whether water governance systems are performing optimally and help to adjust
them where necessary. The analytical assessment model underlying these principles
is more a building block approach with identified gaps and possible bridges
between them. That is of course part of the movement towards an integrated
assessment tool, but not yet a full tool itself.
In 2013 the UNDP published a report with a framework for water governance
assessment. This governance assessment framework consists of three basic components (actors and institutions, governance principles and performance) (UNDP
2013: 8). Together these form ‘water governance’. These components are further
described, and then assessed with an eight-step method (from clarifying the
objectives and conducting a stakeholder analysis through deciding an assessment
framework and selecting indicators to analyzing results and communicating them)
(ibid.: 18). More concretely, each of the three basic components is discussed with a
‘how to’ approach for its assessment. However, the discussion remains rather
theoretical and general. It very accurately points at all the facets encompassing
water governance and how these interact, but does not yet lead to a directly
implementable assessment method.
The OECD is, however, engaged in an extensive exercise to come towards such
an integrated tool, or an integrated set of indicators. As a first step they have created
an overview of all indicators and assessment tools that they knew of (OECD
‘Inventory of Water Governance Indicators and Measurement Frameworks’—version July 10th 2015a). In this inventory they list a whole lot of indicators, but also
databases, guidelines, maps, and assessment tools. Focusing on the assessment
tools, they mention 25 assessment tools, partially already listed by earlier such
effort (e.g. UNDP 2013). Some of the assessment frameworks come from large
supranational organizations, such as multiple assessment tools from the UN (different programs). Others include for instance the work of Van Rijswick et al. (2014)
mentioned above, but also the work of the authors of this book. Many of the
mentioned assessment tools have a specific focus, for instance gender (UN
WWAP UNESCO, Project for Gender Sensitive Water Monitoring Assessment and
Reporting), solidarity (UNDP Global water solidarity, Certificate for Decentralized
Water Solidarity), or sanitation (for instance UN-Water, WHO, GLAAS Global
Analysis and Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking-Water, and IDB, IWA,
AquaRating). Others focus more on example setting and best practices (for instance
UN-CEPAL, Best practices in regulating state-owned and municipal water utilities).
What is noteworthy in this excellent overview of assessment methods is that many
methods focus on specific aspects of water governance, for instance law, economy,
human rights, governmental action, etc. Many instruments are also evaluation or
monitoring assessment methods of specific plans, policies or actions, rather than
assessment tools for a full governance setting.
The OECD inventory also includes the governance assessment method discussed
in this book. For obvious reasons it is included as having a specific focus, namely
drought resilience. But actually that is not entirely correct, as the basic features of
the method are much wider applicable than solely for drought governance
1 Introduction
7
them where necessary. The analytical assessment model underlying these principles
is more a building block approach with identified gaps and possible bridges
between them. That is of course part of the movement towards an integrated
assessment tool, but not yet a full tool itself.
In 2013 the UNDP published a report with a framework for water governance
assessment. This governance assessment framework consists of three basic components (actors and institutions, governance principles and performance) (UNDP
2013: 8). Together these form ‘water governance’. These components are further
described, and then assessed with an eight-step method (from clarifying the
objectives and conducting a stakeholder analysis through deciding an assessment
framework and selecting indicators to analyzing results and communicating them)
(ibid.: 18). More concretely, each of the three basic components is discussed with a
‘how to’ approach for its assessment. However, the discussion remains rather
theoretical and general. It very accurately points at all the facets encompassing
water governance and how these interact, but does not yet lead to a directly
implementable assessment method.
The OECD is, however, engaged in an extensive exercise to come towards such
an integrated tool, or an integrated set of indicators. As a first step they have created
an overview of all indicators and assessment tools that they knew of (OECD
‘Inventory of Water Governance Indicators and Measurement Frameworks’—version July 10th 2015a). In this inventory they list a whole lot of indicators, but also
databases, guidelines, maps, and assessment tools. Focusing on the assessment
tools, they mention 25 assessment tools, partially already listed by earlier such
effort (e.g. UNDP 2013). Some of the assessment frameworks come from large
supranational organizations, such as multiple assessment tools from the UN (different programs). Others include for instance the work of Van Rijswick et al. (2014)
mentioned above, but also the work of the authors of this book. Many of the
mentioned assessment tools have a specific focus, for instance gender (UN
WWAP UNESCO, Project for Gender Sensitive Water Monitoring Assessment and
Reporting), solidarity (UNDP Global water solidarity, Certificate for Decentralized
Water Solidarity), or sanitation (for instance UN-Water, WHO, GLAAS Global
Analysis and Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking-Water, and IDB, IWA,
AquaRating). Others focus more on example setting and best practices (for instance
UN-CEPAL, Best practices in regulating state-owned and municipal water utilities).
What is noteworthy in this excellent overview of assessment methods is that many
methods focus on specific aspects of water governance, for instance law, economy,
human rights, governmental action, etc. Many instruments are also evaluation or
monitoring assessment methods of specific plans, policies or actions, rather than
assessment tools for a full governance setting.
The OECD inventory also includes the governance assessment method discussed
in this book. For obvious reasons it is included as having a specific focus, namely
drought resilience. But actually that is not entirely correct, as the basic features of
the method are much wider applicable than solely for drought governance
1 Introduction
7