Institutional Frameworks
Session Objectives
· To describe the
key players in the water sector and describe their roles and interaction.
· To describe how the water
supply sector should be structured and emphasise the need for a clear
institutional framework to be established.
· To demonstrate the need for
inter-sectoral and inter-institutional collaboration at all levels.
· To describe the key elements
of legislation required for effective monitoring linked to water supply
improvement.
Introduction
As the purpose of water supply surveillance is to promote the
improvement of water supply services, it is important that the organisational
arrangements intended to facilitate this pay due consideration to the vital and
complementary roles of both the surveillance and the supply functions. It is
also essential when establishing or reviewing the institutional arrangements of
the sector with respect to surveillance and monitoring functions, that the most
appropriate institution takes responsibility for surveillance functions.
Selecting Institutions and Assigning
Responsibilities
There are a numbers of issues in deciding institutional homes
for different functions and when doing this, it is important that the purpose of
each function is clearly defined and matched against the overall remit of the
institution. The principal functions concerned are: surveillance; supply, and;
resource management.
Surveillance - Ministry of Health
It is preferable that because quality surveillance is concerned
with human health, responsibility is assigned to the Ministry of Health as the
agency responsible for the protection of public and environmental health. This
is an independent monitoring role which takes into account water quality up to
the point of consumption and for all the population, regardless of the source of
water. This is clearly separate from quality control monitoring of water
production and supply exercised by water suppliers within their area of supply.
The separation of surveillance and supply functions is desirable to prevent any
actual or perceived conflicts of interest from occurring.
However, given changing political structures and
responsibilities for water supply, it may often not be practical to make the
Ministry of Health responsible for field data collection as they may lack the
necessary staff, skills and resources. The Ministry should, however, always
maintain a national profile in water quality surveillance as a key preventative
health activity.
Operational surveillance activities may be undertaken by local
government environmental health bodies, with the Ministry of Health playing a
co-ordinating and facilitating role. In many ways, this is the preferred
scenario if local government does not have responsibility for water supply.
Where local government also assumes responsibility for water supply, there may
potentially be a conflict of interest. In such circumstances they may be
financial and political objections to a centralised system of surveillance
operated by the Ministry of Health. In these circumstances, there must be clear
separation of responsibility for supply and surveillance up to the most senior
levels, or an alternative body established taking responsibility either for
supply (which is usually the favoured course) or surveillance.
Where a government department takes overall responsibility for
development of water supplies, there may be some scope for them to undertake
routine monitoring if the supplies are operated by another entity, although
clearly it is questionable if they can be truly independent. Alternative bodies
to the Ministry of Health can take responsibility for surveillance - for
instance the environment sector - but as these are not health bodies, the
Ministry of Health must retain a strong interest in the operation of
surveillance networks and the data produced.
Quality control - Water supply agency
The water supply usually has a responsibility to ensure that the
water supplied up to the connection with a house main or connection with a
standpost riser or point of exit from a point water supply is of a wholesome
nature and is fit for consumption. Usually this is measured against national
standards and norms of water supply. This is separate function to surveillance
as it is not concerned with the quality of water as consumed but of the
water as supplied.
The meeting of national standards is usually a legal requirement
which is enforced through surveillance. The frequency of quality control
sampling, the techniques used and methods of quality control and reporting are
generally standardise where piped water supplies operated by a supply agency
serve a population of consumers. Where community based water supplies are used,
whether point or piped, the supplier cannot usually reasonably be to undertake
routine quality control monitoring and under these circumstances it is common
that either only surveillance activities are undertaken or that the agency
responsible for the development of community supplies to carry out quality
control monitoring in addition to the surveillance function undertaken by
environmental health staff.
Water resources - Resource management agency
A further complication to the institutional arrangements is when
an independent water resource management/natural water quality monitoring body
is established. This is an appropriate system where sufficient resources exist
to fund the functioning of two regulatory bodies. The roles and responsibilities
of natural and drinking-water regulatory bodies are very different and different
types of qualification and experience are desirable in each. However, where
resources are limited, it is sometimes found that the same body takes
responsibility for both natural and drinking-water quality. This is not an
unreasonable approach to be adopted, provided that a balance can be struck
between the needs of both can be maintained. This is not necessarily easy,
particularly where financial resources are scarce and has proven to be difficult
to operate in many countries, usually to the detriment to drinking-water quality
surveillance and protection.
When both forms of monitoring are placed within the same
organisation there can be conflicts in approach and priority. For instance, the
drinking-water quality surveillance arm, whilst recognising the need for
protection of water quality in sources used for drinking, may not be sympathetic
for the need to maintain water quality in water bodies exploited for other uses
such as industry. Additionally, the drinking-water surveillance arm will place a
higher priority on the quality of water in the supply system (i.e. during
treatment and afterwards) than on raw water quality. On the other hand of
course, the natural water quality monitoring arm will place great emphasis on
the need to protect natural water quality and may attach little importance to
post-treatment contamination on small scales. There is also a problem in that
drinking-water quality standards are inherently stricter than most environmental
standards and require a greater frequency of analysis. Again this may lead to
difficulties in prioritising investment of limited resources.
