Evaluation of water safety plan implementation at provincial water utilities in Vietnam

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends water safety plans (WSPs) as a means to ensure the safety of drinking water (WHO 2004). WSPs consist of a comprehensive risk assessment and risk management approach to prevent contamination of drinking water, from catchment to consumers (WHO 2005, 2009). WSPs are key tools for sustained safe drinking water access (Kanyesigye et al. 2019) and the achievement of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 6.1. The achievement of this target is measured using indicator 6.1.1, which emphasizes the proportion of the population using safely managed drinking water services. Safely managed water is defined as an improved source located on premises, available when needed and free from fecal and priority chemical contamination (WHO 2017).

As of 2017, WSPs have been developed and implemented in 93 countries worldwide (WHO & IWA 2017). Kumpel et al. (2018) investigated the effectiveness of WSP implemented in 99 water supply utilities in 12 countries from the Asia-Pacific region. This study identified both benefits from WSPs and challenges in their implementation, including financial constraints and insufficient capacity. Gunnarsdóttir et al. (2012) investigated the benefits of WSPs and critically analyzed the requirements for successful implementation and operation in Iceland, one of the first countries to adopt systematic preventive management for drinking water safety. The results showed several benefits of the WSP implementation process including changing the attitude of the staff to water safety and the culture within utilities. The lack of documentation and lack of regular internal and external audits were key obstacles to implementation of the WSP. The most important elements of success were the intensive training of staff and participation of staff in the whole process. The authors concluded that it was important to have simple and well-structured guidelines, and good cooperation with the health authorities (Gunnarsdóttir et al. 2012).

In Vietnam, WSPs were first introduced in 2006 by the WHO, collaborating with Vietnam's Ministry of Construction (MOC), and selected provincial water utilities, focusing on introducing the approach and capacity building. From 2007 to 2009, three provincial water supply utilities of Hai Duong, Thua Thien-Hue, and Vinh Long, providing water supply services in provincial capital cities, implemented trial WSPs. Based on the initial successes, between 2010 and 2012, WHO and MOC expanded WSP training and implementation at four other provincial water supply utilities of Hai Phong, Quang Ninh, Khanh Hoa, and Ba Ria-Vung Tau. A review of these first WSP experiences showed that implementation of WSPs helped to improve urban water supply services (ATI, MOC 2021).

The Ministry of Health (MOH) and Vietnam Water Supply and Sewerage Association (VWSA) are key players in promotion of WSPs in Vietnam. The MOH is in charge of the development of drinking water standards, and regulations for external monitoring of the water systems in all urban and rural areas in Vietnam. The VWSA has been developing human resources through capacity building in WSPs, and by developing the Vietnamese version of WSP Manual (Nguyen et al. 2021).

At the end of 2012, WSPs became a mandatory requirement for municipal water systems in Vietnam. In November 2021, for the first time, WSPs have been required in rural water supply systems by the National Strategy for Rural Water Supply and Sanitation for the period up to 2030 (GoV 2021). However, the level of understanding of WSP implementation at provincial water utilities varies widely. Some utilities have been active in developing, implementing, and updating their WSP, with participation of their staff and involvement of provincial authorities. Other utilities have developed a WSP, but its implementation is limited. Some provincial utilities and most rural water supply enterprises do not have a good understanding of WSPs (GoV 2021). WSP updating is not often carried out, while internal and external WSP auditing does not yet exist.

Increasing threats from water pollution and water source deterioration related to emerging changes in climate demonstrate a need to improve WSP implementation and strategy in the country. Water quality incidents in water supply systems in Vietnam show the need to improve risk management. Furthermore, the process of privatizing water by attracting private equity, which took place intensively between 1996 and 2015, has slowed down more recently; the expansion of service areas of provincial water utilities replacing unqualified rural water supply systems may have impacted WSP implementation.

This study aimed to assess WSP implementation at the provincial water supply utilities in Vietnam to understand the extent to which full implementation is being realized, the benefits of WSP implementation reported by utilities, and the constraints and challenges to WSP implementation.

