Taotlus

SDG indicator 6.5.1 Survey
Degree of integrated water resources management (IWRM) implementation
4th Data Collection Round: 2026

ESTONIA


National SDG 6.5.1 Focal Point(s)
Organization

Name / Job title

Other supporting focal points (name, organization)

Date / version of most recent submission
08.12.2023
Is the 6.5.1 Focal Point (FP) also the FP for any other SDG indicator? Y/N. If yes, please mark ‘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):

For a description of the data collection and stakeholder consultation process, please see Section 6 (Part 2).
Introduction
Purpose of the Survey
• This survey is the official mechanism for countries to report on Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Indicator 6.5.1: “Degree of integrated water resources management (IWRM) implementation”.
• It also serves as a simple diagnostic tool for countries to assess strengths and weaknesses in IWRM implementation and prioritise action to advance towards SDG Target 6.5.
Indicator 6.5.1:
• is scored from 0 to 100, based on responses to 33 questions on different aspects of IWRM implementation;
• tracks progress toward SDG Target 6.5: “By 2030, implement integrated water resources management at all levels, including through transboundary cooperation as appropriate” (in conjunction with SDG indicator 6.5.2).
IWRM: promotes equitable and efficient water use, essential for social and economic development and environmental sustainability.
Actions to achieve Target 6.5 directly support other water-related goals under SDG 6: “Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all”.
Data collection for SDG indicator 6.5.1 is coordinated by UN-Water through the Integrated Monitoring Initiative for SDG 6 (IMI-SDG6).
Survey Structure
PART 1: contains four sections on the status of IWRM implementation across four key dimensions:
1. Enabling environment: policies, laws and plans to support IWRM implementation.
2. Institutions and participation: the range and roles of political, social, economic and administrative institutions and involvement of other stakeholder groups.
3. Management instruments: the tools and activities that enable decision-makers and users to make informed choices between alternative actions.
4. Financing: budgeting and financing for water resources development and management.
In PART 1, each section includes two sub-sections:
• National level
• Other levels (sub-national, basin, local, and transboundary). Note:
• For sub-national, basin, and local questions, focus on the most important basins / aquifers / jurisdictions, unless specified otherwise.
• For transboundary questions, focus on the most important shared water bodies and ideally coordinate with SDG indicator 6.5.2 on transboundary cooperation.
• Water resources management in federal countries can be more complex due to responsibilities across different administrative levels. You may use the free text fields to explain any specific circumstances related to decentralization in your country.
Climate change considerations: At the end of each section in Part 1, there is a general question on the integration between water and climate management, as relevant to that section. These questions are not scored, and do not count towards the indicator score. Selection of the implementation category is encouraged.
PART 2:
5. Indicator 6.5.1 score, Target Setting, and Priority Action Areas
6. Country Reporting Process: description of the consultation and drafting process.
ANNEXES:
• Annex A: Glossary
• Annex B: Facilitator’s Report (only mandatory for “Stage 1” countries receiving financial support, otherwise optional).

How to Fill the Survey
Insert 2026 scores for each question and update the narrative fields as required.
Question Scoring
• Use scores from 0 to 100, in increments of 10. Each question has six threshold descriptions to guide scoring, and please note additional definitions in the footnotes.
• To give a score, all preceding thresholds for that question must be met.
• All questions must be scored. Refrain from using “n/a” (not applicable), except if that question truly does not apply (e.g. transboundary questions for island states).
Overall indicator scoring
The indicator score is calculated using a simple average of the four rounded section scores (see Section 5).
Narrative Responses
Each question includes three free-text prompts:
• Status: arrangements in place, degree of implementation, any challenges.
• Changes since 2023 reporting: specific changes that have taken place since 2023 reporting, and any comments on the interpretation of progress based on the scores.
• Way Forward: planned or recommended actions to advance on the topic.
Notes:
• If the response overlaps with other questions, you may cross-reference them (e.g. “See also response to question 1.2b”).
• Keep the guidance text in [square brackets italic] in each question during drafting and consultation. UNEP will remove it on finalization.
Tracking Progress
• 2026 is the 4th reporting round. Country surveys and 2-page results summaries from previous rounds (2017, 2020, 2023) are available on the IWRM Data Portal.
• While changes in scores between rounds indicate implementation changes on the ground, they may also be influenced by more robust consultation processes and increasing stakeholder understanding. 2026 scores should be treated as the most accurate, even if this creates apparent discrepancies compared to previous reporting rounds (i.e. a lower question score does not necessarily indicate regression, and this should be captured in the “Changes since 2023 reporting” field).
• Notable changes to questions between rounds are explained in footnotes, and a summary is available in the SDG Indicator 6.5.1 Monitoring Guide.
Note: Please do not delete any question rows or alter table structures in this survey.
Stakeholder Consultation
• Broad stakeholder consultation is encouraged to improve accuracy and ownership. See Monitoring Guide and Stakeholder Consultation Manual for more information.
• Coordination with other SDG indicator Focal Points and Overall SDG 6 Focal Points is recommended, particularly for Section 3.1.
• Describe the consultation process in Section 6.
Survey Submission Process
• Countries are encouraged to submit interim or incomplete drafts with clarification questions at any time.
• The submission / finalization process is:
1. Focal Point (FP) submits the FIRST DRAFT survey to UNEP for review (after going through country Quality Assurance processes, but before formal national approval / endorsement procedures);
2. UNEP reviews the draft for consistency and returns comments to the FP;
3. FP is responsible for addressing the comments (or coordination thereof) and returning the FINAL DRAFT to UNEP. The FINAL DRAFT can be endorsed by the country prior to submission.
4. UNEP reviews the FINAL DRAFT, and will only return comments to the FP in the case of significant inconsistencies. Once approved by UNEP, the Help Desk ‘cleans’ the survey, removing the FP QA checklist, returns the FINAL version to the FP, and uploads it to the IWRM Data Portal.
• Submission dates are communicated to FPs via email from the Help Desk.
• All submissions should be made to UNEP via the SDG 6.5.1 Help Desk: [email protected]
Supporting Materials and Help
• SDG Indicator 6.5.1 Monitoring Guide: primary resource.
• Other supporting materials available on the IWRM Data Portal, include:
• 1-page survey overview (recommended for familiarization with the survey)
• Stakeholder consultation manual
• Indicator calculation template
• SDG 6.5.1 Reporting Training (self-paced online course, approx. 4hrs)
• Online version of survey (for in-country consultations only, not official submission).
• Annex A: Glossary: Definitions of terms. Please also take note of all footnotes.
• SDG 6.5.1 Help Desk: supports Focal Points and colleagues with interpreting questions and thresholds, determining appropriate level of stakeholder engagement, submitting surveys and Quality Assurance: [email protected]
Part 1 - Status of IWRM implementation across 4 key dimensions
1 ENABLING ENVIRONMENT
This section includes the policies, laws and plans in place to support sustainable, coordinated, and equitable water resources management.1
Please carefully read all footnotes as they contain important information and clarification of terms used in the questions and thresholds, and refer to Annex A: Glossary for further explanation.
Enter your score, in increments of 10, from 0-100, or “n/a” (not applicable), in the yellow cell under “2026” in each question. Update / enter text for “Status”, “Changes since 2023 reporting” and “Way forward” for each question. Guidance on the type of information to provide is shown in [square brackets]. Please include links to further information where available.
1. ENABLING ENVIRONMENT
1.1 What is the status of policies, laws and plans to support Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) at the national level?
Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
1.1 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.
Based on IWRM, being used by the majority of relevant authorities to guide work.
Policy objectives consistently achieved.
Objectives consistently achieved, and periodically reviewed and revised.
Score






2017
2020
2023
20262






80
90
90







Status: [E.g. Names/years of relevant policies (and any updates), how they are being used to guide work, evidence/examples of implementation, and which policy objectives are monitored/achieved. Include links to further information where available. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
In Estonia, management of water is mainly regulated by Water Act and its sub-acts. Based on Water Act, in order to achieve the water protection objectives, a river basin management plan (RBMP) is prepared for each river basin district or for each part of a transboundary river basin district located in Estonia, in which water use and protection of the river basin district or the part of a transboundary river basin district located in Estonia is planned. A water management committee is in place by a decree of the minister in charge of the policy sector in order to organise water use and protection and integrate it with other areas. The statutes of the water management committee is established by a decree of the minister in charge of the policy sector. The water management committee consists of representatives from relevant sectors and stakeholders for the implementation of principles of IWRM. The requirements for the contents of a river basin management plan is established by a decree of the minister in charge of the policy sector.
A river basin management plan is established by a decree of the minister in charge of the policy sector. The local authorities, residents and stakeholders from the territory of the relevant river basin district are involved in the preparation of a river basin management plan. The involvement is organised by the Environmental Board. The implementation of a programme of measures (PoM) under water management plan is organised by the water management committee and the implementation of measures is coordinated by the Environmental Board. The Environmental Board prepares an overview of implementation of the programme of measures and submits it for approval to the water management committee by 1 May each year. The action plan for implementation of the programme of measures and the overview of implementation of the programme of measures approved by the water management committee is published on the websites of the Ministry of Climate and the Environmental Board. Although achievement of objectives are annually provided, achievement rate is usually lower than 100% and some case correction of objectives or more work on objective is needed. As objectives are not always 100% achieved, the score here is not 100 but 90, as in previous reporting cycle. Currently, third water management cycle (period 2022-2027) water management plans are being implemented. Preparations for composing next cycle water management plans has started – special project to analyse the current procedure of composing water management plans and if there are changes needed.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to advance implementation of policies; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Although achievement of objectives are annually provided, achievement rate is usually lower than 100% and some case correction of objectives or more work on objective is needed. Currently, River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) and Programme of Measures (PoM) for the third water management cycle (period 2022-2027) are implemented. Work to develop fourth cycle (2028-2033) RBMP has started and this is a public process and all relevant stakeholders and public are involved in this process. During this process also progress achieved during third cycle is assessed and objectives are reviewed and revised when necessary.

Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
1.1 b. National water resources laws.
Development not started or not progressing.
Exist, but not based on IWRM.
Based on IWRM, approved by government and starting to be applied by authorities.
Based on IWRM, being applied by the majority of relevant authorities.
Based on IWRM and all laws are being applied across the country.
Based on IWRM and all laws are enforced across the country, and all people and organizations are held accountable.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






100
100
100







Status: [E.g. names/years of relevant laws (and any updates), mechanisms in place to apply/enforce the law, evidence/examples of the law being applied. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
In Estonia, management of water based on IWRM principles is mainly regulated by Water Act and its sub-acts. Environmental Board is responsible of controlling compliance with the law. All people and organizations not following the law are being held responsible
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended legislation, or activities to advance implementation of existing laws; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Based on practical implementation of legal acts, amendments to acts are sometimes necessary or further guidance provided in order to ensure fulfilling objectives and requirements stated in law. There have been and also foreseen seminars for stakeholders to introduce new requirements in law or explain current provisions, i.e. seminars concerning water management and protection measures in agriculture

Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
1.1 c. National integrated water resources management (IWRM) plans, or similar.
Development not started or not progressing.
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






2017
2020
2023
2026






80
90
90







Status: [E.g. names/years of relevant plans (and any updates), progress reports, evidence/examples of implementation of activities by relevant authorities. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
See also explanations in point a. River basin management plans and programme of measures under it are for IWRM implementation in Estonia and they are being periodically reviewed and revised which is public process and all relevant stakeholders and public are involved and plans are obligatory to relevant authorities and programme of measures for implementing parties to achieve environmental objectives. Objectives are rather ambitious and thus achievement of them require time and effort. Implementation of river basin management plans and programme of measures show that improvement of status of water is challenging and in some case there can be deterioration and more measures may be needed as previously planned.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to advance implementation of plans; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Currently river basin management plans for the third water management cycle (period 2021-2027) are currently implemented. Preparations for developing fourth cycle (2028-2033) river basin management plans has started. A special project has started to analyse previous experiences with composing and implementing water management plans and lessons learnt will be taken into account when elaborating new plans. During the process of preparing new water management plans progress achieved during third cycle is assessed and objectives are reviewed and revised.

1.2 What is the status of policies, laws and plans to support IWRM at other levels?
Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
1.2 a. Sub-national3 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.
Based on IWRM, being used by the majority of relevant authorities to guide work.
Based on IWRM and policy objectives consistently achieved by a majority of authorities.
Based on IWRM and objectives consistently achieved by all authorities, and periodically reviewed and revised.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






80
90
90







Status: [E.g. jurisdictional ‘level’ of application, names/years of policies, examples/evidence of implementation of policies; and at which level/jurisdiction policies are being developed and implemented. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers. Cross-reference (Q.1.1a) as needed.]
No differences in national and sub-national level. In Estonia, management of water is mainly regulated by Water Act and its sub-acts. Based on Water Act, in order to achieve the water protection objectives, a river basin management plan is prepared for each river basin district or for each part of a transboundary river basin district located in Estonia, in which water use and protection of the river basin district or the part of a transboundary river basin district located in Estonia shall be planned. A water management committee is in place by a decree of the minister in charge of the policy sector in order to organise water use and protection and integrate it with other areas. The statutes of the water management committee is established by a decree of the minister in charge of the policy sector. The requirements for the contents of a river basin management plan is established by a decree of the minister in charge of the policy sector. A river basin management plan is established by a decree of the minister in charge of the policy sector. The local authorities, residents and stakeholders from the territory of the relevant river basin district are involved in the preparation of a river basin management plan. The involvement is organised by the Environmental Board. The implementation of a programme of measures under water management plan is organised by the water management committee and the implementation of measures is coordinated by the Environmental Board. The Environmental Board prepares an overview of implementation of the programme of measures and submits it for approval to the water management committee by 1 May each year. The action plan for implementation of the programme of measures and the overview of implementation of the programme of measures approved by the water management committee is published on the websites of the Ministry of Climate and the Environmental Board. Although achievement of objectives are annually provided, achievement rate is usually lower than 100% and some case correction of objectives or more work on objective is needed. Currently, third water management cycle (period 2022-2027) wate management plans are being implemented. Preparations for composing next cycle water management plans has started – special project to analyse the current procedure of composing water management plans and if there are changes needed.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to advance implementation of policies; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Although achievement of objectives are annually provided, achievement rate is usually lower than 100% and some case correction of objectives or more work on objective is needed. Currently, RBMP and PoM for the third water management cycle (period 2022-2027) are implemented. Work to develop fourth cycle (2028-2033) RBMP has started and this is a public process and all relevant stakeholders and public are involved in this process. During this process also progress achieved during third cycle is assessed and objectives are reviewed and revised when necessary.

Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
1.2 b. Basin/aquifer management plans4 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






2017
2020
2023
2026






80
90
90







Status: [E.g. names of most significant basins/aquifers, names/years of their plans (and any updates), progress reports, evidence of implementation of plans. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
River basin management plans and programme of measures under it are for IWRM implementation in Estonia and they are being periodically reviewed and revised which is public process and all relevant stakeholders and public are involved and plans are obligatory to relevant authorities and programme of measures for implementing parties to achieve environmental objectives. Objectives are rather ambitious and thus achievement of them require time and effort. Implementation of river basin management plans and programme of measures show that improvement of status of water is challenging and in some case there can be deterioration and more measures may be needed as previously planned.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to advance implementation of plans; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Currently river basin management plans for the third water management cycle (period 2021-2027) are currently implemented. Preparations for developing fourth cycle (2028-2033) river basin management plans has started. A special project has started to analyse previous experiences with composing and implementing water management plans and lessons learnt will be taken into account when elaborating new plans. During the process of preparing new water management plans progress achieved during third cycle is assessed and objectives are reviewed and revised.

Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
1.2 c. Agreements5 for transboundary water management.6
Development not started or not progressing.
Being prepared or negotiated.
Arrangements are adopted.
Arrangements’ provisions are partly implemented.
Arrangements’ provisions are mostly implemented.
The arrangements’ provisions are fully implemented.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






80
80
100







Status: [E.g. name the most important transboundary basins/aquifers for the country (see “Transboundary” definition in Annex A: Glossary). Names/years of agreements or similar (and any updates), reports, evidence of implementation. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
Transboundary agreements and arrangements for the protection and management of transboundary waters are made with Russia and Latvia. Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Estonia and the Government of the Russian Federation on Co-operation in Protection and Sustainable Use of Transboundary Waters (Moscow, 20. August 1997) to manage joint transboundary Narva River basin. Agreement between the Ministry of the Environment of the Republic of Estonia and the Ministry of the Environment of the Republic of Latvia on Co-operation in Protection and Sustainable Use of Transboundary Water Courses (Palanga, 24. October 2003) to manage joint Koiva River basin. Arrangements are periodically discussed and the implementation rate is rather high. Riparian countries meet annually to discuss developments concerning status of waterbodies and measures implemented so far and in the future to achieve agreed water policy objectives
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to advance implementation of agreements; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Annual meetings concerning joint transboundary water management between riparian countries are organised now and in the future to assess the progress in status of waterbodies and assess the measures implemented to achieve water policy objectives, new jointly agreed objectives and tasks are set as well.

In accordance with the Agreement, 2 working groups were formed in 1997:
- on integrated water resources management
- monitoring, assessment of the status of waterbodies and applied research.

At the annual meeting of the first group, issues of the dynamics of water abstraction, water use, wastewater treatment and the efficiency of treatment facilities of both Parties to the agreement are discussed. There is an exchange of data and information on water protection measures of the Parties to the agreement

At the annual meeting of the monitoring group, issues of monitoring of surface and groundwater, methods of sampling and analysis of samples, comparability of data and the development of joint criteria for assessing the status waterbodies are discussed, joint monitoring programs and a data exchange format are being developed.

At the annual meetings of the commission, which was formed in 1997, which plays the role of coordinator of activities related to monitoring and use of water resources of transboundary waters, joint monitoring programs and work plans of working groups are approved

The exact time of annual meetings will be agreed upon. In last three years the meetings of working groups have been in the third quarter (end of August-beginning of September). Meeting of the joint commission is usually in the end of November-beginning of December.

As previous period, also for compiling fourth period Koiva river basin management plan joint projects with Latvia will be organised.

Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
1.2 d. Sub-national water resources regulations7 (laws, decrees, ordinances or similar).8
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.
Based on IWRM, some regulations being applied in the majority of jurisdictions.
Based on IWRM and all regulations being applied in the majority of jurisdictions.
Based on IWRM and all regulations being applied and enforced in all jurisdictions, and all people and organizations are held accountable.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






n/a
100
100







Status: [E.g. jurisdictional ‘level’ of application, names/years of regulations, mechanisms for enforcement, examples of enforcement. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers. Cross-reference (Q.1.1b) as needed.]
In Estonia, management of water based on IWRM principles is mainly regulated by Water Act and its sub-acts. Environmental Board is responsible of controlling compliance with the law. All people and organizations not following the law are being held responsible
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to advance implementation of regulations; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Based on practical implementation of legal acts, amendments to acts are sometimes necessary or further guidance provided in order to ensure fulfilling objectives and requirements stated in law. There have been and also foreseen seminars for stakeholders to introduce new requirements in law or explain current provisions, i.e. seminars concerning water management and protection measures in agriculture, also more manpower for agriculture inspections regarding CAP requirements is planned.

Climate change considerations – Enabling environment
This sub-section addresses the level of coordination between water management and climate change adaptation / mitigation broadly across this IWRM dimension. This question is not scored, and should not be included in the overall indicator calculations. Please select only one category in the “Implementation category” field that applies to the majority of policies/laws/plans in your country, and answer the “Status and way forward” field below.
Degree of implementation
Very low
Low
Medium-low
Medium-high
High
Very high
CC-1 Development and implementation of policies / laws / plans integrating both climate change and water resources.
Integration of climate change in water resources policies/laws / plans (or vice-versa) not started or not progressing.
Policies/ laws / plans integrating climate and water resources being prepared but not approved by government. 
Policies/ laws / plans integrating climate and water resources approved by government and starting to be implemented by authorities. 
Policies/ laws / plans integrating climate and water resources being implemented by the majority of relevant authorities
Policy/ law / plan objectives consistently achieved. 
Objectives consistently achieved and periodically reviewed and revised. 
Implementation category: Very low / Low / Medium-low / Medium-high / High / Very high [select one implementation category and delete the others.]
Status and way forward: [E.g. extent to which water and climate plans/policies/strategies/laws or similar are coordinated. E.g. is water included in climate adaptation/mitigation plans, and climate considerations included in water management plans. Consider National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and similar plans and strategies. Describe the planned and/or needed improvements for strengthened coordination between water and climate in the Enabling Environment (policy, plans, laws).]
Climate change scenarios and impacts of climate change is taken into account in river basin management plans and program of measures. Measures have been set to adopt climate change. E.g. By 2027, climate-sensitive water bodies will be determined. For program of measures were carried out climate check. It is important to understand whether the measures will also work in the future climate. In Estonia National Adaptation Plan (NAP) is confirmed in year 2017 and sets the goals mitigate the risk of climate change through various measures.

2 INSTITUTIONS AND PARTICIPATION
This section covers 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 mainstreaming.
Please carefully read all footnotes as they contain important information and clarification of terms used in the questions and thresholds, and refer to Annex A: Glossary for further explanation.
Enter your score, in increments of 10, from 0-100, or “n/a” (not applicable), in the yellow cell under “2026” in each question. Update / enter text for “Status”, “Changes since 2023 reporting” and “Way forward” for each question. Guidance on the type of information to provide is shown in [square brackets]. Please include links to further information where available.
2. INSTITUTIONS AND PARTICIPATION
2.1 What is the status of institutions for IWRM implementation at the national level?
Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
2.1 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 roles and responsibilities 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






2017
2020
2023
2026






100
100
100







Status: [E.g. names of authorities and mandates, year of creation if applicable, levels of capacity, reports. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
The situation is basically the same as in previous reporting round, only Ministry of the Environment was reorganised to Ministry of Climate to better tackle climate issues. In Estonia, management of water is mainly regulated by Water Act and its sub-acts. Ministry of Climate is responsible in implementing IWRM. Based on Water Act, in order to achieve the water protection objectives, a river basin management plan is prepared for each river basin district or for each part of a transboundary river basin district located in Estonia, in which water use and protection of the river basin district or the part of a transboundary river basin district located in Estonia shall be planned. A water management committee is in place by a decree of the minister of climate in order to organise water use and protection and integrate it with other areas. The statutes of the water management committee is established by a decree of the minister of climate. The requirements for the contents of a river basin management plan is established by a decree of the minister of climate. A river basin management plan is established by a decree of the minister of climate. The local authorities, residents and stakeholders from the territory of the relevant river basin district are involved in the preparation of a river basin management plan. The involvement is organised by the Environmental Board.
The implementation of a programme of measures under water management plan is organised by the water management committee and the implementation of measures is coordinated by the Environmental Board. The Environmental Board prepares an overview of implementation of the programme of measures and submits it for approval to the water management committee by 1 May each year. The action plan for implementation of the programme of measures and the overview of implementation of the programme of measures approved by the water management committee is published on the websites of the Ministry of Climate and the Environmental Board. Currently, third water management cycle (period 2022-2027) water management plans are being implemented. Preparations for composing next cycle water management plans has started – special project to analyse the current procedure of composing water management plans and if there are changes needed.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to improve capacity or effectiveness of authorities; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Currently the process has started to analyse elaboration and implementation of water management plans and based on finding there, changes in the process may be needed

Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
2.1 b. Coordination between national government authorities representing different sectors11 on water resources policy, planning and management.
No information shared between different government sectors on water policy, planning and management.
Information on water resources, policy, planning and management is made available between different sectors.
Communication: Information, experiences and opinions on water resources, policy, planning and management are shared between different sectors.
Consultation: Opportunities for different sectors to take part in water resources policy, planning and management processes.
Collaboration: Effective formal arrangements between different government sectors with the objective of agreeing on collective decisions on important issues and activities relating to water resources planning and management.
Co-decisions and co- production:
Coordination through jointly agreed upon processes and power is shared between different sectors on joint policy, planning and management activities.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






100
100
100







Status: [E.g. names/years of mechanisms for cross-sectoral coordination in relation to water resources, policy, planning and management (including which sectors), evidence of meetings, reports. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
In Estonia, when compiling river basin management plans or adding amendment to the legal acts and laws then multilevel public and stakeholders and authorities participation and involvement is carried out. Ministries and officials are consulted during preparation of the plans and documents. For river basin management plans there is 6 months long period for public consultation and public hearings. Additionally there is a water management commission who gets information periodically and provides guidance when needed. Water management commission has representatives of appropriate ministries and officials, scientific community and stakeholders etc. Basically the system is the same as in previous reporting.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to improve cross-sectoral coordination; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Currently the process has started to analyse elaboration and implementation of water management plans and based on finding there, changes in the process may be needed. Changes may include issues like coordination between different authorities.

Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
2.1 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 of water resources.
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 in relation to policy, planning and management of water resources.
Consultation:
Government authorities regularly use information, experiences and opinions of the public in relation to policy, planning and management of water resources.
Collaboration:
Effective mechanisms13 established, and regularly used, for the public to take part in relevant water resources policy, planning and management processes.
Representation: Formal representation of the public in government processes contributing to decision making on important issues and activities in relation to water resources.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






100
100
100







Status: [E.g. mechanisms for public participation in water resources management, types of groups that participate or any significant ones that do not, examples of degree of participation. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
In Estonia, when compiling river basin management plans or adding amendment to the legal acts and laws then multilevel public participation and involvement is carried out. For river basin management plans there is 6 months period for public consultation and public hearings. Additionally to that there is a public participation web platform under umbrella of government, where everybody can provide their comments on various topics, new regulations etc. The system is basically the same as in previous reporting round.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to improve public participation; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Currently the process has started to analyse elaboration and implementation of water management plans and based on finding there, changes in the process may be needed, including public participation

Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
2.1 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: Effective mechanisms15 are established, regularly used, and rooted in the transparent and accountable involvement and partnership of the private sector.
Representation: Effective private sector involvement in water resources development, management and use is established in a transparent way and with proper accountability mechanisms16 in place.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






80
100
90







Status: [E.g. mechanisms for, and evidence of, private sector participation, types of businesses participating, types of programmes with private sector participation, levels (e.g. national /sub-national). Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
In Estonia, when compiling water management plans or adding amendment to the legal acts and laws then multilevel private sector participation and involvement is carried out. For river basin management plans there is 6 months period for private sector consultation and hearings. They are as well involved when compiling more detailed action plans for implementation of river basin management plans (every 2 years), though the involvement of public stakeholders has not been entirely successful as the knowledge of ones actions impact on water environment is low, also the interest in water-issues is low. The system is basically the same as in previous reporting form.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to improve private sector participation; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Currently the process has started to analyse elaboration and implementation of water management plans and based on finding there, changes in the process may be needed, incl private sector participation. One output of the process analysis is going to be a communication strategy for mainly targeted at public sector stakeholders to improve the interest, involvement and cooperation in planning and implementing processes

Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
2.1 e. Developing IWRM capacity.17
No capacity development specific to water resources management.
Occasional water resources management capacity development, generally limited to short-term / ad-hoc activities.
Some long-term capacity development initiatives on IWRM are being implemented, but geographic and stakeholder coverage is limited.
Long-term capacity development initiatives on IWRM are being implemented, and geographic and stakeholder coverage is adequate.
Long-term capacity development initiatives on IWRM are being implemented, with effective outcomes, and geographic and stakeholder coverage is very good.
Long-term capacity development initiatives on IWRM are being implemented with highly effective outcomes, and geographic and stakeholder coverage is excellent.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






60
60
100







Status: [E.g. capacity development programmes on IWRM; government/public/education/academia; geographic and stakeholder coverage, ‘levels’ of implementation (e.g. national/sub-national). Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
Capacity development is organized with broad scale information exchange on RBMPs. RBMP, national legislation and information on transboundary agreements and actions is on universities syllabus. Universities have special courses. Environment awareness raising campaigns. RBMP PoM-s contain measures for six year water management cycle targeted at IWRM capacity building. In RBMP PoM, based on the content of the activity, the measures are divided into four categories, one of them is counselling. Counselling is a separate division of measures that allow highlight topics where capacity development help a lot to implement measures and therefore significantly contribute to reaching the water related goals bearing in mind the stakeholders and geographic coverage. Counselling includes trainings, preparation of information materials, installation of information boards as well as national training programs for water-related activities (e.g. training of water management operators and training of agricultural consultants). Ongoing LIFE IP CleanEST project includes also several regular capacity rising activities among different stakeholders related to water management. For the assessment of effectiveness of RBMP PoM the Environmental Board prepares an overview of the implementation of it and submits it to the Water Management Committee for approval every year.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to improve IWRM capacity development; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Continuing of the abovementioned practice. Continuing efforts are made to develop the capacity, environment awareness raising campaigns are organised and also new ways for capacity development are investigated in various projects.

2.2 What is the status of institutions for IWRM implementation at other levels?
Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
2.2 a. Basin/aquifer level18 organizations19 for leading implementation of IWRM.
No dedicated basin 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 capacity20 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






2017
2020
2023
2026






100
100
100







Status: [E.g. names of basin/aquifer authorities, year of creation if applicable, examples/evidence of capacity for leading implementation of IWRM. Name any significant basins/aquifers without authorities. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
No differences in national and basin level in IWRM implementation. The situation is basically the same as in previous reporting round, only Ministry of the Environment was reorganised to Ministry of Climate to better tackle climate issues. In Estonia, management of water is mainly regulated by Water Act and its sub-acts. Ministry of Climate is responsible in implementing IWRM. Based on Water Act, in order to achieve the water protection objectives, a river basin management plan is prepared for each river basin district or for each part of a transboundary river basin district located in Estonia, in which water use and protection of the river basin district or the part of a transboundary river basin district located in Estonia shall be planned. A water management committee is in place by a decree of the minister of climate in order to organise water use and protection and integrate it with other areas. The statutes of the water management committee is established by a decree of the minister of climate. The requirements for the contents of a river basin management plan is established by a decree of the minister of climate. A river basin management plan is established by a decree of the minister of climate. The local authorities, residents and stakeholders from the territory of the relevant river basin district are involved in the preparation of a river basin management plan. The involvement shall be organised by the Environmental Board. The implementation of a programme of measures under water management plan is organised by the water management committee and the implementation of measures is coordinated by the Environmental Board. The Environmental Board prepares an overview of implementation of the programme of measures and submits it for approval to the water management committee by 1 May each year. The action plan for implementation of the programme of measures and the overview of implementation of the programme of measures approved by the water management committee is published on the websites of the Ministry of Climate and the Environmental Board. Currently, third water management cycle (period 2022-2027) wate management plans are being implemented. Preparations for composing next cycle water management plans has started – special project to analyse the current procedure of composing water management plans and if there are changes needed. Basin commission – Estonian- Russian joint commission on transboundary waters, to manage transboundary river (River Narva) basin between Estonia and Russia, similar working group for managing transboundary river basin (River Koiva) between Estonia and Latvia.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to improve capacity or effectiveness of organizations to implement IWRM; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Currently the process has started to analyse elaboration and implementation of water management plans and based on finding there, changes in the process may be needed

Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
2.2 b. Public participation21 in water resources policy, planning and management at the local level.22
No information shared between government and the public on policy, planning and management at the local level.
Information on water resources, policy, planning and management is made available to the public at the local level.
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:
Effective mechanisms23 established, and regularly used, for the public at the local level 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






2017
2020
2023
2026






80
100
100







Status: [E.g. mechanisms for public participation, types of groups that participate or any significant ones that do not, evidence of degree of participation, geographic differences across country. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
In Estonia, when compiling water management plans or adding amendment to the legal acts and laws then multilevel public participation and involvement is carried out. For water management plans there is 6 months public consultation and public hearings. Additionally to that there is a public participation web platform under umbrella of government, where everybody can provide their comments on various topics, new regulations etc. On local level the local authorities involve community when planning new projects. Basically the system is the same as in previous reporting round.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to improve public participation at the local level; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Currently the process has started to analyse elaboration and implementation of water management plans and based on finding there, changes in the process may be needed, also the ways for improving the public participation is investigated.

Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
2.2 c. Participation of vulnerable groups in water resources planning and management.24
Participation of vulnerable groups (beyond just women and girls) not mentioned in laws, policies, or plans.
Vulnerable groups (beyond just women and girls) are mentioned, but without procedures25, outreach strategies, or accountability mechanisms.
Limited procedures exist (e.g. consultations or awareness activities), but implementation is weak (e.g. due to low capacity or funding).
Clear procedures established; participation occurs regularly with moderate resources and partial monitoring.
Regular participation of diverse vulnerable groups, supported by sufficient budget, staff, and accountability mechanisms. 26
Meaningful27 and regular participation of vulnerable groups is institutionalized, monitored, and influences policy and management decisions.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






-
100
100







Status: [E.g. types/names/years of procedures in place, with examples and consideration of (as appropriate). E.g. consider (i) relevant laws/policies/plans; (ii) institutional arrangements; (iii) existence and adequacy of budgets and human capacity; (iv) extent of monitoring for participation of vulnerable groups. Explain which vulnerable groups (e.g. indigenous peoples, ethnic minorities, migrants, people living in poverty, etc.) are considered, situation/differences regarding different vulnerable groups, and procedures at national level, local level, and their implementation and effectiveness. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers. NB: While women and girls are included in definitions of ‘vulnerable groups’, in this survey gender issues are addressed separately in Q.2.2d. For this question, mention women and girls if they also belong to another vulnerable group. The score should reflect the overall situation for most vulnerable groups.]
In general the situation is the same as in previous reporting round. In Estonia all people are equal despite their vulnerability and no one is treated differently due to vulnerability. The principle of equal treatment in Estonia means that people may not be discriminated against due to the characteristics attributed to them. The Equal Treatment Act entered into force on 1 January 2009 and specifies eight characteristics, discrimination on the grounds of which is regarded as unlawful. These are: nationality (ethnic origin), race, colour, religion or other beliefs, age, disability, sexual orientation and gender. The purpose of this Act is to ensure the protection of persons against discrimination on grounds of the aforementioned criteria. Equality in Estonia means that equal rights, obligations, opportunities and responsibilities are ensured for everybody to participate in all aspects of social life. In IWRM context this is achieved mainly by broad public consultation process where everyone gets information and possibility to have a say, mainly through representative organization. We have not specifically listed different vulnerable groups that have the possibility to participate in water resources planning and management, although we follow the definition of vulnerable groups and no one is left behind. The goal is that everybody has the possibility to participate despite its economical, political or social limitations. Everybody has the possibility for active, free and meaningful participation and contribution. This is ensured through official involvement platform as well as media/social media coverage and information on website where also language issue will be considered. Targeted invitations will be sent as well to reach to public, but as the public is wide, therefore some groups might be overlooked, therefore the wide media coverage is important here to ensure wide participation. In general, wide involvement is a goal and the wider the involvement the better, every opinion is valuable. There are several modalities to participate, i.e. in writing, phone calls, video and physical conferences, workshops etc. Participation is monitored and analysis will be done of the process of involvement as well as received suggestions and comments and how these were taken into consideration and feedback is shared. Ministry of Climate as IWRM policy developer is responsible of participation issues and also special budget is foreseen for that.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to increase participation of vulnerable groups, barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Currently in Estonia, a process has ongoing to analyse the experiences achieved in preparation and implementation on water management plans (AS-IS & TO-BE views) and also participation issue is analysed there and necessary adjustments will be made if considered necessary.

Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
2.2 d. Gender mainstreaming in water resources management.28
No reference to gender equality or women’s participation in water resources management plans, policies or programmes.
Gender mentioned but with no dedicated mechanisms29 or responsibilities.
Gender mainstreaming mechanisms (e.g. gender focal points, frameworks) exist but are underfunded or weakly implemented.
Gender mechanisms operational; women’s participation moderately achieved and partly monitored.
Gender mainstreaming objectives largely achieved; activities funded, monitored, and reported across institutions.
Gender equality fully integrated across all IWRM dimensions (policy, planning, budgeting, and monitoring) and with measurable outcomes for women’s empowerment and leadership.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






100
100
100







Status: [E.g. gender mainstreaming objectives in laws/policies/plans/strategies. Programmes/procedures to address gender objectives (incl. reference to reports). Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers. Examples of gender mainstreaming mechanisms, practices and tools. Consider adequacy of funding, human capacity, monitoring and outcomes (e.g. in terms of achieving formal representation of gender issues, effective participation of women and parity, and influence on IWRM outcomes). Consider ‘level’ of implementation, i.e. national/sub-national/local/transboundary. Please see all footnotes relevant to this question for further clarification on what gender mainstreaming in water resources management means.]
The situation in Estonia is the same as in previous reporting round. In Estonia all people are equal despite their gender and no one is treated differently due to gender. The principle of equal treatment in Estonia means that people may not be discriminated against due to the characteristics attributed to them. The Equal Treatment Act entered into force on 1 January 2009 and specifies eight characteristics, discrimination on the grounds of which is regarded as unlawful. These are: nationality (ethnic origin), race, colour, religion or other beliefs, age, disability, sexual orientation and gender. The purpose of this Act is to ensure the protection of persons against discrimination on grounds of the aforementioned criteria. Gender equality in Estonia means that equal rights, obligations, opportunities and responsibilities are ensured for everyone despite their gender to participate in all aspects of social life. The prevention of violence against women is an important prerequisite for achieving equality. Discrimination on grounds of gender is regulated by Gender Equality Act. Gender Equality Act sets the legal framework for equal treatment of men and women and to promote equality of men and women as a fundamental human right and for the public good in all areas of social life. To achieve this purpose, this Act provides for the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sex in the private and public sectors, the obligation of state and local government authorities, educational and research institutions and employers to promote equality between men and women. This Act applies to all areas of social life, including water management. In water management Estonia is fully guided of the provisions set in both Acts. Direct and indirect discrimination based on sex, including giving orders therefor, is prohibited. Gender Equality Act sets criterias, what is discrimination based on gender and how to avoid this. These principles are being implemented in all aspects of water management, i.e. in hiring employees to respect the principle on gender equality. Furthermore, when planning and implementing water related strategies, policies and action plans, it is followed by the principle, that nobody is discriminated and affected based on gender. The membership of water related committees, councils and other collegial bodies formed include both sexes. In the IWRM, a gender mainstreaming perspective is followed at each IWRM level from planning until implementation. The goal of the gender mainstreaming is that all policy level all activities are done in such a way that they do not cause gender gaps and this is analysed i.e. in participation procedure, in planning and implementing of IWRM measures. The goal is to avoid gender gaps in the management of water resources and this is ensured in Estonia by implementing legal framework stated in Equal Treatment Act and Gender Equality Act. Ministry of Climate as IWRM policy developer is responsible of gender mainstreaming issues in IWRM.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned/recommended activities to advance implementation of gender mainstreaming in water resources management; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Currently in Estonia, a process has ongoing to analyse the experiences achieved in preparation and implementation on water management plans (AS-IS & TO-BE views) and also gender mainstreaming is analysed there and necessary adjustments will be made if considered necessary.

Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
2.2 e. Organizational framework for transboundary water management.30
No organizational framework(s) for transboundary water management.
Organizational framework(s) for transboundary water management being developed.
Organizational framework(s) for transboundary water management established.
Organizational framework(s)’ mandate is partly fulfilled.
Organizational framework(s)’ mandate is mostly fulfilled.
Organizational framework(s)’ mandate is fully fulfilled.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






100
100
100







Status: [E.g. reference Q.1.2c for most important transboundary basins/aquifers. Names of organizations, year of creation, mandates, progress/annual reports. Any significant transboundary basins/aquifers without organizational framework. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
Transboundary agreements and arrangements for the protection and management of transboundary waters are made with Russia and Latvia. Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Estonia and the Government of the Russian Federation on Co-operation in Protection and Sustainable Use of Transboundary Waters (Moscow, 20. August 1997) to manage joint transboundary Narva River basin. Agreement between the Ministry of the Environment of the Republic of Estonia and the Ministry of the Environment of the Republic of Latvia on Co-operation in Protection and Sustainable Use of Transboundary Water Courses (Palanga, 24. October 2003) to manage joint Koiva River basin. Riparian countries meet annually to discuss developments concerning status of waterbodies and measures implemented to achieve agreed water policy objectives. Between Estonia and Russia there is a joint Estonian-Russian commission on transboundary waterbodies consisting of high level officials and experts from both side. Commission coordinates work concerning protection and management of transboundary waterbodies. Under the commission there are two working groups – working group in integrated water resources management and working group on monitoring and assessment. Narva river basin has an area of 57 000 km2, it is a transboundary basin between EU and Russia, Narva river has energetic importance, Lake Peipsi that is situated in the basin is biggest transboundary lake in EU and has fisheries importance – so the cooperation in this transboundary basin is challenging yet productive. Small river Koiva basin between Estonia and Latvia is managed by joint water management working group. Basically the organizational framework for transboundary water management is the same as in previous reporting round, however, due to Russian-Ukrainian war the practical IWRM cooperation between Estonia and Russia is minimal. Detailed information on transboundary cooperation is reported in SDG 6.5.2 report.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to improve effectiveness of organizational frameworks; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Challenging cooperation between Estonia and Russia on managing transboundary basin needs continuing and it continues. Joint commission defines cooperation areas for the three year period as well as cooperation with Latvia is ongoing. Estonian-Russian joint commission annually evaluates progress and defines way forward to achieve water management goals. . Joint projects for developing fourth period Koiva River Basin Management Plans are planned with Latvia.

Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
2.2 f. Sub-national31 authorities for leading IWRM implementation.32
No dedicated sub-national 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 capacity33 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).
Sub-national authorities have the capacity to effectively lead periodic IWRM plan revision.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






n/a
100
100







Status: [E.g. names of authorities, years of creation if applicable, mandates, at which administrative level, levels of capacity, reports. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
The situation is basically the same as in previous reporting round, only Ministry of the Environment was reorganised to Ministry of Climate to better tackle climate issues. In Estonia, management of water is mainly regulated by Water Act and its sub-acts. Ministry of Climate is responsible implementing IWRM in whole country. Based on Water Act, in order to achieve the water protection objectives, a river basin management plan is prepared for each river basin district or for each part of a transboundary river basin district located in Estonia, in which water use and protection of the river basin district or the part of a transboundary river basin district located in Estonia shall be planned. A water management committee is in place by a decree of the minister of climate in order to organise water use and protection and integrate it with other areas. The statutes of the water management committee is established by a decree of the minister of climate. The requirements for the contents of a river basin management plan is established by a decree of the minister of climate. A river basin management plan is established by a decree of the minister of climate. The local authorities, sub- national authorities, residents and stakeholders from the territory of the relevant river basin district are involved in the preparation of a river basin management plan. The involvement is organised by the Environmental Board. The implementation of a programme of measures under water management plan is organised by the water management committee and the implementation of measures is coordinated by the Environmental Board. The Environmental Board prepares an overview of implementation of the programme of measures and submits it for approval to the water management committee by 1 May each year. The action plan for implementation of the programme of measures and the overview of implementation of the programme of measures approved by the water management committee is published on the websites of the Ministry of Climate and the Environmental Board. Currently, third water management cycle (period 2022-2027) wate management plans are being implemented. Preparations for composing next cycle water management plans has started – special project to analyse the current procedure of composing water management plans and if there are changes needed.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to improve capacity or effectiveness of authorities; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Currently the process has started to analyse elaboration and implementation of water management plans and based on finding there, changes in the process may be needed

Climate change considerations – Institutions and Participation
This sub-section addresses the level of coordination between water management and climate change adaptation / mitigation broadly across this IWRM dimension. This question is not scored, and should not be included in the overall indicator calculations. Please select only one category in the “Implementation category” field that applies to overall level of institutional / stakeholder coordination in your country, and answer the “Status and way forward” field below.
Degree of implementation
Very low
Low
Medium-low
Medium-high
High
Very high
CC-2 Coordination between climate and water resources institutions / stakeholders.
No information shared between climate and water resources institutions / stakeholders (‘sectors’).
Information on water resources and climate are made available between ‘sectors’.
Communication: Information, experiences and opinions on water resources and climate action, policy, planning and management are shared between ‘sectors’.
Consultation: Opportunities for climate change ‘sector’ to take part in water resources policy, planning and management processes and vice versa.
Collaboration: Effective formal arrangements between climate change and water resources ‘sectors’ with the objective of agreeing on collective decisions on important issues and activities relating to planning, policy, management and finance.
Co-decisions and co- production: Coordination through jointly agreed processes, and influence is shared between climate change and water resources ‘sectors’ on joint policy, planning and management activities. 
Implementation category: Very low / Low / Medium-low / Medium-high / High / Very high [select one implementation category and delete the others.]
Status and way forward: [E.g. specific cross-sectoral coordination mechanisms between water and climate (adaptation and mitigation) ministries/agencies/institutions/organizations, and their degree of functionality. Describe the planned and/or needed improvements for strengthened coordination between ‘water’ and ‘climate’ stakeholders and institutions.]
There is no separate mechanism for water and climate change. Everything goes through the existing coordination system, which is described in the section “Status and progress”. In addition, coordination takes place through the preparation and implementation of NAP and green transition action plan.
The success of mitigation and adaptation to the effects of climate change depends on how accurate information there is in Estonia about climate change. Capacity development in climate change is one of goal in NAP, Green transition action plan and RBMP-s. E.G. One of measure in NAP is support climate research and participate in international cooperation initiatives related to climate science.

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 programmes, 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 Annex A: 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’ field for that question.
• Management instruments: Can also be referred to as management tools and techniques, which include regulations, financial incentives, monitoring, plans/programmes (e.g. for development, use and protection of water resources), as well as those specified in footnotes on questions and thresholds.
• 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 programme with long-term goals. Long-term refers to activities that are undertaken as part of an ongoing programme that has more long-term goals/aims and implementation strategy.
• Accountability mechanisms: refer to mechanisms that increase Transparency, Accountability, Participation, and Anti-corruption (TAPA. See also Annex A: Glossary). For each question in this section, it is suggested that TAPA-related mechanisms should “exist”, as relevant, to achieve a score of 80 or 90 (“High” threshold), and should be “effective” to achieve a score of 100 (“Very high” threshold).
Please carefully read all footnotes as they contain important information and clarification of terms used in the questions and thresholds, and refer to Annex A: Glossary for further explanation.
Enter your score, in increments of 10, from 0-100, or “n/a” (not applicable), in the yellow cell under “2026” in each question. Update / enter text for “Status”, “Changes since 2023 reporting” and “Way forward” for each question. Guidance on the type of information to provide is shown in [square brackets]. Please include links to further information where available.

3. MANAGEMENT INSTRUMENTS
3.1 What is the status of management instruments to support IWRM implementation at the national level?
Degree of implementation (0 – 100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
3.1 a. National monitoring of water availability34
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






2017
2020
2023
2026






80
80
90







Status: [E.g. description of monitoring systems, what is monitored and where, evidence of implementation and access to information for stakeholders. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
Monitoring programmes for water are planned together with river basin management plans for 6 years (as well public participation process). The monitoring programme in terms of water availability excellent and all types of waterbodies are represented. All information is made available to stakeholders and other people via Environmental Agency homepage and applications (monitoring web). Monitoring data is publicly available here: https://kese.envir.ee/kese/welcome.action. Some case direct communication and e-mailing for stakeholders is provided (e.g. information to local authority on monitoring results).
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to improve effectiveness of water availability monitoring; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Monitoring programme will be approved for six year period together with river basin management plans as usual.

Degree of implementation (0 – 100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
3.1 b. Sustainable and efficient water use management35 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






2017
2020
2023
2026






80
80
90







Status: [E.g. types/names/years of management instruments and for what purposes, evidence of implementation, geographic differences, level of implementation across different stakeholder groups. Evidence of enforcement and anti-corruption measures. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
Management instruments river basin management plans and programme of measures under it, monitoring water abstraction and emissions to water, water status assessment, tax policy and other are at place. More attention has been paid to programme of measures under river basin management plans (RBMP)
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to improve effectiveness of management instruments; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
More attention will be paid to programme of measures under river basin management plans in order to ensure that all measures are adequate and highly effectiv

Degree of implementation (0 – 100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
3.1 c. Pollution control36 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 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






2017
2020
2023
2026






80
80
80







Status: [E.g. types/names/years of pollution management instruments, incl. ambient and point-source water quality monitoring; evidence of implementation, enforcement, and anti-corruption; geographic differences; level of implementation across different stakeholder groups. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
Basis for the pollution control is regulated by Water Act and with Public Water Supply and Sewerage Act. Outlets of the cleaned wastewater are regulated with permits and depending on the waterbody and it`s status different requirement should be met. Requirements are based on the permit issued by Environmental Board. It is not yet highly effective as pollution in waterbodies occur
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to improve effectiveness of pollution control measures; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Studies are planned and carried out to clarify the limit values of new substances, legislation and also environmental permits are supplemented, new measures (PVTs) are also studied to improve the control of pollutants

Degree of implementation (0 – 100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
3.1 d. Management of water-related ecosystems and biodiversity37 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 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






2017
2020
2023
2026






80
80
90







Status: [E.g. types/names/years of management instruments, evidence of implementation and effectiveness, geographic differences, level of implementation across different ecosystem types. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers. Include consideration of management of biodiversity, and connectivity for migratory species.]
Management of water related ecosystems and biodiversity is done on a long term basis, for six years water management cycle and is integrated to river basin management plans. The general goal of RBMP is to prevent worsening of the status of and protect and improve the status of water ecosystems and water related terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands. The coverage here is the whole country (divided into three river basin districts) and different ecosystem types are considered. In RBMP-s environmental costs to ecosystems and their coverage have been assessed, climate change effects and pressures to ecosystems and monitoring aspects have been analysed. RBMP PoM contains several waterbody specific and general measures to achieve the ecosystems protection and good status. There are waterbody specific objectives concerning protected species, i.e salmon on rivers and measures targeted at enriching biodiversity. For the assessment of effectiveness of RBMP PoM the Environmental Board prepares an overview of the implementation of it and submits it to the Water Management Committee for approval every year.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to improve effectiveness of ecosystem management and protection; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
The plan is to analyze the water policy framework directive, the marine strategy directive, the nature and bird directives in order to clarify the strictest protection goals and to integrate the goals of other directives into water management through the process of water management plans.

