Assessing Water Governance Trends and Challenges at a Local Level—An Application of the OECD Water Governance Framework in Soc Trang Province, Vietnam

Abstract

Water crises are prevalent globally, but effective water governance can help mitigate these issues. This study, conducted in Soc Trang, a coastal province of the Vietnamese Mekong Delta, assessed water governance trends and identified local challenges using the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) water governance framework, which comprises 12 principles. Data were gathered through 15 questionnaires and two focus group discussions with the Department of Natural Resources and Environment and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. The findings indicate that all 12 principles have improved over the past decade, particularly in areas such as data management, the clarity of roles, appropriate basin scales, and innovative governance approaches. However, challenges remain, including external risks, limited human resources, ineffective coordination, and insufficient funding and facilities. While the OECD framework offers a comprehensive guide for water governance, it is crucial to provide clear explanations to local stakeholders during implementation. This ensures a shared understanding throughout the assessment process. A key aspect of this is translating scientific and technical terms into the local language and context, which enhances communication and engagement among all participants involved in the study.

1. Introduction

Water is an important resource for sustaining life and fostering the socio-economic development of every country but is facing a significant crisis [1,2]. As the global population continues to grow, water demand for domestic use, agriculture, industry, and other production activities is also increasing significantly. Global water use has reportedly increased sixfold over the past century [3] and is projected to rise by an additional 55% between 2000 and 2050 [4]. The increased demand for water leads to overexploitation and pollution. Moreover, there is an increase in water stress, which measures all freshwater withdrawals relative to total freshwater resources. According to the current Sustainable Development Goals Report [5], global water stress level was 18.6% in 2021, that is, 3% higher compared to 2015. Many places are indicated as exhibiting high-to-critical stress, like Central and Southern Asia (79.7%) and Northern Africa and Western Asia (74.8%). Agriculture accounts for 72% of global freshwater withdrawals, followed by industry at 15% and services at 13% [5]. In addition, the gradually more severe impacts of climate change and water-related hazards such as storms, floods, and droughts also contribute to the degradation of water resources, ecological systems, and biodiversity and affect global economic growth [3]. On the other hand, access to water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) is still challenging, especially in developing countries and rural areas [6]. In fact, about 50% of the globe’s population experienced severe water scarcity for at least part of the year in 2022. At the current rate, it is estimated that 2 billion people will live without safely managed drinking water, 3 billion without safely managed sanitation, and 1.4 billion without basic hygiene services in 2030 [5]. The level of stress on water resources can lead to conflict and instability. Therefore, the sustainable management of water resources is crucial for reinforcing prosperity and peace for each individual and community [3,5,7]. Many studies reported that the world’s water crisis is not necessarily due to water shortage or the lack of finance and technologies, but rather due to ineffective water governance [8,9,10,11]. For example, water scarcity in India is caused not only by resource limitation but also by social, cultural, political, and institutional factors [12,13,14]. Similarly, Jordanian water scarcity includes water insufficiency and mismanagement [15]. From a neoliberal perspective, Australia’s water reforms rely on the “basic needs plus market” framework [16]. On a broader scale, the UN Sustainable Development Goal 6 Synthesis Report on Water and Sanitation 2018 revealed that the progress towards achieving SDG6 was too slow, mainly due to a lack of water resource management capacity [17]. In addition, transboundary water management is another challenge because of the weak collaboration among countries in practice [18,19]. Therefore, better water governance, including mismanagement and transboundary issues, can contribute to sustainable socio-economic development in the long term, taking into account the more extreme weather events in recent times.

Water governance is not only of interest to the scientific community but also to political dialogues and the mass media. There are different definitions of water governance depending on the purpose of use. The definition of water governance used by many scholars is defined by the Global Water Partnership [8] as “the range of political, social, economic and administrative systems that are in place to develop and manage water resources and the delivery of water services at different levels of society”. The group [8] likewise emphasized the institutional process, describing it as being “constituted by many different stakeholders, each with their own interests, decision making processes and instruments as legal framework, norms and acts”. In 2015, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) referred to water governance as “the range of political, institutional and administrative rules, practices and processes (formal and informal) through which decision are made and implemented, stakeholder can articulate their interests and have their concerns considered, and decision makers are held accountable for their water management” [20]. In simple terms, water governance “not only decides who gets how much water, when, and how but also protects resources from pollution through the implementation of socially acceptable allocation and regulation of water resources and services” [8]. Despite the various definitions, good water governance generally refers to the elements of effective participation, coordination, collaboration, transparency, and efficient water resource use. Thus, the assessment of water governance has become important in recent years.

Different frameworks and indicators can be used to assess water governance [20,21,22,23,24,25,26]. Among them, the OECD framework has been applied internationally by practitioners, scientists, and policymakers in different regions, at different scales, and for various water-related issues [10,27,28,29]. According to [20], this analytical framework includes three dimensions (effectiveness, efficiency, and trust and engagement) of water governance with 12 principles. Effectiveness consists of four principles, such as clear roles and responsibilities; appropriate scales within basin systems; policy coherence; and capacity. Efficiency refers to the four principles of data and information; financing; regulatory frameworks; and innovative governance. Trust and engagement has four principles of integrity and transparency; stakeholder engagement; trade-offs across users, rural and urban areas, and generations; and monitoring and evaluation (see methodology for details). Although these 12 principles have been widely applicable, scientists say that water governance is highly localized, depending on a particular context and specific issue [27,28,29,30]. Therefore, it should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Vietnam is a country located in Southeast Asia with an area of 331,345 km² and a population of about 100.3 million people [31]. Approximately 62% of the population lives in rural areas with a livelihood based on agricultural production and aquaculture. The Vietnamese Mekong Delta (VMD), situated in the lower Mekong River Basin, plays an important role in food production for domestic consumption as well as export [2,32]. The VMD accounts for about 12.4% of the country’s area and 17.4% of the national population, but it contributes over 50% of rice production and 70% of aquaculture production annually [31]. This helps Vietnam become one of the biggest rice and seafood exporters in the world market. However, intensive agricultural production and aquaculture in the last three decades have caused negative impacts on the water, soil, and ecosystem [32,33,34,35,36]. In addition, the VMD is considered one of the most vulnerable deltas to climate change [37]. Extreme weather events such as drought and saltwater intrusion are becoming increasingly severe and frequent. For example, the historical drought during the dry season of 2015–2016 affected the entire VMD, causing damages of 238 thousand hectares of rice, 79 thousand hectares of shrimp, and leaving over 1 million inhabitants suffering from lack of clean water. The total damages by this extreme event were estimated at about USD 360 million [38]. Moreover, due to its downstream location, any intervention from upstream countries (China, Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, and Cambodia) may have potentially negative impacts on river flow and water resources in the VMD. Finally, water productivity in Vietnam generally, and in the VMD in particular, is low. The World Bank’ study reported that water productivity in Vietnam is eight times lower than the world average (USD 2.37 compared to USD 19.42 per cubic meter) [11]. It is projected that water-related threats could lead to a 6% reduction in Vietnam’s GDP growth by 2035. Among the various economic sectors, agriculture is anticipated to experience the most significant impact, with a potential decline of 13.5% [39]. This highlights the critical importance of addressing water management challenges to sustain economic development and agricultural productivity in Vietnam. Thus, better water governance has become one of the urgent issues today for the sustainable development of the delta [39,40]. This paper aims at applying the OECD water governance indicators framework to understand how water governance has changed in the last 10 years (2012–2022) and what the challenges in terms of water management are today in the Soc Trang province of the VMD. This assessment benefits not only water management in Vietnam but also contributes to academia by lessons learned from the use of OECD principles at the local level.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. OECD Water Governance Framework