The study was undertaken between August and November 2021 using a mixed-methods approach of surveys and in-depth interviews to collect information from key individuals who played a major role in WSP implementation at the water utilities.

The surveyed companies are listed in Table 2. The utilities selected represent the different management types of water supply utilities: public (100% state-own, one member company limited); fully equitized or private; not yet fully equitized, or joint stock company (JSC). Table 2 presents the different sources of funding for the water supply utilities. The general information related to system capacity and population served in each utility is shown in Table 3. The total capacities fluctuated from 22,000 to 2,400,000 m³/d with population to be served from 141 thousand to 8.8 million people. The number of connections in the water supply utilities is presented in Table 4. The data gathered from the survey were triangulated with data from the in-deep interviews, and financial reports 2021 published on the company's websites.

The survey form (attached in Supplementary material) was prepared to collect general information related to system capacity, number of users, type of utility ownership, and various aspects of the WSP implementation. Utilities were asked about their motivations and barriers for developing WSP and whether any of the changes to the WSP had been made since its first development. The survey included questions on climate considerations and financial challenges faced during WSP development and implementation. The perceived benefits of implementing WSP, WSP auditing (both internal and external), and resources available for WSP training from external agencies were also investigated.

Survey results were collected in Vietnamese, translated to English and analyzed using Microsoft Excel. Frequency tables were prepared for each survey response to identify themes.

One of the important barriers to apply WSP is the lack of understanding of WSPs by the utility's leaders. As WSP steering committees at provincial level have not been created, and regulation on compulsory application of WSP has not been issued, some water companies have not yet started to develop WSPs. For example, the private company with a wholesale water service to Hanoi of 300,000 m³/d does not implement a WSP.

Another barrier identified is where a water utility managing different water systems in different areas. Provincial water companies in Vietnam have looked to expand their service to surrounding areas, including rural areas taking water from different sources. This has created additional challenges for WSP implementation as more and more varied risks must be managed compared with utility with a single water source and concentrated service area.

Eighteen (78%) of utilities made changes to the WSP after the first development. The changes made to the WSPs were diverse depending on the actual operating situation of the companies. Ten utilities (43%) reported updating, adjusting and supplementing their WSP every year or after a major change in infrastructure, management, and operation processes. Thirteen (57%) of the utilities reported changes made to their WSP after emergency or other unforeseen incidents. One company issued its first WSP in 2017 and revised this in 2019 after working with the Ministry of Construction's WSP inspection team.

Five companies developed, issued, and adjusted the emergency response plan or incident handling scenarios to describe solutions to deal with emergency incidents and possible risks. These addressed hazards in the process of water production and ensuring they could meet the goal of ensuring water safety from the source to consumers.

Ten companies reviewed the operating process of the water treatment and water supply network on an annual basis. They also strengthened solutions for monitoring water source safety, applying water treatment technology, and improving the water quality monitoring system. Investments were also made in automatic equipment for system operation, and detecting leakage in the network.

One company enhanced the awareness of leaders and staff in the implementation of their WSP through applying remote preventive measures and applying new technology in production. In addition, the coordination of all levels of government and relevant departments in the protection of water sources and water supply systems and advocacy on WSP to encourage people to help protect water sources and water supply works were undertaken by the company.

The survey collected data on companies' financial capacity to implement WSPs. The results show that only 13 (57%) of the utilities have sufficient financial resources while the remaining 10 have shortfalls in financial resources for WSP implementation. One company spent 24.4 billion VND ($10.5 million) to implement a WSP for a system with a capacity of 120,000 m³/d, serving 580,500 population, after submission the WSP to the Provincial People's Committee for approval. The cost for the implementation of WSP was around 430 billion VND ($18.5 million) for company No. 13 with a system capacity of 85,000 m³/d and 400,000 people to be served.

Some utilities from the cities of second urban category considered that the financial support for implementation of WSP should be taken from the State budget, but as yet they have not received these funds. The Government is now addressing this. An important political will change came in 2021 with Circular No. 44/2021/TT-BTC dated 18 June 2021 by the Ministry of Finance on Water tariff structure and water pricing principles to ensure that WSP expenses have been accounted for in the water tariff structure (MoF 2021).

