Country Survey Instrument for SDG Indicator 6.5.1

SDG Indicator 6.5.1 IWRM Survey National reporting on status of IWRM implementation 2020 i

Country Survey Instrument for SDG Indicator 6.5.1 Degree of integrated water resources management implementation (0 – 100)

Submission Form

Country SAINT LUCIA

Date this document was

submitted

1.10.2020

National SDG 6.5.1 Focal Point information

Name Miguel Montoute

Organisation Water Resource Management Agency

Title Water Resource Specialist

Are you the national Focal Point for any other SDG indicator (apart from 6.5.1)? If yes, please insert ‘X’ for all that apply:

__6.1.1 __6.2.1 __6.3.1 __6.3.2 __6.4.1 __6.4.2 __6.5.2 __6.6.1 __6.a.1 __6.b.1 __Other SDG indicator(s) (please specify here):

SDG 6.5.1 in-country data collection and reporting process overview (Please provide further details on the consultation process in Annex E)

Were other institutions/stakeholders involved and consulted in the reporting process for this indicator?

✓ _Yes __No

If yes, please indicate the mode(s) of consultation (please provide further details in Annex E):

_X_Phone calls _X_Email exchanges __In-person meetings _X_Dedicated stakeholder workshop(s) __Other (please specify):

Contact person regarding further questions/clarifications relating to this submission

_X_SDG 6.5.1 Focal Point listed above _X_Other (please specify contact details here): Kurt Prospere (Facilitator).

SDG Indicator 6.5.1 IWRM Survey National reporting on status of IWRM implementation 2020 1

1 Enabling environment This section covers the enabling environment, which is about creating the conditions that help to support the implementation of IWRM. It includes the most typical

policy, legal and planning tools for IWRM1. Please refer to the glossary for any terms that may require further explanation. Please take note of all footnotes as they

contain important information and clarification of terms used in the questions and thresholds.

1. Enabling Environment

Overall score 40 Degree of implementation (0 – 100) Very low (0) Low (20) Medium-low (40) Medium-high (60) High (80) Very high (100)

1.1 What is the status of policies, laws and plans to support Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) at the national level?

a. National water resources policy, or similar.

Development not started or not progressing.

Exists, but not based on IWRM.

Based on IWRM, approved by government and starting to be used by authorities to guide work.

Being used by the majority of relevant authorities to guide work.

Policy objectives consistently achieved.

Objectives consistently achieved, and periodically reviewed and revised.

Score 70

Status description:

• There are an estimated 15 pieces of legislation directly related to water resources but they are not coordinated and do not all fall under the mandate of one authority. A National Water Policy (2004 version) exists, however there is some weakness in terms of its implementation (for example: inclusion of Climate Change initiatives). Currently, the National Water Policy is being updated/reviewed through a World Bank initiative to incorporate actions in keeping with IWRM.

• An IWRM roadmap has been developed for Saint Lucia and its use is being encouraged given that implementation of this roadmap is lacking. There is some thought of policy enhancement in keeping with the Cabinet-endorsed National Adaptation Plan (NAP) developed in 2017 (this gave rise to the creation of a Sectoral Adaptation Strategy and Action Plan (SASAP) for the Water Sector).

Way forward:

• Finalize the reviewed National Water Policy and actively implement the IWRM indicated in the sectoral action plan. Actively implement the recommendations in the Roadmap.

• Continue the use of the SASAP for the water sector for seeking funding for mobilizing water-related projects.

• Review all pieces of water-related legislation to bring them up to par with IWRM implementation. This will also produce a more coherent and cohesive approach to IWRM in Saint Lucia.

b. National water resources law(s).


Exists, but not based on IWRM.

Based on IWRM, approved by government and starting to be applied by authorities.

Being applied by the majority of relevant authorities.

All laws are being applied across the country.

All laws are enforced across the country, and all people and organizations are held accountable. Score 70

Status description:

• Historically, national water resources laws were based on the IWRM principles, however the core principles were not always stuck to, especially in the decisions that took on a national interest. For example, in the development and review of laws governing water resources and the governance of the main national potable water utility (The Water and Sewerage Company {WASCO}), the discussions strayed away from IWRM principles and instead took on political and sectoral interests. Thus in deciding whether WASCO should be privatized or be part of a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) arrangement, investor and political influences were exerted. Therefore, though the intent was

1 For examples of good practices of policies, laws and plans, please see case studies under ‘enabling environment’ in the Global Water Partnership (GWP) IWRM ToolBox.

https://www.gwp.org/en/learn/iwrm-toolbox/About_IWRM_ToolBox/


to have IWRM guidance, the result was watered-down.

• There is weak involvement of the public and communities when policies/laws are being developed and this should be improved to ensure greater IWRM but inter-institutional collaboration is satisfactory.

Way forward:

• Personnel and agencies involved in aspects of water resource management should be educated and sensitized to IWRM principles and methodologies to integrate and implement all or the majority of its principles and its potential benefits. This should be the starting point and without achieving this, attempting to revise the current policies and laws will result in laws that are not strongly guided by IWRM.

• Greater involvement of all stakeholders in the development of legislation is needed. Although this would require greater effort and more time, it would ensure a more integrated management of the water resources.

Very low (0) Low (20) Medium-low (40) Medium-high (60) High (80) Very high (100)

c. National integrated water resources management (IWRM) plans, or similar.


Being prepared, but not approved by government.

Approved by government and starting to be implemented by authorities.

Being implemented by the majority of relevant authorities.

Plan objectives consistently achieved.

Objectives consistently achieved, and periodically reviewed and revised.

Score 30

Status description:

• Watershed management plans for the Vieux Fort and Castries watersheds exist and there is also the roadmap for the sector. Under the overarching National Adaptation Plan (NAP), a Sectoral Adaptation Strategy and Action Plan (SASAP) for the Water Sector has been cabinet endorsed (2018). The Water SASAP did seek cross-sectoral input and a multi-sectoral approach guided its development. A national wastewater management strategic plan (not yet cabinet endorsed) is also in existence.

• Although plans exist, financing significantly limits implementation.

Way forward:

• Adjustments to the Water and Sewerage Regulations (of the WRMA) to facilitate a more effective oversight of the fresh water abstraction from competing users.

1.2 What is the status of policies, laws and plans to support IWRM at other levels?

a. District, watersheds, regions, or departments

water resources policies or similar.

Development not started or delayed in most sub-national jurisdictions.

Exist in most jurisdictions, but not necessarily based on IWRM.

Based on IWRM, approved by the majority of authorities and starting to be used to guide work.

Being used by the majority of relevant authorities to guide work.

Policy objectives consistently achieved by a majority of authorities.

Objectives consistently achieved by all authorities, and periodically reviewed and revised.

Score 20

Status description:

• Plans have been developed on the watershed level which included the involvement of relevant watershed stakeholders (such as various sub-national stakeholders). The watershed management plans for Vieux Fort and Castries have not been cabinet endorsed and are at the stage where the cabinet memos are being drafted. Despite this, these documents are currently used to seek external funding..

• Prior to the commissioning of the WRMA, the Department of Forestry was at the forefront of developing and encouraging a watershed management approach for the island. Besides these two bodies, there is no push from the other government departments to encourage watershed management.

• Soft-persuasion is often used in-leu of law enforcement because the WRMA often cannot enact the necessary enforcement of existing laws, especially on private lands.

Way forward:

• Get watershed management plans endorsed by cabinet and secure financing for their active implementations.

• Secure enough financing so that sensitive areas on private lands that need protecting by law can be acquired and regulated, with land owners adequately compensated.


b. Basin/aquifer management plans2 or similar, based on IWRM.

Development not started or delayed in most basins/aquifers of national importance.

Being prepared for most basins/aquifers.

Approved in the majority of basins/aquifers and starting to be used by authorities.

Being implemented in the majority of basins/aquifers.

Plan objectives consistently achieved in majority of basins/aquifers.

Objectives consistently achieved in all basins/aquifers, and periodically reviewed and revised. Score 10

Status description:

• There was an initial initiative to develop an island-wide watershed master plan. Based on WRMA’s mandate, it is necessary to develop a master plan from which key watersheds would be identified for creation of watershed management plans. However its development has not commenced, but it is a work in progress.

• Currently plans are done at the watershed-level by the WRMA and the official definition of basin given in the survey goes beyond that of the typical watershed unit (in Saint Lucia).

Way forward:

• The development of a watershed master plan in keeping with the Water and Sewerage Regulations.


c. Arrangements for transboundary (outside of Saint Lucia) water management.3


Being prepared or negotiated.

Arrangements are adopted. Arrangements’ provisions are partly implemented.

Arrangements’ provisions are mostly implemented.

The arrangements’ provisions are fully implemented.

Score N/A

Status description:

• If districts or communities (local government) had jurisdiction and control over their raw water sources, this question may have been applicable. However, neither districts nor communities have jurisdiction over the water supply due to the small size of the country.

• Saint Lucia is an island state, thus this question is non-applicable. However, it was noted that though many of the Caribbean states aren’t affected by transboundary water-related issues, on a diplomatic level, the island should be cognizant of this issue and have a stance, especially if support or advice to a foreign nation should be given or if voting on the international arena is warranted.

Way forward:

2 At the basin/aquifer level, please include only the most important river basins, lake basins and aquifers for water supply or other reasons. This question only refers to these basins/aquifers. These basins/aquifers are likely to cross administrative borders, including state/provincial borders for federal countries. The basins may also cross national borders, but this question refers to management of the portions of basins within each country. Question 1.2c refers specifically to transboundary arrangements for basins/aquifers shared by countries. 3 For ‘transboundary’ definition and guidance on how to fill out all transboundary level questions, see Annexes A and B. All transboundary level questions should reflect the situation in most of the ‘most important’ transboundary basins/aquifers, as listed in Annex B. An ‘arrangement’ should be a formal commitment, and may be referred to as a bilateral or multilateral agreement, treaty, convention, protocol, joint declaration, memorandum of understanding, or other arrangement between riparian countries on the management of a transboundary basin/aquifer. Refers to international basins/aquifers only. Arrangements may be interstate, intergovernmental, inter-ministerial, interagency or between regional authorities. They may also be entered into by sub-national entities.


d. Sub-national water resources regulations4 (laws, decrees, ordinances or similar).5

Development not started or delayed in most sub-national jurisdictions.

Exist in most jurisdictions, but not necessarily based on IWRM.

Based on IWRM, approved in most jurisdictions and starting to be applied by authorities in some jurisdictions.

