Report on Survey GWP Statutes Update by GWP Chair Dr Letitia A Obeng - - CP meeting Day 1
Report on Survey GWP Statutes Update 2011-05-11The Steering Committee decided to recommend certain changes to the GWP/GWPO Statutesin May 2010. To enable comments from the partners when finalising the recommendedchanges a survey was made and distributed on 21 April 2011 to Partners listserv, RWP listservand the CWP listserv. A total of 72 responses were received as follows: Advisor / Other Other GWP not listed 5 Entity 4 Regional/Count ry/Other Water Partnership 18 Partner 45This pie-chart is based on a multiple-choice response. Persons responding were also asked towrite the name of their organisation. This list of organisations includes 59 partners and 9 GWPWater Partnerships. The difference may be explained by people being engaged both in theirpartner organisation and the regional/country water partnership.In the following pages the survey questions are presented followed by a pie-chart of the yes/noresponses and the comments provided by those submitting the survey.The proposed changes to the Statutes of GWP and GWPO dated 2011-05-11 that are included inthe documentation for the May 2011 SC meeting have taken the survey responses into account.
Article 2 OBJECTIVESRATIONALE: The recommendation is to include GWP’s vision and mission in the GWP/GWPOStatutes as they are currently not reflected.REVISED WORDING: Include a new paragraph (1) in Article 2, Objectives, as follows:“(1) The vision of the Network is for a water-secure world. Its mission is to support the sustainabledevelopment and management of water resources at all levels.”1. Do you agree with this recommendation? No 1,39% Not Answered 2,78% Yes 95,83%1.1. If no, please explain: Delete the words "at all levels". These are not necessary as it is implied in the rest of the vision. I agree with the vision, but not sure if it takes into account protection of water resources.
Article 3 PARTNERS OF THE NETWORKRATIONALE: The GWP Policy on Partners was adopted by the GWP Steering Committee in 2005 toclarify the concept and position of a partner within GWP. The recommendation is to clearly state in theStatutes that the GWP Steering Committee defines the concept and position of a partner, in order tomaintain consistency in GWP/GWPO governance documentation.REVISED WORDING: Include a new paragraph (6) in Article 3, Partners of the Network, as follows:“(6) The Steering Committee may further define the concept and position of partners.”2. Do you agree with this recommendation? Not Answered No 5,56% 2,77% Yes 91,67%2.1. If no, please explain: Partly yes - a lot of power is apssed onto the Steering Committee. I would add to the paragraph: The Steering Committee will define the concept and position of partners through the policy on partners. Proviso....The concepts and positions of partners must be so articulated within the constitution that there is no/little ambiguity. This should be the function of the general meeting/body. The regulation thereof can be by the steering committee. The definition of concept and position partners should count with the approval of the regional committees as well. The meaning of this statement not totally clear. What must be understood for "concept and position"??. It seems to be a decision with a very wide scope of possibilities, that should not be a faculty of the steering committee .
Article 5 GENERAL PROVISION ON ORGANIC STRUCTURERATIONALE: The GWP/GWPO Statutes state that the Network operates through relations withaccredited Regional Water Partnerships (RWP), Regional Technical Committees (R-TAC) and CountryWater Partnerships (CWP) but lack a definition of these water partnerships. The recommendation is toinclude a definition of the RWPs and CWPs and make the distinction between the GWP Network andGWPO clearer. Further the recommendation is to remove the reference to R-TACs, since the regionaltechnical function is integrated in the organisational structure of the RWPs.REVISED WORDING: Amend Article 5, General Provision on Organic Structure, as follows: “(1) The Network is a network of interested Partners, from the public sector, the private sector, andcivil society, concerned with water affairs around the world. The Network operates through co-operation with Partners and through the Network Meeting and any groups and committees establishedby it. (2) Partners may be organised on a regional and country basis in Water Partnerships as the functionalpart of the Network in that region or country. Such Regional and Country Water Partnerships become apart of the Network provided they meet the conditions for accreditation as adopted by the SteeringCommittee. Accredited Regional and Country Water Partnerships may use the GWP name and logoand are an integral part of the Network but remain autonomous organisations. (3) The Organisation consists of the Meeting of the Sponsoring Partners, the Chair, the SteeringCommittee, the Nomination Committee, the Technical Committee, the Executive Secretary, theSecretariat and such other organs that the Steering Committee may decide to establish in accordancewith these Statutes. Other entities operating with or within the Network are not parts of theOrganisation.(4) The Network and its operations are managed by the Chair, the Steering Committee and otherorgans of the Organisation as well as by the Network Meeting, as provided for in these Statutes.”3. Do you agree with this recommendation? Not Answered No 6,94% 2,78% Yes 90,28%3.1. If no, please explain: Water affairs is too vague a term
I`d like to see in the wording the "democratic" concept and mechanisms. For instance in item (4) I think itwould enrich and set the Network by saying: "The Network and its operations are democratically managedby the Chair.....Is the executive Secretary not part of the Secretariat? Does the organisation exist only when there is ameeting of the listed organs? or it is made up of such organs? See (3) above.CAWASA is already involved in similar activity with its members, seems like this will be duplicating orconflicting. Seeing that it is a small region maybe CAWASA should be approach on the matter.The problem stems from the difference between the network and hierarchical structure of the organization,they are two different and incompatible organizational forms
