for skills development and the capacity to meet that demand." Sources: Plan:Net Limited and Mosaic International, 2008, p. 45. 3.29 GWP's effectiveness in the regions and countries has been uneven. The evaluative evidence of PARC, Parrot (2007) and PAWD (2008) indicates a wide range of partner views about GWP's effectiveness. At the highest policy-making level, effectiveness of the GWP in the regions and countries is about "voice" and the ability to engage the highest level of policy- and decision-makers in the country. The factors supporting GWP's "voice" are the quality of arrangements for networking to ensure relevant and timely knowledge are available; internal communication frequency that bolster Network cohesion; availability of human and technical resources; and financial support. 3.30 Achievement of GWP's objective depends on how effectively the networks were created and the measures taken to sustain them. Networking is vitally important as it provides strong incentives for GWP's country partners to gain and exchange knowledge, meet peers, and receive global approval of strategies and plans that legitimize work carried out in the regions and countries. For many the convening power of the GWP and the recognition it may 28 bestow is the primary incentive for becoming a GWP Partner, particularly for partners in those regions that have poor communications and are underdeveloped. There are two primary means of networking: face-to-face national, regional, and international meetings and use of the Web sites managed by the GWPO. 3.31 Interaction among Regions is important for learning. GWP partners put a high value on information sharing with other regions, and there is a high correlation between the frequency of interregional interaction and the extent to which shared learning from other regions' stakeholders help planning or implementation of IWRM (Figure 6).39 While this is a very positive finding -- since it indicates that the GWP and its Network have significant value to its partners -- its value would be increased if there were more opportunities to interact with other regions. 3.32 Networking via meetings. Five regions clearly felt the regional opportunities provided by the GWP to meet stakeholders to discuss and share experiences of IWRM were inadequate (Figure 7). The West Africa opinions indicate a high level of satisfaction, exceeded only by the very positive response from Southeast Asia. The more developed regions in Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Caribbean tend to look north rather than south, which explains their middling response. Generally, more regions indicated higher scores for the existence of global forums than regional forums, which may be taken to indicate a need for more GWP forums at the regional level. Figure 6. Interregional Learning Figure 7. Some Dissatisfaction with Important, But Constrained by Infrequent Availability of Regional Forums Interaction 6 6 W Africa 5 SE Asia 5 There are Extent of to appropriate W Africa which regional S Africa 4 shared forums to meet Mediterranean & 4 C & E Europe learning from S America stakeholders Caribbean C & E Africa from other other regions Mediterranean GWP regions 3 helps us C & S Asia C & E Africa 3 & Caribbean on IWRM and plan and/or C & S Asia its implement S America implementation IWRM 2 2 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 There are appropriate global forums to meet with stakeholders Frequency of interaction with stakeholders in other from other GWP regions on IWRM and its implementation regions Key: 1 = negligible; 6 = high Key: 1 = don't agree; 6 = complete agreement Source: Parrot 2007, Appendix 5. 39. Parrot reports data on the perceived value of information sharing among regions from 9 of the 13 GWP regions. The average score (weighted by number of respondents) was 4.2/6.0 indicating a substantial to high value. 29 3.33 Partners' satisfaction with the Figure 8. Satisfaction with Regional existence of regional forums to discuss and Forums Correlated with GWP's Regional share experience on IWRM is highly Budget Allocation correlated with the level of financial resources provided to the regions by the GWPO, as the 2007 budget data and responses indicate (Figure 8). This may be due to the fact that the bulk of GWP's core A funding is typically allocated for networking activities. Group A represents primarily developing regions in Africa and Asia that have a high reliance on external funding for networking. Group B contains the more developed regions -- Southern America, B Central and Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia. The inclusion of Southeast Asia in Group B reflects the success of the GWP's partnerships with other agencies in the Key: 1 = negligible; 6 = high region, extensive donor-funded water Source: Parrot 2007, Appendix 5. programs, and the generally much higher awareness of the importance of sound water management. OUTPUT 2: DEVELOPMENT OF IWRM WATER POLICY AND STRATEGY WAS SUCCESSFULLY FACILITATED AT RELEVANT LEVELS, BUT MORE SLOWLY AND IN FEWER COUNTRIES THAN INTENDED 3.34 This is primarily about translating IWRM principles into mainstream regional and national policies. The vision is for GWP to be a strategic partner for national and regionally representative "government institutions" to assist policymakers by facilitating necessary multi-stakeholder processes and providing technical support. 3.35 Most CWPs surveyed by PARC had made a significant contribution to raising awareness of IWRM; two-thirds had been successful in contributing to and enhancing the policy environment; over half of the countries visited had contributed to capacity building in IWRM; and a number of countries had successfully engaged with regional actors to further the IWRM agenda using restricted funding (Box 8). 3.36 Despite these achievements, a global focus since 2006 on technically supporting countries and regions has been at the expense of leading global policy advocacy and some relevance. Engagement of RWPs in transboundary water resource issues has been fragmentary and difficult, as has been CWPs' ability to influence country development dialogue and increase budgetary allocation to IWRM activities. CWPs have also had difficulty influencing Poverty Reduction Support Strategies and facilitating grassroots implementation of IWRM principles. 3.37 Globally, the GWP Strategy targeted 15 national plans to be completed by 2005 and 40 by 2007. And it was expected that 15 plans would be implemented by 2006 and 40 by 30 2008. By 2008 only 5 national IWRM plans had been processed, and only two had been approved by governments. Thus in numerical terms GWP's facilitation of plan production has been modest at best. However, the PAWD evaluation is much more positive since it states "at the end of the day, the IWRM planning document represents the most Box 8. GWP Restricted Funding Accelerated Moves toward IWRM in Africa In Sub-Saharan Africa five countries have made national IWRM plans through a process of broad stakeholder participation facilitated through GWP's Partnership for Africa's Water Development Program (PAWD), sponsored by CIDA.a In Mali the plan was approved in 2008. The completed Senegal plan is in process of approval, and mechanisms for implementation remain to be finalized. In Kenya, Zambia, and Malawi the documents are in the process of Cabinet-level approval. The planning process was guided by training manuals and operational guidelines produced through PAWD, and in most countries these supplemented other donors' efforts and projects.b Across the five countries, the IWRM planning process document represented the most comprehensive source of information and insight about water development. In Zambia substantial sections of the IWRM planning document were included in the government's five-year development plan. Even so, the evaluators concluded that improved water resources management -- the outcome of the planning process -- could only be modestly linked to GWP/PAWD activities, and thus the level of attribution was generally low. As noted earlier, it takes a considerable time -- decades and not years -- for institutional reform and new initiatives on IWRM to mature. Even so, there are frequently many intermediate outcomes in the short to medium term that improve water resource management: increased participation may stop an uninformed decision being made; less pollution and better water quality may lead to better public health and healthier ecological systems. a. Based on the findings of the independent evaluation of PAWD undertaken by Plan:Net Limited and Mosaic International, 2008. b. In Kenya implementation of catchment level IWRM strategies is supported by GTZ; in Malawi the PAWD work initially ran parallel and overlapped preparation of the World Bank's National Water Development Program. Source: IEG derived from various sources. comprehensive source of information and insight about water development [at the country level in Africa]." Also, "well supported by GWP the nascent CWPs have demonstrated the value of multi-stakeholder participation in policy and planning." 40 There are many reasons why GWP significantly missed its national IWRM plan production targets, these are discussed below. 3.38 Selectivity and timing are important. Country partnerships are not always in a position to significantly influence adoption of IWRM although they may provide a forum for information dissemination and stakeholder participation. In Central and Eastern Europe the CWPs may have less relevance because much of the IWRM work has been completed. In Cambodia the nascent CWP became active too late (2006) to have an impact on water resources policy and legislation.41 Other actors, including the Mekong River Basin Commission and donors, have driven this process for many years and continue to do so. In 40. Plan:Net Limited and Mosaic International, 2008, Program Evaluation of Partnership for Africa's Water Development Program (PAWD) ­ Global Water Partnership, Final Report, pages 31 and 69. 41. Cambodia's National Water Policies and Strategies were approved in 2004, and a Law on Water Resources Management was approved in 2007. 31 response the CWP has, like in Ethiopia, initiated four small watershed pilot projects, the first of which was funded by the GWPO and the latter by the AfDB. While the CWP has been extensively involved in national dialogue on IWRM, the view (PARC 2008) was that there was a risk that this was "preaching to the converted" and was primarily supply-driven as a branding exercise for the GWP. A similar situation was found to prevail in the Philippines, which adopted IWRM in 1974. In this case the challenge for the CWP, given the absence of an independent national convening forum, has been to help move from debating over who should do IWRM to finding practical ways of bringing stakeholders together to operationalize it. 3.39 The relevant level may be fairly local. In Ethiopia the CWP found that the Nile Basin Initiative facilitated by the World Bank had already engendered a high level of political commitment to the principles of IWRM and that there was little value in producing new strategies and documents.42 Accordingly, after the Ethiopia CWP had commissioned a "gap analysis" to guide formulation of its engagement strategy, the CWP supported implementation of IWRM principles at the grassroots level.43 3.40 Time is needed for IWRM to take root. The process of IWRM plan preparation has revealed just how complex the institutional challenges are and how long it takes. The biggest difficulty has been ensuring that functional mechanisms for interagency ministry coordination are put in place since most countries are not accustomed to working in a cross- sectoral manner. Engaging with lower-level stakeholders in the planning process has also posed significant challenges since most bureaucracies have not traditionally carried out consultation on their plans with "outsiders." 3.41 A key factor leading to successful outcomes has been ensuring the involvement of highly placed officials from national planning or budgeting agencies in the multi-stakeholder working relationship. Moving the water planning exercises and debate away from its normally narrow focus on the technical content of the plan toward policy and public engagement and peoples' participation has been a marked departure from normal practice, and the RWPs and CWPs have been most appreciated for providing a neutral convening forum for all stakeholders. Indeed, the Southern African RWP has argued from their experience that the IWRM planning process should begin not with the lead water ministry or agency but with a senior official of a higher-level organization such as the Ministry of Planning or even the Prime Minister's or President's Office. 42. The World Bank, GEF, and GTZ have established a large watershed management program for 38 watersheds. In 2007 government issued the Proclamation for Establishing River Basin Organizations. 43. GWP Ethiopia, 2005, Identification of Gaps in Water Policy and Its Implementation Toward Developing IWRM Strategies. This CWP was founded in 2003 and had 85 members in 2007, of which more than half were government organizations. How far this pattern of membership contributed to success is unclear. This approach was endorsed by USAID, which engaged the CWP to implement pilot projects in two sub-catchments in Tigray and Amhara. These pilots assessed the effectiveness of multi-stakeholder river basin water management at various administrative levels and were remarkably successful in facilitating more inclusive participation that reformed long-held restrictive practices, linear planning, and single-agency capture. Water conflicts have been reduced, and the Ministries of Water Resources, Health, and Agriculture share information and work more cooperatively. An added impact of the CWP's overall approach has been that they developed a reputation as a trainer of trainers on IWRM approaches and conflict management. 32 3.42 Another important lesson is that it has taken far longer to obtain plan approval than anticipated. Delays occurred over things that were completely unanticipated, for example, the exact sensitivity to wording that required government approval. Other enabling factors have been higher-level regional commitments to IWRM and regional or pan-African bodies to champion them. Most notable have been the African Ministers' Council on Water, the Economic Community of West African States, and the Southern African Development Community. GWP's technical support to the regions for conferences and seminars through its centrally financed Reference Group for Africa synergized vertical integration and understanding.44 This Reference Group could serve as a model for higher-level GWP engagement in other regions and represent good practice. 3.43 The success of the CWPs is clearly the best indicator that GWP's advocacy and activities are bringing about improved water resources management. GWPO itself is acutely aware of the need to define conditions for success and reasons for the difficulties encountered: these issues have frequently been raised at the Annual Consulting Partners' Meetings. Key points raised by partners on the strengths and weakness of CWPs are summarized in Annex F. Similar reflection on current challenges and future roles for the RWPs needs to be enhanced and accelerated. OUTPUT 3: IWRM PROGRAMS AND TOOLS WERE DEVELOPED IN RESPONSE TO REGIONAL AND COUNTRY NEEDS, BUT THERE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL AND REGIONAL RELEVANCE 3.44 Through these activities, the GWP hoped to consolidate its position as an international focal organization facilitating the use of IWRM processes and tools in the day- to-day practice of water management. The activities focused on the development of tools that would respond to country and regional needs, while also capturing and spreading learning and knowledge from within the country and regional network. Generally, GWP's programs and tools have substantially contributed to the global agenda for IWRM, but resources have constrained GWPO's ability to meet the type and amount of technical support needed, particularly at the country level. 3.45 The demand for knowledge is changing. Generating and disseminating knowledge is a key activity of the GWP. Until 2000 this was principally the reserve of the central TEC that made outstanding contributions to the global literature and advocacy on IWRM. For example, the release of publication No. 4, Integrated Water Resources Management, set a world standard for the subject and has been translated into 25 languages, including Arabic, Chinese, and Hindi. The logic of the publication series is clear -- moving from integration of global knowledge (technical papers) to shorter technical briefs to help practitioners translate the principles into action. Later a series of short policy briefs were aimed at high-level decision makers. 44. The Reference Group was an initiative of the TEC in 2007 to provide an independent peer review facility for country and regional IWRM strategies for Africa. The group comprises seven existing and former regional chairs and TEC members and one expert for the Economic Community of West African States. The group has provided high-level access to ministers to "bridge the gap" between them and nongovernmental and civil society stakeholders and has provided recommendations and advice on IWRM plans as they emerge. 33 3.46 As can be seen from the list of the most-demanded publications (Annex G), these have been primarily centered on IWRM, although this is now changing. Stakeholders interviewed by IEG expressed the opinion that to remain relevant the GWP should enlarge its knowledge base to include areas that are of crucial importance to IWRM -- for example, climate change adaptation, finance, agricultural development, food and water, and more practical planning guides that integrate all of the differing facets that are involved in river basin planning -- that is, moving beyond just purely water. 3.47 Indeed, the preferences revealed by the number of requests made for GWP's publications over the 22 months since January 2007 show that the demand is for information that is more cross-sectoral and developmental, rather than just water-oriented. The demand for the Policy Brief Series has been higher than for any other publication class, and the demand for Technical Briefs has been relatively modest -- averaging a quarter of that for Policy Briefs. 3.48 A minority of interviewees felt that the Policy Brief Series has been insubstantial and has not truly represented the intellectual capital that should be mobilized by the GWP. There have been no surveys to determine the effectiveness of the publication series, and until recently, who uses them and where.45 3.49 Decentralized knowledge management has been successful in some regions. In addition to GWP's global publications series, most regions have also produced publications to summarize their experience. In South America, for example, GWP's regional partners facilitated the development and production of the journal Water Management in Latin America and the preparation of the Gender and IWRM Resource Guide in collaboration with the UNDP. Generally, however, GWP's regionally produced publications tailed off significantly when the RTACs were converted to the RWPs. And in some regions, particularly the Mediterranean and Eastern and Central Europe, the availability of EU and other agency resources have been more readily available, as have been publishers, which substitute for GWP's own resources. 3.50 The GWP Web site provides a potentially robust mechanism for decentralized learning exchanges -- but it is constrained by the networking problems (para. 4.13). GWP- generated IWRM literature was supplemented from 2001 by the Web-based IWRM Toolbox, which includes case studies and lessons from practice. While this facilitates open-access global dialogue on IWRM, the technology system has not been updated since 2001 and GWPO's resources have been spread too thinly to modernize the Toolbox effectively.46 45. Initially, all publications were in English, French, Spanish, and Arabic, but all except English were dropped after 2002. All publications and those in other media are free. More than 20,000 CDs of these reports have been distributed by the GWP over the period 1998­2008. GWPO was only able to provide "sales" figures for publications starting in 2007; it is not known if this reflected the information readily available or the lack of record-keeping before then. 46. Managed by the Toolbox Operator, the annual budget was only $111,000 in 2009. The Toolbox receives about 10 discussion hits a day. It is currently limited to English; French and Spanish were dropped in 2006. 34 3.51 Knowledge management needs revitalizing. There appear to be many differing opinions among stakeholders about what GWP should be researching and publishing and how this should be done. The intellectual agenda has been captured by the top echelons on the TEC, whose approach has been very top-down (para. 3.46). This needs to be challenged by stakeholders in an objective way. In other organizations, high-level research and publication committees typically contain people who are not stakeholders and these are not normally monopolized by the authors. OUTPUT 4: LINKAGES WITH OTHER GLOBAL FRAMEWORKS WERE ESTABLISHED BUT NOT AS COMPREHENSIVELY AS PLANNED 3.52 A major objective of the GWP is to encourage dialogue about the interfaces between water and broader anthropocentric issues, such as access to water, poverty, employment, trade, economic growth, and health. This output is meant to ensure that the IWRM principles are taken into account in programs that derive from other frameworks and to actively learn from and enhance synergy between GWP and associated programs. 3.53 Partnerships with other global frameworks have proved effective. GWP alliances with other agencies that have activities and interests in or relevant to water management have matured. This enabled the GWP to develop a common understanding with these agencies on the role of IWRM in their operations and create links to increase cross-sectoral cooperation and learning within the Network through these alliances. There are about 30 Strategic Alliances. Most are with the multi- and bilateral agencies (such as UN-Water, UNDP Cap- Net, WMO, and IWMI) and specialist organizations concerned with water -- for example, the Water and Sanitation Program, the Urban Environmental Sanitation Network, and Groundwater Management (GW-MATE) in the Bank. Ten of these organizations have formal memoranda of understanding with the GWP as Alliance Partners to provide expert services to help the work of the partnership at all levels.47 And feedback to PARC from GWP partners in the regions and countries stated that this was the second most useful service provided by the GWPO to its partners. Even so, most of these are water-focused organizations, which falls short of the comprehensive and integrated approach advocated by the GWP. Efficiency RESOURCE MOBILIZATION 3.54 The GWP has been effective at increasing its partnership and increasing its financial support in accordance with the fund-raising objectives of its 2004­2008 Strategy. The number of Financial Partners increased from 3 in 1996 to 14 by 2008. Sweden, the World Bank, Denmark and the United Kingdom, the initial Financial Partners, were joined by Switzerland and France in 1997 and by the Netherlands, and Norway in 1998. Germany 47. These include the African Ministers' Council on Water (11/2007), the Institute for Water (09/2007), the Water Supply and Sanitation Council (08/2007), the Asian Development Bank (08/2006), the EU Water Initiative Finance Working Group (05/2006), the South Pacific Applied Geosciences Commission (10/2005), IUCN (09/2005), the World Water Council (02/2004), the Gender and Water Alliance (10/2003), and the International Network of River Basin Organizations (05/2003). 35 started financing in 2001 and Spain in 2003. Nine of the Financial Partners significantly increased their contributions after GWPO was instituted in 2002 (Figure 9). UNDP ceased funding in 2000, and the World Bank in 2003. 3.55 Overall funding has increased by Figure 9. GWP Financial Partners That more than 7 percent a year since 2001, Provide Core Funding from $7.2 million in 2001 to $15.0 million in 2008 -- an impressive performance. But an increasing share of this funding has UK been restricted -- rising from $3.1 million in 2002 to $4.5 million in 2005, and Netherlands declining thereafter to $2.9 million in 2008 (Figure 10). According to the 2003-08 Norw ay GWPO, donors have desired more 1996-02 conditionality. Initially most of this Sw itzerland restricted funding was provided by the Netherlands and the UK over 2002­2003 Spain to support GWP's implementation of the Increased 2002-08 Framework for Action activities following the Second World Water Forum in 2000.48 France Decreased 2002-08 Subsequently, most restricted funding has been earmarked for Sub-Saharan Africa World Bank -- its share increasing from 61 percent of 0 5 10 15 20 the total in 2005 to 91 percent in 2007. Total Financing US$ millions The balance of restricted funding has been distributed among Central Asia, China, and Southeast Asia. Source: IEG, using GWP data. 3.56 Revenues raised by the regions from non-GWP sources grew from $0.6 million in 2001 to $2.4 million in 2008. This was less than expected in the 2004­2008 Strategy, which had aimed to increase the share of regionally raised funding from about 20 percent of total funding in 2004 to 50 percent in 2008. Even so, regional income has been growing slowly at about $0.2 million a year, and it is believed that much more is actually raised -- but not reported to the center -- since some regions and countries think they will suffer a pro-rata reduction of GWP's grant to them if they report it.49 These data also hide the fact that two regions (Mediterranean and Southern Africa) accounted for 93 percent of regional income in 2004 and three regions (Mediterranean, China, and East Asia) accounted for 84 percent of regional income in 2008. While the share of the Mediterranean in regionally raised funding has increased steadily, that from Southern Africa has declined significantly since 2004. 48. Towards Water Security: A Framework for Action was prepared for presentation at the Second World Water Forum ­ convened by the World Water Council and Ministerial Conference convened by the Dutch Government at The Hague, the Netherlands, March 17­22, 2000. It was presented together with, and in support of, the World Water Vision, which was prepared under the guidance of the World Water Commission. The Framework for Action, prepared by the Global Water Partnership (GWP), was the basis for taking action to achieve the Vision. 49. Comment from Head of GWP Finance. 36 3.57 Strong and continued support Figure 10. Donor Funding of GWP Since 2001 from donors, conditioned on reform and improved M&E arrangements, $US Millions 18 provides GWP with financial stability 16 for the medium term. The current Total historically high levels of funding are 14 probably guaranteed for the next 2-3 12 years, since the Sponsoring and 10 Global Core Funds Financial Partners have accepted the 8 reforms proposed in the 2009­2013 Strategy. 6 Global Restricted Funds 4 3.58 Future funding of GWP may 2 be put at risk by changing assistance Regionally Raised Funds 0 modalities among donors. Many 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 donors now favor "budget support" Source: Annex Table H-1. at the country level over direct project-based financing and technical assistance. Since GWP is more effective at the country level in the presence of parallel programming of technical assistance by donors, there is a risk of declining technical capacity to implement IWRM if budget support becomes the dominant development assistance mode. Thus the GWP needs to be more effective in advocating that governments take measures to strengthen their countries' capacity for multipurpose development that includes water and related climate change adaptation. EXPENDITURES 3.59 Total GWP expenditures has grown in line with increased funding, and the pattern of expenditures has changed greatly since 2002 (Table 4). In accordance Figure 11. The Pattern of Expenditures Since 2002 with the target in the 2004­2008 $US Millions Strategy of increasing the regional 18 share of total expenditures to 70 16 percent by 2008, the most notable Total 14 change has been the doubling of regional expenditures (which 12 promote GWP's IWRM principles 10 in the regions and countries) from 8 Regional Expenditures 45 percent of the total in 2002 to 66 6 percent in 2008 (essentially Secretariat Expenses 4 reaching the target), while GWPO's global expenditures have been 2 Global Expenditures halved. Secretariat expenses have 0 grown but remained a fairly stable 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 share of the total (Figure 11). Source: Annex Table H-2. 