SDG Metadata/6-5-1 — Spanish @ Hosted Weblate: The following quality assurance guidelines are available to all individuals …

Translation

Source change

The following quality assurance guidelines are available to all individuals involved in quality assurance for 6.5.1. 
Process: 
<ol>
<li>Nominate person responsible for the quality assurance (QA) for a country response once it is submitted for the first time. </li>
<li>Acknowledge receipt and inform the country of the QA process. </li>
<li>Update the QA spreadsheet, indicating date of receipt and who submitted. </li>
<li>Upload draft survey (MS Word) to the Dropbox folder. </li>
<li>Undertake ALL checks described below. </li>
<li>If there are any discrepancies, revert to UNEP-DHI colleagues. </li>
<li>Once action is agreed, respond to the countries. </li>
<li>Complete all checks on each subsequent version of the questionnaire until all quality issues are resolved and questionnaire is marked ‘final’. </li>
</ol>
Checks: 
<ol>
<li>Focal point: Confirm the person submitting is the formal national focal point. If not, any reply should also add the national focal point in Cc. </li>
<li>Cover sheet: check if cover sheet is correctly filled out. Cross-check if the person submitting is the formal national focal point. If not, any reply should include the national focal point in Cc.</li>
<li>Question scores and calculations: In the spreadsheet ‘Quality_Assurance_651_2020.xlsx’ on Dropbox, fill in the given responses in sheet “QA 2020 scores-status”. Make the following checks to scores:<ol>
<li>All questions answered. The official guidance is that all questions should be answered (either with a score or n/a). </li>
<li>If there is confusion about whether to score or use ‘n/a’ for sub-national level questions, this list of administrative divisions by country may help in our understanding of the sub-national level(s) <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_administrative_divisions_by_country%20">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_administrative_divisions_by_country </a> </li>
<li>Scores are in range from 0-100, in increments of 10. If they only give ‘even’ scores (e.g. 0, 20, 40 etc), then they may not have understood that they can also give ‘odd’ scores (10, 30, 50 etc), if they feel their situation lies between two threshold descriptions.</li>
<li>Any differences between ‘given’ and ‘calculated’ section scores and overall score are given in columns C – G. If the difference is greater than +/- 0.5, the cells are automatically highlighted in red using conditional formatting. One must also fill in the date of last submission in column B, otherwise the differences will not be calculated. </li>
<li>Compare with baseline (2017). The QA ‘2017 Comparison’ spreadsheet automatically calculates differences. Note any negative changes (orange), or increases of more than 20 (yellow). If there are any significant/unexpected differences, the country should have given some explanation in the free text fields. </li>
<li>In the ‘given’ calculations (section 5 of the survey instrument), check that section averages and overall score are rounded to the nearest whole number. Rounding mistakes might occur.</li>
<li>Note: in the calculations, 0 scores are included, and N/A scores should be omitted. N/A scores should always have explanation (unless obvious – e.g. transboundary questions for island states).</li>
<li>Check if the final score is calculated as average of rounded section averages.</li>
<li>In the free text responses in columns (BE-BF) in the main “QA 2020-score status” tab, for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories the following criteria should be followed: Low: Less than three quarters of questions have responses and/or responses are poor quality. Medium: At least three quarters of the questions have responses, and/or responses are varying quality. Each question and the points make sense and are useful. High: All questions have responses and most responses are high quality. NB: Quality responses mean ones that are useful/informative/detailed and can contribute to stakeholder understanding/discussions and planning.</li>
</ol>
</li>
<li>Free text fields: Using the ‘text’ tabs: <~~ol>~~
/li>
<li>Check that the free text make sense in the context of the score (and vice versa) (particularly in the case of (n/a or 100 responses).</li>
<li>Check that n/a (not applicable) is used appropriately. i.e. only if the question is not applicable to the country. In some cases, a score of zero should be given, and in others, perhaps they need more help to figure out how to answer the question. </li>
<li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: Low: Blank or not useful. Medium: Some text and details. High: Useful amount of text and detail than can contribute to stakeholder understanding/consensus and planning.</li>
</ol>
</li>
</ol>
ANNEXES. 
<ol>
<li>Annex B: Transboundary level:
~~<ol>~~
</li>
<li>Check the ‘transboundary basins’ table. A full list of transboundary basins can be found here: <a href="http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/Report.ashx?type=IndicatorResultsSummary">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/Report.ashx?type=IndicatorResultsSummary</a>. Go to the final worksheet/tab to see the countries in each basin. You can also check the maps here: <a href="http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/%20">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/ </a>to see if the basin is likely to be important for that country, or if there is only a small portion of the basin in their country (in which case they may not list it).</li>
<li>For transboundary aquifers, check: <a href="https://ggis.un-igrac.org/view/twap">https://ggis.un-igrac.org/view/twap</a> </li>
<li>In case any sub-basins are listed, check that the main basin name is included in brackets. </li>
<li>Check the transboundary questions: 1.2c; 2.2e; 3.2d; and 4.2c, and see if these make sense in the context of the country. </li>
<li>Island countries should give ‘n/a’ for all the questions that relate to transboundary waters. </li>
</ol>
</li>
<li>Annex C: Barriers / enablers: Is this filled out? Low, moderate, or high level of information? <~~ol>~~
/li>
<li> Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: Low: Less than 1 point for each question. Medium: At least one point for each question and the points make sense and are useful. High: Useful analysis that would contribute to future planning.</li>
</ol>
</li>
<li>Annex D: Priorities: completed (Yes/No/Partially)? Any info in the ‘comments’ field (low, moderate, high level of info there?)<ol/li>
<li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: Low: Blank to few words. Medium: A few useful points. High: A longer analysis/ commentary.</li>
</ol>
</li>
<li>Annex E: Country process: Level of info in the free text field, the table, and in the ‘additional info’ field completed. <~~ol>~~
/li>
<li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: Low: Blank to few words. Medium: Minimum info to be useful to understand transparency. High: More detailed description that gives good idea of robustness and transparency of the process. </li>
</ol>
</li>
</ol>
All data is provided by each country and is therefore fully owned by the countries. Each country undertakes stakeholder consultation, to a level that is appropriate given resources and capacity available to them, to ensure that the data has adequate acceptance and ownership within the country. Guidance on consultation processes are provided in the monitoring guide and through the introductory PowerPoint and video for focal points (all materials available at <a href="http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org">http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org</a>).

Key QUALITY_ASSURE

English

The following quality assurance guidelines are available to all individuals involved in quality assurance for 6.5.1. 
Process: 
<ol>
<li>Nominate person responsible for the quality assurance (QA) for a country response once it is submitted for the first time. </li>
<li>Acknowledge receipt and inform the country of the QA process. </li>
<li>Update the QA spreadsheet, indicating date of receipt and who submitted. </li>
<li>Upload draft survey (MS Word) to the Dropbox folder. </li>
<li>Undertake ALL checks described below. </li>
<li>If there are any discrepancies, revert to UNEP-DHI colleagues. </li>
<li>Once action is agreed, respond to the countries. </li>
<li>Complete all checks on each subsequent version of the questionnaire until all quality issues are resolved and questionnaire is marked ‘final’. </li>
</ol>
Checks: 
<ol>
<li>Focal point: Confirm the person submitting is the formal national focal point. If not, any reply should also add the national focal point in Cc. </li>
<li>Cover sheet: check if cover sheet is correctly filled out. Cross-check if the person submitting is the formal national focal point. If not, any reply should include the national focal point in Cc.</li>
<li>Question scores and calculations: In the spreadsheet ‘Quality_Assurance_651_2020.xlsx’ on Dropbox, fill in the given responses in sheet “QA 2020 scores-status”. Make the following checks to scores:<ol>
<li>All questions answered. The official guidance is that all questions should be answered (either with a score or n/a). </li>
<li>If there is confusion about whether to score or use ‘n/a’ for sub-national level questions, this list of administrative divisions by country may help in our understanding of the sub-national level(s) <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_administrative_divisions_by_country%20">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_administrative_divisions_by_country </a> </li>
<li>Scores are in range from 0-100, in increments of 10. If they only give ‘even’ scores (e.g. 0, 20, 40 etc), then they may not have understood that they can also give ‘odd’ scores (10, 30, 50 etc), if they feel their situation lies between two threshold descriptions.</li>
<li>Any differences between ‘given’ and ‘calculated’ section scores and overall score are given in columns C – G. If the difference is greater than +/- 0.5, the cells are automatically highlighted in red using conditional formatting. One must also fill in the date of last submission in column B, otherwise the differences will not be calculated. </li>
<li>Compare with baseline (2017). The QA ‘2017 Comparison’ spreadsheet automatically calculates differences. Note any negative changes (orange), or increases of more than 20 (yellow). If there are any significant/unexpected differences, the country should have given some explanation in the free text fields. </li>
<li>In the ‘given’ calculations (section 5 of the survey instrument), check that section averages and overall score are rounded to the nearest whole number. Rounding mistakes might occur.</li>
<li>Note: in the calculations, 0 scores are included, and N/A scores should be omitted. N/A scores should always have explanation (unless obvious – e.g. transboundary questions for island states).</li>
<li>Check if the final score is calculated as average of rounded section averages.</li>
<li>In the free text responses in columns (BE-BF) in the main “QA 2020-score status” tab, for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories the following criteria should be followed: Low: Less than three quarters of questions have responses and/or responses are poor quality. Medium: At least three quarters of the questions have responses, and/or responses are varying quality. Each question and the points make sense and are useful. High: All questions have responses and most responses are high quality. NB: Quality responses mean ones that are useful/informative/detailed and can contribute to stakeholder understanding/discussions and planning.</li>
</ol>
</li>
<li>Free text fields: Using the ‘text’ tabs: </li>
<li>Check that the free text make sense in the context of the score (and vice versa) (particularly in the case of (n/a or 100 responses).</li>
<li>Check that n/a (not applicable) is used appropriately. i.e. only if the question is not applicable to the country. In some cases, a score of zero should be given, and in others, perhaps they need more help to figure out how to answer the question. </li>
<li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: Low: Blank or not useful. Medium: Some text and details. High: Useful amount of text and detail than can contribute to stakeholder understanding/consensus and planning.</li>
</ol>
ANNEXES. 
<ol>
<li>Annex B: Transboundary level:</li>
<li>Check the ‘transboundary basins’ table. A full list of transboundary basins can be found here: <a href="http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/Report.ashx?type=IndicatorResultsSummary">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/Report.ashx?type=IndicatorResultsSummary</a>. Go to the final worksheet/tab to see the countries in each basin. You can also check the maps here: <a href="http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/%20">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/ </a>to see if the basin is likely to be important for that country, or if there is only a small portion of the basin in their country (in which case they may not list it).</li>
<li>For transboundary aquifers, check: <a href="https://ggis.un-igrac.org/view/twap">https://ggis.un-igrac.org/view/twap</a> </li>
<li>In case any sub-basins are listed, check that the main basin name is included in brackets. </li>
<li>Check the transboundary questions: 1.2c; 2.2e; 3.2d; and 4.2c, and see if these make sense in the context of the country. </li>
<li>Island countries should give ‘n/a’ for all the questions that relate to transboundary waters. </li>
<li>Annex C: Barriers / enablers: Is this filled out? Low, moderate, or high level of information? </li>
<li> Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: Low: Less than 1 point for each question. Medium: At least one point for each question and the points make sense and are useful. High: Useful analysis that would contribute to future planning.</li>
<li>Annex D: Priorities: completed (Yes/No/Partially)? Any info in the ‘comments’ field (low, moderate, high level of info there?)</li>
<li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: Low: Blank to few words. Medium: A few useful points. High: A longer analysis/ commentary.</li>
<li>Annex E: Country process: Level of info in the free text field, the table, and in the ‘additional info’ field completed. </li>
<li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: Low: Blank to few words. Medium: Minimum info to be useful to understand transparency. High: More detailed description that gives good idea of robustness and transparency of the process. </li>
</ol>
All data is provided by each country and is therefore fully owned by the countries. Each country undertakes stakeholder consultation, to a level that is appropriate given resources and capacity available to them, to ensure that the data has adequate acceptance and ownership within the country. Guidance on consultation processes are provided in the monitoring guide and through the introductory PowerPoint and video for focal points (all materials available at <a href="http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org">http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org</a>).

Spanish

<h2>Garantía de calidad:</h2>
Las siguientes directrices de garantía de calidad (GC) están a disposición de todas las personas que participan en la garantía de calidad de 6.5.1.
Proceso:.
<ol>
 <li>Nombrar a la persona responsable de la garantía de calidad de la respuesta de un país una vez que se presenta por primera vez.</li>
 <li>Acusar recibo e informar al país del proceso de GC.</li>
 <li>Actualizar la hoja de cálculo de la GC, indicando la fecha de recepción y quién la ha presentado.</li>
 <li>Subir el borrador de la encuesta (MS Word) a la carpeta de Dropbox.</li>
 <li>Realizar TODAS las comprobaciones descritas a continuación.</li>
 <li>Si hay alguna discrepancia, regresarla a los colegas del PNUMA-DHI (por su sigla en inglés).</li>
 <li>Una vez acordada la acción, responder a los países.</li>
 <li>Realizar todas las comprobaciones en cada una de las versiones posteriores del cuestionario hasta que se hayan resuelto todos los problemas de calidad y se marque el cuestionario como &#x2018;final&#x2019;.&#xA0; &#xA0; </li>
</ol>
Comprobaciones:.
<ol>
 <li>Punto focal: Confirme que la persona que lo presenta es el punto focal nacional formal. Si no es así, cualquier respuesta debe añadir también el punto focal nacional en CC.&#xA0; </li>
 <li>Respuestas a las preguntas: </li>
 <li>Todas las preguntas contestadas. La orientación oficial es que todas las preguntas deben ser contestadas (con una puntuación o n/a). </li>
 <li>Puntuaciones en el rango de 0-100, en incrementos de 10. </li>
 <li>Compruebe que n/a (no aplicable) se utiliza adecuadamente. </li>
 <li>Campos de texto libre: En los campos &#x201C;&#x201C;Descripción del estado&#x201D; y &#x201C;Camino a seguir&#x201D; de cada pregunta, compruebe que el texto libre tiene sentido en el contexto de la puntuación (y viceversa). </li>
 <li>Cálculos: Comprueba que los promedios de las secciones y la puntuación final están redondeados al número entero más cercano y son correctos, utilizando la hoja de cálculo de GC en Dropbox. Rellene las respuestas dadas en las columnas M - AX, y revise que las diferencias se calculan automáticamente en las columnas C &#x2013; G. Si la diferencia es superior a +/- 0,5, las celdas se resaltan automáticamente en rojo utilizando el formato condicional. </li>
 <li>Comparar con la línea de base de 2017: Cuando esté disponible, compare con la encuesta de referencia de 2017 (para 172 países) y discuta con sus colegas si es necesario.&#xA0; </li>
 <li>Cuestiones transfronterizas: </li>
 <li>Compruebe la tabla de &#x2018;cuencas transfronterizas&#x2019; del Anexo B. La lista completa de cuencas transfronterizas se puede encontrar aquí: <a href="about:blank">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/Report.ashx?type=IndicatorResultsSummary</a>.</li>
 <li>Vaya a la hoja de trabajo/pestaña final para ver los países de cada cuenca. Consulta también los mapas aquí: <a href="about:blank">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/</a> para ver si es probable que la cuenca sea importante para ese país, o si sólo hay una pequeña porción de la cuenca en su país (en cuyo caso es posible que no la incluyan en la lista). </li>
 <li> Compruebe las preguntas sobre transfronterizos: 1.2c, 2.2e; 3.2d; y 4.2c, y vea si tienen sentido en el contexto del país. Los países insulares deben presentar &#x2018;n/a&#x2019; para todas estas preguntas.</li>
</ol>
Todos los datos son proporcionados por cada país y, por lo tanto, son de su entera propiedad. Cada país lleva a cabo una consulta con las partes interesadas, a un nivel apropiado teniendo en cuenta los recursos y la capacidad de que disponen, para garantizar que los datos tienen la aceptación y la propiedad adecuadas dentro del país. Las orientaciones sobre los procesos de consulta figuran en la guía de seguimiento y en el powerpoint y el vídeo introductorios para los puntos focales (todos los materiales están disponibles en <a href="about:blank">http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org</a>).