According to [40], the water governance framework was established by the OECD Regional Development Policy Committee in 2015 to enhance water reform initiatives. This framework comprises 12 principles designed to evaluate three critical dimensions of water governance: effectiveness, efficiency, trust, and engagement. These dimensions are essential for ensuring that water governance systems are resilient and responsive to societal needs. The principles can be effectively applied through an assessment of the policy framework (what), institutions (who), and instruments (how), facilitating a comprehensive understanding of governance effectiveness and adaptability. In this study, the OECD conceptual framework is utilized to evaluate water governance over the past decade (2013–2023) at the local level, with a specific focus on agricultural water use in Soc Trang province, Vietnam. The framework employed in this analysis is illustrated in Figure 1. This approach allows for a nuanced examination of local governance practices and their alignment with the established principles, thereby contributing to the ongoing discourse on effective water management strategies.

2.2. Research Site Selection and Description

After reviewing documents related to water resources management in Vietnam, Soc Trang province was selected because it is a key agricultural production area of the country and is facing many challenges in water resources management due to environmental and social factors. Located in the Mekong Delta region, Soc Trang was re-established in 1991 and is currently divided into 11 districts and 109 communes. Data collection was conducted in three representative districts: Ke Sach, Long Phu, and Tran De, each showcasing distinct saline water profiles and agricultural practices (Figure 2). Ke Sach, located upstream and influenced by the Bassac River, benefits from abundant fresh water, primarily supporting fruit tree cultivation. This district spans 353 km² and is home to 147,000 residents, accounting for 11% of Soc Trang province’s land area and 12% of its population, while contributing 54% of the province’s fruit tree cultivation. However, it has recently faced challenges with salinity intrusion from the Hau River during the dry season. Moving downstream, Long Phu features a diverse array of farming systems, including fruit trees, rice, and aquaculture, reflecting its midstream location. In contrast, Tran De, situated along the coast, grapples with significant salinity intrusion, complicating rice cultivation. The differences in water regimes and agricultural practices across these districts highlight the varied water management strategies in place, providing the research team with valuable insights into local water governance.

Table 1. Key socio-economic parameters in Soc Trang province (1995–2023).

Items	1995	2013	2016	2020	2023
Total land area (km2)	3200	3312	3312	3298	3298
- Agricultural land (%)	81.5	83.5	84.8	84.7	84.4
- Non-agricultural land (%)	8.3	16.2	15.0	15.1	15.4
- Unused land (%)	10.2	0.3	0.2	0.2	0.2
Rainfall (mm)	1963	1543	1718	1780	---
Population (1000 person)	1149	1305	1228	1196	1198
- Urban	17.1	28.5	30.1	32.3	33.9
- Rural	82.9	71.5	69.1	67.7	66.1
Poverty rate (%)	24.3	17.7	10.2	5.0	4.5
Number of administrative units by district	7	11	11	11	11
Number of communes, wards	98	109	109	109	109
Gross regional domestic product per capita (USD)	---	1243	1507	1971	2506
- Agriculture, forestry, and fishing (%)	69.3	47.4	48.1	45.1	41.6
- Industry and construction (%)	12.6	14.7	11.9	14.5	15.5
- Services (%)	18.1	37.9	37.1	37.1	39.8
- Products taxed less/subsidies on production	---	---	2.9	3.3	3.1
Total planted area of paddy (1000 ha)	288.6	373.4	356.6	353.7	330.4
Production of paddy rice (1000 tons)	1088	2220	2115	2080	2077
Yield of paddy (ton/ha)	3.77	5.95	5.93	5.88	6.29
Area of fruit tree (ha)	9025	27,860	29,019	27,783	28,718
Buffaloes (head)	14,026	3178	2845	2622	2324
Cattle (head)	3413	24,665	43,633	53,351	53,480
Pig (head)	180,825	296,414	316,052	138,062	187,400
Poultry (1000 head)	2118	4867	6131	6666	7146
Area of aquaculture (ha)	22,953	68,250	69,492	76,270	75,131
Production of aquaculture (ton)	6214	138,556	171,312	258,308	316,164

(Source: STSO, 1999; 2014; 2017; 2021; 2024).

presents key parameters related to the socio-economic development in the period 1995–2023 in Soc Trang province. Soc Trang encompasses a total area of 3298 km², with agricultural land constituting 84.4% of this area. Non-agricultural land makes up 15.4%, while unused land accounts for 0.2%. Between 1995 and 2023, the total population of the province increased from 1.1 million to 1.2 million. During this period, the proportion of the urban population rose significantly, from 17.1% in 1995 to 33.9% in 2023. The provincial economy is predominantly reliant on agriculture, which constituted 41.6% of the total Gross Regional Domestic Product (GRDP) in 2023. In comparison, the contributions from industry and construction were 15.5%, services accounted for 39.8%, and product taxes less subsidies on production represented 3.1%. Over the years, production in agriculture, forestry, and aquaculture has increased, leading to a rise in income levels. Specifically, the GRDP per capita grew from USD 1243 in 2013 to USD 2506 in 2023. This economic growth has also contributed to a significant reduction in the poverty rate, which decreased from 24.3% in 1995 to 4.5% in 2023. In 2023, Soc Trang produced 2.0 million tons of rice and 316,000 tons of aquaculture products.

