Sustainable Water Network (SWAN) consultation SWAN Response.pdf · Sustainable Water Network (SWAN)...

Sustainable Water Network (SWAN)

- Response to Consultation -

Draft Significant Water Management Issues Report

December 2015


9 Upper Mount Street

Dublin 2

[email protected]

01 642 55 83…………..

mailto:[email protected]

1

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION TO SWAN ...................................................................................................................... 4

2. INTRODUCTION TO THIS SUBMISSION ........................................................................................... 4

3. OVERARCHING ISSUES: Shortcomings in the draft report.................................................... 5

3.1. Lack of context from the first River Basin Management Planning / WFD implementation cycle ..................................................................................................................................... 5

3.2. Excessively low ambition level and inappropriate pre-emptive discussion on affordability & prioritisation .......................................................................................................................... 5

3.3. Lack of clear statement of significant pressures and associated sectors .............................. 5

3.4. Inadequate & inaccurate water status reporting................................................................................ 6

3.5. Excessively positive presentation of the current situation and misleading minimisation of pressures ....................................................................................................................................................... 6

3.6. Consistency with new WFD Application ............................................................................................... 7

3.7. SWMI consultation .......................................................................................................................................... 7

4. SECTOR-BASED (VERTICAL) SIGNIFICANT WATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES

(SWMIs) .............................................................................................................................................................. 7

4.1. AGRICULTURE ............................................................................................................................................... 7

4.2. URBAN WASTE WATER DISCHARGES ........................................................................................ 15

4.3. INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES .................................................................................................................. 17

4.4. FORESTRY ..................................................................................................................................................... 18

4.5. AQUACULTURE ........................................................................................................................................... 21

4.6. DISCHARGES FROM DOMESTIC WASTE WATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS (DWWTSs) ....................................................................................................................................................... 27

4.7. DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES / HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS ................................................. 30

4.8. DISCHARGES FROM MINING, QUARRYING, LANDFILL & CONTAMINATED LANDS ............................................................................................................................................................... 32

4.9. PHYSICAL MODIFICATIONS ................................................................................................................. 33

4.10. FRACKING ................................................................................................................................................ 34

4.11. ABSTRACTIONS .................................................................................................................................... 35

4.12. INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES .............................................................................................................. 37

4.13. PEAT EXTRACTION ............................................................................................................................ 38

5. HORIZONTAL SIGNIFICANT WATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES ........................................... 41

5.1. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; AFFORDABILITY & PRIORITISATION ......................................... 41

5.2. PUBLIC CONSULTATION, PARTICIPATION & ENGAGEMENT ......................................... 41

5.3. IMPLEMENTATION & INTEGRATED GOVERNANCE .............................................................. 43

5.4. HIGH STATUS SITES ................................................................................................................................ 45

5.5. COASTAL AND TRANSITIONAL WATERS .................................................................................... 46

5.6. CLIMATE CHANGE ..................................................................................................................................... 49

2

6. SPECIFIC QUESTIONS POSED IN THE DRAFT SWMI ............................................................... 51

ISSUE 1: What are the issues you believe we should prioritise for the next cycle of river basin

management plan e.g. protection of high status water bodies, improved management of

bathing waters, the protection of drinking water sources. ............................................................. 51

ISSUE 2: What recommendations do you have to improve public participation in water

management? .................................................................................................................................................. 51

ISSUE 3: Are other coordination mechanisms in addition to the above required? ........................ 52

ISSUE 4: What other plans and programmes do you think have a material impact on water

management? How do you suggest we seek to improve coordination of activities

between the various plans? ........................................................................................................................ 52

ISSUE 5: How can objectives of river basin (catchment) plans be included in land-use plans

in a way that is effective? How can the requirement of land-use plans influence river

basin plans? How can planning policy and practise be improved so as to enhance our

water environment? ...................................................................................................................................... 52

ISSUE 6: What else is needed to align flood risk mitigation and water quality management? 54

ISSUE 7: What if any are the major concerns you would have in relation to our aquatic

biodiversity in Ireland ................................................................................................................................... 55

ISSUE 8: What other actions do you think could be put in place to reduce the pollution of

waters caused by nutrient enrichment?................................................................................................. 55

ISSUE 9: What further actions would you suggest be taken to reduce health risks from

waters? ................................................................................................................................................................ 56

ISSUE 10: How do you think this issue [fine sediment] should be tackled? ...................................... 56

ISSUE 11: Are there other issues regarding physical modifications on waterways that should

be highlighted now? ...................................................................................................................................... 56

