The following quality assurance guidelines are available to all individuals involved in quality assurance for 6.5.1.

Process:

Nominate person responsible for the quality assurance (QA) for a country response once it is submitted for the first time.
Acknowledge receipt and inform the country of the QA process.
Update the QA spreadsheet, indicating date of receipt and who submitted.
Upload draft survey (MS Word) to the Sharepoint folder.
Undertake ALL checks described below.
If there are any discrepancies, revert to UNEP-DHI colleagues.
Once action is agreed, respond to the countries.
Complete all checks on each subsequent version of the survey until all quality issues are resolved and survey is marked ‘final’.

Checks:

Focal point: Confirm the person submitting is the formal national focal point. If not, any reply should also add the national focal point in Cc.
Cover sheet: 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.
Question scores and calculations: In the spreadsheet ‘Quality_Assurance_651_2023.xlsx’ on Sharepoint, fill in the given responses in sheet “QA 2023 scores-status”. Make the following checks to scores:
1. All questions answered. The official guidance is that all questions should be answered (either with a score or n/a).
2. Scores are in range from 0-100, in increments of 10. If they only give ‘even’ scores (e.g. 0, 20, 40 etc), then they may not have understood that they can also give ‘odd’ scores (10, 30, 50 etc), if they feel their situation lies between two threshold descriptions.
3. Any differences between ‘given’ and ‘calculated’ section scores and overall score are given in columns C – G. If the difference is greater than +/- 0.5, the cells are automatically highlighted in red using conditional formatting. Ensure to complete the date of last submission in column B, otherwise the differences will not be calculated.
4. Compare with previous scores. The QA ‘Comparison’ workshsheet 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.
5. In the ‘given’ 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.
6. Note: in the calculations, 0 scores are included, and N/A scores should be omitted. N/A scores should always have explanation (unless obvious – e.g. transboundary questions for island states).
7. Check if the final score is calculated as average of rounded section averages.
8. In the free text responses in columns (BE-BF) in the main “QA 2023-score status” tab, for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories the following criteria should be followed: Low: Less than three quarters of questions have responses and/or responses are poor quality. Medium: 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. High: 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.
Free text fields: Using the ‘text’ tabs:
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).
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.
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.

ANNEXES.

Annex B: Key priorities and targets for IWRM implementation:
1. Check if completed. Low, moderate, or high level of information?
Annex C: 6.5.1 Country process reporting form: Level of info in the free text field, the table, and in the ‘additional info’ field completed.
Guidance for assigning Low/ Medium/ High categories: Low: Blank to few words. Medium: Minimum info to be useful to understand transparency. High: More detailed description that gives good idea of robustness and transparency of the process.

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 http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org).

Hesin internet-kagin er ikki longur stuðlaður

Rætta uppseting: 6.5.1