Some regulations being applied in the majority of jurisdictions.

All regulations being applied in the majority of jurisdictions.

All regulations being applied and enforced in all jurisdictions, and all people and organizations are held accountable. Score N/A

Status description:

• Legislative instruments are not created on a subnational level due to the small size of the country.

Way forward:

• Not applicable

4 Sub-national includes jurisdictions not at national level, such as: states, provinces, prefectures, counties, councils, regions, or departments. In cases where there are no explicit sub-national regulations, please answer this question by considering how national regulations are being implemented at sub-national levels. Responses should consider the highest, non-national level(s) as appropriate to the country. In the status description, please explain which level(s) are included in the response. 5 This question has replaced question 1.2d from the baseline survey instrument, which was for federal countries only.


2 Institutions and participation This section is about the range and roles of political, social, economic and administrative institutions that support the implementation of IWRM. It includes

institutional capacity and effectiveness, cross-sector coordination, stakeholder participation and gender equality. The 2030 Agenda stresses the importance of

partnerships that will require public participation and creating synergies with the private sector.

The burdens of water-related work carried out predominantly by women have been acknowledged for decades,6 which has led to a focus on women’s practical needs

around water, especially in relation to carrying water and managing it within the home. In the context of water resources management, there has been growing

recognition that, a strategic and practical focus on increasing women’s voice and influence, at all levels of decision-making, must become a priority. Furthermore,

mainstreaming gender in the water sector supports a range of targets in the SDGs, including under Goal 5 on achieving gender equality and empowering all women

and girls.7 Including a gender-related question in this survey (q.2.2d) also addresses the call for gender disaggregated data in the 2030 Agenda.8

Please take note of all footnotes as they contain important information and clarification of terms used in the questions and thresholds. Please refer to the

glossary for any terms that may require further explanation.

Enter your score, in increments of 10, from 0-100, or “n/a” (not applicable), in the yellow cell immediately below each question. Enter free text in the “Status

description” and “Way forward” fields below each question as advised in the Introduction in Part 1. This will help achieve agreement among different stakeholders in

the country, as well as help monitor progress over time. Suggestions for the type of information that may be useful are provided. You may also provide further

information you think is relevant, or links to further documentation.

6 E.g. Dublin Principle Nr. 3 (1992): “Women play a central part in the provision, management and safeguarding of water”. “[the] role of women … has seldom been reflected in institutional arrangements for the … management of water resources. Acceptance and implementation of this principle requires positive policies to address women’s specific needs and to equip and empower women to participate at all levels in water resources programmes, including decision-making and implementation, in ways defined by them.” 7 E.g. SDG target 5.5 “Ensure women's full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic and public life.” 8 E.g. SDG target 17.18 “By 2020, … increase … the availability of … data disaggregated by … gender, … and other characteristics relevant in national contexts.”


2. Institutions and Participation


2.1 What is the status of institutions for IWRM implementation at the national level?

a. National government authorities9 for leading IWRM implementation.

No dedicated government authorities for water resources management.

Authorities exist, with clear mandate to lead water resources management.

Authorities have clear mandate to lead IWRM implementation, and the capacity10 to effectively lead IWRM plan formulation.

Authorities have the capacity to effectively lead IWRM plan implementation.

Authorities have the capacity to effectively lead periodic monitoring and evaluation of the IWRM plan(s).

Authorities have the capacity to effectively lead periodic IWRM plan revision.

Score 50

Status description:

• A clear mandate exists through the Water and Sewerage Act that gives the WRMA and WASCO specific guidelines. However, the WRMA is constrained by human (technical) and financial resources.

• The mere fact that a verification consultation was being held to discuss IWRM implementation is testament that at least one agency is in charge of leading IWRM implementation and evaluation on the island. Compared to the other OECS islands, Saint Lucia is in an advantageous position as the Government has deemed it fit to create an agency to regulate and oversee this resource. However, the private sector could not evaluate how effective the WRMA is fulfilling its mandate. Nonetheless, the mandate of WRMA is clear to the private sector.

• There is a Flood and Drought Mitigation Committee comprising agencies from multi-sectoral backgrounds (including the Chamber of Commerce, Ministry of Tourism, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Agriculture, NEMO) that meet to discuss water-related matters (both flood and drought) that affect different stakeholders and sectors.

Way forward:

• Technical and personnel capacity at the WRMA should be improved and also investments in equipment to assist staff in fulfilling their duties are needed.

• To strengthen the mandate of these institutions, it was suggested to have one institution to act as an intermediary and form a linkage between the private sector and the public sector agencies and other stakeholders, so that information can be freely shared and there can be an exchange of information. Meetings and information sharing would thus facilitate evidence-based and better informed decision making, especially on the private sector’s end. WRMA may be best suited to take up this role currently.

• Review some of the water-related legislation to strengthen the mandate of the WRMA.

• To increase its financial resource base, the regulations governing alternative forms of financing such as abstraction licenses and other relevant fees should be reviewed and updated, to not only include WASCO, but all other users who abstract water (not for personal use). The WRMA should also seek creative ways of generating revenue.

9 ‘Government authorities’ could be a ministry or ministries, or other organizations/institutions/agencies/bodies with a mandate and funding from government. 10 ‘Capacity’ in this context is that the responsible authorities should be adapted to the complexity of water challenges to be met and have the required knowledge and technical skills, including planning, rule-making, project management, finance, budgeting, data collection and monitoring, risk/conflict management and evaluation. Beyond having the technical capacity, authorities should also have the financial capacity to actually be leading the implementation of these activities.


b. Coordination between national government authorities representing different sectors11 on water resources, policy, planning and management.

No information shared between different government sectors on policy, planning and management.

Information on water resources, policy, planning and management is made available between different sectors.

Communication: Information, experiences and opinions are shared between different sectors.

Consultation: Opportunities for different sectors to take part in policy, planning and management processes.

Collaboration: Formal arrangements between different government sectors with the objective of agreeing on collective decisions on important issues and activities.

Co-decisions and co- production: Shared power between different sectors on joint policy, planning and management activities. Score 80

Status description:

• Silos exist for routine operational mandates. The Department of Sustainable Development coordinates a lot of the collaboration between governmental agencies, especially those related to climate change adaptation and mitigation. This department coordinates agencies to develop environmental policies and plans. It also engages in resource mobilization to acquire funding from donors for environmental initiatives (such as IWRM actions). Collaboration among agencies exists through the review of ESIAs and, multi-agency site investigations). The WRMA has coordinated many of these collaborative activities.

• The WRMA participates in critical meetings as part of NEMO. It is also represented on the National Climate Change Committee and Flood and Drought Mitigation Committee. However, inclusion of the private sector and efforts to improve communication between them can be enhanced although some degree of communication exists. Both on the community and national-level, communication between resource users and resource managers can have mutually beneficial outcomes. For example in the community of Roseau, the Saint Lucia Distillers Ltd benefits from using water from an irrigation pond that the farmers also access. Dialogue between the parties can result in mutually beneficial outcomes, especially for remote communities with poor water distribution networks.

• There is an MOU between WRMA and The Saint Lucia Meteorological Services (SLMS) to facilitate data sharing and technical collaboration.

• More needs to be done to improve the status of coordination within Government agencies and between Governmental bodies and the private sector. E.g. the WRMA should share information on impending droughts with farmers prior to WASCO issuing restrictions on the use of potable pipe-borne water.

Way forward:

• Improvement of data sharing to relevant stakeholders.

• Have joint communiqués when declaring water-related emergencies. The business sector may benefit from an increase in the dissemination of information (e.g. more press releases) to inform on the status of water-related situations so that mitigation or preventative measures can be taken in advance of water-related emergencies/disasters or extreme events.

11 Relates to coordination between the government authorities responsible for water management and those responsible for other sectors (such as agriculture, energy, climate, environment etc.) that are dependent on water, or impact on water. Coordination between groundwater and surface water development/management should also be optimised. The relevant sectors should be considered according to their importance for the country.



c. Public participation12 in water resources, policy, planning and management at national level.

No information shared between government and the public on policy, planning and management.

Information on water resources, policy, planning and management is made available to the public.

Communication: Government authorities request information, experiences and opinions of the public.

Consultation: Government authorities regularly use information, experiences and opinions of the public.

Collaboration: Mechanisms13 established, and regularly used, for the public to take part in relevant policy, planning and management processes.

Representation: Formal representation of the public in government processes contributing to decision making on important issues and activities, as appropriate. Score 30

Status description:

• Public participation sometimes occurs at the local/community level. This is targeted towards stakeholders such as farmers, residents etc. when a planned intervention would be affecting them directly. Awareness raising and their input are necessary.

• At policy, planning and management level, the tendency is to invite governmental departments, NGO's, organizations and community group representatives to meetings through a top down approach

• Given that IWRM is complicated and affects almost every sector in society, it may be unproductive to have all segments of society participate in its implementation at the national level. Perhaps the best approach is to have a few key agencies involved in the development and implementation of IWRM. Given the dual nature of water (public good versus having commercial value and being sourced on private lands); there sometimes are conflicts by different resource users, e.g. farmers, water bottlers who sell water, WASCO. Therefore if the interest is to commercialize the resource vs to facilitate the public nature of the good, there needs to be a balance between entities that manage this resource nationally.

• The state has to find the resources to protect the raw water resources so that those producing potable water have enough access to the resource.

• Although data is freely made open to the public, usually, the public is consulted during projects which require public feedback/stakeholder participation. Public consultation generally occurs when creating policies and plans, however it needs to continue when operationalizing/implementing these plans

• In many cases, especially during the dry season, farmers dam and pump water from tributaries that often reduces or eliminates the provision of water for users downstream. Thus the WRMA has sought to encourage the formation of farmer user groups, particularly in farming regions that frequently have repeated issues with damming and low water flows.

• Interventions should be community-specific given that different districts are affected by specific problems. Tailoring public participation to effectively deal with localized problems may be needed.

• WRMA involves the public in its activities and though most interactions or interventions may be project-based, the agency has partnered with several Civil Society Organizations, e.g. the Babonneau Youth Synergy to implement water related projects.

Way forward:

• Include a wider cross-sectional participation of the public in national or project-based initiatives. Provision of web-based avenues for collecting feedback from the public on the services and information provided by the WRMA.

• The WRMA has to sensitize the public on the different aspects related to water abstraction (on both public and private lands) and protection so that all are aware of the true cost of having the water supply. This would help to ensure a supply for all users.

