Enforcement of legislation and building a culture of compliance

Ireland’s Environment 2008Meeting the Main Environmental Challenges

Kilmainham Friday 28th November, 2008

All or part of this publication may be reproduced without further permission, provided the source is acknowledged.

Mr. Dara Lynott BE, MSc, PE, Ceng, FEI

Director

Talk Outline

Snapshot of environmental issues

Regulation

Infrastructure

Funding

Responses and Conclusions

Back to the Future - NESC Strategy 20061

It is now necessary to factor the environment more fully into our understanding of the Irish economy and Irish society and into our medium-term goals and strategies.

Two of the core ways in which Ireland now earns its living—advanced manufacturing and services—are not areas of poor environmental governance and need not be environmentally damaging

‘upstream’ or ‘downstream’ from these core business activities Env. Policy is less effective (Upstream are activities—such as energy generation and raw food production Downstream are activities such as municipal services, housing construction and urban development)

It is critical that Ireland achieve more effective conflict resolution and decision making in a number of areas of environmental policy.

1: National Economic and Social Council –Strategy 2006: people, productivity and purpose

Drinking Water - % of supplies detected with E-Coli

0.55%

0.02% 0.03%0.08% 0.08%

0.00%

0.10%

0.20%

0.30%

0.40%

0.50%

0.60%

0.70%

IRELAND England andWales

Scotland NorthernIreland

Netherlands

Wastewater treatment

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1996-1997 1998-1999 2000-2001 2002-2003 2004-2005 2006

No Treatment Preliminary

Primary Secondary

Secondary with nutrient reduction

Level of treatment provided (9.9%, 5.1%, 1.7%, 70.7% and 12.6%)

Discharges to catchments of nutrient sensitive waters

Discharges upstream of drinking water abstractions

Discharges to bathing waters

Waste - Biodegradable Municipal Waste

BMW Forecasts and Targets

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Mill

ion

To

nn

es

BMW Generated

NBWS BMW forecasts

BMW Landfilled

Landfill Directive Targets

Based on EPA-ESRI ISus projections

Current

Position

Waste - Gap to Landfill Directive Targets

* Distance = BMW – recovery – max limit

YearMaximum quantity of untreated BMW allowed to landfill

BMW ‘Distance to Objective’ (Gap Analysis)

‘Standstill’ position (gap) based on

2006 figures

Position (gap) based on ISus8

waste projections

2010 967,000t 455,000t 672,000t

2013 645,000t 777,000t 1,209,000t

2016 451,000t 971,000t 1,603,000t

Waste - Future generation and disposal of Municipal Solid Waste

29,417,200

44,702,658

15,871,502

67,895,967

8,933,697

15,490,34321,836,534

31,908,243

0

10,000,000

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

50,000,000

60,000,000

70,000,000

80,000,000

tonn

es

Waste generation from the start of 2007 to the end of 2010, 2013, 2016 & 2020

Waste disposal from the start of 2007 to the end of 2010, 2013, 2016, 2020

2010 2013 2016 2020

Remaining capacity at landfills accepting municipal waste at the start of 2008: 26,013,496 tonnes

Agriculture -Issues

Agriculture - Issues

Significant Nutrient load on the environment -75.3% of n load and 33.4% of p load Nationally is from Agriculture

Unavailability of spread lands – repeated application Intensive sources of nutrient are in areas of poor nutrient uptake

capacity In Denmark since 1985 there has been a 81% reduction in P from

point sources 65% reduction in use of P in artificial fertiliser, 6% reduction in P in animal manure, a 48% reduction in surplus P.

However no general trend in diffuse p losses in Danish streams draining agricultural catchments 1989-2004

Time lag (Decades) between protection measures and responses indicating improvements.

Regulation

Regulation is essential to the proper functioning of a society. Whether through primary or delegated legislation, or more informal arrangements, rules create order and the basis for stability and progress. They shape incentives and influence how people behave and interact. They also help societies deal with otherwise intractable economic, social and environmental problems.1

1:Banks, G ‘Regulation Reform Management and Scrutiny of Legislation’, Productivity Commission (Australia), 10 July 2001.

