This report summarises key messages and outcomes from the Good Governance discussions at the 6th World Water Forum, Marseille 2012. It provides brief overviews of each sessions as well as recommendations and commitments formulated during the Closing session of the “Good Governance” Group to support the implementation of the agreed targets up to the 7th World Water Forum, to be held in 2015 in Korea. For more information see www.oecd.org/gov/water

1. 1
6th World Water Forum
Marseille, 12-17 March 2012
CONDITION for SUCCESS 1
Good Governance
Key messages and outcomes
22 May 2012
This document was prepared with the contribution of the
members of the Good Governance Core Group. For comments or
questions, please contact the CS1 Coordinator:
Aziza Akhmouch, OECD Water Governance Programme
Aziza.Akhmouch@oecd.org
+33 1.45.24.79.30

2. 2
CONTENTS
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ......................................................................... 3
SESSIONS SUMMARIES ................................................................................... 6
COMMITMENTS .............................................................................................. 21

3. 3
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
This report summarizes key messages and outcomes from the Good Governance discussions in
Marseille. It provides brief overviews of each sessions as well as recommendations and commitments
formulated during the Closing session of the “Good Governance” Group to support the
implementation of the agreed targets up to the 7th World Water Forum, to be held in 2015 in Korea.
As part of the preparation of the 6th WWF, the International Forum Committee Board adopted a
thematic process organized around 12 Priorities for Action and 3 Conditions for Success, the first one
being “Good Governance”. The Core Group has framed six medium and long-term SMART and WISE
targets to tackle governance challenges in the water sector. Target and Solution Groups (TSG) have
submitted 155 “solutions” (case studies, methodologies, tools/instruments) available in the Core
Group synthesis report (Click to download the CS1 Synthesis Report).
Target 1
By 2015, 50% of countries will have adopted consultation, participation and o-ordination mechanism allowing
stakeholders at local, regional, national and international levels to effectively contribute to decision-making in a
coherent, holistic and integrated way. By 2021, 100% will have done so.
Click to download the Target 1 Synthesis Report
Target 2
By 2015, 50% countries will have strengthened regulatory frameworks and adopted performance indicators (service
delivery) to monitor and evaluate water policies; and all countries will have put in place capacity-building processes at
national and local level to foster good governance in service delivery.
By 2018, all countries will have done so.
Click to download the Target 2 Synthesis Report
Target 3
By 2021, increase by 30% the number of river basin management plans (analysis of initial status and main issues).
Click to download the Target 3 Synthesis Report
Target 4
By 2015, increase the number of countries with water security diagnoses and governance tools, based on existing (local,
national, international) regulatory and legislative frameworks and IWRM mechanisms.
Click to download the Target 4 Synthesis Report
Target 5
By 2018, 30 countries will have committed to promote integrity in the water sector, diagnose/map existing or potential
corruption risks, and ensure that anti-corruption policies are well implemented and effective.
Click to download the Target 5 Synthesis Report
Target 6
By 2018, 30 countries will be implementing: transparent water budget processes, including information about water
infrastructure investment planning and implementation (financial, technical, and socioeconomic impacts); and methods
and tools for improving transparency and accountability within the water sector.
Click to download the Target 6 Synthesis Report

4. 4
“Good Governance” sessions at the 6th WORLD WATER FORUM
Between 150 and 250 people attended each of the 9 CS1 Good Governance sessions

5. 5
The Core Group has also made an inventory of 87 existing tools, practices and guidelines related to water governance, available in the annex of the WWF synthesis report (Click to download the CS1 Synthesis Report). To ensure continuity of the Core Group’s work, this inventory will be further updated beyond Marseille and will set the foundations for an Observatory of good water governance practices, and an OECD network of water governance leaders.
Key messages from the overall water governance discussions during the 6th WWF
 The “water crisis” the world community faces today is largely a governance crisis. Securing water for all, especially vulnerable populations, is often not only a question of hydrology (water quantity, quality, supply, demand) and financing, but equally a matter of good governance. Managing water scarcity and water-related risks (floods, natural disasters etc.) requires resilient institutions, collaborative efforts and sound capacity at all levels.
 Often, the technical, financial and institutional solutions to improve water governance exist. The real challenge is “implementing” them on the ground, tailoring them to local contexts and ensuring participation of all stakeholders (end users, utilities, governments, agencies, community associations, regulators...) and accountability mechanisms to join forces, share the risks and tasks and achieve equitable and sustainable water and sanitation outcomes. There is no one-size-fits-all answer, but rather a plea for home-grown and place-based policies integrating territorial specificities.
 Key water governance challenges usually include the high degree of territorial and institutional fragmentation; lack of capacity of local actors; poor legislative, regulatory, integrity and transparency frameworks; questionable resource allocation; patchy financial management; weak accountability, with corruption and other integrity gaps at its core; unclear policy objectives, strategies and monitoring mechanisms; as well as unpredictable investment climate. Such challenges are particularly acute because of the intrinsic characteristics of the water sector (local/global issue, property rights, high investment costs, human right, condition for sustainable development, multiple externalities, etc.), which often combines several “governance gaps” as compared to other natural resources areas or infrastructure sectors.
 Well-functioning institutions underpin increased and more effective investments in water development, hence the importance of the governance-financing nexus. Poor institutions constitute amplified investment risk and affect the competitiveness of countries in global markets. Sustainable water management (and cost recovery) can only be achieved through stable policy and regulation, institutions with clear responsibilities, coordination of national, local and “outside water box” actors (multi-level governance). Decentralisation has impacts on access to and cost of funding and investment programmes need to be based on long-term strategy, achievable targets, realistic goals, and appropriate governance tools.
 Concrete and pragmatic tools can help diagnose governance challenges ex ante and design adequate responses to address the complexity in the water sector. Meeting new global challenges requires innovative policies that “do better with less” and allow the emergence of co- ordination and consultation mechanisms at all levels. Some of these tools already exist - they have been developed by various organisations such as the OECD, UNESCO, SIWI, Transparency International, WIN, ISO etc. , but they need to be better applied and used by countries. Some still need to be developed (up to and beyond Marseilles 2012) and strengthened. In addition to national players, global leaders and institutions are also strong vehicles to foster good governance in the water sector.