Needs editing

Skip

Key	English	Spanish
ADJUSTMENT	<p>Once the validation process described above is complete, no further adjustments are made. </p>
IMPUTATION	<p><strong>• At country level</strong></p> <p>The indicator and survey have been designed for all countries to be able to submit an indicator value, and the number of country responses under the SDG process is in excess of 90%. Estimates for countries not responding to the survey are therefore not made.</p> <p><strong>• At regional and global levels</strong></p> <p>As the number of country responses is in excess of 90%, this coverage of data is deemed to be representative of regional and global aggregates. Estimates for countries not responding to the survey are therefore not made.</p>	<h2>Tratamiento de valores faltantes:</h2> <ul> <li><strong><em>A nivel de país:</em></strong></li> </ul> <p>El indicador y la encuesta se han diseñado para que todos los países puedan presentar un valor del indicador. Entre los países que no presentaron una encuesta durante la última ronda de recopilación de datos se encontraban los Estados frágiles/países en conflicto o los pequeños Estados insulares en desarrollo. Por lo tanto, se estima que el número de respuestas de los países en el proceso de los ODS superará el 90%. Por lo tanto, no se harán estimaciones de los países que no respondan a la encuesta.</p> <ul> <li><strong><em>A nivel regional y mundial:</em></strong></li> </ul> <p>Se estima que el número de respuestas de los países será superior al 90%. Esta cobertura de datos se considerará representativa de los agregados mundiales. Por lo tanto, no se harán estimaciones de los países que no respondan a la encuesta.</p>
REG_AGG	<p>Following the Agenda 2030 principle of “leaving no one behind”, regional and global values are based on simple, un-weighted averages of country scores. The country scores are presented as a whole number, and regional and global averages are also presented as a whole number. Global averages are based on country values, not regional averages.</p> <p> </p> <p>Regional values may be assembled by regional bodies responsible for water resources in the region, such as the African Ministerial Council on Water (AMCOW), the European Environment Agency (EEA), and the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for West Asia (ESCWA).</p>	<h2>Agregados regionales:</h2> <p>Siguiendo el principio de la Agenda 2030 de “no dejar a nadie atrás”, los valores regionales y globales se basarán en promedios simples y no ponderados de las puntuaciones de los países. Las puntuaciones de los países se presentarán como un número entero, y las medias regionales y mundiales también se presentarán como un número entero. Las medias globales se basarán en los valores de los países, no en las medias regionales.</p> <p>Los valores regionales pueden ser reunidos por los organismos regionales responsables de los recursos hídricos de la región, como el Consejo Ministerial Africano del Agua (AMCOW, por su sigla en inglés), la Agencia Europea del Medio Ambiente (AEMA) y la Comisión Económica y Social de las Naciones Unidas para Asia Occidental (CESPAO).</p>
DOC_METHOD	<ol> <li>National focal points selected by each country. </li> <li>National focal points are responsible for coordinating a national process to engage governmental and non-governmental stakeholders, as appropriate in the context of each country, to develop draft responses and finalise responses. This may be via email, workshops, and online notices. </li> <li>The following guidance materials are available for national focal points in 7 languages (English, Spanish, French, Arabic, Russian, Chinese, Portuguese), at <a href="http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org/about">http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org/about</a> <a href="http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org">http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org</a>: the survey (MS Word); a detailed monitoring guide; and a PowerPoint presentation and video recording. In addition, focal points may access the following country-level materials at <a href="http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org/countrydatabase">http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org/countrydatabase</a>: the 2017 and 2020 baseline surveys and 2-page results summaries (for 186 countries); and 2017 and 2020 workshop reports (for 36 countries) from <a href="https://www.gwp.org/en/sdg6support/sdgmap/">https://www.gwp.org/en/sdg6support/sdgmap/</a>. </li> <li>In addition, an “SDG 6.5.1 Facilitator’s Training Course” is available online via <a href="https://www.gwp.org/en/sdg6support/consultations/where-we-are/stage-1-activities/">https://www.gwp.org/en/sdg6support/consultations/where-we-are/stage-1-activities/</a> , through the SDG 6 IWRM Support Programme. </li> <li>A more comprehensive “IWRM Stage 1 Support Package” is available for a limited number of countries (approximately 60 countries in 2020) see <a href="https://www.gwp.org/en/sdg6support/consultations/where-we-are/stage-1-activities/">https://www.gwp.org/en/sdg6support/consultations/where-we-are/stage-1-activities/</a>. The Support Package includes seed funding to engage a Facilitator to support the stakeholder consultation process. </li> </ol> <p>Extensive explanations are provided in the monitoring guide and in the survey itself. The survey contains: an overall introduction and explanation; a glossary; an introduction and glossary in each of the four sections; threshold descriptions for six thresholds for each question; and a number of footnotes to explain aspects of questions or threshold descriptions. All materials can be downloaded from <a href="http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org">http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org</a>. In addition, a dedicated Help Desk is available to provide assistance at all times. The Help Desk is accessible via email <a href="mailto:iwrmsdg651@un.org">iwrmsdg651@un.org</a>.</p>	<h2>Métodos y directrices a disposición de los países para la recopilación de los datos a nivel nacional:</h2> <ol> <li>Puntos focales nacionales seleccionados por cada país. </li> <li>La recopilación de datos se realiza mediante un sencillo cuestionario de 33 preguntas, en formato MS Word. Las respuestas a cada pregunta se dan en una escala de 0 – 100, en incrementos de 10. Se ofrecen descripciones de los umbrales para seis umbrales entre 0 y 100.</li> <li> Los puntos focales nacionales son responsables de coordinar un proceso nacional para involucrar a las partes interesadas gubernamentales y no gubernamentales, según sea apropiado en el contexto de cada país, para desarrollar proyectos de respuestas y finalizar las mismas. Esto puede ser desarrollado a través del correo electrónico, de talleres y/o avisos en línea.</li> <li>Los puntos focales nacionales disponen de los siguientes materiales en 7 idiomas (inglés, español, francés, árabe, ruso, chino y portugués), en <a href="about:blank">http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org</a>: la encuesta (MS Word); una guía de seguimiento detallada; y una presentación en PowerPoint y una grabación de vídeo. Además, los puntos focales pueden acceder a los siguientes materiales: las encuestas de referencia de 2017 y los resúmenes de resultados de 2 páginas (para 172 países); y los informes de los talleres de 2017 (para 36 países).</li> </ol> <p>En la guía de seguimiento y en la propia encuesta se ofrecen amplias explicaciones. La encuesta contiene: una introducción y explicación general; un glosario; una introducción y un glosario en cada una de las cuatro secciones; descripciones de umbrales para seis umbrales de cada pregunta; y varias notas a pie de página para explicar aspectos de las preguntas o descripciones de umbrales. Todo el material puede descargarse de <a href="about:blank">http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org</a>. Además, hay un servicio de asistencia dedicado a proporcionar ayuda en todo momento. Se puede acceder al servicio de ayuda por correo electrónico en: <a href="about:blank">iwrmsdg651@un.org</a>.</p>
QUALITY_MGMNT	<p>UNEP-DHI Centre, which manages the statistical reporting processes for UNEP on indicator 6.5.1, operates through a Business Management System that fulfils the requirements of ISO 9001 (quality management), which covers relevant areas such as consulting and capacity development and training courses. </p>
QUALITY_ASSURE	<p>The following quality assurance guidelines are available to all individuals involved in quality assurance for 6.5.1. </p> <p>Process: </p> <ol> <li>Nominate person responsible for the quality assurance (QA) for a country response once it is submitted for the first time. </li> <li>Acknowledge receipt and inform the country of the QA process. </li> <li>Update the QA spreadsheet, indicating date of receipt and who submitted. </li> <li>Upload draft survey (MS Word) to the Dropbox folder. </li> <li>Undertake ALL checks described below. </li> <li>If there are any discrepancies, revert to UNEP-DHI colleagues. </li> <li>Once action is agreed, respond to the countries. </li> <li>Complete all checks on each subsequent version of the questionnaire until all quality issues are resolved and questionnaire is marked ‘final’. </li> </ol> <p>Checks: </p> <ol> <li><strong>Focal point:</strong> Confirm the person submitting is the formal national focal point. If not, any reply should also add the national focal point in Cc. </li> <li><strong>Cover sheet:</strong> check if cover sheet is correctly filled out. Cross-check if the person submitting is the formal national focal point. If not, any reply should include the national focal point in Cc.</li> <li><strong>Question scores and calculations:</strong> In the spreadsheet ‘Quality_Assurance_651_2020.xlsx’ on Dropbox, fill in the given responses in sheet “QA 2020 scores-status”. Make the following checks to scores:<ol> <li>All questions answered. The official guidance is that all questions should be answered (either with a score or n/a). </li> <li>If there is confusion about whether to score or use ‘n/a’ for sub-national level questions, this list of administrative divisions by country may help in our understanding of the sub-national level(s) <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_administrative_divisions_by_country%20">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_administrative_divisions_by_country </a> </li> <li>Scores are in range from 0-100, in increments of 10. If they only give ‘even’ scores (e.g. 0, 20, 40 etc), then they may not have understood that they can also give ‘odd’ scores (10, 30, 50 etc), if they feel their situation lies between two threshold descriptions.</li> <li>Any differences between ‘given’ and ‘calculated’ section scores and overall score are given in columns C – G. If the difference is greater than +/- 0.5, the cells are automatically highlighted in red using conditional formatting. One must also fill in the date of last submission in column B, otherwise the differences will not be calculated. </li> <li>Compare with baseline (2017). The QA ‘2017 Comparison’ spreadsheet automatically calculates differences. Note any negative changes (orange), or increases of more than 20 (yellow). If there are any significant/unexpected differences, the country should have given some explanation in the free text fields. </li> <li>In the ‘given’ calculations (section 5 of the survey instrument), check that section averages and overall score are rounded to the nearest whole number. Rounding mistakes might occur.</li> <li>Note: in the calculations, 0 scores are included, and N/A scores should be omitted. N/A scores should always have explanation (unless obvious – e.g. transboundary questions for island states).</li> <li>Check if the final score is calculated as average of rounded section averages.</li> <li>In the free text responses in columns (BE-BF) in the main “QA 2020-score status” tab, for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories the following criteria should be followed: <u>Low:</u> Less than three quarters of questions have responses and/or responses are poor quality. <u>Medium:</u> At least three quarters of the questions have responses, and/or responses are varying quality. Each question and the points make sense and are useful. <u>High:</u> All questions have responses and most responses are high quality. NB: Quality responses mean ones that are useful/informative/detailed and can contribute to stakeholder understanding/discussions and planning.</li> </ol> </li> <li><strong>Free text fields: </strong>Using the ‘text’ tabs: </li> <li>Check that the free text make sense in the context of the score (and vice versa) (particularly in the case of (n/a or 100 responses).</li> <li>Check that n/a (not applicable) is used appropriately. i.e. only if the question is not applicable to the country. In some cases, a score of zero should be given, and in others, perhaps they need more help to figure out how to answer the question. </li> <li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: Low: Blank or not useful. Medium: Some text and details. High: Useful amount of text and detail than can contribute to stakeholder understanding/consensus and planning.</li> </ol> <p><strong>ANNEXES</strong>. </p> <ol> <li><strong>Annex B: Transboundary level:</strong></li> <li>Check the ‘transboundary basins’ table. A full list of transboundary basins can be found here: <a href="http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/Report.ashx?type=IndicatorResultsSummary">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/Report.ashx?type=IndicatorResultsSummary</a>. Go to the final worksheet/tab to see the countries in each basin. You can also check the maps here: <a href="http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/%20">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/ </a>to see if the basin is likely to be important for that country, or if there is only a small portion of the basin in their country (in which case they may not list it).</li> <li>For transboundary aquifers, check: <a href="https://ggis.un-igrac.org/view/twap">https://ggis.un-igrac.org/view/twap</a> </li> <li>In case any sub-basins are listed, check that the main basin name is included in brackets. </li> <li>Check the transboundary questions: 1.2c; 2.2e; 3.2d; and 4.2c, and see if these make sense in the context of the country. </li> <li>Island countries should give ‘n/a’ for all the questions that relate to transboundary waters. </li> <li><strong>Annex C: Barriers / enablers:</strong> Is this filled out? Low, moderate, or high level of information? </li> <li> Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: <u>Low:</u> Less than 1 point for each question. <u>Medium:</u> At least one point for each question and the points make sense and are useful. <u>High:</u> Useful analysis that would contribute to future planning.</li> <li><strong>Annex D:</strong> Priorities: completed (Yes/No/Partially)? Any info in the ‘comments’ field (low, moderate, high level of info there?)</li> <li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: Low: Blank to few words. Medium: A few useful points. High: A longer analysis/ commentary.</li> <li><strong>Annex E: Country process:</strong> Level of info in the free text field, the table, and in the ‘additional info’ field completed. </li> <li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: <u>Low</u>: Blank to few words. <u>Medium</u>: Minimum info to be useful to understand transparency. <u>High</u>: More detailed description that gives good idea of robustness and transparency of the process. </li> </ol> <p>All data is provided by each country and is therefore fully owned by the countries. Each country undertakes stakeholder consultation, to a level that is appropriate given resources and capacity available to them, to ensure that the data has adequate acceptance and ownership within the country. Guidance on consultation processes are provided in the monitoring guide and through the introductory PowerPoint and video for focal points (all materials available at <a href="http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org">http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org</a>).</p>	<h2>Garantía de calidad:</h2> <p>Las siguientes directrices de garantía de calidad (GC) están a disposición de todas las personas que participan en la garantía de calidad de 6.5.1.</p> <p>Proceso:.</p> <ol> <li>Nombrar a la persona responsable de la garantía de calidad de la respuesta de un país una vez que se presenta por primera vez.</li> <li>Acusar recibo e informar al país del proceso de GC.</li> <li>Actualizar la hoja de cálculo de la GC, indicando la fecha de recepción y quién la ha presentado.</li> <li>Subir el borrador de la encuesta (MS Word) a la carpeta de Dropbox.</li> <li>Realizar TODAS las comprobaciones descritas a continuación.</li> <li>Si hay alguna discrepancia, regresarla a los colegas del PNUMA-DHI (por su sigla en inglés).</li> <li>Una vez acordada la acción, responder a los países.</li> <li>Realizar todas las comprobaciones en cada una de las versiones posteriores del cuestionario hasta que se hayan resuelto todos los problemas de calidad y se marque el cuestionario como ‘final’.    </li> </ol> <p>Comprobaciones:.</p> <ol> <li>Punto focal: Confirme que la persona que lo presenta es el punto focal nacional formal. Si no es así, cualquier respuesta debe añadir también el punto focal nacional en CC.  </li> <li>Respuestas a las preguntas: </li> <li>Todas las preguntas contestadas. La orientación oficial es que todas las preguntas deben ser contestadas (con una puntuación o n/a). </li> <li>Puntuaciones en el rango de 0-100, en incrementos de 10. </li> <li>Compruebe que n/a (no aplicable) se utiliza adecuadamente. </li> <li>Campos de texto libre: En los campos ““Descripción del estado” y “Camino a seguir” de cada pregunta, compruebe que el texto libre tiene sentido en el contexto de la puntuación (y viceversa). </li> <li>Cálculos: Comprueba que los promedios de las secciones y la puntuación final están redondeados al número entero más cercano y son correctos, utilizando la hoja de cálculo de GC en Dropbox. Rellene las respuestas dadas en las columnas M - AX, y revise que las diferencias se calculan automáticamente en las columnas C – G. Si la diferencia es superior a +/- 0,5, las celdas se resaltan automáticamente en rojo utilizando el formato condicional. </li> <li>Comparar con la línea de base de 2017: Cuando esté disponible, compare con la encuesta de referencia de 2017 (para 172 países) y discuta con sus colegas si es necesario.  </li> <li>Cuestiones transfronterizas: </li> <li>Compruebe la tabla de ‘cuencas transfronterizas’ del Anexo B. La lista completa de cuencas transfronterizas se puede encontrar aquí: <a href="about:blank">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/Report.ashx?type=IndicatorResultsSummary</a>.</li> <li>Vaya a la hoja de trabajo/pestaña final para ver los países de cada cuenca. Consulta también los mapas aquí: <a href="about:blank">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/</a> para ver si es probable que la cuenca sea importante para ese país, o si sólo hay una pequeña porción de la cuenca en su país (en cuyo caso es posible que no la incluyan en la lista). </li> <li> Compruebe las preguntas sobre transfronterizos: 1.2c, 2.2e; 3.2d; y 4.2c, y vea si tienen sentido en el contexto del país. Los países insulares deben presentar ‘n/a’ para todas estas preguntas.</li> </ol> <p>Todos los datos son proporcionados por cada país y, por lo tanto, son de su entera propiedad. Cada país lleva a cabo una consulta con las partes interesadas, a un nivel apropiado teniendo en cuenta los recursos y la capacidad de que disponen, para garantizar que los datos tienen la aceptación y la propiedad adecuadas dentro del país. Las orientaciones sobre los procesos de consulta figuran en la guía de seguimiento y en el powerpoint y el vídeo introductorios para los puntos focales (todos los materiales están disponibles en <a href="about:blank">http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org</a>).</p>
QUALITY_ASSMNT	<p>The quality management procedures in place are deemed sufficient to ensure the data submitted to the SDGs Indicator Database is of acceptable quality. </p>