In Soc Trang, annual rainfall varies between 1500 mm and 2000 mm, with the majority of precipitation occurring during the wet season from May to October, which frequently results in inundation. Conversely, the dry season, lasting from November to April, is marked by significant salinity intrusion affecting extensive areas. The province has experienced severe droughts during the dry seasons of 2015–2016 and 2019–2020, which have exacerbated challenges related to water pollution and scarcity. Consequently, Soc Trang represents a pertinent case study for analyzing trends in water governance over the past decade (2013–2023).

2.3. Data Collection

Data and information were gathered in Soc Trang province using three main tools: secondary data collection, questionnaires, and focus group discussions (FGDs). This multi-faceted approach ensures a comprehensive understanding of the local context and stakeholder perspectives.

First, the statistical yearbook from 1995 to 2023 was collected at the Soc Trang Statistics Office. The statistical data were not only used to study the production situation and socio-economic development but also helped orient the selection of representative districts to collect district-level data. Based on this data analysis, three districts of Ke Sach, Long Phu, and Tran De were selected. Other secondary data sources are legal documents related to water use and management, collected at two main agencies, the Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DONRE) and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD). A total of 48 documents were gathered, including 18 at the national level, 18 at the provincial level, and 12 at the district level.

Second, a structured questionnaire was used to assess trends in water governance based on the OECD water governance indicator framework [40] around three aspects of policy framework, institutions, and instruments (see Appendix A for details). Each indicator was rated on a scale of 1 (very poor) to 5 (very good) for the two time points of 2013 and 2023. The questionnaire was sent in advance to experts, allowing them sufficient time to thoughtfully consider the questions and formulate their response. Subsequently, the research team conducted face-to-face interviews at their offices in July 2024. Each interview lasted about 45 min. There was a total of 15 participants, including 7 from DONRE (4 at the provincial level and 3 at the district level) and 8 from DARD (5 at the provincial level and 3 at the district level).

Third, two FGDs were conducted at DONRE and DARD to explore the history of water resources management and use as well as challenges faced locally. The FGD at DONRE consisted of 7 participants from the DONRE Board of Directors (1), the Division of Water Resources and Minerals (1), the Division of Marine Resources, Climate Change, and Hydrometeorology (1), the Division of Environmental Protection (1), and the DONRE of Ke Sach, Long Phu, and Tran De districts (1 per district). Whereas the FGD at DARD had 9 participants from the DARD Board of Directors (1), the Division of Fisheries and Aquaculture (1), the Division of Irrigation (2), the Division of Crop Production and Plant Protection (2), and the DARD of Ke Sach, Long Phu, and Tran De districts (1 per district). Each discussion lasted approximately 120 min.

2.4. Data Analysis

Scoring OECD principles: The average score for each principle in the OECD framework was calculated based on 15 respondents. It means that the average score for each principle is the average of the 15 survey responses. Then, the average score for the three governance dimensions is also calculated based on the 12 OECD principles. The average score for effectiveness is the average of the first four principles, for efficiency is the average of principles 5 to 8, and for trust and engagement is the average of principles 9 to 12. These average scores were compared between 2013 and 2023 to assess the trend of water governance in Soc Trang province. A spider diagram is used to visualize the survey results in 3 water governance aspects of what (policy framework), who (institutions), and how (instruments).

Ranking challenges: The challenges in water governance were assessed and ranked as follows. Each participant was asked to list the three most important challenges on three colored pieces of paper of different sizes. The largest size means the most significant challenge, followed by the medium-sized one as the second and the smallest as the third. These challenges were explored during FGDs to reach a common understanding. Then, they were grouped into 5 Ms [41] including Men (human resources, perception, and behavior), Mechanisms (horizontal and vertical coordination), Money (financial resources), Materials (equipment, technology, and facilities) and Mutations (risk and uncertainty). These groups were scored based on each challenge listed, where the largest piece of paper was assigned 3 points, the medium piece 2 points, and the smallest piece 1 point. Thus, a higher total score indicates a greater significance of the associated challenges.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Water Governance Trend

Water governance trends according to OECD water governance principles of policy framework (what), institutions (who), and instruments (how) in Soc Trang province between 2013 and 2023 are depicted in Figure 3. All 12 principles have been improved in the last decade. Details of three water governance dimensions (effectiveness, efficiency and trust, and engagement) and each principle are presented and discussed as below.

3.1.1. Effectiveness of Water Governance

The effectiveness relates to the contribution of governance to defining clear sustainable water policy goals and targets at different levels of government, to implement those policy goals, and to meet expected objectives or targets [41]. The trends in water governance effectiveness in Soc Trang province is presented in Figure 4. The effectiveness covers the four principles of OECD water governance framework including (i) clear roles and responsibilities; (ii) appropriate scales within basin systems; (iii) policy coherence; and (iv) capacity.

Principle 1 (Clear roles and responsibilities): Clear roles and responsibilities refer to the existence and level of implementation of a water law (legal framework), functions of related ministries and departments (institutions), and mechanisms to review roles and responsibilities (instruments). Assessment of this principle showed that roles and responsibilities in water governance at the research site have been improving year by year. Averages of the legal framework, institutions, and instruments were scored at 2.9 points in 2013 and reached 4.0 points in 2023. In fact, the Vietnamese Law on Water Resources (LWR) was first enacted in 1998 (Law No. 08/1998/QH10), including 10 chapters with 75 articles [42]. In 2012, the second LWR was passed (Law No. 17/2012/QH13), including 10 chapters with 79 articles [43]. After 10 years of implementation, the second LWR was adjusted, supplemented, and enacted in 2023 (Law No. 28/2023/QH15) [44]. The new law consists of 10 chapters with 86 articles stipulating many water-related issues such as basic surveys, strategies, and planning; protection and restoration; regulation, distribution, exploitation, and use; prevention, combat, and overcoming harm caused by water; economic tools; international cooperation; responsibility of water resource management; and inspection and examination of water resources. In terms of institutions, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE) and the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development are the principal agencies responsible for water resources use and management. In Soc Trang province, DONRE has the function of advising and assisting the Provincial People’s Committee (PPC) in state management of water resources in the province, including planning, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating water management (Decision No. 40/2021/QD-UBND of Soc Trang PPC) [45]. Whereas DARD plays a significant role in irrigation, water-related hazard prevention, and rural water supply (Decision No. 11/2023/QD-UBND of Soc Trang PPC) [46]. Although the legal framework is in place and clearly defines the functions and duties of relevant parties, effective implementation is still challenging. That is why the aspect of the instrument was scored 3.9 points lower than the legal framework and the institutions (both 4.1 points) in 2023.