Sector Structures
There are a number of different ways the sector can be
structured and it is preferable to simplify this rather than create too many
institutions with similar responsibilities. This not only makes enforcement
difficult, it is confusing to the public who become unsure as to whom they
should approach for action in the event of a problem.
Despite the many different institutional models that are
available world-wide, the mostly commonly applied (and probably most simple
model) is one where there are three principal institutions:
1. Water supply and sanitation agency(s);
2.
Drinking-water supply surveillance body;
3. Water resource management agency
- this may include pollution monitoring inspectorates.
The relationships between surveillance body, supplier and water
resource management body should be clearly defined from the outset and in
particular the legal framework within which they operate should be simple, clear
and effective. What is of greatest importance is to define the limit of
responsibility of each of the two regulatory bodies.
In general, the water supply surveillance body takes
responsibility for the water once it enters the water supply system (the intake)
up to the point of consumption (the tap). The water resource management agency
takes responsibility for the development, management and protection of natural
water and therefore their responsibility is for source waters up to the point of
abstraction for use and from the point of discharge of return flows of
wastewater. The water supply agency is obviously responsible for the integrity
of it's infrastructure and effectiveness of any source protection or treatment
applied to the water. There responsibility is therefore to produce a product of
acceptable quality and have a responsibility from the point of abstraction to
the point of connection with a house main or standpost riser or to the point of
collection in point water supplies. This situation is complicated where the
vending of water supplies at communal water points is licensed to water vendors,
as they also have a responsibility to maintain the integrity of the riser pipe
and fittings on the standpost and for timely reporting of faults to the bulk
supplier.
Surveillance agency
The surveillance agency should preferably be established by
national legislation and have representation at policy-making and all executive
levels (such as central, departmental, regional, local or district levels).
The responsibilities of the surveillance agency should encompass
monitoring of the fulfilment of water supply service standards by the water
suppliers, approval of drinking-water sources (subject to specific treatment
requirements where appropriate); and surveying the provision of drinking-water
to the population as a whole.
Surveillance is concerned with all types of water used
for domestic purposes by the population as a whole. This is a fundamental
distinction to the role of the supplier who should be responsible only for the
quality of the service they provide in the area in which they operate. The area
of responsibility of the surveillance agency should ideally encompass all
sources of water intended for human consumption. In practice this is often
difficult to achieve as many households or small communities may have individual
supplies (whether a single household well or spring or a small piped
distribution system). As the number of such systems may be very high, the
surveillance of all such supplies may be a costly and difficult-to-achieve goal.
Priority should therefore be given to:
· systems supplying
water to larger centres of population;
· systems suspected of being a
risk to human health; and
· to be a representative sample
of other types of supply in order to identify the most common shortcomings of
these.
Water supplier
The above does not exclude water supply and construction
agencies from involvement in surveillance and in fact it is vital that they are
involved.
While it is the responsibility of the surveillance agency to
generate and summarise surveillance data and to promote improvements, it is the
supply agency who will carry out many of the actions for improvement.
Supply agencies also have an obligation to monitor and control
the quality of the product they supply, in common with the suppliers of any
other types of product. This function is often referred to as quality
control in order to distinguish it from the health-related
surveillance function performed by the surveillance body.
In many countries arrangements to share water quality data exist
between surveillance and supply agencies. In some these arrangements are
informal and instigated at local level. In other cases they are formalised and
the surveillance agency accepts data generated by the supplier in place of some
of the data it would otherwise generate itself, provided the laboratories of the
supply agency are open to inspection and the surveillance agency maintains a
realistic minimum proportion of analyses for overseeing purposes.
Water resource management agency
The water resource management agency monitors natural water
quality and wastewater discharges. They will also licence abstraction, monitor
industrial discharges etc., but their key role within water supply is to protect
source water quality so that it remains at a quality consistent with use in
drinking-water supplies and for ensuring that return flows do not cause
deterioration in natural water quality. They should have the power to prosecute
water and sewerage agencies for failure to meet wastewater quality standards and
to monitor water abstractions to ensure compliance with agreed limits.
The water resource management agency may also monitor natural
water quality changes due to leakage from water supply pipes and sewers and have
the power to force suppliers to carry out remedial action to improve performance
in order to protect natural water quality. This is particularly important in
relation to groundwaters in urban areas, where excessive leakage from sewers or
water supply pipes will affect natural groundwater quality.
