DOCSLIB.ORG

Looking Back, Looking Forward – Evaluation of the Global Water Partnership (Dalberg, 10 November 2018)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Looking Back, Looking Forward – Evaluation of the Global Water Partnership (Dalberg, 10 November 2018) 2018 EVALUATION OF THE GLOBAL WATER PARTNERSHIP Commissioned by the Dutch Directorate-General for International Cooperation (DGIS) in partnership with the broader Global Water Partnership (GWP) Financing Partners’ Group, the 2018 evaluation of GWP was conducted by the consultancy Dalberg between May and July 2018. The evaluation pursued two objectives: to help inform funding decisions by DGIS, and to provide recommendations on changes needed to strengthen GWP. The evaluation included a backward-looking component covering the relevance, the accomplishments (considering notions of effectiveness, efficiency and impact), the governance and the sustainability of GWP since 2014 (start of GWP’s 2014-2019 strategy), and a forward-looking component drawing strategic and operational implications. The following documents are hereby enclosed: Looking back, looking forward – Evaluation of the Global Water Partnership (Dalberg, 10 November 2018) Management Response to the Draft Evaluation “Looking back, looking forward – Evaluation of the Global Water Partnership” (GWP, 17 August 2018) GWP Management follow-up note to the External Evaluation “Looking back, looking forward – Evaluation of the Global Water Partnership” (GWP, 21 November 2018) Global Water Partnership (GWP), Global Secretariat, PO Box 24177, 104 51 Stockholm, SWEDEN Visitor’s address: Linnégatan 87D, Phone: +46 (0)8 1213 8600, Fax: + 46 (0)8 1213 8604, e-mail: [email protected] Looking back, looking forward Evaluation of the Global Water Partnership 10 November 2018 Confidential 1 GWP Evaluation – Confidential <This page intentionally left blank> 2 GWP Evaluation – Confidential EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Context, objective and approach Commissioned by DGIS in partnership with the broader Financing Partners’ Group, this evaluation of GWP pursued two objectives: to help inform funding decisions by DGIS, and to provide recommendations on changes needed to strengthen GWP. The evaluation included a backward-looking component covering the relevance, the accomplishments (considering notions of effectiveness, efficiency and impact), the governance and the sustainability of GWP since 2014 (start of GWP’s current strategy), and a forward-looking component drawing strategic and operational implications. It was conducted over a period of 10 weeks between mid-May and end July 2018 and relied on three instruments: a review of key external reports and GWP’s internal documents, quantitative analyses based on financial data and surveys, and a series of interviews, including through field visits in three RWPs. Overall, this evaluation concludes that GWP is an important and needed player in water resources management, but it also highlights the need for major reforms to ensure that GWP maximizes its impact. Relevance Changes in the global context strongly validate the relevance of GWP’s mission, while also suggesting a need to refine its strategic focus and delivery model. The growing global water crisis and renewed emphasis on IWRM under the SDGs create a fresh opportunity for GWP (as the historical IWRM champion) to play a central role in global water efforts under the 2030 Agenda. The steady expansion of GWP’s network (+6% new Partners per year since 2014) reflects a widespread interest for its mission. Other trends point to a need for GWP to refine its model and focus. Social media are transforming network and community management; new initiatives driven by big data, the growing private sector role in water management, the evolving IWRM needs, and the regionalization of development agendas are changing the nature of IWRM interventions. Last, but not least, the multiplication of efforts linked to water governance over the past 15 years is leading to a greater degree of specialization and calling for more strategic focus. In refining its core areas of engagement, GWP can build on distinctive assets and capabilities: A network of unique breadth and depth that anchors GWP’s role as a neutral convener; a multi-level structure that positions GWP to inform global processes from the local level; broad technical expertise in water resources management; and a unique legitimacy and track record on IWRM. Accomplishments GWP has delivered against its strategic plan, thanks to its performance in core areas where it is effective and efficient. For the 2014-19 period, GWP’s strategy covers a very broad spectrum and GWP has launched activities across geographies, levels (from global processes to local support), and themes (climate, transboundary, urbanization, nexus, youth, and gender). GWP has delivered against its strategic plan and far exceeded a majority of its targets. The allocation of resources has been very uneven, thematically and geographically, and target achievement has been driven by a few themes and programs concentrating the bulk of the budgets (particularly the climate and transboundary themes), while other areas (urbanization, nexus, gender, youth) were launched with very limited resources. Existing program evaluations suggest that GWP has been efficient in its execution. They also highlight GWP’s tendency to spread thin, across areas of interventions and within programs, which raises the question of the sufficiency of resources to bring the full current portfolio to scale. 