An international review of the challenges associated with securing buy-in for water safety plans within providers of drinking water supplies

Abstract

Since publication of the 3rd Edition of the World Health Organisation (WHO) Drinking Water Quality guidelines, global adoption of water safety plans (WSPs) has been gathering momentum.Most guidance lists managerial commitment and 'buy-in' as critical to the success of WSP implementation; yet the detail on how to generate it is lacking. This commentary discusses aspects of managerial commitment to WSPs. We argue that the public health motivator should be clearer and a paramount objective and not lost among other, albeit legitimate, drivers such as political or regulatory pressures and financial efficiency.

Icelandic experience with water safety plans

“…This emphasizes the importance of well managed water utilities in which the key is the attitude and skills of the people worldng in the sector. At the core of that is the commitment of all staff to the responsibility of securing public health above all else (Hrudey et al 2oo6;Summerill et al 2010a). An adequate regulatory framework and regular external surveillances are important in verifying safe water but the main responsibility lies within the water utilities in protecting drinking water quality from catchment to consumer at all times.…”

The human dimension of water safety plans: a critical review of literature and information gaps

“…By identifying these goals at the outset of WSP implementation, utilities can "build a body of evidence" (Mudaliar 2012) that the approach is working towards an intended outcome, including improved public health. At the same time, interim goals can help to maintain interest and motivate water suppliers over the long term, while enhancing the confidence of policy makers and stakeholders regarding the validity of a WSP approach (Foster-Fishman et al 2006;Bartram et al 2009;Summerill et al 2010a;Rinehold et al 2011).…”

“…Two types of individualsexternal and internal leaders -are identified in the literature as having a significant impact on WSP uptake, how a WSP is managed over the long tem, and whether a WSP reaches its full potential in a given water supply (Bartram et al 2009;Summerill et al 2010aSummerill et al , 2010bHerrick and Pratt 2012). Community decisionmakers and other political figures are considered to be external leaders; their role can be seen as one that supports WSP implementation by providing the appropriate incentives, resource, and oversight.…”

“…Overall, the way in which both types of leaders approach a WSP requirement is reflective of the overall water culture in a community (Jayaratne 2008). Without the presence or development of such a culture, the risk lies in a "ceremonial" adoption of a WSP, one that has little benefit towards the long-term maintenance of a water supply and protection of public health (Summerill et al 2010a(Summerill et al , 2010b.…”

“…Summerill et al (2010a) found leadership practices through which operators "are afforded the status, training and remuneration commensurate with their responsibilities as guardians of the public's health" (p. 392) helped to develop the type of environment capable of supporting a WSP approach. Others have recognized the need to formally acknowledge the additional work taken on by operators as a result of a WSP approach, including changing the operator's job title and description to reflect changes in expectations or additional tasks (Gunnarsdóttir and Gissurarson 2008;Summerill et al 2010a;Herrick and Pratt 2012). While a minor step, recognizing the role of the operator can provide the groundwork necessary to support the type of long term commitment required in WSP culture.…”