IMPLEMENTATION OF RESOLUTIONS AND OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE 18 TH SESSION OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL COUNCIL OF IHP

Transcription

1 IHP/Bur-XLIV/8 Paris, 20 April 2010 English only International Hydrological Programme 44 th session of the IHP Bureau (Delft, 6-8 May 2010) IMPLEMENTATION OF RESOLUTIONS AND OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE 18 TH SESSION OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL COUNCIL OF IHP Item 5.1 of the provisional agenda Summary This document presents a summary of actions taken in the implementation of the resolutions adopted at the 18 th session of the Intergovernmental Council of the IHP, as of May The Bureau may wish to comment and provide recommendations where appropriate on the follow up to the implementation of the resolutions adopted by the 18 th session of the IHP Council as discussed above.

2

3 IHP/Bur-XLIV/8 Page 1 RESOLUTION XVIII-1 UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education 1. Resolution XVIII-1 expressed the appreciation of the IHP Council to the Government of the Netherlands for the support provided to UNESCO-IHE and its satisfaction for the successful evaluation of the period It also appealed to Member States, international institutions and donors to increase their support and encourage the Government of the Netherlands and UNESCO to exert all required efforts to conclude the renewal of the Operational Agreement. 2. At the time of IHP/IC-XVIII, the first five-year Cooperation Agreement between UNESCO and the Netherlands Government had expired. The parties agreed that a new agreement was to be established for the next five years. Pending the outcome of the negotiation on the level of subsidy the Institute would receive from the Dutch Government, an interim agreement was signed for the period until 31 August In August 2008, UNESCO and the Netherlands Government reached an agreement and signed a new Cooperation Agreement for the period of 1 September 2008 to 31 December The subsidy from the Netherlands Government was topped-up by 750,000 in 2008, and by 1.5 million per year from 2009 onwards. The new agreement also stipulated that a mid-term evaluation of UNESCO-IHE has to be organized in The additional subsidy was received in order to allow the Institute to 1) strengthen its research agenda, 2) modernize its education system, 3) intensify the cooperation with UNESCO, and 4) achieve positive financial results so as to increase its solvency to an acceptable level. It is to be noted that two years later UNESCO-IHE has indeed expanded its research portfolio. The number of PhD fellows registered at UNESCO-IHE went up from 66 in December 2007 to 105 in December Staff spent 28,000 hours on research in 2009, versus 20,000 in The number of scientific publications was 236 in 2007 and 298 in An external review of the Institute's research was done by the SENSE Research School. The resulting review was very favorable concerning the research output of the Institute. The results were presented in November 2009 to the Governing Board. In terms of education UNESCO-IHE has invested largely in developing joint degree programs with partner institutes around the world. There are as much as five joint MSc specializations running today, whereas the number was two in Partners are Hohai University (China), Sriwijaya University (Indonesia), Dundee University (UK), Egerton University (Kenya), Mondsee Institute of Limnology (Austria) and AIT (Thailand). Another five joint programs are in various stages of development. Two batches of lecturers enrolled in a staff development to enhance their ability to apply student-centered learning. New virtual learning environment software was selected, installed and piloted. All educational material of UNESCO-IHE (and partners) will ultimately be transferred to this platform. This will enhance the efficiency of UNESCO-IHE in delivering flexible and distance learning education. 4. The cooperation with UNESCO was shaped around various activities: IHP and UNESCO-IHE teamed-up in preparation of the 5th World Water Forum in Istanbul, where each party had responsibilities in the theme on water education and capacity development. UNESCO-IHE also contributed to the chapter on the same theme in the 3rd World Water Development Report. In 2009, the Institute also hosted the UNESCO Water Education Regional Workshop for North America and Europe. Collaboration with the PCCP group of IHP is permanent and includes the delivery of a joint program on Water Conflict Management. UNESCO-IHE works with ICHARM (Japan) on the theme of water, climate and disaster management and is involved in capacity building of the HidroEx centre in Brazil. 5. The financial result of UNESCO-IHE was positive in 2009, which can be considered an initial (and still modest) step towards building up a financial reserve that will lead to an