6. 6
SESSIONS SUMMARIES
Each TSG coordinators prepared a synthesis report prior to the Forum presenting the background, rationale, objectives, gathered solutions and recommendations for their respective topic. During the Forum week, target sessions discussed selected case studies and practices, and formulated key messages and commitments. The overall commitments from each session were synthesised during a final CS1 session.
* *
*
CS1 “Good Governance” introductory session
SESSION TITLE
Enhancing good governance in the water sector – Setting the scene
SESSION DATE
12 March 2012
CONVENERS
OECD
CHAIR
Aziza AKHMOUCH (OECD, CS1 Coordinator)
PANELLISTS
Rolf ALTER (Head, Public Governance and Territorial Development Directorate, OECD)
Ian BARKER (Head of water, Environment Agency, United Kingdom)
Marco Antonio Velázquez Holguín (Deputy Director General for Planning, CONAGUA)
Win KUIJKEN (Delta Commissioner – Netherlands)
Asit BISWAS (Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, Singapore)
SESSION AGENDA
CS1 Introductory Session Agenda
The session gathered high-level representatives from different backgrounds (ministries, national water agencies and academics) to share views on water governance challenges as well as existing and innovative frameworks, concepts and evidence on how to address them. The session framed the rationale behind the governance targets and their contribution to bridging identified “gaps”.
The opening remarks stressed the relevance of the OECD multi-level governance framework in diagnosing key governance gaps in the water sector in terms of policy fragmentation, capacity, information, accountability, funding, administrative boundaries, and divergent objectives.
The invited speakers presented three case studies highlighting good practices for improving water governance in the framework on water policy reform agenda.
1st case study: Mexico 2030 Water Agenda
 The 2030 Water Agenda aims to consolidate sustainable water policy and hand over to the next generation a country with (i) clean water bodies, (ii) balanced supply and demand for water, (iii) universal access to water services; and (iv) settlements safe from catastrophic floods.
 The Agenda’s 38 initiatives are based on the following principles: sustainability, long-term vision, basin-based management, and subsidies.
 The 2030 Water Agenda’s relies on
Stakeholders’ engagement
Technical prospective

7. 7
Political will
Coordination across 3 levels of governments
Budget investment
Policy coherence
Link to the PowerPoint presentation: Mexico 2030 Water Agenda - Presentation
2nd case study: the Dutch Delta Programme
 The Dutch Delta approach aims to protect the country from flood and to ensure freshwater supply while engaging the 4 levels of government (central government, provinces, municipalities and water boards) to work together within the Delta Programme framework.
 The Delta Programme approach is a tentative optimal solution to bridge the gaps facing the Dutch water sector. It encourages transparent decision making, flexibility, accountability and continuity to commonly design solutions.
 It also promotes safety standards, urban/spatial restructuring and sustainable freshwater supply.
Link to the PowerPoint presentation: The Dutch Delta Programme - Presentation
3rd case study: Water governance in the England and Wales
 In 1989, the British water sector underwent a wave of privatization but the government set strong independent regulatory agencies to design standards for water companies and provide guidance in the water sector: the Environmental Agency (for supply and quality), the OFWAT (for economic activities), and the DWI (for drinking standards).
 As part of a long-term strategy, authorities of the UK water sector aim to: (i) secure supply, (ii) improve environmental protection, (iii) better manage flood risk, (iv) develop sustainable and affordable investment programmes and (v) encourage IWRM and asset management plans.
Link to the PowerPoint presentation: Water governance in the England and Wales - Presentation
A practical wrap-up by Prof. Asit Biswas
 The most important gap in water management is not the funding gap. Facing water challenges is primarily an issue of good management.
 Public expectations and mass media have important roles to play because they encourage better quality of water and sanitation services, and better flood protection.
* *
*
CS1 “Good Governance” multi-stakeholders panel
SESSION TITLE
Good Governance and Sustainable Financing : a strong nexus to address
SESSION DATE
13 March
CONVENERS
OECD and EIB
CHAIR
Aziza AKHMOUCH (OECD, CS1 Coordinator) and Jose FRADE (EIB, CS2 Coordinator)
PANELLISTS
1st round-table – Policy focus
Angel GURRIA (Secretary-General, OECD)
Rafiq HUSSEINI (Deputy Secretary General, Union for the Mediterranean)
Laurence GOLBORNE (Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure – Chile)
Naomi CHAKWIN (President Director General, Asian Development Bank)

