Scaling of Water Safety Plan (WSP)

Published on by in Social

Most of the countries or Water Supply Providers claim, their drinking water is potable, but normally it is not.

They do not want to implement water safety plan, as they think it is unnecessary, there is no regular water quality monitoring.

As the WSP does not bring any money rather it needs extra budget, what would be best way to convinced and scaling up water safety plans. 

Taxonomy

5 Answers

  2. I work in the water industry of the Australian state of Victoria, which was an early adopter of WSPs, having made them mandatory for Victorian water utilities in 2003.  I worked for nine years with the state Department of Health, in the area of drinking water regulation, and for the past five years I have worked in a senior water quality role in a regional Victorian water utility.

    Over the past 14 years it is my assessment that WSPs should not be viewed as a business cost, but as a business investment in the production of safe drinking water.  WSPs currently provide the best available framework for the production of safe drinking water, by proactively managing risks to drinking water quality, rather than utilities having to react, in retrospect, to adverse water quality results, by which time consumers potentially have consumed unsafe drinking water.

    I do agree with Ian's assessment that getting traction for the implementation of WSPs is challenging in low income settings, but WHO have produced a wide range of resources to assist with WSP implementation (see attached file).

    It is not correct to say that WSPs don't include water quality monitoring - they do, it is just that the monitoring is done to verify that safe drinking was supplied; the WSP instead emphasises knowing how your treatment barriers performed that allowed for the production of safe drinking water.

    The only way that I know of that WSPs can generate income is by enabling that production of safe drinking water that your customers will be happy to pay for.

    Cheers

    David Sheehan

  3. Yes, this is a definite challenge, especially in developing countries where water service authorities are faced with two dilemmas: lack of budget and lack of trained personnel to carry out WSPs.  But even in developed countries many authorities feel it unnecessary as they have a good understanding and control of their water supply system and hence feel it to be just an administrative burden. 

    Ultimately it is a marketing exercise if it is not regulated.  We need to not only show the benefits of carrying out WSPs, but also to make it attractive and desirable.  In South Africa water service authorities could achieve "Blue Drop Status" if they managed to achieve a certain rating in terms of their water safety planning and a few other criteria.  Those that achieved the required rating would proudly display this on a bill board visible to all as you drive into the towns.  I am sure that there are many other means of marketing each suitable to a particular situation.  The challenge still faced though is that authorities without the means may give up and hence continue to ignore the process.  

    Lets hear from other readers!

    2 Comments

    1. Developing countries are characterized by politicized institutions specially those with economic incomes or taxes, and water institutions are part of that; so politicians are those managing water institutions but not the most competent water professionals.

    2. Though knowing little about the organization Social Watch, http://www.socialwatch.org/ they’ve published an interesting article, *SDG 6: (Re)municipalization of water,* https://www.2030spotlight.org/en/book/1730/chapter/sdg-6-remunicipalization-water

      As has frequently happened in such development as suggested by the 2030 goals, well-meaning leaders involved in the urgent need to get safe drinking water to the worlds’ poorest have been overwhelmed by those who are out for a lot of money and describe their technologies as sustainable. We must not be fooled into thinking that there are neither technologies nor business models that would get safe drinking water to the poorest.

      The Water Network seems to be as good a place as any to discuss the tragedy of this, while it is as big a roadblock as any to achieving the goals.  Those who wish to be proactive in such development as starts with the health of prospective beneficiaries need to seek out models that will work.  Most likely it’s already too late to get safe drinking water to all by 2030, but this could certainly be done, given a realistic time frame by embracing best practice technology and business models.

  4. Whether contaminated surface water pollute groundwater