4 IHP/Bur-XLIV/8 Page 2 internationally acceptable solvency rate. It is to be reported that, with the exception of the subsidy increase and a considerable contract from the Netherlands Government for a programmatic cooperation with the Ministry of Development Cooperation, support to UNESCO-IHE from Member States other than the Netherlands has not increased substantially during this period, limiting the capacity of the institute to positively respond to all requests received, in particular those for MSc Education at the Institute. It is expected that the extrabudgetary component of the UNESCO Tertiary Water Education Grants Programme may contribute to facilitating such support, in particular if a small overhead programme support cost is put in place. RESOLUTION XVIII-2 Water education initiatives 6. Resolution XVII-2 decided the establishment of a UNESCO Tertiary Water Education Grants programme in order to seek funding for fellowships for post graduate accreditation at UNESCO-IHE. It also requested the support of UNESCO-IHE and recommended that Member States embrace an active role in the implementation of the programme. 7. The UNESCO Tertiary Water Education Grants Programme was established and launched according to the rules adopted by the IHP Council. The following offices are actively contributing to the implementation of the programme: IHP (UNESCO HQ), UNESCO Quito, UNESCO Jakarta, UNESCO Beijing, UNESCO Teheran and UNESCO Cairo. Five students, one from Latin America and the Caribbean, three from Arab States and one from Asia and the Pacific regions, have started an MSc based on recommendations from IHP Regional Hydrologists and with the full endorsement of their respective IHP National Committees. In addition, the Secretariat is currently working with field offices in other regions to identify funds to cover grants for additional students. The extrabudgetary component of the UNESCO Tertiary Water Education Grants Programme has not received donations for this period and the Secretariat is now working on the creation of a Special Account with a small overhead support cost to make such donations more attractive to donors. With regards to the global water education and training needs assessment, UNESCO-IHE and IHP have identified resources and preparations for the survey have started. Survey materials are currently being developed in consultation with UNESCO s Education Sector and a first round is being prepared. RESOLUTION XVIII-3 Progress on proposals for the establishment of water-related centres under the auspices of UNESCO (category 2) 8. The feasibility studies of the following centres were carried by the IHP Secretariat and proposals were formally submitted to the following Executive Board sessions and 35 th General Conference (for further details please refer to document IHP/Bur-XLIV/12): (i) (ii) HIDROEX Centre for Higher and Community Education in Water (provisional title) (Federative Republic of Brazil); approved by the General Conference and agreement signed. Centre for the Sustainable Management of Water Resources in the Caribbean Island States (Dominican Republic); approved by the General Conference and agreement signed.

5 IHP/Bur-XLIV/8 Page 3 (iii) International Centre for Integrated Water Resources Management (ICIWaRM) (United States); approved by the General Conference and agreement signed. (iv) (v) International Centre of Water Resources and Global Change (Germany); approved by the General Conference and agreement awaiting formal signatures. International Centre on Coastal Ecohydrology (Portugal); approved by the General Conference and agreement awaiting formal signatures. 9. There is no progress on the establishment of the following proposed centres, endorsed by the previous IHP Intergovernmental Council: Regional Centre of International Training and Research on Sediment, Isotope and Erosion Techniques (Turkey); Central Asian Regional Glaciological Centre (Republic of Kazakhstan). Resolution XVIII-4 Support for the evaluation and reporting of IHP-VI 10. The Intergovernmental Council of IHP, at its18 th session, adopted Resolution XVIII-4 in which it requested that IHP Secretariat carry out an external evaluation of IHP-VI and publish a comprehensive evaluation report for submission to the 19 th session of the Council. The resolution also called on Member States to make voluntary financial and in-kind contributions to the evaluation of IHP-VI and to the publication of the comprehensive report. Noting the absence of voluntary contributions, the IHP Bureau, at its 43 rd session, proposed that the evaluation be undertaken in the C/5 with an earmarked budget. The Bureau also noted that it would provide assistance in developing the Terms of Reference (TOR) of the evaluation and providing the necessary information to the evaluation team. 11. As of this writing (20 April 2010), consultations with IOS have been initiated regarding the IHP-VI review draft TOR as well as regarding the effects of the financial constraints on the number of reviewers. Further information will be furnished to the IHP Bureau during the 44 th session. Resolution XVIII-5 Submission of an Appeal to the Executive Board and the General Conference of UNESCO 12. In its Resolution XVIII-5 the IHP Council noted the reduction of the IHP allocated regular budget by approximately 12% from Programme and Budget document 33 C/5 ( biennium) to document 34 C/5 ( biennium)and by a further 4% after the 34 th session of the General Conference. 13. The resolution requests the Director-General to reconsider his decision of reducing by 4% the budget allocated to IHP for the biennium ; recommends that he submits the appeal prepared by the IHP Council to the Executive Board; and urges the General Conference, the Executive Board and the Director-General, while preparing the next budget, to reinstate the budgetary situation of IHP to the level of the previous biennium and further increase the budgetary allocation of IHP for the budget In response to this resolution, the Chairperson of the IHP submitted the appeal to the Director-General in August 2008, with a request that due consideration be given to its