8. 8
Peter GLAS (Chairman of the Dutch Association of Regional Water Authorities)
2nd round-table – Project-based approach
Thierry MALLET (Deputy Director General, Suez Environnement)
Anne Le STRAT (Président, Eau de Paris)
Joao CONEJO LOTUFO (Director, National Water Agency of Brazil)
Michel VAUZELLE (President of the PACA region (France) and of the ORU- FOGAR regions’ network)
Mohamed SEIFALLAH LASRAM (Mayor of Tunis, Tunisia)
Frederic NAULET (GRET, Coalition Eau)
Closing remarks
Joaquim OLIVEIRA MARTINS (Head, Regional Development Policy Division, OECD)
SESSION AGENDA
CS1 Multi-stakeholders Panel - Agenda
The panel gathered a wide range of decision-makers from different geographical areas and institutional background to:
 share their experience on governance challenges for sustainable investment plans;
 identify good practices for addressing the water governance-financing nexus at all levels; and
 discuss possible overarching actions in developing a more coherent approach to water financing and a more financially literate approach to water governance.
Remarks from policy-makers:
 OECD has designed innovative tools and concepts that can help address the governance- financing nexus, such as the multi-level governance framework, strategic financial planning (FEASIBLE tool), the Checklist for public action (to assess the framework of private sector participation) and the 3Ts (taxes, tariffs and transfers). Such tools help to stimulate new financial resources and reduce investment needs, while supporting strong and stable frameworks to improve budgetary practices and reduce investment risks, and fostering better coordination of public action.
 In Chile, the government understands the importance of clearly establishing the responsibilities and capacities of each actor involved in the water sector. At the central government level, most actions target areas and people without access to water and sanitation. Experience shows that if the quality of services increases customers will be more willing to pay for water and sanitation. It is important for tariffs to reflect the real cost of water (i.e. taking into account production, transport, distribution, treatment, etc.). In Chile, tariffs are set according to specific standards that are up-dated every 5 years.
 The ADB’s experience in financing water management programmes identified critical capacity gaps at local level in terms of financial planning and management. Institutional and territorial fragmentation is often very difficult to overcome when implementing development projects, as are the difficulty to track fund flows across different agencies and different levels. Increased transparency (publication of accounts, benchmarking) can also play a crucial role

9. 9
and contribute to public support for cost-recovery tariffs. This is the reason why ADB has established frameworks to support coordinated planning and investments.
 In the Netherlands, water services are entirely publicly managed. Stemming from the fact that water challenges vary from one region to another, each regional authority (water boards) has its own taxation system. Therefore, there is no financial transfer from the central level to the regional level to subsidise the water sector, which relies on the full-cost recovery principle. One of the issues the Netherlands face today is the lack of financial investments in education and capacity-building efforts to overturn the lack of trained staff in the water sector.
 In the Union of the Mediterranean’s perspective, tariffs are an important aspect of water management but above all, stable regulatory frameworks are paramount to frame private investments and protect public asset and citizens’ interests from corruption. When composing the sustainable cost-recovery “equation”, four factors must be taken into account: (i) reduce water waste and leakages; (ii) minimize corruption practices; (iii) market the issue of scarcity and the need for water preservation; and (iv) collect all possible revenues, from large to small users.
Remarks from practitioners:
 In Brazil, funding the water management system is a complex matter as financial resources come from multiple origins: hydro-electricity taxation, water fees and even water resources funds at regional levels. The Brazilian water resources framework promotes decentralized, participative and integrated management but faces governance challenges in terms of financial, institutional and technical asymmetries, and a lack of cross-sectoral co-operation to mediate conflicts and foster synergistic opportunities.
 Eau de Paris was recently established as the public utility for the city of Paris. It has put the emphasis on financial transparency to improve control and monitoring of accounts, and further involvement of users regarding service cost and water tariffs. The Municipality has developed a performance monitoring system relying on a “contract of objectives” signed with the public utility, which sets social, environmental, economic and technical goals. It also conducts benchmarking with other European public utilities and regularly consults citizens to evaluate service provision performance.
 According to SUEZ Environnement’s experience, a successful contract or partnership for service provision relies on 5 elements: (i) a good understanding of the client’s needs; (ii) the definition of clear objectives; (iii) transparency in terms of progress and efficiency; (iv) a governance model that encompasses all stakeholders; and (v) territorial integration to develop local capacities and engage local actors. Regarding cost-recovery, the “full” approach is obsolete and affordability needs to be the new focus to guarantee economic balance and projects’ sustainability, hence the shift towards sustainable cost recovery.
 In Tunisia, local authorities are in charge of service provision and must guarantee coverage for everyone, which means investing in new networks and connections to reach even archaic and informal neighbourhoods. Therefore, water represents an important share in municipal budgets. The International Association of Francophone Mayors has been a key financial partner for municipalities (such as Ouagadougou and Bobo-Dioulasso). With the support of