Degree of implementation (0 – 100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
3.1 e. Management instruments to reduce impacts of water-related disasters38 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 of at-risk areas.
Management instruments are implemented on a long-term basis, with adequate coverage of at-risk areas and groups.
Management instruments are implemented on a long-term basis, with very good coverage of at-risk areas and groups, and are effective.
Management instruments are implemented on a long-term basis, with excellent coverage of at-risk areas and groups, and are highly effective.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






80
80
100







Status: [E.g. types/names/years of management instruments, evidence of implementation and effectiveness, geographic differences, level of implementation for different types of water-related disasters. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
Legal acts at place, requirements set in Water Act, Chemical Act, Emergency Law and others. Management instruments are implemented all over in the country. Every member state of the European Union, including Estonia, has an obligation to implement the Floods Directive on a river basin basis. This includes flood risk assessment, hazard and risk maps and management plans. These are currently implemented side-by-side with implementation of RBMP and PoM to ensure appropriate compatibility and interaction with objectives. The purpose of flood risk management is to reduce the likelihood of floods occurring and their impact on human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity. Risk management includes flood protection, flood preparedness, flood forecasting and early warning systems. Activities to assess and manage flood risks began with the adoption of the Floods Directive in the European Union in 2007. In 2022, second flood risk management plan was approved for 6 years. Every 6 years, the flood risk management plans are updated. This update will include an overview of the implementation of the measures in the previous mitigation plan. In order to more clearly monitor the progress of the implementation of the actions, the majority of mitigation plan activities is attached expected results, i.e. implementation metrics.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to improve effectiveness of disaster risk management and monitoring; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Implementing until 2027 measures. For the next water management cycle (2028-2033) updating of flood risk assessment, hazard and risk maps and management plans is in progress together with composing new water management plans and programme of measures. During this process the effectiveness of management instruments will also be assessed and amendments will be made if necessary. This updating will be done after each six years

3.2 What is the status of management instruments to support IWRM implementation at other levels?
Degree of implementation (0 – 100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
3.2 a. Basin management instruments.39
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






2017
2020
2023
2026






80
80
70







Status: [E.g. types/names/years of management instruments, evidence of implementation and effectiveness, geographic differences, level of implementation across different stakeholder groups. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers. Include consideration of integrated coastal zone management as relevant. Cross-reference Q.1.2b (basin/aquifer management plans as appropriate. Name management instruments in addition to those plans (or implementation of the plans).]
we have an instrument in place, but it is not effective enough in ensuring the involvement of public parties, there is a lack of human resources.
Basin management instruments are river basin management plans that have long-term perspective and they are set for a six year water management cycle. They are prepared for each river basin district or for each part of a transboundary river basin district located in Estonia, in which water use and protection of the river basin district or the part of a transboundary river basin district located in Estonia is planned. A water management committee is in place by a decree of the minister in charge of the policy sector in order to organise water use and protection and integrate it with other areas. The statutes of the water management committee is established by a decree of the minister in charge of the policy sector. The water management committee consists of representatives from relevant sectors and stakeholders for the implementation of principles of IWRM. The requirements for the contents of a river basin management plan is established by a decree of the minister in charge of the policy sector. A river basin management plan is established by a decree of the minister in charge of the policy sector. The local authorities, residents and stakeholders from the territory of the relevant river basin district are involved in the preparation of a river basin management plan. The involvement is organised by the Environmental Board. The implementation of a programme of measures (PoM) under water management plan is organised by the water management committee and the implementation of measures is coordinated by the Environmental Board. The Environmental Board prepares an overview of implementation of the programme of measures and submits it for approval to the water management committee by 1 May each year. The action plan for implementation of the programme of measures and the overview of implementation of the programme of measures approved by the water management committee is published on the websites of the Ministry of Climate and the Environmental Board. Currently, third water management cycle (period 2022-2027) water management plans are being implemented.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to improve effectiveness of basin management and development; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
New RBMP-s for the next six years period (2028-2033) is just started preparation. For each new six year water management plan preparation the assessment of implementation of previous plan is also carried out and amendments will be made when appropriate. Evaluation of river basin management planning and implementing processes has started with aim to improve the processes and increase the quality of plans for next period.

Degree of implementation (0 – 100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
3.2 b. Aquifer management instruments.40
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






2017
2020
2023
2026






80
80
80







Status: [E.g. types/names/years of management instruments, evidence of implementation and effectiveness, geographic differences, level of implementation across different stakeholder groups. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers. Include consideration of integrated coastal zone management, including saltwater intrusion, as relevant. Cross-reference 1.2b (basin/aquifer management plans as appropriate. Name management instruments in addition to those plans (or implementation of the plans).]
For the aquifers management there are river basin management plans and programme of measures under them to achieve water related goals. All legal requirements concerning aquifers protection and management are stated in Water Act and sub-acts under it. Water management plans are prepared for six year water management period. Currently RBMP-s for the period 2022-2027 are implemented. Preparation and implementation of RBMP is coordinated by Ministry of Climate. During the preparation of RBMP a wide range of different stakeholders and public will be involved. RBMP consist description, status assessment, targets, measures to achieve targets etc. Management of surface water and groundwater is integrated. As currently not all aquifer goals are met then the outcomes of aquifer management instruments are not highly effective yet. For implementation of RBMP and PoM more detailed action plans are compiled by Environmental Board for every 2 years and overview of achievement of objectives is given annually by them. There is also water management commission consisting different officials, experts, scientists, stakeholders etc that has valuable advisory role in different water related questions but also follows implementation of RBMP. Addition to previously mentioned structures and instruments there is a river basin district (RBD) working group. This RBD working group meets 2 times per year and is responsible for information exchange and implementation of RBMP on local level, although it still remains far from effective implementation at the community level, a more personal approach to the implementers should be taken, but there are no resources for this yet. .Representatives from local authorities, stakeholders, consultants, universities and others. For each new six year water management plan preparation the assessment of implementation of previous plan is also carried out and amendments will be made when appropriate.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to improve effectiveness of aquifer management; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
New RBMP-s for the next six years period (2028 -2033) are under preparation. For each new six year water management plan preparation the assessment of implementation of previous plan is also carried out and amendments will be made when appropriate. The focus when looking over the processes is on how to improve public involvement and make it more efficient/functional.

Degree of implementation (0 – 100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
3.2 c. Data and information sharing within countries at all levels.41
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. Appropriate measures are in place to ensure data integrity42.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






100
100
100







Status: [E.g. names/years of data and information sharing arrangements, availability and access to data/information, examples of sectors/users across which data and information are being shared. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
There are several ways to access data and information about environmental data, evaluation etc. The main resource for public and stakeholder is environmental register http://register.keskkonnainfo.ee and geographical portal https://xgis.maaamet.ee/maps. Research studies and policy related studies carried out by the Ministry of the Environment are available on the Ministry webpage http://www.envir.ee/et/eesmargid-tegevused/vesi/uuringud-ja-aruanded. Monitoring data is publicly available from environmental monitoring infosystem KESE https://kese.envir.ee/kese/welcome.action
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to establish/improve data sharing procedures and infrastructure; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Regular updates and adding new info to these systems, also databases are in constant development to improve the accessibility and quality of data.

Degree of implementation (0 – 100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
3.2 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.43
All relevant data and information are online and accessible between countries.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






60
60
80







Status: [E.g. cross-reference Q.1.2c (transboundary agreements) as appropriate. Names/years of data and information sharing arrangements, access to information. Include description of the situation for the most important transboundary basins/aquifers. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
Information on transboundary basins is exchanged within the frames of work of working groups and joint commission between Latvia and Russia (depending on the RBD). Since the last reporting round in the framework of Estonian-Russian transboundary water cooperation surface water and groundwater monitoring programmes have been updated, a table for exchange of monitoring data has been prepared and a format for this data exchange has been agreed. Joint criterias for joint assessment of transboundary waters have been elaborated although this work continues as there are still discrepancies in estimates of the status of transboundary waters. Data and information sharing on water management issues (water abstraction, water use, diffuse pollution, wastewater, effectiveness of wastewater treatment plants, environmental surveillance etc.) is continuing based on earlier agreed format.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to establish/improve data sharing procedures and infrastructure; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Ongoing data and info exchange between countries within the working groups and joint commission

Climate change considerations – Management Instruments
This sub-section addresses the level of coordination between water management and climate change adaptation / mitigation broadly across this IWRM dimension. While in 2023 this question focussed on disaster risk reduction (Q.3.1e), please ensure it reflects a broader overview of the extent to which climate change impacts are considered in the various management instruments in this section. This question is not scored, and should not be included in the overall indicator calculations. Please select only one category in the “Implementation category” field that applies to the majority of management instruments in your country, and answer the “Status and way forward” field below.
Degree of implementation
Very low
Low
Medium-low
Medium-high
High
Very high
CC-3 Extent to which climate change impacts are addressed in management instruments for water resources management.
Climate change impacts not considered in current management instruments.
Consideration of climate change impacts limited and only through short-term / ad-hoc projects or similar.
Some consideration of climate change in management instruments on a more long-term basis, but with limited coverage of at-risk areas.
Consideration of climate change well-addressed in management instruments on a long-term basis, with adequate coverage of at-risk areas and groups. 
Climate change impacts effectively addressed in management instruments on a long-term basis, with very good coverage of at-risk areas and groups.
Climate change impacts highly effectively addressed in all relevant management instruments on a long-term basis, with excellent coverage of at-risk areas and groups. 
Implementation category: Very low / Low / Medium-low / Medium-high / High / Very high [select one implementation category and delete the others.]
Status and way forward: [E.g. extent to which management instruments are expected to help manage increased risks due to the impacts of climate change on hydrological regimes, water availability and quality, water-related disasters, water-related ecosystems etc. Technical capacity to understand, mitigate, and act on, impacts of climate change in the short, medium and long-term (e.g. incorporation of projections into planning models and management). Extent to which relevant water and climate data and information are shared between stakeholders across sectors.]
Climate change scenarios and impacts of climate change is taken into account in risk assessment, compiling hazard and risk maps and management plans. E.g. For management plan measures were carried out climate check. It is important to understand whether the measures will also work in the future climate.
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. Other sources include fees and tariffs levied on water users, polluter fees or grants from philanthropic or similar organizations. In-kind support should not be included as it is not easily measurable but can be mentioned in the free text fields. 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-development support to developing countries in water- and sanitation-related activities and programmes, including water harvesting, desalination, water efficiency, wastewater treatment, recycling and reuse technologies”.
Please carefully read all footnotes as they contain important information and clarification of terms used in the questions and thresholds, and refer to Annex A: Glossary for further explanation.
Enter your score, in increments of 10, from 0-100, or “n/a” (not applicable), in the yellow cell under “2026” in each question. Update / enter text for “Status”, “Changes since 2023 reporting” and “Way forward” for each question. Guidance on the type of information to provide is shown in [square brackets]. Please include links to further information where available.
4. FINANCING
4.1 What is the status of financing for water resources development and management at the national level?
Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
4.1 a. National budget44 for water resources infrastructure45.
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. Accountability mechanism(s)46 in place.
Budget fully utilised for investment and recurrent costs, post-project evaluation carried out, budgets reviewed and revised. Accountability mechanisms are effective.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






60
60
60







Status: [E.g. primary funding streams and programmes; approximate amounts where readily available; adequacy of budget; budget gaps; distinction between investments and ongoing (operation and maintenance) costs; barriers/enablers, including for disbursal; accountability mechanisms. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
There are funding options to fulfill the requirements of national legislation and RBMP PoM. According to RBMP planned for years 2021-2027 the cost of implementation of the PoM is estimated 854 million €. Nearly 60% of the PoM is planned to be financed by the EU funds, 20 % from the state budget and 20 % by local authorities and the public sector. Budget gap is about 165 million € for what funds are not allocated (source is unknown).
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to increase budget and/or dispersal; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
RBMP and PoM for the period 2028-2033 under preparation, including investments needs analysis and investment plan for that period to fulfil PoM. Constantly new funding opportunities including EU funds are looked and applied for.

Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
4.1 b. National budget for IWRM elements47.
No budget allocations made for investments and recurrent costs of the IWRM elements.
Allocations made for some of the IWRM elements and implementation at an early stage.
Allocations made for at least half of the IWRM elements but insufficient for others.
Allocations for most of the IWRM elements and some implementation under way.
Allocations include all IWRM elements and implementation regularly carried out (investments and recurrent costs). Accountability mechanism(s) in place.
Planned budget allocations for all elements of the IWRM approach fully utilised, budgets reviewed and revised. Accountability mechanisms are effective.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






80
80
80







Status: [E.g. primary funding streams and programmes; approximate amounts where readily available; adequacy of budget; budget gaps; distinction between investments and ongoing costs; barriers/enablers, including for disbursal; accountability mechanisms. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
Budget for all IWRM elements are planned in organizations workplan for each year. Long term financial plan for six year water management cycle including socio-economic analyse is described in river basin management plans
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to increase budget and/or dispersal; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
The same system will continue, budgetary needs will be discussed annually for the following year

4.2 What is the status of financing for water resources development and management at other levels?
Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
4.2 a. Sub-national or basin budgets for water resources infrastructure48.
No budget allocated in sub-national or basin investment plans.
Some budget allocated in sub-national or basin investment plans but only partly covers planned investments.
Sufficient budget allocated for planned investments in sub-national or basin investment plans, 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. Accountability mechanism(s) in place.
Budget fully utilised, for investment and recurrent costs, post-project evaluation carried out, budgets reviewed and revised. Accountability mechanisms are effective.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






60
60
60







Status: [E.g. primary funding streams and programmes; approximate amounts where readily available; adequacy of budget; budget gaps; distinction between investments and ongoing (O&M) costs; barriers/enablers, including for disbursal; reference to ‘level’ (sub-national/ basin); accountability mechanisms. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers. Cross-reference Q.4.1a as appropriate.]
Watershed level investment plan is in RBMP PoM, local authorities have investment plans for public water supply, investments are funded from state budget, local municipality budget or from national environmental investment programme, though all actors have in need of money and does not have sufficient funds for full implementation.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to increase budget and/or disbursal; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
RBMP and PoM for the period 2028-2033 under preparation, including investments needs analysis and investment plan for that period to fulfil PoM. When compiling PoM the cost-efficiency of measures is assessed and only cost-effective measures are planned.

Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
4.2 b. Revenues raised for IWRM elements.49
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. Accountability mechanism(s) in place.
Revenues raised fully cover costs of IWRM activities. Accountability mechanisms are effective.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






60
60
80







Status: [E.g. types of revenues raised and names of mechanisms / year of establishment; level at which they are raised and used; adequacy of revenues to meet requirements at different levels; approximate amounts where readily available. Beyond ‘traditional’/government revenue raising, consider also innovative / blended revenue raising mechanisms (e.g. payments for catchment/ecosystem services, bonds, private sector finance, etc.). Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers. See footnote 50]
There are 3 basic charges: water supply and sewerage tariffs, natural resource tax for water abstraction and environmental charge for pollutants. Water supply and sewerage tariffs are regulated in the Public Water Supply and Sewerage Act, applied to all users of centralised water services, revenues go to operations of the service provider and infrastructure reconstruction. Natural resource tax for water abstraction is regulated in the Environmental Charges Act. Revenues are shared between the state budget, local municipality and Environmental Investment Centre. Environmental charge for pollutants emitted with wastewater is regulated in the Environmental Charges Act. Tax rates per m3 wastewater, rates lower for organic matters and higher for hazardous substances. Tax is shared between the state budget and Environmental Investment Centre.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to increase budget and/or dispersal; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
The same system is continuing.

Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
4.2 c. Financing for transboundary cooperation.50
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 organization/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






2017
2020
2023
2026






60
100
100







Status: [E.g. cross-reference Q.1.2c (transboundary agreements) as appropriate. Names/years of financing arrangements, evidence of contributions. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers. Include description of the situation for the most important transboundary basins/aquifers. ]
It has been full funding from state budget to fund Estonian-Russian transboundary cooperation works as agreed by annual meetings of Estonian-Russian joint commission. Also funding is available for cooperation activities with Latvia. Unfortunately there are not many international funding options for transboundary work to be funded and promoted. Usually there is a strong competition for these resources and repeating actions needed to ensure sufficient management of transboundary water resources are not usually funded (updating and revising pressures, measures, data, methodologies, updating plans etc.).
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to increase budget and/or dispersal; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Annually joint Estonian-Russian commission on transboundary watercourses agrees activities for next years and from state budget financing is ensured for these works. Financing includes joint monitoring works, analysis, assessments, expert inputs, financing meeting of working groups and joint commission etc. For preparing joint Koiva River Basin Management Plan Estonia and Latvia also apply for EU funds with joint projects.

Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
4.2 d. Sub-national or basin budgets for IWRM elements51 (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 IWRM elements at sub-national or basin level and implementation at an early stage.
Allocations made for at least half of the IWRM elements at sub-national or basin level but insufficient for others.
Allocations for most of the IWRM elements at sub-national or basin level and some implementation under way.
Allocations include all IWRM elements and implementation regularly carried out (investments and recurrent costs). Accountability mechanism(s) in place.
Planned budget allocations for all elements of the IWRM approach at sub-national or basin level fully utilised, budgets reviewed and revised. Accountability mechanisms are effective.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






-
80
80







Status: [E.g. primary funding streams and programmes; approximate amounts where readily available; adequacy of budget; budget gaps; distinction between investments and ongoing costs; barriers/enablers, including for disbursal; reference to ‘level’ (sub-national and/or basin); accountability mechanisms. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers. Cross-reference Q.4.1b as appropriate.]
Budget for all IWRM elements are planned in organizations workplan for each year. Long term financial plan for six year water management cycle including socio-economic analyse is described in river basin management plans,
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to increase budget and/or dispersal; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
The same system will continue, budgetary needs will be discussed annually for the following year.

Climate change considerations - Financing
This sub-section addresses the level of coordination between water management and climate change adaptation / mitigation broadly across this IWRM dimension. This question is not scored, and should not be included in the overall indicator calculations. Please select only one category in the “Implementation category” field that applies to the general level of coordination in your country, and answer the “Status and way forward” field below.
Degree of implementation
Very low
Low
Medium-low
Medium-high
High
Very high
CC-4 Integration of climate-related funding into financing for water resources management (WRM) and vice versa.
No budget allocations made for WRM or climate activities, no coordination between the ‘sectors’.
Allocations made for some WRM and climate activities but limited coordination. 
Allocations made for WRM and climate activities with some coordination. 
Allocations made, adequate coordination, and some implementation under way. 
Adequate allocations and effective coordination, with regular implementation.
Planned budget allocations fully utilised, effectively coordinated, budgets reviewed and revised. Accountability mechanisms are effective.
Implementation category: Very low / Low / Medium-low / Medium-high / High / Very high [select one implementation category and delete the others.]
Status and way forward: [E.g. How is financing for water and climate activities coordinated and climate-related funding and financing instruments integrated into financing for water resources management? E.g. consider national budgets; budgeting for water-related activities in National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), etc.; external financing (e.g. global/regional climate financing mechanisms, adaptation funds, bilateral and multilateral donors and banks); and innovative / blended financing mechanisms (e.g. payments for catchment/ecosystem services, bonds, private sector climate finance, etc.). Extent of the institutional and operational capacity to secure, absorb, manage, allocate and disburse coordinated climate and water financing. Describe the planned and/or needed improvements for strengthened coordination between water and climate management from the financing perspective.]
The revenues generated from the auctioning from emission allowances of operators of stationary emission sources are transferred to the state budget. Until now 50 per cent of the revenues (in future 100%) are used for financing the objectives limiting the generation of greenhouse gases. One of the objectives is adaptation to the impact of climate change and mitigation of the impact of climate change, including activities on climate change adaptation on water. E.G. 5.3 million was allocated for flood risk mitigation on 2018-2020.

In the period 2022-2027 from European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) will be directed in Estonia to climate change adaptation approximately 136 million euros, including 39 million to flood risk mitigation (25 million for pluvial floods and 14 million another flood risk types).
Part 2 - Indicator Scoring, target setting and consultation process
5 Indicator 6.5.1 score, target setting, and priority action areas
5.1 Indicator 6.5.1 score
Please use the automated indicator calculation template (see “Supporting Materials”). Insert rounded scores in the 2026 column in the table below. Do not change the 2017, 2020, or 2023 scores. Projected scores and targets are optional but encouraged (see Section 5.2).

MANDATORY
OPTIONAL (see Section 5.2)

Average Scores
Business-As-Usual (BAU) projected score for 2030
National target for 2030
Are targets ‘official’ or ‘informal’?

2017
2020
2023
2026



Section 1 Enabling environment
83
91
94

100
100

Section 2 Institutions and participation
93
96
99

100
100

Section 3 Management instruments
80
80
87

100
100

Section 4 Financing
64
73
77

100
100

Indicator 6.5.1 score
= Degree of IWRM implementation (0-100)
80
85
89

100
100


2026 indicator score calculation methodology
The calculation template will correctly calculate the scores. If you wish to calculate them manually, the methodology is as follows:
1. The average score of each of the four sections is calculated 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 calculations, and therefore will not affect the average score. However, questions with a score of ‘0’ (zero) should be included.
2. The overall score for indicator 6.5.1 is the average of the four section scores (whole numbers), 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.


5.2 Target Setting
The intention of the optional target-setting columns in the table in Section 5.1 is to:
(a) encourage discussion among stakeholders on the likelihood of reaching the global targets of 91% and above, or the need to establish national targets; and
(b) inform regional and global processes about whether countries feel they are on track to meet the global targets or not, and if they prefer to set national targets.
• BAU projected score for 2030: approximate score (or range), based on reporting in 2017, 2020, 2023, 2026, current rates of progress, and stakeholder judgement. A simple calculation template (see “Supporting Materials”) is provided (see ‘Projections-Targets’ worksheet), to support visualization and discussion.
• National target for 2030: potentially achievable score by 2030, if certain measures are put in place, for example as described in Section 5.3. Could be the same as BAU score, or same as global target. In the last column, please indicate if these are ‘official’ targets, or ‘informal’ targets defined during this monitoring process.
Any other feedback on achieving targets, or target setting?
Answer:


Interpretation of indicator scores
The scores measure the ‘degree of implementation of integrated water resources management’, on a scale of 0 to 100. Implementation categories and their general interpretation are given below, which is used for global and regional reporting. However, the true value of the survey to countries lies within the scores, 'Status', 'Changes since 2023 reporting' and 'Way forward' fields for each question, as this helps to identify actions needed to move towards a higher degree of implementation of IWRM (see Section 5.3).
Scores (%)
IWRM implementation level
General interpretation
Resilience to pressures
0-10
Very low
Little to no sustainable water management arrangements.
Low
11-30
Low
Arrangements being developed.

31-50
Medium-low
Arrangements generally approved and institutionalized, but limited implementation.

51-70
Medium-high
Implementation started, but not always effective.
Medium
71-90
High
Some sustainable water management objectives met (close to target).
High
91-100
Very high
Global target. Sustainable water resources management.

5.3 Priority Action Areas
What are the priority action areas52 to advance IWRM implementation overall in the country?
Answer:
[Include priorities/actions that are ongoing, already planned, and/or those that may be emerging based on the survey results. Where relevant, please also note the status of implementation of the priorities/actions (e.g. giving some indication of necessary follow-up).]

Additional general comments :
Answer:
[e.g. related to the status/challenges of IWRM implementation; country context; threats to water resources; impacts of climate change, or other]

6 Country reporting process
To increase transparency and confidence in results, please provide a brief overview of the reporting process (see the Monitoring Guide and Stakeholder Consultation Manual). E.g. main actors involved; meetings/workshops held; other means of gathering inputs from stakeholders; iterations of drafts and finalization/approval processes. Also note the main challenges/strengths of the process. Use as much space as needed.
Did your country receive financial support for reporting, through the SDG 6 IWRM Support Programme? Please mark with ‘X’.
☐ Yes ☒ No. If ‘Yes’, please also complete Annex B.

Focal Point affiliation


Brief process overview:
All main stakeholders were involved. As the IWRM implementation is responsibility of Ministry of Climate then most input came from there. Several other stakeholders were consulted as well and their input was taken into account in preparing the scores and additional texts. Questions sent to and draft filled in questionnaire reviewed by relevant partners. Generally it is common view and approaches concerning IWRM implementation.