6 IHP/Bur-XLIV/8 Page 4 presentation to the Executive Board (see Annex of Resolution XVIII-5). A reply to the letter has not come and the appeal was not presented to any of the intervening sessions of the Executive Board. No budgetary reinstatements in the Regular Budget took place to compensate the earlier budget cut. At the 43 rd session of the Executive Board the Chair of the IHP reported that he had a meeting with the Director-General, where he was informed that water remained on the top of UNESCO s agenda. At this meeting, the Director- General invited IHP to submit a proposal to the Japanese Funds-in-Trust (JFIT) for 200,000 USD for a water education initiative. A proposal in this regard is in the making] A project proposal titled Water Education to Implement Integrated Water Resources Management for US $226,000 (US$200, % support cost) was prepared and submitted to JFIT during March No specific measure to enhance IHP's budget has been foreseen under document 35 C/5 ( biennium). On the contrary, though document 35 C/5 does not provide the budgetary details to the division or scientific programme level due to the current aggregation of the elements of the programme now adopted in the C/5, the budget assigned to IHP in the Science Sector workplan shows a substantial drop from the previous biennium. Thus, there has been no defense of the budget of IHP within the machinery of UNESCO, and for the third successive biennium the Regular Budget of IHP has decreased. 16. The Bureau may wish to comment on this situation, which is also raised in the report of the IHP Finance Committee (document IHP/Bur-XLIV/9) and initiate actions aimed at avoiding further reductions in the IHP budget in this or the coming biennium.

7 Paris, 29 April 2010 English only International Hydrological Programme 44 th session of the IHP Bureau (Delft, 6-8 May 2010) IMPLEMENTATION OF RESOLUTIONS AND OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE 18 TH SESSION OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL COUNCIL OF IHP ADDENDUM Resolution XVIII-4 Support for the evaluation and reporting of IHP-VI DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE Item 5.1 of the provisional agenda Summary As addendum to document IHP/Bur-XLIV/8 (Paragraphs 10 and 11), this document presents information related to Resolution XVIII-4 on Support for the evaluation and reporting of IHP-VI, in particular the DRAFT Terms of Reference for the IHP-VI evaluation. The Bureau may wish to comment and provide recommendations where appropriate on the follow up to the implementation of Resolution XVIII-4. The Bureau may wish to comment on the attached TOR and to recommend revisions before resubmission to UNESCO s Internal Oversight Service (IOS) for consultation.