10. 10
the European Union, it has helped to mobilize resources and capacities and modernized the financial management of water services.
 The PACA region has developed a pro-active water management policy for resource protection, risk management against floods, modernization of agricultural practices and balance of supply and demand. The region shares its experience and good practices with other regions in the world as a member of the ORU-FOGAR, which is both a network of regions and a platform for dialogue.
 According to the NGO Gret, decentralization processes of water service provision are expected to transfer capacities to the local level but often, local authorities lack the necessary financial and technical instruments to effectively provide water and sanitation. Therefore, efforts and resources must be invested in re-building administrations able to dialogue with relevant stakeholders and discuss issues such as cost-recovery, taxation and solidarity across generations.
Closing remarks highlighted the variety of systems observed in the water sector and how they all share similar challenges of coordination between actors for coherence of policies. The dynamic of these systems and the needed reforms all depend on good governance.
The panellists commonly agreed that solutions for addressing the challenge of the governance- financing nexus must come from top-down as well as bottom-up dynamics. The absence of basic elements for a sound governance framework is a reason for the mismanagement of human and financial resources in the water sector. Furthermore, an effective financing of the water sector means that governance must be multi-factorial and multi-sectoral. Financing can only be the result of stable and long term rules of the “game”. The panellists also stressed the importance of transparent tariff policies and strategic financial planning that effectively ensure integrity, participation, (budget) transparency and accountability to reduce mismanagement of human, financial and water resources.
* *
*
Target 1
“By 2015, 50% of countries will have adopted consultation, participation and o-ordination mechanism allowing stakeholders at local, regional, national and international levels to effectively contribute to decision-making in a coherent, holistic and integrated way. By 2021, 100% will have done so.”
SESSION TITLE
Stakeholders’ engagement for effective water policy and management
SESSION DATE
14 March 2012
CONVENERS
OECD and SUEZ Environnement
CHAIR
Aziza AKHMOUCH (OECD, CS1 Coordinator)
PANELLISTS
Monique CORDIER (Chair, Confederation of Marseille’s Resident Associations)
Kasségné ADJONOU (Mayor of Atak Pamé, Togo)
Peter GLAS (Chairman of the Dutch Association of Water Boards)
Ruben AVENDANO (Empresas Publicas de Medellín, Colombia)
Rob DOWLING (Head of Operation, SA Water Corporation, Australia)

11. 11
Mary O’CONNELL (FAN Global)
SESSION AGENDA
CS1-1 Session Agenda
Participants shared views on how to involve stakeholders in water management and policy. Speakers engaged in a lively dialogue to disseminate the most effective participation mechanisms and exchange on key issues regarding their translation into regulatory and budgetary frameworks.
Some examples discussed during the session are summarised below:
 In Togo, the Quadrilogue approach (national actors, sub-national actors, private operators and civil society) was an illustration of multi-stakeholders’ dialogue to contribute to local conflict resolution and a better understanding of the responsibilities and expectations of each actor.
 In Colombia, Empresas Pùblicas de Medellin’s experience is an example of service providers’ readiness to listen to users, and contribute to social equity for poor populations, thus playing a role in local communities’ empowerment. It stresses the importance of keeping decision- making processes as local as possible.
 In Australia, the testimony from S.A Water highlighted the challenge of finding the right balance between formalized participation mechanisms and the risk of isolating certain stakeholders when managing citizens’ expectations.
 In the Netherlands, engagement mechanisms are institutionalized at local and regional levels, and contribute to better information-sharing and greater transparency, particularly regarding water tariff setting. They are an example of the important role civil society has to play in a multi-level approach of governance in the water sector.
Link to the PowerPoint presentation: The Netherlands - Presentation
 As an NGO, FAN Global works in developing countries to support knowledge-dissemination and capacity building, and contribute to the empowerment of local communities and the engagement of marginalized populations.
A debate with the audience raised the following messages:
 Capacity-building and data sharing at the local level are of utmost importance in order to engage all stakeholders efficiently and in the best conditions;
 Information has become the new currency to improve water policies;
 Equally crucial are inclusive and transparent dialogue regarding the way water is managed and financed to allow for open discussions and conflict resolution;
 Participation efforts should not be carried out without clear objectives: getting all actors involved should result in better managed services and better informed stakeholders.
* *
*
Target 2

12. 12
By 2015, 50% countries will have strengthened regulatory frameworks and adopted performance indicators (service delivery) to monitor and evaluate water policies; and all countries will have put in place capacity-building processes at national and local level to foster good governance in service delivery. By 2018, all countries will have done so.
SESSION TITLE
Performance measurement, regulation and capacity building in the water sector
SESSION DATE
14 March 2012
CONVENERS
ASTEE
CHAIR
Pierre-Alain ROCHE (ASTEE)
PANELLISTS
Raymond LANNUZEL (Nantes Métropole, France)
Nelly CANNESSON ( Shanghai Pudong Veolia Water, China)
Tony WANG ( Shanghai Pudong Veolia Water, China)
Jean-Marc JAHN (SEAAL, Algiers)
Sebastián PAZ (Aguas de Santiago S.A, Argentina)
Alexander DANILENKO (World Bank)
Jaime Melo BAPTISTA (ERSAR, Portugal)
Maria SALVETTI (ONEMA, France)
Widelson Pierre LOUIS (Baillergeau water committee, Haïti)
Cassilde BRENIERE (AFD)
Anne BOUSQUET (GWOPA)
Claire CHARBIT (OECD)
SESSION AGENDA
CS1-2 Session Agenda
This session focused on the topic of governance and performance of water and sanitation services.
It was structured in 3 stages. A first panel of speakers from municipalities and operators presented solutions and good practices:
 The case of the Municipality of Nantes (France) illustrated the role of performance indicators and quality charter in improving sustainable provision and management of water and sanitation services.
 In the fast-developing area of Pudong (China), the online monitoring of the network guarantees a wider distribution of water and insures the safety and quality of the infrastructure.
Link to the PowerPoint presentation: Pudong - Presentation
 By setting performance indicators, SEAAL (Algiers water utility) has upgraded its wastewater services and enhanced capacity-building.
Link to the PowerPoint presentation: Algiers (SEAAL) - Presentation
The second panel discussed performance indicators, participatory processes, partnerships and networking:
 ISO norms set guidelines to assess and improve the quality of water and sanitation services in terms of financial sustainability, human resources and information sharing.