37 Table 4. GWP Expenditures, 2002­2008 (US$ thousands) 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Secretariat (A) 2,534 2,747 2,792 2,691 2,898 3,683 3,559 Global Expenditures GWP Global Governance Steering committee 26 118 140 214 251 298 297 Other governance costs 30 7 Strategy development 167 Network meeting (Consulting 340 220 135 195 399 -2 53 Partners) Total Global Governance (B) 366 338 275 409 650 326 524 TEC (C) 802 417 654 617 660 563 676 External Cooperation Toolbox 104 133 130 125 111 Advisory centers and 1,497 1,080 571 386 195 251 147 consultants Fees and travel 28 Other (Alliances, financial 488 257 30 175 453 147 partners, etc.) Total External Cooperation 1,985 1,337 705 694 778 376 433 (D) Total Global Expenditures 3,153 2,092 1,634 1,720 2,088 1,265 1,633 (B+C+D) Total Core Expenditures 5,687 4,839 4,426 4,411 4,986 4,948 5,192 (A+B+C+D) Regional Expenditures Regional core 3,867 3,220 3,116 3,513 4,418 5,550 4,463 Expenditure locally raised 704 1,466 1,070 1,502 1,702 1,773 2,350 funds Regional restricted funds 289 814 2,957 3,518 3,627 2,368 Global restricted 440 511 800 655 559 760 Total Regional Expenditures 4,571 5,415 5,511 8,772 10,293 11,509 9,940 Total GWP Expenditures 10,258 10,254 9,937 13,183 15,279 16,457 15,132 Source: Annex Table H-2. 3.60 Secretariat Expenses. The costs of the GWPO Secretariat -- including staff, consultants, travel, office space, information technology, and communications -- have grown by about 6 percent annually and averaged 24 percent of total GWP expenditures between 2002 and 2008. To the extent that these represent the administrative costs of the partnership, these have been on the high side compared with other network-type global programs that IEG has reviewed over the past two years (Table 5).50 50. IEG has generally found that global partnerships do not have consistent standards for reporting administrative expenses . For example, the reported GWP data do not differentiate between staff time spent on administration per se from staff time spent on direct support for individual partnership activities, which other programs assign to individual activities. 38 Table 5. Administrative Costs of Five Network-Type Global Programs Size of program Administrative Program Period (US$ millions) expenses (%) Global Forum for Health Research 2002­2007 3,736 20.0 Global Development Network 2002­2008 8,261 6.0 Stop TB Partnership 2002­2008 8,670 17.1 Global Water Partnership 2002­2008 12,929 23.6 Consultative Group to Assist the Poor 2002­2008 19,035 29.1 Source: Annex Table H-5. 3.61 Global Expenditures. The principal reason for the overall decline in global expenditures was the reduction in the use of the three Advisory Centers, which charged international consulting rates, from $1.5 million in 2002 to $147,000 in 2008. With the growing program and increasing budget, the share of the Technical Committee also declined, although it is still the largest global expenditure, accounting for $676,000 in 2008. (Until 1999, the Technical Committee had received slightly under half of the GWP budget.) By contrast, expenditures on the Steering Committee, once it was fully established, have doubled since 2004, and the introduction of the GWP Toolbox has accounted for about $110,000 each year since this was initiated in 2004. 3.62 In comparison to these steady trends, annual expenditures on Consulting Partners' meetings, meetings with Financial Partners, and for alliances and other expenditures have fluctuated markedly. This has been caused by the need to convene meetings outside Stockholm and to meet with global partners -- for example, at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002, where 193 countries subscribed to IWRM planning, and the 4th World Water Forum in Mexico in 2006. 3.63 Regional Expenditures. Restricted funding from donors has significantly increased the level of regional expenditures and where these have been spent (Figure 12). Almost three-quarters of the earmarked funding over 2002­2007 has been provided by the Netherlands ($7.4 million), Canada ($4.1 million), and the United Kingdom ($3.6 million). And because their primary interests have been to support development in Africa, 90 percent of all restricted funding has been spent there (Figure 13). If the donors had provided the same amount but without earmarking, the regional distribution of GWP grants may have been more equitable and less aligned with donors' interests. 39 Figure 12. Restricted Funding Effect on Figure 13. Most of Restricted Funding and Regional Expenditures -- Sources of Regional Expenditures 2005-2007 in Regional Expenditures Africa Total US$ Expenditure millions US$ millions 20 Restricted 14 52% of Local Regional 12 Restricted Core 15 Expenditures 10 36% 8 41% Local 10 43% 6 13% 24% 4 5 13% Core 11% 10% 48% 9% 2 85% 40% 43% 5% 59% 57% 0 0 AFRICA MENA EAP ECA LAC SAS 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Source: IEG, using GWP data. Note: GWP's expenditure data for its 13 regions has been aggregated into the six World Bank regions. The four African Partnerships (East, Central, West, and Southern) have been grouped under AFR; the three American Partnerships (Caribbean, Central, and South) are grouped under LAC; Central and Eastern Europe and the Caucasus and Central Asia Partnerships are grouped under ECA; the Mediterranean Partnership is similar to the MNA Region; China and Southeast Asia are grouped into EAP; and South Asia stands alone. Figure 15 only covers the period 2005­2007: GWP was unable to provide a breakdown between core and restricted expenditures for 2004. 3.64 The criteria and procedures for allocating core funds among regions were unclear during the 2004­2008 period. Some core funds were first allocated by GWPO to support the regional secretariat and a minimum set of necessary activities to allow the partnership to operate, such as for dialogue and Toolbox activities. Once the central requirements were met, the remaining core funding was allocated to the RWPs. Information is available about the level of after-the-fact annual regional expenditures of core funds by RWPs, but not their initial allocation.51 A review of these expenditures shows no consistent pattern related to regional endowments or needs (Table 6).52 3.65 For example, the Mediterranean RWP (with really few challenging water issues that are not covered by the governments, IFIs, and bilateral donors) received $0.36 million in core 51. Commenting on an earlier draft of this report, GWP has stated that:"Regional allocations were known in the Network and comprised at least three key parts: fixed core sum for each region (e.g., in 2008, each Region received a core sum of $300,000 with the exception of Caribbean and CAF which received $200,000). Regions also had access to additional funds: country dialogue funds for which they had to apply and facilitation funds, also for which application was required, based on criteria given to regions. Because access to these funds was based on applications, there were different allocations to the Regions and where Regions did not spend all the allocated funds, their expenditures would reflect this fact accordingly." 52. The detailed expenditure for all 13 GWP Regions are given in Annex H. As in Table 6, Regional core expenditures show substantial variability: in 2007, for example, the highest expenditure of $807,000 was in Southern Africa, and the lowest of $167,000 in the Caribbean. (Central Africa at $162,000 was not a formal region at that time.) 40 Table 6. Composition of 2008 Regional Expenditures Highly Variable (US$ thousands) Latin Middle East America Regional Sub-Saharan and North East Asia and Europe and and the funding Africa Africa the Pacific Central Asia Caribbean South Asia source (4 RWPs) (1 RWP) (2 RWP) (2 RWP) (3 RWP) (1 RWP) Regional core 1,272 359 938 674 793 401 Restricted regional 2,208 0 0 159 0 0 Locally raised 442 1,425 315 69 56 43 Total 3,922 1,784 1,252 902 849 445 Source: Annex Table H-4 funding in 2008 even though it raised $1.4 million locally. And Sub-Saharan Africa received substantial core funding even though it had the largest allocation of restricted funding. In contrast, South Asia, with some of the world's most challenging water issues, received less core funding than Sub-Saharan Africa, and virtually no other funding.53 China received $0.47 million in core funding (more than all of South Asia), even though it is successfully addressing IWRM issues internally and has functioning river basin institutions. ECONOMIC VALUATION 3.66 Measuring the financial or economic efficiency of the GWP in monetary terms would not be an easy task. The results chain is complex and difficult to define and is further complicated by the time lag between inputs and outcomes. Many of the results of advocacy will mature over many years; even if they could be measured, the timeframe would preclude anything other than a partial assessment. The cost stream is not fully captured because many of the actors are voluntary, and recording of their activities and related costs is generally lacking. In addition, there are many external inputs from host institutions and from other bilateral and multilateral agencies that are not recorded. Thus the monitoring and evaluation challenges to answer questions about the overall efficiency of GWP are substantial and remain unresolved. While not providing any analytical data the PARC Evaluation found that "the cost of administering GWP is fit for purpose given the expansion of the network."54 53. According to the PARC's country visits, the South Asian CWPs' operational budgets (once networking expenses were deducted) were too small to make any real impact. For example the Bangladesh CWP only had discretion over US$25,000 in 2006. Thus 55 percent of Bangladesh's modest funding was used for members to participate in regional and global events. Without significant additional funding to boost their influence locally, and given the high costs of attending external meetings, many CWPs ran the risk of being regarded as ineffective "talk shops." 54. PARC, 2008, page 4. 41 4. Governance, Management, and Sustainability 4.1 Governance and management during the 2004­2008 Strategy period is assessed here against adherence to generally accepted standards of public sector governance such as legitimacy, accountability, efficiency, fairness, transparency, and financial management. Legitimacy and Accountability 4.2 The complexity of the GWP's governance structure was detailed in Chapter 1. The Steering Committee is the global governance body for the whole Network. Only the GWPO has a legal status as an intergovernmental organization based in Sweden. The 10 Sponsoring Partners are the effective owners of the GWPO and appoint the Chair of the Steering Committee, as well as the members of the Steering Committee on the recommendations of the Nominations Committee. The Steering Committee appoints the Executive Secretary. The governance arrangements in the regions and countries generally follow that of the center. However, the RWPs and CWPs do not represent the local Partners at the global level -- individual Partners participate in their own right at the annual Consulting Partners Network Meeting. 4.3 The legitimacy of the GWP derives from its partnership base (more than 2,000 Partners in 2010), its highly visible annual Network Meeting, its associations with global water leaders (often represented on the Technical Committee), and its stakeholder model of governance in which membership on the governing body (the Steering Committee) is open to all stakeholders, not just financial contributors (the Financial Partners). This legitimacy has enabled the GWPO to identify and promote bilateral partnering opportunities at the regional and country levels and encouraged donors to contribute substantial restricted funding. For instance, in West Africa, the presence of GWP, along with highly visible inputs from the TEC, has facilitated access to significant EU, Canadian, and Dutch technical assistance. The GWP's strong brand identify has also successfully facilitated USAID support to Southeast Asia, and helped countries in the Mediterranean link into the EU Water Initiative and its technical support channels. 4.4 The annual meeting of the Sponsoring Partners -- the highest formal authority of the organization -- does not represent any GWP constituency. Indeed, most Sponsoring Partners are represented through their diplomatic missions, which have minimal knowledge of the GWP. Overall, the 2008 evaluation found that the Sponsoring Partners tend to "confirm what comes to them" from the Steering Committee and serve little useful purpose. While the Financial Partners have not had a formal governance role, their informal influence and their observations have carried great weight given their financial clout. Thus, the present balance of influence between donors and non-donors has, in practice, more closely resembled a shareholder governance model. And the weakness of the Steering Committee created a vacuum during the 2004­2008 Strategy period in which the Chair effectively became the Executive Chair, sharing power with the Executive Secretary. 4.5 The GWPO has been assiduous in the convening, planning, and consultation surrounding the Annual Network Meetings of Consulting Partners -- the global partnership's Annual General Meeting (AGM). In many instances, this has been scheduled back-to-back or 42 closely following international meetings, such as those of the WWC and World Water Forum, thus generating synergy and creating opportunities for networking on IWRM. 4.6 The AGM was only modestly successful in holding the Steering Committee to account during the 2004­2008 Strategy period due to the large attendance each year (120 to 150 participants) and crowded agendas that precluded considered discussion." The task of the Network Meeting is to focus on strategic direction and programmatic considerations, and its role in relation to budget and finances is to "comment on the yearly activity report and financial statement of the Steering Committee"55 and they have no say on the allocation of financial resources. Since 2002, the increasing share of GWP's financial resources earmarked by the Financial Partners through restricted funding -- now accounting for about 40 percent of all regional expenditures -- reduced the voice of Network Partners in the allocation process. The RWPs have a similarly opaque budget allocation process for CWPs. 4.7 The range of divergent interests on the Steering Committee, its large and frequently changing membership, and poor dynamics between the donors and non-donors also made this a very weak body during the 2004­2008 Strategy period, which was unable to set strategic directions and oversee management effectively. Other contributing factors were that GWP Partners on the Steering Committee members were engaged only in their personal capacity and did not represent any specific constituency. IEG found that, during the 2004­2008 Strategy period, the Steering Committee was in effect self-appointing and self-accountable as they appointed the Nominations Committee that nominated potential Steering Committee Members that were elected by the ineffective Sponsoring Partners (paragraph 4.4). This process seriously impaired the voice of GWP partners below the Sponsoring and Financial Partners. Management Efficiency 4.8 GWPO Management. When the new management took over in 2003, it focused initially and correctly on introducing sound fiduciary management and control systems for GWP's expenditures, which was essential to sustain the continued financial support from the Financial Partners. Once this was achieved, the senior management team turned to establishing GWP's operations in the regions in accordance with GWP's Vision to Action strategy. Together the Executive Secretary and Chair were very effective in promoting GWP in international forums and through networking among the donors. At the same time a more formal internal management and communication style was introduced that, according to interviewees, did not fit easily with the earlier open-door policy of the Secretariat. The position of Coordinator of the Network was abolished, which undermined the synergistic learning that the Network had started to generate. The clash between a confidential culture more appropriate to a private-sector organization and the more open-door culture of international NGOs that are accountable to their members adversely affected the GWPO's 55. Clarification by the GWP in commenting on an earlier draft of this review. 43 staff morale and efficiency, which reduced the efficiency of the GWPO in overseeing the Network.56 4.9 A major difficulty for the GWPO was maintaining a fine line between being directive and laissez faire, particularly with respect to budgets and the involvement of other stakeholders. Among other things, as the 2008 evaluation found, there were differences of opinion between the CWPs on one hand and the RWPs and the GWP Network on the other over the involvement of partners in pilot projects and the advisability of independent legal status for CWPs. A common irritant was the over-reliance on English as the language of communication. 4.10 Network Management. GWPO's five Network Officers -- each of whom are responsible for 2­3 regions -- manage resource inputs to and requests from the RWPs, supervise regional management, provide fiduciary oversight, provide guidance and support to regional initiatives and programs, and advise and support country partnerships when requested. Thus, they are the major facilitators between the GWPO and the Network. 4.11 The PAWD evaluation was positive about the efficiency of both the GWPO Network Officers and the RWP managers who provided timely assistance and successfully addressed operational difficulties. These officials were particularly successful in maintaining a strategic vision, facilitating contacts and training, troubleshooting institutional bottlenecks, and providing workable advice. 4.12 Some country partners have been less sanguine about the effectiveness of Network Officers but this is not surprising given that the officers' primary clients are the regions. The high administrative burden on the Network Officers, however, seriously compromises their ability to ensure knowledge flow, learning, and good networking.57 While they provide contacts and indicate opportunities, actions rest solely with the RWPs and CWPs, many of which have capacity and knowledge constraints. Even in those regions and countries benefitting from restricted funding and with a salaried Secretariat, local capacity is a constraint on outreach and on what the GWP can achieve. It is, after all, a voluntary partnership. 4.13 Beyond the sphere of the Network Officer's reach, there have been few opportunities for virtual networking or open discussion outside the infrequent local, regional, or global forums. A Network Coordinator used to work with the Network Officers to improve the quality of networking and establish a two-way flow of information and learning, but this post was abolished in 2005 followed by a clampdown on unauthorized external communications. Subsequently, better coordination among the Network Officers was the attempted approach. The throttling of information facilities reduced GWP's usefulness to partners and the public, 56. The PARC (2008) Evaluation notes (page 4): "The Secretariat has suffered from a difficult management and staff culture through much of its 11years. This has also been the case in the current strategy period with differing expectations of appropriate management styles to best achieve GWP goals and moves that have failed to build a strong management team. Tensions have had a limited immediate effect on GWP's performance but there is a big lag factor in areas such as strategy development and fundraising which will have an effect on progress in the medium-term." 57. Interviews of Network Officers suggest that about 70 percent of their time is spent on the regions (including field visits) and the balance on more general GWPO business related to the regions. 44 and recorded visits to the Web site fell from about 1,500 a month in early 2007 to about 800 a month in late 2008. As part of the reforms that were started in late 2008, the GWP's networking arrangements are being critically evaluated prior to major reform. As a first step, the Toolbox Officer now works under the new Director of Communications whose staff are being strengthened. 4.14 Communications. Sponsoring and Financial Partners, GWPO staff, and partners of the Network all commented to IEG on the poor communications with partners. None were happy with the tightly managed flow of information during the 2005­2007 period. The GWPO subsidizes the communications officers in almost two-thirds of the RWPs.58 While GWPO may advise on the skills and competencies needed, their selection, recruitment, and terms of service are the prerogative of each RWP. As a result, their effectiveness has varied, as has their knowledge of corporate goals, messages, and culture. 4.15 With the exception of the West Africa region, regional partners from eight regions responded to K. W. Parrot that the frequency of interactions with the GWPO were modest and regarded as a top-down, one-way flow. The general experience was that "there was a lack of communication between GWP at the global level and GWP at the local level. Experience, knowledge, and solutions were not shared. Local GWP partners should be able to contribute more to global GWP discourse."59 This reflects the difficulty that most partners have in communicating upwards to the GWPO, constraints imposed by the regional governance structures, and resource issues. Typically, limited GWP funding is available to support Partners from the Regions to attend the annual global meetings. Other Partners may attend at their own expense (and some do), but attendance is unaffordable to many Partners. 4.16 Monitoring and Evaluation. Managerial effectiveness has been weakened by the failure to evaluate outcomes and draw lessons. For most GWP activities, systematic and regular outcome monitoring against GWP's objectives and indicators has been weak, particularly for the RWPs and CWPs. Thus, most of the lessons learned by the GWPO have been based on anecdotal evidence and not well-defined logical frameworks or results chains. Clear indicators of outcomes through attribution, contribution, or influence have not been present and lesson learning has been fraught with difficulty. A review of GWP's information systems revealed primarily input and output data, not outcomes or impacts. 4.17 A system of Learning Reviews was introduced in 2004 to supplement routine monitoring with a more in-depth understanding of emerging issues. These have been based on each region's self-assessment and conducted by a small team selected by GWPO.60 While it was expected that there would be two regional reviews a year, and a programmatic evaluation of each region about every 6 years, only 5 have so far been completed -- an average of one a year. Reviews have had neither external oversight nor peer review, and have taken up to 18 months to mature. Even then, there has been no systematic attempt to put the lessons learned 58. In late 2008 there were 8 Communications Officers in the regions. 59. K. W. Parrot, 2007, page 57. 60. The team generally includes a member of TEC, an independent outsider, and a member from another GWP region. A review has a small budget ($20,000) and a short time for the evaluation (1-2 weeks). 45 into action to improve performance. A major difficulty appears to have been the GWPO's unwillingness to criticize the performance of RWPs because of their predominantly voluntary partnership. This is a management dilemma that needs to be tackled. 4.18 Prior to 2007 each region submitted detailed reports of what they had done and achieved using a results-based management approach. In most cases, reporting was not guided by either a logical framework or results chain. Consequently, reports were nonstandardized lists of outputs and activities unrelated to either the GWP's overall goals or regional/country programs. It was left up to GWPO staff -- the Network Officers -- to unscramble this information, a task that proved to be a very subjective. Overall results did not provide unambiguous evidence of either GWP's outcomes or impacts. 4.19 It was anticipated that Cap-Net would provide RWPs and CWPs with training in M&E as part of its capacity-building mandate.61 But this has not produced results on a scale sufficient to bring about improvement. Cap-Net's own evaluation of its members found that the key implementation challenge for a network's M&E strategy is the time-consuming nature of routine monitoring and evaluation activities which can become a burden on largely voluntary network staff. This has clearly been the case for the GWP at the regional and country levels. 4.20 Outcome mapping was introduced by GWPO to the Network in 2007 in recognition that tracking results is complex.62 Tracking results is especially difficult for network-type programs like the GWP that seek to change the behavior of stakeholders both inside and outside the boundaries of the program. The introduction of outcome mapping was also intended to provide more consistency in reporting, following a prescribed format to track the behavioral change of actors inside and outside the boundaries of the program. At the same time, training and coaching regional staff was introduced in June 2007 with the aim of producing a Regional Journal -- an "outcome journal" that would be collated and updated every six months by the regions. 4.21 It is too early to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of outcome mapping. However, not all are optimistic about its potential. The PAWD evaluation argued that 61. Cap-Net, which became effective in 2002, is an international network for capacity building in sustainable water management. Cap-Net was initially located in the Netherlands but relocated to Pretoria, South Africa, in 2007. It is a project of the UNDP and a partner of the GWP. The program comprises 23 regional and country networks of capacity-building institutions, several international partners, and global thematic networks. Its focus is on development of human resources in water management for the implementation of policies and programs in IWRM. Funding is provided by the Netherlands, Sweden, and the European Union Water Facility. GWP sits on its Management Board and contributes to Cap-Net's budget. In 2007 Cap-Net supported 41 training programs and reached 1,883 participants. 62. "Outcome mapping" is a planning, monitoring, and reporting tool that programs can apply to help identify the specific ways in which their activities contribute to desired outcomes and in turn enhance the possibility of achieving desired impacts. By identifying "boundary partners" -- or those individuals, groups, or organizations with whom the program directly interacts -- the program can better map and track its contributions to outcomes over which it has had a direct influence. Based on an understanding that development impacts are rarely accomplished by the work of a single actor, outcome mapping offers a participatory methodology that can help programs develop a system that can meet both accountability and learning needs. See Sarah Earl, Fred Corden and Terry Smutylo, 2001, Outcome Mapping ­ Building Learning and Reflection into Development Programs, Ottawa: IDRC. 46 operating a single program-wide reporting system does not recognize that every country has different problems and institutional approaches to solving them. A single Regional Journal may homogenize the different experiences and reduce the potential for lesson learning. Transparency 4.22 The GWP's central internal database maintains copies of all information related to the GWP's governance and deliberations on governance arrangements. But not all the non- confidential information has been available on the GWP Web site, during the 2004­08 Strategy period, particularly for the earlier years. Since mid-2009, however, there has been a major effort to remedy this shortcoming. 4.23 In addition to the opaque process of resource allocation to RWPs discussed above (para. 3.65), information about RWPs and CWPs and their partnership, activities, achievements, and outputs was notably lacking on the main GWP Web site.63 Of the 13 RWPs active at the beginning of 2009, only 7 contained a full list of the CWPs and contact details. Even this was clearly a product of GWPO, not the regions. None provided partnership lists or other information such as workplans, budgets, or annual accounts. Considering that public donor funds provide their main source of income, this lack of transparency does not represent good practice.64 Sustainability 4.24 Sustainability and risk are assessed against two main questions: (a) financial stability and (b) the risk to sustaining the GWP and its Network. FINANCIAL STABILITY IS NOT A RISK IN THE SHORT TO MEDIUM TERM 4.25 GWP demonstrates a strong record of financial stability and a steadily growing income. Fiduciary risks at the center have been contained by sound financial management and accounting, and these risks have been further reduced by independent financial scrutiny from the EU. A register of fiduciary risks is maintained in Stockholm and is periodically reviewed by the Steering Committee. While GWPO oversight extends to the regions, and is embodied in memorandums of understanding with host institutions, accountability diminishes at the country level despite excellent guidelines. Individual country grants from regional budgets have been small and therefore pose a modest financial risk to GWP's reputation. GWPO has been proactive in containing fiduciary risks, as was demonstrated in Kenya (paragraph 3.23). 