1 / 21

Competent Authorities & Administrative Arrangements

Competent Authorities & Administrative Arrangements. for WFD Implementation i n Ireland A Case Study. Transposition Background to Water Administration Description of Competent Authorities Outline of Administrative Structures Effectivenss of Administrative Structures Conclusions.

cadee
Download Presentation

Competent Authorities & Administrative Arrangements

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Competent Authorities & Administrative Arrangements for WFD Implementation in Ireland A Case Study

  2. Transposition • Background to Water Administration • Description of Competent Authorities • Outline of Administrative Structures • Effectivenss of Administrative Structures • Conclusions

  3. 1. Transposition • On Schedule, December 2003 • Competent Authorities Designated: • Irish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) • Local government authorities “ acting jointly” • Specific roles described for each

  4. 2. Background to Water Administration: • Ireland – Introduction • Population 4 million • 70,280 km2 • 5000 lakes, 7000km coastline • In 40 years, changed from low impact agriculture to • increased population, • Industrialisation & • intensive agriculture • Dramatic economic growth in last 10 year • 77,000 new houses in 2004

  5. 2. Background to Water Administration: • Main threats to Irelands waters: • Eutrophication from • Agricultural run-off • State Waste Water Treatment Plants • Private houses with unconnected sewage tanks • Water Quality Report 2001 – 2003’: • 40% river and stream locations polluted • 18% of lakes eutrophic • 22% estuaries eutrophic • 20% groundwater sites >guide level for nitrate conc. (25mg/l NO3).

  6. 2. Background to Water Administration: • National Government • Department of Environment, Heritage & Local Government • Formulates policy & legislation on water quality, water supply & wastewater services • Overseeing WFD implementation • Other Government Departments • Agriculture, Finance, Marine

  7. 2. Background to Water Administration: • EPA • Regulates wastewater discharges from large scale industry through IPPC licencing • Supervisory role over Local Authorities water protection activities • Reporting, co-ordinating and technical role as WFD CA

  8. 2. Background to Water Administration: • Local Authorities • 26 Counties, 34 Authorities • Statutory Responsibility for Water Protection under 1977 Water Protection Act • CA under transposing legislation: • Elected Members will have responsibility for drawing up the environmental objectives, POM and RB Management Plans • Funding: ~25% commercial rates, 33% waste, commercial water other charges, ~40% from central government

  9. 3. Competent Authorities (CAs): • EPA • ‘Independent’ Environmental Protection Agency • General Responsibilities as CA: • Reporting to Commission • Mapping RBDs and water bodies • Drawing up monitoring programme • Promoting co-ordination of activities under WFD Articles 4, 5, 7, 10, 11 & 13

  10. 3. Competent Authorities: • Local Government Authorities • 34 ‘County’ based local governments • Responsibilities as CAs: • Establishing Environmental Objectives • Establishing Programmes of Measures • Drawing up and adopting the RB Management Plan • Other tasks including economic analysis, Article 5 obligations & monitoring

  11. 4. Administrative Structures • 7 River Basin Districts • 4 national, 3 International shared with Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) • River Basin District Projects • One Lead Authority • RBD Project Management Group • RBD Advisory Council • National Coordination Group • Technical Working Group • Various other Working Groups

  12. 4. Administrative Structures: • River Basin District Projects • One in each RBD • €40m funding overall • Majority of work done by hired consultants under guidance of • Project Co-ordinator from lead authority • 4/6 year life span until 2008 • Guided by the RBD Management Group

  13. 4. Administrative Structures: • RBD Management Group • Officials from each local authority • Consultants • Representatives from State bodies listed in Water Policy Regulations • Geological Survey • Heritage Council • Marine Institute • Waterways Ireland etc.

  14. 4. Administrative Structures: • RBD Advisory Councils • Starting in Jan 2006 • 66% Local Authority nominees • 33% sectoral Stakeholders: • Agriculture • Professional • Business/Industry • Anglers/recreational users • Water protection groups • Community • The Competent Authority “shall have regard to the … recommendations” of the AC

  15. 4. Administrative Structures: • National Coordination Group • Dept. of Environment officials • RBD Project leaders • EPA • Other state agencies listed in the transposing legislation • No public participation

  16. 5. Effectiveness of Administrative Structures • No RBD statutory Competent Authority but: • New RBD Project body, managing at catchment level for first time • Efficiently coordinated network of local government CAs in each RBD • Coordinated by lead authority • Guided by RBD Project Management Group

  17. 5. Effectiveness of Administrative Structures • Transparency • Serious lack of transparency • No information about Administrative Structures on official websites • Structure and role of National Coordination Group “sensitive” and requiring “official clearance” • Are viewed by officials as internal and are uncomfortable releasing details to the public

  18. 5. Effectiveness of Administrative Structures • Problems – Administrative Arrangements • RBD Projects have a finite life span, ending in 2008 • Much of the competencies held by hired outside consultants • Lack of training-in or capacity building of Competent Local Authoritiesstaff

  19. 5. Effectiveness of Administrative Structures • Problems – Institutional Capacity of C.A.s • Local Authorities very under resourced • Lack of funding and trained staff • Most expert competencies reside in outside consultants and RBD Project staff • Limited professional environmental recruitment permitted for LAs • EPA receiving no additional funding for WFD work • Other water protection work neglected

  20. 6. Conclusions • No entirely new RBD Competent Authority • Well coordinated new body: RBD Project • Catchment level management for 1st time • Future for RBD projects after 2008 uncertain • Power of Competent Authorities hinges on resources and political will • Serious lack of resources in CAs

More Related