One public company estimated that it lacked 10% of the total budget to implement its WSP while the JSC company considered that it would need 50% of the budget from external means to support WSP. There was no information related to the total budget for the implementation WSP, showing that WSP was not conducted as an individual activity at the surveyed water utility.

Several companies explained that a large budget would be required in order to carry out the WSP. The utilities must perform WSP in several stages. One company explained that the utility could fund the installation of water quality monitoring equipment, and improving technologies in water treatment plants, but would need external support and cooperation from the government for strategic safe water supply works such as raw water reservoirs and clean water reservoirs.

Seventeen utilities were surveyed regarding their systems for water quality control and compliance with the QCVN 01-1:2018/BYT – National technical regulation on domestic water quality issued by the MOH.

External auditing of group A and group B parameters is implemented in 12 (71%) of the surveyed utilites. This high ratio indicates adherence to the regulations on water quality control.

The parameters that are not met regularly are diverse and include COD (KMnO₄), pH, hardness, nitrate (NO₃⁻), chloride (Cl⁻), and coliforms and free chlorine residual (Cl₂) at the end of the water pipe. The reasons and proposed solutions by the utilities are displayed in Table 4.

Improvement of other parameters: iron, manganese, arsenic, and ammonium were reported by two companies where raw water source was groundwater.

The implementation of a WSP resulted in new actions on water quality control in the water utilities. For example, most utilities now record and archive the data of water quality from the water treatment plant and from household surveillance. Some utilities also archive the customers' complaint records. The treated water samples at all the water utilities have met the National Water Quality Regulation (NWQR) in terms of surveyed parameters. Some utilities performed very well in terms of meeting treated water quality regulations. Turbidity in treated water was below 0.3 NTU at two water utilities. One utility reported inspecting the water quality through different treatment stages that were not previously done. One utility confirmed the stability of the residual chlorine at household's tap water. Improvement of water quality also led to a reduction of number of complaints from customers.

Of the 23 surveyed utilities, 15 (65%) of the surveyed utilities have confirmed the WSP implementation led to improvement in revenue generation and cost recovery.

Nine utilities indicated that preventing or minimizing risks such as reducing the time of water outage due to incidents. They considered this important in ensuring water quality, maintaining stable water supply pressure and flowrate or continuous water supply leading to increased customers' satisfaction and changing customers' awareness of other water sources. This was felt to lead to increased revenue, and contribute to the protection of water sources and water supply systems. Eight utilities indicated that the WSP helped in reducing non-revenue water, leading to increased revenue and opportunities to recover investment costs.

Two utilities indicated that predicting possible risks in advance, thereby developing a methodical response plan to overcome incidents will reduce costs for repairs. In addition, one company built up an automatic monitoring system from the water treatment plant to the water supply network, hence improving revenue and recovery project investment capital. The reducing and optimization of production costs by improving technology, reducing electricity and chemicals costs, as well as controlling the water treatment process, were mentioned by the three utilities.

The recommendations based on WSP auditing were diverse. Eight utilities were given recommendations to regularly adjust, update data, and review and evaluation of the effectiveness of their WSP after an incident, or to develop specific detailed plans with appropriate scenarios to handle incidents. Four utilities received recommendations to strengthen the monitoring and protection of water sources, strengthen communication and public awareness on the WSP, improving the supervision and operation of the water supply system, and improving the quality of water supply services from production, transmission, and distribution. Other recommendations included recommending that a water utility managing different water systems in different areas should pilot a WSP in a selected system, and then replicate in other systems. Experience sharing on WSP among water utilities was also recommended by the surveyed water utilities.

This study demonstrates that water utilities consider multiple benefits associated with the implementation of WSPs, but that substantial challenges remain in increasing the uptake and use of WSPs. The utilities surveyed have found WSPs useful in improving water quality, and in identifying and implementing improvements in operation and maintenance, environmental protection, and water quality protection. These are all anticipated improvements derived from implementing WSPs (WHO 2005) and suggest that the approach yields benefits in low- and middle-income countries as well as in high-income countries (Rickert et al. 2019). It is also important to note that utilities also saw benefits in revenue and cost-recovery in their companies. This is corroborated by studies in other countries that improved water safety management yields financial and operational benefits (WHO & IWA 2018).