13. 13
 The World Bank’s IBNET toolkit collects annual data from utilities and provides interactive maps of service performance for better knowledge dissemination in the water sector.
 ERSAR, the Portuguese Regulatory Agency has set 16 wastewater performance indicators to carry out audits and encourage transparency in water and sanitation utilities.
Link to the PowerPoint presentation: Portugal (ERSAR) - Presentation
 In France, the ONEMA evaluates performance through SISPEA, a monitoring tool that bridges the information gap and the fragmentation of service providers.
 The water committees in Haiti work as awareness structures to keep the population informed of performance and water tariff evolution.
Finally, recommendations and commitments for more efficient service provision were formulated:
 The French Development Agency (AFD) promotes multi-level capacity-building with projects targeting individuals, organizations and institutions.
 GWOPA is committed to non-for-profits partnerships between operators and academics to foster bench-learning.
 The OECD has identified contracts among levels of government, the use of performance indicators, information sharing, better accountability and innovation as powerful incentives to bridge the fragmentation and capacity gaps that hinder effective water and sanitation services.
Closing remarks underlined the importance of capacity-building through networking and peer-learning.
Overall, unclear allocation of roles in water and sanitation services, and weak and ill-defined performance indicators were identified as critical obstacles impeding an effective provision of services. Across the different panels, all participants clearly agreed on the need for enhanced indicators and standards, and updated databases. Furthermore, common definition of performance indicators must be coherently set and shared across all stakeholders. Comparative analysis, measure of performance and sunshine regulation mechanisms should rally all actors implicated in such an approach. Performance indicators should adopt a systemic and long-term vision, taking into account the specificities of each context.
* *
*
Target 3
By 2021, increase by 30% the number of river basin management plans (analysis of initial status and main issues).
SESSION TITLE
Basin Management Plan as Instrument for Water Governance
SESSION DATE
14 March 2012
CONVENERS
INBO - OIEau

14. 14
CHAIR
Jean-Marie WAUTHIER (Wallonie Bruxelles International)
KEYNOTE SPEAKER
Michel STEIN (Loire Bretagne Basin Agency)
PANELLISTS
1st Panel (moderated by Marie-Claude LECLERC (ROBVQ)
Robert DESOUASSI (Niger Basin Authority)
Osman Fernandez DA SILVA (Rio Doce Basin, Brazil)
Hans GUTMAN (Mekong River Commission)
Sagit IBATULLIN (IFAS)
2nd Panel (moderated by Daniel MARKOVITCH (EPTB)
Lifeng LI (WWF)
Millogo DIBI (Nakanbé Basin Authority)
Mohamed EL FASSKAOUI (Arghane basin, Morocco)
Guy PEGRAM (Breede Overberg basin, South Africa)
Karen REFSGAARD (Morsa basin, Norway)
Jose Yunis MEBARAK (Magdalena Basin, The Nature Conservancy, Colombia)
SESSION AGENDA
CS1-3 Session Agenda
SESSION PRESENTATIONS
Click here to CS1-3 Presentations
The session identified and analysed the conditions and the solutions for the elaboration, the implementation and the evaluation of long-term river basin management plans.
Stemming from relevant case studies, the dialogue addressed the different phases of the basin management plans’ development: initial status analysis, gap analysis, studies and forecasting, issues and stakes prioritisation, objective definition, action plan development, stakeholder participation throughout the process, civil society consultation, monitoring, updating, and evaluation of outcomes, based on performance indicators.
Common challenges surfaced from the numerous presentations, such as:
 over-exploitation of resources,
 transboundary conflicts over water use,
 pollution, and
 endangered ecosystems.
For these challenges, river basin management was commonly identified as a viable answer. Therefore, governments must support the development of basin management plans that (i) reinforce the institutions in charge of water management, (ii) adapt sectoral strategies to each basin, and (iii) improve regulations in critical areas.
Panellists also mentioned additional key aspects of basin management plans, based on local tools and a common global vision:
 the establishment of information systems at the basin level;
 the importance of local contexts, especially in cross-border regions;
 the development of participatory approaches;
 capacity-building; and
 Sound financing mechanisms.

15. 15
The following recommendations and solutions were explored:
 A complete check up before elaborating a Basin Management Plan (BMP) is needed. It must take into account various aspects such as the dimension, basin vs. river, main basin vs. sub- basins, local vs. regional, the leader and the utility, the consultation, etc..
 Taking into account the existing conditions: internally, such as numerous plans more or less linked to water (adequacy), and externally, such as the basin organization twining which are a real solution for know-how development, including local governments.
 Information Systems are a key tool and an entry-point for BMP development.
 Adapted participation of the civil society, stakeholders and their representatives, municipalities, and local governments is crucial.
 Understanding the environmental, social and economic functioning aspects of the Basin is a prerequisite.
 A solid “Basin Organization” is a key tool and a pre-condition to BMP development.
 The building process of BMPs is well known and must be respected.
 Building a BMP requires to design prospective medium- and long-term scenarios and build a vision of the basin with environmental and socio – economic balance and local changes.
In line with target 3, three pledges were made:
 the use of tools and experiences developed in the Handbook on IWRM in river basin and transboundary basin in practice;
 the Pact of Basin Organisations which includes recommendations about basin management plans (further detailed in the last section); and
 the network of Pilot Basin Organisations on Climate Change Adaptation Plan at basin scale to be established by the end of 2012, in order to develop exchanges on the subject in 2013-2015 with report in the next World Water Forum.
* *
*
Target 4
By 2015, increase the number of countries with water security diagnoses and governance tools, based on existing (local, national, international) regulatory and legislative frameworks and IWRM mechanisms.
SESSION TITLE
Integrated Water Resources Management through the lens of water security, adaptive water management and international legal instruments for good governance
SESSION DATE
14 March 2012
CONVENERS
UNESCO-IHP
CHAIR
Alice AURELI (UNESCO – IHP)
KEYNOTE SPEAKER
Gretchen KALONJI (Assistant Director General for Science Sector, UNESCO)
PANELLISTS
Panel Moderator : Alice AURELI (UNESCO – IHP)
Frank VAN VEERT (International Groundwater Resources Assessment