• In Saint Lucia, as more persons move into different forms of agricultural production that can potentially pollute water sources, and persons extract more raw water, conflicts

12 ‘The public’ includes all interested parties who may be affected by any water resources issue or intervention. They include organizations, institutions, academia, civil society and individuals. They do not include government organizations. The private sector is addressed separately in the next question. 13 Mechanisms can include policies, laws, strategies, plans, or other formal operational procedures for public participation.


between neighbouring communities or districts affect the governance of the resource. Thus the country can benefit from having water user groups to advocate for more sensitization and collaboration between public and private sector groups to better manage the resource. Perhaps the WRMA can help with developing and forming those user groups and facilitate their interactions to have better control of the sources of water.

• As part of an IWRM plan, the WRMA and other relevant authorities should promote research on the use of different drought tolerant plants and adaptive farming practices, especially with the effects of climate change.

d. Private sector14 participation in water resources development, management and use.

No information shared between government and private sector about water resources development, management and use.

Information made available between government and private sector about water resources development, management and use.

Communication between government and private sector about water resources development, management and use.

Consultation: Government authorities regularly involve the private sector in water resources development, management and use activities.

Collaboration: Mechanisms (e.g. policies, laws, strategies, plans, or other formal operational procedures for private sector participation)15 established, and regularly used, for private sector involvement and partnership.

Representation: Effective private sector involvement established for water resources development, management and use activities. Score 50

Status description:

• The private sector is participating however the private sector can be more involved in IWRM at the local and national level.

• The OECS Commission has been trying to advocate for the Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) as part of an effort to lure the private sector into contributing to the preservation of ecosystems that provide, among other services, clean water.

• There was a GIZ-project led initiative that sought to promote PES especially for water storage in La Haut, Soufriere.

• Active communication occurs with private entities when investigations are being done regarding water related issues (sedimentation, fish kills, effluent release, erosion, river/stream damming and diversion).

• Some companies are trying to diversify their source of water (e.g. rain-water harvesting, tributary water and water recycling) to reduce dependency on WASCO’s supply.

Way forward:

• There is interest by the private sector for PES mechanisms to facilitate water conservation incentives at a community and national level. This can be included in the updated water policy.

• Instead of project-level assistance, the WRMA strives to attain the incorporation of key elements for IWRM implementation into its current mandate by having mechanisms such as PES embedded into its policies.

• Source protection and storage of water should be priority areas which the WRMA should seek to introduce through the involvement of the private sector. • The WRMA and/or relevant authorities should engage the private sector to minimize the effects of urban-sprawling, land parcelization, sub-divisions and road construction

that often leads to increased siltation of waterways. Contractors and the Development Control Authority (DCA) should be part of this discussion. In fact, the WRMA should be part of the DCA board and should assist in deciding which infrastructural projects are approved.

14 Private sector includes for-profit businesses and groups. It does not include government or civil society. While this question is mainly focused at the national level, please respond at the level that is most relevant in the country context. Please explain this, including differences between implementation at different levels, in the ‘Status description’ field. 15 Mechanisms can include policies, laws, strategies, plans, or other formal operational procedures for private sector participation.



e. Developing IWRM capacity.16

No capacity development specific to water resources management.

Occasional capacity development, generally limited to short-term / ad-hoc activities.

Some long-term capacity development initiatives are being implemented, but geographic and stakeholder coverage is limited.

Long-term capacity development initiatives are being implemented, and geographic and stakeholder coverage is adequate.

Long-term capacity development initiatives are being implemented, with effective outcomes, and geographic and stakeholder coverage is very good.

Long-term capacity development initiatives are being implemented with highly effective outcomes, and geographic and stakeholder coverage is excellent. Score 40

Status description:

• The WRMA does not have the capacity to implement PES (financially or otherwise). Most officers from WRMA are trained in facets of IWRM; however, other users and dependents of the resource are lacking the technical capacity to successfully implement IWRM interventions.

• There has been some rain water harvesting (RWH) training and implementation at various levels: e.g. World Bank’s Disaster Vulnerability Reduction Program project, Japan-Caribbean Climate Change Partnership

Way forward:

• Because Saint Lucia has many manufacturing companies that heavily rely on potable water supplies, there should be an incentive program to increase their capacity in source diversification. Hence, by learning how to incorporate different sources of water into their production lines, the companies can play a greater role in IWRM implementation.

2.2 What is the status of institutions for IWRM implementation at other levels?

a. Basin/aquifer level17 organizations18 for leading implementation of IWRM.

No dedicated basin authorities for water resources management.





Authorities have the capacity to effectively lead periodic IWRM plan revision.

Score 40

Status description:

• WRMA is the sole entity responsible for all basins (all levels).

16 IWRM capacity development: refers to the enhancement of skills, instruments, resources and incentives for people and institutions at all levels, to improve IWRM implementation. Capacity needs assessments are essential for effective and cost-effective capacity development. Capacity development programs should consider gender balance and disadvantaged/minority groups in terms of participation and awareness. Capacity development is relevant for many groups, including: local and central government, water professionals in all areas - both public and private water organisations, civil society, and in regulatory organisations. In this instance, capacity development may also include primary, secondary and tertiary education, and academic research concerning IWRM. 17 At the basin/aquifer level, please include only the most important river basins, lake basins and aquifers for water supply or for other reasons. This question only refers to these basins/aquifers. These basins/aquifers likely cross-administrative borders, including state/provincial borders for federal countries. The basins may also cross national borders, but this question refers to management of the portions of basins within each country. Question 2.2e refers specifically to transboundary management of basins/aquifers shared by countries. 18 Could be organization, committee, inter-ministerial mechanism or other means of collaboration for managing water resources at the basin level. 19 For the definition of ‘capacity’ in this context, see footnote 12. Beyond having the capacity, authorities must also actually be leading the implementation of these activities.


• Professor Dale Morgan from a Massachusetts’s Institute of Technology (MIT) has done some groundwater studies at various sites in the Mabouya Valley and preliminary results did indicate the presence of groundwater in some areas.

• WASCO representatives have expressed interest in the possibility of exploring more groundwater sources. However, the necessary preliminary investigations which need to be conducted by an authority such as the WRMA have not been done due to lack of resources.

• There has been a history of speculators who want to explore the possibility of abstraction from marine and groundwater source, but this exploration should be guided by proper research (done by WRMA or local academia) to inform evidence based decision making by the state or private interests.

Way forward:

• Given the size of the country, there are no intentions to develop individualized agencies per basin (small size). The WMRA has not created any watershed committees to help fulfil its mandate on a basin/watershed or aquifer level.


b. Public participation20 in water resources, policy, planning and management at the local level.21

No information shared between government and the public on policy, planning and management.

Information on water resources, policy, planning and management is made available to the public.

Communication: Government authorities request information, experiences and opinions of the public.

Consultation: Government authorities regularly use local level information, experiences and opinions of the public.

Collaboration: Mechanisms22 established, and regularly used, for the public to take part in relevant policy, planning and management processes.

Representation: Formal representation of the public in local authority processes contributing to decision making on important issues and activities, as appropriate. Score 40

Status description:

• The public is consulted and does have the opportunity to participate in some of the WRMA’s initiatives, but this is done on a project level and public consultation/participation is not embedded in the regular mandate of the agency. Thus, only the watersheds and regions where projects target would have this level of public participation.

• The private sector representatives do feel included in some of the processes involving water resources management, but there is a lot more that can be done to increase both public and business entities in IWRM.

• NEMO collaborates with the water sector in various initiatives (e.g. input into the Drought Management Plan, water related issues of the Tourism sector, project planning for rain water harvesting and the Flood and Drought Committee). NEMO also has some volunteers on community disaster committees that deal with water-related problems and gets feedback from community members throughout the island, especially in relation to flood and landslide risks.

• In the Dennery Valley, persons have been trained in the used of flood early warning systems and rainwater harvesting interventions. In Choiseul there has been community resilience training in water usage. At various disaster shelters in communities island wide, water-storage tanks have been installed and persons trained to manage the resource.

• Bexon, Canaries and Anse La Raye are currently identified as the most at-risk communities in terms of flooding risks. Castries has a multi-hazard early warning system to minimize the effects of floods on property and personal safety..

• The input of the agricultural production sector is deemed low in terms of participation in water resource planning and management.

20 ‘The public’ includes all interested parties who may be affected by any water resources issue or intervention. They include organizations, institutions, academia, civil society and individuals. They do not include government organizations. The private sector is dealt with separately in question 2.1d. 21 Examples of ‘local level’ include municipal level (e.g. cities, towns and villages), community level, basin/tributary/aquifer/delta level, and water user associations. 22 Mechanisms can include policies, laws, strategies, plans, or other formal operational procedures for public participation.


Way forward:

• Communities island-wide should be trained in the use and management of flood early warning systems. These systems could be community based to fit local contexts and be more responsive due to the very low lead times of flash floods.

• Collaboration with the SLMS should facilitate the production of forecasting tools (e.g. mobile apps) and public consultation should help guide the development of final information products.

• Farmers and other stakeholders in the agricultural sector need to provide greater input on committees such as the Flood and Drought Committee because of the impact which extreme weather events may have crop and livestock production.

c. Participation of vulnerable groups in water resources planning and management.23

Participation of vulnerable groups not explicitly addressed in laws, policies, or plans.

Vulnerable groups partially addressed, but no explicit procedures in place.24

Some procedures in place, but limited budget and human capacity for implementation.

Procedures in place, with moderate participation of vulnerable groups (moderate budget and human capacity).

Regular participation of vulnerable groups (sufficient budget and human capacity, and participation is monitored).

Meaningful25 and regular participation of vulnerable groups, as appropriate.

Score 30

Status description:

• The private sector, as part of its Corporate and Social Responsibility, does seek to engage vulnerable groups, most times in communities where the businesses are located, or in communities that impact their business. This specifically relates to water supply and wastewater management and disposal. For example in the Roseau community, the Saint Lucia Distillers Ltd has several water related projects with the residents, but these are impacted by budgetary and personnel constraints and multi-tasking and management of these projects are a challenge.

• Only in the instances where vulnerable groups have formally grouped themselves together as a cooperative or CSO (e.g. Farmers with Disabilities) would they normally receive a voice in water resources planning and management.

• Overall, vulnerable groups are often neglected and little to no input is sought from them when it comes to the planning and management of water resources island wide.

