Overview
The GOVAQUA assessment tool helps systematically assess how the broader water governance structure and arrangements affects the design, uptake and implementation of innovations. The tool has been co-created and tested by the six Living Labs of the GOVAQUA project. Primary users of the tool are water managers and other stakeholders at the basin or catchment level.
The tool supports them during the innovation process by
- identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the current water governance structure; and
- focusing efforts on improving practices with regard to the most relevant and urgent issues.
Methodology
The tool consists of two main components: questions for baseline description and a set of criteria and indicators. Both components were co-designed by project partners and the External Advisory Board.
Four key perspectives contributed to the co-design process:
1) review of existing assessment approaches;
2) identification of relevant EU and global policy targets;
3) discussions and reflections during online project meetings; and
4) expert workshop at the project consortium meeting in Malaga, Spain.
The first version of the tool was tested by the Living Labs, improving tool applicability in terms of being simple, tailored and complete, and offering lessons to provide effective guidance for future users of the tool.
After the testing, we analysed the feedback and application results. The objectives of this analysis were twofold.
First, the set of criteria and indicators and the scoring method were finalised using the feedback from the Living Labs.
Second, the initial results were analysed as illustrative examples of how the regimes support or hinder water governance innovations.
Guidance
If deemed essential, the users can consider the relative importance, or the weight, of indicators to aggregate the results from the indicator level to the criterion level.
In that case, answering the following questions would guide the users in choosing the aggregated score: Can a high score in most of the indicators compensate for a low score in one high-weight indicator?
Could having a very low score for a high-weight indicator be interpreted as a low score for the whole criterion?
Would having a very high score for a high-weight indicator be sufficient to give a high score for the whole criterion?
While aggregating the results to the criterion level might provide an overall picture, it is still valuable to set the ambitions at the indicator level, where the actions for improving the governance structure can be more concretely identified.
Regarding the aggregation to the regime level, this is not an advisable step, as it would imply giving a single score for the whole governance structure. Such a score lacks added value for improving the decision-making processes and oversimplifies the complexity of governance.
After the first application of the tool, it is strongly recommended to apply the tool regularly to reflect upon and move forward with ambitions. During the period between different applications, changes can occur in the governance structure. Therefore, the second and subsequent applications can be broader in scope, including both the assessment of indicators and involving stakeholders to reflect on the governance enablers and barriers based on the lessons learned for improving the regime.