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

<p>The following quality assurance guidelines are available to all individuals involved in quality assurance for 6.5.1. </p>
<p>Process: </p>
<ol>
<li>Nominate person responsible for the quality assurance (QA) for a country response once it is submitted for the first time. </li>
<li>Acknowledge receipt and inform the country of the QA process. </li>
<li>Update the QA spreadsheet, indicating date of receipt and who submitted. </li>
<li>Upload draft survey (MS Word) to the Dropbox folder. </li>
<li>Undertake ALL checks described below. </li>
<li>If there are any discrepancies, revert to UNEP-DHI colleagues. </li>
<li>Once action is agreed, respond to the countries. </li>
<li>Complete all checks on each subsequent version of the questionnaire until all quality issues are resolved and questionnaire is marked &#x2018;final&#x2019;. </li>
</ol>
<p>Checks: </p>
<ol>
<li><strong>Focal point:</strong> Confirm the person submitting is the formal national focal point. If not, any reply should also add the national focal point in Cc. </li>
<li><strong>Cover sheet:</strong> check if cover sheet is correctly filled out. Cross-check if the person submitting is the formal national focal point. If not, any reply should include the national focal point in Cc.</li>
<li><strong>Question scores and calculations:</strong> In the spreadsheet &#x2018;Quality_Assurance_651_2020.xlsx&#x2019; on Dropbox, fill in the given responses in sheet &#x201C;QA 2020 scores-status&#x201D;. Make the following checks to scores:<ol>
<li>All questions answered. The official guidance is that all questions should be answered (either with a score or n/a). </li>
<li>If there is confusion about whether to score or use &#x2018;n/a&#x2019; for sub-national level questions, this list of administrative divisions by country may help in our understanding of the sub-national level(s) <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_administrative_divisions_by_country%20">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_administrative_divisions_by_country </a> </li>
<li>Scores are in range from 0-100, in increments of 10. If they only give &#x2018;even&#x2019; scores (e.g. 0, 20, 40 etc), then they may not have understood that they can also give &#x2018;odd&#x2019; scores (10, 30, 50 etc), if they feel their situation lies between two threshold descriptions.</li>
<li>Any differences between &#x2018;given&#x2019; and &#x2018;calculated&#x2019; section scores and overall score are given in columns C &#x2013; G. If the difference is greater than +/- 0.5, the cells are automatically highlighted in red using conditional formatting. One must also fill in the date of last submission in column B, otherwise the differences will not be calculated. </li>
<li>Compare with baseline (2017). The QA &#x2018;2017 Comparison&#x2019; spreadsheet automatically calculates differences. Note any negative changes (orange), or increases of more than 20 (yellow). If there are any significant/unexpected differences, the country should have given some explanation in the free text fields. </li>
<li>In the &#x2018;given&#x2019; calculations (section 5 of the survey instrument), check that section averages and overall score are rounded to the nearest whole number. Rounding mistakes might occur.</li>
<li>Note: in the calculations, 0 scores are included, and N/A scores should be omitted. N/A scores should always have explanation (unless obvious &#x2013; e.g. transboundary questions for island states).</li>
<li>Check if the final score is calculated as average of rounded section averages.</li>
<li>In the free text responses in columns (BE-BF) in the main &#x201C;QA 2020-score status&#x201D; tab, for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories the following criteria should be followed: <u>Low:</u> Less than three quarters of questions have responses and/or responses are poor quality. <u>Medium:</u> At least three quarters of the questions have responses, and/or responses are varying quality. Each question and the points make sense and are useful. <u>High:</u> All questions have responses and most responses are high quality. NB: Quality responses mean ones that are useful/informative/detailed and can contribute to stakeholder understanding/discussions and planning.</li>
</ol>
</li>
<li><strong>Free text fields: </strong>Using the &#x2018;text&#x2019; tabs: </li>
<li>Check that the free text make sense in the context of the score (and vice versa) (particularly in the case of (n/a or 100 responses).</li>
<li>Check that n/a (not applicable) is used appropriately. i.e. only if the question is not applicable to the country. In some cases, a score of zero should be given, and in others, perhaps they need more help to figure out how to answer the question. </li>
<li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: Low: Blank or not useful. Medium: Some text and details. High: Useful amount of text and detail than can contribute to stakeholder understanding/consensus and planning.</li>
</ol>
<p><strong>ANNEXES</strong>. </p>
<ol>
<li><strong>Annex B: Transboundary level:</strong></li>
<li>Check the &#x2018;transboundary basins&#x2019; table. A full list of transboundary basins can be found here: <a href="http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/Report.ashx?type=IndicatorResultsSummary">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/Report.ashx?type=IndicatorResultsSummary</a>. Go to the final worksheet/tab to see the countries in each basin. You can also check the maps here: <a href="http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/%20">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/ </a>to see if the basin is likely to be important for that country, or if there is only a small portion of the basin in their country (in which case they may not list it).</li>
<li>For transboundary aquifers, check: <a href="https://ggis.un-igrac.org/view/twap">https://ggis.un-igrac.org/view/twap</a> </li>
<li>In case any sub-basins are listed, check that the main basin name is included in brackets. </li>
<li>Check the transboundary questions: 1.2c; 2.2e; 3.2d; and 4.2c, and see if these make sense in the context of the country. </li>
<li>Island countries should give &#x2018;n/a&#x2019; for all the questions that relate to transboundary waters. </li>
<li><strong>Annex C: Barriers / enablers:</strong> Is this filled out? Low, moderate, or high level of information? </li>
<li> Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: <u>Low:</u> Less than 1 point for each question. <u>Medium:</u> At least one point for each question and the points make sense and are useful. <u>High:</u> Useful analysis that would contribute to future planning.</li>
<li><strong>Annex D:</strong> Priorities: completed (Yes/No/Partially)? Any info in the &#x2018;comments&#x2019; field (low, moderate, high level of info there?)</li>
<li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: Low: Blank to few words. Medium: A few useful points. High: A longer analysis/ commentary.</li>
<li><strong>Annex E: Country process:</strong> Level of info in the free text field, the table, and in the &#x2018;additional info&#x2019; field completed. </li>
<li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: <u>Low</u>: Blank to few words. <u>Medium</u>: Minimum info to be useful to understand transparency. <u>High</u>: More detailed description that gives good idea of robustness and transparency of the process. </li>
</ol>
<p>All data is provided by each country and is therefore fully owned by the countries. Each country undertakes stakeholder consultation, to a level that is appropriate given resources and capacity available to them, to ensure that the data has adequate acceptance and ownership within the country. Guidance on consultation processes are provided in the monitoring guide and through the introductory PowerPoint and video for focal points (all materials available at <a href="http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org">http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org</a>).</p>

