Main authors: Susanne Wuijts, Jacqueline Claessens, Luke Farrow, Donnacha G Doody, Susanne Klages, Christophoros Christophoridis, Rozalija Cvejić, Matjaž Glavan, Ingrid Nesheim, Froukje Platjouw, Isobel Wright, Jenny Rowbottom, Morten Graversgaard, Cors van den Brink, Inês Leitão, António Ferreira, Sandra Boekhold
Editor: Jane Brandt
Source document: »Wuijts, S. et al. (2021) Protection of drinking water resources from agricultural pressures: effectiveness of EU regulations in the context of local realities. FAIRWAY Project Deliverable 6.3R 70 pp


A data collection questionnaire relating to the effectiveness dimension of the OECD Water Governance Principles (2015) (»Methodology: 3. Questionnaires) was completed by each of the FAIRWAY case studies.


Questions hold both semi-quantitative (scoring within a range) and qualitative elements (explanation of the score).

OECD Principles Questions
   Q1-Q6 General introductory questions
1       Roles and Responsibilities       Q7

What is the status of the transposition of the directive into country/ Case Study law?

Scoring, scale 1 to 6:
1 - Development not started or delayed in most subnational jurisdictions
6 - Objectives consistently achieved by all authorities, and periodically reviewed and revised

Q8

What is the status of the allocation of responsibilities for strategic planning under this directive? Distinguish the different scales: national, regional, river basin, catchment level, farm level.

Scoring scale 1 to 6:
1 - No obvious demarcation of roles and responsibilities
6 - Roles and responsibilities very clearly demarcated with no overlaps

Q9 

What is the status of the allocation of responsibilities for policy implementation for this directive? Distinguish the different scales: national, regional, river basin, catchment level, farm level.

Scoring scale 1 to 6:
1 - No obvious demarcation of roles and responsibilities
6 - Roles and responsibilities very clearly demarcated with no overlaps

Q10 

What is the status of coordination and the collaboration between government authorities and agencies in relevant sectors? Distinguish the different scales: national, regional, river basin, catchment level, farm level.

Scoring scale 1 to 6:
1 - Development not started or not progressing
6 - Objectives consistently achieved and periodically reviewed and revised

Q10a

Which coordination tools for policy coherence are relevant to horizontal collaboration in water policy making? Distinguish for river basin organisation/agencies, regulations for sharing roles between Actors, co-ordination agency or commission, contractual arrangements, intermediate bodies or actors, financial transfers or incentives

Scoring scale 1 to 6:
1 - Development not started or not progressing
6 - Objectives consistently achieved and periodically reviewed and revised

Q11

What are the most frequent obstacles to effective horizontal collaboration between different authorities and agencies? Distinguish for overlapping, unclear, non-existing allocation of responsibilities, intensive competition between different ministries, interference of lobby groups, absence of common information and frame of reference for policy makers, lack of high political commitment and leadership in water policy, lack of institutional incentives for co-operation, lack of staff and time, lack of technical capabilities, difficult implementation of federal government decisions at local and regional level, absence of strategic planning and sequencing of decisions, absence of monitoring and evaluation of the outcome of national/regional legislation, contradiction between national agencies and supranational recommendations/directives, lack of citizens concern on water policy.

Scoring scale 1 to 6:
1 - Highly obstructive to coordination between different administrative agencies/entities
6 - Highly collaborative and effective coordination between different administrative agencies/entities

Q11a Please select two of the most significant obstacles (either from the list above or from your own suggestions) and provide a more in depth description
2           Scale           Q12

What is the status of management instruments used to support drinking water pollution control? Distinguish the different scales: national, regional, river basin, catchment level, farm level.

Scoring scale 1 to 6:
1 - No management instruments being implemented
6 - Management instruments are implemented on a long term basis, with excellent coverage across sectors and the country and are highly effective

Q12a Please provide two management instruments which are considered successful in your country and an explanation of how they function and what they achieved.
Q13

Is there a mechanism for ensuring policies are set at the appropriate geographic scale? For example, between hydrological boundaries and administrative boundaries.

Scoring scale 1 to 6:
1 - There are issues and no mechanisms in place
6 - All required mechanisms for bridging scales of governance have been recognised and implemented by the majority of authorities

Q13a Please provide two bridging mechanisms that proved to be successful in your country and a few lines explaining how they function and what has been achieved.
Q14

What is the status of management instruments used to support implementing of water quality monitoring? Distinguish the different scales: national, regional, river basin, catchment level, farm level.