8 Page 1 INTRODUCTION 1. The Intergovernmental Council of IHP, at its18th session approved resolution 4, in which it requested that IHP Secretariat carry out an external evaluation of IHP-VI and publish a comprehensive evaluation report for submission to the 19th session of the Council. The resolution also called on Member States to make voluntary financial and in-kind contributions to the evaluation of IHP-VI and to the publication of the comprehensive report. Noting the absence of voluntary contributions, the Bureau of the Council, in its 43rd session, proposed that the evaluation be undertaken in the C/5 with earmarked budget. The Bureau also noted that it would provide assistance in developing the evaluation TOR and providing the necessary information to the evaluation team 2. The Secretariat conducted a thorough assessment of financial resources, and determined that the available resources can only support an evaluation team of three members with limited numbers of site visit missions. Based on this information, and taking note of the instructions of the 43 rd session of the Bureau of IHP, the secretariat developed a draft Terms of Reference, and requested a meeting with the Internal Oversight Office to review and comment on the draft TOR. 3. The first meeting with IOS was held on April 13, The secretariat presented the first draft of the TOR and informed IOS of the of budgetary constraints and of their effects in limiting the number of evaluators and potential site visit missions. It was agreed that IOS will provide feedback at a later time. 4. A second meeting with IOS was held with IOS on April, 21, IOS representative provided comments to the Secretariat regarding the first draft of the TOR and suggested a few revisions. It was agreed that the Secretariat will revise the draft TOR and submit it to the Bureau for further consultation and revision and to consult again with IOS in order to develop the final version taking into account the comments and decision of the 44th session of the Bureau. 5. This document represents the second draft of the TOR, in which the secretariat addresses IOS s comments from the April 21 st meeting and follows UNESCO s 2007 Guidelines for Developing Terms of References for Internal and External Evaluations (IOS/EVS/PI/80). 6. The Bureau may wish to comment and provide recommendations where appropriate on the follow up to the implementation of Resolution XVIII-4 7. The Bureau may wish to comment on the attached TOR and to recommend revisions before resubmission to UNESCO s Internal Oversight Service (IOS) for consultation..

9 Page 2 DRAFT Version 2 (25/04/10) TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE EXTERNAL EVALUATIION OF THE SIXTH PHASE OF THE INTERNATIONAL HYDROLOGICAL PROGRAMME WATER INTRERACTIONS: SYSTEMS AT RISK AND SOCIETAL CHALLENGES I. BACKGROUND The International Hydrological Programme (IHP) is UNESCO primary intergovernmental scientific cooperation program in water resources. The programme s primary mission is to act as a vehicle through which member states can upgrade their knowledge, and thereby increase their capacity to better manage and develop their water resources. IHP accomplishes this mission by actively pursuing international and regional activities to: (a) develop techniques and approaches to better define hydrological phenomenon, (b) improve water resources management at multiple scales, (c) stimulate cooperation and dialogue in water sciences, (c) assist in sustainable development of vulnerable water resources, and (d) serve as a platform for increasing awareness of global water issues. In designing IHP plans and implementing its activities, particular attention is paid to reflecting the needs of developing countries, and to facilitating capacity building in hydrological sciences through international cooperation. Significant progress has been made since the 13 th session of the General Conference of UNESCO unanimously adopted resolutions ( ), which established and designated the intergovernmental framework of the International Hydrological Decade (IHD, ) as the first comprehensive international platform for cooperation on water issues with emphasis on hydrological sciences. Subsequent to the successful implementation of IHD, the 17th session of UNESCO General Conference (1972) decided to launch in 1975 a long-term intergovernmental programme in the field of hydrology, to be known as the International Hydrological Programme. The programme was formally established by the 18 th session upon approval of the Statutes of the IHP council. IHP was to be implemented through a series of phases, each with thematic elements reflecting the concerns and needs of member states. While IHP-I ( ) maintained much of the research and data collection orientation of its predecessor (IHD), subsequent phases were gradually oriented to encompass, along with basic hydrologic science, practical water resources management with increasing emphasis on its environmental, human, and policy dimensions under emerging challenges such as climate change and environmental degradation. IHP-II ( ) and IHP-III ( ) focused on Hydrology and the Scientific Basis for Rational Water Resources Management, IHP-IV ( ) thematic focus was Hydrology and Water Resources for Sustainable Development in a Changing Environment; IHP-V ( ) addressed Hydrology and Water Resources Development in a Vulnerable Environment as its major theme. The launching of IHP-VI ( ) with its major theme of Water Interactions: Systems at Risk and Social Challenges; coincided with genuine interest in holistic concepts and environmental awareness in society s approach towards water development. The implementation plan of IHP-VI marked a clear emphasis on the societal aspects of water resources management and its connection to the complex integrated hydrologic systems. This continues with the on-going IHP-VII phase ( ), which is entitled Water Dependencies: Systems under Stress and Societal Response. Through the sequence of phases, which were designed in response to the needs of member states, significant progress has been made regarding hydrological studies, integrated water resources management, training, and education in the water sciences. The present Terms of Reference (TOR) addresses the external evaluation of IHP-VI ( ). IHP VI includes five core thematic components (i.e., focal areas): (1) Global Changes