<h2> Обеспечение качества: </h2>
<p> Следующие рекомендации по обеспечению качества доступны всем лицам, участвующим в обеспечении качества показателя 6.5.1. </p>
<p> Процесс:</p>
<ol>
<li> Назначение человека, ответственного за обеспечение качества ответа от страны, когда ответ будет готовиться к отправке в первый раз. </li>
<li> Подтверждение получения и информирование страны о процессе контроля качества. </li>
<li> Обновление таблицы контроля качества с указанием даты получения и того, кто отправил материал. </li>
<li> Загрузка черновика отчета по обследованию (MS Word) в папку Dropbox. </li>
<li> Выполнение ВСЕХ проверок, описанных ниже. </li>
<li> Если есть какие-либо расхождения, обратитесь к коллегам из UNEP-DHI (Программа ООН по окружающей среде – Датский институт гидравлики (ЮНЕП-ДИГ)). </li>
<li> Направление ответа странам после согласования действий. </li>
<li> Проведение всех проверок каждой последующей версии вопросника, пока все проблемы с качеством не будут решены и вопросник не будет помечен как "завершен"</li>
</ol>
<p> Проверки: </p>
<ol>
<li> Координатор: подтверждение, что лицо, представившее отчет, является официальным национальным координатором. Если нет, то в любом ответе в копии следует также добавить адрес национального координатора.</li>
<li> Ответы на вопросы: </li>
<li> Подготовить ответы на все вопросы. Официальное руководство гласит, что на все вопросы следует отвечать (либо баллами, либо н / п). </li>
<li> Баллы в диапазоне от 0 до 100 с шагом 10 баллов. </li>
<li> Убедитесь, что н / п (не применимо) используется надлежащим образом. </li>
<li> Поля произвольного текста: в "Описании статуса" и "Путь вперед" поля для каждого вопроса убедитесь, что свободный текст имеет смысл в контексте оценки (и наоборот). </li>
<li> Вычисления. Убедитесь, что средние и окончательные оценки по разделам округлены до ближайшего целого числа и верны, используя таблицу контроля качества в Dropbox. Заполните данные ответы в столбцах M - AX, и различия будут рассчитаны автоматически в столбцах C - G. Если разница больше +/- 0,5, ячейки автоматически выделяются красным цветом с использованием условного форматирования. </li>
<li> Сравните с базовым показателем 2017 года: если возможно, сравните со значением базового обследования 2017 года (имеются по 172 странам) и при необходимости обсудите с коллегами.</li>
<li> Трансграничные проблемы: </li>
<li> Проверьте таблицу "трансграничные бассейны" в Приложении B. Полный список трансграничных бассейнов можно найти здесь: <a href="about:blank"> http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/Report.ashx?type=IndicatorResultsSummary </a>. </li>
<li> Переход на последнюю таблицу / вкладку, чтобы увидеть страны в каждом бассейне. Также проверьте карты здесь: <a href="about:blank"> http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/ </a>, чтобы узнать, может ли бассейн иметь важное значение для этой страны или есть только небольшая часть бассейна в их стране (в этом случае они не могут ее включать). </li>
<li> Проверьте трансграничные вопросы: 1.2c, 2.2e; 3.2d; и 4.2c, и посмотрите, имеют ли они смысл в контексте страны. Островные страны должны представлять "н / п" по всем этим вопросам. </li>
</ol>
<p> Все данные предоставлены каждой страной и, следовательно, полностью принадлежат странам. Каждая страна проводит консультации с заинтересованными сторонами на уровне, который соответствует имеющимся у них ресурсам и возможностям, чтобы гарантировать, что данные имеют адекватное признание и право собственности в стране. Рекомендации по процессам консультаций представлены в руководстве по мониторингу, а также во вводной презентации и видео для координаторов (все материалы доступны на <a href="about:blank"> http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org </a>).</p>