4.26 The contract for the EU Water Initiative Finance Working Group and all "restricted funding" poses modest risks, because GWPO would become liable for any expenditure disallowed by auditors and any VAT thereon -- annual expenditure on EUWI FWG is about 63 . Commenting on an earlier draft of this report, the GWP has responded that several RWP and CWPs have their own Web sites separate from the GWP Web site. 64. This contrasts, for example, with the amount of information available on the regional network partners of the Global Development Network which is accessible from their global Web site, www.gdnet.org. 47 $300,000 and restricted funding is typically ten times that. SIDA indicated to IEG that it has a "moral responsibility" to shoulder any liabilities GWPO incurs under the EU contract, thus mitigating most of the risk. THE RISKS TO SUSTAINING THE GWP AND ITS NETWORK ARE SUBSTANTIAL 4.27 Based on the findings of the 2008 evaluation and this Review there are five principal risk factors to the Network that need to be addressed: resources, policy, communications, knowledge, and location. Resources. The major challenge is helping CWPs to increase their own income to supplement GWP's modest contribution via the RWPs. This has two aspects. First, the underreporting of self-raised funds needs to be overcome by improving the governance around resource allocation. Here, there is a major role for the GWPO in increasing the transparency of the process and the risk-reward structure. Second, positive incentives may be required: possibly a matching-fund arrangement could provide the right incentives. Policy. The GWP needs to review its policy on its role at the regional and country levels. The GWP needs to address the politicization of regional and country partnerships by strengthening the Network's governance and its focus on partnerships for development of global and regional public goods. The GWP also needs to undertake a review of the legal status of CWPs regarding their contractual involvement in water operations, and provide better guidance on these issues to CWPs. Communications. The frequency and quality of communications among and between regions need to be improved. Establishing an unhindered and adequately funded and staffed two-way link between the Network and the GWPO is essential. The GWPO should discard its top-down approach and become "first-among-equals." Knowledge. New thinking is required to clarify GWP's comparative advantage in generating and disseminating global knowledge about IWRM in light of current water development and management challenges. The operational practice of TEC needs to become more accountable and transparent. More attention should be given to garnering and leveraging regionally generated knowledge and experience. The TEC needs to build on the successful precedent of the Reference Group for Africa (para. 3.42) and extend it to other regions. Location. The perceived "top-down" management of the GWPO although not totally justified, has been used by some critics to make the case for downsizing the Stockholm Secretariat and moving it to a developing region. On the other hand, there remains a strong need for a centrally placed Secretariat that is readily accessible to all given the continued reliance on multidonor funding to keep the organization financially viable. The GWPO is "hosted" by the Swedish Ministry of Foreign 48 Affairs,65 and this plus linkage with other apex global water institutions provides synergy to the central planning function of GWPO, facilitates complete, neutral and unfettered open access to the rest of the world, and is in the best financial interests of the organization. The experience from IEG's evaluation of global partnerships is that the disruption caused through the relocation of the Secretariat can adversely affect the progress of activities for up to two years, apart from the institutional memory that would be inevitably lost.66 4.28 There are also challenges relating to the balance and scope of GWP's activities under the 2009­2013 Strategy. The GWP and its management formulated the objectives of this new strategy in consultation with stakeholders and Network partners during 2008. The GWPO is well aware of the donor pressure to deliver on the strategy, the adverse financial consequences of not doing so, and the raised expectations from the regions that the problems inhibiting GWPO's effectiveness will be addressed. In terms of budget allocations, the new Strategy appears to be somewhere between the "business as usual" and the "re-energize, re- strategize, and re-organize" options presented in the 2008 evaluation that proposed reduced central expenditure. Consistent with their new strategy, the GWP is undertaking a review of the Technical Function of the GWPO -- and the Technical Committee which is part of this function is the largest item of global expenditure -- to determine the best way to revamped internal knowledge and learning. The budget implications of this review are not yet known. In contrast, the attention needed to improve Network connectivity and quality will require more, not fewer resources at the center. 4.29 There is clear demand for national and regional knowledge centers that provide access to donors' policies, programs, projects, sector work, and evaluations. The GWP is in a unique position to provide this service, which could provide greater transparency to country stakeholders outside government and provide the basis for their informed participation in national development planning. 4.30 The reforms to the management of the GWPO and the increased transparency and participation attending the formulation of the 2009 Strategy are good indications that ownership and incentives are high. However, the danger is that the GWP's ambitions for a broader policy agenda will override the need to deepen the quality of its Network, learn from the lessons of the past six years, and improve its partners' capacity to become effective interlocutors. The question about the balance between the countries' demand for tangible activities and advocacy/learning still hangs in the air. While this issue may be addressed on a region-by-region basis in the spirit of subsidiarity, the GWP needs to develop a well- reasoned global policy position that takes into account the regions' different resource endowments and needs. Failing to do this may reduce incentives at country level for continued participation in the GWP. 65. The City of Stockholm covered the rent of Stockholm International Water Institute. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs reimbursed all local GWP staff taxes as a core contribution. In 2008, the contribution for rent and taxes was $0.4 million. 66. IEG found that relocating the secretariat adversely affected the medium-term performance of the ProVention Consortium, the Development Gateway, and the Global Invasive Species Program. Relocating the Global Development Network from Washington, DC, to India was managed more effectively. 49 5. The Bank's Performance as a Partner 5.1 The Bank has played a number of roles in the GWP: one of the three founders, one of the ten Sponsoring Partners, a member and subsequently an observer of the Steering Committee, a financial contributor from inception through 2002, and the major lender to the water sector in developing countries. The Bank's support to the GWP was more substantial in the beginning: it provided over 50 percent of the Partnership's financing in 1997, declining to 8 percent in 2001 and 4 percent in 2002 before exiting financially in 2003. Overall the Bank provided $5.7 million or 18 percent of the GWP budget between 1996 and 2002. 5.2 For this review, the Bank's role as a partner in the GWP is reviewed under four broad headings: (a) using its comparative advantage at the global level, (b) engagement at the country level, (c) exercising oversight functions, and (d) disengagement strategy. At the Global Level 5.3 The Bank played a key role in the establishment of the GWP and a Bank Vice President initially chaired the Steering Committee. The Bank has lent the GWP credibility among stakeholders and other donors. The Bank's patronage was effective in establishing a permanent and neutral platform for dialogue in the water sector and was key to mobilizing other large actors. It also brought its experience in other partnerships, notably the CGIAR and CGAP, to bear on the establishment of the GWP. 5.4 The Bank's engagement with the GWP on the global advocacy agenda has been twofold: the Bank has helped to shape GWP's advocacy agenda and has been a target of GWP advocacy that has reinforced some of the policy changes in the Bank. The World Bank Group played an important role in the Camdessus Panel on financing future water investments, which are an essential component of actions needed to meet the MDGs. This initiative was cosponsored by GWP and WWC in 2002. Managing Director Peter Woicke was a member of the Panel, and the Bank provided substantial formal and informal inputs. The resulting Camdessus Report that was presented at the third WWF in Kyoto in 2003 was in turn used as a lobbying tool to highlight the advantages of direct subnational lending by IFIs. For instance, as a follow up, in its Water Action Plan adopted at the Evian Summit in 2004, the G8 requested the World Bank "in consultation with other IFIs, to study and recommend necessary measures to implement the following proposals made by the World Panel on Financing Water Infrastructure: (a) using their financing instruments in a more flexible manner to allow loans directly to subsovereign bodies, where appropriate; (b) developing guarantee and insurance schemes for risk mitigation; and (c) addressing the issue of sovereign and foreign exchange risk coverage." The World Bank Group established its Municipal Fund around this time. Similarly, the Bank's high profile Water Resources Sector Strategy of 2003 responded to international concerns about water resources development and management that were reflected in the emergence of GWP, the WWC, and others in the late 1990s. 50 5.5 This alignment and mutual reinforcement between GWP and Bank was not uniform -- it decreased over time as the relationship between the Bank and GWP became less intensive. For instance, the Bank's renewed focus on water infrastructure development after 2003 was at odds with the GWP's continued focus on IWRM. A missed opportunity was the topic of groundwater. While the Bank did encourage GWP to take up this issue (for instance by associating the BNWPP-sponsored GW-MATE team with GWP), the GWP never seriously engaged the issue because of a lack of capacity. Much of the divergence between the Bank and GWP arose from the Bank's experience with IWRM in the 1990s that this was an extremely time-consuming activity that did not greatly increase service provision for the poor. This does not mean the Bank is downplaying the importance of an integrated approach to water management. According to the Bank's Sector Manager a growing share of the technical assistance related to IWRM is undertaken through trust funds which tend not always to be visible in the Bank's lending portfolio. At the Country/Activity Level 5.6 The World Bank's 2003 Water Resource Management Sector Strategy identified two dimensions to the Bank's comparative advantage at the country level. First, the Bank is one of the few institutions that can provide integrated support on the macroeconomic, financial, technical, social, and environmental dimensions of water-related services. Second, it possesses a combination of knowledge and financial resources, engagement at all scales (local watershed, city, irrigation district, river basin and aquifer, country and regional) and ability to integrate across sectors. Additionally, the IFC and MIGA can play a vital role in attracting private sector investment. 5.7 But the relationship between the Bank and the GWP at the country level and in operations has been negligible, particularly given the current Bank focus on basic service provision. A keyword search of the project appraisal documents of 1,864 water operations over the period 1997­2007 revealed only four references to the GWP: Mozambique, the Philippines, the Niger River Basin, and Kenya. Fifteen projects mentioned the BNWPP. There are few incentives for Bank staff to become involved in GWP. In practice most aspects of technical assistance that involve GWP partners are handled by bilateral donors, sometimes in partnership or consultation with the Bank. This is certainly the experience in Africa. Alternatively, Bank staff have tended to use the BNWPP trust funds to finance TA since this is located within the Bank and under the Bank's influence. BNWPP provides significant volumes of trust fund financing for research and technical assistance that the Bank uses to meet its own short-term operational needs.67 5.8 Following the "principled pragmatism" of its 2003 Water Strategy, the Bank has tended to focus on provision of infrastructure to meet immediate needs and the MDGs, and to deal with more general cross-sectoral issues incrementally as these have emerged as problems rather than through IWRM master plans. In this new approach, the Bank and GWP could have been mutually effective partners: GWP facilitating clarification and agreement on 67. The BNWPP provides financial support for many of the services potentially on offer from the GWP. It has 15 windows of activity ranging from capacity-building for water resources management to river basin management, strategy development, watershed management, and water supply and sanitation. 51 water resources management, and the Bank building infrastructure and providing incentives for institutional reform (including privatization) of public agencies. This potential partnership never took off, primarily because of the capacity limitations within the GWP, the lack of Bank resources for technical assistance, and the Bank's imperative to deliver results in relatively short lending windows. Generally the experts that guided GWP policy formulation and worked on TEC, and whose expertise the Bank required, were more easily available from the global consultancy market. And many of these higher-level experts have serviced the needs of both GWP and the Bank independently, not through the GWP. 5.9 A survey of Bank staff generated a range of opinions about the effectiveness of different aspects of the GWP.68 In IEG's questionnaire almost a third of the 60 respondents had worked with GWP. Thirty-eight percent of the respondents rated GWP's effectiveness on advocacy of IWRM as "substantial," and 21 percent as "major." Its effectiveness as a convening organization on water and as an information gateway elicited a similar response. In terms of technical support and capacity-building, 22 percent and 21 percent respectively rated GWP's effectiveness in the substantial-high range. Thirty percent thought that GWP had made a substantial or major beneficial contribution to Bank operations. More generally, 56 percent of Bank respondents stated that GWP's contribution to better institutions for water management was substantial or major at the global level, declining to 41 percent at the regional level and 22 percent at the country level. 5.10 Currently the Bank's water Web site lists six global water programs in which it is engaged -- the GWP is not among them. Three focus on water supply and sanitation; one on technical assistance for infrastructure; one on output-based aid; and the last on IWRM -- the Bank-Netherlands Water Partnership Program. Clearly the Bank no longer sees the GWP as relevant to its current needs either globally or, with very few exceptions, at the country level. Oversight 5.11 As one of the Sponsoring Partners, the Bank signed the Memorandum of Understanding that established the GWPO in 2002 as a legal intergovernmental organization based in Sweden, and is therefore one of the effective owners of GWPO. The Bank thus continues to have a legal responsibility to contribute actively to GWP's governance and management oversight. The Sponsoring Partners meet at least once a year and appoint the chair and the members of the Steering Committee, which is the effective executive body of the GWP. The Bank is also an observer on the Steering Committee and is invited to the Financial Partners' Group. Many of the governance and management problems experienced by the GWP might have been resolved or mitigated earlier if the Bank had been more actively involved in bringing its global institutional experience to bear. The Bank has neglected this responsibility. 5.12 The Bank has been effectively a silent partner since 2002 because the Bank's representative on the Steering Committee believed that the lack of financial support precluded active involvement. Despite this, the other Sponsoring Partners and the Financial Partners indicated to IEG that they wished the Bank would be more involved because this 68. IEG sent a questionnaire to all of the Bank's 225 water staff in February 2009. There were 60 responses -- a response rate of 29 percent. The questions asked and the responses from Bank staff are detailed in Annex I. 52 would provide greater legitimacy and relevance from the development perspective. It would also mitigate the concern of some observers that the GWP has become dominated by a few well-intentioned bilateral donors to support their own aid programs, since the Bank is seen as intellectually honest, neutral, and capable of bringing good practice to the discussions. Overall, the Bank has contributed far less than it could have to the GWP. Its performance has been poor relative to the commitments which it made in relation to the governance of the Partnership, and relative to what the Bank's performance could have been in playing up to its comparative advantages in relation to other partners. Disengagement Strategy 5.13 The Bank has neither an engagement nor a disengagement strategy for its involvement with the GWP. Without an engagement strategy, it is difficult to have a disengagement strategy. One has to define clearly why one has entered and what is expected before one can really say when or why one might exit or shift gears. 5.14 The Bank's financial exit in 2003 was consistent with the eligibility and approval criterion approved by the Bank's Development Grant Facility and Bank Management. A possible extension came up against the three-year rule for DGF Window 2, and the Bank's water advisor was unwilling to make the case for Window 1 funding,69 since the GWP did not appear to need it. There was also competition for resources from a new water program, the Nile Basin Initiative.70 The catalytic effect of the Bank in the donor community had enabled GWP's budgetary growth from $3.1 million in 1998 to $10.3 million in 2003. Regional and country-level fund raising also appeared to be growing and accounted for 15 percent of GWP's income in 2002. This growing financial viability, allied with its successful transformation into a legally recognized intergovernmental organization -- the GWPO -- gave strong signals that it no longer needed the Bank's financial support. Since then, GWP has flourished financially, so the Bank's decision in 2003 was the correct one from the narrow perspective of financial sustainability. However, given that several of the larger governance and institutional challenges remain unresolved, factors other than financing should have been considered, not least its corporate responsibility to see a satisfactory completion of a task it helped to initiate. 5.15 Bank staff have been continuously involved in the GWP since its inception. Several have served on TEC and one Bank staff and retiree continue to do so. But these staff have served in their individual capacity, as the Bank's representative on the Steering Committee has effectively done, too. None are involved in Network governance and decision making, and their role has been more to bring Bank experience to GWP's technical discussions rather than for the GWP to influence the Bank. The new Chair of the GWP is an ex-Bank Director. Ironically, if the Chair feels the need to demonstrate her independence from the Bank, this 69. The Development Grant Facility introduced its two-window approach in 2002. Window 1 provides grant financing for more than three years for programs with medium and long-term development objectives. Window 2 provides grant financing for an initial start-up period of up to three years for innovative programs that require seed financing to test new ideas. 70. In the event, the DGF only supported the Nile Basin Initiative for one year, 2003, due to the ability of this program to attract substantial donor trust funds administered by the Bank. 53 may further serve to distance the Bank from GWP, although this may not be in the best interests of either the GWP, the Bank, or the global public good. 6. Lessons 6.1 GWP's global policy leadership, while well established before 2004, continued to be recognized during the 2004­2008 Strategy period. However, there was a perception among some stakeholders that the organization lost some of its cutting edge, focus, and ability to drive the global policy agenda during the period. Governance arrangements tended to centralize power and decision making in Stockholm to the detriment of regional and country partners. Although there were notable advances in some countries toward more integrated management of their water resources, it was difficult to verify attribution to the GWP. While the regional partnerships were generally well funded, the performance of country-level partnerships was hindered by financial insecurity and small budgets. Significant earmarked funding by donors skewed the Partnership's budget allocation process. GWP mechanisms to synthesize lessons learned from a range of countries' experiences were ineffective. Taken together, these organizational trends posed the risk of the partnership becoming primarily a "talk shop" at the country level and thereby losing its relevance. 6.2 The evaluation and review of the Global Water Partnership offers a number of lessons for the GWP, for other network-type global programs, and for the World Bank's engagement in global programs more generally. For GWP, these lessons refer to the 2004­08 Strategy period after which the GWP integrated the lessons from the PARC External Evaluation into a new Strategy which has been under implementation since 2009. 6.3 The main lessons from this Global Program Review for consideration of the GWP Partners, the Steering Committee, and the GWPO are the following: The evaluation of global programs needs to be transparently independent. This is not only important for credibility but also to provide an example of good practice for the Network. Good practice would be for the governing body to appoint an evaluation contractor through open competition using a common financing pool. The governing body should approve the selection criteria, terms of reference, methodology and reporting, and prepare a program response to the final report based on a formal review of its findings and recommendations. Weaknesses in GWP governance and management during the 2004­2008 Strategy period raised issues of transparency and efficiency. The GWP did not appear to have a global framework to identify where the needs were greatest, what levels of support were required, or transparent rules governing regional allocations. The packed agenda of annual meetings did not enable considered debate and decisions, particularly of budgets, and representation from the regions and countries was uneven. This lack of transparency was counterproductive to the health of a global partnership network. Better governance would also have enhanced the legitimacy of the GWPO and helped to mitigate concerns that its location in Stockholm contributed to its perceived isolation from regional and country concerns. 54 The credibility of a global partnership program can be adversely affected by the politicization of office-holders and use of resources at the regional and country level. The GWP needs to address the politicization of some regional and country partnerships by strengthening the Network's governance and its focus on partnerships for development of global and regional public goods. The GWP also needs to undertake a review of the legal status of CWPs regarding their contractual involvement in water operations, and provide better guidance on these issues to CWPs. Global partnership programs should have transparent processes in place to ensure the allocation of financial and human resources to where they are most needed. The GWP needs to be more selective in supporting country-level efforts and recognize that one size does not fit all. Currently, apart from Africa, the uniform approach to central management of the Network does not appear to have taken into account the substantial differences in financial resources and local capacity to implement IWRM. Greater selectivity based on accurate assessments of local needs and capacity could increase the GWP's relevance in the most water-short and water- management-challenged regions and countries. Good communication is the lifeblood of networking. Global, interregional, and intraregional communications is vitally important since it provides opportunities for GWP's country-level partners to gain and exchange knowledge, meet peers, and receive global approval of strategies and plans, which legitimizes the work carried out in the regions and countries. For many, the convening power of the GWP and the recognition it may bestow is the primary incentive for becoming a GWP Partner, particularly for partners in those countries that are less developed. The GWP experience has been that frequent and two-way communications enable networks to be more effective. Better monitoring and evaluation is essential to generate both global knowledge and self-knowledge. In the 13 years of GWP's existence a significant body of experience has been generated in the regions and among GWP's country stakeholders and partners. Little of this has been gathered together and used. While outcome mapping may help provide a clearer understanding of how GWP's inputs contribute to positive outcomes, there are also many unlearned lessons about how GWP can improve its own institutional efficiency and impact. This requires a much greater level of self-examination and an increased recognition that effective feedback processes are important for nurturing good practice. 6.4 The main lessons from this Global Program Review for consideration of the World Bank are the following: The Bank needs to clearly establish its position in the GWP among the Sponsoring Partners to avoid raising false expectations and reputational risks. The Bank's substantial body of experience as a partner in global programs has not, in recent years, been applied to the GWP even though it has a continuing responsibility as a Sponsoring Partner for the GWP's legitimacy and effective governance. In 55 general, the Bank needs to ensure that its representatives are made aware of the Bank's responsibilities for good governance of global partnership programs and that their responsibilities are more than just technical. The Bank needs a more comprehensive and coherent policy and approach toward its engagement in global water programs. The experience to date indicates that its approach has been ad hoc, opportunistic, and overly focused on short to medium-term operational benefits. As a result, there has been some duplication among the global water programs in which the Bank is currently involved that has reduced the perceived relevance of the GWP to the Bank and its staff, particularly at the country level. 57 References Earl, S., F. Corden, and T. Smatyls. 2001. Outcome Mapping ­ Building Learning and Reflection in Development Programs. Ottawa: IDRC. GWP, 1996. The Global Water Partnership, Minutes of the First Consultative Group Meeting - Stockholm, 9 August 1996. CG96-2. ------, 1996. Why Join the Global Water Partnership? A Note on the Value Added. CG August 1996 (CG 96/02). ------, 1997. Global Water Partnership Semi-Annual Consultative Group Meeting, Marrakesh, 20 March 1997. ------, 2000. Integrated Water Resources Management. Technical Paper No.4. March. ------, 2000. Annual Report for the Financial Year 2000. gwpforum.org/servlet/PSP?iNodeID=215&itemId=79. ------, 2001. GWP in Action 2001. gwpforum.org/servlet/PSP?iNodeID=215&itemId=106. ------, 2002. Statutes for the Global Water Partnership Network and the Global Water Partnership Organization. Stockholm. December 12, 2002. ------, 2002. GWP in Action 2002. gwpforum.org/servlet/PSP?iNodeID=215&itemId=192. ------, 2003. GWP in Action 2003. gwpforum.org/servlet/PSP?iNodeID=215&itemId=309. ------, 2003. GWP Strategy 2004­2008. gwpforum.org/servlet/PSP?iNodeID=215&itemId=414. ------, 2004. GWP Partnership Policy. gwpforum.org/servlet/PSP?iNodeID=215&itemId=372. ------, 2004. GWP in Action 2004. gwpforum.org/servlet/PSP?iNodeID=215&itemId=401. ------, 2004. The GWP Annual Report 2004. gwpforum.org/servlet/PSP?iNodeID=215&itemId=430. ------, 2005. GWP in Action 2005. gwpforum.org/servlet/PSP?iNodeID=215&itemId=471. ------, 2005. The GWP Annual Report. gwpforum.org/servlet/PSP?iNodeID=215&itemId=523. ------, 2006, GWP in Action in 2006 -- GWP at 10. gwpforum.org/servlet/PSP?iNodeID=215&itemId=583. ------, 2006. Annual Report 2007. gwpforum.org/servlet/PSP?iNodeID=215&itemId=634. ------, 2006. The Boldness of Small Steps ­ Ten years of the Global Water Partnership. Stockholm. ------, 2007. GWP in Action 2007. gwpforum.org/servlet/PSP?iNodeID=215&itemId=706. ------, 2007. GWP in Action 2007 -- Annual Report. gwpforum.org/servlet/PSP?iNodeID=215&itemId=862. ------, 2008. GWP Annual Financial Report 2008. gwpforum.org/servlet/PSP?iNodeID=215&itemId=888. ------, 2009. GWP Strategy 2009­2013. gwpforum.org/servlet/PSP?iNodeID=215&itemId=851. ------. 