Indicator 6.5.1 Degree of integrated water resources management

Goal 6: Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all

Target 6.5: By 2030, implement integrated water resources management at all levels, including through trans boundary cooperation as appropriate

Indicator 6.5.1: Degree of integrated water resources management implementation

November 2021

SDG 6 (6.1 – 6.6). targets 6.a and 6.b, indicator 6.5.1 SDGs and their targets, including: (1.4); (2.3); (4.7); (5.5); (7.1); (8.5); (10.2); (11.3); (13.2); (15.9); (16.3, 16.5 – 16.7)

Ministry of Water and Environment

Ivan Biiza

Water and Environment Sector Liaison Department

Economist

+256 782 848455

P.O Box 20026, Kampala

Ivan.biiza@mwe.go.ug

Definition:

This indicator reflects the degree to which integrated water resources management (IWRM) is implemented, by assessing the four components of policies, institutions, management tools, and financing.

It takes into account the various users and uses of water with the aim of promoting positive social, economic and environmental impacts on all levels, including transboundary where appropriate.

The indicator measures the stages of development and implementation of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM), on a scale of 0 to 100, in six categories as provided in the Rationale.

IWRM is defined as “a process which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources in order to maximize economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems.” (GWP 2010).

Concepts:

The concept of IWRM is measured in four main sections, each representing key dimension of IWRM:

1. Enabling environment: this includes the policies, laws, plans and strategies which create the ‘enabling environment’ for IWRM.
2. Institutions and participation: includes the range and roles of political, social, economic and administrative institutions that help to support the implementation of IWRM.
3. Management Instruments: The tools and activities that enable decision-makers and users to make rational and informed choices between alternative actions.
4. Financing: Budgeting and financing made available and used for water resources development and management from various sources.

Percent

Dimension of the Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) concepts.

A survey conducted by the Ministry of Water and Environment.

There is a technical team constituted to manage SDG 6.5 at country level. This technical team convenes and agrees on the management of the survey.

The SDG Focal Point officers are responsible for coordinating the data collection process to engage Local Government and non-governmental stakeholders, as appropriate in the context of each Local Government, to develop draft responses and finalise responses. This may be via email, workshops, and online notices.

The responsible ministry or SDG focal point officers in other relevant ministries/agencies compile responses to the questionnaire. Each possible response option has a score which is used to calculate the overall indicator score

Annually

Three months after the close of the Financial Year.

Ministry of Water and Environment.

Ministry of Water and Environment

The mandate of the Ministry of Water and Environment among many others is to ensure the effective management of the water resources and sustainable water use in the country.

The indicator provides a direct progress measurement of the first part of Target 6.5 “implement integrated water resources management at all levels”. The indicator score provides an easy and understandable way of measuring progress towards the target, with ‘0’ interpreted as no implementation of IWRM, and ‘100’ interpreted as IWRM being fully implemented.

The challenge of subjectivity in responses associated with this type of survey is being addressed in a number of ways:

1. Draft responses are reviewed by a number of governmental and non-governmental stakeholders in an open, inclusive and transparent process.
2. The respondents are encouraged to provide further information to qualify their responses so as to limit on the gaps in the data collected.
3. Guidelines are provided for each of the four main sections, each question, and each of the six thresholds for every single question, to ensure responses are as objective as possible, and are comparable both between Local Governments, and between reporting periods.

The nature of the target, the survey does not disaggregate the data by sex, age group, income among others.

Computation Method:

1. The data collection tool contains questions divided into the four main sections described above.
2. Each question is given a score between 0 and 100, in increments of 10, guided by threshold descriptions for the following 6 categories:
   • Very low (0)
   • Low (20)
   • Medium-low (40)
   • Medium-high (60)
   • High (80)
   • Very high (100)

Note that guidance is provided for each threshold for each question, to ensure objective and comparable results.

1. The un-weighted average of the question scores within each of the four sections is calculated to give a score of 0 – 100 for each section, rounded to the nearest whole number.
2. The section scores (rounded to the nearest whole number), are averaged (un-weighted), and rounded to the nearest whole number, to give the indicator score, expressed as a number between 0 and 100

There is a dedicated SDG 6.5.1 technical team to ensure the quality of the statistical results.

Initially, the data goes through any regional structure quality assurance and approval processes, before being submitted to the task team. The technical team then undertakes the Quality Assurance. All issues are discussed between the technical team and the Focal Point officers in the regional structures. Only when all issues are resolved, are the data finalised and entered into the SDG update performance report. The data is then submitted to the Ministry SDG focal point officers, who collects all indicator data and also undertakes a further quality check, prior to submission to the SDG 6 Indicator National Database.

None

The respective task team which is mandated to update this particular indicator will follow through the Top Policy Committee which review all the reforms and regulations inclined to improve Integrated Water Resources Management.

It should be noted however that the approval of these reforms is according to the constitutional recommendations which in turn gazette the policies for implementation by the respective parties. In this regard it is pertinent that the

Solicitor General’s office gives the approval before the Ministry and therein the SDG respective secretariat captures these policies for implementation.

The revised draft survey findings are validated at a multi-stakeholder workshop including water user associations, private sector, interest groups concerned with e.g. environment, agriculture, poverty, and academia. Other alternative means of consultation like emails or online call for public submissions are considered.

In addition, SDG focal point officers discuss with relevant officials and consolidate the input into a final version which is the basis for calculating the degree of IWRM implementation (0-100) for global reporting.

The Ministry then submits the final indicator score to UBOS for reporting on SDG data.

The quality management procedures in place are deemed sufficient to ensure the data submitted to the SDGs

Indicator Database is of acceptable quality.

Time series:

SDG period: 2016, 2017.

Disaggregation:

None

None

References:

• Uganda Water Week Report.

• Annual Performance Report.

• SDG 6 National Update report.