Principle 2 (Appropriate scales within basin systems): Three aspects of appropriate scales within basin systems are defined by [41] including integrated water resources management (IWRM) policies and strategies (what), institutions managing water at the hydrographic scale (who), and cooperation across water users from local to basin, regional, national, and international scales (how). The assessment of this principle shows that the score of the legal framework increased from 2.8 points in 2013 to 4.1 points in 2023. Similarly, the score of institutions also increased from 3.1 points to 4.4 points, and the instrument increased from 3.0 to 3.9 in the same period. Indeed, both LWRs (2012 and 2023) clearly state that resource management must be based on the principle of IWRM, a river basin approach combined with administrative boundaries [43,44]. In fact, in the research area, the Mekong River Basin Sub-Committee was established in 2021 to have directions and solutions to solve important, inter-sectoral, and trans-boundary issues related to the Vietnamese Mekong River Basin (Decision No. 07/QD-UBMC, dated 17 February 2021) [47]. In addition, the Prime Minister has also approved the master plan for the Mekong River Basin for the period 2021–2030, with a vision towards 2050 (Decision No. 174/QD-TTg, dated 6 March 2023) [48]. At the provincial level, water resources are also managed by hydrographic scale based on natural ecological conditions and irrigation infrastructure investments. It can be an inter-provincial system such as the Quan Lo Phung Hiep irrigation system (inter-provincial between Soc Trang, Hau Giang, Bac Lieu, and Ca Mau) or an inter-district system such as the Long Phu—Tiep Nhat irrigation system (between Long Phu and Tran De districts of Soc Trang province). This shows that the legal framework and institutions have already existed in the direction of integration and river basins. However, the results of FGDs with DONRE and DARD in Soc Trang province indicated that current water management is still mainly based on administrative units (from central to provincial, district, and commune levels) rather than river basins. Therefore, the current score for the instruments is lowest (3.9 points) compared to the legal framework (4.1 points) and institutions (4.4 points).

Principle 3 (Policy coherence): Policy coherence refers to the existence and level of implementation of cross-sectoral policies and strategies (legal framework), importantly ecology, health, energy, agriculture, industry, land use, and spatial planning; inter-ministerial bodies or institutions for horizontal coordination (institutions); and mechanisms to review barriers to policy coherence (instruments). The results of the policy coherence assessment in Soc Trang show that the score of the legal framework increased from 2.8 points in 2013 to 3.9 points in 2023, the institution increased from 3.1 to 3.9 points, and the instrument also increased from 2.6 to 3.6 points in the same period. In fact, the LWR (2012 and 2023) clearly states that the exploitation and use of water resources for domestic use, agriculture, aquaculture, industry, waterway transportation, hydropower, irrigation, sports, tourism, business, services, saltwater prevention, landscape creation, and other purposes must ensure the principles of comprehensive, multi-purpose, economical, effective, and unified use according to the river basin and in accordance with natural conditions, culture, history, religion, beliefs, and the socio-economic development situation [43,44]. Application of the LWR at the delta level, the Mekong Delta Planning for the period of 2021–2030 with a vision towards 2050 has stated the viewpoints of considering water resources as the core of sustainable development; implementing IWRM in the entire basin to ensure the maintenance of living resources for the environment and people; transforming livelihood models in sub-regions towards proactive adaptation to climate change (Decision 287/QD-TTg, on 28 February 2022) [49]. Similarly, the provincial planning also follows the above approach.

In terms of the institutional aspect, the National Council on Water Resources was established in 2014 to advise the Prime Minister on issues related to the protection, exploitation, and sustainable use of water resources; the prevention, control, and overcoming of consequences of water-related harm; as well as advising the Prime Minister on directing, coordinating and harmonizing between ministries, sectors, and localities in resolving issues related to water resources (Decision No. 459/QD-TTg, dated 2 April 2014) [50]. At the regional level, the Mekong Delta Coordination Council was also established in 2021 by Decision No. 1054/QD-TTg, dated 2nd July 2021, and recently adjusted by Decision No. 974/QD-TTg, dated 19 August 2023 [51]. Accordingly, the Regional Coordination Council has the function of assisting the Prime Minister in researching, directing, and coordinating the resolution of important, inter-sectoral tasks on regional linkage and sustainable development of the Mekong Delta. At the provincial level, the PPC Soc Trang also issued regulations on coordination in the management and protection of water resources to establish a coordination mechanism among related departments and People’s Committees at all levels to improve the effectiveness of water resources management and protection. Then, cross-sectoral policies and strategies, as well as inter-ministerial bodies or institutions for horizontal coordination are in place in water governance. However, the mechanisms to review barriers to policy coherence are still weak, according to the FGDs in Soc Trang province.

Principle 4 (Capacity): Capacity includes the existence and level of implementation of hiring policies (what), mechanisms to identify and address capacity gaps in water institutions (who), and educational and training programs (how). Assessment of the water governance capacity principle shows that average scores increased from 2.9 points to 3.8 points thanks to many capacity-building activities. In terms of legal frameworks (what), regulation on the recruitment, employment and management of staff based on the Law on Cadres and Civil Servants (Law No. 22/2008/QH12) [52] and the Law on Public Employees (Law No. 58/2010/QH12) [53]. These laws include many provisions relating to recruitment criteria and capacity building for employees; for example, the rights to be trained and retrained in order to raise their political, specialized, and professional qualifications. In terms of institutions, officials, civil servants, and employees are evaluated annually to review their capacity and training needs. The annual evaluation is also the basis for recruiting additional staff. However, according to the FGDs, recruitment of new staff is difficult because the state is reducing its staff. Therefore, if the agency wants to recruit more staff, it must be in the form of short-term contracts or specific projects or tasks. Regarding instruments (who), there are currently many forms of training that officials can attend through short-term specialized training courses or master’s and doctoral training programs related to water resources, hydraulic works, or other related fields. In general, the capacity to implement water resources management has improved but is still lacking in both quality and quantity, especially the capacity to plan water resources and the capacity to perform professional tasks.