Increasing regulation – Water Quality

2003 S.I. No. 722/2003 -- European Communities (Water Policy) Regulations 2003 S.I. No. 213/2003 -- (Protection of Waters Against Pollution From Agricultural Sources)

Regulations, 2003

2005 S.I. 378/2005 European Union (Natural Habitats) Regulations,

2006 S.I 268/2006 European Communities (Quality of Shellfish Waters) Regulations, 2006 SI No. 378 of 2006 European Communities (Good agricultural practice for Protection of

Waters) Regulations, 2006 Groundwater Daughter Directive (2006/118/EC).

2007 SI No. 106 of 2007 European Communities (Drinking water) Regulations, 2007 Water Service Act 2007 SI No. 684 of 2007 waste water Discharge (Authorisation) Regulations 2007

2008 S.I. No. 79 of 2008 Bathing Water Quality Regulations 2008

Trend of increasing regulation to continue…

Revision to European Communities (Water Policy) Regulations - focus on implementation Revision to European Communities (Good agricultural practice for Protection of Waters)

Regulations, 2006 – focus on compliance checking Revision to Water Service Act and possibly European Communities (Drinking water)

Regulations – tightening up of provisions New European Communities Environmental Objectives (Water Policy) Regulations 2008 –

implement dangerous substances requirements Revision to requirements for Single House treatment systems and maybe a regulation of

replacement/maintenance of septic tanks – deal with dangerous substance discharge Groundwater, classification systems will be brought into regulation during 2008/2009. New regulatory controls for other issues (e.g. abstractions and physical modifications to

surface waters). Regulations for the provision of source protection Amendment to the Planning and Development Act, 2000, to require explicit consideration

of environmental objectives established for waters in river basin management

NCC –Competitiveness report 2007

Complexity of Regulation - Water Quality -

Water Framework

Multi-authority

POMS

Catchment

Population

Spacial Strategy

Drinking Water

Water Safety Plans

Water service strategic plans

UWWTPLicensing

Pressures

Good water by 2015 Compliant wwtp by 2012

Abstractions

Assimilative capacity

Available water supplies

Water quality

Water dependant SAC’s Multi-authority

Multi-authority

Multi-authorityMulti-authority

Shellfish

Groundwater

Public Health

Reputation

Tourism

Bathing water

Control of inputs

Fisheries

Dangerous Substances

Nitrates

Safe guard zones

€ Resources

€ Resources

€ Resources

€ Resources

Buffer Zones Industry

Complexity of Regulation – Water quality

Significant number of Plans and programmes have to align with river basin management plans, these include;

1)     Regional Planning Guidelines, County Development Plans and related Local Area Plans

2)     Conservation measures for Natura 2000 sites 3) Water Services Strategic Plans – Drinking Water Safety Plans

3)     Pollution reduction plans and programmes; a.     National pollution reduction programmes for surface water b.     Nitrates National Action Plan d.    Licensing of Discharges f.        Pollution reduction programmes for groundwater g.     Shellfish waters pollution reduction programmes h.      Bathing waters management plans,

4)     Sludge management plans 5)     Flood risk management plans 6)     Major accident emergency plans 7) Forest management plans

Complexity of Regulation – Water Quality

“Different plans and strategies have different planning cycles, most of which will not be synchronised with the river basin planning timetable. Similarly, different plans and strategies operate to different geographical boundaries, most of which will not fit with the river basin district boundaries.”

Extract from River Basin Management planning guidance River Basin Management planning guidance

NCC –Competitiveness report 2007 - Infrastructure

Infrastructure

In view of Ireland’s heavy reliance on landfill, the availability of alternative waste infrastructure is critical. Ireland’s comparatively poor performance on key benchmarking indicators such as costs and capacity can be traced back to the continued lack of key waste management infrastructure in recent years1.

1: Waste Management Benchmarking Analysis and Policy Priorities - 28 May 2008 - FORFAS

Funding

Significant infrastructure required for environmental

Protection Each Regulator/Local Authority to its own Resources sporadically spread depending on

financial health of the Regulator/Local Authority Risk of duplication of resources (personnel, facilities

inspection, analysis, reporting,) Contradicting plans and programmes Lack of accountability for achievement of outcome

Funding

Waste Shrinking waste market Significant landfill/mrf/composting infrastructure investment required Uneven playing field private/public

Drinking water/ wastewater Increased operational costs high tech plants and DBO’s Increased specialisation of operators (“…The more knowledgeable the

operator, the greater the public’s protection” – Walkerton inquiry)

Increased sampling, analysis and reporting costs Increased liabilities associated with failure (loss of drinking water

supply, bathing areas)