<p>The following quality assurance guidelines are available to all individuals involved in quality assurance for 6.5.1. </p>
<p>Process: </p>
<ol>
<li>Nominate person responsible for the quality assurance (QA) for a country response once it is submitted for the first time. </li>
<li>Acknowledge receipt and inform the country of the QA process. </li>
<li>Update the QA spreadsheet, indicating date of receipt and who submitted. </li>
<li>Upload draft survey (MS Word) to the Dropbox folder. </li>
<li>Undertake ALL checks described below. </li>
<li>If there are any discrepancies, revert to UNEP-DHI colleagues. </li>
<li>Once action is agreed, respond to the countries. </li>
<li>Complete all checks on each subsequent version of the questionnaire until all quality issues are resolved and questionnaire is marked &#x2018;final&#x2019;. </li>
</ol>
<p>Checks: </p>
<ol>
<li><strong>Focal point:</strong> Confirm the person submitting is the formal national focal point. If not, any reply should also add the national focal point in Cc. </li>
<li><strong>Cover sheet:</strong> check if cover sheet is correctly filled out. Cross-check if the person submitting is the formal national focal point. If not, any reply should include the national focal point in Cc.</li>
<li><strong>Question scores and calculations:</strong> In the spreadsheet &#x2018;Quality_Assurance_651_2020.xlsx&#x2019; on Dropbox, fill in the given responses in sheet &#x201C;QA 2020 scores-status&#x201D;. Make the following checks to scores:<ol>
<li>All questions answered. The official guidance is that all questions should be answered (either with a score or n/a). </li>
<li>If there is confusion about whether to score or use &#x2018;n/a&#x2019; for sub-national level questions, this list of administrative divisions by country may help in our understanding of the sub-national level(s) <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_administrative_divisions_by_country%20">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_administrative_divisions_by_country </a> </li>
<li>Scores are in range from 0-100, in increments of 10. If they only give &#x2018;even&#x2019; scores (e.g. 0, 20, 40 etc), then they may not have understood that they can also give &#x2018;odd&#x2019; scores (10, 30, 50 etc), if they feel their situation lies between two threshold descriptions.</li>
<li>Any differences between &#x2018;given&#x2019; and &#x2018;calculated&#x2019; section scores and overall score are given in columns C &#x2013; G. If the difference is greater than +/- 0.5, the cells are automatically highlighted in red using conditional formatting. One must also fill in the date of last submission in column B, otherwise the differences will not be calculated. </li>
<li>Compare with baseline (2017). The QA &#x2018;2017 Comparison&#x2019; spreadsheet automatically calculates differences. Note any negative changes (orange), or increases of more than 20 (yellow). If there are any significant/unexpected differences, the country should have given some explanation in the free text fields. </li>
<li>In the &#x2018;given&#x2019; calculations (section 5 of the survey instrument), check that section averages and overall score are rounded to the nearest whole number. Rounding mistakes might occur.</li>
<li>Note: in the calculations, 0 scores are included, and N/A scores should be omitted. N/A scores should always have explanation (unless obvious &#x2013; e.g. transboundary questions for island states).</li>
<li>Check if the final score is calculated as average of rounded section averages.</li>
<li>In the free text responses in columns (BE-BF) in the main &#x201C;QA 2020-score status&#x201D; tab, for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories the following criteria should be followed: <u>Low:</u> Less than three quarters of questions have responses and/or responses are poor quality. <u>Medium:</u> At least three quarters of the questions have responses, and/or responses are varying quality. Each question and the points make sense and are useful. <u>High:</u> All questions have responses and most responses are high quality. NB: Quality responses mean ones that are useful/informative/detailed and can contribute to stakeholder understanding/discussions and planning.</li>