3 GWP Evaluation – Confidential Finally, as for all players in WRM, establishing the link to impact remains a challenge for GWP and an area to strengthen. Governance The mandate of GWP’s key organs is well defined and GWP’s governance is cost-effective, but its legitimacy (i.e., the clarity of stakeholder representation) and effectiveness (i.e., the existence of overlaps in responsibilities) are major weaknesses. Considering structures and staffing, we found the mandate of governance organs to be clear at both global and regional levels and GWP’s governance to be cost-effective, but identified seven important governance issues related to legitimacy and effectiveness: (i) The role of Partners in GWP’s governance is unclear; (ii) The legitimacy of decision-making is ill-defined among the different organs; (iii) The identification of independent Nomination Committee members with adequate experience is challenging; (iv) The responsibilities of the Secretariat have expanded over time and lack a clear definition; (v) Programs are not well integrated in GWP’s governance, (vi) GWP must tackle unresolved hosting issues, and (vii) Given the diversity of CWPs, they are complex to integrate in global governance or program delivery efforts. Considering key processes, we found that GWP has put in place a robust backbone for the operation of the network. It has rolled out a structured system of financial controls, result monitoring and risk management across regions and levels. Two areas require strengthening – knowledge management and strategic planning. Sustainability GWP’s sustainability is uneven, with weaknesses in terms of financial and leadership stability and a strong record in terms of embedding sustainable benefits. Financially, the organization is confronted to a significant challenge. GWP’s funding has declined in recent years and issues identified in the 2014 financial review remain – high funding concentration and declining fungibility of globally raised funds, volatility and concentration of locally raised funds. Most RWPs remain heavily dependent on global funds and will be impacted by the anticipated discontinuation of funding from DFID after 2019. The resulting fundraising needs are pushing GWP towards a program implementation model even though the inherent cyclicality of programs has been a challenge in the past. The senior leadership has been unstable over the strategy period, making it harder to tackle these issues. The sustainability of the benefits of GWP’s work is robust: As a multi-stakeholder platform, GWP leverages and promotes broad stakeholder engagement; it enhances institutional support to WRM; it has developed a broad network of strategic partners; and it builds government ownership through its delivery model anchored in RWPs and CWPs. Its sustainability could be further improved through a sharper strategic focus and a KM system helping disseminate learnings. Conclusions and recommendations This evaluation delivers a dual message. It first underscores the potential and the accomplishments of GWP: the organization has delivered against its strategic plan and put in a place an effective global architecture to monitor funding and results. It also highlights the important changes needed: a more focused strategy, a revised governance, and a more agile operating model. Over past the past decade, GWP has been slow to correct some of the weaknesses identified by external reviews (for example, the 2010 evaluation conducted by the World Bank highlighted the need to “clarify GWP’s comparative advantage in generating and disseminating global knowledge about IWRM”, as did reviews in 2014, 2015 and 2017). The development of GWP’s next strategy, changes in its senior leadership and donor base offer an opportunity for the organization to take some bold steps to leverage its full potential. 4 GWP Evaluation – Confidential To accompany the changes that have been initiated within GWP, we make ten recommendations at two levels: a set of proposals to guide the important decisions needed on GWP’s strategy, governance, and delivery model; and a set of no-regret moves that can be implemented independently of these choices. Regarding long term plans, we encourage GWP to: #1. Develop a focused strategy #2. Adapt GWP's delivery model #3.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Progress on Integrated Water Resources Management
    CLEAN WATER CLEAN WATER AND SANITATION AND SANITATION 2018 PROGRESS ON INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT GLOBAL BASELINE FOR SDG 6 INDICATOR 6.5.1: DEGREE OF IWRM IMPLEMENTATION PRESENTING THE UN-WATER INTEGRATED MONITORING INITIATIVE FOR SDG 6 Through the UN-Water Integrated Monitoring Initiative for Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6, the United Nations seeks to support countries in monitoring water- and sanitation-related issues within the framework of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and in compiling country data to report on global progress towards SDG 6. The Initiative brings together the United Nations The objectives of the Integrated Monitoring Initiative are to: organizations that are formally mandated to compile country data on the SDG 6 global indicators, who organize • Develop methodologies and tools to monitor their work within three complementary initiatives: SDG 6 global indicators • WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water • Raise awareness at the national and global Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene (JMP)1 levels about SDG 6 monitoring Building on its 15 years of experience from Millennium Development Goals (MDG) monitoring, the JMP • Enhance technical and institutional country looks after the drinking water, sanitation and hygiene capacity for monitoring aspects of SDG 6 (targets 6.1 and 6.2). • Compile country data and report on global • Integrated Monitoring of Water and Sanitation- progress towards SDG 6 Related SDG Targets (GEMI)2 GEMI was established in 2014 to harmonize and The joint effort around SDG 6 is especially important in expand existing monitoring efforts focused on water, terms of the institutional aspects of monitoring, including wastewater and ecosystem resources (targets 6.3 the integration of data collection and analysis across to 6.6).