2009. Strategy Period 2004­2008: Report on Achievements. http://www.gwpforum.org/gwp/library/GWPAchievements_StrategyPeriod2004_2008.pdf. GWP Ethiopia, 2005. Identification of Gaps in Water Policy and Its Implementation Toward Developing IWRM Strategies. GWP South America, 2008. http://www.gwpsudamerica.org/docs/publicacoes/doc_115_en.pdf. September 2008. Indepenent Evaluation Group and OECD/DAC Network on Development Evaluation. 2007. Sourcebook for Evaluating Global and Regional Partnership Programs: Indicative Principles and Standards. www.globalevaluations.org. 58 Katherine W. Parrot, 2007. "Lateral Stakeholder Alignment in the Global Water Partnership," MSc Thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. PARC, 2003. External Review of the Global Water Partnership -- Final Report. The Performance Assessment Resource Centre Project 78, 93 pages. ------, 2008. Global Water Partnership Evaluation -- Joint Donor External Evaluation. Final Report. PARC Project No: 353. 26 March 2008. 65 pages. gwpforum.org/gwp/library/GWP_final_evaluation_report_March08.pdf. Plan:Net Limited and Mosaic International, 2008. Program Evaluation of Partnership for Africa's Water Development Program (PAWD) -- Global Water Partnership, Final Report. July 7, 2008. http://www.gwpforum.org/gwp/library/final_evalrep_pawd.PDF. UN-Water, 2008. Status Report on IWRM and Water Efficiency Plans for CSD16. World Bank, Global Programs and Partnerships Group, August 2007, "Identifying and Addressing Partnership Conflict of Interest in Global Programs and Partnerships." World Economic Forum, 2009. World Economic Forum Water Initiative ­ Managing our Future Water Needs for Agriculture, Industry, Human Health and the Environment. Wilson-Grau, W., 2007. "Participatory Evaluation." Alliance, Volume 12, Number 4, December. World Water Council. 2000. Towards Water Security: A Framework for Action. World Water Council. 1997­2006. Reports on the World Water Forums 1997­2006. http://www.worldwatercouncil.org/. 59 Annex A Annex A. Evaluation Framework for Global Program Reviews Note: This evaluation framework is a general framework that has been designed to cover the wide range of such programs in which the World Bank is involved, encompassing policy and knowledge networks, technical assistance programs, and investment programs. It is not expected that every global program review will cover every question in this table in detail. Table A-1. Assessing the Independence and Quality of the Evaluation Evaluation Questions 1. Evaluation process To what extent was the GRPP evaluation independent of the management of the program, according to the following criteria: Organizational independence? Behavioral independence and protection from interference? Avoidance of conflicts of interest? Factors to take into account in answering these questions include: Who commissioned and managed the evaluation? Who approved the terms of reference and selected the evaluation team? To whom the evaluation team reported, and how the evaluation was reviewed? Any other factors that hindered the independence of the evaluation such as an inadequate budget, or restrictions on access to information, travel, sampling, etc.? 2. Monitoring and evaluation framework of the program To what extent was the evaluation based on an effective M&E framework of the program with: Clear and coherent objectives and strategies that give focus and direction to the program? An expected results chain or logical framework? Measurable indicators that meet the monitoring and reporting needs of the governing body and management of the program? Systematic and regular processes for collecting and managing data? 3. Evaluation approach and scope To what extent was the evaluation objectives-based and evidence-based? To what extent did the evaluation use a results-based framework -- constructed either by the program or by the evaluators? To what extent did the evaluation address: Relevance Governance and management Efficacy Resource mobilization and financial management Efficiency or cost-effectiveness Sustainability, risk, and strategy for devolution or exit 4. Evaluation instruments To what extent did the evaluation utilize the following instruments: Desk and document review Consultations/interviews and with whom Literature review Structured surveys and of whom Site visits and for what purpose: for interviewing implementers/beneficiaries, or for observing activities being implemented or completed Case studies Other Annex A 60 Evaluation Questions 5. Evaluation feedback To what extent have the findings of the evaluation been reflected in: The objectives, strategies, design, or scale of the program? The governance, management, and financing of the program? The monitoring and evaluation framework of the program? Table A-2. Providing an Independent Opinion on the Effectiveness of the Program Every review is expected to cover the first four criteria in the following table: (a) relevance, (b) efficacy, (c) efficiency, and (d) governance and management. A review may also cover (e) resource mobilization and financial management and (f) sustainability, risk, and strategies for devolution or exit if the latter are important issues for the program at the time of GPR, and if there is sufficient information available on which to base an independent opinion. Evaluation Criteria and Questions Relevance: The extent to which the objectives and design of the program are consistent with (a) current global/regional challenges and concerns in a particular development sector and (b) the needs and priorities of beneficiary countries and groups. 1. Supply-side relevance -- the existence of an international consensus that global/regional collective action is required. To what extent does the program reflect an international consensus on the need for action, on the definition of the problem being addressed, on priorities, and on strategies for action? Is the original consensus that led to the creation of the program still present? Is the program still needed to address specific global/regional public concerns? Take into account the origin of the program in answering these questions: Is the program formally responsible for implementing an international convention? Did the program arise out of an international conference? Is the program facilitating the implementation of formal standards and approaches? Is the program primarily donor-driven? Did donors establish the program with little consultation with developing countries? Is the program primarily Bank-driven? Did the World Bank found the program and then seek other partners? 2. Demand-side relevance -- alignment with beneficiary needs, priorities, and strategies. To what extent are the objectives consistent with the needs, priorities, and strategies of beneficiary countries as articulated in the countries' own PRSPs, and in donors' strategies such as the World Bank CASs, and the UN Development Assistance Frameworks? To what extent has the voice of developing and transition countries been expressed in the international consensus underlying the program? 3. Vertical relevance -- consistency with the subsidiarity principle. To what extent are the activities of the program being carried out at the most appropriate level -- global, regional, national, or local -- in terms of efficiency and responsiveness to the needs of beneficiaries? To what extent are the activities of the program competing with or substituting for activities that individual donors or countries could do more efficiently by themselves? Pay particular attention to those programs that, on the face of it, are primarily supporting the provision of national or local public goods. 61 Annex A Evaluation Criteria and Questions 4. Horizontal relevance -- the absence of alternative sources of supply. What is the comparative advantage, value added, or core competency of the program relative to other GRPPs with similar or complementary objectives? To what extent is the program providing additional funding, advocacy, or technical capacity that is otherwise unavailable to meet the program's objectives? To what extent are the good and services being provided by the program in the nature of public goods? Are there alternative ways of providing these goods and services, such as by the private sector under regular market conditions? 5. Relevance of the design of the program To what extent are the strategies and priority activities of the program appropriate for achieving its objectives? What are the major activities of the program: Policy and knowledge networking? Financing country and local-level technical assistance? Financing investments to deliver national, regional, or global public goods? (See Table A- 4.) Has the program articulated an expected results chain or logical framework, along with assumptions that relate the progress of activities with the achievement of the objectives? Does the results chain identify the extent to which the achievement of the objectives depends on the effective functioning of bureaucracies, markets, or collectivities? If so, to what extent are these assumptions valid? For programs providing global or regional public goods, is the design of the program consistent with the way in which the individual efforts of the partners contribute to the collective outcome for the program as a whole -- whether "best shot", "summation", or "weakest link?" Efficacy: The extent to which the program has achieved, or is expected to achieve, its objectives, taking into account their relative importance. 6. Achievement of objectives To what extent have the stated objectives of the program been achieved, or has satisfactory progress been made towards achieving these objectives? To what extent are there implicit objectives that are well understood and agreed upon by the partners and to which the program should also be held accountable? To what extent are there any positive, unintended outcomes of the program that have been convincingly document? To what extent have these assessments by the program or the evaluation been evidence-based? 7. Progress of activities, outputs, and outcomes. To what extent has the program or the evaluation measured the progress of activities, outputs, and outcomes? How did the program or the evaluation aggregate its outputs and outcomes at all levels -- global, regional, national, and local -- to provide an overall summary of its results? To what extent have factors such as changes in the location of the program, its legal structure, or governance processes affected the outputs and outcomes of the program? To what extent have there been outcomes that can be uniquely attributed to the partnership itself -- such as the scale of or joint activities made possible by its organizational setup as a GRPP, or its institutional linkages to a host organization? 8. Linkages to country or local-level activities. To what extent has the program established effective operational linkages with country-level activities, taking into account that: The desired nature of these linkages will vary according to the objectives, design, and implementation of each program? Positive outcomes at the country or local level are generally a joint product of both global/regional and county- level activities? Annex A 62 Evaluation Criteria and Questions Efficiency or cost-effectiveness: Efficiency -- the extent to which the program has converted or is expected to convert its resources/inputs (such as funds, expertise, time, etc.) economically into results. Cost-effectiveness -- the extent to which the program has achieved or is expected to achieve its results at a lower cost compared with alternatives. 9. Efficiency To what extent is it possible to place a monetary value on the benefits arising from the activities of the program? To what extent has the program or the evaluation conducted impact evaluations of representative program activities? To what extent has the program or the evaluation analyzed the program's costs in broad categories (such as overhead vs. activity costs), and categorized the program's activities and associated benefits, even if these cannot be valued in monetary terms? 10. Cost-effectiveness To what extent is the program measuring up against its own business plans: Has the program cost more or less than planned? How did it measure up against its own costing schedule? Have there been any obvious cases of inefficiency or wasted resources? To what extent is the program delivering its activities cost-effectively in comparison with alternatives: How do actual costs compare with benchmarks from similar programs or activities? Are the overhead costs of governing and managing the program reasonable and appropriate in relation to the objectives and activities of the program? How does the program compare with traditional development assistance programs: For beneficiary countries, has receiving the development assistance through the GRPP increased the transactions costs compared with traditional development assistance programs? For donors, has delivering the development assistance through the GRPP reduced donor costs by harmonizing efforts among donors or by reducing overlapping work (such as through joint supervision, monitoring and evaluation)? Governance and management: Governance -- the structures, functions, processes, and organizational traditions that have been put in place within the context of a program's authorizing environment to ensure that the program is run in such a way that it achieves its objectives in an effective and transparent manner. Management -- the day-to-day operation of the program within the context of the strategies, policies, processes, and procedures that have been established by the governing body. Whereas governance is concerned with "doing the right thing," management is concerned with "doing things right." 11. Compliance with generally accepted principles of good governance. To what extent are the governance and management structures and processes well articulated and working well to bring about legitimate and effective governance and management? To what extent do governance and management practices comply with the following seven principles: Legitimacy -- the way in which governmental and managerial authority is exercised in relation to those with a legitimate interest in the program -- including shareholders, other stakeholders, implementers, beneficiaries, and the community at large? Accountability -- the extent to which accountability is defined, accepted, and exercised along the chain of command and control within a program, starting with the annual general meeting of the members or parties at the top and going down to the executive board, the chief executive officer, task team leaders, implementers, and in some cases, to the beneficiaries of the program? Responsibility -- the extent to which the program accepts and exercises responsibility to stakeholders who are not directly involved in the governance of the program and who are not part of the direct chain of accountability in the implementation of the program? 63 Annex A Evaluation Criteria and Questions Fairness -- the extent to which partners and participants, similarly situated, have equal opportunity to influence the program and to receive benefits from the program? Transparency -- the extent to which a program's decision making, reporting, and evaluation processes are open and freely available to the general public? Efficiency -- the extent to which the governance and management structures enhance efficiency or cost- effectiveness in the allocation and use of the program's resources? Probity -- the adherence by all persons in leadership positions to high standards of ethics and professional conduct over and above compliance with the rules and regulations governing the operation of the program? 12. Partnerships and participation To what extent has the program identified a complete list of stakeholders, or "stakeholder map", including the agreed- upon or perceived roles and responsibilities of the categories of stakeholders identified? To what extent is this a routine programmatic function, updated regularly, and transparently available? Has the program adopted primarily a shareholder model of governance (in which membership on the governing body is limited to financial and other contributors), or a stakeholder model (in which membership also includes non- contributors)? To what extent, if any, is the program's legitimacy being sacrificed in order to achieve greater efficiency, or vice-versa? 13. Programs located in host organizations To what extent is the location of the program in the Bank or other partner organization adversely affecting the governance, management, or other aspects of the program, such as compliance with the principles of transparency and fairness? For which functions is the program manager accountable to the host organization and the governing body of the program, respectively? Are conflicts of interest being managed appropriately? To what extent does the host organization play such a dominant role in the program, thereby reducing the incentives of other partners to participate effectively, or reducing the ability of the host organization to look at the weaknesses of the program objectively? Resource mobilization and financial management: Resource mobilization -- the processes by which resources are solicited by a program and provided by donors and partners. Financial management -- the processes that govern the recording and use of funds, including allocation processes, crediting and debiting of accounts, controls that restrict use, accounting, and periodic financial reporting systems. In cases where funds accumulate over time, this would also include the management of the cash and investment portfolio. 14. Resource mobilization To what extent has the program succeeded in raising financial resources commensurate with its objectives? And from what sources -- the Bank, bilateral donors, foundations, etc.? To what extent has the program succeeded in diversifying its funding beyond a small number of donors? To what extent are the sources of funding for the program (including donor restrictions on the use of resources) affecting, positively or negatively: The strategic focus of the program? The outputs and outcomes of the program? The governance and management of the program? The sustainability of the program? 15. Financial management Are there any issues that have emerged during the course of the review in relation to: The quality of financial management and accounting? The methods, criteria, and processes for allocating funds among different activities of the program? Financial management during the early stages of the program? Annex A 64 Evaluation Criteria and Questions Sustainability, risk, and strategy for devolution or exit: Sustainability -- When applied to the activities of a program, the extent to which the benefits arising from these activities are likely to continue after the activities have been completed. When applied to a program itself, the extent to which the organization or program is likely to continue its operational activities over time. Devolution or exit strategy -- a proactive strategy to change the design of a program, to devolve some of its implementation responsibilities, to reduce dependency on external funding, or to phase out the program on the grounds that it has achieved its objectives or that its current design is no longer the best way to sustain the results which the program has achieved. 16. Sustainability of the benefits of the program's activities What is the risk, at the time of evaluation, that the development outcomes (or expected outcomes) of the program will not be maintained (or realized)? This depends on (a) the likelihood that some changes may occur that are detrimental to maintaining or realizing the expected outcomes, and (b) the affect on the expected outcomes if some or all of these changes actually materialize? 17. Sustainability of the program This will depend on a number of factors, such as the continued legitimacy of the program, its financial stability, its continuity of effective management, and its ability to withstand changing market or other conditions. To what extent is there still a sufficient convergence or accommodation of interests among the major partners to sustain the program financially? To what extent has the program developed institutional capacity such as performance- based management, personnel policies, learning programs, and knowledge management that help to sustain a program? In what areas could the program improve in order to enhance its sustainability, such as better marketing of the program's achievements in order to sustain its reputation? 18. Prospects for continuation and strategies for devolution or exit To what extent should the program be sustained? Is the continuation of the program the best way of sustaining the results achieved? Should the design of the program be modified as a result of changed circumstances, either positive or negative? What other alternatives should be considered to sustain the program's results more cost-effectively, in the light of the previous evaluation findings with respect to relevance, efficacy, efficiency, and sustainability: Reinventing the program with the same governance? Phasing out the program? Continuing country or local-level activities with or without devolution of implementation? Seeking alternative financing arrangements, such as revenue-generation, or self-financing to reduce dependency on external sources? "Spinning off" from the host organization? 65 Annex A Table A-3. Assessing the Bank's Performance as a Partner in the Program Evaluation Questions 1. Comparative advantage at the global/regional level. To what extent is the Bank playing up to its comparative advantages at the global/regional level -- its global mandate and reach and convening power? To what extent is the Bank's presence as a partner in the program catalyzing other resources and partners for the program? 2. Comparative advantage at the country level. To what extent is the Bank contributing multi-sector capacity, analytical expertise, and country-level knowledge to the program? To what extent has the Bank's country operations established linkages to the GRPP, where appropriate, to enhance the effectiveness of both? 3. Oversight. To what extent is the Bank exercising effective and independent oversight of its involvement in the program, as appropriate, whether the program is housed in the Bank or externally managed? To what extent is the Bank's oversight independent of the management of the program? To what extent does the Bank's representative on the governing body have a clear terms of reference? 4. Risks and risk management. To what extent have the risks associated with the program been identified and are being effectively managed? For example, IEG identified the following risks in its global review: Bank bears a disproportionate share of responsibility for governing and managing in-house programs? Confusion at the country level between global program activities, Bank activities, and Borrower activities? Representation of NGOs and the commercial private sector on program governing bodies? Unclear role and application of Bank's safeguards? Trust-funded consultants and seconded staff representing the Bank on some program governing bodies? 5. Disengagement strategy. To what extent is the Bank engaged at the appropriate level in relation to the Bank's new strategic framework: Watching brief? Research and knowledge exchange? Policy or advocacy network? Operational platform? To what extent is the Bank facilitating an effective, flexible, and transparent disengagement strategy for the program, in relation to the Bank's objectives for its involvement in the program: The program declares "mission accomplished" and closes? The program continues and the Bank withdraws from all aspects of its participation? The program continues and the Bank remains engaged, but the degree of the Bank's engagement in some or all aspects (such as financing) declines over time? Annex A 66 Table A-4. Common GRPP Activities Policy and knowledge networking 1. Facilitating communica- This includes providing a central point of contact and communication among practitioners tion among practitioners in who are working the sector or area of development to facilitate the sharing of analytical the sector results. It might also include the financing of case studies and comparative studies. 2. Generating and This comprises two related activities. The first is gathering, analyzing and disseminating disseminating information and information, for example, on the evolving HIV/AIDS epidemic and responses to it, including knowledge epidemiological data collection and analysis, needs assessment, resource flows, and country readiness. The second is the systematic assembling and dissemination of knowledge (not merely information) with respect to best practices in a sector on a global/regional basis. 3. Improving donor This should be an active process, not just the side effect of other program activities. This coordination may involve resolving difficult interagency issues in order to improve alignment and efficiency in delivering development assistance. 4. Advocacy This comprises proactive interaction with policymakers and decision makers concerning approaches to development in a sector, commonly in the context of global, regional, or country-level forums. This is intended to create reform conditions in developing countries, as distinct from physical and institutional investments in public goods, and is more proactive than generating and disseminating information and knowledge. 5. Implementing Rules are generally formal. Standards can be formal or informal, and binding or nonbinding, but conventions, rules, or formal implementing standards involves more than simply advocating an approach to development in a and informal standards and sector. In general, there should be some costs associated with noncompliance. Costs can come norms in many forms, including exposure to financial contagion, bad financial ratings by the IMF and other rating agencies, with consequent impacts on access to private finance; lack of access to OECD markets for failing to meet food safety standards, or even the consequences of failing to be seen as progressive in international circles. Financing technical assistance 6. Supporting national-level This is more directed to specific tasks than advocacy. This represents concrete involvement policy, institutional, and in specific and ongoing policy, institutional, and technical reform processes in a sector, from technical reforms deciding on a reform strategy to implementation of new policies and regulations in a sector. It is more than just conducting studies unless the studies are strategic in nature and specific to the reform issue in question. 7. Capacity strengthening This refers to strengthening the capacity of human resources through proactive training (in and training courses or on-the-job), as well as collaborative work with the active involvement of developing country partners. 8. Catalyzing public or This includes improving regulatory frameworks for private investment and implementing private investments in the pilot investments projects. sector Financing investments 9. Financing country-level This refers primarily to physical and institutional investments of the type found in Bank investments to deliver loans and credits (more than the financing of studies), the benefits of which accrue primarily national public goods at the national level. 10. Financing country-level This refers primarily to physical and institutional investments of the type found in Bank investments to deliver loans and credits (more than the financing of studies) to deliver public goods such as global/regional public goods conserving biodiversity of global significance and reducing emissions of ozone-depleting substances and carbon dioxide, the benefits of which accrue globally. 11. Financing global/regional This refers to financing research and development for new products and technologies. investments to deliver These are generally physical products or processes -- the hardware as opposed to the global/regional public goods software of development. 