enforcement of legislation and building a culture of compliance
Post on 28-May-2015
526 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
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?)
top related