COVERAGE	<p><strong>Data availability:</strong></p> <p>Total number of countries: 185 (96% of UN Member States) (UNEP 2020) </p> <p>The following covers the region (UNSD regional groupings): followed by the number of countries with data / total countries in region (as of 2020); followed by the percentage of countries with data.</p> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Regional grouping</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>Number of countries with data / total countries in region (as of 2020)</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>Percentage of countries with data</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Australia and New Zealand</p> </td> <td> <p>2/2</p> </td> <td> <p>100%</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Central and Southern Asia</p> </td> <td> <p>14/14</p> </td> <td> <p>100%</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Eastern and South-Eastern Asia</p> </td> <td> <p>16/16</p> </td> <td> <p>100%</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Europe and Northern America</p> </td> <td> <p>44/45</p> </td> <td> <p>98%</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Latin America and the Caribbean</p> </td> <td> <p>32/33</p> </td> <td> <p>97%</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Northern Africa and Western Asia</p> </td> <td> <p>23/23</p> </td> <td> <p>100%</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Oceania (excluding Australia and New Zealand)</p> </td> <td> <p>9/12</p> </td> <td> <p>75%</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Sub-Saharan Africa</p> </td> <td> <p>46/48</p> </td> <td> <p>96%</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>World</p> </td> <td> <p>185/193</p> </td> <td> <p>96%</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p><strong>Time series:</strong></p> <p>Pre-SDGs: 2008, 2012 (UN-Water 2008, 2012). </p> <p>SDG period: 2017, 2020. </p> <p>All on IWRM Portal (<a href="http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org">http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org</a>)</p> <p><strong>Disaggregation:</strong></p> <p>The strength of the indicator lies in the potential for disaggregating the country score into the four main dimensions of IWRM, and further to the questions in the survey. This provides countries with a quick assessment of which aspects of IWRM are progressing well, and which aspects require increased efforts to reach the target. </p> <p>The nature of the target, indicator and survey does not lend itself to disaggregation by sex, age group, income etc. However, social equality is an integral part of IWRM, and there are questions which directly address issues such as gender, vulnerable groups, geographic coverage and broad stakeholder participation in water resources development and management. These questions provide an indication of the national and sub-national situation regarding social equality.</p>	<h1>Disponibilidad de datos</h1> <h2>Descripción:</h2> <p>Número total de países: 172 (89% de los Estados miembros de la ONU) (PNUMA 2018).</p> <p>A continuación se incluye la región (agrupaciones regionales de la División de Estadísticas de las Naciones Unidas): seguida del número de países con datos / total de países en la región (a partir de 2017); seguida del porcentaje de países con datos.</p> <p>Australia y Nueva Zelanda: 2/2; 100%.</p> <p>Asia central y meridional: 10/14; 71%.</p> <p>Asia oriental y sudoriental: 13/16; 81%.</p> <p>Europa y América del Norte: 43/45; 96%.</p> <p>América Latina y el Caribe: 29/33; 89%.</p> <p>África del Norte y Asia Occidental: 22/23; 96%.</p> <p>Oceanía (excluyendo Australia y Nueva Zelanda): 8/12; 67%.</p> <p>África subsahariana: 45/48; 94%.</p> <p>Mundo: 172/193: 89%.</p> <h2>Series temporales:</h2> <p>Antes de los ODS: 2008, 2012 (ONU-Agua 2008, 2012).</p> <p>Periodo de los ODS: 2017 (PNUMA 2018).</p> <p>Todo en el Portal de GIRH (<a href="about:blank">http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org</a>).</p> <h2>Desagregación:</h2> <p>La fuerza del indicador radica en la posibilidad de desagregar la puntuación del país en las cuatro dimensiones principales de la GIRH, y además en las preguntas de la encuesta. Esto proporciona a los países una rápida evaluación de los aspectos de la GIRH que están progresando bien, y de los aspectos que requieren mayores esfuerzos para alcanzar el objetivo.</p> <p>La naturaleza del objetivo, del indicador y de la encuesta no se presta a una desagregación por sexo, grupo de edad, ingresos, etc. Sin embargo, la igualdad social es una parte integral de la GIRH, y hay preguntas que abordan directamente cuestiones como el género, los grupos vulnerables, la cobertura geográfica y la amplia participación de los interesados en el desarrollo y la gestión de los recursos hídricos. Estas preguntas proporcionan indicios acerca de la situación nacional y sub-nacional en materia de igualdad social.</p>
COMPARABILITY	<p><strong>Sources of discrepancies:</strong></p> <p>Indicator is calculated by countries according to the internationally agreed methodology, and there are no deviations from international standards. </p>	<h2>Fuentes de discrepancias:</h2> <p>Como se describe en la sección “Fuentes de datos”, no habrá datos estimados a nivel internacional, ya que todos los datos serán producidos por los países.</p>
OTHER_DOC	<p><strong>URLs: </strong><a href="http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org">http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org</a> . This contains the latest survey instrument, monitoring guide, and all supporting documentation. </p> <p><a href="https://www.gwp.org/en/sdg6support/">https://www.gwp.org/en/sdg6support/</a> : SDG 6 IWRM Support Programme. </p> <p><strong>References:</strong></p> <p>- UNEP (2021). <a href="https://www.unepdhi.org/progress-on-integrated-water-resources-management-global-indicator-6-5-1-updates-and-acceleration-needs/">Progress on Integrated Water Resources Management. Tracking SDG 6 series: global indicator 6.5.1 updates and acceleration needs</a>.</p> <p>- GWP and UNEP-DHI (2021). <a href="https://www.unepdhi.org/progress-on-integrated-water-resources-management-iwrm-in-the-asia-pacific-region-2021/">Progress on Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) in the</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.unepdhi.org/progress-on-integrated-water-resources-management-iwrm-in-the-asia-pacific-region-2021/">Asia-Pacific Region 2021: Learning exchange on monitoring and implementation towards SDG</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.unepdhi.org/progress-on-integrated-water-resources-management-iwrm-in-the-asia-pacific-region-2021/">6.5.1</a></p> <p>- GWP Centroamérica, mayo de 2021: <a href="https://www.unepdhi.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/09/SDG6.5.1-status-Central-America-2020-full-ESP.pdf">Estado de la implementación de la Gestión Integrada de los Recursos Hídricos en Centroamérica y Republica Dominicana al 2020</a>.</p> <p>- AMCOW 2018: Status Report on the Implementation of Water Resources Management in Africa: a regional report for SDG indicator 6.5.1 on IWRM implementation. <a href="http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org/IWRMDataJsonService/Service1.svc/DownloadOnAboutPage/Status_Report/English">AMCOW 2018: Status Report on the Implementation of Water Resources Management in Africa: a regional report for SDG indicator 6.5.1 on IWRM implementation.</a></p> <p>- UNEP 2018: Progress on integrated water resources management. Global baseline for SDG 6 Indicator 6.5.1: degree of IWRM implementation. http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org/IWRMDataJsonService/Service1.svc/DownloadPublicationsReportDoc/English/report</p> <p>- United Nations Economic and Social Commission for West Asia (2019). Status Report on the Implementation of Integrated Water Resources Management in the Arab Region: Progress on SDG indicator 6.5.1. http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org/IWRMDataJsonService/Service1.svc/DownloadOnAboutPage/Full_Report/Arabic</p> <p>- UN-Water initiative on integrated monitoring of SDG 6. <a href="http://sdg6data.org">http://sdg6data.org</a></p> <p>- UN-Water, 2016: Water and Sanitation Interlinkages across the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Geneva. https://www.unwater.org/app/uploads/2016/08/Water-and-Sanitation-Interlinkages.pdf</p>	<h1>Referencias</h1> <h2>URL: </h2> <p><a href="about:blank">http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org</a>.</p> <p>Contiene el último instrumento de encuesta, la guía de seguimiento y toda la documentación de apoyo.</p> <h2>Referencias:</h2> <p>- AMCOW 2018: Informe de situación sobre la implementación de la gestión de los recursos hídricos en África: un informe regional para el indicador 6.5.1 de los ODS sobre la implementación de la GIRH.</p> <p>- PNUMA 2018: Progreso en la gestión integrada de los recursos hídricos. Línea de base global para el indicador 6.5.1 del ODS: grado de implementación de la GIRH.</p> <p>- Comisión Económica y Social de las Naciones Unidas para Asia Occidental (2019). Informe de situación sobre la aplicación de la gestión integrada de los recursos hídricos en la región árabe: Avances en el indicador 6.5.1 de los ODS.</p> <p>- Iniciativa de ONU-Agua sobre el seguimiento integrado del ODS 6. <a href="about:blank">http://sdg6data.org</a>.</p> <p>- ONU-Agua, 2016: Interrelaciones del agua y el saneamiento en la Agenda 2030 para el Desarrollo Sostenible. Ginebra.</p>

Key	English	Spanish
IMPUTATION	<p><strong>• At country level</strong></p> <p>The indicator and survey have been designed for all countries to be able to submit an indicator value, and the number of country responses under the SDG process is in excess of 90%. Estimates for countries not responding to the survey are therefore not made.</p> <p><strong>• At regional and global levels</strong></p> <p>As the number of country responses is in excess of 90%, this coverage of data is deemed to be representative of regional and global aggregates. Estimates for countries not responding to the survey are therefore not made.</p>	<h2>Tratamiento de valores faltantes:</h2> <ul> <li><strong><em>A nivel de país:</em></strong></li> </ul> <p>El indicador y la encuesta se han diseñado para que todos los países puedan presentar un valor del indicador. Entre los países que no presentaron una encuesta durante la última ronda de recopilación de datos se encontraban los Estados frágiles/países en conflicto o los pequeños Estados insulares en desarrollo. Por lo tanto, se estima que el número de respuestas de los países en el proceso de los ODS superará el 90%. Por lo tanto, no se harán estimaciones de los países que no respondan a la encuesta.</p> <ul> <li><strong><em>A nivel regional y mundial:</em></strong></li> </ul> <p>Se estima que el número de respuestas de los países será superior al 90%. Esta cobertura de datos se considerará representativa de los agregados mundiales. Por lo tanto, no se harán estimaciones de los países que no respondan a la encuesta.</p>
INST_MANDATE	<p>UNEP is the designated Custodian Agency for the indicator. Support on the collection, processing, and dissemination of statistics for this indicator is provided by the UNEP-DHI Centre on Water and Environment, the Global Water Partnership (GWP), and Cap-Net. </p>
META_LAST_UPDATE	2022-12-16	<p>Última actualización: 7 de noviembre de 2019.</p>
OTHER_DOC	<p><strong>URLs: </strong><a href="http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org">http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org</a> . This contains the latest survey instrument, monitoring guide, and all supporting documentation. </p> <p><a href="https://www.gwp.org/en/sdg6support/">https://www.gwp.org/en/sdg6support/</a> : SDG 6 IWRM Support Programme. </p> <p><strong>References:</strong></p> <p>- UNEP (2021). <a href="https://www.unepdhi.org/progress-on-integrated-water-resources-management-global-indicator-6-5-1-updates-and-acceleration-needs/">Progress on Integrated Water Resources Management. Tracking SDG 6 series: global indicator 6.5.1 updates and acceleration needs</a>.</p> <p>- GWP and UNEP-DHI (2021). <a href="https://www.unepdhi.org/progress-on-integrated-water-resources-management-iwrm-in-the-asia-pacific-region-2021/">Progress on Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) in the</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.unepdhi.org/progress-on-integrated-water-resources-management-iwrm-in-the-asia-pacific-region-2021/">Asia-Pacific Region 2021: Learning exchange on monitoring and implementation towards SDG</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.unepdhi.org/progress-on-integrated-water-resources-management-iwrm-in-the-asia-pacific-region-2021/">6.5.1</a></p> <p>- GWP Centroamérica, mayo de 2021: <a href="https://www.unepdhi.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/09/SDG6.5.1-status-Central-America-2020-full-ESP.pdf">Estado de la implementación de la Gestión Integrada de los Recursos Hídricos en Centroamérica y Republica Dominicana al 2020</a>.</p> <p>- AMCOW 2018: Status Report on the Implementation of Water Resources Management in Africa: a regional report for SDG indicator 6.5.1 on IWRM implementation. <a href="http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org/IWRMDataJsonService/Service1.svc/DownloadOnAboutPage/Status_Report/English">AMCOW 2018: Status Report on the Implementation of Water Resources Management in Africa: a regional report for SDG indicator 6.5.1 on IWRM implementation.</a></p> <p>- UNEP 2018: Progress on integrated water resources management. Global baseline for SDG 6 Indicator 6.5.1: degree of IWRM implementation. http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org/IWRMDataJsonService/Service1.svc/DownloadPublicationsReportDoc/English/report</p> <p>- United Nations Economic and Social Commission for West Asia (2019). Status Report on the Implementation of Integrated Water Resources Management in the Arab Region: Progress on SDG indicator 6.5.1. http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org/IWRMDataJsonService/Service1.svc/DownloadOnAboutPage/Full_Report/Arabic</p> <p>- UN-Water initiative on integrated monitoring of SDG 6. <a href="http://sdg6data.org">http://sdg6data.org</a></p> <p>- UN-Water, 2016: Water and Sanitation Interlinkages across the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Geneva. https://www.unwater.org/app/uploads/2016/08/Water-and-Sanitation-Interlinkages.pdf</p>	<h1>Referencias</h1> <h2>URL: </h2> <p><a href="about:blank">http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org</a>.</p> <p>Contiene el último instrumento de encuesta, la guía de seguimiento y toda la documentación de apoyo.</p> <h2>Referencias:</h2> <p>- AMCOW 2018: Informe de situación sobre la implementación de la gestión de los recursos hídricos en África: un informe regional para el indicador 6.5.1 de los ODS sobre la implementación de la GIRH.</p> <p>- PNUMA 2018: Progreso en la gestión integrada de los recursos hídricos. Línea de base global para el indicador 6.5.1 del ODS: grado de implementación de la GIRH.</p> <p>- Comisión Económica y Social de las Naciones Unidas para Asia Occidental (2019). Informe de situación sobre la aplicación de la gestión integrada de los recursos hídricos en la región árabe: Avances en el indicador 6.5.1 de los ODS.</p> <p>- Iniciativa de ONU-Agua sobre el seguimiento integrado del ODS 6. <a href="about:blank">http://sdg6data.org</a>.</p> <p>- ONU-Agua, 2016: Interrelaciones del agua y el saneamiento en la Agenda 2030 para el Desarrollo Sostenible. Ginebra.</p>
QUALITY_ASSMNT	<p>The quality management procedures in place are deemed sufficient to ensure the data submitted to the SDGs Indicator Database is of acceptable quality. </p>
QUALITY_ASSURE	<p>The following quality assurance guidelines are available to all individuals involved in quality assurance for 6.5.1. </p> <p>Process: </p> <ol> <li>Nominate person responsible for the quality assurance (QA) for a country response once it is submitted for the first time. </li> <li>Acknowledge receipt and inform the country of the QA process. </li> <li>Update the QA spreadsheet, indicating date of receipt and who submitted. </li> <li>Upload draft survey (MS Word) to the Dropbox folder. </li> <li>Undertake ALL checks described below. </li> <li>If there are any discrepancies, revert to UNEP-DHI colleagues. </li> <li>Once action is agreed, respond to the countries. </li> <li>Complete all checks on each subsequent version of the questionnaire until all quality issues are resolved and questionnaire is marked ‘final’. </li> </ol> <p>Checks: </p> <ol> <li><strong>Focal point:</strong> Confirm the person submitting is the formal national focal point. If not, any reply should also add the national focal point in Cc. </li> <li><strong>Cover sheet:</strong> check if cover sheet is correctly filled out. Cross-check if the person submitting is the formal national focal point. If not, any reply should include the national focal point in Cc.</li> <li><strong>Question scores and calculations:</strong> In the spreadsheet ‘Quality_Assurance_651_2020.xlsx’ on Dropbox, fill in the given responses in sheet “QA 2020 scores-status”. Make the following checks to scores:<ol> <li>All questions answered. The official guidance is that all questions should be answered (either with a score or n/a). </li> <li>If there is confusion about whether to score or use ‘n/a’ for sub-national level questions, this list of administrative divisions by country may help in our understanding of the sub-national level(s) <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_administrative_divisions_by_country%20">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_administrative_divisions_by_country </a> </li> <li>Scores are in range from 0-100, in increments of 10. If they only give ‘even’ scores (e.g. 0, 20, 40 etc), then they may not have understood that they can also give ‘odd’ scores (10, 30, 50 etc), if they feel their situation lies between two threshold descriptions.</li> <li>Any differences between ‘given’ and ‘calculated’ section scores and overall score are given in columns C – G. If the difference is greater than +/- 0.5, the cells are automatically highlighted in red using conditional formatting. One must also fill in the date of last submission in column B, otherwise the differences will not be calculated. </li> <li>Compare with baseline (2017). The QA ‘2017 Comparison’ spreadsheet automatically calculates differences. Note any negative changes (orange), or increases of more than 20 (yellow). If there are any significant/unexpected differences, the country should have given some explanation in the free text fields. </li> <li>In the ‘given’ calculations (section 5 of the survey instrument), check that section averages and overall score are rounded to the nearest whole number. Rounding mistakes might occur.</li> <li>Note: in the calculations, 0 scores are included, and N/A scores should be omitted. N/A scores should always have explanation (unless obvious – e.g. transboundary questions for island states).</li> <li>Check if the final score is calculated as average of rounded section averages.</li> <li>In the free text responses in columns (BE-BF) in the main “QA 2020-score status” tab, for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories the following criteria should be followed: <u>Low:</u> Less than three quarters of questions have responses and/or responses are poor quality. <u>Medium:</u> At least three quarters of the questions have responses, and/or responses are varying quality. Each question and the points make sense and are useful. <u>High:</u> All questions have responses and most responses are high quality. NB: Quality responses mean ones that are useful/informative/detailed and can contribute to stakeholder understanding/discussions and planning.</li> </ol> </li> <li><strong>Free text fields: </strong>Using the ‘text’ tabs: </li> <li>Check that the free text make sense in the context of the score (and vice versa) (particularly in the case of (n/a or 100 responses).</li> <li>Check that n/a (not applicable) is used appropriately. i.e. only if the question is not applicable to the country. In some cases, a score of zero should be given, and in others, perhaps they need more help to figure out how to answer the question. </li> <li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: Low: Blank or not useful. Medium: Some text and details. High: Useful amount of text and detail than can contribute to stakeholder understanding/consensus and planning.