67 Annex B Annex B. GWP Strategy 2004­2008 Development objective: Achieve global water security as a contribution to eliminating poverty, improving well-being and protecting natural resources. Mission: Support countries in the sustainable management of their water resources. Immediate objective: Ensure that Integrated Water Resources Management is applied in a growing number of countries and regions, as a means to foster equitable and efficient management and sustainable use of water. The program is steered toward achieving its immediate objective by five outputs: Output 1: IWRM water policy and strategy development facilitated at relevant levels Output 2: IWRM programs and tools developed in response to regional and country needs Output 3: Linkages between GWP and other frameworks, sectors and issues ensured Output 4: GWP partnerships established and consolidated at relevant levels Output 5: GWP network effectively developed and managed Considered broadly, these outputs consist of three (1, 2, 3) that are directly related to actions on the water management systems and two intermediate institutional outputs (4, 5) related to GWP efforts in building innovative delivery mechanisms and effective management tools and principles. Pursued together, the five outputs allow GWP to reach the immediate objective and fulfill its mission. The five outputs drive and integrate the activities undertaken by the GWP Network, which constitute the GWP Program. The following sections present the broad outline of the GWP Program. The five outputs are presented in two groups according to the distinction introduced above. The first group, Outputs 1, 2, and 3, relates to GWP impact on the water world. The second group, Outputs 4 and 5, relates to the mechanisms and management principles developed by GWP for delivering impact with maximum efficiency and clear added value. Impact At all levels, and particularly at regional and country level, GWP wants to identify the existing processes aimed at transforming or impacting the water management systems and, whenever possible, offer focused contributions to the related programs. This is best achieved by ensuring that GWP is in a position to contribute to the policy processes (Output 1), to the design and introduction of the necessary programs and tools for implementing IWRM (Output 2), and to the articulation of the IWRM approach in the context of various programs directly or indirectly related to water resources management (Output 3). Annex B 68 OUTPUT 1: IWRM WATER POLICY AND STRATEGIES DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED AT RELEVANT LEVELS Vision Output 1 is meant to translate IWRM principles into mainstream regional and national policies. It is aimed at helping regions and countries in their water sector reforms, specifically to ensure that policies are developed within the IWRM framework, towards equity, efficiency and sustainability. In part, this Output will be realized through GWP acknowledging its fundamental responsibility to assist countries in the preparation of their IWRM and water efficiency plans by 2005 (a WSSD target). GWP will be a strategic partner for national and regionally representative "government institutions" to assist policy making by facilitating necessary multistakeholder processes and providing technical support. Overall Approach In all regions, GWP takes cognizance of the initiatives and processes already established (Vision and Framework for Action) and those that have developed in response to meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). GWP will therefore, ensure that its activities designed to address water policy development and IWRM plan preparations are in line with these initiatives, for example, the EU Water Initiative, the CIDA initiative, NEPAD related initiatives (for Africa) and the EU Water Framework Directive (for Europe). Many regional and country GWP structures have designed partnership activities for Output 1 that capitalize on the FFA processes, thus ensuring integration with existing processes and building on existing Outputs. In striving towards meeting this Output, GWP will work within the existing institutional frameworks at global, continental, regional (e.g., SADC, ECOWAS and ASEAN), country and basin level. The processes adopted by GWP in working towards achieving this Output, are as important as the realization of the Output itself. For example, some of GWP's experience with area water partnerships (AWP's) shows that using multi-stakeholder platforms at the grass roots level provide a solid basis for considering water management issues in an integrated context and allowing its movement to the policy levels through the GWP mechanism. In South Asia, there are signs that this approach has enhanced government's ability to recognize reality on the ground. It has also given renewed recognition for the need of IWRM approaches in policy planning for sustainable development. Governments can be convinced that it is in their interest to support a process of stakeholder participation facilitated by a neutral mechanism (in this case by the GWP) to get valid inputs for developing policies and strategies that impact, and also impacted on, by what happens in the water sector. EXAMPLES OF ACTIVITIES The Global Water Partnership through its global, regional, country and area partnerships will: 69 Annex B · Strengthen its IWRM awareness generation activities with an emphasis on consolidating political will (Southern Africa, South America, South Asia and West Africa); · Facilitate participatory multi-stakeholder processes for policy dialogues towards effective water governance and strengthening the roles of river basin organizations (China, South Asia, South America, Southeast Asia, Southern Africa and Central Asia and Caucasus); · Evaluate and monitor policies and strategies (Mediterranean, Central and Eastern Europe Southeast Asia and Southern Africa); · Assist in the development of criteria and guidelines for IWRM plans (Central and Eastern Europe, Mediterranean, Southeast Asia, South America, Central America and Southern Africa); · Coordinate processes to develop joint action programs for water management primarily through regional, national and provincial FFAs (China, Southern Africa, Southeast Asia); · Provide procedural and technical support to regional and national policy formulation processes and other initiatives designed to attain regional development goals of poverty alleviation and economic development (Central America and Southern Africa). · Document in the form of guidelines the concrete steps and methodology involved in incorporating IWRM principles in key policy processes, for larger dissemination and use by other organizations. Illustrative Performance Indicators Global 1.1 Recognition of the role of water and IWRM principles in policy for sustainable social and economic development. 1.2 Recognition of water's role and contribution to the MDGs and acceptance of national IWRM plans as a key MDG. Regional 1.3 Recognition of the role of water and IWRM principles in regional policy for sustainable social and economic development. 1.4 Incorporation of IWRM in transboundary river basin based agreements and plans and the implementation of these through participatory multi-stakeholders processes. National 1.5 Recognition of the role of water and IWRM principles in national policy and strategies for sustainable social and economic development. 1.6 Integration of water and IWRM into national cross-sectoral development plans, e.g., Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers and National Environmental Action Plans and their implementation through participatory multi-stakeholders processes. 1.7 Recognition of water and IWRM in national sectoral plans and their implementation. 1.8 Incorporation of IWRM into national water policy and strategies and their implementation through participatory multi-stakeholders processes. 1.9 Incorporation of IWRM into local level river basin/catchment based agreements and plans and their implementation through participatory multi-stakeholders processes. 1.10 Preparation of national IWRM frameworks/plans facilitated in at least 15 countries by 2005 and implementation initiated by 2006. A further 25 frameworks/plans by 2007 and implementation initiated by 2008. All obtained through participatory multi-stakeholder processes. Annex B 70 OUTPUT 2: IWRM PROGRAMS AND TOOLS DEVELOPED IN RESPONSE TO REGIONAL AND COUNTRY NEEDS Vision Output 2 is expected to further consolidate and develop more IWRM programs and tools arising from the policy decisions and strategies of Output 1 that respond to the needs of the regions and countries. GWP intends to consolidate its position as an international focal organization, facilitating and supporting the use of IWRM programs and tools in the day-to-day practice of water management. Overall Approach Making IWRM work implies nurturing interactive processes between different stakeholders to interweave their roles, develop inner cohesion and common approaches while addressing problems and conflicts. GWP will position itself as an "IWRM focal organization" through facilitating such interactive processes and developing the supporting tools and programs seen as instrumental for achieving successful IWRM implementation. At all levels, knowledge management, awareness raising and capacity building will constitute the cornerstone of these tools and programs. In this context, the IWRM ToolBox with its database of practical case studies and the GWP Associated Program Cap-Net with its regional networks are important integrating components. Further development of tools and programs will happen from within the GWP network, involving all stakeholders, including the main groups responsible for water management in most regions and countries: state and local governments and water agencies (both public and private agencies). These partners will structure themselves as actors of thematic networks designed for addressing identified needs and gaps in their local environment. These thematic networks will partner with the GWP Technical Committees as well as the web of existing GWP program services (Advisory Centers, existing APs, and experts) as the needs arise and, ultimately, develop into implementing mechanisms for new regional Associated Programs, responding to clearly identified needs. It is only by involving national or local institutions in the process of working in a multidisciplinary and inclusive way through these APs that they can be made fully aware of the potential advantages of IWRM approaches, and can then play an important role in maintaining and improving water management in their respective countries and regions. Beyond a few integrating tools and programs developed globally, most of the developments are country and region-specific as well as context specific. The relevance of these tools and programs also depend on a clear understanding of the maturity of the water management system in place with regards to implementing IWRM. GWP decentralized partnerships are best placed to identify the needs and the way forward to meet these needs through a phased approach including some of the generic elements below. 71 Annex B Awareness Raising, Knowledge Management, and Capacity Building · Good practices and dialogues to raise awareness of water management. · The ToolBox and its information database. · Associated Programs that provide training and outreach services. · Demonstration projects that provide the practical in-service educational training programs. · Common communication framework that provides easy access to information and data for all countries and regions. · General guidelines on IWRM practices, benchmarking, monitoring/evaluation that assist countries and regions to implement national, river basin and sectoral plans based on IWRM principles. General Support and Advice · Establishment of programs that provide emphasis on stakeholder participation and introduce IWRM principles in mainstream water management systems. · Programs for "champions development" that identify institutions and networks to implement IWRM. EXAMPLES OF ACTIVITIES · Foster the partnering of selected regional and national institutions (with an emphasis on GWP members), with GWP corporate mechanisms (TEC, core APs) for developing and strengthening their capacity. · Develop a wide network of regional and country IWRM capacity building programs through an enhanced synergy between the GWP network and its core APs, most prominently Cap-Net. · Develop a robust and decentralized IWRM knowledge management system starting from the needs and experiences of the GWP network and using integrating tools such as the IWRM ToolBox and GWP website. · Work on human and institutional resources development from the perspective of gender mainstreaming with support from the global AP Gender and Water Alliance (GWA). · Foster regional thematic networks (regional APs) aiming at developing and implementing programs for tackling institutional and technical hinders to sustainable water management. Partner with GWP global APs such as the International Network of Basin Organizations (INBO), the Groundwater Management Advisory Team (GW-MATE), flood management, and the International Council for Local Environment Initiatives (ICLEI) as needs arise. · Pursue activities in dialogues on governance and other relevant topics (e.g., finance) in the context of specific needs and processes identified at the regional and country levels. Annex B 72 · Work on the development of financial instruments that provide the means to develop the tools and programs. · Participate in external support agencies programs on common and/or complementary activities. Illustrative Performance Indicators 2.1 Demonstrated ability of regions and countries to express specific needs for programs and demonstration of IWRM application. 2.2 Demonstrated access of regions and countries to a set of relevant tools and programs for helping in IWRM plans implementation. 2.3 Extensive demand driven use of GWP program services (Associated Programs, Advisory Centers and experts) by regions and countries in achieving the implementation of IWRM plans. 2.4 Demonstrated increase of capacity in relevant institutions for successfully implementing IWRM. 2.5 Demonstrated improvement in water management practices relating to specific thematic areas such as river basin, groundwater and floods management. 2.6 Tangible increase of financial resources made available for water resources development and management following IWRM principles. OUTPUT 3: LINKAGES BETWEEN GWP AND OTHER FRAMEWORKS, SECTORS AND ISSUES ENSURED Vision Water may be a very important natural resource, but it is not the only one; there are other vital resources such as space, atmosphere, biodiversity and others. On the other hand, there are also anthropocentric aspects to deal with, such as demographic developments, poverty, equitable access to resources, employment, trade, economic growth, health and others. All of these have an interface with water. One of the major objectives of GWP is to encourage dialogue along these interfaces and to build partnerships bridging the boundaries between water and other resources and human aspects. This Output is therefore meant to ensure that the IWRM principles are taken into consideration in the programs that derive from other frameworks, sectors and issues. Furthermore, the Output focuses on the effective participation of GWP in the programs and activities undertaken by others to learn from these programs, enhance synergy and broaden the impact of GWP activities. GWP intends to become a partner for working on various IWRM linkages with other relevant programs and activities. Partnerships and strategic alliances lie at the core of GWP activities. 73 Annex B Overall Approach The implementation of activities under this Output will contribute to both clarifying the linkages between the water sector and other frameworks, sectors and issues through normative work, and to addressing concrete implementation issues between GWP program and programs stemming from these other frameworks, sectors and issues. It will include identifying, forging and nurturing a series of longterm strategic alliances with key partners. The alliances will be forged through the appropriate Memoranda of Agreement at global, regional, country and/or local levels. These linkages will encourage synergies in water programs and activities for greater efficiency and stronger impact. Understood in a comprehensive manner, this Output requires very broad expertise, human resources and overall capacity. A realistic approach implies important efforts in focusing and prioritizing. EXAMPLES OF ACTIVITIES · Contributing to integrating water and IWRM in the plan of implementation towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals and to undertaking related implementation. · Strengthen synergy with the World Water Council. · Supporting and contributing to implementation of programs deriving from other sectors or frameworks, such as Water and Poverty (AsDB), Water and Nature (CBD, IUCN, Convention on Wetlands), Water for Peace, Water Quality Management (WMO, WHO, UNESCO), Climate Variability and Change (WCP), Public-Private Partnerships; linkages with regional development banks and their programs. · Supporting and contributing to implementation of sectoral Dialogues, such as Water, Food and Environment (IWMI), Water Supply and Sanitation (WSSCC), and regional dialogues on various urgent themes of IWRM and water security (e.g., ecoremediation, tourism development and protection of local seas); · Building strategic alliances for action with regional commissions (e.g., European Commission ­ the European Initiative, SADC), specialized UN agencies (UNDP, WMO, UNESCO, WHO, FAO, UNEP and others) international NGOs (e.g., WWF), insurance companies, transboundary basin authorities (e.g., MRC, ICPRD); other water communities such as ILEC (lakes), UNEP (water and coast), IUCN/WWF (ecosystems, environmental flows), dams and development (WCD report and follow up). · Partner with the knowledge generating professional associations (IWA, IWRA, ICID, IAHR). · Establishing IWRM information and dissemination centers (e.g., Southeast Asia Water Forum) supporting linkages between water sector and other relevant activities in the regional and national scale (development planning, spatial planning, and so ons); · Joint workshops (China) and/or annual symposia (WATERNET/WARFSA in South Africa) on key issues of IWRM organized together with national governments, Academies of Sciences and Engineering, and national Associations of Science and Technology; Annex B 74 · Developing joint ventures with regional UN offices and programs (e.g., Water and Energy, Water and Disasters, Water and Territorial Regulations/Planning) that provide secure platform for dissemination of GWP objectives, opening at the same time a door to national governments. Illustrative Performance Indicators 3.1 Clear linkages to water sector articulated and integrated within major programs dealing with other frameworks (notably environment, health, poverty, trade). 3.2 IWRM principles integrated within major on-going programs dealing with different water uses such as, water for agriculture, water supply and sanitation or water for energy. 3.3 Alliances with strategic partners at global, regional and country levels forged and nurtured. 3.4 Knowledge generated by strategic partners acquired and used by GWP network. Mechanisms and Management GWP operational niche is best sustained by ensuring that GWP pursues its effort in developing and strengthening water partnerships at all relevant levels (Output 4) while providing the highest standard of network management enabling the most productive and efficient use of the IWRM knowledge (Output 5). OUTPUT 4: GWP PARTNERSHIPS ESTABLISHED AND CONSOLIDATED AT RELEVANT LEVELS Vision Fundamental to the success of the GWP is the establishment and operation of its worldwide network of Regional, Country and Area Water Partnerships for promoting the concept and implementation of integrated water resources management (IWRM). Partnerships are the main vehicles for change in policy and practices within countries. GWP believes that it is only through strong partnerships with broad legitimacy involving different stakeholders that Outputs 1, 2 and 3 can be obtained. Overall Approach The GWP network capacity in facilitating participatory multi-stakeholder processes will be strengthened. The development of this capacity at local level is essential for starting and maintaining partnerships that facilitate IWRM implementation. Building, developing and sustaining partnerships is a clear focus of the GWP network. The key geographically based entities are the Regional Water Partnerships (RWPs) and the Country Water Partnerships (CWPs). Area Water Partnerships (AWPs) are also developed and strengthened where the capacity to support and sustain their activities is present or can be developed. 75 Annex B These partnerships are meant to be autonomous, representative, self-regulating, self- financing bodies for development and implementation of IWRM action programs. They should nevertheless comply with GWP basic principles and acknowledge GWP philosophy through basic "conditions of engagement." In turn, the GWP network as a whole is involved in developing and sharing the capacity and competence in building, developing and sustaining these partnerships. The network is continuously seeking partners in partnering. It actively looks for a variety in approaches for developing partnerships. It documents and evaluates its work in this field, to enable a learning process. A solid vision of what a partnership is and what it is not is developed and is one of the cornerstones of GWP work. EXAMPLES OF ACTIVITIES · Direct (existing) capacity within GWP to partnering by creating a global learning-group. · Develop a solid vision on what a partnership is for GWP. · Monitor and evaluate the quality of the partnerships carrying GWP's name against agreed criteria. · Do one or two experiments in GWP partnerships where intensive support and monitoring can give the information, not only on starting a partnership, but also on what is needed (and how it can be provided) in the next phases. · Institutional strengthening to create and maintain active partnerships at different levels, including the development of capacity at various levels in the network to support partnerships and partnership building. · Capacity building in facilitating participatory approaches, conflict resolution, knowledge management, fund raising, team building, planning methodologies. · Seek cooperation with organizations, networks and companies that are in a similar position, or have strong experiences and methods that can be applied. Support programs by partnership aimed effectively at effecting change in water policy and practice on the ground. · Develop GWP corporate policy implementation regarding RWPs & CWPs and AWPs ­ in case of AWPs special emphasis in developing viable and effective models. · Encourage Cross fertilization of experiences, operating models between regions and countries. Illustrative Performance Indicators 4.1 GWP operational vision on "Partnership" established 4.2 New partnerships established in priority regions and countries 4.3 GWP network capacity-program on "partnership building" incl. global learning group in place 4.4 At least five experiments on partnerships implemented and documented 4.5 Existing GWP partnerships recognized as effective mechanisms for multi-stakeholder, cross-sectoral dialogues at regional, country and local level for facilitating IWRM advocacy and implementation Annex B 76 OUTPUT 5: GWP NETWORK EFFECTIVELY DEVELOPED AND MANAGED Vision The Output 5 is designed to ensure the efficient operation of the growing GWP network and foster synergy and coherence across its diverse components. Effective GWP network management helps protect the GWP "brand" and GWP as a neutral and inclusive platform and ensures that the network is adequately equipped and funded for implementing the GWP Program. GWP will strive to build its organization and management systems in line with its basic founding principles: lean and cost effective structure, high degree of independence and autonomy (among the constituting units), smoothness and soundness in management procedures and systems, flexibility and ability to cope with different situations and a minimum of rules and regulations. Within the framework of these principles, GWP will increase the decentralization of the functions and operations performed by its service units and enhance the robustness and capacity of partnerships at regional and country levels. While recognizing the difficulty of ensuring a sense of unity, community of goals and quality control, GWP believes that a decentralized network model is the most efficient way of accessing to and sharing a rapidly evolving body of knowledge and allowing effective communication. Overall Approach SUPPORTING GWP PROGRAM The management of the GWP program services will be further strengthened through the implementation of corporate strategies designed to better support, integrate and communicate GWP program activities. · In terms of technical support and program development, the GWP secretariats and technical committees will be instrumental in ensuring that the GWP program services (Associated Programs, centers of excellence located around the world including in developing countries, and individual experts), are adequately responding to the needs for knowledge, advice and experience of regions and countries. Corporate efforts will be made to facilitate the development of these services (new or existing), make them more responsive and increase synergies. · Increased attention will be given to GWP communication, information and knowledge management mechanisms. Key aspects include a conscious effort to move away from a centralized communication model towards a distributed mode of information sharing, involving interactions between all levels of the network and, notably, between regions. 77 Annex B FINANCING GWP The regional share of the GWP total budget is projected to reach around 70 percent of the total budget around 2008. While recognizing that not all regions have the same capacity to raise funds due to socio-economic reasons, it is a natural evolution for the established RWPs to increasingly take over the responsibility for funding of their programs. This will imply a diversification of GWP sources of funding and call for increased regional capabilities in fundraising and financial administration. The new sources of funding are essentially donor operated regional and national funds, national governments and private foundations. The ambition is that at the end of the 2004­2008 period around 50 percent of GWP's total financial needs will be covered by regional and country-based sources. GOVERNING GWP The GWP governance system will not only be managed effectively but also further clarified and explained. Particular care will be given to render the membership concept more operational substance, for example, who is a partner and who is not, what are the obligations and benefits. The roles and responsibilities of the RTAC, RWP, CWP and AWP relative to each other and to the other entities of the GWP network will also be clarified. In addition, GWP intends to devote special attention to the strengthening of regional governance systems in the context of increased demands placed on RWPs. In parallel, there is a need to develop mechanisms for maintaining quality throughout the global network, without negating its democratic and decentralized structure. An adaptive and effective monitoring and evaluation strategy at the global, regional and national levels will ensure that GWP learns from and adequately builds up on its initiatives and activities. It will also contribute to stronger sense of ownership, responsibility, and accountability across the network. Administering GWP With increased emphasis on action and delivery GWP is now facing the further challenge of developing and strengthening its management and administrative capabilities. The flexibility of the light GWP regional administrative systems will have to be weighted against requirements of legal status of GWP regional bodies and the specific demands emerging from the increased action at regional level. Most administrative capabilities including human resources management will be strengthened. EXAMPLES OF ACTIVITIES · Development of an efficient management monitoring system. · Development of databases, intranet, monitoring and evaluation tools. · Develop and share explanatory information and operational guidelines on governance matters. Annex B 78 · To succeed in decentralizing funding sources, GWP will present long-term work plans that can be considered by governments and donors and be included in traditional bilateral country programs that constitute one of the important funding sources. · Enhance capacity and skills of GWP staff at all levels with a particular focus on gender mainstreaming and in building the capacity of women. · Develop clear priority setting system for allocating central resources to regions. · Activities aiming at protecting the GWP brand name. Illustrative Performance Indicators 5.1 Effective knowledge management mechanisms in place, accessible and extensively used at all levels of the network. 5.2 Effective technical and logistical support provided to GWP program services. 5.3 Governance system strengthened towards more accountability, decentralization and clarity. 5.4 Coherent financing and administrative strategy reflecting a shift of focus from the center to the regions implemented. 5.5 Stable and long term financing of GWP program secured with at least half of the sources at regional and country levels by 2008. 