</ol>
</li>
<li><strong>Free text fields: </strong>Using the &#x2018;text&#x2019; tabs: <ol>
/li>
<li>Check that the free text make sense in the context of the score (and vice versa) (particularly in the case of (n/a or 100 responses).</li>
<li>Check that n/a (not applicable) is used appropriately. i.e. only if the question is not applicable to the country. In some cases, a score of zero should be given, and in others, perhaps they need more help to figure out how to answer the question. </li>
<li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: Low: Blank or not useful. Medium: Some text and details. High: Useful amount of text and detail than can contribute to stakeholder understanding/consensus and planning.</li>
</ol>
</li>
</ol>
<p><strong>ANNEXES</strong>. </p>
<ol>
<li><strong>Annex B: Transboundary level:</strong>
<ol>
</li>
<li>Check the &#x2018;transboundary basins&#x2019; table. A full list of transboundary basins can be found here: <a href="http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/Report.ashx?type=IndicatorResultsSummary">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/Report.ashx?type=IndicatorResultsSummary</a>. Go to the final worksheet/tab to see the countries in each basin. You can also check the maps here: <a href="http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/%20">http://twap-rivers.org/indicators/ </a>to see if the basin is likely to be important for that country, or if there is only a small portion of the basin in their country (in which case they may not list it).</li>
<li>For transboundary aquifers, check: <a href="https://ggis.un-igrac.org/view/twap">https://ggis.un-igrac.org/view/twap</a> </li>
<li>In case any sub-basins are listed, check that the main basin name is included in brackets. </li>
<li>Check the transboundary questions: 1.2c; 2.2e; 3.2d; and 4.2c, and see if these make sense in the context of the country. </li>
<li>Island countries should give &#x2018;n/a&#x2019; for all the questions that relate to transboundary waters. </li>
</ol>
</li>
<li><strong>Annex C: Barriers / enablers:</strong> Is this filled out? Low, moderate, or high level of information? <ol>
/li>
<li> Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: <u>Low:</u> Less than 1 point for each question. <u>Medium:</u> At least one point for each question and the points make sense and are useful. <u>High:</u> Useful analysis that would contribute to future planning.</li>
</ol>
</li>
<li><strong>Annex D:</strong> Priorities: completed (Yes/No/Partially)? Any info in the &#x2018;comments&#x2019; field (low, moderate, high level of info there?)<ol/li>
<li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: Low: Blank to few words. Medium: A few useful points. High: A longer analysis/ commentary.</li>
</ol>
</li>
<li><strong>Annex E: Country process:</strong> Level of info in the free text field, the table, and in the &#x2018;additional info&#x2019; field completed. <ol>
/li>
<li>Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: <u>Low</u>: Blank to few words. <u>Medium</u>: Minimum info to be useful to understand transparency. <u>High</u>: More detailed description that gives good idea of robustness and transparency of the process. </li>
</ol>
</li>
</ol>
<p>All data is provided by each country and is therefore fully owned by the countries. Each country undertakes stakeholder consultation, to a level that is appropriate given resources and capacity available to them, to ensure that the data has adequate acceptance and ownership within the country. Guidance on consultation processes are provided in the monitoring guide and through the introductory PowerPoint and video for focal points (all materials available at <a href="http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org">http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org</a>).</p>