</li> </ol> <p><strong>ANNEXES</strong>. </p> <ol> <li><strong>Annex B: Transboundary level:</strong></li> <li>Check the ‘transboundary basins’ table. A full list of transboundary basins can be found here: <a href="http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/Report.ashx?type=IndicatorResultsSummary">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/Report.ashx?type=IndicatorResultsSummary</a>. Go to the final worksheet/tab to see the countries in each basin. You can also check the maps here: <a href="http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/%20">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/ </a>to see if the basin is likely to be important for that country, or if there is only a small portion of the basin in their country (in which case they may not list it).</li> <li>For transboundary aquifers, check: <a href="https://ggis.un-igrac.org/view/twap">https://ggis.un-igrac.org/view/twap</a> </li> <li>In case any sub-basins are listed, check that the main basin name is included in brackets. </li> <li>Check the transboundary questions: 1.2c; 2.2e; 3.2d; and 4.2c, and see if these make sense in the context of the country. </li> <li>Island countries should give ‘n/a’ for all the questions that relate to transboundary waters. </li> <li><strong>Annex C: Barriers / enablers:</strong> Is this filled out? Low, moderate, or high level of information? </li> <li> Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: <u>Low:</u> Less than 1 point for each question. <u>Medium:</u> At least one point for each question and the points make sense and are useful. <u>High:</u> Useful analysis that would contribute to future planning.</li> <li><strong>Annex D:</strong> Priorities: completed (Yes/No/Partially)? Any info in the ‘comments’ field (low, moderate, high level of info there?)</li> <li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: Low: Blank to few words. Medium: A few useful points. High: A longer analysis/ commentary.</li> <li><strong>Annex E: Country process:</strong> Level of info in the free text field, the table, and in the ‘additional info’ field completed. </li> <li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: <u>Low</u>: Blank to few words. <u>Medium</u>: Minimum info to be useful to understand transparency. <u>High</u>: More detailed description that gives good idea of robustness and transparency of the process. </li> </ol> <p>All data is provided by each country and is therefore fully owned by the countries. Each country undertakes stakeholder consultation, to a level that is appropriate given resources and capacity available to them, to ensure that the data has adequate acceptance and ownership within the country. Guidance on consultation processes are provided in the monitoring guide and through the introductory PowerPoint and video for focal points (all materials available at <a href="http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org">http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org</a>).</p>	<h2>Garantía de calidad:</h2> <p>Las siguientes directrices de garantía de calidad (GC) están a disposición de todas las personas que participan en la garantía de calidad de 6.5.1.</p> <p>Proceso:.</p> <ol> <li>Nombrar a la persona responsable de la garantía de calidad de la respuesta de un país una vez que se presenta por primera vez.</li> <li>Acusar recibo e informar al país del proceso de GC.</li> <li>Actualizar la hoja de cálculo de la GC, indicando la fecha de recepción y quién la ha presentado.</li> <li>Subir el borrador de la encuesta (MS Word) a la carpeta de Dropbox.</li> <li>Realizar TODAS las comprobaciones descritas a continuación.</li> <li>Si hay alguna discrepancia, regresarla a los colegas del PNUMA-DHI (por su sigla en inglés).</li> <li>Una vez acordada la acción, responder a los países.</li> <li>Realizar todas las comprobaciones en cada una de las versiones posteriores del cuestionario hasta que se hayan resuelto todos los problemas de calidad y se marque el cuestionario como ‘final’.    </li> </ol> <p>Comprobaciones:.</p> <ol> <li>Punto focal: Confirme que la persona que lo presenta es el punto focal nacional formal. Si no es así, cualquier respuesta debe añadir también el punto focal nacional en CC.  </li> <li>Respuestas a las preguntas: </li> <li>Todas las preguntas contestadas. La orientación oficial es que todas las preguntas deben ser contestadas (con una puntuación o n/a). </li> <li>Puntuaciones en el rango de 0-100, en incrementos de 10. </li> <li>Compruebe que n/a (no aplicable) se utiliza adecuadamente. </li> <li>Campos de texto libre: En los campos ““Descripción del estado” y “Camino a seguir” de cada pregunta, compruebe que el texto libre tiene sentido en el contexto de la puntuación (y viceversa). </li> <li>Cálculos: Comprueba que los promedios de las secciones y la puntuación final están redondeados al número entero más cercano y son correctos, utilizando la hoja de cálculo de GC en Dropbox. Rellene las respuestas dadas en las columnas M - AX, y revise que las diferencias se calculan automáticamente en las columnas C – G. Si la diferencia es superior a +/- 0,5, las celdas se resaltan automáticamente en rojo utilizando el formato condicional. </li> <li>Comparar con la línea de base de 2017: Cuando esté disponible, compare con la encuesta de referencia de 2017 (para 172 países) y discuta con sus colegas si es necesario.  </li> <li>Cuestiones transfronterizas: </li> <li>Compruebe la tabla de ‘cuencas transfronterizas’ del Anexo B. La lista completa de cuencas transfronterizas se puede encontrar aquí: <a href="about:blank">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/Report.ashx?type=IndicatorResultsSummary</a>.</li> <li>Vaya a la hoja de trabajo/pestaña final para ver los países de cada cuenca. Consulta también los mapas aquí: <a href="about:blank">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/</a> para ver si es probable que la cuenca sea importante para ese país, o si sólo hay una pequeña porción de la cuenca en su país (en cuyo caso es posible que no la incluyan en la lista). </li> <li> Compruebe las preguntas sobre transfronterizos: 1.2c, 2.2e; 3.2d; y 4.2c, y vea si tienen sentido en el contexto del país. Los países insulares deben presentar ‘n/a’ para todas estas preguntas.</li> </ol> <p>Todos los datos son proporcionados por cada país y, por lo tanto, son de su entera propiedad. Cada país lleva a cabo una consulta con las partes interesadas, a un nivel apropiado teniendo en cuenta los recursos y la capacidad de que disponen, para garantizar que los datos tienen la aceptación y la propiedad adecuadas dentro del país. Las orientaciones sobre los procesos de consulta figuran en la guía de seguimiento y en el powerpoint y el vídeo introductorios para los puntos focales (todos los materiales están disponibles en <a href="about:blank">http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org</a>).</p>
QUALITY_MGMNT	<p>UNEP-DHI Centre, which manages the statistical reporting processes for UNEP on indicator 6.5.1, operates through a Business Management System that fulfils the requirements of ISO 9001 (quality management), which covers relevant areas such as consulting and capacity development and training courses. </p>
RATIONALE	<p>The indicator provides a direct progress measurement of the first part of Target 6.5 “…implement integrated water resources management at all levels …”. The indicator score provides an easy and understandable way of measuring progress towards the target, with ‘0’ interpreted as no implementation of IWRM, and ‘100’ interpreted as IWRM being fully implemented.</p> <p> </p> <p>To further aid interpretation and comparison, the indicator results can be categorized as follows: </p> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td> <p>Degree of implementation</p> </td> <td> <p>Score range</p> </td> <td> <p>General interpretation for overall IWRM score</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Very high</p> </td> <td> <p>91 - 100</p> </td> <td> <p>Vast majority of IWRM elements are fully implemented, with objectives consistently achieved, and plans and programmes periodically assessed and revised.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>High</p> </td> <td> <p>71 - 90</p> </td> <td> <p>IWRM objectives of plans and programmes are generally met, and geographic coverage and stakeholder engagement is generally good.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Medium-high</p> </td> <td> <p>51 - 70</p> </td> <td> <p>Capacity to implement elements of IWRM is generally adequate, and elements are generally being implemented under long-term programmes.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Medium-low</p> </td> <td> <p>31 - 50</p> </td> <td> <p>Elements of IWRM are generally institutionalized, and implementation is underway.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Low</p> </td> <td> <p>11 - 30</p> </td> <td> <p>Implementation of elements of IWRM has generally begun, but with limited uptake across the country, and potentially low engagement of stakeholder groups.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Very low</p> </td> <td> <p>0 - 10</p> </td> <td> <p>Development of elements of IWRM has generally not begun, or has stalled.</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p>The concept of the survey is that it provides sufficient information to be of real value to the countries in determining their progress towards the target, and through this, various aspects of IWRM. A balance has been sought between providing sufficient information to cover the core principles of IWRM, and thus providing a robust indicator value, and not overburdening countries with unnecessary reporting requirements. </p> <p>Countries are encouraged to provide additional information on each question, which may help to qualify their choice of score, and/or put that score into their national context. </p> <p>Indicator 6.5.1 is supported by indicator 6.5.2 “Proportion of transboundary basin area with an operational arrangement for water cooperation”, which directly addresses the portion of Target 6.5 “…, including through transboundary cooperation as appropriate.”.</p>	<h2>Justificación:</h2> <p>El indicador proporciona una medición directa del progreso de la primera parte de la Meta 6.5 “…implementar la gestión integrada de los recursos hídricos en todos los niveles …”. La puntuación del indicador proporciona una forma fácil y comprensible de medir el progreso hacia la meta, con ‘0’ interpretado como que no se ha implementado la GIRH, y ‘100’ interpretado como que la GIRH se ha implementado completamente.</p> <p>Para facilitar la interpretación y la comparación, los resultados de los indicadores pueden clasificarse de la siguiente manera:.</p> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td> <p>Grado de implementación.</p> </td> <td> <p>Rango de puntuación.</p> </td> <td> <p>Interpretación general de la puntuación global de la GIRH.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Muy alta.</p> </td> <td> <p>91 - 100.</p> </td> <td> <p>La gran mayoría de los elementos de la GIRH se aplican en su totalidad, los objetivos se alcanzan sistemáticamente y los planes y programas se evalúan y revisan periódicamente.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Alta.</p> </td> <td> <p>71 - 90.</p> </td> <td> <p>Los objetivos de la GIRH incluidos en los planes y programas se cumplen en general, y la cobertura geográfica y la participación de las partes interesadas son generalmente buenas.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Media-Alta.</p> </td> <td> <p>51 - 70.</p> </td> <td> <p>La capacidad para aplicar los elementos de la GIRH es, en general, adecuada, y los elementos se aplican generalmente en el marco de programas a largo plazo</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Media-Baja.</p> </td> <td> <p>31 - 50.</p> </td> <td> <p>Los elementos de la GIRH están generalmente institucionalizados y su aplicación está en marcha.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Baja.</p> </td> <td> <p>11 - 30.</p> </td> <td> <p>La aplicación de los elementos de la GIRH ha comenzado en general, pero con una aceptación limitada en todo el país y una participación potencialmente escasa de los grupos interesados.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p>Muy baja.</p> </td> <td> <p>0 - 10.</p> </td> <td> <p>En general, el desarrollo de los elementos de la GIRH no ha comenzado o se ha estancado.</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p>El concepto de la encuesta es que proporcione suficiente información para que sea realmente valiosa para los países a la hora de determinar su progreso hacia el objetivo, y, a través de esto, a varios aspectos de la GIRH. Se ha buscado un equilibrio entre proporcionar suficiente información para cubrir los principios básicos de la GIRH, y así proporcionar un valor de indicador sólido, y no sobrecargar a los países con requisitos de información innecesarios.</p> <p>Se anima a los países a que proporcionen información adicional sobre cada pregunta que pueda ayudar a calificar su elección de puntuación, y/o a situar esa puntuación en su contexto nacional.</p> <p>El indicador 6.5.1 está respaldado por el indicador 6.5.2 “Proporción de la zona de la cuenca transfronteriza con un acuerdo operativo para la cooperación en materia de agua”, que aborda directamente la sección de la Meta 6.5 “…, incluso a través de la cooperación transfronteriza, según corresponda.”.</p>
REC_USE_LIM	<p>The challenge of subjectivity in responses associated with this type of survey is being addressed in a number of ways: </p> <ol> <li>Draft responses are reviewed by a number of governmental and non-governmental stakeholders in an open, inclusive and transparent process. </li> <li>Countries are encouraged to provide further information to qualify their responses and/or set them in the national context. </li> <li>Guidelines are provided for each of the four main sections, each question, and each of the six thresholds for every single question, to ensure responses are as objective as possible, and are comparable both between countries, and between reporting periods. </li> </ol> <p>To achieve robust indicator results requires a country process involving a wide range of stakeholders which requires a certain amount of time and resources. The advantage of this is that it puts in place a process that addresses the integrated and indivisible nature of the SDG targets, as well as stressing the importance of “leaving no one behind”.</p>	<h2>Comentarios y limitaciones:</h2> <p>El reto de la subjetividad en las respuestas asociado a este tipo de encuestas se aborda de varias maneras:.</p> <ol> <li>Los borradores de las respuestas son revisados por una serie de partes interesadas gubernamentales y no gubernamentales en un proceso abierto, inclusivo y transparente.</li> <li>Se anima a los países a que proporcionen más información para matizar sus respuestas y/o situarlas en el contexto nacional.</li> <li> Se proporcionan directrices para cada una de las cuatro secciones principales, cada pregunta y cada uno de los seis umbrales para cada pregunta, con el fin de garantizar que las respuestas sean lo más objetivas posibles y que sean comparables tanto entre países como entre periodos de información.</li> </ol> <p>Para lograr resultados sólidos en los indicadores se requiere un proceso nacional en el que participe una amplia gama de partes interesadas, lo que exigirá una cierta cantidad de tiempo y recursos. La ventaja de esto es que pone en marcha un proceso que aborda la naturaleza integrada e indivisible de las metas de los ODS, además de subrayar la importancia de “no dejar a nadie atrás”.</p>
REG_AGG	<p>Following the Agenda 2030 principle of “leaving no one behind”, regional and global values are based on simple, un-weighted averages of country scores. The country scores are presented as a whole number, and regional and global averages are also presented as a whole number. Global averages are based on country values, not regional averages.</p> <p> </p> <p>Regional values may be assembled by regional bodies responsible for water resources in the region, such as the African Ministerial Council on Water (AMCOW), the European Environment Agency (EEA), and the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for West Asia (ESCWA).</p>	<h2>Agregados regionales:</h2> <p>Siguiendo el principio de la Agenda 2030 de “no dejar a nadie atrás”, los valores regionales y globales se basarán en promedios simples y no ponderados de las puntuaciones de los países. Las puntuaciones de los países se presentarán como un número entero, y las medias regionales y mundiales también se presentarán como un número entero. Las medias globales se basarán en los valores de los países, no en las medias regionales.</p> <p>Los valores regionales pueden ser reunidos por los organismos regionales responsables de los recursos hídricos de la región, como el Consejo Ministerial Africano del Agua (AMCOW, por su sigla en inglés), la Agencia Europea del Medio Ambiente (AEMA) y la Comisión Económica y Social de las Naciones Unidas para Asia Occidental (CESPAO).</p>

Loading…

None String updated in the repository SDG Metadata 6-5-1 Spanish	English <p>The following quality assurance guidelines are available to all individuals involved in quality assurance for 6.5.1. </p> <p>Process: </p> <ol> <li>Nominate person responsible for the quality assurance (QA) for a country response once it is submitted for the first time. </li> <li>Acknowledge receipt and inform the country of the QA process. </li> <li>Update the QA spreadsheet, indicating date of receipt and who submitted. </li> <li>Upload draft survey (MS Word) to the Dropbox folder. </li> <li>Undertake ALL checks described below. </li> <li>If there are any discrepancies, revert to UNEP-DHI colleagues. </li> <li>Once action is agreed, respond to the countries. </li> <li>Complete all checks on each subsequent version of the questionnaire until all quality issues are resolved and questionnaire is marked ‘final’. </li> </ol> <p>Checks: </p> <ol> <li><strong>Focal point:</strong> Confirm the person submitting is the formal national focal point. If not, any reply should also add the national focal point in Cc. </li> <li><strong>Cover sheet:</strong> check if cover sheet is correctly filled out. Cross-check if the person submitting is the formal national focal point. If not, any reply should include the national focal point in Cc.</li> <li><strong>Question scores and calculations:</strong> In the spreadsheet ‘Quality_Assurance_651_2020.xlsx’ on Dropbox, fill in the given responses in sheet “QA 2020 scores-status”. Make the following checks to scores:<ol> <li>All questions answered. The official guidance is that all questions should be answered (either with a score or n/a). </li> <li>If there is confusion about whether to score or use ‘n/a’ for sub-national level questions, this list of administrative divisions by country may help in our understanding of the sub-national level(s) <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_administrative_divisions_by_country%20">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_administrative_divisions_by_country </a> </li> <li>Scores are in range from 0-100, in increments of 10. If they only give ‘even’ scores (e.g. 0, 20, 40 etc), then they may not have understood that they can also give ‘odd’ scores (10, 30, 50 etc), if they feel their situation lies between two threshold descriptions.</li> <li>Any differences between ‘given’ and ‘calculated’ section scores and overall score are given in columns C – G. If the difference is greater than +/- 0.5, the cells are automatically highlighted in red using conditional formatting. One must also fill in the date of last submission in column B, otherwise the differences will not be calculated. </li> <li>Compare with baseline (2017). The QA ‘2017 Comparison’ spreadsheet automatically calculates differences. Note any negative changes (orange), or increases of more than 20 (yellow). If there are any significant/unexpected differences, the country should have given some explanation in the free text fields. </li> <li>In the ‘given’ calculations (section 5 of the survey instrument), check that section averages and overall score are rounded to the nearest whole number. Rounding mistakes might occur.</li> <li>Note: in the calculations, 0 scores are included, and N/A scores should be omitted. N/A scores should always have explanation (unless obvious – e.g. transboundary questions for island states).</li> <li>Check if the final score is calculated as average of rounded section averages.