Scoring scale 1 to 6:
1 - No monitoring systems in place
6 - Long-term monitoring is carried out with excellent coverage and excellent use by stakeholders

Q14a

How important are the below performance indicators in monitoring and evaluating policy? Distinguish environmental, social, economic, citizen indicators.

Scoring scale 1 to 6:
1 - No monitoring systems in place
6 - Long-term monitoring is carried out with excellent coverage and excellent use by stakeholders

Q15

What is the status of the framework for transboundary water management for the most important basins?

Scoring scale 1 to 6:
1 - Development not started or not progressing
6 - Objectives consistently achieved and periodically reviewed and revised

Q16

What is the current status for the transboundary data and information between countries?

Scoring scale 1 to 6:
1 - Development not started or not progressing
6 - Objectives consistently achieved and periodically reviewed and revised

Q17 Transboundary comments
Q18

What are the current levels of public participation at each level of governance below? Distinguish the different scales: national, regional, river basin, catchment level, farm level.

Scoring scale 1 to 6:
1 - No communication between government and stakeholders on policy, planning and management
6 - Representation: Formal representation of stakeholders in government stakeholders in government processes contributing to decision making on important issues and activities, as appropriate

Q18a Are there mechanisms or regular assessments of stakeholder engagement, for example, measuring costs or other obstacles? Please explain.
3   Policy coherence   Q19

What is the current status for data and information sharing with each level below? Distinguish the different scales: national, regional, river basin, catchment level, farm level.

Scoring scale 1 to 6:
1 - No data and information sharing
6 - All relevant data and information are online and freely accessible to all

Q20

Which coordination tools for policy coherence are relevant to horizontal collaboration in water policy governance? Distinguish multi-sectoral conferences between central governments, platforms for sharing information between industry experts, inter-agency programme (two or more organisations working together).

Scoring scale 1 to 6:
1 - Development not started or progressing
6 - Being used by authorities and consistently achieved, and periodically reviewed and revised

Q21

What are the most frequent obstacles for effective vertical co-ordination across different levels of governance? Distinguish lack of consistency in information exchange between groups in vertical coordination, fragmentation of water governance, disproportionate funding impacting the effectiveness of water governance, insufficient technical knowledge, infrastructure undermining the implementation capacities of local actors.

Scoring scale 1 to 6:
1 - Obstacle blocking effective coordination
6 - Strategies to manage obstacles are in place, working and periodically reviewed and revised

Capacity  Q22

What is the status for the authorities' resource (people/ finance/ infrastructure) for leading governance of water policy measures? Distinguish the different scales: national, regional, river basin, catchment level, farm level.

Scoring scale 1 to 6:
1 - No dedicated government authorities to lead
6 - Authorities have the capacity to effectively lead periodic revisions

Q23

Which broad governance measures have been adopted to build capacity to deliver water policy measures? Distinguish collaboration with the private sector, financial incentives, performance indicators and targets holding local government accountable, citizen participation, involvement in civil society organisation, data bases (sharing information).

Scoring scale 1 to 6:
1 - Development of measures started or not progressing
6 - Measures in place and consistently used and periodically reviewed and revised

5 Data & Information Q24 Are measures based upon knowledge of issues, possible interventions and possibilities of the legal framework?
7 Regulatory frameworks in place and enforced Q25 Are regulations and agreements enforceable by public and/or private parties, and are there appropriate remedies available?
9   Transparency and integrity in decision-making   Q26 How are conflicts prevented or addressed?
Q27 What mechanisms are in place?
Q28 Are they used?
10     Stakeholder engagement     Q29 How are stakeholders (actors) selected and involved?
Q30 Is this selection based upon the analysis where the pollution comes from, who is affected and who has the power to act with relevant measures?
Q31 What stakeholders are not involved and why?
Q32 How is the interaction with upstream/ downstream actors and other institutional levels organised? (if relevant)
Q33 How is the stakeholder involvement valued by the stakeholders themselves (in terms of better informed, efficient decision making)
11  Trade-offs across users, rural and urban areas, and generations  Q34 Are agreed service level decisions based on trade-offs of costs, benefits and distributional effects of various alternatives?
Q35 How does decision making take place?
12  Monitoring and evaluation of water policies  Q36 Is there monitoring on outcome in terms of water quality improvement?
Q37  Are programmes of measures being adapted upon the monitoring results?  

 


Notes:

For full references to papers quoted in this article see

»References

Go To Top