The document summarizes discussions from an international IWRM conference regarding donor coordination. It addresses that national IWRM plans must be led by countries even when donors directly fund projects. There is a need to harmonize donors' IWRM philosophies to simplify expectations for countries. In some countries, donors may need to work through NGOs to engage closely with communities where governance is weak. The discussions also focused on establishing common coordination mechanisms across donors, ensuring continuity over time, and utilizing national facilitators to share information from projects' early stages.

1. International IWRM Conference
Donor Coordination Session 2-3
Roundtables 2 & 3
As reported by Dann Sklarew
8 December 2004

2. Table 2: Ownership of Coordination
• National IWRM plans must be owned by
countries, even when not direct owners or
managers of funds.
• Need to harmonize IWRM philosophies and
approaches of donors to clarify and simplify
donors’ IWRM expectations from countries
• In countries with non-representative or corrupt
governance issues, donors may need to work
through NGOs, where goal should be to work as
close to the people as possible.

3. Table 3: Do we know the
mechanisms for support from
donors?
¥€$

4. Table 3: Mechanisms
• Need common mechanism across partners
• Need to customize approach to account for
cultural understanding and sensitivity
• Need continuity among donors over time,
– e.g., when handoff required from those
supporting planning to those supporting
implementation.

5. Table 3: Mechanisms (cont’d)
• Consider National-level facilitator (though not
always available), e.g., GWP (or Indonesian or
Senegalese WP)
• Consider sharing information starting at projects’
conceptual phase (I.e. before implementation)
• Consider highly inclusive Annual IWRM Reviews
at national scale (e.g., Uganda)
• Consider country-tailored communication vs.
cooperation vs. coordination in context of
IWDRM:.
Integrated Water Donor Resources Management

6. Table 3: Mechanisms (cont’d)
• Consider National-level facilitator (though not
always available), e.g., GWP (or Indonesian or
Senegalese WP)
• Consider sharing information starting at projects’
conceptual phase (I.e. before implementation)
• Consider highly inclusive Annual IWRM Reviews
at national scale (e.g., Uganda)
• Consider country-tailored communication vs.
cooperation vs. coordination in context of
IWDRM:.
Integrated Water Donor Resources Management