</li> <li>In the free text responses in columns (BE-BF) in the main “QA 2020-score status” tab, for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories the following criteria should be followed: <u>Low:</u> Less than three quarters of questions have responses and/or responses are poor quality. <u>Medium:</u> At least three quarters of the questions have responses, and/or responses are varying quality. Each question and the points make sense and are useful. <u>High:</u> All questions have responses and most responses are high quality. NB: Quality responses mean ones that are useful/informative/detailed and can contribute to stakeholder understanding/discussions and planning.</li> </ol> </li> <li><strong>Free text fields: </strong>Using the ‘text’ tabs: </li> <li>Check that the free text make sense in the context of the score (and vice versa) (particularly in the case of (n/a or 100 responses).</li> <li>Check that n/a (not applicable) is used appropriately. i.e. only if the question is not applicable to the country. In some cases, a score of zero should be given, and in others, perhaps they need more help to figure out how to answer the question. </li> <li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: Low: Blank or not useful. Medium: Some text and details. High: Useful amount of text and detail than can contribute to stakeholder understanding/consensus and planning.</li> </ol> <p><strong>ANNEXES</strong>. </p> <ol> <li><strong>Annex B: Transboundary level:</strong></li> <li>Check the ‘transboundary basins’ table. A full list of transboundary basins can be found here: <a href="http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/Report.ashx?type=IndicatorResultsSummary">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/Report.ashx?type=IndicatorResultsSummary</a>. Go to the final worksheet/tab to see the countries in each basin. You can also check the maps here: <a href="http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/%20">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/ </a>to see if the basin is likely to be important for that country, or if there is only a small portion of the basin in their country (in which case they may not list it).</li> <li>For transboundary aquifers, check: <a href="https://ggis.un-igrac.org/view/twap">https://ggis.un-igrac.org/view/twap</a> </li> <li>In case any sub-basins are listed, check that the main basin name is included in brackets. </li> <li>Check the transboundary questions: 1.2c; 2.2e; 3.2d; and 4.2c, and see if these make sense in the context of the country. </li> <li>Island countries should give ‘n/a’ for all the questions that relate to transboundary waters. </li> <li><strong>Annex C: Barriers / enablers:</strong> Is this filled out? Low, moderate, or high level of information? </li> <li> Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: <u>Low:</u> Less than 1 point for each question. <u>Medium:</u> At least one point for each question and the points make sense and are useful. <u>High:</u> Useful analysis that would contribute to future planning.</li> <li><strong>Annex D:</strong> Priorities: completed (Yes/No/Partially)? Any info in the ‘comments’ field (low, moderate, high level of info there?)</li> <li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: Low: Blank to few words. Medium: A few useful points. High: A longer analysis/ commentary.</li> <li><strong>Annex E: Country process:</strong> Level of info in the free text field, the table, and in the ‘additional info’ field completed. </li> <li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: <u>Low</u>: Blank to few words. <u>Medium</u>: Minimum info to be useful to understand transparency. <u>High</u>: More detailed description that gives good idea of robustness and transparency of the process. </li> </ol> <p>All data is provided by each country and is therefore fully owned by the countries. Each country undertakes stakeholder consultation, to a level that is appropriate given resources and capacity available to them, to ensure that the data has adequate acceptance and ownership within the country. Guidance on consultation processes are provided in the monitoring guide and through the introductory PowerPoint and video for focal points (all materials available at <a href="http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org">http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org</a>).</p> Spanish 0 characters edited Current translation Needs editing <h2>Garantía de calidad:</h2> <p>Las siguientes directrices de garantía de calidad (GC) están a disposición de todas las personas que participan en la garantía de calidad de 6.5.1.</p> <p>Proceso:.</p> <ol> <li>Nombrar a la persona responsable de la garantía de calidad de la respuesta de un país una vez que se presenta por primera vez.</li> <li>Acusar recibo e informar al país del proceso de GC.</li> <li>Actualizar la hoja de cálculo de la GC, indicando la fecha de recepción y quién la ha presentado.</li> <li>Subir el borrador de la encuesta (MS Word) a la carpeta de Dropbox.</li> <li>Realizar TODAS las comprobaciones descritas a continuación.</li> <li>Si hay alguna discrepancia, regresarla a los colegas del PNUMA-DHI (por su sigla en inglés).</li> <li>Una vez acordada la acción, responder a los países.</li> <li>Realizar todas las comprobaciones en cada una de las versiones posteriores del cuestionario hasta que se hayan resuelto todos los problemas de calidad y se marque el cuestionario como ‘final’.    </li> </ol> <p>Comprobaciones:.</p> <ol> <li>Punto focal: Confirme que la persona que lo presenta es el punto focal nacional formal. Si no es así, cualquier respuesta debe añadir también el punto focal nacional en CC.  </li> <li>Respuestas a las preguntas: </li> <li>Todas las preguntas contestadas. La orientación oficial es que todas las preguntas deben ser contestadas (con una puntuación o n/a). </li> <li>Puntuaciones en el rango de 0-100, en incrementos de 10. </li> <li>Compruebe que n/a (no aplicable) se utiliza adecuadamente. </li> <li>Campos de texto libre: En los campos ““Descripción del estado” y “Camino a seguir” de cada pregunta, compruebe que el texto libre tiene sentido en el contexto de la puntuación (y viceversa). </li> <li>Cálculos: Comprueba que los promedios de las secciones y la puntuación final están redondeados al número entero más cercano y son correctos, utilizando la hoja de cálculo de GC en Dropbox. Rellene las respuestas dadas en las columnas M - AX, y revise que las diferencias se calculan automáticamente en las columnas C – G. Si la diferencia es superior a +/- 0,5, las celdas se resaltan automáticamente en rojo utilizando el formato condicional. </li> <li>Comparar con la línea de base de 2017: Cuando esté disponible, compare con la encuesta de referencia de 2017 (para 172 países) y discuta con sus colegas si es necesario.  </li> <li>Cuestiones transfronterizas: </li> <li>Compruebe la tabla de ‘cuencas transfronterizas’ del Anexo B. La lista completa de cuencas transfronterizas se puede encontrar aquí: <a href="about:blank">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/Report.ashx?type=IndicatorResultsSummary</a>.</li> <li>Vaya a la hoja de trabajo/pestaña final para ver los países de cada cuenca. Consulta también los mapas aquí: <a href="about:blank">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/</a> para ver si es probable que la cuenca sea importante para ese país, o si sólo hay una pequeña porción de la cuenca en su país (en cuyo caso es posible que no la incluyan en la lista). </li> <li> Compruebe las preguntas sobre transfronterizos: 1.2c, 2.2e; 3.2d; y 4.2c, y vea si tienen sentido en el contexto del país. Los países insulares deben presentar ‘n/a’ para todas estas preguntas.</li> </ol> <p>Todos los datos son proporcionados por cada país y, por lo tanto, son de su entera propiedad. Cada país lleva a cabo una consulta con las partes interesadas, a un nivel apropiado teniendo en cuenta los recursos y la capacidad de que disponen, para garantizar que los datos tienen la aceptación y la propiedad adecuadas dentro del país. Las orientaciones sobre los procesos de consulta figuran en la guía de seguimiento y en el powerpoint y el vídeo introductorios para los puntos focales (todos los materiales están disponibles en <a href="about:blank">http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org</a>).</p> a year ago
None Source string changed SDG Metadata 6-5-1 Spanish	English 149 characters edited <p>The following quality assurance guidelines are available to all individuals involved in quality assurance for 6.5.1. </p> <p>Process: </p> <ol> <li>Nominate person responsible for the quality assurance (QA) for a country response once it is submitted for the first time. </li> <li>Acknowledge receipt and inform the country of the QA process. </li> <li>Update the QA spreadsheet, indicating date of receipt and who submitted. </li> <li>Upload draft survey (MS Word) to the Dropbox folder. </li> <li>Undertake ALL checks described below. </li> <li>If there are any discrepancies, revert to UNEP-DHI colleagues. </li> <li>Once action is agreed, respond to the countries. </li> <li>Complete all checks on each subsequent version of the questionnaire until all quality issues are resolved and questionnaire is marked ‘final’. </li> </ol> <p>Checks: </p> <ol> <li><strong>Focal point:</strong> Confirm the person submitting is the formal national focal point. If not, any reply should also add the national focal point in Cc. </li> <li><strong>Cover sheet:</strong> check if cover sheet is correctly filled out. Cross-check if the person submitting is the formal national focal point. If not, any reply should include the national focal point in Cc.</li> <li><strong>Question scores and calculations:</strong> In the spreadsheet ‘Quality_Assurance_651_2020.xlsx’ on Dropbox, fill in the given responses in sheet “QA 2020 scores-status”. Make the following checks to scores:<ol> <li>All questions answered. The official guidance is that all questions should be answered (either with a score or n/a). </li> <li>If there is confusion about whether to score or use ‘n/a’ for sub-national level questions, this list of administrative divisions by country may help in our understanding of the sub-national level(s) <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_administrative_divisions_by_country%20">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_administrative_divisions_by_country </a> </li> <li>Scores are in range from 0-100, in increments of 10. If they only give ‘even’ scores (e.g. 0, 20, 40 etc), then they may not have understood that they can also give ‘odd’ scores (10, 30, 50 etc), if they feel their situation lies between two threshold descriptions.</li> <li>Any differences between ‘given’ and ‘calculated’ section scores and overall score are given in columns C – G. If the difference is greater than +/- 0.5, the cells are automatically highlighted in red using conditional formatting. One must also fill in the date of last submission in column B, otherwise the differences will not be calculated. </li> <li>Compare with baseline (2017). The QA ‘2017 Comparison’ spreadsheet automatically calculates differences. Note any negative changes (orange), or increases of more than 20 (yellow). If there are any significant/unexpected differences, the country should have given some explanation in the free text fields. </li> <li>In the ‘given’ calculations (section 5 of the survey instrument), check that section averages and overall score are rounded to the nearest whole number. Rounding mistakes might occur.</li> <li>Note: in the calculations, 0 scores are included, and N/A scores should be omitted. N/A scores should always have explanation (unless obvious – e.g. transboundary questions for island states).</li> <li>Check if the final score is calculated as average of rounded section averages.</li> <li>In the free text responses in columns (BE-BF) in the main “QA 2020-score status” tab, for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories the following criteria should be followed: <u>Low:</u> Less than three quarters of questions have responses and/or responses are poor quality. <u>Medium:</u> At least three quarters of the questions have responses, and/or responses are varying quality. Each question and the points make sense and are useful. <u>High:</u> All questions have responses and most responses are high quality. NB: Quality responses mean ones that are useful/informative/detailed and can contribute to stakeholder understanding/discussions and planning.</li> </ol> </li> <li><strong>Free text fields: </strong>Using the ‘text’ tabs: <~~ol>~~ /li> <li>Check that the free text make sense in the context of the score (and vice versa) (particularly in the case of (n/a or 100 responses).</li> <li>Check that n/a (not applicable) is used appropriately. i.e. only if the question is not applicable to the country. In some cases, a score of zero should be given, and in others, perhaps they need more help to figure out how to answer the question. </li> <li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: Low: Blank or not useful. Medium: Some text and details. High: Useful amount of text and detail than can contribute to stakeholder understanding/consensus and planning.</li> </ol> </li> </ol> <p><strong>ANNEXES</strong>. </p> <ol> <li><strong>Annex B: Transboundary level:</strong> ~~<ol>~~ </li> <li>Check the ‘transboundary basins’ table. A full list of transboundary basins can be found here: <a href="http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/Report.ashx?type=IndicatorResultsSummary">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/Report.ashx?type=IndicatorResultsSummary</a>. Go to the final worksheet/tab to see the countries in each basin. You can also check the maps here: <a href="http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/%20">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/ </a>to see if the basin is likely to be important for that country, or if there is only a small portion of the basin in their country (in which case they may not list it).</li> <li>For transboundary aquifers, check: <a href="https://ggis.un-igrac.org/view/twap">https://ggis.un-igrac.org/view/twap</a> </li> <li>In case any sub-basins are listed, check that the main basin name is included in brackets. </li> <li>Check the transboundary questions: 1.2c; 2.2e; 3.2d; and 4.2c, and see if these make sense in the context of the country. </li> <li>Island countries should give ‘n/a’ for all the questions that relate to transboundary waters. </li> </ol> </li> <li><strong>Annex C: Barriers / enablers:</strong> Is this filled out? Low, moderate, or high level of information? <~~ol>~~ /li> <li> Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: <u>Low:</u> Less than 1 point for each question. <u>Medium:</u> At least one point for each question and the points make sense and are useful. <u>High:</u> Useful analysis that would contribute to future planning.</li> </ol> </li> <li><strong>Annex D:</strong> Priorities: completed (Yes/No/Partially)? Any info in the ‘comments’ field (low, moderate, high level of info there?)<ol/li> <li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: Low: Blank to few words. Medium: A few useful points. High: A longer analysis/ commentary.</li> </ol> </li> <li><strong>Annex E: Country process:</strong> Level of info in the free text field, the table, and in the ‘additional info’ field completed. <~~ol>~~ /li> <li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: <u>Low</u>: Blank to few words. <u>Medium</u>: Minimum info to be useful to understand transparency. <u>High</u>: More detailed description that gives good idea of robustness and transparency of the process. </li> </ol> </li> </ol> <p>All data is provided by each country and is therefore fully owned by the countries. Each country undertakes stakeholder consultation, to a level that is appropriate given resources and capacity available to them, to ensure that the data has adequate acceptance and ownership within the country. Guidance on consultation processes are provided in the monitoring guide and through the introductory PowerPoint and video for focal points (all materials available at <a href="http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org">http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org</a>).</p> a year ago
None String updated in the repository SDG Metadata 6-5-1 Spanish	English <p>The following quality assurance guidelines are available to all individuals involved in quality assurance for 6.5.1. </p> <p>Process: </p> <ol> <li>Nominate person responsible for the quality assurance (QA) for a country response once it is submitted for the first time. </li> <li>Acknowledge receipt and inform the country of the QA process. </li> <li>Update the QA spreadsheet, indicating date of receipt and who submitted. </li> <li>Upload draft survey (MS Word) to the Dropbox folder. </li> <li>Undertake ALL checks described below. </li> <li>If there are any discrepancies, revert to UNEP-DHI colleagues. </li> <li>Once action is agreed, respond to the countries. </li> <li>Complete all checks on each subsequent version of the questionnaire until all quality issues are resolved and questionnaire is marked ‘final’. </li> </ol> <p>Checks: </p> <ol> <li><strong>Focal point:</strong> Confirm the person submitting is the formal national focal point. If not, any reply should also add the national focal point in Cc. </li> <li><strong>Cover sheet:</strong> check if cover sheet is correctly filled out. Cross-check if the person submitting is the formal national focal point. If not, any reply should include the national focal point in Cc.</li> <li><strong>Question scores and calculations:</strong> In the spreadsheet ‘Quality_Assurance_651_2020.xlsx’ on Dropbox, fill in the given responses in sheet “QA 2020 scores-status”. Make the following checks to scores:<ol> <li>All questions answered. The official guidance is that all questions should be answered (either with a score or n/a). </li> <li>If there is confusion about whether to score or use ‘n/a’ for sub-national level questions, this list of administrative divisions by country may help in our understanding of the sub-national level(s) <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_administrative_divisions_by_country%20">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_administrative_divisions_by_country </a> </li> <li>Scores are in range from 0-100, in increments of 10. If they only give ‘even’ scores (e.g. 0, 20, 40 etc), then they may not have understood that they can also give ‘odd’ scores (10, 30, 50 etc), if they feel their situation lies between two threshold descriptions.</li> <li>Any differences between ‘given’ and ‘calculated’ section scores and overall score are given in columns C – G. If the difference is greater than +/- 0.5, the cells are automatically highlighted in red using conditional formatting. One must also fill in the date of last submission in column B, otherwise the differences will not be calculated. </li> <li>Compare with baseline (2017). The QA ‘2017 Comparison’ spreadsheet automatically calculates differences. Note any negative changes (orange), or increases of more than 20 (yellow). If there are any significant/unexpected differences, the country should have given some explanation in the free text fields. </li> <li>In the ‘given’ calculations (section 5 of the survey instrument), check that section averages and overall score are rounded to the nearest whole number. Rounding mistakes might occur.</li> <li>Note: in the calculations, 0 scores are included, and N/A scores should be omitted. N/A scores should always have explanation (unless obvious – e.g. transboundary questions for island states).</li> <li>Check if the final score is calculated as average of rounded section averages.</li> <li>In the free text responses in columns (BE-BF) in the main “QA 2020-score status” tab, for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories the following criteria should be followed: <u>Low:</u> Less than three quarters of questions have responses and/or responses are poor quality. <u>Medium:</u> At least three quarters of the questions have responses, and/or responses are varying quality. Each question and the points make sense and are useful. <u>High:</u> All questions have responses and most responses are high quality. NB: Quality responses mean ones that are useful/informative/detailed and can contribute to stakeholder understanding/discussions and planning.</li> </ol> </li> <li><strong>Free text fields: </strong>Using the ‘text’ tabs: <ol> <li>Check that the free text make sense in the context of the score (and vice versa) (particularly in the case of (n/a or 100 responses).