It is interesting to note that most of the utilities have programmes to update WSPs on a regular basis and in response to major upgrades or incidents. This indicates that the training and guidance have been effective in communicating the importance of using WSPs as a living document and the importance of responding to changing conditions. This regular updating is also reflected by the view that climate change is a key driver for action on WSPs, as water quality can be anticipated to vary increasingly as rainfall intensifies and temperatures increase. As noted by Khan et al. (2015), WSPs provide an effective mechanism for managing future climate threats and climate considerations need to be fully integrated into water safety planning in the future. However, as noted by Nijhawan & Howard (2022), more data is required to understand how climate change may affect water safety and therefore determine what actions may be required to maintain safety.

It is also clear that while internal auditing is well-developed, external auditing remains relatively limited and this suggests more investment is required to improve the overall regulation of the water sector. WSPs have been now officially integrated as a mandatory procedure for the operation of water companies by the Vietnamese Government.

Financial constraints appear to represent the major barrier to implementation and wider uptake of WSPs in Vietnam. This is likely to pose a binding constraint on smaller utilities unless support from the Government is more forthcoming. It will be important, however, that if this is done clear outcomes are agreed between Government and the utilities to ensure actions lead to improved water safety management. It may be that result-based financing, pegging a proportion of the payments to deliverables offers one way to provide reassurance to government on value for money (Howard & White 2020).

In order to enhance the role and efficiency of WSPs, an updated version of a Circular on mandatory WSP implementation and WSP audit would be an important motivating factor. Besides, it will be necessary to provide better coordination, guidance, and capacity building support from the government to the utilities. This should be complemented by awareness raising about WSPs to local stakeholders. Our findings suggest that a provincial level Steering Committee on WSP should be created and maintained, as there are a number of issues beyond the scope of individual water utilities to be covered.

Regular training on WSP implementation and auditing for the water supply utilities should be continued and expanded. Our findings also suggest that support on preparation of detailed and appropriate guidelines suitable for each locality on WSP implementation, especially support in in-depth training on risk/hazards assessment is important. This should also address the needs of utilities that are providing water to multiple communities of different sizes and using different sources of water. A guideline for the internal and external WSP auditing is also needed urgently to provide confidence in these processes. Furthermore, regulatory documentation such as a new Circular by the Ministry of Construction on WSP auditing following that guideline would be an important WSP motivation factor, and bring more benefits from efficient WSP implementation.

There has already been a discussion of Certification on WSP based on the external WSP auditing led by VWSA with other stakeholders. Further discussion on this initiative is needed. The VWSA plays an important role as a third-party focal point to facilitate the WSP implementation and dissemination to its members, the water utilities, both those provincial utilities and those responsible for provision of services in rural areas.

Our study demonstrates that overall WSP implementation in the surveyed utilities in Vietnam has been good and that has led to tangible benefits to the utilities and to their customers. The water supplied is safer and WSPs have led to programmes of improvement and investment in water safety. The WSPs are a useful vehicle for addressing climate change concerns and can help the water sector in the country plan, make investments to support adaptation, and improve their resilience. The commitment from Government, utilities, and national professional bodies is strong and provides a sound basis for further expansion of WSPs. However, the critical financial barriers identified will need to be addressed if wider uptake is to be promoted, particularly in smaller and more rural utilities. Costs of developing and implementing WSPs should be counted in connections with other utility expenditures for common benefits, and this could be an interesting topic for further studies. There remain ongoing training needs and for better local guidance to be developed to support utilities effectively implement WSPs. The new regulations on WSPs are an important step in encouraging uptake and implementation, but this may need to be supported by programmes of investment in utilities to ensure that they have the human, technical, and financial resources needed for water safety management.

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

The authors declare there is no conflict.