Way forward: • Points of contacts in the communities need to be identified so that vulnerable groups can be targeted. These key-informants would have a better knowledge on the most

vulnerable within their communities, making interventions more impactful and getting their input in water resource planning and management more effective. These points of contact can also have the responsibility of ensuring proper water management and they should be made to understand the consequences of good water management so they can pass on that knowledge to other members within their communities. Community members and vulnerable groups need some level of increased awareness and education as related to IWRM.

23 Vulnerable groups: groups of people that face economic, political, or social exclusion or marginalisation. They can include, but are not limited to: indigenous groups, ethnic minorities, migrants (refugees, internally displaced people, asylum seekers), remote communities, subsistence farmers, people living in poverty, people living in slums and informal settlements. Also referred to as ‘marginalised’ or ‘disadvantaged’ groups. While women are often included in definitions of ‘vulnerable groups’, in this survey gender issues are addressed separately in question 2.2d. The score given for this question should reflect the situation for the majority of the vulnerable groups. This question has been added since the baseline to capture an element of stakeholder participation which is important in the context of ‘leave no-one behind’ – one of the key principles of Agenda 2030. 24 ‘Procedures’ can include operational processes to, for example, raise awareness, reduce language barriers, and facilitate interaction with specific vulnerable groups. 25 ’Meaningful’ implies voices of vulnerable groups are heard, contribute to decision-making, and influence outcomes. It follows the UN Statement of Common Understanding on Human Rights-Based Approaches to Development Cooperation which provides for “Participation and Inclusion: … all peoples are entitled to active, free and meaningful participation in, contribution to, and enjoyment of civil, economic, social, cultural and political development in which human rights and fundamental freedoms can be realized.”



d. Gender included in laws/plans or similar within water resources management. 26

Gender considerations not explicitly included in national/ subnational laws/plans or similar.

Gender considerations partially included in laws/plans or similar.

Gender considerations included (but limited implementation, budget or monitoring).

Gender objectives27 partly achieved (activities partially monitored and funded).

Gender objectives mostly achieved (activities adequately monitored and funded).

Gender objectives consistently achieved and effectively address gender issues (activities and outcomes reviewed and revised). Score 30

Status description:

• The role of gender is increasingly being highlighted and given prominence on national level. Gender considerations are articulated in the National Adaptation Plan as well as the Sectoral Adaptation and Strategic Action Plan (SASAPs) for water

Way forward:

• International commitments have encouraged the island to include gender-mainstreaming into most of their planning processes. This was done in the formal NAP and SASAP development process and also in the island’s development of the Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA) development. Certain UNDP implemented projects have focused on the inclusion of gender considerations into project planning and implementation (e.g. the Japan –Caribbean Climate Change Partnership projects focused on aquaponics, rain water harvesting and efficient water use in schools).

• The WRMA partook in a gender mainstreaming training in June of 2020 as part of the “EnGenDER Training on Gender Equality Mainstreaming for Climate Change Adaptation

and Disaster Resilience”. This initiative was facilitated through the Department of Gender Relations in Saint Lucia and the UN Women Multi Country Office – Caribbean. The

initiative looked a ways of integrating water resources into various sectors such as water and sanitation. The review of National Water policy (currently being revised) will

consider the inclusion of gender during the planned stakeholder consultations.

26 See gender discussion at beginning of section 2. Gender-responsive mechanisms can include laws, policies, plans, strategies or other frameworks or procedures aimed at achieving gender objectives related to women’s participation, voice and influence. Gender-responsive mechanisms may originate within the water sector or at a higher level, but if they are primarily addressed at a higher level, then there should be evidence of gender mainstreaming within the water sector to achieve scores in this question. In the baseline survey, national, sub-national, and transboundary levels were addressed in three separate questions. These questions have been merged into a single question, allowing countries to answer the question at the level which is most relevant in the national context. The situation at different levels can be explained in the ‘Status description’ cell, as appropriate. 27 Gender objectives ultimately refer to equal participation and influence in water resources management at all levels. Ways of monitoring this include (please identify any of these or similar in the ‘Status description’ field): 1) Presence of Gender Focal Point responsible for gender policy and gender concerns in authorities that deal with water resources; 2) Gender parity in decision-making processes at all levels (e.g. in meetings or board members/committee members); 3) Presence of gender-specific objectives and commitments in strategies, plans and laws related water policy; 4) Presence and role of local women’s groups/organizations receiving technical and/or financial support from government/non-government organizations involved in water resources management activities; 5) Budget allocation, and procedures for collection and analysis of sex-disaggregated data of local populations, when planning for water-related programmes / projects, including infrastructure; 6) Presence of measures for improving gender parity and equity in human resources (HR) policies of authorities. Source: adapted from UNESCO WWAP Toolkit on Sex-disaggregated Water Data, 2019.

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/water/wwap/display-single-news/news/the_2019_water_gender_toolkit_has_been_launched/


e. Organizational framework for transboundary water

management .28

No organizational framework(s).

Organizational framework(s) being developed.

Organizational framework(s) established.

Organizational framework(s)’ mandate is partly fulfilled.

Organizational framework(s)’ mandate is mostly fulfilled.

Organizational framework(s)’ mandate is fully fulfilled.

Score N/A

Status description: Same as other transboundary issues.

Way forward:


f. Sub-national29 authorities for leading IWRM implementation.30

No dedicated sub-national authorities for water resources management.





Sub-national authorities have the capacity to effectively lead periodic IWRM plan revision. Score 20

Status description:

• The WRMA is the main authority for leading the IWRM initiative. The Department of Forestry’s role is more on the landscape level. Previously, there were groups which participated in managing water resources at the watershed level. These groups includes :

➢ The Trust for the Management of Rivers ➢ Talvan Water Catchment Group (This group is dormant ➢ The Delcer Irrigation Canal Group

• The WRMA and the Forestry Department have liaised with these groups as part of site investigation initiatives and stakeholder consultations. It should be noted that these groups are not authorities rather NGO’s with their own environmental protection interests.

Way forward:

• The WRMA should probably create stronger partnerships at the watershed levels to get greater community involvement in IWRM. This would help better manage the resource and also assist in collecting information on the happenings within watersheds so that monitoring on the watershed level can happen. Currently the WRMA does not have the capacity to facilitate watershed monitoring island wide.

28 An organizational framework can include a joint body, mechanism, authority, committee, commission or other institutional arrangement. Refers to international basins/aquifers. 29 Sub-national can include, but not limited to: provincial, state, county, local government areas, council. In this case, sub-national should not include basin/aquifer levels as this is dealt with in question 2.2a. Answer this question for the highest sub-national level(s) that are relevant in the country, and specify what these are. 30 This question has replaced question 2.2f from the baseline survey, which was for federal countries only. This is in recognition of the fact that many countries have sub-national authorities for water resources management, even if they are not federal countries. 31 For the definition of ‘capacity’ in this context, see footnote 12. Beyond having the capacity, authorities must also actually be leading the implementation of these activities.


3 Management instruments This section includes the tools that enable decision-makers and users to make rational and informed choices between alternative actions. It includes management

programs, monitoring water resources and the pressures on them, knowledge sharing and capacity development. Many of the questions in this section relate to

other SDG 6 targets and indicators (see 6.5.1 monitoring guide), and coordination between different SDG reporting processes is encouraged where feasible.

Terminology used in the questions:

• Limited, Adequate, Very good, Excellent: Are terms used describe the status, coverage and effectiveness of the management instruments assessed in this

section. Respondents should apply their own judgement based on the ‘best-practice’ descriptions of management instruments in the glossary, the section

introduction, and through footnotes. For example, ‘adequate’ may imply that the basic minimum criteria for that particular management instrument are

met. Please provide qualifying information to the question score in the ‘Status description’ cell immediately below each question.

• Management instruments: Can also be referred to as management tools and techniques, which include regulations, financial incentives, monitoring,

plans/programs (e.g. for development, use and protection of water resources), as well as those specified in footnotes on questions and thresholds below.

• Monitoring: collecting, updating, and sharing timely, consistent and comparable water-related data and information, relevant for science and policy.

Effective monitoring requires ongoing commitment and financing from government. Resources required include appropriate technical capacity such as

laboratories, portable devices, online water use control and data acquisition systems. May include a combination of physical data collection, remote sensing,

and modelling for filling data gaps.

• Short-term / Long-term: In the context of management instruments, short-term includes ad-hoc activities and projects, generally not implemented as part of

an overarching program with long-term goals. Long-term refers to activities that are undertaken as part of an ongoing program that has more long-term

goals/aims and implementation strategy.

Please take note of all footnotes as they contain important information and clarification of terms used in the questions and thresholds.





http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org/


3. Management Instruments


3.1 What is the status of management instruments to support IWRM implementation at the national level?

a. National monitoring of water availability32

No national monitoring systems in place.

Monitoring systems established for a limited number of short-term / ad-hoc projects or similar.

Long-term national monitoring is carried out but with limited coverage and limited use by stakeholders.

Long-term national monitoring is carried out with adequate coverage but limited use by stakeholders.

Long-term national monitoring is carried out with very good coverage and adequate use by stakeholders.

Long-term national monitoring is carried out with excellent coverage and excellent use by stakeholders.

Score 60

Status description:

• The Water and Sewage Act and adjoining regulations are the primary legal instruments that the WRMA uses to facilitate nationwide monitoring. Legally, WRMA can establish water control areas, waste control areas, and establishment of gathering grounds. Also, WRMA can issue permits for the abstraction of water. These allow for the different characterizations and allocations for national water resources.

• Monthly point measurements of stream-flow are done on the critical rivers that are used as water intakes. Both the WRMA and the SLMS have independent sets of hydro-meteorological stations that serve to monitor rainfall and water availability (SLMS = 21 met. stations and WRMA = 43 met. stations inclusive of 4 water level stations and 3 soil moisture probes). The two sets of stations provide complementary data for making determinations on the status of rainfall activity on the island. This information is shared during the Flood and Drought Committee meetings to guide decision-making. The integrity of the network though can be compromised, in instances of inadequate maintenance. The DVRP however, has embarked on increasing and upgrading some of WRMA’s hydro-met stations to allow for real-time monitoring of water resources.

• From a forestry perspective, there is a dedicated unit for assessing risks to watersheds. This Department also conducts riverbank assessments and is mandated to conduct regular monitoring and assessments of riverbanks on main rivers. However, there is no established framework to share that information with the WRMA or any other governmental agency.