3.1.2. Efficiency of Water Governance

The efficiency of water governance means how to maximize the benefits of sustainable water management covering ecology, welfare, social equity, institutions and economic growth while minimizing the costs to society [41]. The trend of water governance efficiency at the research site is depicted as Figure 5. The efficiency consists of four principles of the OECD water governance framework, including (i) data and information; (ii) financing; (iii) a regulatory framework; and (iv) innovative governance.

Principle 5 (Data and information): The data and information principle refers to the existence and level of implementation of regularly updated and shared, consistent, and comparable water information systems (what), the public agencies in charge of water related statistics (who), and the mechanisms to review data gaps, overlaps, and unnecessary overload (how). According to the survey, this principle has been improved in the last decade (2021–2023) considering legal framework (increased from 2.9 to 4.4 points), institutions (increased from 2.9 to 4.4 points), and instruments (increased from 2.8 to 4.0 points). The water resources information system and database are stipulated in Article 7 of the LWR of 2023. Accordingly, it must ensure integration, connection, convenience for sharing, providing, accessing and using information in accordance with the provisions of law. MONRE is primarily responsible for organizing, building, operating, and maintaining the national water resources information system and database. In fact, in Soc Trang, the water resources database is being collected and stored at three main agencies: the Hydro-meteorological Station, DONRE, and DARD. These data and information are shared through various channels, both formal and informal. People and relevant parties can access water resources data on the website of DONRE; information on weather forecasts, rainfall, water levels, and salinity concentration on the mass media or on the website of DARD. Basic information related to production management such as pH, salinity, and alkalinity is also communicated to relevant parties via written documents from the province to districts, communes, and villages. In particular, after the historic drought in the dry season of 2015–2016, communication about salinity is timely updated through Zalo groups (a Vietnamese communication platform) to the people. Despite such progress, data and information on the water sector are still scattered and unsynchronized between agencies, and there is no single institution to manage this information and data at the provincial level, according to the FGDs with DARD and DONRE in Soc Trang province.

Principle 6 (Financing): According to OECD (2018), this principle is defined as the existence of a legal framework for revenue collection (what), institutions in charge of revenue collection and allocation (who), and mechanisms to assess short, medium, and long-term investment and operation needs (how). In Vietnam, the Article 67 of the 2023 LWR stipulates that state budget revenues from water resources activities comes from four sources: (i) severance taxes and other taxes as prescribed by regulation of the law on taxation; (ii) fees as prescribed by the law on charges and fees; (iii) fee for granting the right to exploit water resources; and (iv) compensation made to the State, amounts collected from imposition of penalties for violations in the area of water resources under regulations of law. At the local level, the Provincial People’s Council is the competent authority to issue the fee and charge rates; for example, the regulation on the collection rates, collection method, payment, management, and use of a number of fees and charges under the decision-making authority of the Soc Trang Provincial People’s Council was issued through Resolution No. 92/2016/NQ-HDND, dated 9 December 2016 [54]. This resolution also stipulates who is authorized to collect fees. Investment in state management for the water sector is also regularly updated and allocated for each period: short, medium, and long term. However, the state budget for investment in the water sector is still limited, especially salaries, modern equipment and facilities, and operational and maintenance costs to improve water management efficiency. That is why the average score for this principle was assessed at low scores (2.8 points in 2013 and 3.8 points in 2023).

Principle 7 (Regulatory frameworks): This principle refers to the existence and level of implementation of a sound water management regulatory framework (what), dedicated public institutions for water services and resources management (who), and regulatory tools to foster the quality of regulatory processes (how) [41]. Assessment of regulatory frameworks in Soc Trang province shows that the legal framework score increased from 2.6 points in 2013 to 3.9 points in 2023. Both institutions and instruments also increased from 3.1 to 4.0 points in the same period. In order to effectively manage water resources and reduce environmental impacts, the government has issued many regulations and standards (well-known as QCVN and TCVN) applicable to many different fields from industry to construction, agriculture, fisheries, livestock, daily life, and water-related disasters. In terms of local state management in Soc Trang province, this work is assigned to the Division of Environmental Protection, the Division of Water Resources and Minerals, the Division of Marine Resources, Climate Change and Hydrometeorology (under DONRE), the Division of Irrigation, the Division of Livestock, the Division of Crop Production and Plant Protection, and the Division of Aquaculture and Fisheries (under DARD). Although the legal framework is clear and assigned to each unit. However, the FGDs confirmed that implementation of these regulatory frameworks is still difficult. The quality of water resources is seriously declining due to lack of resources and low awareness in the community. Salinity intrusion impacts have been increasing, damaging large areas of crops and resulting in a lack of clean water for a number of households.

Principle 8 (Innovative governance): According to [41], innovative governance refers to the existence and level of implementation of policy frameworks and incentives (what), institutions encouraging bottom-up initiatives (who), and knowledge and experience sharing mechanisms (how). Assessment of the innovative governance principle shows that the scores increased in the past 10 years for all aspects of the legal framework, institutions, and instruments. On average, the scores rose from 2.8 points in 2013 to 3.9 points in 2023. In Vietnam, this principle is considered and regulated at Article 6 of the 2023 LWR. Accordingly, sciences and technologies in the management, protection, regulation, distribution, restoration, development, exploitation, and use of water resources and the prevention of, response to, and recovery from damage caused by water can be considered through digital platforms; decision support tools; advanced technologies for converting seawater into freshwater; water circularity and water-saving technologies; and the improvement of water-consuming equipment. At the provincial level, the Department of Sciences and Technology plays a key role in terms of innovative governance. In practice, various new technologies and tools are applied in the Soc Trang province through different mechanisms (i.e., project-based investment, short training courses, workshops, or through dialogue) to transfer knowledge and experiences from research institutes and universities to the province. For example, alternative wet/dry methods for rice cultivation, drop irrigation in fruit farming, water recycling in aquaculture, supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems, etc., have been practiced in Soc Trang recently. Therefore, one can conclude that the legal frameworks, institutions, and instruments are in place at the local level. However, there are many challenges to scaling up such innovations in the province.

3.1.3. Trust and Engagement

This dimension relates to how governance can contribute to building public confidence and ensuring social inclusion in a democratic manner [41]. Trends in trust and engagement in water governance in Soc Trang are presented as Figure 6. Trust and engagement cover four of the principles of the OECD water governance framework, including (i) integrity and transparency; (ii) stakeholder engagement; (iii) trade-offs across users, rural and urban areas, and generations; and (iv) monitoring and evaluation.