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

<h1> Методология </h1>
<h2> Метод расчета: </h2>
<p> 1. Обследование включает в себя 33 вопроса, разделенных на четыре основных раздела, описанных выше. </p>
<p> 2. Каждому вопросу присваивается балльная оценка от 0 до 100 баллов с шагом в 10 баллов в соответствии с описанием пороговых значений для следующих 6 категорий: </p>
<ul>
<li> Очень низкая (0) </li>
<li> Низкая (20) </li>
<li> Средне-низкая (40) </li>
<li> Средне-высокая (60) </li>
<li> Высокая (80) </li>
<li> Очень высокая (100) </li>
</ul>
<p> Обратите внимание, что руководство предоставляется для каждого порогового значения по каждому вопросу с тем, чтобы обеспечить объективные и сопоставимые результаты. </p>
<p> 3. Невзвешенное среднее значение баллов за ответы на вопросы в каждом из четырех разделов рассчитывается так, чтобы получить оценку 0 - 100 баллов для каждого раздела, округленную до ближайшего целого числа. </p>
<p> 4. Баллы по разделам (округленные до ближайшего целого числа), усредняются (невзвешенные) и округляются до ближайшего целого числа, чтобы получить балл показателя, выраженный числом от 0 до 100. </p>

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

2022-12-16

<p>Последнее обновление: 7 ноября 2019 года</p>

2022-07-0712-16

<p><strong>URLs: </strong><a href="http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org">http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org</a> . This contains the latest survey instrument, monitoring guide, and all supporting documentation. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.gwp.org/en/sdg6support/">https://www.gwp.org/en/sdg6support/</a> : SDG 6 IWRM Support Programme. </p>
<p><strong>References:</strong></p>
<p>- UNEP (2021). <a href="https://www.unepdhi.org/progress-on-integrated-water-resources-management-global-indicator-6-5-1-updates-and-acceleration-needs/">Progress on Integrated Water Resources Management. Tracking SDG 6 series: global indicator 6.5.1 updates and acceleration needs</a>.</p>
<p>- GWP and UNEP-DHI (2021). <a href="https://www.unepdhi.org/progress-on-integrated-water-resources-management-iwrm-in-the-asia-pacific-region-2021/">Progress on Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) in the</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.unepdhi.org/progress-on-integrated-water-resources-management-iwrm-in-the-asia-pacific-region-2021/">Asia-Pacific Region 2021: Learning exchange on monitoring and implementation towards SDG</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.unepdhi.org/progress-on-integrated-water-resources-management-iwrm-in-the-asia-pacific-region-2021/">6.5.1</a></p>
<p>- GWP Centroam&#xE9;rica, mayo de 2021: <a href="https://www.unepdhi.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/09/SDG6.5.1-status-Central-America-2020-full-ESP.pdf">Estado de la implementaci&#xF3;n de la Gesti&#xF3;n Integrada de los Recursos H&#xED;dricos en Centroam&#xE9;rica y Republica Dominicana al 2020</a>.</p>
<p>- AMCOW 2018: Status Report on the Implementation of Water Resources Management in Africa: a regional report for SDG indicator 6.5.1 on IWRM implementation. <a href="http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org/IWRMDataJsonService/Service1.svc/DownloadOnAboutPage/Status_Report/English">AMCOW 2018: Status Report on the Implementation of Water Resources Management in Africa: a regional report for SDG indicator 6.5.1 on IWRM implementation.</a></p>
<p>- UNEP 2018: Progress on integrated water resources management. Global baseline for SDG 6 Indicator 6.5.1: degree of IWRM implementation. http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org/IWRMDataJsonService/Service1.svc/DownloadPublicationsReportDoc/English/report</p>
<p>- United Nations Economic and Social Commission for West Asia (2019). Status Report on the Implementation of Integrated Water Resources Management in the Arab Region: Progress on SDG indicator 6.5.1. http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org/IWRMDataJsonService/Service1.svc/DownloadOnAboutPage/Full_Report/Arabic</p>
<p>- UN-Water initiative on integrated monitoring of SDG 6. <a href="http://sdg6data.org">http://sdg6data.org</a></p>
<p>- UN-Water, 2016: Water and Sanitation Interlinkages across the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Geneva. https://www.unwater.org/app/uploads/2016/08/Water-and-Sanitation-Interlinkages.pdf</p>