16. 16
Centre)
Sharon MEGDAL (Water Resources Research Centre, University of Arizona)
Luiz AMORE (International Association of Hydro-geologists, Brazil)
Ingrid VERSTRAETEN (US Geological Survey)
Fabiola TABORA MERLO (GWP)
Alejandro IZA (IUCN)
Abraham TENNE (Director of Desalination Department, Governmental Authority for Water and Sewage, Israel)
Workshop Moderators: Lucilla MINELLI (UNESCO-IHP) and Frank VAN VEERT (IGRAC)
REPORTER
Ofelia TUJCHNEIDER (University of El Litoral, Argentina)
SESSION AGENDA
CS1-4 Session Agenda
In this session, 7 panellists presented their work and experiences on water security diagnoses and governance tools, and successful innovative and effective mechanisms for integrated water management in various countries.
1st case study: Water banking across regions in the southwest part of the US
 Groundwater management has been heavily decentralized in the US and is particularly political in water-scarce regions.
 The Arizona Water Banking Authority has engaged State governmental agencies and interstate organisms in innovative legal and regulatory mechanisms to better manage aquifer recharge system, and to mitigate shortage and climate change impacts.
Link to the PowerPoint presentation: Arizona - Presentation
2nd case study: The Guarani aquifer (Brazil)
 To better manage transboundary groundwater, an institutional framework was designed and management instruments were set (information system, monitoring, math modelling, etc.) in support of strategic action plans and a common regional agenda.
 Water committees were created at local, regional and national levels to foster cooperation between the different countries.
Link to the PowerPoint presentation: Guarani aquifer - Presentation
3rd case study: International Shared Aquifer Resources Management (ISARM)
 As a multi-agency initiative from UNESCO and IAH, ISARM promotes the design of regional institutions to better manage trans-boarder resources.
 ISARM carries out regional consultation to take stock of experiences and lessons on transboundary aquifer management.
Link to the PowerPoint presentation: ISARM - Presentation
4th case study: US Geological Survey’s experience on water availability and long term monitoring networks
 USGS is developing collaborative partnerships to foster new management approaches and sets water use grants for American states to update databases on water management practices in each of them.
 The USCS also works to assess the water quality’s role in the evolution of water availability.
Link to the PowerPoint presentation: US Geological Survey - Presentation

17. 17
5th case study: GWP’s work in integrated water resources management
 Deficient water and sanitation services are an opportunity to implement IWRM at local level with the active participation of communities.
 Generating awareness of local authorities about the importance of IWRM for promoting the sustainable development of their territories is key for the creation of political will and of local regulation for the sustainable management of water resources.
 The association between local governments is an important mechanism for strengthening the technical capacities of local governments, including their fundraising capacities for the implementations of water related problems.
Link to the PowerPoint presentation: GWP - Presentation
6th case study: Improving national and transboundary water governance capacity (IUCN)
 IUCN is fostering dialogue and developing leadership through knowledge stimulation.
 IUCN promotes wise water management and diplomacy as means to promote peace and cooperation.
Link to the PowerPoint presentation: IUCN - Presentation
7th case study: Integrated water resources management in the Israeli National Water Policy
 Israel is developing new alternative uses of water with wastewater reuse and desalination of seawater.
 The Israeli National Water Policy promotes education and awareness programmes to encourage sustainable domestic use of water.
Link to the PowerPoint presentation: Israel - Presentation
Throughout their interventions, panellists emphasized sine-qua-non elements to foster long term, sustainable groundwater management plans: (i) set a common strategy; (ii) design a strong action plan; (iii) define strong global rules although flexible enough to be adapted to each territorial and legislative contexts; (iv) share data among actors; and (v) introduce principles for sustainable and responsible use of water and disseminate them, especially towards young generations. The session ended with an interactive “cooking” workshop to discuss the necessary ingredients to prepare a “good water governance cake”. Several roundtables exchanged solutions and formulated sets of recommendations on concrete and solution‐oriented actions to implement good governance practices.
* *
*
Targets 5-6
Target 5: By 2018, 30 countries will have committed to promote integrity in the water sector, diagnose/map existing or potential corruption risks, and ensure that anti-corruption policies are well implemented and effective.
Target 6: By 2018, 30 countries will be implementing: transparent water budget processes, including information about water infrastructure investment planning and implementation (financial, technical, and socioeconomic impacts); and methods and tools for improving transparency and accountability within the water sector.
SESSION TITLE
Integrity and transparency to curb corruption: Perspectives and Solutions