Article 6 THE GLOBAL WATER PARTNERSHIP CHAIRRATIONALE: Although the general understanding is that the GWP Chair will serve up to two termsonly, the Statutes are not explicit about this. The recommended change is to state that the Chair’s termof office may only be renewed once.REVISED WORDING: Amend paragraph (2) in Article 6, the Global Water Partnership Chair asfollows: “(2) The Chair shall be appointed by the Annual Meeting of the Sponsoring Partners for a period thatshall not exceed three years, which may be subject to renewal once only.”4. Do you agree with this recommendation? Not Answered No 5,56% 2,77% Yes 91,67%4.1. If no, please explain: If the work of Chair is good or mark able then, we should not bound his renewal of one time only. Rewording: "....which may be renewed for another three-year term only" The term of office should be reduced to two years with renewal only once. Yes, but please clarify: The chair will be selected based on the criteria that agreed by Sponsoring Partners and appointed by them. Chair should be appointed by the all partner members and not only the sponsors
Article 7 THE STEERING COMMITTEE, PARAGRAPH 2-4RATIONALE: The recommendation is to update the Statutes as the UN subcommittee on WaterResources has been succeeded by UN Water. Further a reference to the procedures for selection of theRWP representative in the Steering Committee should be made.REVISED WORDING: Amend paragraph (2-3) and include a new paragraph (3) in Article 7, theSteering Committee, as follows: “(2) The Steering Committee shall consist of a minimum of eleven and a maximum of twenty-onemembers, as decided by the Meeting of the Sponsoring Partners. The Steering Committee shall include,as ex officio members, the Chair, the Executive Secretary and the chair of the Technical Committee.(3) The Chair of UN Water, or a senior representative from within UN Water as appointed by the Chairof UN Water for the duration of the UN Water Chairs appointment, is entitled to participate as amember of the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee shall also include one memberrepresenting all Regional Water Partnerships appointed in accordance with the procedure adopted bythe Steering Committee.(4) Other members of the Steering Committee shall be appointed by the Annual Meeting of theSponsoring Partners for a period that shall not exceed three years, which may be subject to renewalone time. The terms of the first members shall be staggered in order to establish gradual rotation ofmembership.”5. Do you agree with this recommendation? Not Answered No 4,17% 5,55% Yes 90,28%5.1. If no, please explain: - para (2), 2nd sentence should read: "The Steering Committee shall include,.as ex officio members, its Chair and the Executive Secretary, and the chair of the Technical Committee". - para (4), 1st sentence, last phrase: rewording: which may be renewed As per q. 4 (3) In my opinion, GWPs impact on the ground is dependent on the effectiveness of Regional Water Partnerships in implementing the GWP strategy (ies). They cannot thus be effectively represented by just one person out of 11 - the minimum, given 13 regions
Article 7 THE STEERING COMMITTEE, POINT (7) l)RATIONALE: The recommendation is to remove the reference to R-TACs since the regional technicalfunction is integrated in the organisational structure of the RWPs.REVISED WORDING: Remove the word “Regional Technical Committees” in bullet point (7) l) inArticle 7, the Steering Committee.6. Do you agree with this recommendation? Not Answered No 1,39% 5,55% Yes 93,06%6.1. If no, please explain: Regional is more specific Provided the make up of each structure is clearly defined elsewhere
Article 7 THE STEERING COMMITTEE, POINT (7) q)RATIONALE: Audit reports are not physically distributed to the Partners. They are sent electronically,are included in the Steering Committee’s Annual Report to the Sponsoring Partners and are madegenerally available on the GWP website. The recommendation is to remove the requirement todistribute the audit report to the Partners in this point.REVISED WORDING: Amend bullet point (7) q) in Article 7, the Steering Committee, as follows:“q) Comment on and distribute the audit report or reports to the Meeting of Sponsoring Partners.”7. Do you agree with this recommendation? Not Answered 5,56% No 11,11% Yes 83,33%7.1. If no, please explain: I do not quite understand the proposal GWP is said to be a transparent organization/network. Lead by example. Recommend wording that establishes that the audit report will be electronically distributed Partners shall receive a copy of the audit report or annual report, either in electronically or printed format. This will not be in keeping with our principles of transparency and accountability Some partners are not a corporation with an infrastructure to develop detailed audit reports. Many are small community groups. I think the audit reports should be shared by the SC to the partners in the anual network meeting. All partners
Article 9 THE NETWORK MEETINGRATIONALE: The recommendation is to clarify (a) that it is the Network Meeting that decides if the annualNetwork Meeting should not take place and (b) that the Network Meeting, as with other statutory meetings,may be held through distant communication.REVISED WORDING: Amend Article 9, the Network Meeting, as follows: “(1) The Partners shall hold an Annual Network Meeting on the convocation of the Steering Committee, unlessotherwise decided by the Network Meeting. An extraordinary Network Meeting shall be convened: a) When theSteering Committee finds it necessary; b) Upon the request of one fifth of the Partners.(2) At the Annual Network Meeting the Partners shall: a) Adopt the strategic directions and policies for theNetwork; b) Recommend action to be taken by the Steering Committee on the basis of the adopted strategicdirections and policies; c) Comment on the yearly activity report and the yearly financial statement of theSteering Committee; d) Consider and decide on the expulsion of Partners from the Network, afterrecommendation of the Steering Committee.(3) The Network Meeting shall be governed by rules proposed by the Steering Committee and adopted by theNetwork Meeting.(4) The Partners may hold the Annual Network Meeting or extraordinary meetings through distantcommunication in accordance with rules established by the Network Meeting.”8. Do you agree with this recommendation? Not Answered No 1,39% 5,55% Yes 93,06%8.1. If no, please explain:This maybe an economical move but maybe not an effective one.