79 Annex C Annex C. GWP Policy on Partners 1. Introduction This paper sets out the GWP Policy on Partners. It aims to clarify the concept and position of a Partner within the GWP. GWP has two categories of Partners, the ordinary Partners and the "Sponsoring Partners". This policy focuses only on ordinary Partners as the role of Sponsoring Partners is covered by the statutes of the GWP Organization.71 The term "partnership" in the Global Water Partnership means the group of Partners that make up the global network. The policy brings a degree of formality whilst maintaining the basic GWP ethos of inclusiveness and flexibility. Partners are the basis on which the GWP network is constructed and operates. Up to now, the term Partner has tended to be used synonymously with the term member. The terms may be considered interchangeable in that Partners are obliged to register as members of the Global Water Partnership.72 However, the term "Partner" will be the official term in line with GWP emphasis on the partnership mode of networking and operation. This is necessary to facilitate better clarity on the concept of a GWP Partner. The paper draws heavily from the pre-CP 2003 electronic discussion group report on Membership as well as on the outcome of the CP meeting 2003 and the SC meeting in May 2004. The policy covers the following areas: 6.5 Definition of a GWP Partner 6.6 GWP and Individuals or unregistered entities 6.7 Partners and Regional, Country and subnational Partnerships 6.8 Formalizing the Partners within the Network 6.9 The Benefits, Rights and Obligations of a Partner 6.10 Building a Database on GWP Partners 6.11 Use of the GWP Logo 2. Definition of a GWP Partner A GWP Partner, according to the current GWPO Statutes Article 3(i) is defined as: "Any entity, except individuals, may become a Partner of the Network. Partners of the Network may include States, national, regional and local Government Institutions, Intergovernmental Organizations, international and national Non-governmental Organizations, Academic Institutions and Research Institutions, Companies, and service providers in the public sector." 71. The GWP Organization is the legally constituted inter-governmental organization established in 2002. 72. For example, for those languages where the term "partner" does not exist, the preferred translation would be member. Annex C 80 Further, according to Article (2) any such entity which recognizes the principles of integrated water resources management endorsed by the Network and is committed to these principles (as outlined in the application to be a Partner) may become a Partner of the Network, subject to a decision by the Executive Secretary. Thus for the GWP, a Partner is an institution (registered with GWP) that embraces the cross sectoral range of institutions that have a bearing on the sustainable management of water resources and is committed to an integrated approach. Partners make up the multi-stakeholder group that works together towards achieving the requisite actions for sustainable water resources management at relevant levels. Such institutions can, for instance, be in the fields of agriculture, law, industry, education, environment, community water users, mining, human resource development, gender equality and so on. It is important that `partnership' in GWP is defined from the main organisation (GWP). Partnership means `Partner of the global network GWP'. If a Partner decides to be a partner of an RWP and/or partner of a CWP etc. that is a matter of choice, but allowing partners to refrain from registering as GWP partners means that they would not be bound by the GWP Statutes (and given corresponding rights and obligations) and that is not acceptable from GWPs point of view as the identity "water partnership" would be used. From the above definition of a Partner, it is clear that GWP has adopted a formal institutional definition of a Partner. However, as is elaborated in this Paper, the development of the GWP network has also up to now been based on the strong support from informal or unregistered entities and from individuals. This paper therefore, also addresses the roles of both individuals as well as of the informal unregistered entities that continue to cooperate with GWP. The historical development of some regions, as well as the unique way that the relevant institutions in those countries are organized and operate, necessitate the need to provide a more context specific definition of who can be a GWP Partner. This is covered below. (i) Networks A network organization73 is considered as an institution and thus can be a Partner of GWP as long as it meets the criteria set out above; i.e., it recognizes the principles of IWRM and is committed to implement these principles. An institutional member of a network organization may also apply to be a GWP Partner in its own right if it so wishes. (ii) National Umbrella Organizations and International Organizations National umbrella organizations or International Organizations representing numerous entities can become partners of GWP. As the interests of the individual organizations coordinated by such bodies can be quite diverse, the individual organizations under the umbrella organization may also become Partners of GWP in their own right. Thus, the decision on whether organizations in this category wish to apply to become a Partner of GWP rests with the organizations that are in this situation. Similarly the country and regional offices of international organizations can register as GWP Partners. To distinguish one such entity from another, upon registration as a Partner, such organizations shall always have an extension specifying the region/country in which they operate. 73. This is particularly relevant to the Mediterranean Regional Water Partnership where networks form the core partners. 81 Annex C (iii) GWP Associated Programs and Advisory Centers The institutions within which GWP Associated Programs and Advisory Centers are located may apply to be Partners of GWP and are strongly encouraged to do so. The GWP Associated Programs themselves are programs, not institutions, and thus cannot become GWP Partners. The institutions that are affiliated to, or are members of Associated Programs may apply to become GWP Partners in their own right as this enables them to represent their own specific goals/mission and interests. 3. GWP and Individuals or Unregistered Entities (i) Individuals The GWP Statutes clearly specify that individuals cannot become Partners of GWP. However, individuals are important contributors to the work of the GWP. The development of the GWP network and partnerships has been built on the efforts of both institutions and individuals. The institutional approach has a greater potential to promote action, access funding and to create a sense of community ownership while individuals bring in considerable expertise, and social capital. For example, some of the successes achieved to-date in terms of influencing governments to adopt IWRM have been achieved through the work of individuals who are not necessarily affiliated to any organization. GWP thus gives recognition to the important role of individuals in the network, even though such individuals cannot become GWP Partners. The following provisions therefore shall govern the way GWP treats such individuals; - Individuals can participate in Country Water Partnership meetings and can serve in committees instituted by the CWP or RWP, but cannot have a vote and do not have decision making powers. - Individuals can also serve the CWP or RWP in an advisory capacity. (ii) Unregistered Entities The GWP requires that institutions register to become Partners in order to formalize their relationship with GWP and to ease communications. Only institutions that register and are approved by the Executive Secretary can thus be Partners of the GWP. As with individuals GWP works with institutions that for various reasons do not establish such a formal relationship and they can make a valuable contribution to our work. The following provisions therefore shall govern the way GWP treats such institutions: - Representatives of institutions not registered with the GWP may participate in GWP meetings and in committees constituted by the CWP or RWP, but cannot have a vote and do not have decision making powers. - Representatives of such institutions may also serve a CWP or RWP in an advisory capacity. Annex C 82 4. Partners and Regional, Country, and Subnational Partnerships The GWP Partners constitute the inter-connected global network of institutions that are organized on regional, country and subnational levels into Water Partnerships. These Water Partnerships are the representatives of the Partners at the respective levels and are the basic unit of organization through which partners exchange ideas, critical knowledge and information and carry out actions to achieve the sustainable management of water resources. To this effect, the water partnerships are a key functional part of the Network but are not themselves Partners. They are an integral part of the network management structure, being groups of partners operating in a specific geographical area The RWPs and CWPs have a special relationship with the GWPO within the Network which is discussed in a position paper: "The status of Regional Water Partnerships and Country Water Partnerships" (October 2004). Each RWP or CWP has its own operational strategy and work program as well as its own administrative structures. The Country and Regional Water Partnerships are attached to various host institutions that administer funds and employ staff on behalf of the respective Regional or Country Water Partnership. The Partners located in the Region or Country make up the Consulting Partners for that level and have certain rights and duties with respect to the governance of the RWP or CWP. However, Country and Regional Water Partnerships do not represent the local Partners at the global level of the network, e.g., the annual Consulting Partners meetings (Network Meeting) as the Partners participate in their own right. Further clarification of the roles and relationships of Partners within Country and Regional Water Partnerships is given below. (i) Partners and the Country Water Partnerships A Country Water Partnership (CWPs) is a body that is made up of the GWP Partners in a country. Being a GWP Partner in a country makes an organization eligible to participate in all network meetings, whether this is at country, regional or global level. Registering as a GWP Partner (see Section 5) therefore, connects an institution to the GWP global network of Partners, regardless of their entry point. The operation of each CWP is expected to be guided by Statutes elaborated upon by the CWP itself and agreed upon by the GWP Partners at that level and GWPO. Such statutes shall adhere to global GWP principles. Funds permitting, and also guided by the need to have sustainable operations, each CWP is encouraged to hold an annual Network Meeting of all its Partners. Representatives of registered Partners may be a member of a country Steering Committee (or equivalent). Where a secretariat exists to manage day-to-day operations of the partnerships it is usually attached to a host institution which administers funds and employs staff on behalf of the partnership, if necessary through a Host Institution Agreement with GWPO. Due to the size of the Country, GWP-China has established partnerships within Provinces. These Provincial Water Partnerships are made up of the GWP stakeholders of the province and considered equivalent to Country Water Partnerships. GWP China is considered a GWP Regional Water Partnership and collectively the provincial water partnerships constitute what we commonly refer to as a "GWP region." 83 Annex C (ii) Partners and the Regional Water Partnerships The Regional Water Partnership is comprised of all GWP Partners in a region. This is the sum total of all the Partners registered at the Country Water Partnership Level as well as those that will have registered at the Regional Level. The operation of each RWP is guided by the Statutes elaborated upon by the RWP itself and also agreed upon by the GWP Partners at that level and GWPO. Such statutes shall adhere to global principles. Funds permitting, the GWP Partners at the regional level hold a Network Meeting at least once a year. The purpose of such a meeting is for the Partners to review critical regional network activities and the work program taking into account the developments at all levels of the network. Representatives of registered Partners in a region may be a member of the regional Steering Committee (or equivalent). Where a secretariat exists to manage day-to-day operations of the partnerships, it is usually attached to a host institution which administers funds and employs staff on behalf of the partnership through a Host Institution Agreement with GWPO and the RWP. (iii) Partners and Water Partnerships at the subnational level Some countries, notably India, have established subnational level partnerships in order to get the IWRM approach adopted at lower levels. These Water Partnerships are often linked to specific geographic areas or river basins. Such Area or Basin Water Partnerships are linked to the Country Water Partnerships. For logistical reasons this level of partnership is not formally linked to the GWP network and there is no direct link to GWPO. It is not covered by this policy paper but the Country Water Partnerships are encouraged to promote the same principles and provide the link to the wider network. 5. Formalizing Partners within the Network Partners may be registered at various levels within the GWP as described below. All Partners at whatever level they are registered hold the same status within the GWP Network. A prospective Partner shall complete an application form for Partnership entitled "Application to be a Partner of the Global Water Partnership (GWP)" that requires a Partner to agree to basic principles of the GWP as well as setting out the Partners' benefits, rights and obligations. This is submitted to the Executive Secretary of the Global Water Partnership. The Application is attached as Appendix I. The Executive Secretary, and only the ES, has been given the power to approve the acceptance of a new Partner, Article 3 (2) and Article 11(3) of the GWPO Statutes. At the Regional and Country level applicants may submit their application to the respective Chairs for registration and processing. The Chairs shall not exclude any institution from becoming a Partner. The Chairs shall then submit all applications to the GWPO Executive Secretary for approval. Where no partnership exists in a country or region an applicant should apply directly to the GWPO. All Partners, whether registered at country, Regional or global level hold the same status within the GWP Network. Annex C 84 (i) Procedure in Countries with Country Water Partnership Prospective GWP Partners in countries where there is a Country Water Partnership should submit their Partner Application forms to their respective Country Water Partnership. The Country Water Partnership will, after processing the application, (within a week) relay the application to the Regional Secretariat of the RWP in regions where this exists and to the GWPO Executive Secretary for approval. In China, a prospective Partners sends the application directly to the Provincial Water Partnership and the GWP-China secretariat for registration. After processing GWP-China submits the application to the GWPO Executive Secretary for approval. (ii) Procedure in Countries with No Country Water Partnership but with RWP Prospective GWP Partners from countries where there is no Country Water Partnership, but there is a RWP should submit their application to the Regional Water Partnership of the region within which their country is classified. Such Partners will serve as the GWP network's communication linkage with these countries. The RWP will, after processing, relay the application to the GWPO Executive Secretary for approval. (iii) Procedure Where Neither CWP nor RWP Exist Partners from areas where there is neither a CWP nor RWP, submit their Partner application forms to the GWPO Secretariat in Stockholm, who shall process and approve the application and make necessary entries onto the global database on Partners. For those regions in the process of transformation from regional Technical Advisory Committees (RTAC) to Regional Water Partnerships, the prospective Partner shall register through the GWPO Secretariat with a copy to the RTAC Chair. (iv) Payment of a Registration Fee Registration as a Partner at the Global or Regional level of GWP does not involve paying a fee. Country Water Partnerships may opt to introduce a fee for Partners in order to build greater commitment and ownership at the national level and enable them to participate in country level activities. In this case Partners may be required to pay either a fee on initial registration or annually based on a sliding scale. Where a Country Water Partnership adopts such a measure, the level of fees payable should be country-specific and should not exclude any poor or marginalized groups. 6. The Benefits, Rights, and Obligations of a Partner The benefits, rights and obligations of a Partner are provided for in the GWPO Statutes, Article 3(3), as well as in local level statutes. The benefits of being a Partner mostly relate to being part of a global action network to achieve sustainable water resources management. By registering as a GWP Partner, an institution may present itself as a "Partner of the Global Water Partnership." (i) Benefits to a Partner The Network provides a Partner with services such as: Being part of a global and local level multi-stakeholder platform, with a voice and influence at national and international policy discussions; 85 Annex C A channel through which to establish contact with other Partners, including the right to participate at the annual Network Meeting (Consulting Partners meeting); Guidance on identifying critical needs for the sustainable management of water resources as well as on possible ways of meeting them; An opportunity to match one Partner's needs with another Partner's resources; An opportunity to contribute to the development of the concept of integrated water resources management; Access to global information through GWP and various Partner newsletters, etc. (ii) Obligations of a Partner A Partner is obliged to: Co-ordinate its relevant activities with those of other concerned organizations; Share information and experience freely with the other Partners; Actively engage in the recruitment of GWP Partners as well as facilitate the Partner's adherence to GWP principles; Give advice and professional contributions to the Network, the Organization and to other Partners, on such conditions as may be agreed either free of charge up to a reasonable level or at a mutually agreed charge above that level. (iii) Rights of a Partner According to Article 9 of the Statutes a Partner has the right to: participate and vote at Network meetings (see below); be consulted before nominations by the Nominating Committee to the Steering Committee are made for all positions other than those of the GWPO Chair and the GWPO Executive Secretary, Article 8(4)(b); recommend amendments to the Statutes regarding the Network and Organization; vote on a proposal to dissolve the entire Network; adopt the strategic directions and policies of the Network and recommend actions to be taken on the basis of the adopted strategic directions and policies; review and comment on the annual activity report and financial statement of the GWP Steering Committee; consider and decide on the expulsion of Partners from the Network (see below). (iv) Partners and the GWP Annual Network Meeting (Consulting Partners Meeting) GWP Partners have the right to participate at the annual (and extraordinary) Network Meetings, Article 9(1). Such meetings are called by the GWP Steering Committee and have commonly come to be known as the Consulting Partners Meeting. The matters to be dealt with at the Network Meetings are the central issues for the operations of the GWP Network and the GWP Organisation, Article 9(2). The general procedure for conducting the meeting is to decide by consensus, with voting as an option where deemed necessary (By-laws for the Annual Network meeting are under preparation). Annex C 86 The Consulting Partners meeting is a network meeting of the GWP Partners, but the meeting is also open to anyone who wishes to attend and to participate. The GWP Chair has the right to restrict participation to GWP Partners only on certain topics. In the case of a vote, only registered GWP Partners would have the right to exercise a vote. (v) Expulsion of a Partner Although it is the Executive Secretary who accepts a Partner as part of the Network, it is only the Network Meeting (Consulting Partners meeting) that can decide on the expulsion of a Partner, Article 9(2)(d). Such a decision is based on a recommendation of the Steering Committee. It is the Steering Committee (SC) that will oversee the Partners and ensure that they respect the Principles of the Network and the SC may recommend expulsion if a Partner violates the principles of the Network, Article 7(7)(j). (vi) Withdrawal A Partner may withdraw from the Network. Such a decision becomes effective when the notice to withdraw reaches the Country or Regional Chair or the Executive Secretary, Article 18(1). 7. Building a Database of GWP Partners The GWPO Secretariat shall maintain a complete list of GWP Partners from the country water partnership to the global level. However, it is not feasible for the Secretariat to maintain an electronic database that all GWP Water Partnerships can use to maintain their own records online and offline as i) the software and the required hardware platforms may not be compatible throughout the global network and ii) the information kept or required by each Water Partnership may not be appropriate for all. Instead, based on the principle of subsidiarity, each Water Partnership at regional and country level shall maintain its own records. Country Water Partnerships should maintain records on any sub/national water partnerships. To ensure the minimum amount of essential information on Partners and that their contact information is provided across the network, certain fundamental data elements should be included in all databases. It is these elements that should be forwarded from the Country to Regional Water Partnerships and from the Regional Water Partnerships to the Global database maintained and kept up to date by the GWPO Secretariat. To ensure that such a database system comes into effect, it is necessary for the Network to agree and implement the registration procedure of Partners at global, regional and country levels according to the criteria elaborated in section 5. Essentially this means that: - Country and subnational level Partners register with Country Water Partnerships or directly with the Regional Water Partnership where there is no Country Water Partnership. - Partners from those countries that are not in a GWP region or in regions in transition from a regional TAC submit their application directly to the GWPO Secretariat. The GWP Secretariat is responsible for building the database of Partners from locations where neither a RWP nor a CWP exists and include them in its knowledge management system. 87 Annex C 8. Use of the GWP Logo The use of the GWP letterhead and logo is confined for use by GWP, the GWPO as well as the RWPs and the CWPs. The GWP Partners may not use the logo, unless given prior permission by the GWPO Executive Secretary, but have the right to present themselves as Partners of the Global Water Partnership. Annex D 88 Annex D. GWP Joint Donor External Evaluation: Terms of Reference A. Introduction The Global Water Partnership (GWP) was established in 1996 as an international network promoting an integrated approach to water resources management. It encourages all users of water (urban, rural, industry, agriculture and households) and all stakeholder groups (government departments, academics, community groups, NGOs, the private sector and other interested parties) to work together. Some 1,200 organisations around the world have registered as GWP Partners, representing all stakeholder groups. GWP's current strategy period is coming towards an end. A comprehensive external review of the GWP will therefore be undertaken during 2007 by a team of independent evaluators. In parallel, GWP is also carrying out an internal review process (Vitalizing GWP) through a special working group. The joint donor group, who drafted these ToR, consists of Danida, DfID, DGIS, GTZ and Sida. B. Objectives of the Evaluation The overall objectives of the review are to: a) Provide GWP Partners, Financiers and Members with a comprehensive assessment of the progress, contributions, achievements and impact of GWP during the current strategy period 2004­ 2006; b) Assess if the GWP's overall approach 10 years after the initiation of the network is appropriate for what is needed from a global organisation with global, regional and country level ambitions? c) Provide a basis and recommendations for enhancement and improvement of both governance and the performance of the GWP. In simple terms the evaluation should focus on four questions: Is GWP doing the right things? Is GWP doing the right things well? What recommendations can be made to enhance GWP's effectiveness? How can the sustainability of GWP be ensured? 89 Annex D C. Scope The evaluation should assess the following areas: C.1 MISSION, GOALS, AND STRATEGIES Based on an assessment of outputs, outcomes and impacts of the GWP, assess: if GWP is doing the right things in terms of focus, priority areas and approach in relation to the mission and strategy of the network and discuss the respective roles and mandates of GWP globally, regionally and nationally. the comparative advantage of GWP in relation to other organisations, initiatives and processes. C.2 ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND IMPACT The main achievements, outputs, outcomes and impacts of GWP, at its various levels, in relation to its stated goals, programme objectives and planned activities with a focus on: GWPs role in influencing policy and development strategies for sustainable water resources management at global, regional and national levels. GWPs success in establishing strategic relationships/partnerships with partners and other organizations/ groups and the impact of these relationships. GWPs success in facilitating multi-stakeholder engagement in IWRM processes. The relative effectiveness of the tools GWP has used to promote the application of IWRM globally, regionally, nationally and locally. The extent to which GWP has facilitated "action on the ground" Review the appropriateness and the effectiveness of GWPs knowledge management and communication approach and activities. Financial efficiency: have the GWP accomplishments been achieved in a cost effective manner? C.3 NETWORK GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT The evaluation should assess the following areas: The appropriateness of overall network governance and management arrangements. This should include the respective roles, accountability, quality and efficiency of the GWP's global secretariat, the steering committee, technical committee (TEC), regional GWP Secretariats and country partnerships. The use of output/outcome and impact indicators within GWP and review the performance management strategy under development by the Secretariat. GWPs internal processes for strategic planning and performance management, including the systems of learning reviews. GWPs quality control mechanism for financial accountability at regional, national and area network levels. Annex D 90 C.4 SUSTAINABILITY The key issues relating to the long-term sustainability of the GWP at all levels and recommends a refined approach and strategies. This includes financial sustainability but also institutional sustainability of country partnerships and sustainability of impacts through integration with national development processes. C.5 FUTURE CHALLENGE ISSUES GWP comparative advantage over the longer term, in the context of a likely requirement for a change in focus from one of advocating IWRM plans to catalysing policy change and implementation. How could donors work better in line with Paris Declaration to reduce transaction costs for GWP and can GWP play a proactive role in promoting this? Assessment of the strategy for fundraising and donor assistance at gobal, regional and national levels, and the balance for ODA and other sources of finance. D. Methodology and Evaluation Team Competencies APPROACH TO REVIEW Review of a comprehensive list of relevant documentation/ reports is to be undertaken. The evaluation should include but not be restricted to interviews with key bodies, persons in the GWP network as well as external to the network. Field visits to three Regional Water Partnership (in Africa and Asia) and five country partnerships. The selection of these should be agreed based on discussion with the Secretariat and donors as part of the scoping exercise (see below). Representative focused impact studies may be undertaken. The scoping exercise should take into account the time table of the Vitalizing GWP working group. COMPETENCE AREAS The review team is proposed to comprise three persons between them covering the following competencies/ specializations: Sustainable Development, Environmental & Natural Resources Management, Integrated Water Resources Management, Water and Sanitation Services. Policy Development and Strategic Planning. Institutional Analysis and governance relating to network-based organizations Impact Assessment, Monitoring and Evaluation. Evaluators from the joint donor group (see definition below) countries may accompany the Team during the evaluation as observers. The GWP Secretariat and Network will assist the team with logistics and administration. 