Any main points of difference in stakeholder opinion in answering the survey questions?:
Additional comments on the survey or supporting materials, if any:

Stakeholder groups
Level of engagement (mark with ‘X’)
Additional information
(e.g. names of stakeholder organizations involved, how they contributed or were engaged, or any challenges faced)

Low (given opportunity to contribute)
Medium (some input)
High (discussion/ negotiation)

National water agencies




Other public sector agencies




Sub-national water agencies




Basin/Aquifer agencies




Water User Associations




Civil society




Private sector




Vulnerable groups




Gender expertise




Research/academia




Transboundary expertise



(e.g. Focal Point for SDG 6.5.2 and/or other)
Other SDG focal points



(e.g. Focal Points from other indicators)
Please add rows if required




Quick Quality Assurance (QA) checklist for Focal Points
To reduce the need for revisions, please use this QA checklist to avoid common mistakes in the submission. This page will be removed by UNEP on finalization, and does not affect the submission scores in any way.
The submission cover page contains up to date primary and supporting Focal Point information.
☐
All questions in Part 1 have been scored (either with a score or n/a) in the yellow cells for each question (apart from the climate change considerations questions).
☐
All question ins Part 1 are scored in increments of 10 (apart from the climate change considerations questions). I.e. possible scores are 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100.
☐
Explanatory information is provided for all questions in Part 1 in the fields called ‘Status’, ‘Changes since 2023 reporting’ and ‘Way forward’.
☐
For the four “climate change considerations questions in Sections 1 to 4, implementation category is selected and explanatory information is provided in ‘Status and way forward’.
☐
Section 5 of the survey has been filled and final score for indicator 6.5.1 has been calculated from the four section average scores, rounded to the nearest whole number (E.g. score 55.5 would be rounded to 56).
☐
Section 6 Country reporting process has been completed.
☐

Annexes
Annex A: Glossary
• Accountability mechanisms: provide ways for all partners to hold each other to account on the specific, measurable, time-bound actions they have committed to. In the context of this survey, they may include activities that increase Transparency, Accountability, Participation, and Anti-corruption (TAPA). Together, these form a framework for integrity (Source: Water Integrity Network). For example, in relation to the financing questions in Section 4, ‘accountability mechanisms’ typically include mechanisms that make data and information on budgets and expenditures publicly available, and enable participatory budgeting and monitoring of expenditure where appropriate. Such mechanisms should include functions to identify and address corruption and mismanagement.
• 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:
◦ efficiency to use water resources in the best way possible;
◦ equity in the allocation of water across social and economic groups;
◦ 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.
• Programmes: 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. 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 included in this survey should be cross-referenced with those included in 6.5.2 reporting, 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 (Transboundary Freshwater Diplomacy Database), and transboundary aquifers, may be referred to. If you include a national (sub-basin) as part of a larger transboundary basin, please also include the name of the larger basin. When answering transboundary questions, the majority of most important basins/aquifers must meet the criteria described in each threshold to achieve the score for that threshold.
• 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: Facilitator’s Report
This Annex is mandatory for countries that received financial support through Stage 1 of the SDG 6 IWRM Support Programme in 2026. It is optional for all other countries.
[Provide key points and overall messages from the roundtable discussions and reporting back, as well as inputs received outside of the workshop. Include relevant points made around justifying the rationale for certain scoring, or divergences in scoring where applicable (e.g. between different stakeholder groups, differences in scores from different areas/levels). 
a. What are the main challenges to progress in the country? 
b. How can the main challenges be addressed? 
c. At the question level or in general, what is the perceived rate of progress, and what is the likelihood of reaching High or Very high implementation by 2030? Is there a need for national (interim) target setting (which may be taken up in more detail in Stage 2 of the SDG 6 IWRM Support Programme)?  
d. What are the major points stakeholders do not agree on and why? 
e. Other interesting points of note from the discussion?]

1. Conclusions from facilitated discussions on Section 1: ’Enabling Environment’
Answer:

2. Conclusions from facilitated discussions on Section 2: ’Institutions and Participation’ 
Answer:

3. Conclusions from facilitated discussions on Section 3: ’Management Instruments’ 
Answer:

4. Conclusions from facilitated discussions on Section 4: ’Financing’ 
Answer:

5. Next steps  
Answer:
[Provide key points from the consultation process regarding next steps, including cross-cutting challenges and ways to overcome them, reflections on the overall rate of progress and likelihood of achieving global targets by 2030, recommendations for accelerating IWRM implementation, and follow-up actions for the continuous monitoring of SDG indicator 6.5.1 in the country.]

6. Stakeholders engaged (through workshops or otherwise)
Organization
Position
Name
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


SDG INDICATOR 6.5.1: MONITORING GUIDE
DEGREE OF INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IWRM) IMPLEMENTATION


Table of Contents
1 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: FOCAL POINTS 1
2 AVAILABLE SUPPORT 1
3 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION PROCESS 1
4 SURVEY OVERVIEW AND UPDATING THE SURVEY 3
4.1 Survey Overview 3
4.2 Updating the Survey 4
5 SUBMISSION PROCESS, QUALITY ASSURANCE, TIMELINE 5
6 AFTER SUBMISSION 5
ANNEXES 6
ANNEX 1: SUMMARY OF OPTIONAL SUPPORTING MATERIAL 6
ANNEX 2: 6.5.1 QUESTION LINKS TO OTHER SDG TARGETS 7
ANNEX 3: SURVEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ROUNDS 8






This guide provides an overview of the processes for completing and submitting the SDG indicator 6.5.1 survey (2026 version). This guide should be read by all SDG indicator 6.5.1 Focal Points and supporting Focal Points. The survey and this guide are available in English, French, Spanish, Arabic, Portuguese, Russian, and Chinese. Additional (optional) supporting materials are referenced from the text, and a summary table of these can be found in Annex 1. All materials are available from the IWRM Data Portal.
1 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: FOCAL POINTS
The SDG indicator 6.5.1 Focal Point(s) has overall responsibility for coordinating the monitoring process, including stakeholder consultation (see section 3), and submitting draft and final surveys to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), as the custodian agency for the indicator (see section 5). In most countries, Focal Points are affiliated with the ministry responsible for water resources management, although sometimes they are from the National Statistical Office (NSO), Ministry of Planning, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or similar.1 In such cases, it is highly recommended that a ‘supporting’ Focal Point is nominated that is affiliated with the ministry for water resources (or similar). The Focal Point will likely work with colleagues in an ‘indicator team’ and may engage or appoint a ‘facilitator’ to run consultation processes (see section 3).
2 AVAILABLE SUPPORT
Most countries are expected to have the capacity to complete and submit the 6.5.1 survey, drawing on the available supporting materials (see Annex 1), as needed. In addition, any queries can be directed to the SDG 6.5.1 IWRM Help Desk, hosted by UNEP, at [email protected]. Upon request, the Help Desk can provide support to the Focal Points on matters such as interpretation of questions and thresholds, the appropriate level of stakeholder engagement, and support with submissions.
In 2026, only a limited number of countries will receive technical/financial assistance, through Stage 1 of the SDG 6 Support Programme, to hold stakeholder consultations for reporting on indicator 6.5.1 . These countries have been pre-selected on a needs basis, considering strength of submissions in previous rounds. Countries that have not been pre-selected for Stage 1 support are still welcome to contact the Help Desk throughout their reporting process to ask for guidance.
3 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION PROCESS
To ensure a robust and accurate survey, a stakeholder engagement process to complete the survey is strongly encouraged. The extent of stakeholder consultation should be appropriate within the national context, given time and resource constraints. This may range from key ministries responsible for, or engaged in, various aspects of water resources management, to non-government organisations, the private sector, and academia.
Experience from previous rounds tells us that countries have found the consultation process useful in developing a shared understanding of key issues and priorities among various stakeholders. Stakeholder engagement also makes the completed survey a more useful diagnostic tool for further discussions and planning (see section 6).
While a broad stakeholder consultation might not be feasible in all countries, the following guidance should be considered to ensure a sufficient stakeholder consultation process:
• Preparation: Start by clarifying who will organise and lead the stakeholder consultation. This can be done directly through the Focal Point or a small team appointed by them including for example, government stakeholders across relevant sectors, such as environment, agriculture and economy.
• Updating the survey: Once a group has been identified and a first presentation meeting has been held, the two following approaches, or a blend of both approaches, can be used to update the SDG 6.5.1 survey:
◦ in series: consecutive drafts developed with different stakeholders. For example, a first draft may be developed by the Focal Point and immediate colleagues, a second draft discussed within a group of government institutions, and a third draft endorsed by other stakeholders.
◦ in parallel: different stakeholders fill out the survey, responses are analysed by the Focal Point and colleagues, then all parties discuss to reach consensus on scores.
• Format: stakeholder consultations can be held in-person, online, or a blend of both.
• Best practices: make the consultation process inclusive, fair, consensus-based, and transparent.
As various questions in the 6.5.1 survey relate to different aspects of water resources use and management, it is preferable that Focal Points responsible for other SDG 6 indicators, and other water-related indicators, are given the opportunity to participate in completing the survey. Reporting on all SDG 6 indicators is coordinated by UN-Water through the Integrated Monitoring Initiative for SDG 6 (IMI-SDG6). Under the initiative, most countries have “Overall Focal Points” (OFPs) for SDG 6, and “Technical Focal Points” (TFPs) for each indicator. Contact details of OFPs and TFPs are available on request through the Help Desk. A list of which survey questions are particularly related to other SDG indicators is provided in Annex 2.
For countries wishing to hold a more extensive stakeholder consultation process, further information and guidance are provided in the Stakeholder Consultation Manual, which also includes an example Workshop Agenda and Terms of Reference (ToR) for a Facilitator. Additional tools and materials include: one-page survey overview; online IWRM survey tool; 2017, 2020 and 2023 two-page country summaries; SDG 6.5.1 Reporting Training (free, self-paced online course on running stakeholder consultations, available in English, French and Spanish, approximately 4-6 hours commitment); and the gender checklist.

4 SURVEY OVERVIEW AND UPDATING THE SURVEY
4.1 Survey Overview
Below is an overview of all sections and questions included in the 6.5.1 survey.
SECTION 1: ENABLING ENVIRONMENT
1.1 Status of policies, laws and plans to support IWRM at the national level:
1.1a National water resources policy, or similar
1.1b National water resources laws
1.1c National integrated water resources management (IWRM) plans, or similar
1.2 Status of policies, laws and plans to support IWRM at other levels:
1.2a Sub-national water resources policies or similar
1.2b Basin/aquifer management plans or similar, based on IWRM
1.2c Agreements for transboundary water management
1.2d Sub-national water resources regulations (laws, decrees, ordinances or similar)
CC-1 Development and implementation of policies/laws/plans integrating climate change and WRM
SECTION 2: INSTITUTIONS AND PARTICIPATION
2.1 Status of institutions for IWRM implementation at the national level:
2.1a National government authorities for leading IWRM implementation
2.1b Coordination between national government authorities representing different sectors
2.1c Public participation in water resources, policy, planning and management at national level
2.1d Private sector participation in water resources development, management and use
2.1e Capacity Development for IWRM
2.2 Status of institutions for IWRM implementation at other levels:
2.2a Basin/aquifer level organizations for leading implementation of IWRM
2.2b Public participation in water resources, policy, planning and management at the local level
2.2c Participation of vulnerable groups in water resources planning and management
2.2d Gender mainstreaming in water resources management
2.2e Organizational framework for transboundary water management
2.2f Sub-national authorities for leading IWRM implementation
CC-2 Coordination between climate and water resources institutions / stakeholders
SECTION 3: MANAGEMENT INSTRUMENTS
3.1 Status of management instruments to support IWRM implementation at the national level:
3.1a National monitoring of water availability (incl. surface and/or groundwater)
3.1b Sustainable and efficient water use management at national level (surface and/or groundwater)
3.1c Pollution control from the national level
3.1d Management of water-related ecosystems and biodiversity from the national level
3.1e Management instruments to reduce impacts of water-related disasters - national level
3.2 Status of management instruments to support IWRM implementation at other levels:
3.2a Basin management instruments
3.2b Aquifer management instruments
3.2c Data and information sharing within countries at all levels
3.2d Transboundary data and information sharing between countries
CC-3 Extent to which climate change impacts are addressed in management instruments for WRM
SECTION 4: FINANCING
4.1 Status of financing for water resources development and management at the national level:
4.1a National budget for water resources infrastructure (investment and recurrent costs)
4.1b National budget for IWRM elements (investments and recurrent costs)
4.2 Status of financing for water resources development and management at other levels:
4.2a Sub-national or basin budgets for water resources infrastructure (investment & recurrent costs)
4.2b Revenues raised for IWRM elements
4.2c Financing for transboundary cooperation
4.2d Sub-national or basin budgets for IWRM elements (investment and recurrent costs)
CC-4 Integration of climate-related funding into financing for WRM and vice versa
SECTION 5: SDG indicator 6.5.1 calculation, target setting and priority actions
SECTION 6: Country reporting process
4.2 Updating the Survey
Following recommendations from previous data collection rounds, all country surveys have been pre-filled using responses from previous rounds (usually 2023, or 2020 if necessary). This has been done to help countries build on previous submissions and to reduce the overall reporting burden. A list of minor differences between the 2026 survey and previous surveys can be found in Annex 3. 191 countries have submitted 6.5.1 surveys across 2017, 2020 and 2023.
Countries are responsible for updating the text and score to reflect the situation in 2026. Use the one-page survey overview above to get an understanding of the links between questions. This can facilitate cross-referencing between questions, ensure free-text responses are in the appropriate location, and minimise duplication. The process for each question is as follows:
1) Review previous responses: Review scores and pre-filled free-text answers from previous rounds.
2) Update and fill-in the three free-text fields (Fig. 1, orange box), paying close attention to the guidance text in italic font in square brackets in each field, and all explanatory text and footnotes:
• Status: maintain all relevant information from previous rounds, adding more detail where needed, and updating to reflect the situation in 2026. Include concrete details in your response to justify the score: e.g. names and years of policies, arrangements, responsible institutions, examples of implementation. You may wish to update any formatting that may have been lost in the pre-filling process (hyperlinks, bold, etc.).
• Changes since 2023 reporting: give a brief summary to explain any differences in implementation status between 2023 and 2026. This field may also be used to explain any discrepancies in scores between reporting rounds (e.g. scores that may have fluctuated up and down, partly due to implementation progress on the ground, but potentially also influenced by increasing understanding of the question between rounds).
◦ Way forward: planned and/or recommended activities to advance the score on that topic.
3) Give 2026 score: based on responses in the free text fields, enter the score, in increments of 10, from 0-100, in the yellow highlighted cell below “2026” (Fig. 1). Use the threshold descriptions to guide the score selection (Fig. 1, red box). Note that all previous thresholds must also be met to give a particular score. Scores between thresholds may be used, but still in increments of 10 (e.g. 10, 30, 50, 70, 90). Avoid responding n/a (not applicable) wherever possible. Countries are expected to provide a score for most questions except if n/a is the only appropriate response (e.g. transboundary questions for island states, or sub-national level questions for very small countries). Otherwise, if the response was ‘n/a’ in 2023, reconsider if a score is more appropriate.
1. ENABLING ENVIRONMENT 
1.1 What is the status of policies, laws and plans to support IWRM at the national level?
Degree of implementation 0-100
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
1.1 a. National water resources policy, or similar.
Development not started or not progressing.
Exists, but not based on IWRM.
Based on IWRM, approved by govt. and starting to be used by authorities to guide work.
Based on IWRM, being used by the majority of relevant authorities to guide work.
Policy objectives consistently achieved.
Objectives consistently achieved, and periodically reviewed and revised.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026
















Status: [E.g. Names/years of relevant policies (and any updates), how they are being used to guide work, evidence/examples of implementation, and which policy objectives are monitored/achieved. Include links to further information where available. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to advance implementation of policies; barriers and enablers; suggested targets where appropriate.]
Figure 1 - Example of a question from the SDG 6.5.1 survey
5 SUBMISSION PROCESS, QUALITY ASSURANCE, TIMELINE
Countries are encouraged to submit interim or incomplete drafts with clarification questions at any time. The submission process is as follows:
1. First Draft: Focal Points should share a first draft with the Help Desk at [email protected], after going through the country consultation process, but before formal finalisation / endorsement by the country. The Help Desk will review the draft and provide feedback and clarifications. Please use the following file name format: CountryName_SDG651_2026_2-letter-language-code_FIRST-DRAFT _ddmmyyy.docx
2. Final Draft: Focal Points are responsible for addressing comments and for returning a completed Final Draft survey to the Help Desk. Relevant national approval processes should be followed. Please use the following file name format: CountryName_SDG651_2026_2-letter-language-code_FINAL-DRAFT_ddmmyyy.docx.
3. Finalisation: Once the Focal Point and the Help Desk are satisfied that all Quality Assurance (QA) criteria have been met, the Help Desk ‘cleans’ the survey, removing the Focal Point checklist, and returns the final version to the Focal Point
For any interim draft, first draft, or final draft surveys, the Help Desk will undertake standard QA procedures to check that the survey has been properly completed, with correct calculation of indicator scores, and adequate free-text responses to support the question scores.
Timeline: As shown in Figure 2 below, the submission date for the First Draft is 5th June 2026. Any variations to timelines will be communicated to the Focal Points from the Help Desk. Focal Points are invited to keep the Help Desk informed of progress and should notify the Help Desk if there are challenges meeting the deadlines.
Figure 2 - Timeline for reporting 2026
6 AFTER SUBMISSION
SDG 6.5.1 Focal Points are encouraged to share the outcomes, advocate for resources and discuss the way forward with relevant decision-makers, making use of the country summaries available on the IWRM Data Portal.
The SDG 6 IWRM Support Programme offers technical and financial assistance to a limited number of countries in developing an IWRM Action Plan or similar (Stage 2), and/or accessing financing for implementation (Stage 3). Interested countries can contact the Support Programme for more information ([email protected]) and view existing IWRM Action Plans.
The SDG 6 IWRM Support Programme can also support work with regional bodies to co-develop assessments and products to help advance IWRM implementation at national and regional levels.
After each data collection round, UNEP and partners have the responsibility to: (a) make the results available via the IWRM Data Portal and prepare global status reports; and (b) report data to the UN Statistical Division for tracking progress towards the SDGs.

ANNEXES
ANNEX 1: SUMMARY OF OPTIONAL SUPPORTING MATERIAL
The following table provides a summary of optional resources that the Focal Point and colleagues may wish to pick and choose from, should they require further information, guidance, or tools. It is not necessary to read all these documents to successfully complete the 6.5.1 survey.
All documents are available via the IWRM Data Portal’s ‘data collection’ page.
Materials
Description
Languages*
Support to completing the survey
Survey Overview
One page overview
All
Calculation Template
Supports correct calculation of section and indicator scores.
All
Gender checklist
Checklist to support discussion on status of gender mainstreaming in WRM for the completion of survey question 2.2d. Please share the checklist with the Help Desk if it has been used by your country.
All
Stakeholder Consultation and Communication
Country Summaries
2-page visual summaries of results from 2017, 2020 and 2023 per country.
All
Stakeholder Consultation Manual
Further information and guidance on suggested stakeholder consultation processes for SDG 6.5.1 reporting
Annex 1 – Online IWRM Survey Tool
Annex 2 – Example Workshop Agenda
Annex 3 – Example Facilitator ToR
All
SDG 6.5.1 Reporting Training
Self-paced, free, online course (4-6 hrs commitment)
EN, ES, FR
* All materials are available in English, French, Spanish, Arabic, Portuguese, Russian, and Chinese, unless stated otherwise.


ANNEX 2: 6.5.1 QUESTION LINKS TO OTHER SDG TARGETS
Involvement of other SDG indicator Focal Points is recommended for the following questions.
Survey question 
Link to SDG target 
1.2c, 2.2e, 3.2d, 4.1c
Transboundary questions linked to SDG indicator 6.5.2.
2.2b local level public participation 
6.b: Support and strengthen the participation of local communities in improving water and sanitation management. 
2.2d gender in laws/plans or similar 
Question A14.a in the GLAAS survey. 5.5: Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels ... in political, economic and public life.
3.1a national monitoring of water availability 
6.4: By 2030, substantially increase water-use efficiency across all sectors and ensure sustainable withdrawals and supply of freshwater to address water scarcity and substantially reduce the number of people suffering from water scarcity. 
3.1b sustainable and efficient water use management 

3.1c pollution control 
6.3: By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater and substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally. 
3.1d management of water-related ecosystems 
6.6: By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes. 
3.1e management instruments to reduce impacts of water-related disasters 
11.5: By 2030, significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected and substantially decrease the direct economic losses relative to global gross domestic product caused by disasters, including water-related disasters, with a focus on protecting the poor and people in vulnerable situations. 



ANNEX 3: SURVEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ROUNDS
2017 
2020 
2023
2026
Qs 1.2d & 2.2f: sub-national laws and institutions respectively, for federal countries only.
The revised questions 1.2d & 2.2f were opened to all countries, acknowledging that many countries have sub-national regulations and authorities, even if the countries are not federal.  
As per 2020.
As per 2023.
Qs 2.1e, 2.2c & 2.2d: gender at national, sub-national and transboundary levels. 
These three questions were merged into a single question 2.2d. In 2017, most countries reported the same or similar scores at each level, so three questions did not add significant value. The merging of these three questions created space for two additional questions (see below). 
As per 2020
As per 2023.
Clarifications to the thresholds and guidance text for questions 2.2c and 2.2d were added.
- 
New question 2.2c on vulnerable groups. This captures an element of stakeholder participation which is important in the context of ‘leave no-one behind’ – one of the key principles of Agenda 2030. 
As per 2020.

- 
New question 4.2d on sub-national or basin budgets for IWRM elements, acknowledging the importance of funding being available at more ‘operational’ levels. 
As per 2020.
As per 2023.
-
-
Additional free-text field on “climate change considerations” for questions 1.1c, 2.1b, 2.1e, 3.1e, and 4.1b.
Rather than being embedded in a particular question in each section, this question now comes at the end of each section, so that it can address all aspects of that section (IWRM dimension). In addition, countries are asked to choose one of 6 implementation categories to quantify the implementation level.
-
-
-
Added free text field "Changes since 2023 reporting” to help countries clarify changes from 2023 to 2026.
For clarity, minor amendments have also been made to: some threshold descriptions; guidance in the free-text fields; glossary (Annex A of Survey).

SDG Indicator 6.5.1 Survey Overview - 2026
Degree of integrated water resources management implementation
SECTION 1: ENABLING ENVIRONMENT
1.1 Status of policies, laws and plans to support IWRM at the national level:
1.1a National water resources policy, or similar
1.1b National water resources laws
1.1c National integrated water resources management (IWRM) plans, or similar
1.2 Status of policies, laws and plans to support IWRM at other levels:
1.2a Sub-national water resources policies or similar
1.2b Basin/aquifer management plans or similar, based on IWRM
1.2c Agreements for transboundary water management
1.2d Sub-national water resources regulations (laws, decrees, ordinances or similar)
CC-1 Development and implementation of policies / laws / plans integrating both climate change and water resources. 
SECTION 2: INSTITUTIONS AND PARTICIPATION
2.1 Status of institutions for IWRM implementation at the national level:
2.1a National government authorities for leading IWRM implementation
2.1b Coordination between national government authorities representing different sectors
2.1c Public participation in water resources, policy, planning and management at national level
2.1d Private sector participation in water resources development, management and use
2.1e Capacity Development for IWRM
2.2 Status of institutions for IWRM implementation at other levels:
2.2a Basin/aquifer level organizations for leading implementation of IWRM
2.2b Public participation in water resources, policy, planning and management at the local level
2.2c Participation of vulnerable groups in water resources planning and management
2.2d Gender mainstreaming in water resources management
2.2e Organizational framework for transboundary water management
2.2f Sub-national authorities for leading IWRM implementation
CC-2 Coordination between climate and water resources institutions / stakeholders.
SECTION 3: MANAGEMENT INSTRUMENTS
3.1 Status of management instruments to support IWRM implementation at the national level:
3.1a National monitoring of water availability (incl. surface and/or groundwater)
3.1b Sustainable and efficient water use management at the national level (incl. surface and/or groundwater)
3.1c Pollution control from the national level
3.1d Management of water-related ecosystems and biodiversity from the national level
3.1e Management instruments to reduce impacts of water-related disasters - national level
3.2 Status of management instruments to support IWRM implementation at other levels:
3.2a Basin management instruments
3.2b Aquifer management instruments
3.2c Data and information sharing within countries at all levels
3.2d Transboundary data and information sharing between countries
CC-3 Extent to which climate change impacts are addressed in management instruments for WRM.
SECTION 4: FINANCING
4.1 Status of financing for water resources development and management at the national level:
4.1a National budget for water resources infrastructure (investment and recurrent costs)
4.1b National budget for IWRM elements (investments and recurrent costs)
4.2 Status of financing for water resources development and management at other levels:
4.2a Sub-national or basin budgets for water resources infrastructure (investment and recurrent costs)
4.2b Revenues raised for IWRM elements
4.2c Financing for transboundary cooperation
4.2d Sub-national or basin budgets for IWRM elements (investment and recurrent costs)
CC-4 Integration of climate-related funding into financing for WRM and vice versa. 
SECTION 5: Calculation of the national SDG 6.5.1 score (Degree of IWRM implementation 0-100)
Each question (except CC questions) scored out of 100. (Average scores for sections 1+2+3+4)/4 = SDG 6.5.1 score
SECTION 6: Country reporting process
ANNEXES: Annex A: Glossary; Annex B: Facilitator’s report (optional)

SDG indicator 6.5.1 Survey
Degree of integrated water resources management (IWRM) implementation
4th Data Collection Round: 2026

ESTONIA


National SDG 6.5.1 Focal Point(s)
Organization

Name / Job title

Other supporting focal points (name, organization)

Date / version of most recent submission
08.12.2023
Is the 6.5.1 Focal Point (FP) also the FP for any other SDG indicator? Y/N. If yes, please mark ‘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):

For a description of the data collection and stakeholder consultation process, please see Section 6 (Part 2).
Introduction
Purpose of the Survey
• This survey is the official mechanism for countries to report on Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Indicator 6.5.1: “Degree of integrated water resources management (IWRM) implementation”.
• It also serves as a simple diagnostic tool for countries to assess strengths and weaknesses in IWRM implementation and prioritise action to advance towards SDG Target 6.5.
Indicator 6.5.1:
• is scored from 0 to 100, based on responses to 33 questions on different aspects of IWRM implementation;
• tracks progress toward SDG Target 6.5: “By 2030, implement integrated water resources management at all levels, including through transboundary cooperation as appropriate” (in conjunction with SDG indicator 6.5.2).
IWRM: promotes equitable and efficient water use, essential for social and economic development and environmental sustainability.
Actions to achieve Target 6.5 directly support other water-related goals under SDG 6: “Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all”.
Data collection for SDG indicator 6.5.1 is coordinated by UN-Water through the Integrated Monitoring Initiative for SDG 6 (IMI-SDG6).
Survey Structure
PART 1: contains four sections on the status of IWRM implementation across four key dimensions:
1. Enabling environment: policies, laws and plans to support IWRM implementation.
2. Institutions and participation: the range and roles of political, social, economic and administrative institutions and involvement of other stakeholder groups.
3. Management instruments: the tools and activities that enable decision-makers and users to make informed choices between alternative actions.
4. Financing: budgeting and financing for water resources development and management.
In PART 1, each section includes two sub-sections:
• National level
• Other levels (sub-national, basin, local, and transboundary). Note:
• For sub-national, basin, and local questions, focus on the most important basins / aquifers / jurisdictions, unless specified otherwise.
• For transboundary questions, focus on the most important shared water bodies and ideally coordinate with SDG indicator 6.5.2 on transboundary cooperation.
• Water resources management in federal countries can be more complex due to responsibilities across different administrative levels. You may use the free text fields to explain any specific circumstances related to decentralization in your country.
Climate change considerations: At the end of each section in Part 1, there is a general question on the integration between water and climate management, as relevant to that section. These questions are not scored, and do not count towards the indicator score. Selection of the implementation category is encouraged.
PART 2:
5. Indicator 6.5.1 score, Target Setting, and Priority Action Areas
6. Country Reporting Process: description of the consultation and drafting process.
ANNEXES:
• Annex A: Glossary
• Annex B: Facilitator’s Report (only mandatory for “Stage 1” countries receiving financial support, otherwise optional).