</li> <li>Check that n/a (not applicable) is used appropriately. i.e. only if the question is not applicable to the country. In some cases, a score of zero should be given, and in others, perhaps they need more help to figure out how to answer the question. </li> <li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: Low: Blank or not useful. Medium: Some text and details. High: Useful amount of text and detail than can contribute to stakeholder understanding/consensus and planning.</li> </ol> </li> </ol> <p><strong>ANNEXES</strong>. </p> <ol> <li><strong>Annex B: Transboundary level:</strong> <ol> <li>Check the ‘transboundary basins’ table. A full list of transboundary basins can be found here: <a href="http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/Report.ashx?type=IndicatorResultsSummary">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/Report.ashx?type=IndicatorResultsSummary</a>. Go to the final worksheet/tab to see the countries in each basin. You can also check the maps here: <a href="http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/%20">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/ </a>to see if the basin is likely to be important for that country, or if there is only a small portion of the basin in their country (in which case they may not list it).</li> <li>For transboundary aquifers, check: <a href="https://ggis.un-igrac.org/view/twap">https://ggis.un-igrac.org/view/twap</a> </li> <li>In case any sub-basins are listed, check that the main basin name is included in brackets. </li> <li>Check the transboundary questions: 1.2c; 2.2e; 3.2d; and 4.2c, and see if these make sense in the context of the country. </li> <li>Island countries should give ‘n/a’ for all the questions that relate to transboundary waters. </li> </ol> </li> <li><strong>Annex C: Barriers / enablers:</strong> Is this filled out? Low, moderate, or high level of information? <ol> <li> Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: <u>Low:</u> Less than 1 point for each question. <u>Medium:</u> At least one point for each question and the points make sense and are useful. <u>High:</u> Useful analysis that would contribute to future planning.</li> </ol> </li> <li><strong>Annex D:</strong> Priorities: completed (Yes/No/Partially)? Any info in the ‘comments’ field (low, moderate, high level of info there?)<ol> <li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: Low: Blank to few words. Medium: A few useful points. High: A longer analysis/ commentary.</li> </ol> </li> <li><strong>Annex E: Country process:</strong> Level of info in the free text field, the table, and in the ‘additional info’ field completed. <ol> <li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: <u>Low</u>: Blank to few words. <u>Medium</u>: Minimum info to be useful to understand transparency. <u>High</u>: More detailed description that gives good idea of robustness and transparency of the process. </li> </ol> </li> </ol> <p>All data is provided by each country and is therefore fully owned by the countries. Each country undertakes stakeholder consultation, to a level that is appropriate given resources and capacity available to them, to ensure that the data has adequate acceptance and ownership within the country. Guidance on consultation processes are provided in the monitoring guide and through the introductory PowerPoint and video for focal points (all materials available at <a href="http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org">http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org</a>).</p> Spanish 0 characters edited Current translation Needs editing <h2>Garantía de calidad:</h2> <p>Las siguientes directrices de garantía de calidad (GC) están a disposición de todas las personas que participan en la garantía de calidad de 6.5.1.</p> <p>Proceso:.</p> <ol> <li>Nombrar a la persona responsable de la garantía de calidad de la respuesta de un país una vez que se presenta por primera vez.</li> <li>Acusar recibo e informar al país del proceso de GC.</li> <li>Actualizar la hoja de cálculo de la GC, indicando la fecha de recepción y quién la ha presentado.</li> <li>Subir el borrador de la encuesta (MS Word) a la carpeta de Dropbox.</li> <li>Realizar TODAS las comprobaciones descritas a continuación.</li> <li>Si hay alguna discrepancia, regresarla a los colegas del PNUMA-DHI (por su sigla en inglés).</li> <li>Una vez acordada la acción, responder a los países.</li> <li>Realizar todas las comprobaciones en cada una de las versiones posteriores del cuestionario hasta que se hayan resuelto todos los problemas de calidad y se marque el cuestionario como ‘final’.    </li> </ol> <p>Comprobaciones:.</p> <ol> <li>Punto focal: Confirme que la persona que lo presenta es el punto focal nacional formal. Si no es así, cualquier respuesta debe añadir también el punto focal nacional en CC.  </li> <li>Respuestas a las preguntas: </li> <li>Todas las preguntas contestadas. La orientación oficial es que todas las preguntas deben ser contestadas (con una puntuación o n/a). </li> <li>Puntuaciones en el rango de 0-100, en incrementos de 10. </li> <li>Compruebe que n/a (no aplicable) se utiliza adecuadamente. </li> <li>Campos de texto libre: En los campos ““Descripción del estado” y “Camino a seguir” de cada pregunta, compruebe que el texto libre tiene sentido en el contexto de la puntuación (y viceversa). </li> <li>Cálculos: Comprueba que los promedios de las secciones y la puntuación final están redondeados al número entero más cercano y son correctos, utilizando la hoja de cálculo de GC en Dropbox. Rellene las respuestas dadas en las columnas M - AX, y revise que las diferencias se calculan automáticamente en las columnas C – G. Si la diferencia es superior a +/- 0,5, las celdas se resaltan automáticamente en rojo utilizando el formato condicional. </li> <li>Comparar con la línea de base de 2017: Cuando esté disponible, compare con la encuesta de referencia de 2017 (para 172 países) y discuta con sus colegas si es necesario.  </li> <li>Cuestiones transfronterizas: </li> <li>Compruebe la tabla de ‘cuencas transfronterizas’ del Anexo B. La lista completa de cuencas transfronterizas se puede encontrar aquí: <a href="about:blank">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/Report.ashx?type=IndicatorResultsSummary</a>.</li> <li>Vaya a la hoja de trabajo/pestaña final para ver los países de cada cuenca. Consulta también los mapas aquí: <a href="about:blank">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/</a> para ver si es probable que la cuenca sea importante para ese país, o si sólo hay una pequeña porción de la cuenca en su país (en cuyo caso es posible que no la incluyan en la lista). </li> <li> Compruebe las preguntas sobre transfronterizos: 1.2c, 2.2e; 3.2d; y 4.2c, y vea si tienen sentido en el contexto del país. Los países insulares deben presentar ‘n/a’ para todas estas preguntas.</li> </ol> <p>Todos los datos son proporcionados por cada país y, por lo tanto, son de su entera propiedad. Cada país lleva a cabo una consulta con las partes interesadas, a un nivel apropiado teniendo en cuenta los recursos y la capacidad de que disponen, para garantizar que los datos tienen la aceptación y la propiedad adecuadas dentro del país. Las orientaciones sobre los procesos de consulta figuran en la guía de seguimiento y en el powerpoint y el vídeo introductorios para los puntos focales (todos los materiales están disponibles en <a href="about:blank">http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org</a>).</p> a year ago
None Source string changed SDG Metadata 6-5-1 Spanish	English 138 characters edited <p>The following quality assurance guidelines are available to all individuals involved in quality assurance for 6.5.1. </p> <p>Process: </p> <ol> <li>Nominate person responsible for the quality assurance (QA) for a country response once it is submitted for the first time. </li> <li>Acknowledge receipt and inform the country of the QA process. </li> <li>Update the QA spreadsheet, indicating date of receipt and who submitted. </li> <li>Upload draft survey (MS Word) to the Dropbox folder. </li> <li>Undertake ALL checks described below. </li> <li>If there are any discrepancies, revert to UNEP-DHI colleagues. </li> <li>Once action is agreed, respond to the countries. </li> <li>Complete all checks on each subsequent version of the questionnaire until all quality issues are resolved and questionnaire is marked ‘final’. </li> </ol> <p>Checks: </p> <ol> <li><strong>Focal point:</strong> Confirm the person submitting is the formal national focal point. If not, any reply should also add the national focal point in CCc. </li> <li><strong>Cover sheet:</strong> check if cover sheet is correctly filled out. Cross-check if the person submitting is the formal national focal point. If not, any reply should include the national focal point in CCc.</li> <li><strong>Question scores and calculations:</strong> In the spreadsheet ‘Quality_Assurance_651_2020.xlsx’ on Dropbox, fill in the given responses in sheet “QA 2020 scores-status”. Make the following checks to scores:<ol> <li>All questions answered. The official guidance is that all questions should be answered (either with a score or n/a). </li> <li>If there is confusion about whether to score or use ‘n/a’ for sub-national level questions, this list of administrative divisions by country may help in our understanding of the sub-national level(s) <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_administrative_divisions_by_country%20">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_administrative_divisions_by_country </a> </li> <li>Scores are in range from 0-100, in increments of 10. If they only give ‘even’ scores (e.g. 0, 20, 40 etc), then they may not have understood that they can also give ‘odd’ scores (10, 30, 50 etc), if they feel their situation lies between two threshold descriptions.</li> <li>Any differences between ‘given’ and ‘calculated’ section scores and overall score are given in columns C – G. If the difference is greater than +/- 0.5, the cells are automatically highlighted in red using conditional formatting. One ~~also has t~~must also fill in the date of last submission in column B, otherwise the differences will not be calculated. </li> <li>Compare with baseline (2017). The QA ‘2017 Comparison’ spreadsheet automatically calculates differences. Note any negative changes (orange), or increases of more than 20 (yellow). If there are any significant/unexpected differences, the country should have given some explanation in the free text fields. </li> <li>In the ‘given’ calculations (section 5 of the survey instrument), check that section averages and overall score are rounded to the nearest whole number. Rounding mistakes might occur.</li> <li>Note: in the calculations, 0 scores are included, and N/A scores should be omitted. N/A scores should always have explanation (unless obvious – e.g. transboundary questions for island states).</li> <li>Check if the final score is calculated as average of rounded section averages.</li> <li>In the free text responses in columns (BE-BF) in the main “QA 2020-score status” tab, for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories the following criteria should be followed: <u>Low:</u> Less than three quarters of questions have responses and/or responses are poor quality. <u>Medium:</u> At least three quarters of the questions have responses, and/or responses are varying quality. Each question and the points make sense and are useful. <u>High:</u> All questions have responses and most responses are high quality. NB: Quality responses mean ones that are useful/ informative/ detailed and can contribute to stakeholder understanding/ discussions and plannings.</li> </ol> </li> <li><strong>Free text fields: </strong>Using the ‘text’ tabs: <ol> <li>Check that the free text make sense in the context of the score (and vice versa) (particularly in the case of (n/a or 100 responses).</li> <li>Check that n/a (not applicable) is used appropriately. i.e. only if the question is not applicable to the country. In some cases, a score of zero should be given, and in others, perhaps they need more help to figure out how to answer the question. </li> <li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: Low: Blank or not useful. Medium: Some text and details. High: Useful amount of text and detail than can contribute to stakeholder understanding/consensus and planning.</li> </ol> </li> </ol> <p><strong>ANNEXES</strong>. </p> <ol> <li><strong>Annex B: Transboundary level:</strong> <ol> <li>Check the ‘transboundary basins’ table. A full list of transboundary basins can be found here: <a href="http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/Report.ashx?type=IndicatorResultsSummary">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/Report.ashx?type=IndicatorResultsSummary</a>. Go to the final worksheet/tab to see the countries in each basin. You can also check the maps here: <a href="http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/%20">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/ </a>to see if the basin is likely to be important for that country, or if there is only a small portion of the basin in their country (in which case they may not list it).</li> <li>For transboundary aquifers, check: <a href="https://~~apps.geodan.nl/igrac/ggis-viewer~~ggis.un-igrac.org/viewer/twap~~/public/default">https://apps.geodan.nl/igrac/ggis-viewer~~">https://ggis.un-igrac.org/viewer/twap~~/public/default~~</a> </li> <li>In case any sub-basins are listed, check that the main basin name is included in brackets. </li> <li>Check the transboundary questions: 1.2c; 2.2e; 3.2d; and 4.2c, and see if these make sense in the context of the country. </li> <li>Island countries should give ‘n/a’ for all ~~of thes~~the questions that relate to transboundary waters. </li> </ol> </li> <li><strong>Annex C: Barriers / enablers:</strong> iIs this filled out? Low, moderate, or high level of information? <ol> <li> Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: <u>Low:</u> Less than 1 point for each question. <u>Medium:</u> At least one point for each question and the points make sense and are useful. <u>High:</u> Useful analysis that would contribute to future planning.</li> </ol> </li> <li><strong>Annex D:</strong> Priorities: completed (Yes/No/Partially)? Any info in the ‘comments’ field (low, moderate, high level of info there?)<ol> <li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: Low: Blank to few words. Medium: A few useful points. High: A longer analysis/ commentary.</li> </ol> </li> <li><strong>Annex E: Country process:</strong> lLevel of info in the free text field, the table, and in the ‘additional info’ field completed. <ol> <li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: <u>Low</u>: Blank to few words. <u>Medium</u>: Minimum info to be useful to understand transparency. <u>High</u>: More detailed description that gives good idea of robustness and transparency of the process. </li> </ol> </li> </ol> <p>All data is provided by each country and is therefore fully owned by the countries. Each country undertakes stakeholder consultation, to a level that is appropriate given resources and capacity available to them, to ensure that the data has adequate acceptance and ownership within the country. Guidance on consultation processes are provided in the monitoring guide and through the introductory pPowerpPoint and video for focal points (all materials available at <a href="http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org">http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org</a>).</p> a year ago
None String updated in the repository SDG Metadata 6-5-1 Spanish	English <p>The following quality assurance guidelines are available to all individuals involved in quality assurance for 6.5.1. </p> <p>Process: </p> <ol> <li>Nominate person responsible for QA for a country response once it is submitted for the first time. </li> <li>Acknowledge receipt and inform the country of QA process. </li> <li>Update QA spreadsheet, indicating date of receipt and who submitted. </li> <li>Upload draft survey (MS Word) to the Dropbox folder. </li> <li>Undertake ALL checks described below. </li> <li>If there are any discrepancies, revert to UNEP-DHI colleagues. </li> <li>Once action is agreed, respond to the countries. </li> <li>Complete all checks on each subsequent version of the questionnaire until all quality issues are resolved and questionnaire is marked ‘final’. </li> </ol> <p>Checks: </p> <ol> <li><strong>Focal point:</strong> Confirm the person submitting is the formal national focal point. If not, any reply should also add the national focal point in CC. </li> <li><strong>Cover sheet:</strong> check if cover sheet is correctly filled out. Cross-check if the person submitting is the formal national focal point. If not, any reply should include the national focal point in CC.</li> <li><strong>Question scores and calculations:</strong> In the spreadsheet ‘Quality_Assurance_651_2020.xlsx’ on Dropbox, fill in the given responses in sheet “QA 2020 scores-status”. Make following checks to scores:<ol> <li>All questions answered. The official guidance is that all questions should be answered (either with a score or n/a). </li> <li>If there is confusion about whether to score or use ‘n/a’ for sub-national level questions, this list of administrative divisions by country may help in our understanding of the sub-national level(s) <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_administrative_divisions_by_country%20">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_administrative_divisions_by_country </a> </li> <li>Scores are in range from 0-100, in increments of 10. If they only give ‘even’ scores (e.g. 0, 20, 40 etc), then they may not have understood that they can also give ‘odd’ scores (10, 30, 50 etc), if they feel their situation lies between two threshold descriptions.</li> <li>Any differences between ‘given’ and ‘calculated’ section scores and overall score are given in columns C – G. If the difference is greater than +/- 0.5, the cells are automatically highlighted in red using conditional formatting. One also has to fill in the date of last submission in column B, otherwise the differences will not be calculated. </li> <li>Compare with baseline (2017). The QA ‘2017 Comparison’ spreadsheet automatically calculates differences. Note any negative changes (orange), or increases of more than 20 (yellow). If there are any significant/unexpected differences, the country should have given some explanation in the free text fields. </li> <li>In the ‘given’ calculations (section 5 of the survey instrument), check that section averages and overall score are rounded to the nearest whole number. Rounding mistakes might occur.</li> <li>Note: in the calculations, 0 scores are included, and N/A scores should be omitted. N/A scores should always have explanation (unless obvious – e.g. transboundary questions for island states).</li> <li>Check if the final score is calculated as average of rounded section averages.</li> <li>In the free text responses in columns (BE-BF) in the main “QA 2020-score status” tab, for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories the following criteria should be followed: <u>Low:</u> Less than three quarters of questions have responses and/or responses are poor quality. <u>Medium:</u> At least three quarters of the questions have responses, and/or responses are varying quality. Each question and the points make sense and are useful. <u>High:</u> All questions have responses and most responses are high quality. NB: Quality responses mean ones that are useful/ informative/ detailed and can contribute to stakeholder understanding/ discussions and plannings.</li> </ol> </li> <li><strong>Free text fields: </strong>Using the ‘text’ tabs: <ol> <li>Check that the free text make sense in the context of the score (and vice versa) (particularly in the case of (n/a or 100 responses).</li> <li>Check that n/a (not applicable) is used appropriately. i.e. only if the question is not applicable to the country. In some cases, a score of zero should be given, and in others, perhaps they need more help to figure out how to answer the question. </li> <li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: Low: Blank or not useful. Medium: Some text and details. High: Useful amount of text and detail than can contribute to stakeholder understanding/consensus and planning.