• There are also a set of permanent sample forest plots used to monitor forest regeneration, which would act as a surrogate to monitor the provision of water from this resource. However, it is unclear as to whether data from these sample plots generate information on the water –base flows. The Department of Forestry confirmed that gaps exist in the data collection, but new sample plots are proposed for forest reserves, and different land cover classes. By extending the number of permanent sample plots and also expanding the classes of tree cover these plots monitor, one is able to get a more comprehensive picture of what is occurring to the water resource nationally.

• On the IWeco project, information is now being placed on a server to facilitate online data sharing.

Way forward:

• Adequate meteorological coverage exists; however, there is great room for collecting more frequent hydrological measurements. This would allow the WRMA to more accurately characterize the watersheds for quantifying available water resources to be managed.

• Forests play a critical role in maintaining base flows, therefore the use of permanent sample plots to monitor base water flows needs to be streamlined into the Forestry Department’s mandate. There should also be a drive to help maintain and increase forest cover.

• Integrated and on-line platforms for data sharing should be used by all departments and collect and process data. A centralized location is needed to house all relevant water related data for processing.

32 See definition of monitoring in Terminology.


b. Sustainable and efficient water use management using

instruments such as technical measures, financial incentives, education and awareness, monitoring water use by the different sectors and mechanisms for allocating

water between sectors,33 from the national level

No management instruments being implemented.

Use of management instruments is limited and only through short-term / ad-hoc projects or similar.

Some management instruments implemented on a more long-term basis, but with limited coverage across different water users and the country.

Management instruments are implemented on a long-term basis, with adequate coverage across different water users and the country.

Management instruments are implemented on a long-term basis, with very good coverage across different water users and the country, and are effective.

Management instruments are implemented on a long-term basis, with excellent coverage across different water users and the country, and are highly effective.

Score 50

Status description:

• To foster sustainable management of the water resource, data sharing with national ministries and between local stakeholders is critical. Although the WRMA is mandated to collect and report on the water quality of certain important rivers to non-local entities as part of its SDG reporting, local stakeholders, e.g. farmers, can use this information to manage the resource in a more sustainable manner. All water users should have access to this data.

• The Water and Sewage Act makes allowances for the declaration of water emergencies through the advice of the Flood and Drought Mitigation Committee which meets on a monthly basis. This is done with the presence of WRMA, NURC, Met Services, WASCO, NEMO and Ministry Of Health (Environmental Health). It should be mentioned that under the Disaster Vulnerability Reduction Project (DVRP), a code of practice for rainwater harvesting systems (for non-potable water) was developed, along with a proposal of financial incentives for the adoption of these systems throughout the country. The finalization of these documents for Cabinet approval is a work in progress.

Way forward:

• Desilt the John Compton Dam, which is the main fresh water reservoir in Saint Lucia.

• Implement measures to reduce the amount of non-revenue water experienced by the water utility.

• Implement incentives for rainwater harvesting systems as a follow-up to the DVRP initiative to develop guidelines and financial incentives for installing rainwater harvesting systems island-wide.

33 Management instruments include demand management measures (e.g. technical measures, financial incentives, education and awareness raising to reduce water use and/or improve water-use efficiency, conservation, recycling and re-use), monitoring water use (including the ability to disaggregate by sector), mechanisms for allocating water between sectors (including environmental considerations).



c. Pollution control34 from the national level



Some management instruments implemented on a more long-term basis, but with limited coverage across sectors and the country.

Management instruments are implemented on a long-term basis, with adequate coverage across sectors and the country.

Management instruments are implemented on a long-term basis, with very good coverage across sectors and the country, and are effective.

Management instruments are implemented on a long-term basis, with excellent coverage across sectors and the country, and are highly effective. Score 50

Status description:

• Point measurements are taken and qualitative assessments are made to monitor the status at different streams. The WRMA does not have a sanctioned laboratory to conduct water testing analysis, though it does conduct rudimentary water quality analysis. There is no dedicated staff for water quality testing although they are collecting physio-chemical parameters on some streams. However this effort is limited by data quality assurance for external data reporting.

• The Environmental Health Act makes provisions for regulating water contamination which has implications for human (and environmental health). The Water and Sewage Act also makes provisions for safeguarding against the pollution of water intakes.

• An overarching water quality protocol for Saint Lucia, the Water Quality Monitoring and Analysis Program (WQMAP) is a guiding framework that was developed from a broad list of stakeholders. It details the points and parameters each national agency should target from a water quality standpoint, to create a national water quality monitoring process. E.g., WASCO would focus on intake areas while WRMA’s focus would span certain critical rivers and the Fisheries Department would focus on coastal areas.

Way forward:

• Collaboration was initiated with CARPHA to help calibrate and standardize data collection equipment and procedures (for quality assurance and control). Partnerships with already accredited institutions to help with water testing should be pursued on all levels. However, financing remains a huge constraint.

d. Management of water-related ecosystems (e.g. rivers, wetlands, forests and mountains )35 from the national level.



Some management instruments implemented on a more long-term basis, but with limited coverage across different ecosystem types and the country.

Management instruments are implemented on a long-term basis, with adequate coverage across different ecosystem types and the country. Environmental Water Requirements (EWR) analysed in some cases.

Management instruments are implemented on a long-term basis, with very good coverage across different ecosystem types and the country, and are effective. EWR analysed for most of country.

Management instruments are implemented on a long-term basis, with excellent coverage across different ecosystem types and the country, and are highly effective. EWR analysed for whole country. Score 50

Status description:

• Forestry laws are outdated (from 1945) and new amendments drafted from since 2009 have not been legally ratified. There is a robust system to manage all forested lands since 2005 (both forest reserves and forests on private lands). The removal of the Queen’s Chain from Forestry Department’s mandate has caused river bank management to be placed under the purview of other Ministries. To help with river bank stabilization and rehabilitation of riparian forest, community nurseries have been set-up island-wide. These nurseries in principle should also provide mangrove seedlings for restoring mangroves. Emphasis is being placed on propagating tree species with economic value in these community nurseries to provide the dual purpose of ecosystem services in the different ecosystems, and financial (livelihoods) rewards, especially on privately owned

34 Includes regulations, water quality guidelines, water quality monitoring, economic tools (e.g. taxes and fees), water quality trading programs, education, consideration of point and non-point (e.g. agricultural) pollution sources, construction and operation of wastewater treatment plants, watershed management. 35 Water-related ecosystems include rivers, lakes and aquifers, as well as wetlands, forests and mountains. Management of these systems includes tools such as management plans, the assessment of Environmental Water Requirements (EWR), and protection of areas and species. Monitoring includes measuring extent and quality of the ecosystems over time.


lands that may contain sensitive water-related ecosystems.

• Some wetlands are RAMSAR ratified (e.g. Makote Mangrove). Most wetlands are coastal and a few may be on private lands and currently the Forestry Department does not have enough regulatory instruments at its disposal to fully manage these sites. However, all the wetlands have been mapped and assessed to characterize their current status and identify threats and pressures.

• A ridge-to-reef approach is used for land use management and various terrestrial ecosystems may fall under the management mandate of the Forestry Department. Although updated laws are lacking, a forestry strategic plan (2015-2025) is being used to guide operations.

• The Water and Sewerage Act established the WRMA to protect the water resources of the country. The Public Health Act protects environmental water quality and the Physical Planning Act speaks to protecting the environment through environmental impact assessments

Way forward:

• During the dry season, flows in rivers are significantly reduced downstream of water intakes. The relevant authorities should develop regulatory instruments to mandate a minimum environmental flow downstream of water intakes, especially on waterways that farmers use for irrigation.

• Riparian forests should be maintained and baren areas should be reforested.

• Management plans and user guidelines should be developed to help improve the effectiveness of ecosystem management and protection.

• Obtain the data for EWR development and use.


e. Management instruments to reduce impacts of water-related disasters36



Some management instruments implemented on a more long-term basis, but with limited coverage of at-risk areas.

Management instruments are implemented on a long-term basis, with adequate coverage of at-risk areas.

Management instruments are implemented on a long-term basis, with very good coverage of at-risk areas, and are effective.

Management instruments are implemented on a long-term basis, with excellent coverage of at-risk areas, and are highly effective.

Score 50

Status description:

• The WRMA has a complement of 11 persons to conduct its entire mandate which is very broad. Staffing is a major limitation and cannot police land usage that may inadvertently affect stream flow. There is a dependency on other authorities to inform the WRMA to help fulfil its mandate.

• From a disaster mitigation perspective, post Hurricane Tomas, Forestry Officers were encouraged to be part of community disaster groups to help guide recovery efforts in the immediate aftermath of natural disasters. The Forestry Department’s Disaster Management Plan guides this, which is specific to the different forestry ranges.

• There is a wild fire management plan that the Forestry Department uses and this is supplemented by active wildfire research that the Department conducts to assess, among other things, changing vegetation patterns post-wildfires and its impact on water resources where relevant.

• NEMO is adequately equipped to respond to water related disasters. Most villages have a disaster response committee. These committees are further empowered to do remedial mitigation works in response to landslide events. Work is on-going with the Ministry of Finance to setup a Disaster Mitigation Fund to finance the works of the disaster response committees. This fund is about to be launched. The Government also has an insurance policy with the Caribbean Catastrophic Risk Insurance Facility (CCRIF) to cover excess rainfall events, storms and earthquakes. There is also a livelihood insurance policy with CCRIF to provide coverage for farmers in the event of cyclone-induced

36 ‘Management instruments’ can cover: understanding disaster risk; strengthening disaster risk governance; investing in disaster risk reduction; and enhancing disaster preparedness. ‘Impacts’ include social impacts (such as deaths, missing persons, and number of people affected) and economic impacts (such as economic losses in relation to GDP). ‘Water-related disasters’ include disasters that can be classified under the following: Hydrological (flood, landslide, wave action); Meteorological (convective storm, extratropical storm, extreme temperature, fog, tropical cyclone); and Climatological (drought, glacial lake outburst, wildfire).


damage to their farms.

• A number of landslide risk studies have been conducted, with special emphasis on the coastal road network.

• Collaborations with the SLMS seeks to translate weather forecasting to a more impact based forecasting, to allow community stakeholders to know the levels of impact which extreme rainfall events may have on their communities.

• Within all Government Departments there is liaison officer that reports to NEMO and who is responsible for ensuring that there is continuity of government services after disasters. Work is currently ongoing to have an online, integrated information sharing platform to better inform NEMO on the status of community specific disasters. This platform would house information from multiple and cross-cutting sectors, to help NEMO make decisions that can potentially reduce the impacts of water related disasters.

• The Ministry of Agriculture has an Agriculture Drought Management Plan that is supposed to guide its response to agricultural droughts .