How to Fill the Survey
Insert 2026 scores for each question and update the narrative fields as required.
Question Scoring
• Use scores from 0 to 100, in increments of 10. Each question has six threshold descriptions to guide scoring, and please note additional definitions in the footnotes.
• To give a score, all preceding thresholds for that question must be met.
• All questions must be scored. Refrain from using “n/a” (not applicable), except if that question truly does not apply (e.g. transboundary questions for island states).
Overall indicator scoring
The indicator score is calculated using a simple average of the four rounded section scores (see Section 5).
Narrative Responses
Each question includes three free-text prompts:
• Status: arrangements in place, degree of implementation, any challenges.
• Changes since 2023 reporting: specific changes that have taken place since 2023 reporting, and any comments on the interpretation of progress based on the scores.
• Way Forward: planned or recommended actions to advance on the topic.
Notes:
• If the response overlaps with other questions, you may cross-reference them (e.g. “See also response to question 1.2b”).
• Keep the guidance text in [square brackets italic] in each question during drafting and consultation. UNEP will remove it on finalization.
Tracking Progress
• 2026 is the 4th reporting round. Country surveys and 2-page results summaries from previous rounds (2017, 2020, 2023) are available on the IWRM Data Portal.
• While changes in scores between rounds indicate implementation changes on the ground, they may also be influenced by more robust consultation processes and increasing stakeholder understanding. 2026 scores should be treated as the most accurate, even if this creates apparent discrepancies compared to previous reporting rounds (i.e. a lower question score does not necessarily indicate regression, and this should be captured in the “Changes since 2023 reporting” field).
• Notable changes to questions between rounds are explained in footnotes, and a summary is available in the SDG Indicator 6.5.1 Monitoring Guide.
Note: Please do not delete any question rows or alter table structures in this survey.
Stakeholder Consultation
• Broad stakeholder consultation is encouraged to improve accuracy and ownership. See Monitoring Guide and Stakeholder Consultation Manual for more information.
• Coordination with other SDG indicator Focal Points and Overall SDG 6 Focal Points is recommended, particularly for Section 3.1.
• Describe the consultation process in Section 6.
Survey Submission Process
• Countries are encouraged to submit interim or incomplete drafts with clarification questions at any time.
• The submission / finalization process is:
1. Focal Point (FP) submits the FIRST DRAFT survey to UNEP for review (after going through country Quality Assurance processes, but before formal national approval / endorsement procedures);
2. UNEP reviews the draft for consistency and returns comments to the FP;
3. FP is responsible for addressing the comments (or coordination thereof) and returning the FINAL DRAFT to UNEP. The FINAL DRAFT can be endorsed by the country prior to submission.
4. UNEP reviews the FINAL DRAFT, and will only return comments to the FP in the case of significant inconsistencies. Once approved by UNEP, the Help Desk ‘cleans’ the survey, removing the FP QA checklist, returns the FINAL version to the FP, and uploads it to the IWRM Data Portal.
• Submission dates are communicated to FPs via email from the Help Desk.
• All submissions should be made to UNEP via the SDG 6.5.1 Help Desk: [email protected]
Supporting Materials and Help
• SDG Indicator 6.5.1 Monitoring Guide: primary resource.
• Other supporting materials available on the IWRM Data Portal, include:
• 1-page survey overview (recommended for familiarization with the survey)
• Stakeholder consultation manual
• Indicator calculation template
• SDG 6.5.1 Reporting Training (self-paced online course, approx. 4hrs)
• Online version of survey (for in-country consultations only, not official submission).
• Annex A: Glossary: Definitions of terms. Please also take note of all footnotes.
• SDG 6.5.1 Help Desk: supports Focal Points and colleagues with interpreting questions and thresholds, determining appropriate level of stakeholder engagement, submitting surveys and Quality Assurance: [email protected]
Part 1 - Status of IWRM implementation across 4 key dimensions
1 ENABLING ENVIRONMENT
This section includes the policies, laws and plans in place to support sustainable, coordinated, and equitable water resources management.1
Please carefully read all footnotes as they contain important information and clarification of terms used in the questions and thresholds, and refer to Annex A: Glossary for further explanation.
Enter your score, in increments of 10, from 0-100, or “n/a” (not applicable), in the yellow cell under “2026” in each question. Update / enter text for “Status”, “Changes since 2023 reporting” and “Way forward” for each question. Guidance on the type of information to provide is shown in [square brackets]. Please include links to further information where available.
1. ENABLING ENVIRONMENT
1.1 What is the status of policies, laws and plans to support Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) at the national level?
Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
1.1 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.
Based on IWRM, being used by the majority of relevant authorities to guide work.
Policy objectives consistently achieved.
Objectives consistently achieved, and periodically reviewed and revised.
Score






2017
2020
2023
20262






80
90
90







Status: [E.g. Names/years of relevant policies (and any updates), how they are being used to guide work, evidence/examples of implementation, and which policy objectives are monitored/achieved. Include links to further information where available. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
In Estonia, management of water is mainly regulated by Water Act and its sub-acts. Based on Water Act, in order to achieve the water protection objectives, a river basin management plan (RBMP) is prepared for each river basin district or for each part of a transboundary river basin district located in Estonia, in which water use and protection of the river basin district or the part of a transboundary river basin district located in Estonia is planned. A water management committee is in place by a decree of the minister in charge of the policy sector in order to organise water use and protection and integrate it with other areas. The statutes of the water management committee is established by a decree of the minister in charge of the policy sector. The water management committee consists of representatives from relevant sectors and stakeholders for the implementation of principles of IWRM. The requirements for the contents of a river basin management plan is established by a decree of the minister in charge of the policy sector.
A river basin management plan is established by a decree of the minister in charge of the policy sector. The local authorities, residents and stakeholders from the territory of the relevant river basin district are involved in the preparation of a river basin management plan. The involvement is organised by the Environmental Board. The implementation of a programme of measures (PoM) under water management plan is organised by the water management committee and the implementation of measures is coordinated by the Environmental Board. The Environmental Board prepares an overview of implementation of the programme of measures and submits it for approval to the water management committee by 1 May each year. The action plan for implementation of the programme of measures and the overview of implementation of the programme of measures approved by the water management committee is published on the websites of the Ministry of Climate and the Environmental Board. Although achievement of objectives are annually provided, achievement rate is usually lower than 100% and some case correction of objectives or more work on objective is needed. As objectives are not always 100% achieved, the score here is not 100 but 90, as in previous reporting cycle. Currently, third water management cycle (period 2022-2027) water management plans are being implemented. Preparations for composing next cycle water management plans has started – special project to analyse the current procedure of composing water management plans and if there are changes needed.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to advance implementation of policies; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Although achievement of objectives are annually provided, achievement rate is usually lower than 100% and some case correction of objectives or more work on objective is needed. Currently, River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) and Programme of Measures (PoM) for the third water management cycle (period 2022-2027) are implemented. Work to develop fourth cycle (2028-2033) RBMP has started and this is a public process and all relevant stakeholders and public are involved in this process. During this process also progress achieved during third cycle is assessed and objectives are reviewed and revised when necessary.

Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
1.1 b. National water resources laws.
Development not started or not progressing.
Exist, but not based on IWRM.
Based on IWRM, approved by government and starting to be applied by authorities.
Based on IWRM, being applied by the majority of relevant authorities.
Based on IWRM and all laws are being applied across the country.
Based on IWRM and all laws are enforced across the country, and all people and organizations are held accountable.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






100
100
100







Status: [E.g. names/years of relevant laws (and any updates), mechanisms in place to apply/enforce the law, evidence/examples of the law being applied. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
In Estonia, management of water based on IWRM principles is mainly regulated by Water Act and its sub-acts. Environmental Board is responsible of controlling compliance with the law. All people and organizations not following the law are being held responsible
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended legislation, or activities to advance implementation of existing laws; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Based on practical implementation of legal acts, amendments to acts are sometimes necessary or further guidance provided in order to ensure fulfilling objectives and requirements stated in law. There have been and also foreseen seminars for stakeholders to introduce new requirements in law or explain current provisions, i.e. seminars concerning water management and protection measures in agriculture

Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
1.1 c. National integrated water resources management (IWRM) plans, or similar.
Development not started or not progressing.
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






2017
2020
2023
2026






80
90
90







Status: [E.g. names/years of relevant plans (and any updates), progress reports, evidence/examples of implementation of activities by relevant authorities. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
See also explanations in point a. River basin management plans and programme of measures under it are for IWRM implementation in Estonia and they are being periodically reviewed and revised which is public process and all relevant stakeholders and public are involved and plans are obligatory to relevant authorities and programme of measures for implementing parties to achieve environmental objectives. Objectives are rather ambitious and thus achievement of them require time and effort. Implementation of river basin management plans and programme of measures show that improvement of status of water is challenging and in some case there can be deterioration and more measures may be needed as previously planned.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to advance implementation of plans; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Currently river basin management plans for the third water management cycle (period 2021-2027) are currently implemented. Preparations for developing fourth cycle (2028-2033) river basin management plans has started. A special project has started to analyse previous experiences with composing and implementing water management plans and lessons learnt will be taken into account when elaborating new plans. During the process of preparing new water management plans progress achieved during third cycle is assessed and objectives are reviewed and revised.

1.2 What is the status of policies, laws and plans to support IWRM at other levels?
Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
1.2 a. Sub-national3 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.
Based on IWRM, being used by the majority of relevant authorities to guide work.
Based on IWRM and policy objectives consistently achieved by a majority of authorities.
Based on IWRM and objectives consistently achieved by all authorities, and periodically reviewed and revised.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






80
90
90







Status: [E.g. jurisdictional ‘level’ of application, names/years of policies, examples/evidence of implementation of policies; and at which level/jurisdiction policies are being developed and implemented. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers. Cross-reference (Q.1.1a) as needed.]
No differences in national and sub-national level. In Estonia, management of water is mainly regulated by Water Act and its sub-acts. Based on Water Act, in order to achieve the water protection objectives, a river basin management plan is prepared for each river basin district or for each part of a transboundary river basin district located in Estonia, in which water use and protection of the river basin district or the part of a transboundary river basin district located in Estonia shall be planned. A water management committee is in place by a decree of the minister in charge of the policy sector in order to organise water use and protection and integrate it with other areas. The statutes of the water management committee is established by a decree of the minister in charge of the policy sector. The requirements for the contents of a river basin management plan is established by a decree of the minister in charge of the policy sector. A river basin management plan is established by a decree of the minister in charge of the policy sector. The local authorities, residents and stakeholders from the territory of the relevant river basin district are involved in the preparation of a river basin management plan. The involvement is organised by the Environmental Board. The implementation of a programme of measures under water management plan is organised by the water management committee and the implementation of measures is coordinated by the Environmental Board. The Environmental Board prepares an overview of implementation of the programme of measures and submits it for approval to the water management committee by 1 May each year. The action plan for implementation of the programme of measures and the overview of implementation of the programme of measures approved by the water management committee is published on the websites of the Ministry of Climate and the Environmental Board. Although achievement of objectives are annually provided, achievement rate is usually lower than 100% and some case correction of objectives or more work on objective is needed. Currently, third water management cycle (period 2022-2027) wate management plans are being implemented. Preparations for composing next cycle water management plans has started – special project to analyse the current procedure of composing water management plans and if there are changes needed.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to advance implementation of policies; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Although achievement of objectives are annually provided, achievement rate is usually lower than 100% and some case correction of objectives or more work on objective is needed. Currently, RBMP and PoM for the third water management cycle (period 2022-2027) are implemented. Work to develop fourth cycle (2028-2033) RBMP has started and this is a public process and all relevant stakeholders and public are involved in this process. During this process also progress achieved during third cycle is assessed and objectives are reviewed and revised when necessary.

Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
1.2 b. Basin/aquifer management plans4 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






2017
2020
2023
2026






80
90
90







Status: [E.g. names of most significant basins/aquifers, names/years of their plans (and any updates), progress reports, evidence of implementation of plans. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
River basin management plans and programme of measures under it are for IWRM implementation in Estonia and they are being periodically reviewed and revised which is public process and all relevant stakeholders and public are involved and plans are obligatory to relevant authorities and programme of measures for implementing parties to achieve environmental objectives. Objectives are rather ambitious and thus achievement of them require time and effort. Implementation of river basin management plans and programme of measures show that improvement of status of water is challenging and in some case there can be deterioration and more measures may be needed as previously planned.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to advance implementation of plans; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Currently river basin management plans for the third water management cycle (period 2021-2027) are currently implemented. Preparations for developing fourth cycle (2028-2033) river basin management plans has started. A special project has started to analyse previous experiences with composing and implementing water management plans and lessons learnt will be taken into account when elaborating new plans. During the process of preparing new water management plans progress achieved during third cycle is assessed and objectives are reviewed and revised.

Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
1.2 c. Agreements5 for transboundary water management.6
Development not started or not progressing.
Being prepared or negotiated.
Arrangements are adopted.
Arrangements’ provisions are partly implemented.
Arrangements’ provisions are mostly implemented.
The arrangements’ provisions are fully implemented.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






80
80
100







Status: [E.g. name the most important transboundary basins/aquifers for the country (see “Transboundary” definition in Annex A: Glossary). Names/years of agreements or similar (and any updates), reports, evidence of implementation. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
Transboundary agreements and arrangements for the protection and management of transboundary waters are made with Russia and Latvia. Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Estonia and the Government of the Russian Federation on Co-operation in Protection and Sustainable Use of Transboundary Waters (Moscow, 20. August 1997) to manage joint transboundary Narva River basin. Agreement between the Ministry of the Environment of the Republic of Estonia and the Ministry of the Environment of the Republic of Latvia on Co-operation in Protection and Sustainable Use of Transboundary Water Courses (Palanga, 24. October 2003) to manage joint Koiva River basin. Arrangements are periodically discussed and the implementation rate is rather high. Riparian countries meet annually to discuss developments concerning status of waterbodies and measures implemented so far and in the future to achieve agreed water policy objectives
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to advance implementation of agreements; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Annual meetings concerning joint transboundary water management between riparian countries are organised now and in the future to assess the progress in status of waterbodies and assess the measures implemented to achieve water policy objectives, new jointly agreed objectives and tasks are set as well.

In accordance with the Agreement, 2 working groups were formed in 1997:
- on integrated water resources management
- monitoring, assessment of the status of waterbodies and applied research.

At the annual meeting of the first group, issues of the dynamics of water abstraction, water use, wastewater treatment and the efficiency of treatment facilities of both Parties to the agreement are discussed. There is an exchange of data and information on water protection measures of the Parties to the agreement

At the annual meeting of the monitoring group, issues of monitoring of surface and groundwater, methods of sampling and analysis of samples, comparability of data and the development of joint criteria for assessing the status waterbodies are discussed, joint monitoring programs and a data exchange format are being developed.

At the annual meetings of the commission, which was formed in 1997, which plays the role of coordinator of activities related to monitoring and use of water resources of transboundary waters, joint monitoring programs and work plans of working groups are approved

The exact time of annual meetings will be agreed upon. In last three years the meetings of working groups have been in the third quarter (end of August-beginning of September). Meeting of the joint commission is usually in the end of November-beginning of December.

As previous period, also for compiling fourth period Koiva river basin management plan joint projects with Latvia will be organised.

Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
1.2 d. Sub-national water resources regulations7 (laws, decrees, ordinances or similar).8
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.
Based on IWRM, some regulations being applied in the majority of jurisdictions.
Based on IWRM and all regulations being applied in the majority of jurisdictions.
Based on IWRM and all regulations being applied and enforced in all jurisdictions, and all people and organizations are held accountable.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






n/a
100
100







Status: [E.g. jurisdictional ‘level’ of application, names/years of regulations, mechanisms for enforcement, examples of enforcement. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers. Cross-reference (Q.1.1b) as needed.]
In Estonia, management of water based on IWRM principles is mainly regulated by Water Act and its sub-acts. Environmental Board is responsible of controlling compliance with the law. All people and organizations not following the law are being held responsible
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to advance implementation of regulations; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Based on practical implementation of legal acts, amendments to acts are sometimes necessary or further guidance provided in order to ensure fulfilling objectives and requirements stated in law. There have been and also foreseen seminars for stakeholders to introduce new requirements in law or explain current provisions, i.e. seminars concerning water management and protection measures in agriculture, also more manpower for agriculture inspections regarding CAP requirements is planned.

Climate change considerations – Enabling environment
This sub-section addresses the level of coordination between water management and climate change adaptation / mitigation broadly across this IWRM dimension. This question is not scored, and should not be included in the overall indicator calculations. Please select only one category in the “Implementation category” field that applies to the majority of policies/laws/plans in your country, and answer the “Status and way forward” field below.
Degree of implementation
Very low
Low
Medium-low
Medium-high
High
Very high
CC-1 Development and implementation of policies / laws / plans integrating both climate change and water resources.
Integration of climate change in water resources policies/laws / plans (or vice-versa) not started or not progressing.
Policies/ laws / plans integrating climate and water resources being prepared but not approved by government. 
Policies/ laws / plans integrating climate and water resources approved by government and starting to be implemented by authorities. 
Policies/ laws / plans integrating climate and water resources being implemented by the majority of relevant authorities
Policy/ law / plan objectives consistently achieved. 
Objectives consistently achieved and periodically reviewed and revised. 
Implementation category: Very low / Low / Medium-low / Medium-high / High / Very high [select one implementation category and delete the others.]
Status and way forward: [E.g. extent to which water and climate plans/policies/strategies/laws or similar are coordinated. E.g. is water included in climate adaptation/mitigation plans, and climate considerations included in water management plans. Consider National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and similar plans and strategies. Describe the planned and/or needed improvements for strengthened coordination between water and climate in the Enabling Environment (policy, plans, laws).]
Climate change scenarios and impacts of climate change is taken into account in river basin management plans and program of measures. Measures have been set to adopt climate change. E.g. By 2027, climate-sensitive water bodies will be determined. For program of measures were carried out climate check. It is important to understand whether the measures will also work in the future climate. In Estonia National Adaptation Plan (NAP) is confirmed in year 2017 and sets the goals mitigate the risk of climate change through various measures.

2 INSTITUTIONS AND PARTICIPATION
This section covers 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 mainstreaming.
Please carefully read all footnotes as they contain important information and clarification of terms used in the questions and thresholds, and refer to Annex A: Glossary for further explanation.
Enter your score, in increments of 10, from 0-100, or “n/a” (not applicable), in the yellow cell under “2026” in each question. Update / enter text for “Status”, “Changes since 2023 reporting” and “Way forward” for each question. Guidance on the type of information to provide is shown in [square brackets]. Please include links to further information where available.
2. INSTITUTIONS AND PARTICIPATION
2.1 What is the status of institutions for IWRM implementation at the national level?
Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
2.1 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 roles and responsibilities 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






2017
2020
2023
2026






100
100
100







Status: [E.g. names of authorities and mandates, year of creation if applicable, levels of capacity, reports. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
The situation is basically the same as in previous reporting round, only Ministry of the Environment was reorganised to Ministry of Climate to better tackle climate issues. In Estonia, management of water is mainly regulated by Water Act and its sub-acts. Ministry of Climate is responsible in implementing IWRM. Based on Water Act, in order to achieve the water protection objectives, a river basin management plan is prepared for each river basin district or for each part of a transboundary river basin district located in Estonia, in which water use and protection of the river basin district or the part of a transboundary river basin district located in Estonia shall be planned. A water management committee is in place by a decree of the minister of climate in order to organise water use and protection and integrate it with other areas. The statutes of the water management committee is established by a decree of the minister of climate. The requirements for the contents of a river basin management plan is established by a decree of the minister of climate. A river basin management plan is established by a decree of the minister of climate. The local authorities, residents and stakeholders from the territory of the relevant river basin district are involved in the preparation of a river basin management plan. The involvement is organised by the Environmental Board.
The implementation of a programme of measures under water management plan is organised by the water management committee and the implementation of measures is coordinated by the Environmental Board. The Environmental Board prepares an overview of implementation of the programme of measures and submits it for approval to the water management committee by 1 May each year. The action plan for implementation of the programme of measures and the overview of implementation of the programme of measures approved by the water management committee is published on the websites of the Ministry of Climate and the Environmental Board. Currently, third water management cycle (period 2022-2027) water management plans are being implemented. Preparations for composing next cycle water management plans has started – special project to analyse the current procedure of composing water management plans and if there are changes needed.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to improve capacity or effectiveness of authorities; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Currently the process has started to analyse elaboration and implementation of water management plans and based on finding there, changes in the process may be needed

Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
2.1 b. Coordination between national government authorities representing different sectors11 on water resources policy, planning and management.
No information shared between different government sectors on water policy, planning and management.
Information on water resources, policy, planning and management is made available between different sectors.
Communication: Information, experiences and opinions on water resources, policy, planning and management are shared between different sectors.
Consultation: Opportunities for different sectors to take part in water resources policy, planning and management processes.
Collaboration: Effective formal arrangements between different government sectors with the objective of agreeing on collective decisions on important issues and activities relating to water resources planning and management.
Co-decisions and co- production:
Coordination through jointly agreed upon processes and power is shared between different sectors on joint policy, planning and management activities.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






100
100
100







Status: [E.g. names/years of mechanisms for cross-sectoral coordination in relation to water resources, policy, planning and management (including which sectors), evidence of meetings, reports. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
In Estonia, when compiling river basin management plans or adding amendment to the legal acts and laws then multilevel public and stakeholders and authorities participation and involvement is carried out. Ministries and officials are consulted during preparation of the plans and documents. For river basin management plans there is 6 months long period for public consultation and public hearings. Additionally there is a water management commission who gets information periodically and provides guidance when needed. Water management commission has representatives of appropriate ministries and officials, scientific community and stakeholders etc. Basically the system is the same as in previous reporting.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to improve cross-sectoral coordination; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Currently the process has started to analyse elaboration and implementation of water management plans and based on finding there, changes in the process may be needed. Changes may include issues like coordination between different authorities.

Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
2.1 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 of water resources.
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 in relation to policy, planning and management of water resources.
Consultation:
Government authorities regularly use information, experiences and opinions of the public in relation to policy, planning and management of water resources.
Collaboration:
Effective mechanisms13 established, and regularly used, for the public to take part in relevant water resources policy, planning and management processes.
Representation: Formal representation of the public in government processes contributing to decision making on important issues and activities in relation to water resources.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






100
100
100







Status: [E.g. mechanisms for public participation in water resources management, types of groups that participate or any significant ones that do not, examples of degree of participation. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
In Estonia, when compiling river basin management plans or adding amendment to the legal acts and laws then multilevel public participation and involvement is carried out. For river basin management plans there is 6 months period for public consultation and public hearings. Additionally to that there is a public participation web platform under umbrella of government, where everybody can provide their comments on various topics, new regulations etc. The system is basically the same as in previous reporting round.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to improve public participation; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Currently the process has started to analyse elaboration and implementation of water management plans and based on finding there, changes in the process may be needed, including public participation

Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
2.1 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: Effective mechanisms15 are established, regularly used, and rooted in the transparent and accountable involvement and partnership of the private sector.
Representation: Effective private sector involvement in water resources development, management and use is established in a transparent way and with proper accountability mechanisms16 in place.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






80
100
90







Status: [E.g. mechanisms for, and evidence of, private sector participation, types of businesses participating, types of programmes with private sector participation, levels (e.g. national /sub-national). Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
In Estonia, when compiling water management plans or adding amendment to the legal acts and laws then multilevel private sector participation and involvement is carried out. For river basin management plans there is 6 months period for private sector consultation and hearings. They are as well involved when compiling more detailed action plans for implementation of river basin management plans (every 2 years), though the involvement of public stakeholders has not been entirely successful as the knowledge of ones actions impact on water environment is low, also the interest in water-issues is low. The system is basically the same as in previous reporting form.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to improve private sector participation; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Currently the process has started to analyse elaboration and implementation of water management plans and based on finding there, changes in the process may be needed, incl private sector participation. One output of the process analysis is going to be a communication strategy for mainly targeted at public sector stakeholders to improve the interest, involvement and cooperation in planning and implementing processes

Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
2.1 e. Developing IWRM capacity.17
No capacity development specific to water resources management.
Occasional water resources management capacity development, generally limited to short-term / ad-hoc activities.
Some long-term capacity development initiatives on IWRM are being implemented, but geographic and stakeholder coverage is limited.
Long-term capacity development initiatives on IWRM are being implemented, and geographic and stakeholder coverage is adequate.
Long-term capacity development initiatives on IWRM are being implemented, with effective outcomes, and geographic and stakeholder coverage is very good.
Long-term capacity development initiatives on IWRM are being implemented with highly effective outcomes, and geographic and stakeholder coverage is excellent.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






60
60
100







Status: [E.g. capacity development programmes on IWRM; government/public/education/academia; geographic and stakeholder coverage, ‘levels’ of implementation (e.g. national/sub-national). Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
Capacity development is organized with broad scale information exchange on RBMPs. RBMP, national legislation and information on transboundary agreements and actions is on universities syllabus. Universities have special courses. Environment awareness raising campaigns. RBMP PoM-s contain measures for six year water management cycle targeted at IWRM capacity building. In RBMP PoM, based on the content of the activity, the measures are divided into four categories, one of them is counselling. Counselling is a separate division of measures that allow highlight topics where capacity development help a lot to implement measures and therefore significantly contribute to reaching the water related goals bearing in mind the stakeholders and geographic coverage. Counselling includes trainings, preparation of information materials, installation of information boards as well as national training programs for water-related activities (e.g. training of water management operators and training of agricultural consultants). Ongoing LIFE IP CleanEST project includes also several regular capacity rising activities among different stakeholders related to water management. For the assessment of effectiveness of RBMP PoM the Environmental Board prepares an overview of the implementation of it and submits it to the Water Management Committee for approval every year.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to improve IWRM capacity development; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Continuing of the abovementioned practice. Continuing efforts are made to develop the capacity, environment awareness raising campaigns are organised and also new ways for capacity development are investigated in various projects.

2.2 What is the status of institutions for IWRM implementation at other levels?
Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
2.2 a. Basin/aquifer level18 organizations19 for leading implementation of IWRM.
No dedicated basin 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 capacity20 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






2017
2020
2023
2026






100
100
100







Status: [E.g. names of basin/aquifer authorities, year of creation if applicable, examples/evidence of capacity for leading implementation of IWRM. Name any significant basins/aquifers without authorities. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
No differences in national and basin level in IWRM implementation. The situation is basically the same as in previous reporting round, only Ministry of the Environment was reorganised to Ministry of Climate to better tackle climate issues. In Estonia, management of water is mainly regulated by Water Act and its sub-acts. Ministry of Climate is responsible in implementing IWRM. Based on Water Act, in order to achieve the water protection objectives, a river basin management plan is prepared for each river basin district or for each part of a transboundary river basin district located in Estonia, in which water use and protection of the river basin district or the part of a transboundary river basin district located in Estonia shall be planned. A water management committee is in place by a decree of the minister of climate in order to organise water use and protection and integrate it with other areas. The statutes of the water management committee is established by a decree of the minister of climate. The requirements for the contents of a river basin management plan is established by a decree of the minister of climate. A river basin management plan is established by a decree of the minister of climate. The local authorities, residents and stakeholders from the territory of the relevant river basin district are involved in the preparation of a river basin management plan. The involvement shall be organised by the Environmental Board. The implementation of a programme of measures under water management plan is organised by the water management committee and the implementation of measures is coordinated by the Environmental Board. The Environmental Board prepares an overview of implementation of the programme of measures and submits it for approval to the water management committee by 1 May each year. The action plan for implementation of the programme of measures and the overview of implementation of the programme of measures approved by the water management committee is published on the websites of the Ministry of Climate and the Environmental Board. Currently, third water management cycle (period 2022-2027) wate management plans are being implemented. Preparations for composing next cycle water management plans has started – special project to analyse the current procedure of composing water management plans and if there are changes needed. Basin commission – Estonian- Russian joint commission on transboundary waters, to manage transboundary river (River Narva) basin between Estonia and Russia, similar working group for managing transboundary river basin (River Koiva) between Estonia and Latvia.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to improve capacity or effectiveness of organizations to implement IWRM; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Currently the process has started to analyse elaboration and implementation of water management plans and based on finding there, changes in the process may be needed

Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
2.2 b. Public participation21 in water resources policy, planning and management at the local level.22
No information shared between government and the public on policy, planning and management at the local level.
Information on water resources, policy, planning and management is made available to the public at the local level.
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:
Effective mechanisms23 established, and regularly used, for the public at the local level 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






2017
2020
2023
2026






80
100
100







Status: [E.g. mechanisms for public participation, types of groups that participate or any significant ones that do not, evidence of degree of participation, geographic differences across country. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
In Estonia, when compiling water management plans or adding amendment to the legal acts and laws then multilevel public participation and involvement is carried out. For water management plans there is 6 months public consultation and public hearings. Additionally to that there is a public participation web platform under umbrella of government, where everybody can provide their comments on various topics, new regulations etc. On local level the local authorities involve community when planning new projects. Basically the system is the same as in previous reporting round.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to improve public participation at the local level; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Currently the process has started to analyse elaboration and implementation of water management plans and based on finding there, changes in the process may be needed, also the ways for improving the public participation is investigated.

Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
2.2 c. Participation of vulnerable groups in water resources planning and management.24
Participation of vulnerable groups (beyond just women and girls) not mentioned in laws, policies, or plans.
Vulnerable groups (beyond just women and girls) are mentioned, but without procedures25, outreach strategies, or accountability mechanisms.
Limited procedures exist (e.g. consultations or awareness activities), but implementation is weak (e.g. due to low capacity or funding).
Clear procedures established; participation occurs regularly with moderate resources and partial monitoring.
Regular participation of diverse vulnerable groups, supported by sufficient budget, staff, and accountability mechanisms. 26
Meaningful27 and regular participation of vulnerable groups is institutionalized, monitored, and influences policy and management decisions.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






-
100
100







Status: [E.g. types/names/years of procedures in place, with examples and consideration of (as appropriate). E.g. consider (i) relevant laws/policies/plans; (ii) institutional arrangements; (iii) existence and adequacy of budgets and human capacity; (iv) extent of monitoring for participation of vulnerable groups. Explain which vulnerable groups (e.g. indigenous peoples, ethnic minorities, migrants, people living in poverty, etc.) are considered, situation/differences regarding different vulnerable groups, and procedures at national level, local level, and their implementation and effectiveness. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers. NB: While women and girls are included in definitions of ‘vulnerable groups’, in this survey gender issues are addressed separately in Q.2.2d. For this question, mention women and girls if they also belong to another vulnerable group. The score should reflect the overall situation for most vulnerable groups.]
In general the situation is the same as in previous reporting round. In Estonia all people are equal despite their vulnerability and no one is treated differently due to vulnerability. The principle of equal treatment in Estonia means that people may not be discriminated against due to the characteristics attributed to them. The Equal Treatment Act entered into force on 1 January 2009 and specifies eight characteristics, discrimination on the grounds of which is regarded as unlawful. These are: nationality (ethnic origin), race, colour, religion or other beliefs, age, disability, sexual orientation and gender. The purpose of this Act is to ensure the protection of persons against discrimination on grounds of the aforementioned criteria. Equality in Estonia means that equal rights, obligations, opportunities and responsibilities are ensured for everybody to participate in all aspects of social life. In IWRM context this is achieved mainly by broad public consultation process where everyone gets information and possibility to have a say, mainly through representative organization. We have not specifically listed different vulnerable groups that have the possibility to participate in water resources planning and management, although we follow the definition of vulnerable groups and no one is left behind. The goal is that everybody has the possibility to participate despite its economical, political or social limitations. Everybody has the possibility for active, free and meaningful participation and contribution. This is ensured through official involvement platform as well as media/social media coverage and information on website where also language issue will be considered. Targeted invitations will be sent as well to reach to public, but as the public is wide, therefore some groups might be overlooked, therefore the wide media coverage is important here to ensure wide participation. In general, wide involvement is a goal and the wider the involvement the better, every opinion is valuable. There are several modalities to participate, i.e. in writing, phone calls, video and physical conferences, workshops etc. Participation is monitored and analysis will be done of the process of involvement as well as received suggestions and comments and how these were taken into consideration and feedback is shared. Ministry of Climate as IWRM policy developer is responsible of participation issues and also special budget is foreseen for that.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to increase participation of vulnerable groups, barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Currently in Estonia, a process has ongoing to analyse the experiences achieved in preparation and implementation on water management plans (AS-IS & TO-BE views) and also participation issue is analysed there and necessary adjustments will be made if considered necessary.

Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
2.2 d. Gender mainstreaming in water resources management.28
No reference to gender equality or women’s participation in water resources management plans, policies or programmes.
Gender mentioned but with no dedicated mechanisms29 or responsibilities.
Gender mainstreaming mechanisms (e.g. gender focal points, frameworks) exist but are underfunded or weakly implemented.
Gender mechanisms operational; women’s participation moderately achieved and partly monitored.
Gender mainstreaming objectives largely achieved; activities funded, monitored, and reported across institutions.
Gender equality fully integrated across all IWRM dimensions (policy, planning, budgeting, and monitoring) and with measurable outcomes for women’s empowerment and leadership.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






100
100
100







Status: [E.g. gender mainstreaming objectives in laws/policies/plans/strategies. Programmes/procedures to address gender objectives (incl. reference to reports). Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers. Examples of gender mainstreaming mechanisms, practices and tools. Consider adequacy of funding, human capacity, monitoring and outcomes (e.g. in terms of achieving formal representation of gender issues, effective participation of women and parity, and influence on IWRM outcomes). Consider ‘level’ of implementation, i.e. national/sub-national/local/transboundary. Please see all footnotes relevant to this question for further clarification on what gender mainstreaming in water resources management means.]
The situation in Estonia is the same as in previous reporting round. In Estonia all people are equal despite their gender and no one is treated differently due to gender. The principle of equal treatment in Estonia means that people may not be discriminated against due to the characteristics attributed to them. The Equal Treatment Act entered into force on 1 January 2009 and specifies eight characteristics, discrimination on the grounds of which is regarded as unlawful. These are: nationality (ethnic origin), race, colour, religion or other beliefs, age, disability, sexual orientation and gender. The purpose of this Act is to ensure the protection of persons against discrimination on grounds of the aforementioned criteria. Gender equality in Estonia means that equal rights, obligations, opportunities and responsibilities are ensured for everyone despite their gender to participate in all aspects of social life. The prevention of violence against women is an important prerequisite for achieving equality. Discrimination on grounds of gender is regulated by Gender Equality Act. Gender Equality Act sets the legal framework for equal treatment of men and women and to promote equality of men and women as a fundamental human right and for the public good in all areas of social life. To achieve this purpose, this Act provides for the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sex in the private and public sectors, the obligation of state and local government authorities, educational and research institutions and employers to promote equality between men and women. This Act applies to all areas of social life, including water management. In water management Estonia is fully guided of the provisions set in both Acts. Direct and indirect discrimination based on sex, including giving orders therefor, is prohibited. Gender Equality Act sets criterias, what is discrimination based on gender and how to avoid this. These principles are being implemented in all aspects of water management, i.e. in hiring employees to respect the principle on gender equality. Furthermore, when planning and implementing water related strategies, policies and action plans, it is followed by the principle, that nobody is discriminated and affected based on gender. The membership of water related committees, councils and other collegial bodies formed include both sexes. In the IWRM, a gender mainstreaming perspective is followed at each IWRM level from planning until implementation. The goal of the gender mainstreaming is that all policy level all activities are done in such a way that they do not cause gender gaps and this is analysed i.e. in participation procedure, in planning and implementing of IWRM measures. The goal is to avoid gender gaps in the management of water resources and this is ensured in Estonia by implementing legal framework stated in Equal Treatment Act and Gender Equality Act. Ministry of Climate as IWRM policy developer is responsible of gender mainstreaming issues in IWRM.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned/recommended activities to advance implementation of gender mainstreaming in water resources management; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Currently in Estonia, a process has ongoing to analyse the experiences achieved in preparation and implementation on water management plans (AS-IS & TO-BE views) and also gender mainstreaming is analysed there and necessary adjustments will be made if considered necessary.

Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
2.2 e. Organizational framework for transboundary water management.30
No organizational framework(s) for transboundary water management.
Organizational framework(s) for transboundary water management being developed.
Organizational framework(s) for transboundary water management established.
Organizational framework(s)’ mandate is partly fulfilled.
Organizational framework(s)’ mandate is mostly fulfilled.
Organizational framework(s)’ mandate is fully fulfilled.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






100
100
100







Status: [E.g. reference Q.1.2c for most important transboundary basins/aquifers. Names of organizations, year of creation, mandates, progress/annual reports. Any significant transboundary basins/aquifers without organizational framework. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
Transboundary agreements and arrangements for the protection and management of transboundary waters are made with Russia and Latvia. Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Estonia and the Government of the Russian Federation on Co-operation in Protection and Sustainable Use of Transboundary Waters (Moscow, 20. August 1997) to manage joint transboundary Narva River basin. Agreement between the Ministry of the Environment of the Republic of Estonia and the Ministry of the Environment of the Republic of Latvia on Co-operation in Protection and Sustainable Use of Transboundary Water Courses (Palanga, 24. October 2003) to manage joint Koiva River basin. Riparian countries meet annually to discuss developments concerning status of waterbodies and measures implemented to achieve agreed water policy objectives. Between Estonia and Russia there is a joint Estonian-Russian commission on transboundary waterbodies consisting of high level officials and experts from both side. Commission coordinates work concerning protection and management of transboundary waterbodies. Under the commission there are two working groups – working group in integrated water resources management and working group on monitoring and assessment. Narva river basin has an area of 57 000 km2, it is a transboundary basin between EU and Russia, Narva river has energetic importance, Lake Peipsi that is situated in the basin is biggest transboundary lake in EU and has fisheries importance – so the cooperation in this transboundary basin is challenging yet productive. Small river Koiva basin between Estonia and Latvia is managed by joint water management working group. Basically the organizational framework for transboundary water management is the same as in previous reporting round, however, due to Russian-Ukrainian war the practical IWRM cooperation between Estonia and Russia is minimal. Detailed information on transboundary cooperation is reported in SDG 6.5.2 report.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to improve effectiveness of organizational frameworks; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Challenging cooperation between Estonia and Russia on managing transboundary basin needs continuing and it continues. Joint commission defines cooperation areas for the three year period as well as cooperation with Latvia is ongoing. Estonian-Russian joint commission annually evaluates progress and defines way forward to achieve water management goals. . Joint projects for developing fourth period Koiva River Basin Management Plans are planned with Latvia.

Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
2.2 f. Sub-national31 authorities for leading IWRM implementation.32
No dedicated sub-national 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 capacity33 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).
Sub-national authorities have the capacity to effectively lead periodic IWRM plan revision.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






n/a
100
100







Status: [E.g. names of authorities, years of creation if applicable, mandates, at which administrative level, levels of capacity, reports. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
The situation is basically the same as in previous reporting round, only Ministry of the Environment was reorganised to Ministry of Climate to better tackle climate issues. In Estonia, management of water is mainly regulated by Water Act and its sub-acts. Ministry of Climate is responsible implementing IWRM in whole country. Based on Water Act, in order to achieve the water protection objectives, a river basin management plan is prepared for each river basin district or for each part of a transboundary river basin district located in Estonia, in which water use and protection of the river basin district or the part of a transboundary river basin district located in Estonia shall be planned. A water management committee is in place by a decree of the minister of climate in order to organise water use and protection and integrate it with other areas. The statutes of the water management committee is established by a decree of the minister of climate. The requirements for the contents of a river basin management plan is established by a decree of the minister of climate. A river basin management plan is established by a decree of the minister of climate. The local authorities, sub- national authorities, residents and stakeholders from the territory of the relevant river basin district are involved in the preparation of a river basin management plan. The involvement is organised by the Environmental Board. The implementation of a programme of measures under water management plan is organised by the water management committee and the implementation of measures is coordinated by the Environmental Board. The Environmental Board prepares an overview of implementation of the programme of measures and submits it for approval to the water management committee by 1 May each year. The action plan for implementation of the programme of measures and the overview of implementation of the programme of measures approved by the water management committee is published on the websites of the Ministry of Climate and the Environmental Board. Currently, third water management cycle (period 2022-2027) wate management plans are being implemented. Preparations for composing next cycle water management plans has started – special project to analyse the current procedure of composing water management plans and if there are changes needed.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to improve capacity or effectiveness of authorities; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Currently the process has started to analyse elaboration and implementation of water management plans and based on finding there, changes in the process may be needed

Climate change considerations – Institutions and Participation
This sub-section addresses the level of coordination between water management and climate change adaptation / mitigation broadly across this IWRM dimension. This question is not scored, and should not be included in the overall indicator calculations. Please select only one category in the “Implementation category” field that applies to overall level of institutional / stakeholder coordination in your country, and answer the “Status and way forward” field below.
Degree of implementation
Very low
Low
Medium-low
Medium-high
High
Very high
CC-2 Coordination between climate and water resources institutions / stakeholders.
No information shared between climate and water resources institutions / stakeholders (‘sectors’).
Information on water resources and climate are made available between ‘sectors’.
Communication: Information, experiences and opinions on water resources and climate action, policy, planning and management are shared between ‘sectors’.
Consultation: Opportunities for climate change ‘sector’ to take part in water resources policy, planning and management processes and vice versa.
Collaboration: Effective formal arrangements between climate change and water resources ‘sectors’ with the objective of agreeing on collective decisions on important issues and activities relating to planning, policy, management and finance.
Co-decisions and co- production: Coordination through jointly agreed processes, and influence is shared between climate change and water resources ‘sectors’ on joint policy, planning and management activities. 
Implementation category: Very low / Low / Medium-low / Medium-high / High / Very high [select one implementation category and delete the others.]
Status and way forward: [E.g. specific cross-sectoral coordination mechanisms between water and climate (adaptation and mitigation) ministries/agencies/institutions/organizations, and their degree of functionality. Describe the planned and/or needed improvements for strengthened coordination between ‘water’ and ‘climate’ stakeholders and institutions.]
There is no separate mechanism for water and climate change. Everything goes through the existing coordination system, which is described in the section “Status and progress”. In addition, coordination takes place through the preparation and implementation of NAP and green transition action plan.
The success of mitigation and adaptation to the effects of climate change depends on how accurate information there is in Estonia about climate change. Capacity development in climate change is one of goal in NAP, Green transition action plan and RBMP-s. E.G. One of measure in NAP is support climate research and participate in international cooperation initiatives related to climate science.

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 programmes, 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 Annex A: 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’ field for that question.
• Management instruments: Can also be referred to as management tools and techniques, which include regulations, financial incentives, monitoring, plans/programmes (e.g. for development, use and protection of water resources), as well as those specified in footnotes on questions and thresholds.
• 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 programme with long-term goals. Long-term refers to activities that are undertaken as part of an ongoing programme that has more long-term goals/aims and implementation strategy.
• Accountability mechanisms: refer to mechanisms that increase Transparency, Accountability, Participation, and Anti-corruption (TAPA. See also Annex A: Glossary). For each question in this section, it is suggested that TAPA-related mechanisms should “exist”, as relevant, to achieve a score of 80 or 90 (“High” threshold), and should be “effective” to achieve a score of 100 (“Very high” threshold).
Please carefully read all footnotes as they contain important information and clarification of terms used in the questions and thresholds, and refer to Annex A: Glossary for further explanation.
Enter your score, in increments of 10, from 0-100, or “n/a” (not applicable), in the yellow cell under “2026” in each question. Update / enter text for “Status”, “Changes since 2023 reporting” and “Way forward” for each question. Guidance on the type of information to provide is shown in [square brackets]. Please include links to further information where available.

3. MANAGEMENT INSTRUMENTS
3.1 What is the status of management instruments to support IWRM implementation at the national level?
Degree of implementation (0 – 100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
3.1 a. National monitoring of water availability34
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






2017
2020
2023
2026






80
80
90







Status: [E.g. description of monitoring systems, what is monitored and where, evidence of implementation and access to information for stakeholders. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
Monitoring programmes for water are planned together with river basin management plans for 6 years (as well public participation process). The monitoring programme in terms of water availability excellent and all types of waterbodies are represented. All information is made available to stakeholders and other people via Environmental Agency homepage and applications (monitoring web). Monitoring data is publicly available here: https://kese.envir.ee/kese/welcome.action. Some case direct communication and e-mailing for stakeholders is provided (e.g. information to local authority on monitoring results).
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to improve effectiveness of water availability monitoring; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Monitoring programme will be approved for six year period together with river basin management plans as usual.

Degree of implementation (0 – 100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
3.1 b. Sustainable and efficient water use management35 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






2017
2020
2023
2026






80
80
90







Status: [E.g. types/names/years of management instruments and for what purposes, evidence of implementation, geographic differences, level of implementation across different stakeholder groups. Evidence of enforcement and anti-corruption measures. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
Management instruments river basin management plans and programme of measures under it, monitoring water abstraction and emissions to water, water status assessment, tax policy and other are at place. More attention has been paid to programme of measures under river basin management plans (RBMP)
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to improve effectiveness of management instruments; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
More attention will be paid to programme of measures under river basin management plans in order to ensure that all measures are adequate and highly effectiv

Degree of implementation (0 – 100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
3.1 c. Pollution control36 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 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






2017
2020
2023
2026






80
80
80







Status: [E.g. types/names/years of pollution management instruments, incl. ambient and point-source water quality monitoring; evidence of implementation, enforcement, and anti-corruption; geographic differences; level of implementation across different stakeholder groups. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
Basis for the pollution control is regulated by Water Act and with Public Water Supply and Sewerage Act. Outlets of the cleaned wastewater are regulated with permits and depending on the waterbody and it`s status different requirement should be met. Requirements are based on the permit issued by Environmental Board. It is not yet highly effective as pollution in waterbodies occur
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to improve effectiveness of pollution control measures; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Studies are planned and carried out to clarify the limit values of new substances, legislation and also environmental permits are supplemented, new measures (PVTs) are also studied to improve the control of pollutants

Degree of implementation (0 – 100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
3.1 d. Management of water-related ecosystems and biodiversity37 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 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






2017
2020
2023
2026






80
80
90







Status: [E.g. types/names/years of management instruments, evidence of implementation and effectiveness, geographic differences, level of implementation across different ecosystem types. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers. Include consideration of management of biodiversity, and connectivity for migratory species.]
Management of water related ecosystems and biodiversity is done on a long term basis, for six years water management cycle and is integrated to river basin management plans. The general goal of RBMP is to prevent worsening of the status of and protect and improve the status of water ecosystems and water related terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands. The coverage here is the whole country (divided into three river basin districts) and different ecosystem types are considered. In RBMP-s environmental costs to ecosystems and their coverage have been assessed, climate change effects and pressures to ecosystems and monitoring aspects have been analysed. RBMP PoM contains several waterbody specific and general measures to achieve the ecosystems protection and good status. There are waterbody specific objectives concerning protected species, i.e salmon on rivers and measures targeted at enriching biodiversity. For the assessment of effectiveness of RBMP PoM the Environmental Board prepares an overview of the implementation of it and submits it to the Water Management Committee for approval every year.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to improve effectiveness of ecosystem management and protection; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
The plan is to analyze the water policy framework directive, the marine strategy directive, the nature and bird directives in order to clarify the strictest protection goals and to integrate the goals of other directives into water management through the process of water management plans.