10 Page 3 and Water Resources, (2) Integrated Watershed and Aquifer Dynamics, (3) Land Habitat Hydrology, (4) Water and Society, and (5) Water Education and Training. In addition to the five focal areas, the program identifies two cross cutting programme components (CCPC), which are the Flow Regimes for International Experimental and Network Data (FRIEND), and the Hydrology for the Environment, Life, and Policy (HELP). These two CCPCs provide the mechanism of integrating results from IHP-VI themes into coherent research, capacity building, and educational activities in support of Agenda 21 of the UN-Millennium Development Goals (MDGs); Protection of the quality and supply of freshwater resources: application of integrated approaches to the development, management and use of water resources. $ Millions were allocated by UNESCO through C/5 programmes to the Secretariat and Field Offices during the implementation of IHP-VI. In addition, approximately $8.6 Millions of extra-budgetary donors contributions were made available. II. LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY IHP was established as an intergovernmental programme following the decision of the General Conference at its 18 th session. The statutes of the Intergovernmental Council of the IHP were approved by the General Conference at its 18 th session and amended at its 20 th, 21 st, 27 th, and 28 th sessions. The council is responsible for planning the IHP, defining its priorities and supervising its execution. It is Composed of 36 Member States elected by the General Conference out of the full membership of the IHP of 160 Member States for a four years term of office. It normally meets every two years to discharge its duties including the election of the Bureau of Council; a 6 Member States body, who may meet between General Council meetings to discharge several duties including (a) supervising the implementation of resolution of the Council and (b) ensuring a smooth coordination with the Secretariat of the IHP in the actions pertaining to execution of the programme and preparation of Council sessions. Development of the sixth phase of IHP (IHP-VI) was initiated by a discussion paper prepared by a high level international task force. The paper was presented to the 13 th session of the IHP council and discussed in details. Subsequent to seeking and receiving comments from all of IHP National Committees, a workshop was held to revise the outline concepts, which were then presented and thoroughly discussed at the fifth UNESCO-WMO International Conference on Hydrology in A draft plan, subsequently prepared by the Secretariat, was revised by the Bureau of Council of IHP at its 29 th session, and later adopted by the the 14 th session of the IHP Council in June The plan was endorsed by the 31 st session of the General Conference of UNESCO in March The implementation of the IHP-VI started in 2002, and consisted of three biennium sub-phases. The Intergovernmental Council of IHP, at its18 th session approved resolution 4, in which it requested that IHP Secretariat carry out an external evaluation of IHP-VI and publish a comprehensive evaluation report for submission to the 19 th session of the Council. The resolution also called on Member States to make voluntary financial and in-kind contributions to the evaluation of IHP-VI and to the publication of the comprehensive report. Noting the absence of voluntary contributions, the Bureau of the Council, in its 43 rd session, proposed that the evaluation be undertaken in the C/5 with earmarked budget. The Bureau also noted that it would provide assistance in developing the evaluation TOR and providing the necessary information to the evaluation team. 1 These approximate and unofficial figures do not include multipliers such as in-kind contributions by implementation partners and stakeholders.