• The WRMA is in possession of soil moisture probes and is scheduled to get more under the DVRP.

Way forward:

• More trained technical staff for NEMO for better management of the Early warning systems.

• Use the Agriculture Drought Management Plan and already established facilities (e.g. the irrigation pond at Roseau) to assist water users, especially in times of drought. Weather forecasting and other tools that can foster an anticipatory approach rather a reactive one, especially for the farming sector, can help reduce the impacts of water related disasters. This will assist in efforts for pre-disaster planning. The use of technologies such as soil moisture probes to assist in information management should be increased.

• Farmers should be trained and encouraged to use sustainable land management and best practices, especially those with farms in critical watersheds. In some instances, the farming practices farmers employ exacerbate water related disasters.

3.2 What is the status of management instruments to support IWRM implementation at other levels?

a. Basin management

(managing water at the appropriate hydrological scale) instruments.37

No basin level management instruments being implemented.

Use of basin level management instruments is limited and only through short-term / ad-hoc projects.

Some basin level management instruments implemented on a more long-term basis, but with limited geographic and stakeholder coverage.

Basin level management instruments implemented on a more long-term basis, with adequate geographic and stakeholder coverage.

Basin level management instruments implemented on a more long-term basis, with effective outcomes and very good geographic and stakeholder coverage.

Basin level management instruments implemented on a more long-term basis, with highly effective outcomes and excellent geographic and stakeholder coverage. Score 40

Status description:

• At the watershed level, the WRMA leads management efforts. There are two recent management plans at the watershed level (Castries and Vieux Fort). Although the WRMA has the mandate for water resources, because of the overlap in objectives, other Ministries or Departments unilaterally operate within those watersheds in ways which may impact water quality and flows. This sometimes happens without the knowledge or consent of the WRMA.

• At the community, watershed or even district levels, there are different actors that conduct activities that affect water flows. Often, these activities are contradictory in their effect. Also, due to a lack of an integrated approach to working within watershed management is sometimes ineffective. For example, The Department of Infrastructure may carry out desilting works in river beds and disrupt the river bank stabilization efforts that the Forestry Department has done.

Way forward:

• Consultation on all levels and between all stakeholders of the resource at the appropriate hydrological scale should be done to ensure an integrated approach is taken to

37 Basin and aquifer management: involves managing water at the appropriate hydrological scale, using the surface water basin or aquifer as the unit of management. This may involve basin and aquifer development, use and protection plans. It should also promote multi-level cooperation, and address potential conflict among users, stakeholders and levels of government. To achieve ‘Very high (100)’ basin and aquifer management scores, surface and groundwater management should be integrated.


resolve potential conflicts. A framework agreement should be drafted between relevant government agencies where works to be done within watersheds get input by all stakeholders with one agency supervising such works.


b. Aquifer management instruments.38

No aquifer level management instruments being implemented.

Use of aquifer level management instruments is limited and only through short-term / ad-hoc projects.

Some aquifer level management instruments implemented on a more long-term basis, but with limited geographic and stakeholder coverage.

Aquifer level management instruments implemented on a more long-term basis, with adequate geographic and stakeholder coverage.

Aquifer level management instruments implemented on a more long-term basis, with effective outcomes and very good geographic and stakeholder coverage.

Aquifer level management instruments implemented on a more long-term basis, with highly effective outcomes and excellent geographic and stakeholder coverage. Score 10

Status description:

• The Water and Sewerage Company (WASCO) accesses raw water from a small number of springs on the island (for example in Soufriere); however, the bulk of the raw water abstracted is from rivers. Currently the status of groundwater resources is unknown, as little data exists. The Saint Lucia’s Sectoral Adaptation Strategy and Action Plan (SASAP) for the Water Sector has proposed measures and a concept note for the characterization of groundwater to create a groundwater inventory. Past groundwater assessments have been sporadic and have mainly been on the level of preliminary detection.

Way forward:

• Undertake a groundwater inventory study for the identification and characterization of groundwater resources as prescribed in the SASAP for the Water Sector

c. Data and information sharing within countries at all levels that includes more formal data and information sharing arrangements between users, as well as accessibility for the general public, where

appropriate39

No data and information sharing.

Limited data and information sharing on an ad-hoc basis.

Data and information sharing arrangements exist on a more long-term basis between major data providers and users.

Data and information sharing arrangements implemented on a more long-term basis, with adequate coverage across sectors and the country.

Data and information sharing arrangements implemented on a more long-term basis, with very good coverage across sectors and the country.

All relevant data and information are online and freely accessible to all.

Score 50

Status description

• Various platforms have been developed and are in development for sharing data and information with stakeholders locally and regionally/internationally. Data can be requested from WRMA or SLMS, as it pertains to long-term historic datasets.

• The National Environmental Information System (NEIS) was established and is being used to share data (not restricted to hydro-meteorology). However, such systems for

38 See previous footnote on basin management instruments, which also applies to aquifers. 39 Includes more formal data and information sharing arrangements between users, as well as accessibility for the general public, where appropriate.


information sharing are not consistently used by the various stakeholders.

• Internally, the WRMA has its mechanisms for data collection, and the data can be shared with external parties upon request. An MOU exists between the WRMA and the SLMS to collect and share hydrological data.

• The Forestry Department is attempting to implement the SMART, an online platform for uploading data collected at various levels.

• Most of the datasets available are at the national level but district or community level data are at times needed. Currently, one would have to know where to search for data, which in itself is time consuming.

Way forward:

• Shared data should be formatted in a manner that is easily understood by the different stakeholders and data users. The location of this data should also be centralized and widely published to facilitate access by all parties, including the private sector.

• Information sharing is also important and decisions taken by various committees (e.g. the Flood and Drought Management Committee) should be shared in a timely manner, preferably using an online platform.

• The private sector in some circumstances collects data that can be of national interest. The development of a framework and a standard protocol for data collection and to share such data can be developed that is mutually beneficial to the private sector and the agencies responsible for managing water resources.

d. Transboundary data and information sharing between countries.

No data and information sharing.

Limited data and information sharing on an ad-hoc or informal basis.

Data and information sharing arrangements exist, but sharing is limited.

Data and information sharing arrangements implemented adequately.

Data and information sharing arrangements implemented effectively.40

All relevant data and information are online and accessible between countries.

Score N/A

Status description:

• Not applicable because multi-national borders do not exist on the island.

Way forward:

• Not Applicable

40 E.g. institutional and technical mechanisms in place that allow for exchanging data as agreed upon in agreements between riparians (e.g. regional database or information exchange platform with a river basin organization including technical requirements for data submission, institutionalized mechanisms for QA and for analysing the data, etc.).


4 Financing This section concerns the adequacy of the finance available for water resources development and management from various sources.

Finance for investment and recurrent costs can come from many sources, the most common being central government budget allocations to relevant ministries and

other authorities. Finance from Official Development Assistance (ODA) specifically for water resources should be considered part of the government budget. Note

that the level of coordination between ODA and national budgets is tracked by the ‘means of implementation’ SDG indicator 6.a.1: “Amount of water- and

sanitation-related official development assistance that is part of a government-coordinated spending plan”, as part of reporting on Target 6.a: “By 2030, expand

international cooperation and capacity-building support to developing countries in water- and sanitation-related activities and programmes, including water

harvesting, desalination, water efficiency, wastewater treatment, recycling and reuse technologies”.

“Various sources” include fees and tariffs levied on water users, polluter fees or grants from philanthropic or similar organisations. In-kind support should not be

included as it is not easily measurable but can be mentioned in the ‘Status description’ field.

Investments should cover all aspects of water resources development and management but exclude any related to drinking water supply, sanitation and hygiene

services as they are covered in other monitoring processes.

Please take note of all footnotes as they contain important information and clarification of terms used in the questions and thresholds.





https://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/officialdevelopmentassistancedefinitionandcoverage.htm


4. Financing


4.1 What is the status of financing for water resources development and management at the national level?

a. National budget 41 for water resources

infrastructure42. For this survey do not include infrastructure for drinking water supply or sanitation services. )

No budget allocated in national investment plans.

Some budget allocated but only partly covers planned investments.

Sufficient budget allocated

for planned investments but

insufficient funds disbursed

or made available.

Sufficient budget allocated and funds disbursed for most planned programmes or projects.

Sufficient funds disbursed for investment and recurrent costs, and being utilised in all planned projects.

Budget fully utilised for investment and recurrent costs, post-project evaluation carried out, budgets reviewed and revised.

Score 30

Status description:

• Within the last 4 to 5 years, there have been some major capital investments into the water infrastructure. The Government has allocated significant funds for the desilting of the John Compton Dam, and the construction and refurbishment of various water treatment plants (e.g. Dennery, Vieux Fort, Canaries and Millet intakes).

• The WRMA is only responsible for planning, regulating, monitoring and managing the raw water resource. The Agency does not own or operate water infrastructure. Furthermore, the recurrent budget to operate the hydro-met infrastructure/equipment is very high and is mostly borne by external organizations (through project grants).

• Although the Government has committed millions of dollars for improving the water collection, treatment and distribution network, it has not historically invested sufficient amounts for covering the cost needed to maintain such infrastructure.

• Project grants/loans seem to be the major source for financing instrumentation and other infrastructural costs, while the government’s funding is skewed to covering wages and the maintenance of vehicles.

Way forward:

• External partners and Governments usually fund the maintenance and replacement cost of aging hydro-met monitoring equipment. Increasing the Government’s allotment in the national budget towards this cost category will help with more consistent data collection.

• Private Public Partnerships can be an avenue to gain revenues to meet the shortfalls of the Government’s budget.

41 Allocations of funding for water resources may be included in several budget categories or in different investment documents. Respondents are thus encouraged to examine different sources for this information. When assessing the allocations respondents should take account of funds from government budgets and any co-funding (loans or grants) from other sources such as banks or donors. 42 Infrastructure includes ‘hard’ structures such as dams, canals, pumping stations, flood control, treatment works etc., as well as ‘soft’ infrastructure and environmental measures such as catchment management, sustainable drainage systems etc. For this survey do not include infrastructure for drinking water supply or sanitation services. Budgets should cover initial investments and recurrent costs of operation and maintenance.


b. National budget for IWRM elements

No budget allocations made for investments and recurrent costs of the IWRM elements.

Allocations made for some of the elements and implementation at an early stage.

Allocations made for at least half of the elements but insufficient for others.

Allocations for most of the elements and some implementation under way.