Funding - NESC Strategy 2006

“where there are adverse environmental effects from economic activity, a system of markets will not maximise social welfare. This is because individual firms (or other actors) will not take adequate account of the costs of pollution where these costs do not fall directly on them. The effect of these ‘externalities’ is that there is more pollution than society’s preferences really want. Overall welfare can be increased by government policies that alter the allocation of resources in a way that reflects the value people place on the environment. This creates a complex distribution of costs and benefits for resource owners, firms and households”1

1: NESC Strategy 2006

Funding – Domestic Charges

The average combined charge for water and wastewater services in Ireland’s gateways and hubs is €2.03 per m3.

Average water costs in the largest five Irish cities is €1.67 per m3 and are competitive with those of other countries -€3.24 per m3 in Europe

The full cost of providing water services for domestic users needs to be clearly identified. Having established the cost of delivering water services to domestic users, an analysis of the merits of retaining the current EU derogation on domestic water charges needs to be undertaken to determine how best to fund water provision between user and Exchequer sources.

Assessment of Water and Waste Water Services for Enterprise - 02 September 2008 -Forfás

Funding - Modulation

CAP health check – Commission proposal to emphasis significant modulation of funding with increased concentration on water and biodiversity protection, climate change and renewable energy1.

Extending financial incentives (Business Expansion Scheme) towards the capital cost of critical waste Infrastructure2

Subsidise or levy activities to encourage or discourage behaviours 2

1: Sustainable grassland systems in Europe and the EU Water Framwork Directive - Michael Hamell EU DG-Env – Teagasc Conference November 2008

2: Hitting the Targets for biodegradable Waste – ten options for change, John Curtis, StrategicPolicy Unit, EPA, January 2008

Infrastucture – Greater integration

Move to a river basin district basis of provision of water services to maximise potential economies of scale, both in the building of infrastructure and the operation and delivery of services;

“Moving to a river basin district provision of services would maximise the potential for economies of scale and enable greater strategic planning and prioritisation of capital investment projects” - Martin Cronin, Chief Executive, Forfás1

The need for local authorities, county councils and relevant stakeholders to take a regional view, rather than a county level view, to developing the potential of the regions2.

1: Assessment of Water and Waste Water Services for Enterprise - 02 September 2008 -Forfás 2: Overview of the Main Infrastructure Issues for Enterprise 28 May 2008 - Forfas

Better Regulation

 IMPEL Principles for Better Legislation  •Strategy - strategic, rather than piecemeal,

•Definitions - clear and unambiguous consistent between laws

•Requirements - requirements of the law are clear, and achieve aims •Timeframes - practical fit realistically across different laws.

•Proportionality - proportionate to the risks

•Reporting - Only essential reporting, harmonise across different laws

•Revision - Allow for quick revision if enforcement issues arise

Better Regulation

The European Council in March 2007 set a target to reduce the administrative burdens arising from EU legislation by 25 percent by 2012 and invited Member States to set their own national targets of comparable ambition by 2008.

Sixty percent of firms said that the cost of dealing with regulations had increased in the past two years, primarily due to the introduction of new regulations in their view1.

1:REPORT OF THE BUSINESS REGULATION FORUM – March 2007

Better Regulation

A number of key messages emerged during the review of the international experience of measuring and reducing administrative burdens1: There can be significant potential for reducing administrative

burdens without compromising the integrity of regulation; Benefits accrue to business from a reduction in administrative

burdens and to the public sector from increased process efficiency;

European Commission estimates suggest a possible benefit to Ireland’s GDP of between €1.5 billion and €2.1 billion based on the assumption of adopting a 25 percent reduction target2

1:Report Of The Business Regulation Forum – March 2007

2;Measuring administrative costs and reducing administrative burdens in the European Union, European Commission, November 2006.

In Conclusion

Better regulation (Streamline legislative and reporting requirements, Use risk

based approaches to enforcement; a new Water protection Act?)

Increased Integration (Align plans, maximise shared resources; Use Networks,

regional authorties?)

Strategic approach to infrastucture (Set the National infrastructural priorities; A

national waste management plan, An National Environmental Infrastucture

Agency?)

Creative use of existing funding mechanisms (modulation of grant aid;

incentivise environmentally friendly behaviours?)

Significant additional funding required (payment for environmental footprint:

waste, drinking water, septic tank; Domestic Charges?)