Principle 9 (Integrity and transparency): This principle considers the existence and level of implementation of legal and institutional frameworks on integrity and transparency (what), independent courts and supreme audit institutions (who), and mechanisms to identify potential drivers of corruption and risks in all water-related institutions (how) [41]. The assessment results showed that all three aspects (what, who, how) have been improving over the last 10 years. Their average score increased from 2.8 points in 2013 to 3.9 points in 2023. In general, legal frameworks, institutions, and instruments for integrity and transparency are in place in Vietnam. They can be found in the Law on the State Audit Office of Vietnam (No. 81/2015/QH13, dated 24th June 2015) [55], the Law on Anti-corruption (No. 36/2018/QH14, dated 20th November 2018) [56], and the Law on Inspection (No. 11/2022/QH15, dated on 14th November 2022) [57]. In specific, the anti-corruption law stressed that “every citizen, by law, has the right to discover and report acts of corruption, the right to protection and rewards” (Article 5). In the water sector, the 2023 LWR has one chapter to mention on inspection and examination of water resources (Chapter 9). At the local level, both DONRE and DARD have the Inspectorate Offices, which play the role of advising and assisting the Director of the Department in performing the functions of administrative inspection and specialized inspection, resolving complaints and denunciations, and preventing corruption according to the provisions of law. Thus, there are sufficient legal frameworks, institutions, and instruments regarding the integrity and transparency in water governance at all levels. In practice, many corruption cases have been reported.

Principle 10 (Stakeholder engagement): This principle relates to legal frameworks to engage stakeholders (what), organizational structures and responsible authorities (who), and mechanisms to diagnose and review stakeholder engagement in water-related decisions, policies, and projects (how) [33]. Assessment of stakeholder engagement in Soc Trang shows that legal frameworks, institutions, and instruments have been improved year by year. On average, their score increased from 2.8 points in 2013 to 3.7 points in 2023. In fact, legal frameworks in Vietnam allow people and agencies to be involved in the design and implementation of water-related decisions. For example, MONRE leads an inter-provincial river basin planning project, but before submitting it to a competent authority for approval, it is required to collect written opinions about the comprehensive inter-provincial river basin planning from ministries, ministerial agencies, PPC, river basin organizations, organizations and individuals exploiting and using water on a large scale, and other related organizations and individuals (Article 17, LWR 2023) [44]. The Law on Irrigation (No. 08/2017/QH14) also stressed the participatory principle in the management and operation of irrigation projects [58]. In reality, the participatory irrigation management approach has been introduced in many places. Finally, stakeholder engagement is also mentioned properly in the Law on Implementation of Grassroots-level Democracy (No. 10/2022/QH15) [59]. In general, formal frameworks, institutions, and mechanisms are in place to engage related stakeholders at different levels of water governance.

Principle 11 (Trade-offs across users, rural and urban areas, and generations): This principle focuses on legal frameworks, institutions, and instruments to ensure equity across water users, rural and urban areas, and generations [40]. The result of the assessment shows that the score increased from 3.0 points to 3.8 points between 2013 and 2023. In practice, the LWR of 2023 mentions that water resources management must follow the principle of fairness, all people have access, ensuring comprehensive and multi-purpose use (Article 3); have preferential policies for people in areas with freshwater scarcity, ethnic minority areas, mountainous areas, and economically disadvantaged areas; create conditions for access to domestic water for the poor, women, children, people with disabilities, and other vulnerable groups (Article 4). In addition, sustainable development of the Vietnamese Mekong Delta towards the direction of climate resilience and nature-based solutions is stated in many legal documents recently, such as Resolution 120/NQ-CP in 2017 [39], Decision 287/QD-TTg in 2022 [49], and Decision 174/QD-TTg in 2023 [48]. In practice, there are many water-related projects that have been implemented in Soc Trang that can benefit different economic sectors (i.e., industry, agriculture, aquaculture, ecotourism), in different areas (i.e., rural and urban), with different groups, including vulnerable and disadvantaged people. Thus, this principle is in place and implemented at the local level. However, the FGDs with DARD and DONRE reveal that water use conflict has occurred across users (i.e., rice farmers need freshwater, whereas shrimp farmers require brackish water). In addition, water pollution and overexploitation (especially groundwater) may affect future generations.

Principle 12 (Monitoring and evaluation): The monitoring and evaluation principle explores policy frameworks (what), the institutions in charge (who), and the mechanisms (how) for the monitoring and evaluation of water policy and governance [40]. The average score of this principle was 3.0 points in 2013 and increased to 3.9 points in 2023. As mentioned, Vietnam has Law on State Audit Office of Vietnam (No. 81/2015/QH13, dated 24th June 2015), Law on Anti-corruption (No. 36/2018/QH14, dated 20th November 2018), and Law on Inspection (No. 11/2022/QH15, dated on 14th November 2022) which are considered as legal frameworks for monitoring and evaluation of public investments in general and water sector in particular [55,56,57]. Article 82 of LWR (2023) states that inspectorates of MONRE at national level and DONRE at provincial level shall carry out specialized water resource-related inspection in accordance with regulations of law on inspection [44]. For public irrigation projects, MARD and DARD are responsible for such tasks. For private investment, the owners play this role. The Law on Irrigation in 2017 also stressed that the management of irrigation works or facilities should mainly focus on measuring, observing, monitoring, inspecting, auditing, and assessing the safety of irrigation projects (Article 20). Despite the clear legal framework and institutions, some investments are not well management, mainly due to lack of operational and maintenance budget. In short, the monitoring and evaluation principle is mentioned in legal documents. Institutions responsible for monitoring and evaluation of water policies are in place. But the instruments are not fully implemented.

These findings in Soc Trang are similar to many parts of the world. For example, policy documents for water governance in Bangladesh have significantly improved and will further improve [21]. But there is a gap between the legal frameworks and the actual implementation on the ground. Similarly, there are mismatches between policy planning and implementation in the actively living with flood approach in the VMD [60]. Recently, using OECD principles to assess local water governance in the General Pueyrredon Municipality, Buenos Aires province, Argentina, the authors found that the main issue related to water governance is instruments (how) rather than policy frameworks (what) or institutions (who) [30].