Article 10 THE MEETING OF THE SPONSORING PARTNERS,POINT (5) a) (new)RATIONALE: In order to conduct business in-between Sponsoring Partners’ meetings (i.e. the meeting of thestates and intergovernmental organisations that established GWPO), there is a practice of having thechairperson of the Sponsoring Partners being appointed, not only for the meeting but also for the periodbetween meetings. The recommendation is to establish this practice in the Statutes.REVISED WORDING: include a new point (5) a) in Article 10, the Meeting of the Sponsoring Partners, asfollows:“a) Select a Sponsoring Partner representative to act as Chairperson of the Sponsoring Partners for amaximum period of three years, which may be subject to renewal.”REVISED WORDING: Amend paragraph (10) in Article 10, the Meeting of the Sponsoring Partners, asfollows: “(10) Absent Sponsoring Partners may communicate their vote in advance to the Chairperson of theSponsoring Partners.”9. Do you agree with this recommendation? Not Answered No 5,56% 2,77% Yes 91,67%9.1. If no, please explain: - para (a) last phrase, rewording: "... for a period of three years, which may be subject to renewal" Term should be 2 years. Voting in advance should be by proxy to the Chairperson. provide written communication of their vote Do not understand the reason why the Substantive Chairperson cannot perform that role.
Article 10 THE MEETING OF THE SPONSORING PARTNERS, POINT(5) b-d)RATIONALE: As the governing body of the GWPO, the Sponsoring Partners are expected to approve theyearly activity and financial reports submitted by the Steering Committee. The audit report on the other handcannot be approved by the Sponsoring Partners, but it is received and considered. The current Statutes statethis incorrectly, hence the auditors have recommended correcting this wording.REVISED WORDING: Amend point (5) b-d) in Article 10, the Meeting of the Sponsoring Partners, as follows: “b) Receive and approve the yearly activity report of the Steering Committee; c) Receive and approve theyearly financial statement of the Steering Committee; d) Receive and consider the audit report or reports;”10. Do you agree with this recommendation? Not Answered No 1,39% 2,78% Yes 95,83%10.1. If no, please explain:Does consider in d) means to approve? The SPs should accept/approve the audit report/reports.
Article 10 THE MEETING OF THE SPONSORING PARTNERS, POINT(5) e) (new)RATIONALE: The GWPO auditors have recommended that the Statutes should specify that the SponsoringPartners decide whether to discharge the Steering Committee members of liability.REVISED WORDING: Include a new point (5) e) in Article 10, the Meeting of the Sponsoring Partners, asfollows: “e) Consider if the members of the Steering Committee shall be discharged of liability for the decisions of thepreceding year and decide accordingly;”11. Do you agree with this recommendation? Not Answered No 2,78% 2,78% Yes 94,44%11.1. If no, please explain: Not clear
Article 11 THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY AND THE SECRETARIATRATIONALE: The recommendation is to clarify and specify that the GWP Chair’s instructions to the ExecutiveSecretary are to be within the GWP Chair’s mandate.REVISED WORDING: Amend bullet point (3) b) in Article 11, the Executive Secretary as follows: "b) Executeinstructions from the Chair relating to the Chair’s position as spokesperson of the Network and theOrganisation;"12. Do you agree with this recommendation? Not Answered No 1,39% 2,78% Yes 95,83%12.1. If no, please explain:1st line, last word, mistyping preposition "of"
Article 15 EXTERNAL AUDITORRATIONALE: The recommendation is to change the heading to “audit” as this Article is about the audit itselfas well as about the external auditor.REVISED WORDING: Amend the heading of Article 15 to “Audit”.13. Do you agree with this recommendation? Not Answered 2,78% Yes 97,22% No 0,00%13.1. If no, please explain: