2. SDG Metadata
3. 6-5-1
4. French

<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 &#x2018;final&#x2019;. </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 &#x2018;Quality_Assurance_651_2020.xlsx&#x2019; on Dropbox, fill in the given responses in sheet &#x201C;QA 2020 scores-status&#x201D;. 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 &#x2018;n/a&#x2019; 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 &#x2018;even&#x2019; scores (e.g. 0, 20, 40 etc), then they may not have understood that they can also give &#x2018;odd&#x2019; scores (10, 30, 50 etc), if they feel their situation lies between two threshold descriptions.</li>
<li>Any differences between &#x2018;given&#x2019; and &#x2018;calculated&#x2019; section scores and overall score are given in columns C &#x2013; 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 &#x2018;2017 Comparison&#x2019; 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 &#x2018;given&#x2019; 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 &#x2013; 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 &#x201C;QA 2020-score status&#x201D; 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 &#x2018;text&#x2019; 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 &#x2018;transboundary basins&#x2019; 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 &#x2018;n/a&#x2019; 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 &#x2018;comments&#x2019; 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 &#x2018;additional info&#x2019; 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>Assurance de la qualité : </h2>
<p>Les lignes directrices suivantes sont à la disposition de toutes les personnes impliquées dans l'assurance qualité pour 6.5.1. </p>
<p>Processus : </p>
<ol>
<li>Désigner la personne responsable de l'AQ pour une réponse d'un pays une fois
qu'elle est soumise pour la première fois. </li>
<li>Accuser réception et informer le pays du processus d'assurance qualité. </li>
<li>Mettre à jour la feuille de calcul de l'AQ, en indiquant la date de réception
et l'auteur de la soumission. </li>
<li>Télécharger le projet d'enquête (MS Word) dans le dossier Dropbox. </li>
<li>Effectuez TOUS les contrôles décrits ci-dessous. </li>
<li>En cas de divergence, veuillez vous adresser à vos collègues du PNUE-DHI.
</li>
<li>Une fois l'action convenue, répondre aux pays. </li>
<li>Effectuer toutes les vérifications sur chaque version ultérieure du questionnaire
jusqu'à ce que tous les problèmes de qualité soient résolus et que le questionnaire soit marqué &#x2018; final &#x2019;. 850] &#xA0; </li> </ol>
<p> Vérifications : </p>
<ol>
<li> Point focal : Confirmez que la personne qui soumet la demande est le point
focal national officiel. Si ce n'est pas le cas, toute réponse doit également ajouter le point focal national dans le CC. &#xA0; </li>
<li>Réponses aux questions : </li>
<li>Réponses à toutes les questions. Selon les directives officielles, il convient
de répondre à toutes les questions (soit par une note, soit par s.o.). </li>
<li>Les notes vont de 0 à 100, par tranches de 10. </li>
<li>Vérifiez que s.o. (sans objet) est utilisé de manière appropriée. </li>
<li>Champs de texte libre : Dans les champs &#x201C;&#x201C;Description du statut
&#x201D; et &#x201C;Avancée &#x201D; pour chaque question, vérifiez que le texte libre a un sens dans le contexte de la note (et vice versa). </li>
<li>Calculs : Vérifiez que les moyennes des sections et la note finale sont arrondies
au nombre entier le plus proche et corrigez-les, en utilisant la feuille de calcul de l'assurance qualité sur Dropbox. Remplissez les réponses données dans les colonnes M - AX, et les différences sont calculées automatiquement dans les colonnes C &#x2013; G. Si la différence est supérieure à +/- 0,5, les cellules sont automatiquement surlignées en rouge en utilisant un formatage conditionnel. </li>
<li> Comparer avec la ligne de base de 2017 : Si possible, comparer avec l'enquête
de référence de 2017 (pour 172 pays) et en discuter avec des collègues si nécessaire. &#xA0; </li>
<li>Questions transfrontalières : </li>
<li>Voir le tableau &#x2018;bassins transfrontaliers &#x2019; de l'annexe B. Une
liste complète des bassins transfrontaliers peut être trouvée ici : <a href="about:blank">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/Report.ashx?type=IndicatorResultsSummary</a>. </li>
<li>Allez à la dernière feuille de travail/onglet pour voir les pays de chaque
bassin. Consultez également les cartes ici : <a href="about:blank">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/</a> pour voir si le bassin est susceptible d'être important pour ce pays, ou s'il n'y a qu'une petite partie du bassin dans leur pays (auquel cas ils peuvent ne pas l'énumérer). </li>
<li>Vérifiez les questions transfrontalières : 1.2c, 2.2e ; 3.2d ; et 4.2c, et
voyez si elles ont un sens dans le contexte du pays. Les pays insulaires doivent donner &#x2018;n/a &#x2019; pour toutes ces questions </li>. </ol>
<p>Toutes les données sont fournies par chaque pays et sont donc entièrement détenues par les pays. Chaque pays entreprend une consultation des parties prenantes, à un niveau approprié compte tenu des ressources et des capacités dont il dispose, afin de s'assurer que les données sont acceptées et appropriées dans le pays. Des conseils sur les processus de consultation sont fournis dans le guide de suivi et par le biais du powerpoint et de la vidéo d'introduction pour les points focaux (tous les documents sont disponibles sur <a href="about:blank">http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org</a>). </p>

<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 &#x2018;final&#x2019;. </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 &#x2018;Quality_Assurance_651_2020.xlsx&#x2019; on Dropbox, fill in the given responses in sheet &#x201C;QA 2020 scores-status&#x201D;. 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 &#x2018;n/a&#x2019; 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 &#x2018;even&#x2019; scores (e.g. 0, 20, 40 etc), then they may not have understood that they can also give &#x2018;odd&#x2019; scores (10, 30, 50 etc), if they feel their situation lies between two threshold descriptions.</li>
<li>Any differences between &#x2018;given&#x2019; and &#x2018;calculated&#x2019; section scores and overall score are given in columns C &#x2013; 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 &#x2018;2017 Comparison&#x2019; 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 &#x2018;given&#x2019; 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 &#x2013; 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 &#x201C;QA 2020-score status&#x201D; 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 &#x2018;text&#x2019; 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 &#x2018;transboundary basins&#x2019; 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 &#x2018;n/a&#x2019; 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 &#x2018;comments&#x2019; 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 &#x2018;additional info&#x2019; 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>

<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 &#x201C;SDG 6.5.1 Facilitator&#x2019;s Training Course&#x201D; 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 &#x201C;IWRM Stage 1 Support Package&#x201D; 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>Méthodes et orientations mises à la disposition des pays pour la compilation des données au niveau national :</h2>
<ol>
<li>Points focaux nationaux sélectionnés par chaque pays. </li>
<li>La collecte des données se fait par le biais d'un simple questionnaire de
33 questions, au format MS Word. Les réponses à chaque question sont données sur une échelle de 0 &#x2013; 100, par incréments de 10. Les descriptions des seuils sont données pour six seuils entre 0 et 100. </li>
<li>Les points focaux nationaux sont chargés de coordonner un processus national
visant à engager les parties prenantes gouvernementales et non gouvernementales, selon le contexte de chaque pays, à élaborer des projets de réponses et à finaliser les réponses. Cela peut se faire par courrier électronique, ateliers et avis en ligne. </li>
<li>Les documents suivants sont disponibles pour les points focaux nationaux en
7 langues (anglais, espagnol, français, arabe, russe, chinois, portugais), sur le site <a href="about:blank">http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org</a> : l'enquête (MS Word), un guide de suivi détaillé, une présentation PowerPoint et un enregistrement vidéo. En outre, les points focaux peuvent accéder aux documents suivants : les enquêtes de référence de 2017 et les résumés des résultats de 2 pages (pour 172 pays) ; et les rapports des ateliers de 2017 (pour 36 pays). </li> </ol>
<p>Des explications détaillées sont fournies dans le guide de suivi et dans l'enquête elle-même. L'enquête contient : une introduction et une explication générales ; un glossaire ; une introduction et un glossaire dans chacune des quatre sections ; des descriptions des seuils pour six seuils pour chaque question ; et un certain nombre de notes de bas de page pour expliquer certains aspects des questions ou des descriptions des seuils. Tous les documents peuvent être téléchargés à partir du site <a href="about:blank">http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org</a>. En outre, un service d'assistance dédié est disponible à tout moment pour fournir une assistance. Le service d'assistance est accessible par courrier électronique <a href="about:blank">iwrmsdg651@un.org</a>. </p>

<ol>
<li>The survey contains 33 questions divided into the four main sections described above. </li>
<li>Each question is given a score between 0 and 100, in increments of 10, guided by threshold descriptions for the following 6 categories:<ul>
<li>Very low (0)</li>
<li>Low (20)</li>
<li>Medium-low (40)</li>
<li>Medium-high (60)</li>
<li>High (80)</li>
<li>Very high (100)<br><br>Where question is not applicable, n/a can be selected as a reply, providing adequate explanation. <br><br>Note that more question-specific guidance is provided for each threshold for each question, to ensure objective and comparable results. </li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>The un-weighted average of the question scores within each of the four sections is calculated to give a score of 0 &#x2013; 100 for each section, rounded to the nearest whole number. Questions with response n/a are omitted from calculation.</li>
<li>The section scores (rounded to the nearest whole number), are averaged (un-weighted), and rounded to the nearest whole number, to give the indicator score, expressed as a number between 0 and 100.</li>
</ol>

<h1>Méthodologie</h1>
<h2>Méthode de calcul :</h2>
<p>1. L'enquête contient 33 questions réparties dans les quatre grandes sections décrites ci-dessus. </p>
<p>2. Chaque question reçoit une note entre 0 et 100, par tranche de 10, en fonction des descriptions des seuils pour les 6 catégories suivantes : </p>
<ul>
<li>Très faible (0)</li>
<li>Faible (20)</li>
<li>Moyen-faible (40) </li>
<li>Moyen-élevé (60) </li>
<li>Haut (80)</li>
<li>Très élevé (100)</li>
</ul>
<p> Il convient de noter que des orientations sont fournies pour chaque seuil de chaque question, afin de garantir des résultats objectifs et comparables. </p>
<p>3. La moyenne non pondérée des scores des questions dans chacune des quatre sections est calculée pour donner un score de 0 &#x2013; 100 pour chaque section, arrondi au nombre entier le plus proche. </p>
<p>4. Les notes de section (arrondies au nombre entier le plus proche), sont moyennées (non pondérées), et arrondies au nombre entier le plus proche, pour donner la note de l'indicateur, exprimée par un nombre entre 0 et 100. </p>

<ol>
<li>The survey contains 33 questions divided into the four main sections described above. </li>
<li>Each question is given a score between 0 and 100, in increments of 10, guided by threshold descriptions for the following 6 categories:</li>
</ol>
<ul>
<li>Very low (0)</li>
<li>Low (20)</li>
<li>Medium-low (40)</li>
<li>Medium-high (60)</li>
<li>High (80)</li>
<li>Very high (100)</li>
</ul>
<pbr><br>Where question is not applicable, n/a can be selected as a reply, providing adequate explanation. </p>
<pbr><br>Note that more question-specific guidance is provided for each threshold for each question, to ensure objective and comparable results. </p>
<olli>
</ul>
</li>
<li>The un-weighted average of the question scores within each of the four sections is calculated to give a score of 0 &#x2013; 100 for each section, rounded to the nearest whole number. Questions with response n/a are omitted from calculation.</li>
<li>The section scores (rounded to the nearest whole number), are averaged (un-weighted), and rounded to the nearest whole number, to give the indicator score, expressed as a number between 0 and 100.</li>
</ol>

<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 &#x201C;leaving no one behind&#x201D;.</p>

<h2>Commentaires et limitations : </h2>
<p>Le défi de la subjectivité dans les réponses associées à ce type d'enquête est abordé de plusieurs manières : </p>
<ol>
<p>Les projets de réponse sont examinés par un certain nombre de parties prenantes
gouvernementales et non gouvernementales dans le cadre d'un processus ouvert, inclusif et transparent. </li>
<li>Les pays sont encouragés à fournir des informations complémentaires pour qualifier
leurs réponses et/ou les replacer dans le contexte national. </li>
Des lignes directrices sont fournies pour chacune des quatre sections principales,
chaque question et chacun des six seuils pour chaque question, afin de garantir que les réponses soient aussi objectives que possible et comparables entre les pays et entre les périodes de déclaration. </li> </ol>
<p>Pour obtenir des indicateurs solides, il faut un processus national impliquant un large éventail de parties prenantes, ce qui demandera un certain temps et des ressources. L'avantage de cette approche est qu'elle met en place un processus qui tient compte de la nature intégrée et indivisible des objectifs des ODD, tout en soulignant l'importance de &#x201C; ne pas laisser de côté. &#x201D;</p>

2022-12-16

<p> Dernière mise à jour : 7 novembre 2019</p>

2022-07-0712-16