18. 18
from water professionals and stakeholders
SESSION DATE
15 March 2012
CONVENERS
WIN-TI and SIWI
CHAIR
Hakan TROPP (SIWI)
PANELLISTS
Nadar AL CHAZAH (Mayor of Trípoli, Lebanon)
Franz MARRE
Thomas ZELLER (SDC, Switzerland)
Sareen MALIK (TI-Kenya)
Sonali SRIVASTAVA (Head of GP Organisation Development Project)
Donal O’LEARY (Senior Advisor, TI)
Lucia DE STEPHANO (Researcher, University of Complutense, Spain)
Babatope BABALOB (WASH Journalist Network, West Africa)
Herbert KASSAMANI (Water Services Regulatory Board, Kenya)
SESSION AGENDA
CS1-5-6 Session Agenda
The solutions showcased during this session stimulated debates to promote integrity, diagnose gaps and set up mechanisms for information sharing. The session brought together water and integrity professionals to discuss transparency in water service utilities, the inefficiency of regulation, the gap in performance measurement and the absence of corrective measures. 6 case studies were presented:
1st case study: National Water Integrity study in Kenya
 The study aimed to reinforce partnerships between actors and inform populations.
 More than 150 recommendations were then formulated to restore effective water services through dialogue.
Link to the PowerPoint presentation: Integrity challenges - Kenya - Presentation
2nd case study: Citizen Report Cards in Nepal
 Citizen Report Cards have been used as a powerful tool to provide public agencies with systematic feedback from users of public services, including water supply and sanitation services in Nepal.
 The use of Citizen Report Cards provided a platform to bring together consumers and service providers for an open discussion, and made consumers more aware of their rights and responsibilities in regard to the water supply and sanitation services.
3rd case study: Budget Accountability and Transparency in the Water Supply and Sanitation (WSS) Sector in Nepal
 The Open Budget Survey ranks countries on budget transparency and was carried out in several Asian countries including Nepal, revealing the challenges facing the country.
 Civil society is often unable to effectively track government expenditures vis-à-vis budgetary commitments in order to hold governments accountable for shortfalls.
Link to the PowerPoint presentation: Budget Accountability and Transparency - Nepal - Presentation
4th case study: The Water Management Transparency Index
 The index is use as on online tool to evaluate the level of transparency in water agencies.
 80 transparency indicators have been set.
Link to the PowerPoint presentation: Water Management Transparency Index - Presentation
5th case study: The role of the media for increased transparency and accountability

19. 19
 Media and information platforms are used to improve water services.
 The successful experience of newspaper articles and televised shows in West African countries has inspired East African countries to carry out similar activities.
Link to the PowerPoint presentation: The role of media - Presentation
6th case study: Water Action Groups in Kenya
 Actions groups, supported by the Water Services Regulatory Boards, have fostered knowledge dissemination and information-sharing in a bottom-up approach.
 Regulators in the water sector must exchange experiences and information to better fight corruption.
Link to the PowerPoint presentation: Social accountability - Kenya - Presentation
7th case study: Corruption surveys for water and sanitation
 The survey provides a mapping of corruption risks and helps develop diagnosis and preventive tools.
 Stakeholders’ dialogue is carried out to share and better understand common corruption challenges.
Discussions between panellists and with the audience resulted in a list of recommendations addressed to decision-makers and relevant stakeholders in the water sector. For water and sanitation activities to be more efficient and transparent:
 Audits must be carried out across service providers, with open budget information and data sharing.
 Elected officials should invite public Medias to engage in the water sector and raise awareness on corruption activities and mismanagement of services so the responsible parties can be held accountable.
 Multi-stakeholder coalitions should be established at different levels.
 North and South regions should share their experiences and lessons learnt to reinforce local institutions and support the independent financing and regulatory agencies.
 Civil society should be invited in administrative boards to support full disclosure of activities.
 Efforts should support the implementation of these tools in both the formal and informal sectors as the latter is often hard to assess and help.
Jointly organized by WIN, GTZ (Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit), and CEWAS (International centre for water management services), a side-event took place on 16 March 2012 on the topic of Water Professionals Curbing Corruption: the Role of Private Sector. Its main conclusion was that private sector participation and capacity-building are critical to enhance integrity and build trust between private actors, water stewardship and other stakeholders, who are all driven by common principles, values and the need to promote “win-win” situations.
* *
*
CS1 “Good Governance” closing session and recommendations from CS1 Core Group
SESSION TITLE
Looking beyond Marseille 2012: from Solutions to Pledges
SESSION DATE
15 March 2012

20. 20
CONVENERS
OECD
CHAIR
Aziza AKHMOUCH (OECD, CS1 Coordinator)
PANELLISTS
Alexandre BRAILOWSKY (SUEZ-Environnement)
Pierre-Alain ROCHE (ASTEE)
Daniel VALENSUELA (OIEau)
Alice AURELI (UNESCO)
Hakan TROPP (SIWI)
Jean François DONZIER (RIOB)
Ravi NARAYANAN (WIN)
Claire CHARBIT (OECD)
SESSION PRESENTATIONS
CS1 Closing session - Presentations
SESSION AGENDA
CS1 Closing Session Agenda
The closing session was held after a fruitful and productive week, to take stock of diagnoses and tools shared throughout governance sessions. The participants commonly agreed on recommendations to be carry out beyond Marseille and toward the 7th WWF.
To foster good governance in the water sector, national and local political leaders should:
1. Develop early warning diagnostic tools to identify key governance issues across public and private actors involved in water service delivery - including wastewater treatment and investment - and water resources management; Governance “gaps” need to be identified first, before action is taken to set-up new models where needed.
2. Adopt participation, consultation and co-ordination mechanisms allowing stakeholders at (sub-) basin/aquifer, local, regional, national and international levels to effectively contribute to decision-making in a coherent, holistic and integrated way, including for groundwater management.
3. Clarify and strengthen the institutional framework that underpins water governance at all levels, including regulatory aspects.
4. Allocate human and financial resources in line with responsibilities of public authorities.
5. Consider the governance-financing nexus to design realistic investment programmes and foster sustainable cost recovery in the water sector.
6. Enhance IWRM based on national frameworks implemented at different hydrological levels with a clear vision of water resources uses, evolutions, quantity and quality.
7. Adopt the principle of river basin management as the appropriate scale for managing water resources; encourage the adoption of river basin management plans and favour the systematic water security diagnoses to better cope with geographic, demographic, and urbanisation challenges.
8. Foster the adoption of relevant capacity building and monitoring mechanisms (including performance indicators) to strengthen and evaluate water policies; E-government could be promoted as an interesting mechanism in this regards.

