In April 2026, Malang, Indonesia hosted a regional knowledge exchange that brought together 41 policymakers, river basin organisation representatives, industry leaders, researchers, and civil society practitioners, from Indonesia and Vietnam, to strengthen industrial water governance in practice. Convened by Water Stewardship Asia Pacific (WSAP) in partnership with Water Stewardship Indonesia (WSI), Water Stewardship Vietnam (WSVN), and the Australian Water Partnership (AWP), the exchange created a shared space for learning across borders, sectors, and scales.
The initiative was specifically designed as an immersive learning experience, combining site visits, dialogue, and facilitated workshops, to bridge the persistent gaps between policy frameworks and on-the-ground realities. Participants engaged directly with industrial facilities, river basin infrastructure, and MSME communities to examine how industrial wastewater is managed in real-world contexts, where governance systems work effectively, and where key challenges remain.
By prioritizing the objective of cross-border knowledge dissemination over immediate problem-solving, the dialogue provided a platform for participants to identify shared challenges and analyse successful governance models.
Learning From Practice on the Ground
Day 1 of the Indonesia–Vietnam Regional Knowledge Exchange began with a series of site visits. Visits to the Perum Jasa Tirta I (PJT1) Command Centre, Ekamas Fortuna paper factory, Sutami Dam, and the Sanan community tempeh production centre provided participants with a practical view of industrial wastewater governance across diverse contexts — from large‑scale regulatory and industrial systems to decentralised, community‑based and MSME settings.
By seeing these systems first‑hand, participants gained insight into how roles and responsibilities connect, and where gaps exist, across institutions. The visits highlighted that effective wastewater governance extends beyond technical standards, shaped instead by institutional coordination, economic incentives, infrastructure capacity, and social dynamics. Reflections were enriched by the diversity of perspectives in the group, supporting open exchange on how policies translate into practice across the region.
These shared experiences reinforced the value of learning through observation and dialogue, laying a strong foundation for subsequent discussions. As the exchange moved into dialogue and workshop sessions, common challenges around coordination, capacity, and inclusion emerged, creating a clear pathway for more practical, context‑sensitive, and collaborative approaches to improving industrial water governance.
Day 1 Reflections: From Police Escorts to Tempeh Chips – by Sandra Hall
Day 1 began not with coffee and name tags, but with something far more memorable: a police escort. Lights on, traffic parting, our bus moved through Malang with impressive efficiency. It was an unexpected reminder that time – and water governance – waits for no one. The escort kept us moving, but it also set the tone for the day ahead: this exchange was about seeing things as they really are, in real time.
Our first stop was the Perum Jasa Tirta I (PJT1) Command Centre, and it was genuinely awe-inspiring. Walls of live camera feeds showed rivers, dams, and infrastructure across the basin, offering an unfiltered view of the water system as it lives and breathes every day. These weren’t abstract maps or models; they were real images of sediment building up, riverbanks shifting, solid waste collecting where it shouldn’t, and invasive water hyacinths slowly taking over surface waters. What struck me most was how clearly these visuals showed the relationship between land use planning and river health.
We then shifted from system‑wide oversight to a very specific industrial reality at the Ekamas Fortuna paper factory. The facility itself was forward‑thinking, efficient, and clearly committed to better water management. Yet even here, ambition met limits. Despite strong intent, there simply wasn’t enough incentive to push recycled water use beyond about 30 per cent. It was a powerful example of how progress is often constrained not by willingness, but by policy and economic signals that don’t yet reward doing more than the minimum.
The day ended in a completely different, but equally powerful, setting: the Sanan tempe community. Here, wastewater governance looked less like compliance and more like ingenuity. Sanan supports over 500 families, and what stood out was the circular economy in action – by‑products reused, livelihoods sustained, and community resilience built from something as humble as soybeans.
And on a personal note: I tried tempeh chips for the first time. Crispy, flavourful, and impossible to stop eating. I came for water governance discussions and left with a new favourite snack, and a deep appreciation for how local communities make systems work, even when formal frameworks struggle to reach them.
Deepening Dialogue on Industrial Water Governance
Building on the shared experiences of Day 1, Day 2 of the Indonesia-Vietnam Regional Knowledge Exchange shifted decisively from observation to dialogue. With site visits providing a common reference point, participants engaged in deeper discussions about how industrial water governance systems function in practice, and how they are evolving in response to growing pressures on water resources.
A key focus of the day was the recognition that both Vietnam and Indonesia are undergoing important policy and institutional shifts toward more integrated, basin‑oriented, and data‑informed water governance. While each country’s pathway is distinct, discussions revealed shared ambitions to better align regulation, river basin management, and real‑world implementation.