</li> </ol> </li> </ol> <p><strong>ANNEXES</strong>. </p> <ol> <li><strong>Annex B: Transboundary level:</strong> <ol> <li>Check the ‘transboundary basins’ table. A full list of transboundary basins can be found here: <a href="http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/Report.ashx?type=IndicatorResultsSummary">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/Report.ashx?type=IndicatorResultsSummary</a>. Go to the final worksheet/tab to see the countries in each basin. You can also check the maps here: <a href="http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/%20">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/ </a>to see if the basin is likely to be important for that country, or if there is only a small portion of the basin in their country (in which case they may not list it).</li> <li>For transboundary aquifers, check: <a href="https://apps.geodan.nl/igrac/ggis-viewer/viewer/twap/public/default">https://apps.geodan.nl/igrac/ggis-viewer/viewer/twap/public/default</a> </li> <li>In case any sub-basins are listed, check that the main basin name is included in brackets. </li> <li>Check the transboundary questions: 1.2c; 2.2e; 3.2d; and 4.2c, and see if these make sense in the context of the country. </li> <li>Island countries should give ‘n/a’ for all of these questions that relate to transboundary waters. </li> </ol> </li> <li><strong>Annex C: Barriers / enablers:</strong> is this filled out? Low, moderate, or high level of information? <ol> <li> Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: <u>Low:</u> Less than 1 point for each question. <u>Medium:</u> At least one point for each question and the points make sense and are useful. <u>High:</u> Useful analysis that would contribute to future planning.</li> </ol> </li> <li><strong>Annex D:</strong> Priorities: completed (Yes/No/Partially)? Any info in the ‘comments’ field (low, moderate, high level of info there?)<ol> <li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: Low: Blank to few words. Medium: A few useful points. High: A longer analysis/ commentary.</li> </ol> </li> <li><strong>Annex E: Country process:</strong> level of info in the free text field, the table, and in the ‘additional info’ field completed. <ol> <li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: <u>Low</u>: Blank to few words. <u>Medium</u>: Minimum info to be useful to understand transparency. <u>High</u>: More detailed description that gives good idea of robustness and transparency of the process. </li> </ol> </li> </ol> <p>All data is provided by each country and is therefore fully owned by the countries. Each country undertakes stakeholder consultation, to a level that is appropriate given resources and capacity available to them, to ensure that the data has adequate acceptance and ownership within the country. Guidance on consultation processes are provided in the monitoring guide and through the introductory powerpoint and video for focal points (all materials available at <a href="http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org">http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org</a>).</p> Spanish 0 characters edited Current translation Needs editing <h2>Garantía de calidad:</h2> <p>Las siguientes directrices de garantía de calidad (GC) están a disposición de todas las personas que participan en la garantía de calidad de 6.5.1.</p> <p>Proceso:.</p> <ol> <li>Nombrar a la persona responsable de la garantía de calidad de la respuesta de un país una vez que se presenta por primera vez.</li> <li>Acusar recibo e informar al país del proceso de GC.</li> <li>Actualizar la hoja de cálculo de la GC, indicando la fecha de recepción y quién la ha presentado.</li> <li>Subir el borrador de la encuesta (MS Word) a la carpeta de Dropbox.</li> <li>Realizar TODAS las comprobaciones descritas a continuación.</li> <li>Si hay alguna discrepancia, regresarla a los colegas del PNUMA-DHI (por su sigla en inglés).</li> <li>Una vez acordada la acción, responder a los países.</li> <li>Realizar todas las comprobaciones en cada una de las versiones posteriores del cuestionario hasta que se hayan resuelto todos los problemas de calidad y se marque el cuestionario como ‘final’.    </li> </ol> <p>Comprobaciones:.</p> <ol> <li>Punto focal: Confirme que la persona que lo presenta es el punto focal nacional formal. Si no es así, cualquier respuesta debe añadir también el punto focal nacional en CC.  </li> <li>Respuestas a las preguntas: </li> <li>Todas las preguntas contestadas. La orientación oficial es que todas las preguntas deben ser contestadas (con una puntuación o n/a). </li> <li>Puntuaciones en el rango de 0-100, en incrementos de 10. </li> <li>Compruebe que n/a (no aplicable) se utiliza adecuadamente. </li> <li>Campos de texto libre: En los campos ““Descripción del estado” y “Camino a seguir” de cada pregunta, compruebe que el texto libre tiene sentido en el contexto de la puntuación (y viceversa). </li> <li>Cálculos: Comprueba que los promedios de las secciones y la puntuación final están redondeados al número entero más cercano y son correctos, utilizando la hoja de cálculo de GC en Dropbox. Rellene las respuestas dadas en las columnas M - AX, y revise que las diferencias se calculan automáticamente en las columnas C – G. Si la diferencia es superior a +/- 0,5, las celdas se resaltan automáticamente en rojo utilizando el formato condicional. </li> <li>Comparar con la línea de base de 2017: Cuando esté disponible, compare con la encuesta de referencia de 2017 (para 172 países) y discuta con sus colegas si es necesario.  </li> <li>Cuestiones transfronterizas: </li> <li>Compruebe la tabla de ‘cuencas transfronterizas’ del Anexo B. La lista completa de cuencas transfronterizas se puede encontrar aquí: <a href="about:blank">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/Report.ashx?type=IndicatorResultsSummary</a>.</li> <li>Vaya a la hoja de trabajo/pestaña final para ver los países de cada cuenca. Consulta también los mapas aquí: <a href="about:blank">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/</a> para ver si es probable que la cuenca sea importante para ese país, o si sólo hay una pequeña porción de la cuenca en su país (en cuyo caso es posible que no la incluyan en la lista). </li> <li> Compruebe las preguntas sobre transfronterizos: 1.2c, 2.2e; 3.2d; y 4.2c, y vea si tienen sentido en el contexto del país. Los países insulares deben presentar ‘n/a’ para todas estas preguntas.</li> </ol> <p>Todos los datos son proporcionados por cada país y, por lo tanto, son de su entera propiedad. Cada país lleva a cabo una consulta con las partes interesadas, a un nivel apropiado teniendo en cuenta los recursos y la capacidad de que disponen, para garantizar que los datos tienen la aceptación y la propiedad adecuadas dentro del país. Las orientaciones sobre los procesos de consulta figuran en la guía de seguimiento y en el powerpoint y el vídeo introductorios para los puntos focales (todos los materiales están disponibles en <a href="about:blank">http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org</a>).</p> 2 years ago
None Source string changed SDG Metadata 6-5-1 Spanish	English 5126 characters edited ~~<h2>Quality assurance:</h2>~~ <p>The following quality assurance guidelines are available to all individuals involved in quality assurance for 6.5.1. </p> <p>Process: </p> <ol> <li>Nominate person responsible for QA for a country response once it is submitted for the first time. </li> <li>Acknowledge receipt and inform the country of QA process. </li> <li>Update QA spreadsheet, indicating date of receipt and who submitted. </li> <li>Upload draft survey (MS Word) to the Dropbox folder. </li> <li>Undertake ALL checks described below. </li> <li>If there are any discrepancies, revert to UNEP-DHI colleagues. </li> <li>Once action is agreed, respond to the countries. </li> <li>Complete all checks on each subsequent version of the questionnaire until all quality issues are resolved and questionnaire is marked ‘final’.    </li> </ol> <p>Checks: </p> <ol> <li>Focal point: Confirm the person submitting is the formal national focal point. If not, any reply should also add the national focal point in CC.  </li> <li>Question responses: </li> <li>All questions answered. Official guidance is that all questions should be answered (either with a score or n/a). </li> <li>Scores in range from 0-100, in increments of 10. </li> <li>Check that n/a (not applicable) is used appropriately. </li> <li>Free-text fields: In the ““Status description” and “Way forward” fields for each question, check that the free text make sense in the context of the score (and vice versa). </li> <li>Calculations: Check that section averages and final score are rounded to the nearest whole number and correct, using the QA spreadsheet on Dropbox. Fill in the given responses in columns M - AX, and the differences are calculated automatically in columns C – G. If the difference is greater than +/- 0.5, the cells are automatically highlighted in red using conditional formatting. </li> <li>Compare with 2017 baseline: Where available, compare with 2017 baseline survey (for 172 countries) and discuss with colleagues as necessary.  </li> <li>Transboundary issues: </li> <li>Check the ‘transboundary basins’ table in Annex B. A full list of transboundary basins can be found here: <a href="about:blank">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/Report.ashx?type=IndicatorResultsSummary</a>.</li> <li>Go to the final worksheet/tab to see the countries in each basin. Also check the maps here: <a href="about:blank">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/</a> to see if the basin is likely to be important for that country, or if there is only a small portion of the basin in their country (in which case they may not list it). </li> <li>Check the transboundary questions: 1.2c, 2.2e; 3.2d; and 4.2c, and see if these make sense in the context of the country. Island countries should give ‘n/a’ for all of these questions.</li> </ol> <p>All data is provided by each country and is therefore fully owned by the countries. Each country undertakes stakeholder consultation, to a level that is appropriate given resources and capacity available to them, to ensure that the data has adequate acceptance and ownership within the country. Guidance on consultation processes are provided in the monitoring guide and through the introductory powerpoint and video for focal points (all materials available at <a href="about:blank </li> </ol> <p>Checks: </p> <ol> <li><strong>Focal point:</strong> Confirm the person submitting is the formal national focal point. If not, any reply should also add the national focal point in CC. </li> <li><strong>Cover sheet:</strong> check if cover sheet is correctly filled out. Cross-check if the person submitting is the formal national focal point. If not, any reply should include the national focal point in CC.</li> <li><strong>Question scores and calculations:</strong> In the spreadsheet ‘Quality_Assurance_651_2020.xlsx’ on Dropbox, fill in the given responses in sheet “QA 2020 scores-status”. Make following checks to scores:<ol> <li>All questions answered. The official guidance is that all questions should be answered (either with a score or n/a). </li> <li>If there is confusion about whether to score or use ‘n/a’ for sub-national level questions, this list of administrative divisions by country may help in our understanding of the sub-national level(s) <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_administrative_divisions_by_country%20">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_administrative_divisions_by_country </a> </li> <li>Scores are in range from 0-100, in increments of 10. If they only give ‘even’ scores (e.g. 0, 20, 40 etc), then they may not have understood that they can also give ‘odd’ scores (10, 30, 50 etc), if they feel their situation lies between two threshold descriptions.</li> <li>Any differences between ‘given’ and ‘calculated’ section scores and overall score are given in columns C – G. If the difference is greater than +/- 0.5, the cells are automatically highlighted in red using conditional formatting. One also has to fill in the date of last submission in column B, otherwise the differences will not be calculated. </li> <li>Compare with baseline (2017). The QA ‘2017 Comparison’ spreadsheet automatically calculates differences. Note any negative changes (orange), or increases of more than 20 (yellow). If there are any significant/unexpected differences, the country should have given some explanation in the free text fields. </li> <li>In the ‘given’ calculations (section 5 of the survey instrument), check that section averages and overall score are rounded to the nearest whole number. Rounding mistakes might occur.</li> <li>Note: in the calculations, 0 scores are included, and N/A scores should be omitted. N/A scores should always have explanation (unless obvious – e.g. transboundary questions for island states).</li> <li>Check if the final score is calculated as average of rounded section averages.</li> <li>In the free text responses in columns (BE-BF) in the main “QA 2020-score status” tab, for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories the following criteria should be followed: <u>Low:</u> Less than three quarters of questions have responses and/or responses are poor quality. <u>Medium:</u> At least three quarters of the questions have responses, and/or responses are varying quality. Each question and the points make sense and are useful. <u>High:</u> All questions have responses and most responses are high quality. NB: Quality responses mean ones that are useful/ informative/ detailed and can contribute to stakeholder understanding/ discussions and plannings.</li> </ol> </li> <li><strong>Free text fields: </strong>Using the ‘text’ tabs: <ol> <li>Check that the free text make sense in the context of the score (and vice versa) (particularly in the case of (n/a or 100 responses).</li> <li>Check that n/a (not applicable) is used appropriately. i.e. only if the question is not applicable to the country. In some cases, a score of zero should be given, and in others, perhaps they need more help to figure out how to answer the question. </li> <li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: Low: Blank or not useful. Medium: Some text and details. High: Useful amount of text and detail than can contribute to stakeholder understanding/consensus and planning.</li> </ol> </li> </ol> <p><strong>ANNEXES</strong>. </p> <ol> <li><strong>Annex B: Transboundary level:</strong> <ol> <li>Check the ‘transboundary basins’ table. A full list of transboundary basins can be found here: <a href="http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/Report.ashx?type=IndicatorResultsSummary">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/Report.ashx?type=IndicatorResultsSummary</a>. Go to the final worksheet/tab to see the countries in each basin. You can also check the maps here: <a href="http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/%20">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/ </a>to see if the basin is likely to be important for that country, or if there is only a small portion of the basin in their country (in which case they may not list it).</li> <li>For transboundary aquifers, check: <a href="https://apps.geodan.nl/igrac/ggis-viewer/viewer/twap/public/default">https://apps.geodan.nl/igrac/ggis-viewer/viewer/twap/public/default</a> </li> <li>In case any sub-basins are listed, check that the main basin name is included in brackets. </li> <li>Check the transboundary questions: 1.2c; 2.2e; 3.2d; and 4.2c, and see if these make sense in the context of the country. </li> <li>Island countries should give ‘n/a’ for all of these questions that relate to transboundary waters. </li> </ol> </li> <li><strong>Annex C: Barriers / enablers:</strong> is this filled out? Low, moderate, or high level of information? <ol> <li> Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: <u>Low:</u> Less than 1 point for each question. <u>Medium:</u> At least one point for each question and the points make sense and are useful. <u>High:</u> Useful analysis that would contribute to future planning.</li> </ol> </li> <li><strong>Annex D:</strong> Priorities: completed (Yes/No/Partially)? Any info in the ‘comments’ field (low, moderate, high level of info there?)<ol> <li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: Low: Blank to few words. Medium: A few useful points. High: A longer analysis/ commentary.</li> </ol> </li> <li><strong>Annex E: Country process:</strong> level of info in the free text field, the table, and in the ‘additional info’ field completed. <ol> <li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: <u>Low</u>: Blank to few words. <u>Medium</u>: Minimum info to be useful to understand transparency. <u>High</u>: More detailed description that gives good idea of robustness and transparency of the process. </li> </ol> </li> </ol> <p>All data is provided by each country and is therefore fully owned by the countries. Each country undertakes stakeholder consultation, to a level that is appropriate given resources and capacity available to them, to ensure that the data has adequate acceptance and ownership within the country. Guidance on consultation processes are provided in the monitoring guide and through the introductory powerpoint and video for focal points (all materials available at <a href="http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org">http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org</a>).</p> 2 years ago