Degree of implementation (0 – 100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
3.1 e. Management instruments to reduce impacts of water-related disasters38 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 of at-risk areas.
Management instruments are implemented on a long-term basis, with adequate coverage of at-risk areas and groups.
Management instruments are implemented on a long-term basis, with very good coverage of at-risk areas and groups, and are effective.
Management instruments are implemented on a long-term basis, with excellent coverage of at-risk areas and groups, and are highly effective.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






80
80
100







Status: [E.g. types/names/years of management instruments, evidence of implementation and effectiveness, geographic differences, level of implementation for different types of water-related disasters. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
Legal acts at place, requirements set in Water Act, Chemical Act, Emergency Law and others. Management instruments are implemented all over in the country. Every member state of the European Union, including Estonia, has an obligation to implement the Floods Directive on a river basin basis. This includes flood risk assessment, hazard and risk maps and management plans. These are currently implemented side-by-side with implementation of RBMP and PoM to ensure appropriate compatibility and interaction with objectives. The purpose of flood risk management is to reduce the likelihood of floods occurring and their impact on human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity. Risk management includes flood protection, flood preparedness, flood forecasting and early warning systems. Activities to assess and manage flood risks began with the adoption of the Floods Directive in the European Union in 2007. In 2022, second flood risk management plan was approved for 6 years. Every 6 years, the flood risk management plans are updated. This update will include an overview of the implementation of the measures in the previous mitigation plan. In order to more clearly monitor the progress of the implementation of the actions, the majority of mitigation plan activities is attached expected results, i.e. implementation metrics.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to improve effectiveness of disaster risk management and monitoring; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Implementing until 2027 measures. For the next water management cycle (2028-2033) updating of flood risk assessment, hazard and risk maps and management plans is in progress together with composing new water management plans and programme of measures. During this process the effectiveness of management instruments will also be assessed and amendments will be made if necessary. This updating will be done after each six years

3.2 What is the status of management instruments to support IWRM implementation at other levels?
Degree of implementation (0 – 100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
3.2 a. Basin management instruments.39
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






2017
2020
2023
2026






80
80
70







Status: [E.g. types/names/years of management instruments, evidence of implementation and effectiveness, geographic differences, level of implementation across different stakeholder groups. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers. Include consideration of integrated coastal zone management as relevant. Cross-reference Q.1.2b (basin/aquifer management plans as appropriate. Name management instruments in addition to those plans (or implementation of the plans).]
we have an instrument in place, but it is not effective enough in ensuring the involvement of public parties, there is a lack of human resources.
Basin management instruments are river basin management plans that have long-term perspective and they are set for a six year water management cycle. They are prepared for each river basin district or for each part of a transboundary river basin district located in Estonia, in which water use and protection of the river basin district or the part of a transboundary river basin district located in Estonia is planned. A water management committee is in place by a decree of the minister in charge of the policy sector in order to organise water use and protection and integrate it with other areas. The statutes of the water management committee is established by a decree of the minister in charge of the policy sector. The water management committee consists of representatives from relevant sectors and stakeholders for the implementation of principles of IWRM. The requirements for the contents of a river basin management plan is established by a decree of the minister in charge of the policy sector. A river basin management plan is established by a decree of the minister in charge of the policy sector. The local authorities, residents and stakeholders from the territory of the relevant river basin district are involved in the preparation of a river basin management plan. The involvement is organised by the Environmental Board. The implementation of a programme of measures (PoM) under water management plan is organised by the water management committee and the implementation of measures is coordinated by the Environmental Board. The Environmental Board prepares an overview of implementation of the programme of measures and submits it for approval to the water management committee by 1 May each year. The action plan for implementation of the programme of measures and the overview of implementation of the programme of measures approved by the water management committee is published on the websites of the Ministry of Climate and the Environmental Board. Currently, third water management cycle (period 2022-2027) water management plans are being implemented.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to improve effectiveness of basin management and development; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
New RBMP-s for the next six years period (2028-2033) is just started preparation. For each new six year water management plan preparation the assessment of implementation of previous plan is also carried out and amendments will be made when appropriate. Evaluation of river basin management planning and implementing processes has started with aim to improve the processes and increase the quality of plans for next period.

Degree of implementation (0 – 100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
3.2 b. Aquifer management instruments.40
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






2017
2020
2023
2026






80
80
80







Status: [E.g. types/names/years of management instruments, evidence of implementation and effectiveness, geographic differences, level of implementation across different stakeholder groups. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers. Include consideration of integrated coastal zone management, including saltwater intrusion, as relevant. Cross-reference 1.2b (basin/aquifer management plans as appropriate. Name management instruments in addition to those plans (or implementation of the plans).]
For the aquifers management there are river basin management plans and programme of measures under them to achieve water related goals. All legal requirements concerning aquifers protection and management are stated in Water Act and sub-acts under it. Water management plans are prepared for six year water management period. Currently RBMP-s for the period 2022-2027 are implemented. Preparation and implementation of RBMP is coordinated by Ministry of Climate. During the preparation of RBMP a wide range of different stakeholders and public will be involved. RBMP consist description, status assessment, targets, measures to achieve targets etc. Management of surface water and groundwater is integrated. As currently not all aquifer goals are met then the outcomes of aquifer management instruments are not highly effective yet. For implementation of RBMP and PoM more detailed action plans are compiled by Environmental Board for every 2 years and overview of achievement of objectives is given annually by them. There is also water management commission consisting different officials, experts, scientists, stakeholders etc that has valuable advisory role in different water related questions but also follows implementation of RBMP. Addition to previously mentioned structures and instruments there is a river basin district (RBD) working group. This RBD working group meets 2 times per year and is responsible for information exchange and implementation of RBMP on local level, although it still remains far from effective implementation at the community level, a more personal approach to the implementers should be taken, but there are no resources for this yet. .Representatives from local authorities, stakeholders, consultants, universities and others. For each new six year water management plan preparation the assessment of implementation of previous plan is also carried out and amendments will be made when appropriate.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to improve effectiveness of aquifer management; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
New RBMP-s for the next six years period (2028 -2033) are under preparation. For each new six year water management plan preparation the assessment of implementation of previous plan is also carried out and amendments will be made when appropriate. The focus when looking over the processes is on how to improve public involvement and make it more efficient/functional.

Degree of implementation (0 – 100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
3.2 c. Data and information sharing within countries at all levels.41
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. Appropriate measures are in place to ensure data integrity42.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






100
100
100







Status: [E.g. names/years of data and information sharing arrangements, availability and access to data/information, examples of sectors/users across which data and information are being shared. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
There are several ways to access data and information about environmental data, evaluation etc. The main resource for public and stakeholder is environmental register http://register.keskkonnainfo.ee and geographical portal https://xgis.maaamet.ee/maps. Research studies and policy related studies carried out by the Ministry of the Environment are available on the Ministry webpage http://www.envir.ee/et/eesmargid-tegevused/vesi/uuringud-ja-aruanded. Monitoring data is publicly available from environmental monitoring infosystem KESE https://kese.envir.ee/kese/welcome.action
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to establish/improve data sharing procedures and infrastructure; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Regular updates and adding new info to these systems, also databases are in constant development to improve the accessibility and quality of data.

Degree of implementation (0 – 100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
3.2 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.43
All relevant data and information are online and accessible between countries.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






60
60
80







Status: [E.g. cross-reference Q.1.2c (transboundary agreements) as appropriate. Names/years of data and information sharing arrangements, access to information. Include description of the situation for the most important transboundary basins/aquifers. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
Information on transboundary basins is exchanged within the frames of work of working groups and joint commission between Latvia and Russia (depending on the RBD). Since the last reporting round in the framework of Estonian-Russian transboundary water cooperation surface water and groundwater monitoring programmes have been updated, a table for exchange of monitoring data has been prepared and a format for this data exchange has been agreed. Joint criterias for joint assessment of transboundary waters have been elaborated although this work continues as there are still discrepancies in estimates of the status of transboundary waters. Data and information sharing on water management issues (water abstraction, water use, diffuse pollution, wastewater, effectiveness of wastewater treatment plants, environmental surveillance etc.) is continuing based on earlier agreed format.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to establish/improve data sharing procedures and infrastructure; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Ongoing data and info exchange between countries within the working groups and joint commission

Climate change considerations – Management Instruments
This sub-section addresses the level of coordination between water management and climate change adaptation / mitigation broadly across this IWRM dimension. While in 2023 this question focussed on disaster risk reduction (Q.3.1e), please ensure it reflects a broader overview of the extent to which climate change impacts are considered in the various management instruments in this section. This question is not scored, and should not be included in the overall indicator calculations. Please select only one category in the “Implementation category” field that applies to the majority of management instruments in your country, and answer the “Status and way forward” field below.
Degree of implementation
Very low
Low
Medium-low
Medium-high
High
Very high
CC-3 Extent to which climate change impacts are addressed in management instruments for water resources management.
Climate change impacts not considered in current management instruments.
Consideration of climate change impacts limited and only through short-term / ad-hoc projects or similar.
Some consideration of climate change in management instruments on a more long-term basis, but with limited coverage of at-risk areas.
Consideration of climate change well-addressed in management instruments on a long-term basis, with adequate coverage of at-risk areas and groups. 
Climate change impacts effectively addressed in management instruments on a long-term basis, with very good coverage of at-risk areas and groups.
Climate change impacts highly effectively addressed in all relevant management instruments on a long-term basis, with excellent coverage of at-risk areas and groups. 
Implementation category: Very low / Low / Medium-low / Medium-high / High / Very high [select one implementation category and delete the others.]
Status and way forward: [E.g. extent to which management instruments are expected to help manage increased risks due to the impacts of climate change on hydrological regimes, water availability and quality, water-related disasters, water-related ecosystems etc. Technical capacity to understand, mitigate, and act on, impacts of climate change in the short, medium and long-term (e.g. incorporation of projections into planning models and management). Extent to which relevant water and climate data and information are shared between stakeholders across sectors.]
Climate change scenarios and impacts of climate change is taken into account in risk assessment, compiling hazard and risk maps and management plans. E.g. For management plan measures were carried out climate check. It is important to understand whether the measures will also work in the future climate.
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. Other sources include fees and tariffs levied on water users, polluter fees or grants from philanthropic or similar organizations. In-kind support should not be included as it is not easily measurable but can be mentioned in the free text fields. 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-development support to developing countries in water- and sanitation-related activities and programmes, including water harvesting, desalination, water efficiency, wastewater treatment, recycling and reuse technologies”.
Please carefully read all footnotes as they contain important information and clarification of terms used in the questions and thresholds, and refer to Annex A: Glossary for further explanation.
Enter your score, in increments of 10, from 0-100, or “n/a” (not applicable), in the yellow cell under “2026” in each question. Update / enter text for “Status”, “Changes since 2023 reporting” and “Way forward” for each question. Guidance on the type of information to provide is shown in [square brackets]. Please include links to further information where available.
4. FINANCING
4.1 What is the status of financing for water resources development and management at the national level?
Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
4.1 a. National budget44 for water resources infrastructure45.
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. Accountability mechanism(s)46 in place.
Budget fully utilised for investment and recurrent costs, post-project evaluation carried out, budgets reviewed and revised. Accountability mechanisms are effective.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






60
60
60







Status: [E.g. primary funding streams and programmes; approximate amounts where readily available; adequacy of budget; budget gaps; distinction between investments and ongoing (operation and maintenance) costs; barriers/enablers, including for disbursal; accountability mechanisms. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
There are funding options to fulfill the requirements of national legislation and RBMP PoM. According to RBMP planned for years 2021-2027 the cost of implementation of the PoM is estimated 854 million €. Nearly 60% of the PoM is planned to be financed by the EU funds, 20 % from the state budget and 20 % by local authorities and the public sector. Budget gap is about 165 million € for what funds are not allocated (source is unknown).
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to increase budget and/or dispersal; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
RBMP and PoM for the period 2028-2033 under preparation, including investments needs analysis and investment plan for that period to fulfil PoM. Constantly new funding opportunities including EU funds are looked and applied for.

Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
4.1 b. National budget for IWRM elements47.
No budget allocations made for investments and recurrent costs of the IWRM elements.
Allocations made for some of the IWRM elements and implementation at an early stage.
Allocations made for at least half of the IWRM elements but insufficient for others.
Allocations for most of the IWRM elements and some implementation under way.
Allocations include all IWRM elements and implementation regularly carried out (investments and recurrent costs). Accountability mechanism(s) in place.
Planned budget allocations for all elements of the IWRM approach fully utilised, budgets reviewed and revised. Accountability mechanisms are effective.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






80
80
80







Status: [E.g. primary funding streams and programmes; approximate amounts where readily available; adequacy of budget; budget gaps; distinction between investments and ongoing costs; barriers/enablers, including for disbursal; accountability mechanisms. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
Budget for all IWRM elements are planned in organizations workplan for each year. Long term financial plan for six year water management cycle including socio-economic analyse is described in river basin management plans
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to increase budget and/or dispersal; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
The same system will continue, budgetary needs will be discussed annually for the following year

4.2 What is the status of financing for water resources development and management at other levels?
Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
4.2 a. Sub-national or basin budgets for water resources infrastructure48.
No budget allocated in sub-national or basin investment plans.
Some budget allocated in sub-national or basin investment plans but only partly covers planned investments.
Sufficient budget allocated for planned investments in sub-national or basin investment plans, 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. Accountability mechanism(s) in place.
Budget fully utilised, for investment and recurrent costs, post-project evaluation carried out, budgets reviewed and revised. Accountability mechanisms are effective.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






60
60
60







Status: [E.g. primary funding streams and programmes; approximate amounts where readily available; adequacy of budget; budget gaps; distinction between investments and ongoing (O&M) costs; barriers/enablers, including for disbursal; reference to ‘level’ (sub-national/ basin); accountability mechanisms. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers. Cross-reference Q.4.1a as appropriate.]
Watershed level investment plan is in RBMP PoM, local authorities have investment plans for public water supply, investments are funded from state budget, local municipality budget or from national environmental investment programme, though all actors have in need of money and does not have sufficient funds for full implementation.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to increase budget and/or disbursal; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
RBMP and PoM for the period 2028-2033 under preparation, including investments needs analysis and investment plan for that period to fulfil PoM. When compiling PoM the cost-efficiency of measures is assessed and only cost-effective measures are planned.

Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
4.2 b. Revenues raised for IWRM elements.49
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. Accountability mechanism(s) in place.
Revenues raised fully cover costs of IWRM activities. Accountability mechanisms are effective.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






60
60
80







Status: [E.g. types of revenues raised and names of mechanisms / year of establishment; level at which they are raised and used; adequacy of revenues to meet requirements at different levels; approximate amounts where readily available. Beyond ‘traditional’/government revenue raising, consider also innovative / blended revenue raising mechanisms (e.g. payments for catchment/ecosystem services, bonds, private sector finance, etc.). Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers. See footnote 50]
There are 3 basic charges: water supply and sewerage tariffs, natural resource tax for water abstraction and environmental charge for pollutants. Water supply and sewerage tariffs are regulated in the Public Water Supply and Sewerage Act, applied to all users of centralised water services, revenues go to operations of the service provider and infrastructure reconstruction. Natural resource tax for water abstraction is regulated in the Environmental Charges Act. Revenues are shared between the state budget, local municipality and Environmental Investment Centre. Environmental charge for pollutants emitted with wastewater is regulated in the Environmental Charges Act. Tax rates per m3 wastewater, rates lower for organic matters and higher for hazardous substances. Tax is shared between the state budget and Environmental Investment Centre.
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to increase budget and/or dispersal; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
The same system is continuing.

Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
4.2 c. Financing for transboundary cooperation.50
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 organization/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






2017
2020
2023
2026






60
100
100







Status: [E.g. cross-reference Q.1.2c (transboundary agreements) as appropriate. Names/years of financing arrangements, evidence of contributions. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers. Include description of the situation for the most important transboundary basins/aquifers. ]
It has been full funding from state budget to fund Estonian-Russian transboundary cooperation works as agreed by annual meetings of Estonian-Russian joint commission. Also funding is available for cooperation activities with Latvia. Unfortunately there are not many international funding options for transboundary work to be funded and promoted. Usually there is a strong competition for these resources and repeating actions needed to ensure sufficient management of transboundary water resources are not usually funded (updating and revising pressures, measures, data, methodologies, updating plans etc.).
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to increase budget and/or dispersal; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
Annually joint Estonian-Russian commission on transboundary watercourses agrees activities for next years and from state budget financing is ensured for these works. Financing includes joint monitoring works, analysis, assessments, expert inputs, financing meeting of working groups and joint commission etc. For preparing joint Koiva River Basin Management Plan Estonia and Latvia also apply for EU funds with joint projects.

Degree of implementation (0-100)
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
4.2 d. Sub-national or basin budgets for IWRM elements51 (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 IWRM elements at sub-national or basin level and implementation at an early stage.
Allocations made for at least half of the IWRM elements at sub-national or basin level but insufficient for others.
Allocations for most of the IWRM elements at sub-national or basin level and some implementation under way.
Allocations include all IWRM elements and implementation regularly carried out (investments and recurrent costs). Accountability mechanism(s) in place.
Planned budget allocations for all elements of the IWRM approach at sub-national or basin level fully utilised, budgets reviewed and revised. Accountability mechanisms are effective.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026






-
80
80







Status: [E.g. primary funding streams and programmes; approximate amounts where readily available; adequacy of budget; budget gaps; distinction between investments and ongoing costs; barriers/enablers, including for disbursal; reference to ‘level’ (sub-national and/or basin); accountability mechanisms. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers. Cross-reference Q.4.1b as appropriate.]
Budget for all IWRM elements are planned in organizations workplan for each year. Long term financial plan for six year water management cycle including socio-economic analyse is described in river basin management plans,
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to increase budget and/or dispersal; barriers and enablers; suggested targets as appropriate.]
The same system will continue, budgetary needs will be discussed annually for the following year.

Climate change considerations - Financing
This sub-section addresses the level of coordination between water management and climate change adaptation / mitigation broadly across this IWRM dimension. This question is not scored, and should not be included in the overall indicator calculations. Please select only one category in the “Implementation category” field that applies to the general level of coordination in your country, and answer the “Status and way forward” field below.
Degree of implementation
Very low
Low
Medium-low
Medium-high
High
Very high
CC-4 Integration of climate-related funding into financing for water resources management (WRM) and vice versa.
No budget allocations made for WRM or climate activities, no coordination between the ‘sectors’.
Allocations made for some WRM and climate activities but limited coordination. 
Allocations made for WRM and climate activities with some coordination. 
Allocations made, adequate coordination, and some implementation under way. 
Adequate allocations and effective coordination, with regular implementation.
Planned budget allocations fully utilised, effectively coordinated, budgets reviewed and revised. Accountability mechanisms are effective.
Implementation category: Very low / Low / Medium-low / Medium-high / High / Very high [select one implementation category and delete the others.]
Status and way forward: [E.g. How is financing for water and climate activities coordinated and climate-related funding and financing instruments integrated into financing for water resources management? E.g. consider national budgets; budgeting for water-related activities in National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), etc.; external financing (e.g. global/regional climate financing mechanisms, adaptation funds, bilateral and multilateral donors and banks); and innovative / blended financing mechanisms (e.g. payments for catchment/ecosystem services, bonds, private sector climate finance, etc.). Extent of the institutional and operational capacity to secure, absorb, manage, allocate and disburse coordinated climate and water financing. Describe the planned and/or needed improvements for strengthened coordination between water and climate management from the financing perspective.]
The revenues generated from the auctioning from emission allowances of operators of stationary emission sources are transferred to the state budget. Until now 50 per cent of the revenues (in future 100%) are used for financing the objectives limiting the generation of greenhouse gases. One of the objectives is adaptation to the impact of climate change and mitigation of the impact of climate change, including activities on climate change adaptation on water. E.G. 5.3 million was allocated for flood risk mitigation on 2018-2020.

In the period 2022-2027 from European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) will be directed in Estonia to climate change adaptation approximately 136 million euros, including 39 million to flood risk mitigation (25 million for pluvial floods and 14 million another flood risk types).
Part 2 - Indicator Scoring, target setting and consultation process
5 Indicator 6.5.1 score, target setting, and priority action areas
5.1 Indicator 6.5.1 score
Please use the automated indicator calculation template (see “Supporting Materials”). Insert rounded scores in the 2026 column in the table below. Do not change the 2017, 2020, or 2023 scores. Projected scores and targets are optional but encouraged (see Section 5.2).

MANDATORY
OPTIONAL (see Section 5.2)

Average Scores
Business-As-Usual (BAU) projected score for 2030
National target for 2030
Are targets ‘official’ or ‘informal’?

2017
2020
2023
2026



Section 1 Enabling environment
83
91
94

100
100

Section 2 Institutions and participation
93
96
99

100
100

Section 3 Management instruments
80
80
87

100
100

Section 4 Financing
64
73
77

100
100

Indicator 6.5.1 score
= Degree of IWRM implementation (0-100)
80
85
89

100
100


2026 indicator score calculation methodology
The calculation template will correctly calculate the scores. If you wish to calculate them manually, the methodology is as follows:
1. The average score of each of the four sections is calculated 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 calculations, and therefore will not affect the average score. However, questions with a score of ‘0’ (zero) should be included.
2. The overall score for indicator 6.5.1 is the average of the four section scores (whole numbers), 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.


5.2 Target Setting
The intention of the optional target-setting columns in the table in Section 5.1 is to:
(a) encourage discussion among stakeholders on the likelihood of reaching the global targets of 91% and above, or the need to establish national targets; and
(b) inform regional and global processes about whether countries feel they are on track to meet the global targets or not, and if they prefer to set national targets.
• BAU projected score for 2030: approximate score (or range), based on reporting in 2017, 2020, 2023, 2026, current rates of progress, and stakeholder judgement. A simple calculation template (see “Supporting Materials”) is provided (see ‘Projections-Targets’ worksheet), to support visualization and discussion.
• National target for 2030: potentially achievable score by 2030, if certain measures are put in place, for example as described in Section 5.3. Could be the same as BAU score, or same as global target. In the last column, please indicate if these are ‘official’ targets, or ‘informal’ targets defined during this monitoring process.
Any other feedback on achieving targets, or target setting?
Answer:


Interpretation of indicator scores
The scores measure the ‘degree of implementation of integrated water resources management’, on a scale of 0 to 100. Implementation categories and their general interpretation are given below, which is used for global and regional reporting. However, the true value of the survey to countries lies within the scores, 'Status', 'Changes since 2023 reporting' and 'Way forward' fields for each question, as this helps to identify actions needed to move towards a higher degree of implementation of IWRM (see Section 5.3).
Scores (%)
IWRM implementation level
General interpretation
Resilience to pressures
0-10
Very low
Little to no sustainable water management arrangements.
Low
11-30
Low
Arrangements being developed.

31-50
Medium-low
Arrangements generally approved and institutionalized, but limited implementation.

51-70
Medium-high
Implementation started, but not always effective.
Medium
71-90
High
Some sustainable water management objectives met (close to target).
High
91-100
Very high
Global target. Sustainable water resources management.

5.3 Priority Action Areas
What are the priority action areas52 to advance IWRM implementation overall in the country?
Answer:
[Include priorities/actions that are ongoing, already planned, and/or those that may be emerging based on the survey results. Where relevant, please also note the status of implementation of the priorities/actions (e.g. giving some indication of necessary follow-up).]

Additional general comments :
Answer:
[e.g. related to the status/challenges of IWRM implementation; country context; threats to water resources; impacts of climate change, or other]

6 Country reporting process
To increase transparency and confidence in results, please provide a brief overview of the reporting process (see the Monitoring Guide and Stakeholder Consultation Manual). E.g. main actors involved; meetings/workshops held; other means of gathering inputs from stakeholders; iterations of drafts and finalization/approval processes. Also note the main challenges/strengths of the process. Use as much space as needed.
Did your country receive financial support for reporting, through the SDG 6 IWRM Support Programme? Please mark with ‘X’.
☐ Yes ☒ No. If ‘Yes’, please also complete Annex B.

Focal Point affiliation


Brief process overview:
All main stakeholders were involved. As the IWRM implementation is responsibility of Ministry of Climate then most input came from there. Several other stakeholders were consulted as well and their input was taken into account in preparing the scores and additional texts. Questions sent to and draft filled in questionnaire reviewed by relevant partners. Generally it is common view and approaches concerning IWRM implementation.