91 Annex D E. Outputs and Timing The evaluation should be undertaken from April to December 2007. The reviewers should produce a Scoping Report setting out the detailed methodology and processes for evaluation, including a detailed financial proposal, within 3 weeks of contract commencing. An interim report should be submitted electronically by 15 May 2007 for discussion at the GWP Steering Committee. A representative of the reviewers should be prepared to present the preliminary findings at the Steering Committee meeting on 21­22 May. Following the Steering Committee discussions reviewers should agree with the joint donor group a process and timetable for completion by December 2007. All reports should be submitted to the joint donor group. The conclusions and recommendations made should address the areas presented under the section Scope. F. Reference Documents The list below contains examples of key documents: 1. Statutes for GWPO and documents on rules, procedures, regulations etc. for GWPO and key functions of the Network. 2. GWP strategy 2004­2008 3. Progress reports 2003­2006 4. Material produced for the Steering Committee, Financial Partners Meetings and Sponsoring Partners Meetings and summaries from the meetings in the review period 5. Materials produced at the CWP meetings in Stockholm, August 2006. 6. Evaluation report 2003 7. GWP's management response to the evaluation 2003 8. Reports from GWP's internal Learning Reviews of Regional and Country Partnerships. 9. ToR for the Vitalizing GPW Working Group 10. Draft evaluation report, GWP-Southern Africa (tentatively available during spring 2007). Annex E 92 Annex E. Summary of GWP Performance Trends from the PARC 2008 Evaluation GWP Output 2003 Evaluation Findings 2008 Evaluation Findings Performance Trend Output 1. IWRM Global GWP still considered the Diminished global policy and GWP is considered the champion of IWRM and profile Strategy facilitated champion of IWRM on a valued for the neutral multi- at all levels global scale but there is stakeholder platform it concern about overlap from provides. There was no other agencies. evidence of confusion at a There is broad recognition of global level of GWPs niche in the value of a "neutral multi- IWRM. stakeholder platform" GWP Despite greater focus and enables internationally and at resources since 2006, GWP is the local level. failing to keep up with global opportunities to present the ongoing relevance of IWRM and, as a result, is in danger of losing visibility and legitimacy in global for a. Regional Improvement The regional level of the There is still significant Regions have been partnership was seen as variation amongst regions. strengthened but fragile. Current levels of Some (particularly in Africa) not uniformly. funding to regions should are strong ­ engaging in increase to support regional policy advocacy, decentralization and more engaging with regional actors, robust management and local supporting countries and engagement. locally seeking funds. Others are not. Most regions not tackling trans-boundary issues. Country Improvement The achievements of country Significant contribution to Greater proportion partnerships are very variable. awareness raising in all of partnerships Some have been highly countries visited and two engaging with successful in achieving policy thirds had made a contribution policy change. Still influence, others have to policy influence. unable to raise remained at the awareness Greater attention to capacity IWRM in national raising seminar stage. building and forging links with priortisation. Limited demonstration or regional actors and potential engagement in national funders. prioritization, planning, or risk Less successful in influencing management. broader development policies In countries with AWPs there such as PRSPs to consider is little apparent engagement IWRM, supporting in policy influence with organizational reform, government. increasing financial flows or facilitating grassroots implementation. Limited findings on AWPs but no evidence that this had prevented central level engagement. 93 Annex E GWP Output 2003 Evaluation Findings 2008 Evaluation Findings Performance Trend Output 2: IWRM Improvement programmes and Toolbox hasn't been fully Awareness of Toolbox has Much greater tools developed in embraced across the regions. significantly increased. Not awareness use of response to More tools needed in the just used by academics but toolbox. regional and areas of governance and policymakers. However, neither country needs public administration. Toolbox documents have Cap-Net or TEC The toolbox needs to be been translated into local can provide for the supported by a system of on- language in a number of needs of CWPs. site capacity development, countries. GWP SEA More localized perhaps in conjunction with developing their own toolbox. resources should Cap-Net. More south: south learning be considered. Capacity development should perhaps through content be seen as a key deliverable specific exchange of GWP. visits/twinning would be of benefit. TEC Reference Group considered useful to those countries that received reviews. Resource centres not extensively used for capacity development. Partnership with Cap-Net has not delivered as the capacity of Cap-Net varies greatly across the globe. Output 3: Improvement Linkages between Associated programmes such Number of partnerships has Structure and clarity GWP and other as Cap-Net are not always reduced from 20 in 2003 to 14 of partnerships Frameworks, clearly identified in GWP ­ in 2008. improved. Sectors and greater dialogue and Partnerships more clearly Breadth of Issues promotion is needed. defined through MOUs, partnerships limited There are many international primarily with actors within the to water sector. initiatives related to water and water sector. Choice of future to avoid potential for Limited linkages between partners should be confusion GWP needs to build GWP and organizations in the dependent on close cooperation with some agriculture and energy selected advocacy agencies e.g., WWC, ISSCC sectors. priorities. to reduce overlap and Countries appreciate the rationalize the message. information provided by strategic partners but are not always clear of the nature of the relationship between GWP and the partners. Annex E 94 GWP Output 2003 Evaluation Findings 2008 Evaluation Findings Performance Trend Output 4: GWP Improvement Partnerships A strong global brand has Significant global network Significant Established and been established but fast expansion from 28 to 71 improvement in Consolidated at all network growth puts pressure CWPs, and 9 RTACs to 12 brand management. Levels on GWP. Brand management RWPs. Members tripled to Aspects of regional is important. 1800+. management Confusion between RTACs RTACs have been replaced decentralized but and RWPs needs to be by RWPs with consistent not uniformly removed. It may be necessary annual core funding. The practiced. to establish RWPs and CWPs decision on making a as separate legal entities CWP/RWP a legal entity is up before they become self to them. Not having a legal financing. identity is currently a problem Regional Management needs for some CWPs seeking to be decentralized and funding locally. strengthened with greater Significant improvements in funds. GWP to review financial management, work investments in countries with planning, reporting and little prospect of real registration throughout the government engagement entire network. Though this beyond dialogue. has led to a perception of a AWPs only established where more centralized network, no governments is fully involved. country has been removed from the partnership. Output 5: GWP GWP Governance Structure No Change. network effectively There is a lack of clarity about The use of the term "partners" Significant changes developed and membership and partnership is still confusing to outsiders. in governance managed in GWP. There is a need to The Steering Committee is structures need to update and review largely unrepresentative of the be considered to membership. GWP members, is too large ensure GWP best Responsibilities and and expensive and present represents its objectives for different levels meeting structures do not membership. within GWP need to be more allow for debate and direction clearly defined. setting. Stronger regional The Secretariat staff culture representation is needed at has been difficult over this the global level. strategy period. This has had a limited immediate effect on GWP performance but there is a lag factor. GWP needs to resolve current issues in order to provide the necessary platform for the wider and longer term changes proposed by the evaluation. TEC has improved its responsiveness to countries but it is difficult to assess cost effectiveness. TEC structures and approaches need to be refined to meet the multiple demands for technical expertise at global, regional and country level. 95 Annex E GWP Output 2003 Evaluation Findings 2008 Evaluation Findings Performance Trend GWP Financial Performance Diminished. To provide more robust Significant improvements Whilst GWPs regional management levels have been made in financial systems have been of funding to regions should control, accounting and strengthened the be reviewed and increased. reporting procedures. financial Donors should commit to The cost of administering sustainability of the longer term financing to GWP is fit for purpose. organization is in improve effectiveness and GWP fundraising strategy and jeopardy. This efficiency. implementation has been slow relates to in delivering and has suffered fundraising and from a lack of focus. global positioning. GWP has no roadmap to financial sustainability. Annex F 96 Annex F. Lessons Learned about the Effectiveness of the GWP at the Country Level The Added Value of Country Water Partnerships Providing leadership in practical public participation and establishing a permanent framework for dialogue and coordination among diverse stakeholders; Kick starting action and prompting government actions to meet water management challenges; Providing a means to bring local issues to the national level; Acting as a water `watchdog'; Extending understanding, sharing lessons and building capacities among stakeholders as well as broadening outreach beyond traditional water players. Nurturing the next generation of water leaders; Bringing experiences from elsewhere and putting them into a local context (and especially into local languages); Getting local partners involved in programmes of government and others (e.g., donor and international organisations) and forging cross-sectoral collaboration; Bringing local people into contact with others from countries and regions with similar problems and developing `communities of common interest' and informal support mechanisms; Helping to find solutions to transboundary water management by working together with neighboring CWPs; Commitment to GWP principles and values sets the foundation for uniting people whose interests may differ radically and encourage them to engage in dialogue. The Factors Limiting Effectiveness of Country Water Partnerships Lack of competent personnel with sufficient knowledge of water resources matters; Insufficient guidelines and explanatory texts available in local languages hinders awareness and understanding; Logistical constraints such as lack of full time staff, inadequate office facilities, limited time (only so much can be done on a voluntary basis) to tackle an overloaded agenda and to engage with a diverse range of stakeholders; Limited availability of the relatively modest funds needed for GWP type activities (i.e., non structural actions); Insufficient sharing of experiences and lessons learned and inadequate follow up actions from events; Partnership establishment and bringing stakeholders together to form an effective and inclusive platform is slow, hard and messy ­ but this is not well recognized or appreciated and requires skills not often available to main promoters; A need to be clear on roles and responsibilities to allay the fears that existing interested parties, in particular governments, may have with the concept of CWPs; Local suspicion of externally linked organisations in some countries and consequent lack of recognition of CWPs by government bodies (e.g., there is often no mechanism for recognizing non-governmental entities). 97 Annex F Source: GWP 2006, Overall Summary of Regional Synthesis Reports, Presented to the Annual Consulting Partners' Meeting, Stockholm, October 2006. This is a summary of 13 regional synthesis reports based on over 70 country reports. Annex G 98 Annex G. GWP Publications Background Papers 1. 1998. Regulation and Private Participation in the Water and Sanitation Sector. (Judith Rees) 2. 1998. Water as a Social and Economic Good: How to put the Principle into Practice. (Peter Rogers, Ramesh Bhatia and Annette Huber) 3. 1999. The Dublin Principles for Water as Reflected in a Cooperative Assessment of Institutional and Legal Arrangements for Integrated Water Resources management. (Miguel Solanes, and Fernando Gonzales-Villarreal) 4. 2000. Integrated Water Resources Management. (GWP TEC) 5. 2000. Letter to My Minister. (Ivan Cheret) 6. 2002. Risk and Integrated Water Resources Management (Judith Rees) 7. 2003. Effective Water Governance. (Peter Rogers and Alan Hall) 8. 2003. Poverty Reduction and IWRM. (GWP TEC) 9. 2003. Water Management and Ecosystems: Living with Change. (Malin Falkenmark) 10. 2004. Integrated Water Resources Management and Water Efficiency Plans: Why, What and How. (Torkil Jonch-Clausen) 11. 2006. Urban Water and Sanitation Services: An IWRM Approach. (Judith Rees) 12. 2007. Water Financing and Governance (Judith A. Rees, James Winpenny and Alan Hall) Policy Briefs 1. Unlocking the Door to Social and Economic Growth: How a More Integrated Approach to Water can help 2. Water and Sustainable Development: Lessons from Chile 3. Gender Mainstreaming: an Essential Component of Sustainable Water Management 4. How IWRM will contribute to the MDGs 5. Climate Adaption and IWRM 6. How to Integrate IWRM and national development plans and strategies, and why this needs to be done in the era of aid effectiveness Catalyzing Change Series - Technical Briefs 1. Checklist for Change: Defining Areas for Action in an IWRM Strategy or Plan 2. Tools for Keeping IWRM on Track 3. Monitoring and Evaluation Indicators for IWRM Strategies and Plans 4. Taking an Integrated Approach to Improving Water Efficiency 5. Mainstreaming Gender in IWRM Strategies and Plans: Practical Steps for Practitioners 99 Annex H Annex H. GWP Summarized Financial Information Table H-1. GWP Revenues, 2001­2008 (US$ thousands) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2001-08 Core Revenues Donor Core Grants Denmark 100 250 284 653 670 658 743 802 4,160 France 112 170 120 125 248 775 Germany 121 200 282 216 688 494 677 635 3,313 Netherlands 1,112 890 1,005 1,111 1,109 1,127 1,240 1,289 8,883 Norway 111 550 494 264 314 597 1,032 710 4,072 Spain 66 122 125 140 155 608 Sweden SIDA 1,026 2,056 1,711 1,497 1,472 1,626 1,775 1,820 12,983 Sweden MoF 719 420 509 541 676 2,865 Switzerland 135 141 207 204 208 204 278 315 1,692 UK 3,000 1,519 1,658 3,195 2,865 3,277 2,616 2,787 20,917 World Bank 840 428 1,268 Other 4 324 608 74 17 3 1 15 1,046 Subtotal: Donor Core Grants 6,561 6,528 6,435 8,180 7,888 8,495 9,043 9,452 62,582 Overhead from Programmes Canada support to Africa (OH 10%) 106 207 180 198 46 737 Dutch support for Africa (OH 10.3%) 98 140 179 149 566 EC Water Gov. E&W Africa (OH 5%) 10 7 3 20 EC Water Gov. West Africa (OH 7%) 2 45 47 Finland for Central Asia (OH 10%) 28 16 10 12 66 France Central Africa (OH 10%) 11 8 19 US support (OH 10%) 27 48 18 9 102 Task Force GPG adm. fee 74 87 62 4 227 EUWI FWG, host fee 9 14 19 42 Subtotal: Overhead Fees 180 468 470 428 280 1,826 Total Core Revenues 6,561 6,528 6,435 8,360 8,356 8,965 9,471 9,732 64,408 Annex H 100 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2001-08 Restricted Funds Programmes Global 0 Japan Water Forum 43 25 68 Norway IWRM 2003/2004 146 32 118 296 Sweden CSD event New York 11 11 Programmes Regional Canada support to Africa 445 1,031 2,027 1,925 1,979 462 7,869 DRID Water Utility Network Meeting 46 46 Dutch support to Africa 943 1,364 1,741 1,489 5,537 EC Water Governance E&W Africa 94 235 64 393 EC Water Governance West Africa 27 639 666 EUWI FWG 68 65 133 Finland for Central Asia and Caucasus 250 141 93 114 598 France support Central Africa 97 62 159 Greece 13 13 Netherlands Ffa 2,138 1,107 3,245 NeWater 3 59 62 UK Support to China 957 1,564 549 690 51 3,811 USAID 12 228 433 165 79 917 Total Restricted Funds 0 3,095 3,262 1,678 4,447 4,224 4,211 2,907 23,824 Globally Raised Funds 6,561 9,623 9,697 10,038 12,803 13,189 13,682 12,639 88,232 (Core and Restricted) Regionally Raised Funds 599 704 1,466 1,070 1,502 1,702 1,773 2,350 11,166 Total: GWP Income 7,160 10,327 11,163 11,108 14,305 14,891 15,455 14,989 99,398 101 Annex H Table H-2. GWP Expenditures, 2002­2008 (US$ thousands) 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2002-08 A. Secretariat Staff 1,486 1,680 2,264 2,408 Travel 248 294 466 327 Office 665 537 594 543 Consultants 119 171 185 111 IT/Communications 173 216 174 171 Total Secretariat (A) 2,534 2,747 2,792 2,691 2,898 3,683 3,559 20,904 Global Expenditures B. GWP Global Governance Steering committee 26 118 140 214 251 298 297 1,344 Other governance costs 30 7 37 Strategy development 167 167 Network meeting (Consulting Partners) 340 220 135 195 399 -2 53 1,340 Subtotal Global Governance 366 338 275 409 650 326 524 2,888 C. TEC 802 417 654 617 660 563 676 4,389 D. External Cooperation Toolbox 104 133 130 125 111 603 Advisory centers and consultants 1,497 1,080 571 386 195 251 147 4,127 Fees and travel 28 28 Other (Alliances, Financial Partners, etc.) 488 257 30 175 453 147 1,550 Subtotal External Cooperation 1,985 1,337 705 694 778 376 433 6,308 Total Global (B+C+D) 3,153 2,092 1,634 1,720 2,088 1,265 1,633 13,585 Total Core Expenditures (A+B+C+D) 5,687 4,839 4,426 4,411 4,986 4,948 5,192 34,489 Regional Expenditures Regional core 3,867 3,220 3,116 3,513 4,418 5,550 4,463 28,147 Expenditure locally raised funds 704 1,466 1,070 1,502 1,702 1,773 2,350 10,567 Regional restricted funds 289 814 2,957 3,518 3,627 2,368 13,573 Global restricted 440 511 800 655 559 760 3,725 Total Regional Expenditures 4,571 5,415 5,511 8,772 10,293 11,509 9,940 56,011 Total GWP Expenditures 10,258 10,254 9,937 13,183 15,279 16,457 15,132 90,500 Annex H 102 Table H-3. Expenditures by GWP Programme, 2002­2008 (US$ thousands) GWP Programme 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 /1 2002-08 CIDA/Partnership for Africa's Water Development 445 1,031 2,027 1,925 1,978 462 7,868 EC/Effective Water Governance 94 235 64 393 EC/Water Governance West Africa 27 639 666 EC/Water Initiative Finance Working Group 68 65 133 EC/DFID ACP Water Facility action in ACP countries 220 220 EU/New Appoaches to Adaptive Water Management 3 59 62 Finland/IWRM Plannng Central Asia & Caucasus 250 141 93 114 598 France/L'eau et le developpment durable 97 62 159 Japan Water Forum 43 43 Netherlands/National IWRM and Water Efficiency 943 1,364 1,741 1,490 5,538 Norway/IWRM Programme 146 228 118 492 UK Water Utility Meeting 47 47 Other 138 11 13 162 USAID 12 228 433 165 79 917 Total 0 729 1,325 3,757 4,173 4,186 3,127 17,297 /1 2008 financial data are provisional. 103 Annex H Table H-4. Regional Expenditures by Type of Fund, 2002­2008 (US$ thousands) Region /1 CAR CAF CAM CACENA CEE CHINA EAF MED SAM SAS SEA SAF WAF Total Year Expenditure Source 2002 Regional Core & Restricted 338 574 345 689 458 517 467 -3 482 3,867 Restricted Global Locally Raised 132 13 55 461 43 704 Total 0 0 338 0 574 345 0 821 458 530 522 458 525 4,571 2003 Regional Core & Restricted 413 195 480 203 168 416 485 452 371 -146 472 3,509 Restricted Global 147 146 146 440 Locally Raised 44 30 8 34 47 1,303 1,466 Total 0 0 457 195 480 203 315 446 493 486 418 1,303 619 5,415 2004 Regional Core & Restricted 12 135 286 259 283 322 323 299 326 223 230 772 459 3,929 Restricted Global 106 254 152 512 Locally Raised 41 7 14 283 3 8 714 1,070 Total 12 135 327 259 290 322 443 582 329 231 230 1,740 611 5,511 2005 Regional Core 84 132 321 314 361 580 237 312 271 309 285 67 239 3,512 Restricted Global 89 29 67 142 18 241 215 801 Restricted Regional 328 109 246 524 65 890 795 2,957 Locally Raised 4 5 892 4 40 549 8 1,502 Total 84 549 463 627 366 580 903 1,204 275 349 368 1,747 1,257 8,772 2006 Regional Core 133 209 307 302 462 530 370 295 271 382 434 359 364 4,418 Restricted Global 62 26 26 91 2 41 224 183 655 Restricted Regional 334 140 141 488 13 220 1,204 978 3,518 Locally Raised 1 21 30 74 165 958 22 57 367 7 1,702 Total 85 528 508 511 435 745 816 1,285 271 331 603 1,862 1,407 9,387 2007 Regional Core 167 162 375 322 428 560 474 319 282 558 472 807 623 5,549 Restricted Global 26 3 14 115 2 208 190 558 Restricted Regional 169 22 93 744 15 1,351 1,233 3,627 Locally Raised 16 61 116 25 71 1,308 1 86 2 87 1,773 Total 183 357 461 429 544 585 1,404 1,627 283 644 491 2,453 2,046 11,507 Annex H 104 Region /1 CAR CAF CAM CACENA CEE CHINA EAF MED SAM SAS SEA SAF WAF Total 2008 Regional Core 205 213 319 321 353 474 380 359 269 401 464 372 307 4,436 Restricted Global - Restricted Regional 244 159 426 525 1,013 2,368 Locally Raised 31 22 2 67 315 244 1,425 3 43 198 2,350 Plus additional raised 391 Total 235 457 341 482 420 788 1,050 1,784 273 445 464 1,095 1,320 9,545 /1 Key to Regions: CAR Caribbean CAF Central Africa CAM Central America CACENA Central Asia & Caucasus CEE Central & Eastern Europe CHINA China EAF East Africa MED Mediterranean SAM South America SAS South Asia SEA Southeast Asia SAF Southern Africa WAF West Africa 105 Annex H Table H-5. Comparison of the Administrative Costs of Five Network-Type Global Partnership Programs (US$ thousands) 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Average Global Forum for Health Research Administrative Expenditures 485 707 707 859 866 862 ­ 748 Program Expenditures 1,989 3,128 3,128 2,996 2,990 3,698 ­ 2,988 Total Expenditures 2,474 3,835 3,835 3,855 3,856 4,560 ­ 3,736 % Administrative 19.6 18.4 18.4 22.3 22.5 18.9 ­ 20.0 Global Development Network Administrative Expenditures 537 609 399 640 349 397 506 491 Program Expenditures 6,794 9,761 8,283 6,558 6,206 8,239 8,548 7,770 Total Expenditures 7,331 10,370 8,682 7,198 6,555 8,636 9,054 8,261 % Administrative 7.3 5.9 4.6 8.9 5.3 4.6 5.6 6.0 Stop TB Partnership Administrative Expenditures 538 898 1,251 1,173 1,374 1,644 2,610 1,355 Program Expenditures 4,509 4,379 3,614 4,140 6,884 15,879 11,795 7,314 Total Expenditures 5,047 5,277 4,865 5,313 8,258 17,523 14,405 8,670 % Administrative 10.7 17.0 25.7 22.1 16.6 9.4 18.1 17.1 Global Water Partnership Administrative Expenditures 2,534 2,747 2,792 2,691 2,898 3,683 3,559 2,986 Program Expenditures 7,724 7,507 7,145 10,492 12,381 12,774 11,573 9,942 Total Expenditures 10,258 10,254 9,937 13,183 15,279 16,457 15,132 12,929 % Administrative 24.7 26.8 28.1 20.4 19.0 22.4 23.5 23.6 Consultative Group to Assist the Poor Administrative Expenditures 3,531 3,921 4,232 4,753 6,154 6,427 10,155 5,596 Program Expenditures 11,469 11,416 15,556 13,030 9,843 11,885 20,873 13,439 Total Expenditures 15,000 15,337 19,788 17,783 15,997 18,312 31,028 19,035 % Administrative 23.5 25.6 21.4 26.7 38.5 35.1 32.7 29.1 Sources: IEG Global Program Reviews and Annual Reports of the five programs. Annex I 106 Annex I. Bank Staff Responses to Questionnaire on the GWP The Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) of the World Bank is undertaking a Global Program Review of the Global Water Partnership (GWP) based on the Joint Donor External Evaluation of the GWP that was completed in March 2008. While we have interviewed key GWP stakeholders, we also need to hear from water practitioners about their understanding and experience of the GWP. To assist our review, please complete the following questionnaire. The questions should take you about three minutes to complete. Many thanks for your help. 1. Do you work in water? Yes 54 90% No 6 10% 2. In which Region do you work? East Asia and the Pacific 9 15% Sub-Saharan Africa 8 14% South Asia 8 14% Latin America and the Caribbean 6 10% Europe and Central Asia 5 8% Middle East and North Africa 4 7% Global 19 32% No answer 1 3. Have you worked with GWP? Yes 19 32% No 41 68% 4. You have worked with GWP as a: World Bank -- or other International Development Bank -- staff 13 68% Donor aid program/project 1 5% Partner/member GWP 0 0% Aid agency (e.g., UNICEF, FAO) 0 0% Other (please specify consultant, advisor, committee member, 5 26% government, NGO Have not worked with GWP 41 107 Annex I 5. What level is your GWP experience? (Please check all applicable) Global 10 53% Regional 9 47% Country 7 37% Local 2 11% Have not worked with GWP 41 6. GWP's roles are: Don't No Negligible Modest Substantial Major Total know response Advocacy of IWRM 1 (3%) 7 (23%) 14 (45%) 9 (29%) 8 39 21 Convening 2 (6%) 9 (29%) 13 (42%) 7 (23%) 9 40 20 organization on water Information gateway 4 (12%) 14 (42%) 10 (30%) 5 (15%) 6 39 21 Capacity building 10 (31%) 10 (31%) 8 (25%) 4 (13%) 8 40 20 Technical support 10 (30%) 13 (39%) 8 (24%) 2 (6%) 7 40 20 Funding source for 14 (48%) 9 (31%) 4 (14%) 2 (7%) 10 39 21 countries Funding source for 15 (55%) 8 (30%) 3 (11%) 1 (4%) 10 37 23 regions 7. How effective is GWP in each of the following roles? Don't No Negligible Modest Substantial Major Total know response Advocacy of IWRM 1 (3%) 11 (38%) 11 (38%) 6 (21%) 10 39 21 Information gateway 7 (23%) 11 (37%) 8 (27%) 4 (13%) 9 39 21 Convening 5 (18%) 11 (39%) 10 (36%) 2 (7%) 12 40 20 organization on water Capacity building 11 (38%) 12 (41%) 2 (7%) 4 (14%) 11 40 20 Technical support 11 (37%) 12 (40%) 5 (17%) 2 (7%) 9 39 21 Funding source for 11 (48%) 9 (39%) 3 (13%) 0 (0%) 16 39 21 countries 8. How relevant is the focus on IWRM? Major 10 30% Substantial 13 39% Modest 9 27% Negligible 1 3% Don't know 7 No answer 20 Annex I 108 9. How beneficial of GWP's activities to Bank operations? Major 1 3% Substantial 8 27% Modest 11 37% Negligible 10 33% Don't know 11 No answer 19 10. GWP's contribution to better institutions for water management has been: Don't No Negligible Modest Substantial Major Total know response Global 5 (19%) 7 (26%) 10 (37%) 5 (19%) 12 39 21 Regional 7 (26%) 9 (33%) 8 (30%) 3 (11%) 11 38 22 Country 12 (44%) 9 (33%) 6 (22%) 0 (0%) 12 39 21 Local Area 11 (52%) 7 (52%) 3 (14%) 0 (0%) 17 38 22 11. GWP's contribution to better water management has been: Don't No Negligible Modest Substantial Major Total know response Global 3 (12%) 7 (28%) 10 (40%) 5 (20%) 14 39 21 Regional 2 (8%) 4 (15%) 14 (54%) 6 (23%) 12 38 22 Country 0 (0%) 5 (21%) 10 (42%) 9 (38%) 15 39 21 Local Area 0 (0%) 3 (16%) 7 (37%) 9 (47%) 19 38 22 12. GWP's contribution to knowledge on water has been: Don't No Negligible Modest Substantial Major Total know response Global 3 (11%) 12 (43%) 8 (29%) 5 (18%) 11 39 21 Regional 7 (25%) 12 (43%) 7 (25%) 2 (7%) 11 39 22 Country 13 (46%) 8 (29%) 6 (21%) 1 (4%) 11 39 21 Local Area 15 (65%) 4 (17%) 4 (17%) 0 (0%) 15 38 22 13. How transparent is decision-making in GWP? Don't No Negligible Modest Substantial Major Total know response Global 6 (32%) 3 (16%) 8 (42%) 2 (11%) 20 39 21 Regional 7 (47%) 4 (27%) 3 (20%) 1 (7%) 23 38 22 Country 9 (56%) 4 (25%) 3 (19%) 0 (0%) 21 37 23 Local Area 9 (69%) 2 (15%) 2 (15%) 0 (0%) 24 37 23 109 Annex I Open-ended Comments 1. Happy to talk to you as I know Bank and GWP well (former staff member of GWP for 3 years, now with Bank for 7 years in Water Anchor). 2. While I have heard GWP mentioned many times, it seems to be another partnership and I have never been clear on its role compared to WSSCC and others. 3. I find the GWP as a global institution becoming more of a bureaucracy targeted to maintain itself and nurture the professional stature of its core leaders. I have worked more closely however with the GWP Mediterranean and find them much more helpful and influential. 4. Please send information more frequently on GWP through emails. 5. I do not like that there is not a choice between modest and substantial. There are times at which I would have selected somewhere between modest and substantial in some of these answers -- there is a big range between these two adverbs. 6. I would like to see GWP play a greater role in groundwater management, particularly in emerging global issues such as sharing knowledge of arsenic pollution 7. Role and involvement of GWP in Bangladesh are still in very limited scale and I have very limited interaction with GWP. I believe GWP can play a vital role in all the above areas, if it plays a proactive role. 8. The GWP seems to have been created as a talking forum for officials with little experience and less relevance for the development of water supply and sanitation sector in developing countries. When it disappears its absence will hardly be noted. 9. Country counterparts of GWP have been very effective in disseminating knowledge in water management particularly IWRM. The IWRM Toolbox provides excellent interactive platform for global learning and knowledge exchange. 10. Not sure if Question 8 was rhetorical about IWRM in general or about GWP's focus on IWRM? 11. The coordination with the Bank intervention has been nonexistent in the country I am working. Note that the World Bank has large portfolio in WSS but has not received any of the assistances GWP is providing. 12. GWP's focus on water related environmental issues, the weakest areas of IWRM needs greater attention, resources and visibility. 13. GWP is an organization whose mission, goals, objectives and activities are not widely known. GWP's impact therefore cannot be said to add up to much 14. GWP is new in the region. Thus, there are no much activities to comment. However we feel that in the last two years a kind of revamping of GWP has happened in the LAC region. 