hernandanielmunoz Translation changed SDG Metadata 6-5-1 Spanish	English <p>The following quality assurance guidelines are available to all individuals involved in quality assurance for 6.5.1. </p> <p>Process: </p> <ol> <li>Nominate person responsible for the quality assurance (QA) for a country response once it is submitted for the first time. </li> <li>Acknowledge receipt and inform the country of the QA process. </li> <li>Update the QA spreadsheet, indicating date of receipt and who submitted. </li> <li>Upload draft survey (MS Word) to the Dropbox folder. </li> <li>Undertake ALL checks described below. </li> <li>If there are any discrepancies, revert to UNEP-DHI colleagues. </li> <li>Once action is agreed, respond to the countries. </li> <li>Complete all checks on each subsequent version of the questionnaire until all quality issues are resolved and questionnaire is marked ‘final’. </li> </ol> <p>Checks: </p> <ol> <li><strong>Focal point:</strong> Confirm the person submitting is the formal national focal point. If not, any reply should also add the national focal point in Cc. </li> <li><strong>Cover sheet:</strong> check if cover sheet is correctly filled out. Cross-check if the person submitting is the formal national focal point. If not, any reply should include the national focal point in Cc.</li> <li><strong>Question scores and calculations:</strong> In the spreadsheet ‘Quality_Assurance_651_2020.xlsx’ on Dropbox, fill in the given responses in sheet “QA 2020 scores-status”. Make the following checks to scores:<ol> <li>All questions answered. The official guidance is that all questions should be answered (either with a score or n/a). </li> <li>If there is confusion about whether to score or use ‘n/a’ for sub-national level questions, this list of administrative divisions by country may help in our understanding of the sub-national level(s) <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_administrative_divisions_by_country%20">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_administrative_divisions_by_country </a> </li> <li>Scores are in range from 0-100, in increments of 10. If they only give ‘even’ scores (e.g. 0, 20, 40 etc), then they may not have understood that they can also give ‘odd’ scores (10, 30, 50 etc), if they feel their situation lies between two threshold descriptions.</li> <li>Any differences between ‘given’ and ‘calculated’ section scores and overall score are given in columns C – G. If the difference is greater than +/- 0.5, the cells are automatically highlighted in red using conditional formatting. One must also fill in the date of last submission in column B, otherwise the differences will not be calculated. </li> <li>Compare with baseline (2017). The QA ‘2017 Comparison’ spreadsheet automatically calculates differences. Note any negative changes (orange), or increases of more than 20 (yellow). If there are any significant/unexpected differences, the country should have given some explanation in the free text fields. </li> <li>In the ‘given’ calculations (section 5 of the survey instrument), check that section averages and overall score are rounded to the nearest whole number. Rounding mistakes might occur.</li> <li>Note: in the calculations, 0 scores are included, and N/A scores should be omitted. N/A scores should always have explanation (unless obvious – e.g. transboundary questions for island states).</li> <li>Check if the final score is calculated as average of rounded section averages.</li> <li>In the free text responses in columns (BE-BF) in the main “QA 2020-score status” tab, for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories the following criteria should be followed: <u>Low:</u> Less than three quarters of questions have responses and/or responses are poor quality. <u>Medium:</u> At least three quarters of the questions have responses, and/or responses are varying quality. Each question and the points make sense and are useful. <u>High:</u> All questions have responses and most responses are high quality. NB: Quality responses mean ones that are useful/informative/detailed and can contribute to stakeholder understanding/discussions and planning.</li> </ol> </li> <li><strong>Free text fields: </strong>Using the ‘text’ tabs: </li> <li>Check that the free text make sense in the context of the score (and vice versa) (particularly in the case of (n/a or 100 responses).</li> <li>Check that n/a (not applicable) is used appropriately. i.e. only if the question is not applicable to the country. In some cases, a score of zero should be given, and in others, perhaps they need more help to figure out how to answer the question. </li> <li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: Low: Blank or not useful. Medium: Some text and details. High: Useful amount of text and detail than can contribute to stakeholder understanding/consensus and planning.</li> </ol> <p><strong>ANNEXES</strong>. </p> <ol> <li><strong>Annex B: Transboundary level:</strong></li> <li>Check the ‘transboundary basins’ table. A full list of transboundary basins can be found here: <a href="http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/Report.ashx?type=IndicatorResultsSummary">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/Report.ashx?type=IndicatorResultsSummary</a>. Go to the final worksheet/tab to see the countries in each basin. You can also check the maps here: <a href="http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/%20">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/ </a>to see if the basin is likely to be important for that country, or if there is only a small portion of the basin in their country (in which case they may not list it).</li> <li>For transboundary aquifers, check: <a href="https://ggis.un-igrac.org/view/twap">https://ggis.un-igrac.org/view/twap</a> </li> <li>In case any sub-basins are listed, check that the main basin name is included in brackets. </li> <li>Check the transboundary questions: 1.2c; 2.2e; 3.2d; and 4.2c, and see if these make sense in the context of the country. </li> <li>Island countries should give ‘n/a’ for all the questions that relate to transboundary waters. </li> <li><strong>Annex C: Barriers / enablers:</strong> Is this filled out? Low, moderate, or high level of information? </li> <li> Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: <u>Low:</u> Less than 1 point for each question. <u>Medium:</u> At least one point for each question and the points make sense and are useful. <u>High:</u> Useful analysis that would contribute to future planning.</li> <li><strong>Annex D:</strong> Priorities: completed (Yes/No/Partially)? Any info in the ‘comments’ field (low, moderate, high level of info there?)</li> <li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: Low: Blank to few words. Medium: A few useful points. High: A longer analysis/ commentary.</li> <li><strong>Annex E: Country process:</strong> Level of info in the free text field, the table, and in the ‘additional info’ field completed. </li> <li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: <u>Low</u>: Blank to few words. <u>Medium</u>: Minimum info to be useful to understand transparency. <u>High</u>: More detailed description that gives good idea of robustness and transparency of the process. </li> </ol> <p>All data is provided by each country and is therefore fully owned by the countries. Each country undertakes stakeholder consultation, to a level that is appropriate given resources and capacity available to them, to ensure that the data has adequate acceptance and ownership within the country. Guidance on consultation processes are provided in the monitoring guide and through the introductory PowerPoint and video for focal points (all materials available at <a href="http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org">http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org</a>).</p> Spanish 4 characters edited Current translation <h2>Garantía de calidad:</h2> <p>Las siguientes directrices de garantía de calidad (GC) están a disposición de todas las personas que participan en la garantía de calidad de 6.5.1.</p> <p>Proceso:.</p> <ol> <li>Nombrar a la persona responsable de la garantía de calidad de la respuesta de un país una vez que se presenta por primera vez.</li> <li>Acusar recibo e informar al país del proceso de GC.</li> <li>Actualizar la hoja de cálculo de la GC, indicando la fecha de recepción y quién la ha presentado.</li> <li>Subir el borrador de la encuesta (MS Word) a la carpeta de Dropbox.</li> <li>Realizar TODAS las comprobaciones descritas a continuación.</li> <li>Si hay alguna discrepancia, regresarla a los colegas del PNUMA-DHI (por su sigla en inglés).</li> <li>Una vez acordada la acción, responder a los países.</li> <li>Realizar todas las comprobaciones en cada una de las versiones posteriores del cuestionario hasta que se hayan resuelto todos los problemas de calidad y se marque el cuestionario como ‘final’.    </li> </ol> <p>Comprobaciones:.</p> <ol> <li>Punto focal: Confirme que la persona que lo presenta es el punto focal nacional formal. Si no es así, cualquier respuesta debe añadir también el punto focal nacional en CC.  </li> <li> Respuestas a las preguntas: </li> <li> Todas las preguntas contestadas. La orientación oficial es que todas las preguntas deben ser contestadas (con una puntuación o n/a). </li> <li>Puntuaciones en el rango de 0-100, en incrementos de 10. </li> <li> Compruebe que n/a (no aplicable) se utiliza adecuadamente. </li> <li>]Campos de texto libre: En los campos ““Descripción del estado” y “Camino a seguir” de cada pregunta, compruebe que el texto libre tiene sentido en el contexto de la puntuación (y viceversa). </li> <li>Cálculos: Comprueba que los promedios de las secciones y la puntuación final están redondeados al número entero más cercano y son correctos, utilizando la hoja de cálculo de GC en Dropbox. Rellene las respuestas dadas en las columnas M - AX, y revise que las diferencias se calculan automáticamente en las columnas C – G. Si la diferencia es superior a +/- 0,5, las celdas se resaltan automáticamente en rojo utilizando el formato condicional. </li> <li>Comparar con la línea de base de 2017: Cuando esté disponible, compare con la encuesta de referencia de 2017 (para 172 países) y discuta con sus colegas si es necesario.  </li> <li>Cuestiones transfronterizas: </li> <li>Compruebe la tabla de ‘cuencas transfronterizas’ del Anexo B. La lista completa de cuencas transfronterizas se puede encontrar aquí: <a href="about:blank">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/Report.ashx?type=IndicatorResultsSummary</a>.</li> <li>Vaya a la hoja de trabajo/pestaña final para ver los países de cada cuenca. Consulta también los mapas aquí: <a href="about:blank">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/</a> para ver si es probable que la cuenca sea importante para ese país, o si sólo hay una pequeña porción de la cuenca en su país (en cuyo caso es posible que no la incluyan en la lista). </li> <li> Compruebe las preguntas sobre transfronterizos: 1.2c, 2.2e; 3.2d; y 4.2c, y vea si tienen sentido en el contexto del país. Los países insulares deben presentar ‘n/a’ para todas estas preguntas.</li> </ol> <p>Todos los datos son proporcionados por cada país y, por lo tanto, son de su entera propiedad. Cada país lleva a cabo una consulta con las partes interesadas, a un nivel apropiado teniendo en cuenta los recursos y la capacidad de que disponen, para garantizar que los datos tienen la aceptación y la propiedad adecuadas dentro del país. Las orientaciones sobre los procesos de consulta figuran en la guía de seguimiento y en el powerpoint y el vídeo introductorios para los puntos focales (todos los materiales están disponibles en <a href="about:blank">http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org</a>).</p> 2 years ago
hernandanielmunoz Translation added SDG Metadata 6-5-1 Spanish	English <p>The following quality assurance guidelines are available to all individuals involved in quality assurance for 6.5.1. </p> <p>Process: </p> <ol> <li>Nominate person responsible for the quality assurance (QA) for a country response once it is submitted for the first time. </li> <li>Acknowledge receipt and inform the country of the QA process. </li> <li>Update the QA spreadsheet, indicating date of receipt and who submitted. </li> <li>Upload draft survey (MS Word) to the Dropbox folder. </li> <li>Undertake ALL checks described below. </li> <li>If there are any discrepancies, revert to UNEP-DHI colleagues. </li> <li>Once action is agreed, respond to the countries. </li> <li>Complete all checks on each subsequent version of the questionnaire until all quality issues are resolved and questionnaire is marked ‘final’. </li> </ol> <p>Checks: </p> <ol> <li><strong>Focal point:</strong> Confirm the person submitting is the formal national focal point. If not, any reply should also add the national focal point in Cc. </li> <li><strong>Cover sheet:</strong> check if cover sheet is correctly filled out. Cross-check if the person submitting is the formal national focal point. If not, any reply should include the national focal point in Cc.</li> <li><strong>Question scores and calculations:</strong> In the spreadsheet ‘Quality_Assurance_651_2020.xlsx’ on Dropbox, fill in the given responses in sheet “QA 2020 scores-status”. Make the following checks to scores:<ol> <li>All questions answered. The official guidance is that all questions should be answered (either with a score or n/a). </li> <li>If there is confusion about whether to score or use ‘n/a’ for sub-national level questions, this list of administrative divisions by country may help in our understanding of the sub-national level(s) <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_administrative_divisions_by_country%20">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_administrative_divisions_by_country </a> </li> <li>Scores are in range from 0-100, in increments of 10. If they only give ‘even’ scores (e.g. 0, 20, 40 etc), then they may not have understood that they can also give ‘odd’ scores (10, 30, 50 etc), if they feel their situation lies between two threshold descriptions.</li> <li>Any differences between ‘given’ and ‘calculated’ section scores and overall score are given in columns C – G. If the difference is greater than +/- 0.5, the cells are automatically highlighted in red using conditional formatting. One must also fill in the date of last submission in column B, otherwise the differences will not be calculated. </li> <li>Compare with baseline (2017). The QA ‘2017 Comparison’ spreadsheet automatically calculates differences. Note any negative changes (orange), or increases of more than 20 (yellow). If there are any significant/unexpected differences, the country should have given some explanation in the free text fields. </li> <li>In the ‘given’ calculations (section 5 of the survey instrument), check that section averages and overall score are rounded to the nearest whole number. Rounding mistakes might occur.</li> <li>Note: in the calculations, 0 scores are included, and N/A scores should be omitted. N/A scores should always have explanation (unless obvious – e.g. transboundary questions for island states).</li> <li>Check if the final score is calculated as average of rounded section averages.</li> <li>In the free text responses in columns (BE-BF) in the main “QA 2020-score status” tab, for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories the following criteria should be followed: <u>Low:</u> Less than three quarters of questions have responses and/or responses are poor quality. <u>Medium:</u> At least three quarters of the questions have responses, and/or responses are varying quality. Each question and the points make sense and are useful. <u>High:</u> All questions have responses and most responses are high quality. NB: Quality responses mean ones that are useful/informative/detailed and can contribute to stakeholder understanding/discussions and planning.</li> </ol> </li> <li><strong>Free text fields: </strong>Using the ‘text’ tabs: </li> <li>Check that the free text make sense in the context of the score (and vice versa) (particularly in the case of (n/a or 100 responses).</li> <li>Check that n/a (not applicable) is used appropriately. i.e. only if the question is not applicable to the country. In some cases, a score of zero should be given, and in others, perhaps they need more help to figure out how to answer the question. </li> <li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: Low: Blank or not useful. Medium: Some text and details. High: Useful amount of text and detail than can contribute to stakeholder understanding/consensus and planning.</li> </ol> <p><strong>ANNEXES</strong>. </p> <ol> <li><strong>Annex B: Transboundary level:</strong></li> <li>Check the ‘transboundary basins’ table. A full list of transboundary basins can be found here: <a href="http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/Report.ashx?type=IndicatorResultsSummary">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/Report.ashx?type=IndicatorResultsSummary</a>. Go to the final worksheet/tab to see the countries in each basin. You can also check the maps here: <a href="http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/%20">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/ </a>to see if the basin is likely to be important for that country, or if there is only a small portion of the basin in their country (in which case they may not list it).</li> <li>For transboundary aquifers, check: <a href="https://ggis.un-igrac.org/view/twap">https://ggis.un-igrac.org/view/twap</a> </li> <li>In case any sub-basins are listed, check that the main basin name is included in brackets. </li> <li>Check the transboundary questions: 1.2c; 2.2e; 3.2d; and 4.2c, and see if these make sense in the context of the country. </li> <li>Island countries should give ‘n/a’ for all the questions that relate to transboundary waters. </li> <li><strong>Annex C: Barriers / enablers:</strong> Is this filled out? Low, moderate, or high level of information? </li> <li> Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: <u>Low:</u> Less than 1 point for each question. <u>Medium:</u> At least one point for each question and the points make sense and are useful. <u>High:</u> Useful analysis that would contribute to future planning.</li> <li><strong>Annex D:</strong> Priorities: completed (Yes/No/Partially)? Any info in the ‘comments’ field (low, moderate, high level of info there?)</li> <li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: Low: Blank to few words. Medium: A few useful points. High: A longer analysis/ commentary.</li> <li><strong>Annex E: Country process:</strong> Level of info in the free text field, the table, and in the ‘additional info’ field completed. </li> <li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: <u>Low</u>: Blank to few words. <u>Medium</u>: Minimum info to be useful to understand transparency. <u>High</u>: More detailed description that gives good idea of robustness and transparency of the process. </li> </ol> <p>All data is provided by each country and is therefore fully owned by the countries. Each country undertakes stakeholder consultation, to a level that is appropriate given resources and capacity available to them, to ensure that the data has adequate acceptance and ownership within the country. Guidance on consultation processes are provided in the monitoring guide and through the introductory PowerPoint and video for focal points (all materials available at <a href="http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org">http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org</a>).</p> Spanish 4002 characters edited <h2>Garantía de calidad:</h2> <p>Las siguientes directrices de garantía de calidad (GC) están a disposición de todas las personas que participan en la garantía de calidad de 6.5.1.</p> <p>Proceso:.</p> <ol> <li>Nombrar a la persona responsable de la garantía de calidad de la respuesta de un país una vez que se presenta por primera vez.</li> <li>Acusar recibo e informar al país del proceso de GC.</li> <li>Actualizar la hoja de cálculo de la GC, indicando la fecha de recepción y quién la ha presentado.</li> <li>Subir el borrador de la encuesta (MS Word) a la carpeta de Dropbox.</li> <li>Realizar TODAS las comprobaciones descritas a continuación.</li> <li>Si hay alguna discrepancia, regresarla a los colegas del PNUMA-DHI (por su sigla en inglés).</li> <li>Una vez acordada la acción, responder a los países.</li> <li>Realizar todas las comprobaciones en cada una de las versiones posteriores del cuestionario hasta que se hayan resuelto todos los problemas de calidad y se marque el cuestionario como ‘final’.    </li> </ol> <p>Comprobaciones:.</p> <ol> <li>Punto focal: Confirme que la persona que lo presenta es el punto focal nacional formal. Si no es así, cualquier respuesta debe añadir también el punto focal nacional en CC.  </li> <li> Respuestas a las preguntas: </li> <li> Todas las preguntas contestadas. La orientación oficial es que todas las preguntas deben ser contestadas (con una puntuación o n/a). </li> <li>Puntuaciones en el rango de 0-100, en incrementos de 10. </li> <li> Compruebe que n/a (no aplicable) se utiliza adecuadamente. </li> <li>]Campos de texto libre: En los campos ““Descripción del estado” y “Camino a seguir” de cada pregunta, compruebe que el texto libre tiene sentido en el contexto de la puntuación (y viceversa). </li> <li>Cálculos: Comprueba que los promedios de las secciones y la puntuación final están redondeados al número entero más cercano y son correctos, utilizando la hoja de cálculo de GC en Dropbox. Rellene las respuestas dadas en las columnas M - AX, y revise que las diferencias se calculan automáticamente en las columnas C – G. Si la diferencia es superior a +/- 0,5, las celdas se resaltan automáticamente en rojo utilizando el formato condicional. </li> <li>Comparar con la línea de base de 2017: Cuando esté disponible, compare con la encuesta de referencia de 2017 (para 172 países) y discuta con sus colegas si es necesario.  </li> <li>Cuestiones transfronterizas: </li> <li>Compruebe la tabla de ‘cuencas transfronterizas’ del Anexo B. La lista completa de cuencas transfronterizas se puede encontrar aquí: <a href="about:blank">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/Report.ashx?type=IndicatorResultsSummary</a>.</li> <li>Vaya a la hoja de trabajo/pestaña final para ver los países de cada cuenca. Consulta también los mapas aquí: <a href="about:blank">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/</a> para ver si es probable que la cuenca sea importante para ese país, o si sólo hay una pequeña porción de la cuenca en su país (en cuyo caso es posible que no la incluyan en la lista). </li> <li> Compruebe las preguntas sobre transfronterizos: 1.2c, 2.2e; 3.2d; y 4.2c, y vea si tienen sentido en el contexto del país. Los países insulares deben presentar ‘n/a’ para todas estas preguntas.</li> </ol> <p>Todos los datos son proporcionados por cada país y, por lo tanto, son de su entera propiedad. Cada país lleva a cabo una consulta con las partes interesadas, a un nivel apropiado teniendo en cuenta los recursos y la capacidad de que disponen, para garantizar que los datos tienen la aceptación y la propiedad adecuadas dentro del país. Las orientaciones sobre los procesos de consulta figuran en la guía de seguimiento y en el powerpoint y el vídeo introductorios para los puntos focales (todos los materiales están disponibles en <a href="about:blank">http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org</a>).</p> 2 years ago