In Vietnam, participants reflected on the introduction of the Law on Water Resources (2023), which came into force in July 2024 and marks a significant evolution in national water governance. The law strengthens the connection between water allocation, licensing, and the actual condition and capacity of water resources, signalling a shift away from purely administrative management toward approaches grounded in hydrological reality and river basin dynamics. Supporting instruments, including new guidance on water accounting and functional zoning, highlight an increasing emphasis on data, transparency, and accountability.
At the same time, discussions acknowledged that implementation remains the central challenge. Institutional overlaps, evolving roles for river basin coordination mechanisms, and constraints around financing and capacity continue to shape outcomes. While river basin committees are emerging as important platforms for coordination, participants noted that their mandates and operational clarity are still developing, underscoring the gap between policy intent and practice.
In Indonesia, the conversation centred less on legislative reform and more on strengthening coordination across existing systems, particularly within the Brantas River Basin. Participants discussed how fragmented mandates, inconsistent data systems, and the convergence of domestic, industrial, and agricultural pollution sources complicate water quality management. Initiatives such as Brantas Harmoni were highlighted as practical efforts to align institutions, share data, and engage communities, reinforcing the idea that technical solutions alone are insufficient without institutional alignment and collective action.
The role of industry was another important theme, with discussions exploring how regulatory tools and incentive mechanisms can encourage better performance. Indonesia’s PROPER program, which uses performance ratings and public disclosure to incentivise compliance, was discussed alongside reflections from site visits that illustrated how such frameworks can support transparency, monitoring, and investment, while also revealing their limits when incentives are not strong enough to drive continual improvement.
Across both country contexts, participants consistently returned to a shared insight: the barriers to improving water quality are not purely technical. While infrastructure, monitoring systems, and regulations are essential, governance culture, institutional behaviour, and coordination are equally critical. Conversations highlighted the need for stronger accountability, more reliable and standardised data, sustained capacity building, and better engagement with communities to support awareness and behavioural change.
Issues of inclusion and equity were also woven throughout Day 2 discussions. Participants examined how existing governance systems often fail to reflect the experiences of those most affected by water quality challenges, including women, people with disabilities, informal workers, and low‑income communities. The exchange reinforced the importance of moving beyond recognition toward the inclusion of Gender Equality, Disability, and Social Inclusion (GEDSI) stakeholder as strategic partners, through improved participation mechanisms, stronger data systems, institutional capacity, and a clearer link between inclusion and governance outcomes.
By the end of Day 2, the dialogue had shifted from comparing policies to interrogating the systems and mindsets driving industrial water governance. Participants gained a clearer understanding of multi-level governance challenges, spanning fragmented mandates, data gaps, financing constraints, and limited inclusion of MSMEs and communities, and strengthened their ability to diagnose these issues and design integrated, evidence-based responses. They also deepened practical skills in operationalising GEDSI, engaging communities in monitoring and accountability, and identifying context-appropriate technical and financial solutions. Participants left with a shared direction: advancing industrial water governance requires adaptive, inclusive systems that integrate data, financing, institutional coordination, and community engagement, supported by continued regional learning and collaboration.
Looking Ahead
As the exchange concluded, several consistent themes emerged as critical enablers of progress. Participants highlighted the importance of stronger institutional accountability and enforcement, particularly where robust legal frameworks exist but implementation remains uneven. The need for more reliable, standardised data was also central, recognised as essential for effective planning, monitoring, enforcement, and building trust across stakeholders. Alongside this, discussions reinforced the role of public awareness and behavioural change, noting that water quality outcomes are closely linked to everyday practices around domestic wastewater and solid waste management.
GEDSI was a particularly strong cross-cutting theme, with participants emphasising the value of making visible whose voices are heard, and whose are not, in water governance. Reflections highlighted that marginalised communities are not only affected stakeholders but can act as “strategic experts” in shaping more equitable and effective responses.
Across these areas, there was a clear emphasis on strengthening collaboration between institutions, sectors, and communities – moving beyond siloed approaches toward more integrated and cooperative governance.
Together, these insights reinforced a more grounded understanding of industrial wastewater management as a systemic governance challenge, requiring sustained coordination across institutions, stronger data systems, and more inclusive approaches to decision-making and implementation.
As the event closed, Dr. Sandra Hall reflected that the strength of the exchange lay in “the collective intelligence in this room,” reinforcing its role as a platform for shared learning rather than definitive solutions. The insights generated will inform the next phase of work, including the Indonesia Water Quality Task Force and ongoing engagement in Vietnam. More broadly, the exchange reaffirmed that improving industrial wastewater governance depends not only on stronger policies, but on better-connected institutions, reliable data, and inclusive processes that reflect the realities of those most affected—supporting a gradual shift toward more integrated and resilient water stewardship systems across the region.