Allocations include all elements and implementation regularly carried out (investments and recurrent costs).

Planned budget allocations for all elements of the IWRM approach fully utilised, budgets reviewed and revised.

Score 30

Status description:

• Recurrent expenditure covers essential administrative, operational and human resources costs. However, major equipment which require higher capital costs are typically funded via projects or may be selected for funding as part of the annual capital budget allocations.

• IWRM elements are identified in the Water SASAP and plans are in place to access funding from the Green Climate Fund to undertake these initiatives.

Way forward:

• Non-traditional sources of funding should be identified and explored to help fund IWRM at a community, district and national level.


4.2 What is the status of financing for water resources development and management at other levels?

a. Sub-national or basin budgets for water resources infrastructure43 (investment and recurrent costs).

No budget allocated in sub-national or basin investment plans.

Some budget allocated but only partly covers planned investments.

Sufficient budget allocated for planned investments but insufficient funds disbursed or made available.

Sufficient budget allocated and funds disbursed for most planned programmes or projects.

Sufficient funds disbursed, for investment and recurrent costs, and being utilised in all planned projects.

Budget fully utilised, for investment and recurrent costs, post-project evaluation carried out, budgets reviewed and revised. Score 50

Status description:

• At the watershed level, the Forestry Department has considered diverting project finances to help meet some of the recurrent cost in managing watersheds. This sometimes supports the Government’s recurrent expenses, which are mainly used for paying of salaries of departmental staff.

Way forward:

• Non-traditional sources of funding should be identified and explored to help fund infrastructure on the sub-national level.

43 Infrastructure includes ‘hard’ structures such as dams, canals, pumping stations, flood control, treatment works etc., as well as ‘soft’ infrastructure and environmental measures such as catchment management, sustainable drainage systems etc. For this survey do not include infrastructure for drinking water supply or sanitation services. Budgets should cover initial investments and recurrent costs of operation and maintenance.


b. Revenues raised for IWRM elements.44

No revenues raised for IWRM elements.

Processes in place to raise revenue but not yet implemented.

Some revenue raised, but generally not used for IWRM activities.

Revenues raised cover some IWRM activities.

Revenues raised cover most IWRM activities.

Revenues raised fully cover costs of IWRM activities. Score 40

Status description:

• The Agency is tasked with the collection of water abstraction fees; however these funds go to the Government’s consolidated funds and are inaccessible for the WRMA’s operations work.

Way forward:

• Explore other means of revue generation such as the sale of data products as per the Water and Sewerage Regulations.


c. Financing for transboundary cooperation.45

No specific funding allocated from the Member State (MS) budgets nor from other regular sources.

MS agreement on country share of contributions in place and in-kind support for the cooperation organisation/arrangement.

Funding less than 50% of that expected as contributions and by regulation.

Funding less than 75% of that expected as contributions and by regulation.

Funding more than 75% of that expected as contributions and by regulation.

Full funding of that expected as contributions and by regulation.

Score N/A

Status description:

• Not applicable because multi-national borders do not exist on the island.

Way forward:

• Not Applicable

44 For ‘IWRM elements’, see above footnote. Level: revenues are likely to be raised from users at the local, basin, or aquifer levels, though may also be raised at other sub-national or national levels (please indicate which level(s) in the status description). Revenue raising can occur through public authorities or private sector, e.g. through fees, charges, levies, taxes and ‘blended financing’ approaches. E.g. dedicated charges/levies on water users (including household level if revenues are spent on IWRM elements); abstraction & bulk water charges; discharge fees; environmental fees such as pollution charges, Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes; and the sale of secondary products and services. 45 In this question “Member States (MS)” refers to riparian countries that are parties to the arrangement. “Contributions” refers to the annual share of funds agreed from MS national budgets to support the agreed TB cooperation arrangement. Regular funds obtained from for example, water user fees (e.g. hydropower charges) and polluter-pays fees based on existing regulation are also considered as sustainable funding. As variable and unsustainable, donor support should not be considered in the scoring, but may be referred to in the ‘Status description’ and ‘Way forward’ fields.


d. Sub-national or basin budgets for IWRM elements46 (investment and recurrent costs).

No budget allocations at sub-national or basin level for investments and recurrent costs of IWRM elements.

Allocations made for some of the elements and implementation at an early stage.

Allocations made for at least half of the elements but insufficient for others.

Allocations for most of the elements and some implementation under way.

Allocations include all elements and implementation regularly carried out (investments and recurrent costs).

Planned budget allocations for all elements of the IWRM approach fully utilised, budgets reviewed and revised. Score 10

Status description:

• The current budget of the WRMA is not disaggregated on the subnational level. However, two watershed management plans have been developed for the Vieux Fort and Castries Watersheds; financing for implementation of major activities therefore needs to be sourced through external donors. The WRMA however uses components of its recurrent budget (when the need arises) to undertake data collection and monitoring activities throughout the island’s 37 watersheds. This involves the installation of hydro-meteorological equipment, collecting data and equipment maintenance.

Way forward:

• Non-traditional sources of funding should be identified and explored to help fund IWRM elements on the sub-national level.

46 ‘IWRM elements’ refers to all the activities described in sections 1, 2 and 3 of this survey that require funding, e.g. policy, law making and planning, institutional strengthening, coordination, stakeholder participation, capacity building, and management instruments such as research and studies, gender and environmental assessments, data collection, monitoring etc. This question has been added since the baseline survey, acknowledging the importance of funding being available at more ‘operational’ levels.


5 Indicator 6.5.1 score

How to calculate the indicator 6.5.1 score

Please complete the table below as follows:

1. Calculate the average score of each of the four sections by averaging all question scores in each section, rounded to the nearest whole number.

Example: Section average of 41.5 should be rounded to 42. Section average of 70.2 should be rounded to 70. If ‘not applicable’ is selected for any question,

this should not be included in the indicator calculations, and therefore will not affect the average score. However, questions with a score of ‘0’ (zero) should

be included.

2. Calculate the average of the four section scores (whole numbers) to give the overall score for indicator 6.5.1, rounded to the nearest whole number.

Example: Calculating final IWRM score from four section scores: (81+ 63 + 47 + 58)/4 = 62.25. Final 6.5.1 score (rounded to a whole number) = 62.

Section Average Scores

(all values rounded to nearest whole number)

Section 1 Enabling environment 40

Section 2 Institutions and participation 41

Section 3 Management instruments 45

Section 4 Financing 32

Indicator 6.5.1 score = Degree of IWRM implementation (0-100)*

40

* Use rounded section average scores (to the nearest whole number), to calculate the indicator score, and round this to the nearest whole number.

Interpretation of the score

The score indicates the ‘degree of implementation of integrated water resources management’, on a scale of 0 to 100, with 0 signifying ‘very low’ implementation,

and 100 signifying ‘very high’ implementation. However, the true value of the survey to countries lies within the scores, ‘status description’ and ‘way forward’ for

each question, as this helps to identify which actions need to be taken to move towards a greater degree of implementation of IWRM. See the monitoring guide for

further information on interpretation of scores and target setting.

SDG Indicator 6.5.1 IWRM Survey National reporting on status of IWRM implementation 2020 A-1

Annexes:

Annex A: Glossary

• Authorities: could be ministry or ministries, or other organizations/institutions/departments/agencies/bodies with a mandate and funding from government.

• Basins: Includes rivers, lakes and aquifers, unless otherwise specified. For surface water, the term is interchangeable with ‘catchments’ and ‘watersheds’.

• Federal countries: Refers to countries made up of federated states, provinces, territories or similar terms.

• IWRM: Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) is a process that promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related

resources in order to maximise the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems.

IWRM is not an end in itself but a means of achieving three key strategic objectives:

o efficiency to use water resources in the best way possible;

o equity in the allocation of water across social and economic groups;

o environmental sustainability, to protect the water resource base, as well as associated ecosystems.

• National (level): Refers to the highest level of administration in a country.

• Sub-national / state (level): refers to levels of administration other than national. For federal countries, these are likely to be provinces or states. Non-federal

countries may still have sub-national jurisdictions with some responsibility for water resources management, e.g. regions, counties, departments.

• Programs: Nation-wide plans of action with long-term objectives, for example to strengthen monitoring, knowledge sharing and capacity development, with

details on what work is to be done, by whom, when, and what means or resources will be used.

• Transboundary: Refers to surface and groundwater basins that cross one or more national borders (see Annex B).

• Stakeholders: In this survey, stakeholders are the main groups important for water resources management, development and use. Examples of stakeholders in

each group are given in footnotes as they appear in the survey.

• Water Resources Management is the activity of planning, developing, distributing and managing the optimum use of water resources. Ideally, water resource

management planning considers all the competing demands for water and seeks to allocate water on an equitable basis to satisfy all uses and demands. An

integrated approach (see IWRM) is needed to ensure water resources management is not isolated within sector silos resulting to inefficiencies, conflicts and

unsustainable resource use.


Annex B: Transboundary level

The transboundary questions for indicator 6.5.1 focus on the degree of implementation of IWRM at the transboundary level, as relevant to implementation of IWRM

‘at all levels’, as specified in target 6.5. Countries sharing basins of transboundary waters (rivers, lakes or aquifers) should answer the questions on transboundary

issues. This information is complemented by indicator 6.5.2 ‘Proportion of transboundary basin area with an operational arrangement for water cooperation’.

To enable tracking of progress over time and for transparency, in the table below please list the transboundary (or ‘international’) basins or aquifers that are

included in this survey. The 6.5.1 baseline reporting may be used as a starting point. Only the most important transboundary basins or aquifers that are regarded as

significant, in terms of economic, social or environmental value to the country (or neighbouring countries), need to be included in this survey. It is up to countries to

decide which ones these are. Where feasible, basins/aquifers listed in this table, and the scores given, should be cross-referenced with tables and scores in the 6.5.2

reporting template (www.sdg6monitoring.org/indicators/target-65/indicators652/), and the focal point for 6.5.2 should be consulted in this process. In the absence

of 6.5.2 data or national databases, global databases on transboundary river basins (http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/), and transboundary aquifers

(https://www.un-igrac.org/ggis/explore-all-transboundary-groundwaters), may be referred to. If you include a national (sub-basin) as part of a larger transboundary

basin, please ensure to also include the name of the larger basin. When answering transboundary questions, the majority of the basins below must meet the criteria

described in each threshold to achieve the score for that threshold.