<h1> Ссылки </h1>
<h2> URL: </h2>
<p> <a href="about:blank"> http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org </a> </p>
<p> Здесь содержится новейший инструмент обследования, руководство по мониторингу и вся сопроводительная документация. </p>
<h2> Ссылки: </h2>
<p> - Африканский совет министров по водным ресурсам (AMCOW) 2018 год: Отчет о состоянии внедрения управления водными ресурсами в Африке: региональный отчет по показателю 6.5.1 ЦУР по реализации КУВР. </p>
<p> - Программа ООН по окружающей среде (ЮНЕП) 2018 год: Прогресс в области комплексного управления водными ресурсами. Глобальный базовый уровень для показателя 6.5.1 ЦУР 6: степень реализации КУВР. </p>
<p> - Экономическая и социальная комиссия Организации Объединенных Наций для Западной Азии (2019 год). Отчет о состоянии внедрения комплексного управления водными ресурсами в арабском регионе: прогресс в отношении показателя 6.5.1 ЦУР. </p>
<p> - Инициатива "ООН Водные ресурсы" по комплексному мониторингу достижения ЦУР 6. <a href="about:blank"> http://sdg6data.org </a> </p>
<p> - Механизм «ООН — Водные ресурсы», 2016 год: Взаимосвязь водоснабжения и санитарии в Повестке дня в области устойчивого развития на период до 2030 года. Женева. </p>

<p><strong>URLs: </strong><a href="http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org">http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org</a> . This contains the latest survey instrument, monitoring guide, and all supporting documentation. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.gwp.org/en/sdg6support/">https://www.gwp.org/en/sdg6support/</a> : SDG 6 IWRM Support Programme. </p>
<p><strong>References:</strong></p>
<p>- AMCOW 2018: Status Report on the Implementation of Water Resources Management in Africa: a regional report for SDG indicator 6.5.1 on IWRM implementation. UNEP (2021). <a href="https://www.unepdhi.org/progress-on-integrated-water-resources-management-global-indicator-6-5-1-updates-and-acceleration-needs/">Progress on Integrated Water Resources Management. Tracking SDG 6 series: global indicator 6.5.1 updates and acceleration needs</a>.</p>
<p>- GWP and UNEP-DHI (2021). <a href="https://www.unepdhi.org/progress-on-integrated-water-resources-management-iwrm-in-the-asia-pacific-region-2021/">Progress on Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) in the</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.unepdhi.org/progress-on-integrated-water-resources-management-iwrm-in-the-asia-pacific-region-2021/">Asia-Pacific Region 2021: Learning exchange on monitoring and implementation towards SDG</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.unepdhi.org/progress-on-integrated-water-resources-management-iwrm-in-the-asia-pacific-region-2021/">6.5.1</a></p>
<p>- GWP Centroam&#xE9;rica, mayo de 2021: <a href="https://www.unepdhi.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/09/SDG6.5.1-status-Central-America-2020-full-ESP.pdf">Estado de la implementaci&#xF3;n de la Gesti&#xF3;n Integrada de los Recursos H&#xED;dricos en Centroam&#xE9;rica y Republica Dominicana al 2020</a>.</p>
<p>- AMCOW 2018: Status Report on the Implementation of Water Resources Management in Africa: a regional report for SDG indicator 6.5.1 on IWRM implementation. <a href="http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org/IWRMDataJsonService/Service1.svc/DownloadOnAboutPage/Status_Report/English">AMCOW 2018: Status Report on the Implementation of Water Resources Management in Africa: a regional report for SDG indicator 6.5.1 on IWRM implementation.</a></p>
<p>- UNEP 2018: Progress on integrated water resources management. Global baseline for SDG 6 Indicator 6.5.1: degree of IWRM implementation. http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org/IWRMDataJsonService/Service1.svc/DownloadPublicationsReportDoc/English/report</p>
<p>- United Nations Economic and Social Commission for West Asia (2019). Status Report on the Implementation of Integrated Water Resources Management in the Arab Region: Progress on SDG indicator 6.5.1. http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org/IWRMDataJsonService/Service1.svc/DownloadOnAboutPage/Full_Report/Arabic</p>
<p>- UN-Water initiative on integrated monitoring of SDG 6. <a href="http://sdg6data.org">http://sdg6data.org</a></p>
<p>- UN-Water, 2016: Water and Sanitation Interlinkages across the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Geneva. https://www.unwater.org/app/uploads/2016/08/Water-and-Sanitation-Interlinkages.pdf</p>