11 Page 4 III. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION This evaluation is meant to give independent, impartial, and frank assessment of IHP-VI. The objectives of the valuation are to: (1) examine the relevance IHP-VI in terms of the responsiveness of its objectives, design, and implementation strategy to the needs of stake holders, primarily including Member States, professional NGOs, and other international organizations, especially within the UN-system as well as vis-à-vis the priorities of UNESCO, the plans of the science sector, and the UN Millennium Development Goals, (2) assess, quantitatively and qualitatively, the outcomes of the activities carried out over the period in terms of their contributions to hydrologic science and water resources practices particularly with respect to systems interactions at the margins, regionally and within Member States, (3) evaluate the effectiveness of the strategies, approaches and governance mechanisms, in achieving IHP-VI goals and in adapting implementation activities to changing regional and Member states priorities, and (4) evaluate the efficiency of the implementation strategies and approaches in terms of resource allocation and utilization and the consistency of these allocations with program goals and priorities. The results of the evaluation report will help IHP s governing bodies and the secretariat to emphasize demonstrably successful strategies and to focus on the activities that are most effective and efficient in reaching the goals of the ongoing IHP-VII ( ). It is also expected that the evaluation results will be consulted by the IHP-VIII ( ) independent task force and by Members states during the design of the thematic areas and strategic plan of the next phase of the program. IV. SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION As described above, the evaluation will focus on the relevance, outcome, effectiveness, and efficiency in designing and implementing IHP-VI. The evaluation must also identify problems and constraints encountered in the process of project development and implementation that presented practical problems to the programme and to identify both positive and negative lessons with respect to the following questions: 1) Programme Relevance a) Was the design of IHP-VI, its strategic plan, implementation strategy, and activities responsive to the needs of stake holders, primarily including Member States, professional NGOs, and other international organizations, especially within the UNsystem, b) Was the design, strategic plan, implementation strategy and activities consistent with the priorities of UNESCO, the plans of the science sector, and the UN Millennium Development Goals c) How successful has IHP-VI been in addressing stressing challenges pertinent to water resources at country and regional levels? 2) Programme Outcome d) To what extent did the activities of IHP-VI contribute to stimulating, posing, and answering emerging hydrologic science questions, particularly those concerning systems interactions with respect to: (1) Global Changes and Water Resources, (2) Integrated Watershed and Aquifer Dynamics, (3) Land Habitat Hydrology, regionally and at within Member States? e) To what extent did Member States, stakeholders, implementation partners, and beneficiaries of IHP-VI activities contribute to the process of formulating and

12 Page 5 answering the above-described scientific challenges during the implementation of IHP-VII? f) Did IHP-VI activities result in improving the utility of scientific knowledge and tools in managing water resources regionally and within Member States? Have these contributions been reflected in country-level and/or regional initiatives regarding water resources policy, data collection efforts, and sharing of information and cooperation, regionally, and within member states? h) Did capacity building and educational activities that were undertaken during IHP-VI contribute to increasing awareness of the core water issues addressed in the IHP-VI thematic areas? And did these activities assist Member states in developing the knowledge base, skills, and institutional capacity required to facilitate integrated water resources management for a sustainable eco-hydrologic systems? i) To what extent did IHP-VI implementation reflect UNESCO s catalytic role in stimulating and fostering regional collaboration on issues related to integrated water resources management in shared and trans-boundary basins and/or aquifers? j) How effective have IHP-VI knowledge transfer activities, including publications been in disseminating the results and findings of IHP-VI activities to Member States other stakeholders? k) To what extent did IHP-VI educational activities result in raising awareness of current water resources issues, and of the importance of integrated sustainable water resources management at elementary-secondary-and university level education, as well is of the public in general? 3) Effectiveness of Programme Governance and Management l) How effective have the governing bodies of IHP including the General Council, the Bureau, and the IHP National Committees been in monitoring and guiding the formulation and implementation of IHP-VI? m) How effective has IHP-VI actual implementation been in developing and enhancing the partnerships called for by IHP-VI implementation plan? n) Have and UNESCO and the IHP secretariat been effective in attracting extrabudgetary resources to support programme implementation, and how important was the role of these resources and other multipliers, including in-kind contributions from Member States and implementing partners in the actual implementation of IHP-VI. 4) Efficiency of Programme Implementation o) Were the resources allocated to IHP-VI activities at HQ and Field offices adequate to carry out the implementation plan? p) To what extent have UNESCO s institutional arrangements facilitated or hampered programme implementation? were the organizational structure, managerial, support and coordination mechanisms used by IHP in the implementation of the programme, including administrative and management arrangements that were meant to provide support and services to the both effective and efficient performing these tasks? V. DELIVERABLES The following deliverables will result from the evaluation process:

13 Page 6 1) Inception Report: A brief inception report will be submitted to IHP-Secretariat within two weeks after the first meeting of the evaluation team. The report should include the team s comments on the TOR, identify site visit missions assigned to each team member, and provide a brief description of the methods and tools agreed on by the evaluation team during the evaluation and identify, to the extent possible requests for information from the Secretariat, field offices, and implementation partners. 2) De-briefing with IHP-Secretariat: Subsequent to the completion of the evaluation s site visits a de-briefing with IHP-VI Secretariat is to take place either at UNESCO-HQ or through teleconference with all team members. The de-briefing should provide initial comments from the evaluation team to the Secretariat and an opportunity to seek additional answers, feedback, and clarifications from the Secretariat. 3) Final Report: The final evaluation report will contain the following elements a) An executive summary (Maximum 5 pages) b) Report with the following areas clearly covered (maximum 40 pages excluding annexes) Background information on the programme Purpose of evaluation and Methodology Major findings Lessons learnt (from both positive and negative experiences) Constraints/problems that impacted programme delivery Recommendations Conclusions c) Annexes (only information that helps the reader to understand the report should be included here). VI. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY 1) Evaluation Team A team of three 2 independent external evaluators will carry out the evaluation. The team members will be selected from among those nominated from professional contacts (NGOs and others) of the Sector and endorsed by the IHP Bureau. Collectively and in a complementary fashion, the team members should exhibit high competence and experience in various aspects of the water resources field, including the widest possible combination of: (i) hydrological processes at multiple scales including surface water and groundwater systems; (ii) eco-hydrology; (iii) climate change, especially in the context of its potential impacts on the hydrologic cycle; (iv) water resources management in different climates, especially arid and semiarid zones, in the humid tropics, and in the urban environment; (v) water policy and decision making in water resources management at national, regional, and international levels, (vi) water education and training. At least one member must be an experienced subject specialist with proven extensive evaluation experience. 2) Evaluation Methods The tools to be used in this evaluation will include: Desk Studies: Review of all relevant documents and literature at Head Quarters and in the Field In-depth interviews and discussions with staff at HQ 2 The number of evaluators is constrained by available budget for this evaluation.

14 Page 7 Field visits, which will preferably coincide with regional IHP councils, board meetings of IHP regional centers whose missions are closely aligned with multiple focal areas of IHP-VI and/or UNESCO Centers Directors meeting. Questionnaires addressed to the IHP National Committees, IGOs, scientific and professional NGOs, Category 1 and 2 centers, and other beneficiaries of and stakeholders in IHP-VI. The evaluators may wish to supplement the above list with additional, well established evaluation tools, and may also rely on qualitative, quantitative, and anecdotal evidence to support their findings. The additional evaluation tools recommended by the evaluation team will be described in the inception report and discussed with IHP Secretariat to asses feasibility of implementation within appropriated budget. 3) Implementation Timeline IHP Bureau review of TOR, and nominations for evaluation team members, (May ) Presentation of Evaluation Plan and Decision by IHP Council (July 2010) Contracting Evaluation Team July-Early August First evaluation team meeting, desk studies and interviews with IHP-Secretariat team (Mid-August 2010) Submission of Inception Report To IHP-Secretariat (Early Sept 2010) Questionnaires to National Committees and field visits (September February 2011) De-briefing with IHP Secretariat (February 2011) Draft review submission by evaluation team to IHP (March 2011) Review and comments on the draft evaluation report by the Organization and by the IHP Bureau (by end of April 2011) Finalization of the evaluation report by evaluation team (May 2011) Final Submission to IHP Bureau (May 2011) Publication and Circulation to IHP National Commissions (June 2011)