21. 21
9. Promote the implementation of internationally agreed principles containing provisions on water governance, including: UN Conventions (i.e. UNECE Helsinki Convention, UNCCD, UNFCCC, etc.), regional instruments such as the European Water Framework Directive and the SADC Water Act., and other non-binding global instruments such as the 1992 Rio Declaration and the UNGA Resolution on the “Law on Transboundary Aquifers”.
10. Create, update and harmonise water information systems and databases for sharing water data across basin, and administrative (local, national and international) frontiers.
11. Create partnerships at and between all levels and engage with media professionals to raise awareness on the damages of corruption in the water sector.
12. Map potential corruption risks, publicise water-related budgets and provide public information on water infrastructure plans and investment projects.
13. Strengthen integrity, transparency and accountability:
 map potential corruption risks;
 publicize water-related budgets;
 provide public information on water infrastructure plans and investment projects;
 engage with media professionals to raise awareness on the damages of corruption in the water sector.
14. Encourage aid effectiveness principles applied in accordance with the international obligation to cooperate for the realization of human rights and the need to strengthen country-driven water governance for the realization of the human right to water and sanitation.
15. Assess governance tools according to equity, efficiency and sustainability outcomes.
COMMITMENTS
The 6th WWF wished to go beyond a list of solutions and move towards concrete implementation and engagement. In line with this objective, the “Good Governance” core group has defined steps and milestones to carry out the governance targets commonly agreed upon. The objective is to pursue the efforts engaged and rely on experience sharing, exchange of good practices and complementary political agendas to make the 7th WWF in Korea the Forum of “Implementation”.
* *
*
OECD
The creation of a worldwide network of water governance leaders, under OECD leadership, to support the implementation of target action plans’
The OECD has set up a network of water governance leaders. It gathers high level policymakers, delegates from national administrations, Directors of Environment Agencies, municipalities, regions, river basin authorities, public and private operators, national water agencies, economic and environmental regulators, multinational companies, international financial institutions, water

22. 22
institutional partners, academics and experts. This network will maintain continuity between World Water Fora and stimulate debates to move from discussion to action. It has been instrumental in designing the roadmap towards Marseilles and will continue to be critical afterwards.
* *
*
INBO
Signature of a “World Pact for Better Basin Management”
On 16 March 2012, representatives from river, lake and aquifer basin organizations, as well as the French Water Agencies signed a pact aiming to develop integrated and cooperative water resources management for national, regional and transboundary basins to meet the challenges facing the planet.
This effort will make it possible to:
 fight against natural disasters;
 reliably meet the drinking water needs of urban and rural populations to improve hygiene and health and prevent epidemics;
 secure food sufficiency;
 develop industry, energy production, waterways transport, tourism and recreational activities;
 prevent and control pollution of all kinds to preserve aquatic ecosystems, support fish production; and
 preserve the biodiversity of water-related environments.
Because these stakes cannot be tackled on a sectoral or local basis, the Pact has the ambition to involve all stakeholders in an integrated and joint approach, organized in cooperation with the river basin units and for the sustainable use of water resources.
* *
*
IWA
Creation of a stakeholders’ engagement taskforce
The International Water Association (IWA), in cooperation with SUEZ Environnement, has engaged in creating a taskforce to foster participation and consultation of stakeholders in the water sector. It aims to build more effective engagement mechanisms and provide guidance based on existing and innovative participatory tools and methodologies. The taskforce is a 3-year project. It will be coordinated by IWA and supported by a steering committee of five members from several organisations and 20 peer-reviewers. Upcoming IWA conferences will be milestones to discuss the scope and next steps.
* *
*
WIN/SIWI

23. 23
Strengthening partnerships towards better integrity
WIN and SIWI have committed to promote a partnership approach towards the dissemination and implementation of water integrity and transparency tools. This will include a tool platform on the WIN website, “Good Governance” sessions at the World Water Week in Stockholm and the Transparency International Anti-Corruption Conference in Brazil, training on the use of certain tools, information sharing on tools, etc.
* *
*
UNESCO
Engaging in the protection and sustainable management of groundwater resources
The UNESCO International Hydrological Programme (IHP) has committed to increase the awareness on the paramount importance of sustainable groundwater resources management to prevent and reverse the global water crisis. To this end, UNESCO, together with FAO, the International Association of Hydro-geologists and the World Bank, has initiated a new Project on “Groundwater Governance” financed by the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The project will develop a “Global Framework of Action” consisting of a menu of best practices for the sustainable management of groundwater resources. The project relies on Regional Consultations aiming to: (i) acquire first-hand knowledge of regional issues from local groundwater experts; (ii) raise awareness and promote the global groundwater agenda; and (iii) build partnerships among the collaborating project agencies, cross- sectoral stakeholders, decision-makers and specialists.