In conclusion, the assessment of water governance trends at the local level revealed that all three dimensions, three aspects, and 12 principles get improvement year by year. The effectiveness of water governance in Soc Trang was scored at 2.9 points in 2013 to 3.9 points in 2023; the efficiency increased from 2.9 to 4.0 points; and trust and engagement increased from 2.9 to 3.8 points in the same period. Regarding the three aspects of water governance, legal frameworks and institutions are in place and get higher scores than instruments. Despite those achievements, water governance at research sites is still facing many challenges.

3.2. Water Governance Challenges

Water governance challenges have been discussed, scored, and grouped into the 5Ms categories (Figure 7). The results based on the FGDs with related stakeholders show that the most significant challenge was mutations (55 points), followed by men (18 points), mechanisms (18 points), money (7 points), and materials (4 points). Details of these challenges are presented below.

Mutations refer to risk and uncertainty factors. In this category, the participants are concerned about the increased intensity and frequency of drought, abnormal weather, salinity intrusion and freshwater scarcity in the dry season, the impacts of climate change, urbanization, the increase in water use, and unpredictable fluctuations in Mekong River flows due to upstream interventions. Soc Trang province has faced three significant drought events in recent years during the dry seasons of 2015/2016, 2019/2020, and 2023/2024. According to the study by [61], approximately 24% of the provincial areas were affected by salinity levels of 4 g per liter in the 2015/2016 season, which increased to 59% in the 2019/2020 season.

Men (and women) relate to human resource, perception and behavior. In this category, key concerns included a shortage of human resources, insufficient awareness among individuals, households, businesses, and communities contributing to water pollution, and the degradation of water resources due to the intensification of agricultural, aquacultural, industrial, and other economic activities. For instance, between 1995 and 2023 in Soc Trang province, the production of paddy rice increased by 1.9 times, the area dedicated to fruit trees expanded 3.2 times, the cattle population grew 15.7 times, and aquaculture production surged by 50.9 times (Table 1). These increases are largely attributed to intensive farming practices that rely heavily on inputs such as chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and commercial feeds, coupled with inadequate waste management, which has led to significant water pollution and resource degradation. Regarding human resources for water management, participants noted that the provincial Division of Water and Mineral Resources Management employs only five staff members who are tasked with multiple responsibilities. This limited staffing hampers their ability to effectively carry out essential functions such as monitoring, evaluation, supervision, and post-inspection. Additionally, there are no designated personnel at the district and commune levels responsible for water resource management. These factors pose significant challenges to the effective management of water resources in the future.

Mechanisms include vertical and horizontal coordination across levels and sectors. In this aspect, the participants identified several critical challenges, including weak coordination, the absence of a comprehensive strategy, ineffective implementation of IWMR, conflicts over water usage, and the predominance of small-scale production. Notably, approximately 84% of households utilizing paddy land and 91% of households engaged in aquaculture in Soc Trang operate on areas smaller than 2 hectares [62]. To effectively address these issues, the establishment of a dedicated facilitator is essential. This facilitator would play a crucial role in enhancing coordination, developing strategic frameworks, and promoting effective water management practices.

Money refers to financial resources, including private and public budgets. The findings from the focus group discussions (FGDs) indicate that the investment budget for the water sector remains insufficient to adequately address the risks and challenges associated with water resource degradation. Additionally, funding for dredging irrigation infrastructure is often delayed, primarily due to protracted funding allocation procedures, which hampers timely responses to issues such as saltwater intrusion. This lack of financial support poses significant challenges to effective water management and resource sustainability.

Materials relate to equipment, technology, and facilities. The FGDs highlighted that both governmental and non-governmental organizations have made investments in water infrastructure. However, a major challenge is the insufficient funding for maintenance, which has led to damage to this infrastructure. The effectiveness of the systems is further compromised by the incomplete irrigation and monitoring systems. Additionally, the advancement of digitization initiatives is hindered by the lack of a robust server, complicating efforts in data management and resource monitoring.

Thus, water governance at the local level is confronted with interconnected challenges that require urgent attention. Foremost among these are the factors of risk and uncertainty, which complicate effective decision-making and management. Additionally, there is a significant shortage of human resources, coupled with low levels of awareness among individuals, businesses, and communities regarding water management practices. The mechanisms for coordination among relevant stakeholders are also ineffective, impeding collaborative efforts essential for comprehensive governance. Financially, the investment budget allocated to the water sector remains insufficient, limiting the capacity for necessary improvements. Furthermore, there is a critical lack of equipment and technology needed to enhance the efficiency of water resource management.

3.3. Discussion

Water governance in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta has improved year by year in all three dimensions of the 12 OECD principles. These achievements come from various factors. First, the legal framework is more comprehensive. The new law on water resources and water national strategies provides a solid legal foundation for managing water resources with provisions for integrated water resource management, water use efficiency, environmental protection and climate resilience. Second, institutional arrangement is improved. The establishment of agencies like the Vietnam National Mekong Committee, the Vietnamese Mekong River Basin, and the Mekong River Basin Sub-committee ensures representation in regional water governance, particularly for multi-level transboundary issues. Centralized agencies like the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE) and Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) provide structured oversight from the central to the local level. Third, the government has invested in a number of water infrastructure projects. Significant investments in irrigation systems, reservoirs, flood management, and salinity control infrastructure have improved water availability and disaster resilience. Finally, stakeholder engagement in the water sector has increased as Vietnam has introduced initiatives to increase public awareness of water conservation. Consequently, there was remarkable growth in agricultural and aquacultural production and an increase in the household rate of access to tap water recently (e.g., from 26.7% in 2010 to 54.7% in 2022 [63], contributing to socio-economic development).