    [Show full text]
  • Global Water Partnership Lighthouse Case Study
    GLOBAL WATER PARTNERSHIP Lighthouse Case Study “Water is now seen as a central plank in the sustainable management of natural resources. It is embedded in all aspects of development; it is an essential part of sustainable economic growth in agriculture, industry and energy generation; and sustains the natural ecosystem on which everything else depends. Water security and green growth are synergistic and mutually reinforcing. Neither can exist without integration.”1 Dr. Mohamed Ait-Kadi Chair of the Global Water Partnership Technical Committee © Global Solution Networks 2013 Global Water Partnership Lighthouse Case Study i Table of Contents Case in Brief 1 Managing Water in the 21st Century: The Need for Multi-stakeholder Governance 1 The Challenge of Sustainable Water Management 4 The Role of the Global Water Partnership in Sustainable Water Management 5 Brokering partnerships and providing a neutral platform for multi-stakeholder dialogue 5 Guiding water management policies in national and international forums 7 Building capacity for integrated water resources management 8 Responding to criticism of GWP’s Integrated Water Resources Management approach 9 Key Metrics: Assessing the Effectiveness of the GWP 12 How Technology Assists the GWP’s Mandate 13 Challenges and Changing Conditions 13 The Future 14 Implications for Network Leaders 15 Global Water Partnership Papers Significant to this Case: 18 Endnotes 19 Global Solution Networks 22 © Global Solution Networks 2013 Global Water Partnership Lighthouse Case Study 1 Case in Brief Water is not only crucial to life—without plentiful supplies of water the world’s systems of modern agriculture and industrial production would collapse. Growing water scarcity demands new solutions, especially as the complexities of water management increase with population growth, increased urbanization and climate change.
    [Show full text]
  • Gwpin Action
    2014 GWP in action 2014 Annual Report About GWP The Global Water Partnership's vision is for a water secure world. Our mission is to advance governance and management of water resources for sustainable and equitable development. The Global Water Partnership (GWP) is an international network that was created in 1996 to foster the implementation of integrated water resources management: the coordinated development and management of water, land, and related resources in order to maximise economic and social welfare without compromising the sustainability of ecosystems and the environment. The GWP Network is open to all organisations which recognise the principles of integrated water resources management endorsed by the Network. It includes states, government institutions (national, regional, and local), intergovernmental organisations, international and national non-governmental organisations, academic and research institutions, private sector companies, and service providers in the public sector. At the end of 2014, the Network had 13 Regional Water Partnerships, 85 Country Water Partnerships, and 3,051 Partners located in 178 countries. GWP Region Countries Partners GWP Partners by type Caribbean 22 92 Central Africa 6 164 Central America 7 184 Central and Eastern Europe 12 161 Central Asia and Caucasus 9 161 China 1 100 Eastern Africa 10 211 Mediterranean 25 86 South America 10 303 South Asia 7 530 Southeast Asia 10 249 Southern Africa 12 323 West Africa 15 274 Global 32 213 Total 2014 178 3,051 Total 2013 172 2,904 Country Water Partnerships
    [Show full text]
  • Global Water Partnership
    GPR cover_V4-3.qxp:GPR cover_V4-3 7/26/10 2:26 PM Page 1 GPR GPR The Global Water Partnership (GWP) was established by the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA), the United Nations Development Programme, and the World THE GLOBAL WATER 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 PARTNERSHIP 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 2004–08 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.
    [Show full text]
  • GWP Annual Report 2017
    2017 GWP in action 2017 Annual Report About GWP The Global Water Partnership (GWP) is an international network that was created in 1996 to foster the implementation of integrated water resources management: the coordinated development and management of water, land, and related resources in order to maximise economic and social welfare without compromising the sustainability of ecosystems and the environment. The GWP Network is open to all organisations that recognise the principles of integrated water resources management endorsed by the Network. It includes states, government institutions (national, regional, and local), intergovernmental organisations, international and national non-governmental organisations (NGOs), academic and research institutions, private sector companies, and service providers in the public sector. At the end of 2017, the Network had 13 Regional Water Partnerships, 62 Country Water Partnerships, and 3,599 Partners located in 183 countries. GWP Region Countries Partners Caribbean 24 107 Central Africa 6 201 GWP Partners by type Central America 7 208 Other Central and 13 209 International organisations 2% 3% Eastern Europe Professional associations 4% Thematic/sector Central Asia and 9 189 NGOs 17% Research institutions 7% the Caucasus China 1 101 Education Eastern Africa 10 362 institutions 9% Mediterranean 25 97 South America 10 358 Civil society South Asia 7 547 NGOs 18% Southeast Asia 10 253 Private sector 14% Southern Africa 13 337 Other NGOs 1% West Africa 15 349 Public agency, Global 33 281 commission, regulatory Government 15% bodies 10% Total 2017 183 3,599 Total 2016 183 3,427 Country Water Partnerships In 2017, GWP undertook an assessment of its Country Water Partnerships (CWPs), resulting in the accreditation of 62 CWPs.
    [Show full text]