To a certain extent this overlaps with responsibilities
undertaken by the water supply surveillance agency as they too will monitor
leakage, albeit from a health related stance. This provides a good illustration
of the need for strong inter-institutional links and for clear definition of
responsibility. In principle, both the water resource management and the
surveillance body could take enforcement action against the water and sewerage
supplier, or bring a joint action. In practice, this frequently does not occur
as, for instance, the surveillance body may not be interested in pursuing an
action where they see no direct harm to the water supply.
Inter-Agency Collaboration
What is clear from the above is that there needs to be strong
inter-agency collaboration if the water sector is to function effectively and
efficiently (See Figure 1). There are many potentially overlapping roles and
conflicting interests. Many of the problems that arise within the water sector
are caused by a lack of dialogue and a certain element of shirking
responsibility which can only be resolved through adequate dialogue.
To provide an example, imagine a situation where the water
resource management agency grants a discharge consent to a chemical company
several kilometres upstream from a water supply intake. The plant is discharging
halogenated organic material. Neither the water supply agency or the
surveillance body are consulted and the plant starts to discharge. Some while
later, the surveillance body starts to detect raised levels of halogenated
organics in the water supply and therefore initiates action against the water
supplier.
The water supplier, by identifying the elevated level of
pollutants in the source water could ask the water resource management agency to
prosecute the polluter in order to cover the costs of installing expensive
additional treatment processes. As the polluter has a discharge consent and
meeting the conditions of that consent they can argue that they are not liable
for this. This leads to a situation where no-one will take responsibility for
improving the quality of the water supplied to the consumers. In this situation
the water supplier and surveillance agency could make a case against the water
resource management body for negligence of duty.
The scenario outlined above may seem unlikely, but similar
incidents have occurred worldwide. If a process of dialogue is maintained
between all parties at all levels, these incidents should not occur as there
will be thorough evaluation of impacts from all points of view. Taking the
example above, the water resource management body would be expected to undertake
an environmental impact assessment of the discharge. However, this may or may
not include influences on the water supply itself and may not look at human
health impacts of ingestion of contaminated water. If a combined assessment had
been undertaken, including looking at treatment implications for the water
supplier and the health impacts, a more clearly defined picture could be built
up about the discharge. This would be likely to change the terms of the consent
and the cost of the consent to the industry.
Figure 1: Institutional framework
for the water supply and sanitation sector. Howard G., 1996
Laws, Regulations and Standards
Effective water supply monitoring programmes require the support
of appropriate legislation, regulations, standards and codes of practice.
Important aspects which should be considered in supportive legislation include:
· functions,
authority and responsibility of the water supply agency
· functions, authority and
responsibility of the surveillance agency
· functions, authority and
responsibility of the water resource management agency
· codes of practice regarding
the notification of changes in source water quality to both supply and
surveillance agencies by the resource management agency
· codes of practice regarding
the construction, organisation and maintenance of facilities by water suppliers
· codes of practice regarding
the construction of domestic facilities
· water quality standards and
provisions for their updating
· procedures for authorisation
of sources as suitable for drinking-water supply
· minimum treatment requirements
according to source water quality
· requirements of disinfection
and minimum residual disinfectant concentrations to be maintained throughout
distribution
· procedures for approval of
sampling and analytical methods for use in water quality laboratories and
analytical quality control requirements of such laboratories
· requirements of water
suppliers to undertake a defined minimum sampling programme
· guidelines on procedures to
follow, including notifying and providing advice to the public if contamination
of drinking-water occurs
· provision of legal recourse to
the public and surveillance agency to initiate legal action to ensure adequate
water supply service quality
· definition of 'adequate water
supply service quality' with regard to parameters such as 'continuity'
· code of practice to ensure
that discharge consents in a catchment are only granted after full consultation
with supply and surveillance bodies.
However, it is important to recognise the limitations in a
purely legislatively driven approach to water quality monitoring as a means of
improving poor water supplies in low-resource situations. The development of
partnership approaches and the encouragement of all stakeholders in the sector
playing an active role in monitoring water supplies and identifying improvements
may be more effective where resources are limited.
Conclusion
The development and optimisation of the institutional framework
in the water sector is essential for effective, output driven water quality
monitoring. Unless the roles and responsibilities of each player are established
and recognised, then the generation of monitoring data and information may not
lead to the desired improvement in water supplies.
Water quality is a multi-agency issue which requires effective
collaboration from all the key stakeholders. Whilst, legislation plays a role in
achieving this, it is important to note that partnerships between regulators,
suppliers and consumers may be more effective in promoting good water quality,
particularly where resources are limited.
References
Bartram, J and Ballance, R. (1996) Water Quality
Monitoring, Chapman and Hall, London.
Howard, G. (1996) Urbanisation, Sanitation and Environmental
Health, Commonwealth Secretariat, London.
Presentation Plan