Despite such achievements, water governance in the research site faces various limitations, importantly institutional inefficiencies, resource constraints, environmental challenges, socio-economic disparities, and transboundary issues. First, multiple institutions, including MONRE/DONRE and MARD/DARD, and local authorities have overlapping mandates. Due to the top-down approach, local institutions often lack the autonomy needed to implement water management effectively at the local level. Insufficient collaboration between sectors (including between agriculture, aquaculture, and industry, and between development orientation and ecological services) results in fragmented decision-making and resource allocation. The enforcement of law on water resources is inconsistent due to limited monitoring, corruption, and lack of accountability. These lead to inefficiencies, conflicts (i.e., between freshwater for rice and fruits and brackish water for shrimp production), and gaps in coordination. Second, resource constraints include financial limitations, human resource gaps, and technical deficits. Many water management projects are underfunded, minimizing the construction and maintenance of essential infrastructure. A shortage of skilled staff in water governance and management leads to inefficiencies in planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. Limited adoption of advanced technologies (i.e., geographic information systems, remote sensing, and IoT-based systems) reduces the effectiveness of water management. Third, environmental challenges are rising due to rapid industrialization, intensive and chemical-based farming systems, untreated waste-water, the over-extraction of water resources, and increasing climate change impacts, especially droughts and salinity intrusion in the coastal areas. Fourth, in terms of socio-economic disparities, water access inequalities occur between rural and urban populations as well as the lack of sufficient water access for vulnerable groups. For example, the general access to tap water in Vietnam was 54.7% in 2022, but rural areas have limited access compared to urban areas, with 37.2% of households having access to tap water in rural areas compared to 81.5% in urban areas). Similarly, the better-off groups have greater access to tap water (i.e., 72.0% of households in quintile 5 had access to tap water compared to 28.9% in quintile 1) [63]. Limited involvement of local communities, NGOs, and the private sector in water governance decisions, as well as insufficient public awareness campaigns, also undermines inclusive and effective management of water resources. Lastly, transboundary water management has become an important issue due to recent hydropower dam construction and water extraction projects by upstream countries while there is weak regional cooperation among countries sharing water in the Mekong River Basin.

Many scholars reveal that water scarcity is composed of water insufficiency and mismanagement [12,13,14,15,16,17,18]. The assessment of water governance in this study has similar results. In fact, water discharge from the Mekong River tends to decline in the Mekong Delta due to upstream intervention, and freshwater shortages can happen because of salinity intrusion in the dry season. However, the total water volume per capita in the research site is reasonable thanks to high rainfall. Weak water governance emphasizes mismanagement, which can be caused by various factors. First, there are the overlapping roles and responsibilities of related institutions and an inconsistency in water policies. Second, policy implementation is ineffective due to a lack of financial capital, a lack of human resources, and a lack of participation from related stakeholders in the decision-making process. Third, the perception of the water value has been changing. Previously, saline water was considered as a risk, so the government invested in many irrigation works to prevent salinity for rice cultivation. Consequently, this has caused environmental pollution and ecological degradation, even conflicts among water users at the grassroots level. Under the increasing impact of climate change, recently, the government has recognized the role of saline water in aquaculture development, so saline water is considered as a resource and living with salinity has become a strategy to adapt to climate change. Fourth, many policies are based on a top-down approach, so they are not suitable for localities. Finally, the issue of transboundary water management still has many shortcomings. Therefore, better water governance needs to consider addressing the above issues.

3.4. Lessons Learned from Application of OECD Water Governance Framework at Local Level

The application of the OECD water governance assessment framework at the local level demonstrates its comprehensiveness, encompassing all critical aspects of governance, including effectiveness, efficiency, trust, and engagement. This framework is articulated through 12 principles and three key components: the legal framework (what), institutions (who), and instruments (how). It incorporates at least 36 indicators that require assessment, which present several challenges in practical implementation. Firstly, respondents may experience difficulty and confusion in comprehending all 36 indicators. Secondly, some indicators may exhibit overlaps, such as the appropriate scales within basin systems (principle 2), policy coherence (principle 3), and trade-offs among users, rural and urban areas, and generations (principle 11), all of which pertain to the Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) approach. Similarly, integrity and transparency (principle 9) and monitoring and evaluation (principle 12) both relate to inspection, auditing, and anti-corruption measures. Additionally, translating technical terms into the local language poses a challenge, and discussions surrounding sensitive issues in water management—such as pollution, budget constraints, transparency, and corruption—may result in a tense and less open atmosphere. To mitigate these challenges, it is essential to clearly communicate the purpose of the assessment, clarify its content, and select appropriate participants prior to interviews. Finally, employing a mixed research methodology that combines quantitative approaches (using a 1 to 5 scale for evaluation) with qualitative methods (such as focus group discussions), alongside the utilization of both secondary and primary data, will provide a comprehensive understanding of water governance while minimizing biases from dominant perspectives.

4. Conclusions and Policy Implications

This study underscores the critical importance of effective water governance in Soc Trang province, Vietnam, particularly in the context of increasing environmental challenges. The application of the OECD water governance framework has demonstrated significant improvements in governance effectiveness, efficiency, and stakeholder engagement over the past decade in the study area. However, persistent challenges, including climate change impacts, human resource limitations (including Mutation and Men), and coordination issues (Mechanisms) highlight the need for ongoing adaptation and innovation in water management practices. The findings suggest that while the OECD framework is applicable for the Mekong Delta context, successful implementation requires tailored strategies considering local conditions and stakeholder dynamics. Future research should focus on enhancing community participation in governance processes and exploring adaptive management strategies to bolster resilience against climate variability. In conclusion, strengthening water governance in Soc Trang is essential not only for sustainable resource management but also for ensuring the socio-economic well-being of its communities. Addressing the identified challenges through collaborative and innovative approaches will be vital for achieving long-term sustainability in the local water management practices.

Through this study, many policy implications can be taken into account for better water governance based on three OECD dimensions, including effectiveness, efficiency, and trust and engagement. The effectiveness of water governance can be improved via different strategies, such as strengthening legal and institutional frameworks (including local and international cooperation), applying IWRM principles, addressing climate change impacts, and enhancing monitoring and enforcement. In terms of water governance efficiency, applicable strategies may include infrastructure modernization (i.e., water saving technologies, leakage reduction in water supply), adoption of smart water management (i.e., decision making tools, SCADA system), introduction of economic instruments (i.e., taxes, tariffs, and water prices), and decentralization of financial mechanisms, allowing local governments to manage budgets for water governance projects. In terms of stakeholder engagement, suggestions are the promotion of participatory governance to incorporate feedback from the grassroots level in policy formulation and project management, the enhancement of public awareness for people and government staff through nationwide campaigns and training and capacity-building programs, the promotion of public–private partnerships through encouraging corporate social responsibility initiatives focused on sustainable water use, and the enhancement of transparency and accountability to track governance progress. In short, addressing water governance through the dimensions of effectiveness, efficiency, and stakeholder engagement requires integrated strategies that balance technical, institutional, and social aspects. By strengthening legal frameworks, optimizing resource use, and involving all stakeholders, the government can achieve sustainable and inclusive water governance. This approach is essential for tackling current challenges like pollution, climate change, and transboundary water issues while securing long-term water security.