15. The GWP is no longer a thought leader, nor an effective advocacy group. It has been in decline for a decade. It is now largely a talk shop for underemployed retirees of international water staff Annex J 110 Annex J. List of Persons Interviewed by IEG Name Position Date and place of interview Donor and International Community Kurt Mork Jensen Senior Advisor, Danish Ministry of October 16, 2008, Stockholm Foreign Affairs, Denmark Lisbeth Jespersen Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, February 2, 2209, Washington Denmark DC. Erik Naeraa-Nicolaisen Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, October 21, 2008, Stockholm Denmark Dr. Andreas Kuck Head of Water, GTZ, Germany October 21, 2008, Stockholm Cecelia Sharp Director, SIDA, Sweden October 22, 2008, Stockholm Daniel Klasander Programme Officer, SIDA. Sweden October 22, 2008, Stockholm Guy Howard Advisor, DFID, United Kingdom October 22, 2008, Stockholm John Briscoe World Bank Director World Bank February 2, 2009, Telephone Brazil, formerly the World Bank's Water Advisor 1996­2006. Vahid Alavian World Bank Water Advisor, World August 12, 2008, Washington DC Bank 2007­2009 Meike van Ginneken World Bank Water Anchor Team, March 26, 2009, Washington DC formerly Network Officer with GWP Mohhamed Ait Kadi Former member of TEC and February 10, 2009, Telephone Minister of Irrigation , Morocco. Member Mediterranean RWP. Alan Hall Formerly Network Coordinator October 24, 2008, Oxford GWP, member of TEC Peter Rogers Professor of City and Urban February 2, 2009, Telephone Planning, Harvard University. Member of TEC Patricia Wouters Professor UNESCO Centre for October 29, 2008, Dundee Water Law, Policy and Science, Dundee University. Member of TEC Hendrik Larsen Danish Hydraulic Institute, October 22, 2008, Stockholm Denmark. Coordinator of the GWP Advisory Centre Kristina Bowman Consultant, SIDA October 21, 2008, Stockholm Julian Gayfer Team Leader of the PARC (2008) October 27­28, 2008, Edinburgh evaluation 111 Annex J Name Position Date and place of interview Global Water Partnership Margaret Cately-Carlson GWP Former Chair, GWP 2002­ February 4, 2009, Telephone 2007 Letitia Obeng GWP Chair GWP 2008­present February 20, 2009, Washington DC Martin Walshe GWP Acting Executive Secretary, October 16­23, 2008, Stockholm GWP and February 25, 2009, Washington Catherina Sahlin- GWP Head of Finance October 16­23, 2008, Stockholm Tegnander Suzanne Stromberg GWP Human Resources & October 16­23, 2008, Stockholm Administrative Officer Stephen Downey GWP Head of Communications October 16­23, 2008, Stockholm Sofia Vanner GWP EUWI Programme Officer October 16­23, 2008, Stockholm Helene Komlos Grill GWP Communications Officer October 16­23, 2008, Stockholm Karin Nordmark GWP Financial Officer October 16­23, 2008, Stockholm Peter Nyman GWP Financial Officer October 16­23, 2008, Stockholm Mercy Dikito-Wachmeister GWP Network Officer (Southeast October 16­23, 2008, Stockholm Asia, South Asia, Pacific, Caribbean) Gabriella Grau GWP Network Officer (South October 16­23, 2008, Stockholm America, central America) Axel Julie GWP Network Officer (West and October 16­23, 2008, Stockholm central Africa) Ali Kerdany GWP Network Officer (Southern October 16­23, 2008, Stockholm Africa, Eastern Africa & Mediterranean) Danka Thalmeinerova GWP Toolbox Officer October 16­23, 2008, Stockholm Karin Linde-Klerholm GWP Network Team Assistant October 16­23, 2008, Stockholm Annex K 112 Annex K. GWP Response IEG's Global Program Review The IEG Global Program Review of the GWP claims to assess the quality and independence of the second (2008) Evaluation of the GWP, provide a second opinion on the effectiveness of the GWP during the 2004­2008 Strategy period, assess the performance of the Bank as a partner in the GWP, and draw lessons for the future.74 The Review of the 2008 Independent Evaluation was not solicited and comes well into the second implementation year of the GWP Strategy for 2009­2013 which was developed based on lessons from the 2008 Independent Evaluation. GWP received the first draft IEG Review in January 2010.75 In preparing the 2009­2013 Strategy, GWP considered all the findings and recommendations of the 2008 Evaluation and strongly endorsed the key recommendations for GWP to "re- energize, re-strategize and re-organize." The new Strategy was developed with GWP Network-wide participation and has been endorsed by the GWP Financial Partners and, notably, by those donors who commissioned and participated in the 2008 Independent Evaluation. Though the Review is ambitious in its intent, GWP remains disappointed with its final quality, despite numerous and substantive comments and suggestions on previous drafts. Corrections made have been superficial, focusing only on the examples provided by GWP. It does not appear that IEG has attempted to review/check the statements of the author despite the extent and nature of GWPs comments on the drafts of the Review. Numerous findings are unsubstantiated or made with reference to a source in which the relevant finding is not as presented in the source document. In the Review, IEG gives surprising prominence to subjective statements, which are partly presented as commonly accepted opinions or facts, targeting specific individuals or groups and coloring the overall tone. Many conclusions lack further analysis and appear to present the author's own views or aspirations for the Partnership. GWP would urge for a more comprehensive review by IEG management before allowing the conclusions of this Review to provide lessons for the design and operation of advocacy networks in the future. The value added of this "second opinion" is questionable. Given the above, GWP has found it necessary to discuss the content of the IEG review further in this Response for clarification purposes. Some key points discussed in detail below are summarized as follows: GWP considers that the 2008 Independent Evaluation was of high quality. All relevant recommendations have been integrated into the new 2009­2013 Strategy. GWP grew as a Partnership and Network during the Strategy period, and newly formed RWPS and CWPS, supported by the Secretariat and Technical Committee, began to establish themselves and focus on helping countries with IWRM planning and other activities. Valuable lessons were learned for the new Strategy period. Ensuring sound fiduciary oversight was an important part of GWP governance, 74. IEG Global Program Review of the GWP, page vii. 75. IEG began its Review in August 2008 and the lead author of the Review was also a peer reviewer of the (controversial) 2004 OED GWP Case Study and as a peer reviewer, "provided extensive comments on earlier drafts of this report which helped improve this paper." 113 Annex K management and sustainability during the Strategy period. Local fundraising became a key tool for the Partnership. GWP has also commented on each of the lessons provided by IEG. The External Evaluation of GWP GWP's view on how the Review discusses the 2008 External Evaluation: GWP shares the view expressed in the Review that the 2008 Independent Evaluation was independent and of high quality.76 The Review looks critically at the way in which the 2008 Independent Evaluation was conceived, procured and undertaken. GWP urged IEG to invite the Financial Partners to comment on this section in commenting on the first draft. GWP's perspective is that the 2008 Independent Evaluation produced an extremely useful assessment of GWP over the 2004­2008 Strategy Period. The Effectiveness of GWP during the 2004­2008 Strategy Period Comments on the use of a Master's degree research results and the Program Evaluation of the Partnership for Africa's Water Development Program (PAWD) by the Review: A large part of the Review's section on the effectiveness of GWP is drawn from, or relies on a 2007 Master's degree thesis on "Lateral Stakeholder Alignment in the Global Water Partnership" rather than an analysis of the findings of the 2008 Independent Evaluation. The research design of the thesis relies entirely on surveys that were administered to stakeholders via email and the author states that given the limitations of the survey method, the findings from this research should be treated with some caution.77 The research behind the thesis is based on 76 responses (13 percent of the estimated 590 GWP partners receiving the survey) and the data from several of the regions are based on surveys received from only two (CACENA, MED, EAF) or four (CAR, CAF) partners in those respective regions.78 The quality of the data is not at a level to substantiate the conclusions in this section resulting in several simplistic observations. Additionally, aspects of the PAWD have been used to draw conclusions for the GWP Network as a whole by the IEG Review. Two examples follow. The PAWD evaluation reviewed a program which was very specifically designed for a particular purpose with a log frame approach. This resulted in a "project orientation" (which some expressed as beneficial, others as detrimental, to the capacity building aspects of the program). The conclusions and lessons from PAWD cannot be extrapolated to cover the effectiveness of GWP in Africa, or elsewhere in the Partnership. In other parts of its Review, IEG also mistakenly equates the PAWD program and its design with the Global Water Partnership. PAWD was a welcome specific project and is not the Global Water Partnership. 76. Review, page 12, paragraph 2.10. 77. Katherine W. Parrot, Lateral Stakeholder Alignment in the Global Water Partnership Thesis, MIT, pages 38­39. 78. Katherine W. Parrot, Lateral Stakeholder Alignment in the Global Water Partnership Thesis, MIT, page 42. Annex K 114 Another point is that the IEG review uses the PAWD evaluation to substantiate inter alia conclusions about the impact of GWP in promoting the development of IWRM plans.79 The PAWD evaluation covered only the program in the five relevant CWPs. It did not compare implementation with the implementation of GWP activities in other Regions. The main message from the PAWD evaluation, which does not refer to GWP, is about the design of the program. The lesson was that a log frame approach to the kind of process such as developing an IWRM plan was not appropriate due to its limitations in scope and time frames (strict deadlines) and as such future related programs should be designed to recognise that IWRM planning is a process oriented approach not a project. These examples demonstrate how IEG's methodology, use of sources and the "cherry-picking" of information, makes it difficult to consider that the stated assessment of the effectiveness of GWP meets IEG's own standards of review. RELEVANCE OF OBJECTIVES GWP operates in 13 Regions, all of which have different context and differing demands: Figure 4 refers to "extent of agreement about the GWP way of doing (sic) IWRM" which demonstrates both a lack of understanding of IWRM and of the differing regional context in which GWP works. The conclusion drawn, that "these findings argue for greater selectivity over the level of GWP support for countries and regions"80 is premature. GWP is a demand- led and not a supply driven organization and the level of activity in the GWP regions and countries is determined by the Regional and the Country Partnerships themselves, through their strategies and work programming activities which are supported by the GWPO. RELEVANCE OF DESIGN It is acknowledged with hindsight that the setting of numerical targets for IWRM Plans, although well-intentioned and in the spirit of the times, was over-ambitious. EFFICACY Comment on Risk Management with Host Institutions: The 2008 Independent Evaluation addressed efficacy issues also. However, the IEG Review makes a number of unfounded assumptions about the lack of GWP policy on risk management with regard to Host Institutions and on GWP's stance on the legal status of Country Water Partnerships.81 GWP acknowledges that there are challenges and issues yet to be addressed. Substantial improvements in policy setting were made during the relevant strategy period, leaving GWP in a better position to address these than was the case in 2004. During the strategy period under review, GWPO introduced new Host institution agreements for RWP/RTACs (2005) and guidelines for the preparation for such agreements which set out an approval process as well as recommendations and checkpoints for the selection. This aimed at strengthening the relationship with Host Institutions and improving the management thereof and continues to 79. E.g., paragraph 3.15, Boxes 5 and 7. 80. Review, paragraph 3.7. 81. E.g., paragraphs 3.23 and 3.24. 115 Annex K evolve. GWP's policy on legal registration was available in the Conditions for Accreditation for RWPS and CWPs adopted during the Strategy period (2005) and many CWPs are legally registered. GWP considers that the technical excellence of the Technical Committee and its leadership during the strategy period under review is to be applauded. The Committee stayed up-to-date on relevant global knowledge and has used its various publications effectively to support knowledge sharing in the Network. EFFICIENCY This section is mildly critical of the level of GWP administrative (i.e., Secretariat) costs, which were considered proportionate by the Evaluation.82 Table 5 is used by IEG to make the case that costs were on the high side. It is clear from a review of the five global programs being compared that they do not account for administrative expenses in the same way. GWP is currently (2010) maintaining its Secretariat costs at existing levels although there are strong reasons, some of which are presented in the Review,83 for higher expenditures. Comments about statements and assumptions in Review about funding in GWP: The discourse on regional allocations and expenditures misrepresents the way in which GWP allocates its core funds to the GWP Regions. Table 6 is misleading in the way it groups the 13 GWP Regions (under World Bank Regions). The allocation of core funds is and was consistent, clear and transparent. The primary purpose of the GWP core funds for the regions is to support the regional secretariat and a minimum set of necessary activities to allow the partnership to operate. Each region therefore received (and still receives) effectively the same level of core funding since the cost of running a regional office is comparable across the GWP regions.84 The facilitation fund and national dialogues were both one-off funding streams to address specific needs across the network. The facilitation fund aimed to provide leverage for local fundraising by providing co-funding to initiatives taken by the regional and country water partnerships for program activities. The program on national dialogues was launched in 2006 and the dialogues were held to help countries further develop and maintain momentum in the process of development of national IWRM Plans to meet the 2005 target for the WSSD Plan of Implementation. The RWPs and CWPs applied for these facilitation funds and/or dialogue funds in accordance with criteria distributed to the Network and their use was reflected in Regional expenditures. GWPO's fundraising strategy in the relevant period aimed primarily at securing core funding, allowing equal allocation throughout the Network and facilitating administration and management. Initiatives were also supported when RWPs wished to apply for earmarked funding made available by donors. 82. PARC, Global Water Partnership Joint Donor Evaluation (2008 Independent Evaluation). 83. E.g., paragraph 26. 84. All regions received the same amount (US$300,000 per region) with two exceptions, the Caribbean (US$200,000) as it is a smaller region and CAF which was new. Annex K 116 The funding allocation was also reviewed by the 2008 Independent Evaluation team which actually interviewed RWP/CWP colleagues, without any remark supporting the criticism in the IEG Review. The 2008 Independent Evaluation did however comment that the procedures in place e.g., for national dialogues can be burdensome for the CWPs especially for the small amounts received and identified some difficulties in local fundraising which are recognized.85 GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY GWP builds on and learns from its past, as it evolves: Current GWP management and leadership fully acknowledge the important work and the progress achieved with the support and guidance of the management and leadership of the Partnership and Network during the Strategy period 2004­2008. The important results, outcomes and lessons learned from that period have informed the work of this period, as will those of this period help those that will follow. This is an important strength of the Partnership that we learn, build and evolve. The review of the management of GWPO during the Strategy period was highly subjective in earlier drafts, seemed to be based on anecdotal views and although it has been toned down, could have been handled as professionally as by the 2008 Independent Evaluation. A rather more politically aware, sensitive and forward-looking way of expressing what have been difficult management issues for GWP would serve more purpose. The Review raises a number of issues related to representation and accountability and claims that GWPs "reliance on individual partners" reduced accountability to partners.86 Much of the criticism seems based on a misunderstanding of the statutory function of the Network Meeting as well as the relationships among GWP, its partners and the RWPs/CWPs. The challenges in governance of a Network such as GWP and in increased communication with and engagement from Partners contributing to the global discourse is however recognized by GWP. The comments on GWP's transparency and reference to "opaque processes of resource allocation"87 are ill founded, reflect a lack of understanding about the Partnership and generate the perception that preconceived views are being put forth. As elaborated above, allocation of funds has been clear and transparent. Information on GWP's resource allocations/expenditures to RWPs (who allocate funds to CWPS) and expenditures is available through Annual Reports and other publically available information from the 2004 ­ 2008 Strategy period. Clarification on Funding: GWP funding from donors is typically referred to as "core funds". Some donors place restrictions on where the funds can be used. Those funds are referred to as "restricted funds". For the donors who provide restricted funds, the amounts to be given to the identified RWPs & CWPs are set out in donor agreements. GWPO provides fiduciary oversight. GWPO worked with restricted funding donors to address the common goal of 85. Evaluation, page 27­28 and 34­35. 86. Review, paragraph 18. 87. Review, paragraph 4.23. 117 Annex K improving the management of water resources in the countries and regions specified by in the donor agreements. Locally raised funds: GWP transparently allocated core funds to the RWPs and encouraged regional and country income generation during the Strategy period under review. Regions were not penalized for raising funds. Regions took pride in being able to generate additional funds locally to support their work. Some were more effective than others and the challenge and task for GWPO was to help all progress. The facilitation fund was set up to further support local fundraising. Locally raised funds were reported in a transparent manner by Region in GWPOs Annual Reports. THE BANK'S PERFORMANCE AS A PARTNER The discussion on the World Bank's involvement in the 2004 to 2008 Strategy Period is welcomed. GWP is of the view that strengthened collaboration with the World Bank at the global, regional and country level on IWRM is a means to contribute to strengthening the quality and sustainability of investment in the water sector. There is a useful lesson noted concerning the role of the Bank in the activities of GWP during the Strategy period under review. GWP will welcome galvanized, renewed and strengthened participation of the Bank in the various governance and other bodies of the GWP where it holds a position and, through this, a reinforced engagement between GWP and the World Bank at global as well as at regional and country levels. This is already in evidence in the 2009­2013 Strategy Period. LESSONS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE GWP Comments on the lessons: With respect to paragraph 6.1, GWP does not share the author's view that GWP's governance arrangements as such caused perceived centralization during the Strategy period under review. The necessary managerial focus on sound fiduciary management and control systems which, as noted in the review,88 were essential to sustain the continued financial support of GWP was extremely important. The Strategy period ended with a solid basis for next steps in the growth and development of the partnership. 6.3 First bullet point. GWP is of the opinion that the 2008 Evaluation was transparently independent. 6.3 Second bullet point. GWP is a demand-led and responsive international action-oriented network and an intergovernmental organization which is funded by a number of bilateral development agencies. It is not a supply-driven program. Identifying where the needs are the greatest and what level of support is required is neither the objective nor mandate of GWP. The regions and countries are autonomous and GWPO does not prescribe which actions they are to engage in but supports them in the development of their own strategies (under the umbrella of the Global Strategy) and work plans. This was the case both during the strategy period under review and the current one. 88. Review, paragraph 4.8. Annex K 118 The Review is critical of the ability of the Network Meeting to hold the Steering Committee accountable. The Network Meeting does not have the task to approve the budget. This is a function of the Steering Committee. The Network Meeting's task is to focus on strategic direction and programmatic considerations. It however has opportunity to provide input at each Network Meeting if it finds the Steering Committee considerations in relation to the budget to be wrong. GWP does not share the view that restricted funding lacked transparency. These funds which RWPs/CWPs were encouraged to raise, were carefully allocated and monitored. 6.3 Third bullet point. Based on the findings of the 2008 Independent Evaluation and this Review, the author states five principle risk factors one being that GWP needs to address the politicization of regional and country partnerships. Avoiding a situation where regional politics negatively impacts the effectiveness of GWP is an essential part of the principle values of GWP and well reflected in the continuously monitored Conditions for Accreditation for RWPs and CWPs as well as the Guidelines for selection of Host Institutions for RWPs For certain regions the rotation of the secretariat was however perceived as a means to extend participation and ensure equal benefits of GWP throughout the region. As experience over the years has shown the negative effects of rotation, such as loss of institutional knowledge, has an impact on the operation of the regional partnership. GWPO revised the Guidelines for selection of Host Institution for RWPs and actively engages in dialogue with the relevant regions to achieve a more long term arrangement for regional secretariats. With respect to the recommendation to review the legal status of CWPs regarding contractual involvement in water operations, GWP's policy on legal registration was available in the Conditions for Accreditation for RWPs and CWPs and several CWPs are (and were) legally registered. GWP however recognizes a need to more clearly communicate this policy. The programmatic aspect relating to whether contractual involvement in water operations is within GWP's objective and mandate should however be seen as a separate matter. 6.3 Fourth bullet point. Regarding the lesson that GWP should apply greater selectivity based on accurate assessments of local needs and capacity, please see the comments referring to 6.3 second bullet point. GWP fully realizes that one size does not fit all, which is the fundamental reason why GWP does not prescribe to Partners, RWPs or CWPs what their actions should be but provides guidance on identifying critical needs and ways of meeting them. This demand-responsiveness results in different activities in different regions. 6.3 Fifth bullet point. It is understood that this statement refers to the 2004 to 2008 Strategy Period, during which, in 2007, the annual meeting was replaced by three interregional meetings, specifically to increase stakeholder participation and knowledge exchange (Annual report 2007). The new 2009­2013 GWP communication strategy and increased efforts in this area fully recognize the need to for GWP to improve its facilitation of inter-regional cross fertilization of ideas and provide mechanisms for sharing knowledge and lessons learned. The GWP experience has been that committed Partners and individuals worked together and grew together to help make the Partnership more relevant in the Strategy period under review. There was continuous expansion of GWP both in terms of number of partners and number of RWPs and CWPs. 119 Annex K 6.3 Sixth bullet point. Improved monitoring and evaluation was and remains one of the challenges of an advocacy Network. The introduction of Outcome Mapping, which contrary to logical frameworks or result chains provides a tool suitable to advocacy networks, has significantly improved GWPs ability to meet this challenge. The results of the efforts put into improving the monitoring and evaluation throughout the Network are however just starting to be seen in the reporting and continuous improvements are expected. Delivering the strategy 2009­2013 with its more operational focus GWP has initiated a process of change to strengthen and reform organizational and governance structures. Final Comment: GWP and our donors continue to maintain a strategic dialogue in order address common goals of improving the management of water resources in a way that is beneficial to the regions and countries and meets GWP's objective. GWP regrets any remaining statements in the IEG review that may be offensive or that cast aspersion on GWP stakeholders. The Global Program Review Series The following reviews are available from IEG. Volume #1, Issue #1: ProVention Consortium Issue #2: Medicines for Malaria Venture Issue #3: Development Gateway Foundation Issue #4: Cities Alliance Volume #2, Issue #1: Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund Issue #2: Association for the Development of Education in Africa Issue #3: Population and Reproductive Health Capacity Building Program Issue #4: International Land Coalition Volume #3, Issue #1: Consultative Group to Assist the Poor Issue #2: Global Development Network Issue #3: Global Forum for Health Research Issue #4: Global Invasive Species Program Volume #4, Issue #1: Stop Tuberculosis Partnership Issue #2: International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, and Technology for Development Issue #3: The Global Water Partnership GPR The Global Water Partnership (GWP) was established by the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA), the United Nations Development Programme, and the World Bank in 1996 in response to international concerns about deteriorating fresh water resources. Its mission has been to support countries in the sustainable management of their water resources through an advocacy network based on the principles of integrated water resources management (IWRM). The GWP functioned as a unit of SIDA until July 2002. Then it became an independent intergovernmental organization under international law known as the Global Water Partnership Organization (GWPO), which provides support to the network -- now comprising more than 2,100 individual partners that have grouped them- selves in regional, country, and area water partnerships. A joint donor group led by the U.K. Department for International Development commissioned an evaluation of the GWP at the end of its 2004­08 strategy period. This evaluation found that GWP's global policy leader- ship continued to be recognized, especially in facilitating multi-stakeholder dialogues on IWRM. Major growth occurred at the country level, with the maturing of country partnerships, the development of national IWRM plans, and the facilitation of bilateral funding to support IWRM initiatives, although the GWP did not achieve the ambitious targets it had set in 2004. More time is clearly needed for IWRM to take root. The present review found that the GWP is generally rising to the many challenges in governing and managing a global advocacy and knowledge network. The World Bank was one of the three founding partners of the GWP in 1996, contributing $5.7 million from 1996 to 2002, and it remains one of the 10 sponsoring partners. In spite of the Bank's continuing legal responsibility to contribute to GWP's gover- nance, the review found that the Bank has effectively been a silent partner since it stopped contributing financially in 2003. The Bank needs to clearly establish its position among the sponsoring partners in the GWP to avoid raising false expectations and risk. The GWP, in turn, would welcome strengthened collaboration with the World Bank on IWRM at global, regional, and country levels as a means of enhancing the quality and sustainability of investments in the water sector.