The columns on the right of the table are optional though recommended. Filling them out would: provide countries with valuable information and a quick diagnostic

tool for the status in each basin/aquifer; increase the transparency of the transboundary level responses in this survey for stakeholders both within and between

countries; help countries reach consensus on scores for the transboundary questions; and provide a valuable cross-reference for indicator 6.5.2. For each

basin/aquifer, a score should be given for each of the four transboundary questions in the survey, following the guidance and thresholds in the survey questions. To

supplement this data, you are encouraged to provide a summary of the situation for the transboundary basins/aquifers in the ‘Status description’ and ‘Way forward’

fields to transboundary questions within Part 2 of this survey, to the extent feasible.

http://www.sdg6monitoring.org/indicators/target-65/indicators652/

http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/

https://www.un-igrac.org/ggis/explore-all-transboundary-groundwaters


Annex not applicable. No transboundary waters in country. OPTIONAL THOUGH RECOMMENDED*

Important transboundary basins Arrangements (1.2c)

Institutions (2.2e)

Data sharing (3.2d)

Financing (4.2c)

1. [Name]

2.

3.

Please add/delete rows as needed

Important transboundary aquifers

1.

2.

3.

Please add/delete rows as needed

* These columns may be useful to countries in determining the approximate status for each transboundary basin/aquifer, and thereby be useful in discussions on the

respective question scores in Part 2 of this survey instrument.


Annex C: Barriers, enablers and next steps for furthering IWRM implementation

This section is not used in calculating indicator 6.5.1, but is designed to be useful for countries to identify the main challenges and next steps to further IWRM

implementation. It builds on the free text fields for each question – “Status description” and “Way forward” – to identify the key issues.

The third question below aims to improve transparency by documenting the main differences in opinion between stakeholders. You may amend the structure to

make it more useful to the planning process in the national context. For each question, you may consider aspects under each of the four IWRM dimensions in the

survey, or you may identify aspects/issues that cut-across questions and IWRM dimensions. Some issues not addressed by the questions may also be brought up

here.

1) What are the main challenges/barriers to progress of IWRM implementation in the country?

• Bottlenecks in the regulatory process make amending of water related, and other natural resource based laws take a prolonged period. This is compounded by having aged laws, some dating from the 1940’s. Having legislation directly related to water resources that are not well integrated and fall under the purview of several governmental and statutory bodies, many of which operate in silos. The private sector is not always included in the decision making process and is often unware of where to locate water-related data and information. In the instances that laws are amended or developed, there is weak public involvement.

• Both on the community and national level, communication between resource users and resource managers does not frequently occur, although this can have mutually beneficial outcomes. There are no standardized protocols for data collection, sharing and hosting, making evidence based decision making a challenge in cases where that data exist but also where entities (both public and private-sector) cannot locate the relevant data needed.

• Furthermore, the protocols for data collection needs to be standardized and done in a manner that is consistent with international standards. The

provision and maintenance of data collection instruments/equipment should not be dependent on project related funding but should instead be

streamlined into the Government’s annual recurrent finances. Currently, the Government does not routinely budget for the procurement and

maintenance of specialized instrumentation/hydro-met equipment, which typically require higher capital costs. These specialized pieces of

equipment are typically project funded. Therefore, there are no consistent sources of funding to keep the WRMA operating at sustainably optimal

levels.


2) What are the main next steps to overcome challenges and further IWRM implementation?

• Silos exist for routine operational mandates. This excludes the private sector in decision-making, therefore efforts to improve communication

between the private sector and national agencies need to be enhanced. Use of integrated and on-line platforms for data sharing should be used by

all departments which collect and process data. A centralized location is needed to house all relevant water related data.

• More needs to be done to improve the status of coordination within and between government entities. Private public partnerships can be an avenue

to gain revenues to meet the shortfalls of the Government’s input. The Government can attempt to source funding from international sources (e.g.

the Green Climate Fund) to supplement funds that contribute to IWRM.

• Review all pieces of water related legislation to bring them up to par with IWRM implementation, and to give a clear mandate to the WRMA to

strengthen their IWRM implementation. This will also produce a more coherent and cohesive approach to IWRM in Saint Lucia. Also, review some of

the legislation to strengthen the mandate of the WRMA and also include the WRMA in decision making forums of associated entities such as the

National Utilities Regulatory Commission (NURC) and the Development Control Authority (DCA). This will allow the WRMA to flag concerns prior to

the commencement of infrastructural projects that can damage water resources.

• Investments should be made into the technical, personnel and equipment needs of the WRMA, the Forestry Department and other relevant agencies

that have a responsibility for water management or ecosystems that directly influence water availability. To strengthen the mandate of the WRMA,

an intermediary body should form linkages between the private sector and the public sector agencies and other stakeholders, so that information

can be freely exchanged.

• To increase its financial resource base, the regulations governing alternative forms of financing such as abstraction licenses and other relevant fees

should be reviewed and updated, to not only include WASCO, but all other users who abstract water.


• Integrated and online platforms for data sharing should be used by all departments which collect and process data. A centralized location is needed

to house all relevant water related data collected for processing.

3) What were the main points of difference in stakeholder opinion in answering the survey questions?

• Although most of the stakeholders were in overall agreement with the different aspects to under the enabling environment present in Saint Lucia,

there was divergence between what the WRMA and the other stakeholders viewed as the level of national resources law(s) (Question 1.1b) and sub-

national water resources policies or similar (Question 1.2a). Other governmental and private sector entities are of the view that personnel and

agencies involved in aspects of water resource management should be educated and sensitized to IWRM principles and methodologies; to integrate

and implement all or the majority of its principles and its potential benefits. At the WRMA, their mandate is clearly IWRM related.

4) Additional comments

• No additions comments


Annex D: Priority water resource challenges

Please indicate the challenge level for each of the water resource issues below. This information will not affect the overall indicator score.

This checklist may be useful to countries in stakeholder discussions and planning. Over time, it can also help countries to evaluate whether the implementation of

IWRM can help to reduce the challenge level relating to different water resources issues. The information will also help to develop regional and global oversight of

key water resources challenges, and track progress of how challenge levels may change over time.

Note that ‘challenge level’ in this case refers to the level of difficulty associated with addressing each issue. For example, if effective and financed systems are in

place for providing water for domestic use, then this may be assigned a ‘low’ challenge level, even though this issue would likely be classified as high priority /

importance in most countries. ‘Low’, ‘Medium’ and ‘High’ are intentionally broad

and intuitive categories.

Water resource challenges

Level of difficulty associated with addressing the challenge

Low Medium High Not

relevant

Water uses

Water for agriculture ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Water for domestic use ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐

Water for industry ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐

Water for energy ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Water for ecosystems/environment ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Water for growing cities ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐

Threats to the resource

Water scarcity / over-abstraction (surface) ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐

Water scarcity / over-abstraction (groundwater) ☐ ☐ ☒ ☒

Water quality / pollution (surface) ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐

Water quality / pollution (groundwater) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Water-related ecosystem degradation ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Water-related ecosystem loss ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Threats to people and economic activity

Floods ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Droughts ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐

Coastal vulnerability ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Conflicts over water resources ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Comments (optional):

In Saint Lucia, there is no centralized agency responsible for all aspects of water resources, although the WRMA has the greatest mandate. The WRMA though is understaffed and does not have all the regulatory and enabling instruments at its disposal to be highly effective.

The collaborative effort that is needed by different state agencies with some level of responsibility in water resource management is most times severely lacking.


Annex E: 6.5.1 country reporting process form

A common query received after the baseline data collection period was on the reporting process and which stakeholders were involved in reporting.

To improve transparency and increase confidence in results, you are invited to provide a brief overview of the reporting process. e.g. main actors involved;

meetings/workshops held; other means of gathering inputs from stakeholders; and finalisation/approval processes. Also note the main challenges/strengths of the

process. Use as much space as needed.

Focal Point affiliation Water Resource Management Agency

Brief process overview: The facilitator and a team from the Water Resource Management Agency (WRMA) identified the proposed stakeholders ensuring that all

the relevant local agencies and individuals representing Governmental, private sector, CSO and other individuals with interest in Indicator 6.5.1 were invited to

participate. These persons were given at least two weeks to complete an online version of the survey instrument and during this period, the facilitator and the

team from the WRMA were available to answer questions and queries related to the survey.

Invitations to complete the official survey instrument and to participate in the two-day virtual consultation was sent to 37 entities of which 21 responded and

participated in either one or both days of the consultative workshops. Thirteen respondents completed the survey instrument using the Google Forms platform and

the facilitator contacted four individuals privately, to get their feedback on all or specific thematic areas of the survey.

Initially the facilitator, along with members from the Water Resources Management Agency (WRMA) including the SDG 6.5.1 Focal Point, met to prefill the survey

instrument, with the original intention to circulate the prefilled version (especially where “N/A” is applicable), to aid in reducing the time participants would take to

respond. However, this approach was abandoned because it was felt that prefilled answers would bias the opinions of some of the potential respondents, and

instead the Google Forms platform was used to circulate a non-prefilled questionnaire (survey instrument) to participants prior to the virtual workshops. The

Google Forms platform facilitated an automatic report generation of the results from the submitted responses. A Microsoft Word copy of the survey instrument

was also made available to each stakeholder, as a contingency.

Online workshops using the Zoom platform were conducted in two sessions scheduled for two and a half hours each but which went on for three and a half hours

each. The thematic areas Enabling Environment and, Institutions and Participation were done one the first day and Management Instruments and Financing on

workshop day 2. Scores were consolidated and finalized to the prescribed guidelines of provided by UN Environment.


Stakeholder groups

Level of engagement (mark with ‘X’) Additional information (e.g. which stakeholder organisations were involved)

Low (given opportunity to contribute)

Medium (some input)

High (discussion/ negotiation)

National water agencies x WASCO, WRMA, NURC

Other public sector agencies x Forestry Department, Department of Commerce,

Sub-national water agencies N/A

Basin/Aquifer agencies N/A

Water User Associations N/A

Civil society x St Lucia National Trust

Private sector Saint Lucia Distillers Ltd

Vulnerable groups X Not previously identified

Gender expertise X Invitations were sent to the Dept. of Gender Affairs. However, the survey was not completed (by a representative) nor was a representative present on either day of the workshop

Research/academia X Sir Arthur Lewis Community College.

Transboundary expertise X OECS was represented.

Other SDG focal points (e.g. FPs from other indicators)

Please add rows if required

Country Survey Instrument for SDG Indicator 6.5.1

Documents

Transcript of Country Survey Instrument for SDG Indicator 6.5.1