Competent Authorities & Administrative Arrangements

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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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