Any main points of difference in stakeholder opinion in answering the survey questions?:
Additional comments on the survey or supporting materials, if any:

Stakeholder groups
Level of engagement (mark with ‘X’)
Additional information
(e.g. names of stakeholder organizations involved, how they contributed or were engaged, or any challenges faced)

Low (given opportunity to contribute)
Medium (some input)
High (discussion/ negotiation)

National water agencies




Other public sector agencies




Sub-national water agencies




Basin/Aquifer agencies




Water User Associations




Civil society




Private sector




Vulnerable groups




Gender expertise




Research/academia




Transboundary expertise



(e.g. Focal Point for SDG 6.5.2 and/or other)
Other SDG focal points



(e.g. Focal Points from other indicators)
Please add rows if required




Quick Quality Assurance (QA) checklist for Focal Points
To reduce the need for revisions, please use this QA checklist to avoid common mistakes in the submission. This page will be removed by UNEP on finalization, and does not affect the submission scores in any way.
The submission cover page contains up to date primary and supporting Focal Point information.
☐
All questions in Part 1 have been scored (either with a score or n/a) in the yellow cells for each question (apart from the climate change considerations questions).
☐
All question ins Part 1 are scored in increments of 10 (apart from the climate change considerations questions). I.e. possible scores are 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100.
☐
Explanatory information is provided for all questions in Part 1 in the fields called ‘Status’, ‘Changes since 2023 reporting’ and ‘Way forward’.
☐
For the four “climate change considerations questions in Sections 1 to 4, implementation category is selected and explanatory information is provided in ‘Status and way forward’.
☐
Section 5 of the survey has been filled and final score for indicator 6.5.1 has been calculated from the four section average scores, rounded to the nearest whole number (E.g. score 55.5 would be rounded to 56).
☐
Section 6 Country reporting process has been completed.
☐

Annexes
Annex A: Glossary
• Accountability mechanisms: provide ways for all partners to hold each other to account on the specific, measurable, time-bound actions they have committed to. In the context of this survey, they may include activities that increase Transparency, Accountability, Participation, and Anti-corruption (TAPA). Together, these form a framework for integrity (Source: Water Integrity Network). For example, in relation to the financing questions in Section 4, ‘accountability mechanisms’ typically include mechanisms that make data and information on budgets and expenditures publicly available, and enable participatory budgeting and monitoring of expenditure where appropriate. Such mechanisms should include functions to identify and address corruption and mismanagement.
• 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:
◦ efficiency to use water resources in the best way possible;
◦ equity in the allocation of water across social and economic groups;
◦ 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.
• Programmes: 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. 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 included in this survey should be cross-referenced with those included in 6.5.2 reporting, 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 (Transboundary Freshwater Diplomacy Database), and transboundary aquifers, may be referred to. If you include a national (sub-basin) as part of a larger transboundary basin, please also include the name of the larger basin. When answering transboundary questions, the majority of most important basins/aquifers must meet the criteria described in each threshold to achieve the score for that threshold.
• 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: Facilitator’s Report
This Annex is mandatory for countries that received financial support through Stage 1 of the SDG 6 IWRM Support Programme in 2026. It is optional for all other countries.
[Provide key points and overall messages from the roundtable discussions and reporting back, as well as inputs received outside of the workshop. Include relevant points made around justifying the rationale for certain scoring, or divergences in scoring where applicable (e.g. between different stakeholder groups, differences in scores from different areas/levels). 
a. What are the main challenges to progress in the country? 
b. How can the main challenges be addressed? 
c. At the question level or in general, what is the perceived rate of progress, and what is the likelihood of reaching High or Very high implementation by 2030? Is there a need for national (interim) target setting (which may be taken up in more detail in Stage 2 of the SDG 6 IWRM Support Programme)?  
d. What are the major points stakeholders do not agree on and why? 
e. Other interesting points of note from the discussion?]

1. Conclusions from facilitated discussions on Section 1: ’Enabling Environment’
Answer:

2. Conclusions from facilitated discussions on Section 2: ’Institutions and Participation’ 
Answer:

3. Conclusions from facilitated discussions on Section 3: ’Management Instruments’ 
Answer:

4. Conclusions from facilitated discussions on Section 4: ’Financing’ 
Answer:

5. Next steps  
Answer:
[Provide key points from the consultation process regarding next steps, including cross-cutting challenges and ways to overcome them, reflections on the overall rate of progress and likelihood of achieving global targets by 2030, recommendations for accelerating IWRM implementation, and follow-up actions for the continuous monitoring of SDG indicator 6.5.1 in the country.]

6. Stakeholders engaged (through workshops or otherwise)
Organization
Position
Name
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


SDG INDICATOR 6.5.1: MONITORING GUIDE
DEGREE OF INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IWRM) IMPLEMENTATION


Table of Contents
1 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: FOCAL POINTS 1
2 AVAILABLE SUPPORT 1
3 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION PROCESS 1
4 SURVEY OVERVIEW AND UPDATING THE SURVEY 3
4.1 Survey Overview 3
4.2 Updating the Survey 4
5 SUBMISSION PROCESS, QUALITY ASSURANCE, TIMELINE 5
6 AFTER SUBMISSION 5
ANNEXES 6
ANNEX 1: SUMMARY OF OPTIONAL SUPPORTING MATERIAL 6
ANNEX 2: 6.5.1 QUESTION LINKS TO OTHER SDG TARGETS 7
ANNEX 3: SURVEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ROUNDS 8






This guide provides an overview of the processes for completing and submitting the SDG indicator 6.5.1 survey (2026 version). This guide should be read by all SDG indicator 6.5.1 Focal Points and supporting Focal Points. The survey and this guide are available in English, French, Spanish, Arabic, Portuguese, Russian, and Chinese. Additional (optional) supporting materials are referenced from the text, and a summary table of these can be found in Annex 1. All materials are available from the IWRM Data Portal.
1 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: FOCAL POINTS
The SDG indicator 6.5.1 Focal Point(s) has overall responsibility for coordinating the monitoring process, including stakeholder consultation (see section 3), and submitting draft and final surveys to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), as the custodian agency for the indicator (see section 5). In most countries, Focal Points are affiliated with the ministry responsible for water resources management, although sometimes they are from the National Statistical Office (NSO), Ministry of Planning, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or similar.1 In such cases, it is highly recommended that a ‘supporting’ Focal Point is nominated that is affiliated with the ministry for water resources (or similar). The Focal Point will likely work with colleagues in an ‘indicator team’ and may engage or appoint a ‘facilitator’ to run consultation processes (see section 3).
2 AVAILABLE SUPPORT
Most countries are expected to have the capacity to complete and submit the 6.5.1 survey, drawing on the available supporting materials (see Annex 1), as needed. In addition, any queries can be directed to the SDG 6.5.1 IWRM Help Desk, hosted by UNEP, at [email protected]. Upon request, the Help Desk can provide support to the Focal Points on matters such as interpretation of questions and thresholds, the appropriate level of stakeholder engagement, and support with submissions.
In 2026, only a limited number of countries will receive technical/financial assistance, through Stage 1 of the SDG 6 Support Programme, to hold stakeholder consultations for reporting on indicator 6.5.1 . These countries have been pre-selected on a needs basis, considering strength of submissions in previous rounds. Countries that have not been pre-selected for Stage 1 support are still welcome to contact the Help Desk throughout their reporting process to ask for guidance.
3 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION PROCESS
To ensure a robust and accurate survey, a stakeholder engagement process to complete the survey is strongly encouraged. The extent of stakeholder consultation should be appropriate within the national context, given time and resource constraints. This may range from key ministries responsible for, or engaged in, various aspects of water resources management, to non-government organisations, the private sector, and academia.
Experience from previous rounds tells us that countries have found the consultation process useful in developing a shared understanding of key issues and priorities among various stakeholders. Stakeholder engagement also makes the completed survey a more useful diagnostic tool for further discussions and planning (see section 6).
While a broad stakeholder consultation might not be feasible in all countries, the following guidance should be considered to ensure a sufficient stakeholder consultation process:
• Preparation: Start by clarifying who will organise and lead the stakeholder consultation. This can be done directly through the Focal Point or a small team appointed by them including for example, government stakeholders across relevant sectors, such as environment, agriculture and economy.
• Updating the survey: Once a group has been identified and a first presentation meeting has been held, the two following approaches, or a blend of both approaches, can be used to update the SDG 6.5.1 survey:
◦ in series: consecutive drafts developed with different stakeholders. For example, a first draft may be developed by the Focal Point and immediate colleagues, a second draft discussed within a group of government institutions, and a third draft endorsed by other stakeholders.
◦ in parallel: different stakeholders fill out the survey, responses are analysed by the Focal Point and colleagues, then all parties discuss to reach consensus on scores.
• Format: stakeholder consultations can be held in-person, online, or a blend of both.
• Best practices: make the consultation process inclusive, fair, consensus-based, and transparent.
As various questions in the 6.5.1 survey relate to different aspects of water resources use and management, it is preferable that Focal Points responsible for other SDG 6 indicators, and other water-related indicators, are given the opportunity to participate in completing the survey. Reporting on all SDG 6 indicators is coordinated by UN-Water through the Integrated Monitoring Initiative for SDG 6 (IMI-SDG6). Under the initiative, most countries have “Overall Focal Points” (OFPs) for SDG 6, and “Technical Focal Points” (TFPs) for each indicator. Contact details of OFPs and TFPs are available on request through the Help Desk. A list of which survey questions are particularly related to other SDG indicators is provided in Annex 2.
For countries wishing to hold a more extensive stakeholder consultation process, further information and guidance are provided in the Stakeholder Consultation Manual, which also includes an example Workshop Agenda and Terms of Reference (ToR) for a Facilitator. Additional tools and materials include: one-page survey overview; online IWRM survey tool; 2017, 2020 and 2023 two-page country summaries; SDG 6.5.1 Reporting Training (free, self-paced online course on running stakeholder consultations, available in English, French and Spanish, approximately 4-6 hours commitment); and the gender checklist.

4 SURVEY OVERVIEW AND UPDATING THE SURVEY
4.1 Survey Overview
Below is an overview of all sections and questions included in the 6.5.1 survey.
SECTION 1: ENABLING ENVIRONMENT
1.1 Status of policies, laws and plans to support IWRM at the national level:
1.1a National water resources policy, or similar
1.1b National water resources laws
1.1c National integrated water resources management (IWRM) plans, or similar
1.2 Status of policies, laws and plans to support IWRM at other levels:
1.2a Sub-national water resources policies or similar
1.2b Basin/aquifer management plans or similar, based on IWRM
1.2c Agreements for transboundary water management
1.2d Sub-national water resources regulations (laws, decrees, ordinances or similar)
CC-1 Development and implementation of policies/laws/plans integrating climate change and WRM
SECTION 2: INSTITUTIONS AND PARTICIPATION
2.1 Status of institutions for IWRM implementation at the national level:
2.1a National government authorities for leading IWRM implementation
2.1b Coordination between national government authorities representing different sectors
2.1c Public participation in water resources, policy, planning and management at national level
2.1d Private sector participation in water resources development, management and use
2.1e Capacity Development for IWRM
2.2 Status of institutions for IWRM implementation at other levels:
2.2a Basin/aquifer level organizations for leading implementation of IWRM
2.2b Public participation in water resources, policy, planning and management at the local level
2.2c Participation of vulnerable groups in water resources planning and management
2.2d Gender mainstreaming in water resources management
2.2e Organizational framework for transboundary water management
2.2f Sub-national authorities for leading IWRM implementation
CC-2 Coordination between climate and water resources institutions / stakeholders
SECTION 3: MANAGEMENT INSTRUMENTS
3.1 Status of management instruments to support IWRM implementation at the national level:
3.1a National monitoring of water availability (incl. surface and/or groundwater)
3.1b Sustainable and efficient water use management at national level (surface and/or groundwater)
3.1c Pollution control from the national level
3.1d Management of water-related ecosystems and biodiversity from the national level
3.1e Management instruments to reduce impacts of water-related disasters - national level
3.2 Status of management instruments to support IWRM implementation at other levels:
3.2a Basin management instruments
3.2b Aquifer management instruments
3.2c Data and information sharing within countries at all levels
3.2d Transboundary data and information sharing between countries
CC-3 Extent to which climate change impacts are addressed in management instruments for WRM
SECTION 4: FINANCING
4.1 Status of financing for water resources development and management at the national level:
4.1a National budget for water resources infrastructure (investment and recurrent costs)
4.1b National budget for IWRM elements (investments and recurrent costs)
4.2 Status of financing for water resources development and management at other levels:
4.2a Sub-national or basin budgets for water resources infrastructure (investment & recurrent costs)
4.2b Revenues raised for IWRM elements
4.2c Financing for transboundary cooperation
4.2d Sub-national or basin budgets for IWRM elements (investment and recurrent costs)
CC-4 Integration of climate-related funding into financing for WRM and vice versa
SECTION 5: SDG indicator 6.5.1 calculation, target setting and priority actions
SECTION 6: Country reporting process
4.2 Updating the Survey
Following recommendations from previous data collection rounds, all country surveys have been pre-filled using responses from previous rounds (usually 2023, or 2020 if necessary). This has been done to help countries build on previous submissions and to reduce the overall reporting burden. A list of minor differences between the 2026 survey and previous surveys can be found in Annex 3. 191 countries have submitted 6.5.1 surveys across 2017, 2020 and 2023.
Countries are responsible for updating the text and score to reflect the situation in 2026. Use the one-page survey overview above to get an understanding of the links between questions. This can facilitate cross-referencing between questions, ensure free-text responses are in the appropriate location, and minimise duplication. The process for each question is as follows:
1) Review previous responses: Review scores and pre-filled free-text answers from previous rounds.
2) Update and fill-in the three free-text fields (Fig. 1, orange box), paying close attention to the guidance text in italic font in square brackets in each field, and all explanatory text and footnotes:
• Status: maintain all relevant information from previous rounds, adding more detail where needed, and updating to reflect the situation in 2026. Include concrete details in your response to justify the score: e.g. names and years of policies, arrangements, responsible institutions, examples of implementation. You may wish to update any formatting that may have been lost in the pre-filling process (hyperlinks, bold, etc.).
• Changes since 2023 reporting: give a brief summary to explain any differences in implementation status between 2023 and 2026. This field may also be used to explain any discrepancies in scores between reporting rounds (e.g. scores that may have fluctuated up and down, partly due to implementation progress on the ground, but potentially also influenced by increasing understanding of the question between rounds).
◦ Way forward: planned and/or recommended activities to advance the score on that topic.
3) Give 2026 score: based on responses in the free text fields, enter the score, in increments of 10, from 0-100, in the yellow highlighted cell below “2026” (Fig. 1). Use the threshold descriptions to guide the score selection (Fig. 1, red box). Note that all previous thresholds must also be met to give a particular score. Scores between thresholds may be used, but still in increments of 10 (e.g. 10, 30, 50, 70, 90). Avoid responding n/a (not applicable) wherever possible. Countries are expected to provide a score for most questions except if n/a is the only appropriate response (e.g. transboundary questions for island states, or sub-national level questions for very small countries). Otherwise, if the response was ‘n/a’ in 2023, reconsider if a score is more appropriate.
1. ENABLING ENVIRONMENT 
1.1 What is the status of policies, laws and plans to support IWRM at the national level?
Degree of implementation 0-100
Very low (0)
Low (20)
Medium-low (40)
Medium-high (60)
High (80)
Very high (100)
1.1 a. National water resources policy, or similar.
Development not started or not progressing.
Exists, but not based on IWRM.
Based on IWRM, approved by govt. and starting to be used by authorities to guide work.
Based on IWRM, being used by the majority of relevant authorities to guide work.
Policy objectives consistently achieved.
Objectives consistently achieved, and periodically reviewed and revised.
Score






2017
2020
2023
2026
















Status: [E.g. Names/years of relevant policies (and any updates), how they are being used to guide work, evidence/examples of implementation, and which policy objectives are monitored/achieved. Include links to further information where available. Any challenges/barriers/gaps, or successes/enablers.]
Changes since 2023 reporting: [E.g. Summarise any specific changes since 2023. If needed, comment on the interpretation of progress between years.]
Way forward: [E.g. planned or recommended activities to advance implementation of policies; barriers and enablers; suggested targets where appropriate.]
Figure 1 - Example of a question from the SDG 6.5.1 survey
5 SUBMISSION PROCESS, QUALITY ASSURANCE, TIMELINE
Countries are encouraged to submit interim or incomplete drafts with clarification questions at any time. The submission process is as follows:
1. First Draft: Focal Points should share a first draft with the Help Desk at [email protected], after going through the country consultation process, but before formal finalisation / endorsement by the country. The Help Desk will review the draft and provide feedback and clarifications. Please use the following file name format: CountryName_SDG651_2026_2-letter-language-code_FIRST-DRAFT _ddmmyyy.docx
2. Final Draft: Focal Points are responsible for addressing comments and for returning a completed Final Draft survey to the Help Desk. Relevant national approval processes should be followed. Please use the following file name format: CountryName_SDG651_2026_2-letter-language-code_FINAL-DRAFT_ddmmyyy.docx.
3. Finalisation: Once the Focal Point and the Help Desk are satisfied that all Quality Assurance (QA) criteria have been met, the Help Desk ‘cleans’ the survey, removing the Focal Point checklist, and returns the final version to the Focal Point
For any interim draft, first draft, or final draft surveys, the Help Desk will undertake standard QA procedures to check that the survey has been properly completed, with correct calculation of indicator scores, and adequate free-text responses to support the question scores.
Timeline: As shown in Figure 2 below, the submission date for the First Draft is 5th June 2026. Any variations to timelines will be communicated to the Focal Points from the Help Desk. Focal Points are invited to keep the Help Desk informed of progress and should notify the Help Desk if there are challenges meeting the deadlines.
Figure 2 - Timeline for reporting 2026
6 AFTER SUBMISSION
SDG 6.5.1 Focal Points are encouraged to share the outcomes, advocate for resources and discuss the way forward with relevant decision-makers, making use of the country summaries available on the IWRM Data Portal.
The SDG 6 IWRM Support Programme offers technical and financial assistance to a limited number of countries in developing an IWRM Action Plan or similar (Stage 2), and/or accessing financing for implementation (Stage 3). Interested countries can contact the Support Programme for more information ([email protected]) and view existing IWRM Action Plans.
The SDG 6 IWRM Support Programme can also support work with regional bodies to co-develop assessments and products to help advance IWRM implementation at national and regional levels.
After each data collection round, UNEP and partners have the responsibility to: (a) make the results available via the IWRM Data Portal and prepare global status reports; and (b) report data to the UN Statistical Division for tracking progress towards the SDGs.

ANNEXES
ANNEX 1: SUMMARY OF OPTIONAL SUPPORTING MATERIAL
The following table provides a summary of optional resources that the Focal Point and colleagues may wish to pick and choose from, should they require further information, guidance, or tools. It is not necessary to read all these documents to successfully complete the 6.5.1 survey.
All documents are available via the IWRM Data Portal’s ‘data collection’ page.
Materials
Description
Languages*
Support to completing the survey
Survey Overview
One page overview
All
Calculation Template
Supports correct calculation of section and indicator scores.
All
Gender checklist
Checklist to support discussion on status of gender mainstreaming in WRM for the completion of survey question 2.2d. Please share the checklist with the Help Desk if it has been used by your country.
All
Stakeholder Consultation and Communication
Country Summaries
2-page visual summaries of results from 2017, 2020 and 2023 per country.
All
Stakeholder Consultation Manual
Further information and guidance on suggested stakeholder consultation processes for SDG 6.5.1 reporting
Annex 1 – Online IWRM Survey Tool
Annex 2 – Example Workshop Agenda
Annex 3 – Example Facilitator ToR
All
SDG 6.5.1 Reporting Training
Self-paced, free, online course (4-6 hrs commitment)
EN, ES, FR
* All materials are available in English, French, Spanish, Arabic, Portuguese, Russian, and Chinese, unless stated otherwise.


ANNEX 2: 6.5.1 QUESTION LINKS TO OTHER SDG TARGETS
Involvement of other SDG indicator Focal Points is recommended for the following questions.
Survey question 
Link to SDG target 
1.2c, 2.2e, 3.2d, 4.1c
Transboundary questions linked to SDG indicator 6.5.2.
2.2b local level public participation 
6.b: Support and strengthen the participation of local communities in improving water and sanitation management. 
2.2d gender in laws/plans or similar 
Question A14.a in the GLAAS survey. 5.5: Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels ... in political, economic and public life.
3.1a national monitoring of water availability 
6.4: By 2030, substantially increase water-use efficiency across all sectors and ensure sustainable withdrawals and supply of freshwater to address water scarcity and substantially reduce the number of people suffering from water scarcity. 
3.1b sustainable and efficient water use management 

3.1c pollution control 
6.3: By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater and substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally. 
3.1d management of water-related ecosystems 
6.6: By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes. 
3.1e management instruments to reduce impacts of water-related disasters 
11.5: By 2030, significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected and substantially decrease the direct economic losses relative to global gross domestic product caused by disasters, including water-related disasters, with a focus on protecting the poor and people in vulnerable situations. 



ANNEX 3: SURVEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ROUNDS
2017 
2020 
2023
2026
Qs 1.2d & 2.2f: sub-national laws and institutions respectively, for federal countries only.
The revised questions 1.2d & 2.2f were opened to all countries, acknowledging that many countries have sub-national regulations and authorities, even if the countries are not federal.  
As per 2020.
As per 2023.
Qs 2.1e, 2.2c & 2.2d: gender at national, sub-national and transboundary levels. 
These three questions were merged into a single question 2.2d. In 2017, most countries reported the same or similar scores at each level, so three questions did not add significant value. The merging of these three questions created space for two additional questions (see below). 
As per 2020
As per 2023.
Clarifications to the thresholds and guidance text for questions 2.2c and 2.2d were added.
- 
New question 2.2c on vulnerable groups. This captures an element of stakeholder participation which is important in the context of ‘leave no-one behind’ – one of the key principles of Agenda 2030. 
As per 2020.

- 
New question 4.2d on sub-national or basin budgets for IWRM elements, acknowledging the importance of funding being available at more ‘operational’ levels. 
As per 2020.
As per 2023.
-
-
Additional free-text field on “climate change considerations” for questions 1.1c, 2.1b, 2.1e, 3.1e, and 4.1b.
Rather than being embedded in a particular question in each section, this question now comes at the end of each section, so that it can address all aspects of that section (IWRM dimension). In addition, countries are asked to choose one of 6 implementation categories to quantify the implementation level.
-
-
-
Added free text field "Changes since 2023 reporting” to help countries clarify changes from 2023 to 2026.
For clarity, minor amendments have also been made to: some threshold descriptions; guidance in the free-text fields; glossary (Annex A of Survey).

SDG Indicator 6.5.1 Survey Overview - 2026
Degree of integrated water resources management implementation
SECTION 1: ENABLING ENVIRONMENT
1.1 Status of policies, laws and plans to support IWRM at the national level:
1.1a National water resources policy, or similar
1.1b National water resources laws
1.1c National integrated water resources management (IWRM) plans, or similar
1.2 Status of policies, laws and plans to support IWRM at other levels:
1.2a Sub-national water resources policies or similar
1.2b Basin/aquifer management plans or similar, based on IWRM
1.2c Agreements for transboundary water management
1.2d Sub-national water resources regulations (laws, decrees, ordinances or similar)
CC-1 Development and implementation of policies / laws / plans integrating both climate change and water resources. 
SECTION 2: INSTITUTIONS AND PARTICIPATION
2.1 Status of institutions for IWRM implementation at the national level:
2.1a National government authorities for leading IWRM implementation
2.1b Coordination between national government authorities representing different sectors
2.1c Public participation in water resources, policy, planning and management at national level
2.1d Private sector participation in water resources development, management and use
2.1e Capacity Development for IWRM
2.2 Status of institutions for IWRM implementation at other levels:
2.2a Basin/aquifer level organizations for leading implementation of IWRM
2.2b Public participation in water resources, policy, planning and management at the local level
2.2c Participation of vulnerable groups in water resources planning and management
2.2d Gender mainstreaming in water resources management
2.2e Organizational framework for transboundary water management
2.2f Sub-national authorities for leading IWRM implementation
CC-2 Coordination between climate and water resources institutions / stakeholders.
SECTION 3: MANAGEMENT INSTRUMENTS
3.1 Status of management instruments to support IWRM implementation at the national level:
3.1a National monitoring of water availability (incl. surface and/or groundwater)
3.1b Sustainable and efficient water use management at the national level (incl. surface and/or groundwater)
3.1c Pollution control from the national level
3.1d Management of water-related ecosystems and biodiversity from the national level
3.1e Management instruments to reduce impacts of water-related disasters - national level
3.2 Status of management instruments to support IWRM implementation at other levels:
3.2a Basin management instruments
3.2b Aquifer management instruments
3.2c Data and information sharing within countries at all levels
3.2d Transboundary data and information sharing between countries
CC-3 Extent to which climate change impacts are addressed in management instruments for WRM.
SECTION 4: FINANCING
4.1 Status of financing for water resources development and management at the national level:
4.1a National budget for water resources infrastructure (investment and recurrent costs)
4.1b National budget for IWRM elements (investments and recurrent costs)
4.2 Status of financing for water resources development and management at other levels:
4.2a Sub-national or basin budgets for water resources infrastructure (investment and recurrent costs)
4.2b Revenues raised for IWRM elements
4.2c Financing for transboundary cooperation
4.2d Sub-national or basin budgets for IWRM elements (investment and recurrent costs)
CC-4 Integration of climate-related funding into financing for WRM and vice versa. 
SECTION 5: Calculation of the national SDG 6.5.1 score (Degree of IWRM implementation 0-100)
Each question (except CC questions) scored out of 100. (Average scores for sections 1+2+3+4)/4 = SDG 6.5.1 score
SECTION 6: Country reporting process
ANNEXES: Annex A: Glossary; Annex B: Facilitator’s report (optional)