ISSUE 12: Is the abstraction of waters a significant issue in your area and, if so, do you have

views on how this might be addressed? ................................................................................................ 56

ISSUE 13: Are you satisfied with the existing approaches taken to control and prevent

chemicals in the environment? Are there any additional chemicals of concern that are

currently not being considered in Ireland? ........................................................................................... 56

Issue 14: How can we best plan to ensure the climate resilience of our water resources and

aquatic ecosystems? ...................................................................................................................................... 56

Issue 15: What actions do you think we need to take to manage alien species in Ireland? ...... 59

Issue 16: How can we better protect High Status Waters? ..................................................................... 59

This question is comprehensively answered in the EPA STRIVE report on High Status sites. SWAN

recommends the full implementation of all the recommendations in that report including .... 59

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................................... 60

Appendix I: SWAN Member Organisations & Board of Directors .............................................................. 61

Appendix II: SWAN submission on GAPP Regulations ..................................................................................... 1

Appendix III: SWAN Recommendations on Public Participation ................................................................. 31

Appendix IV: Friends of the Irish Environment Peat Information Reference Document..…...…………60

3

4

1. INTRODUCTION TO SWAN

The Sustainable Water Network (SWAN) is an umbrella network of 26 of Ireland’s leading environmental

NGOs, national and regional, working together to protect and enhance Ireland’s aquatic resources through

coordinated participation in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), the Marine

Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) and other water-related policy and legislation. SWAN member groups

are listed in Appendix 1. SWAN has been actively engaged in Water Framework Directive (WFD) and

other water policy implementation at both national and River Basin District (RBD) level since 2004,

representing the environmental sector on WFD River Basin District (RBD) Advisory Councils, the South

Eastern RBD Management Group, The Irish Water Stakeholder Forum and other water policy-related fora.

SWAN has been committed to participation in WFD implementation for 11 years and has made 13 formal

submissions specifically in that regard during that time1.

2. INTRODUCTION TO THIS SUBMISSION

SWAN welcomes the opportunity to comment on the draft Significant Water Management Issues (SWMI) report

and indeed the earlier opportunity to comment on the pre-consultation draft. This submission is the result of

SWAN research and the outputs from a SWMI workshop of SWAN members in Dublin on December 3rd for

which SWAN is grateful for DECLG funding. It reflects the cumulative knowledge of SWAN member

organisations working on the ground around the country on a diverse range of environmental issues related to

water management and protection, both coastal and inland and draws on many years of collective experience.

We welcome the changes made to the draft after the pre-consultation. However it is SWAN’s view that these

were very modest and fell far short of the improvements needed to address SWAN’s significant concerns

regarding its shortcomings. In 2007 SWAN had certain criticisms of the draft SWMI reports issued at that time.

However, regrettably despite the significant research and work done on WFD implementation in the intervening

8 years it is our view that this draft SWMI represents a significant regression from these and that significant

changes are needed to the document especially regarding the low level of ambition and lack of

clarity/information regarding key sectoral pressure sources and progress during/since the last cycle.

It is important to see the SWMI in the wider context of WFD implementation. This is the document that clearly,

transparently and objectively sets out all the significant water management issues and thus acts as a solid base

on which subsequent work on the draft river basin management plans is built.

Our critique of the report and recommendations for improvements are made in that context.

1 First cycle Article 5 Characterisation; Work Programme & Timetable; Monitoring Programme; Draft Plan, first submission: ‘SWAN

Submission in Response to ‘Water Matters – Help Us Plan, Draft River Basin Management Plan’; Draft Plan, second submission: ‘Review of

‘Water Matters – Our Plan!’ River Basin Management Plans for Ireland’s River Basin Districts 2009-2015’;

Second cycle WFD: Response to Public Consultation - Timetable & Work Programme for the Development of the Second Cycle River

Basin Management Plans

Other: Public Awareness Campaign on Water Blueprint; Surface water regulations; Joint recommendations with NI Freshwater Taskforce

on All-Ireland WFD implementation; Recommendations on Advisory Councils; Water governance proposal; 3-Tier Public Participation

Proposal; Water governance proposal, refined (submitted to consultation on establishment of new structures for water services).

5

3. OVERARCHING ISSUES: Shortcomings in the draft report

3.1. Lack of context from the first River Basin Management Planning / WFD implementation cycle

The report lacks context in terms of the first WFD river basin planning cycle: What significant water management

issues were identified in the first cycle? What measures were implemented to address these and how successful

or otherwise have they been? What progress was made and lessons learned? In a number of cases the 2010

RBM Plans set out actions to fill knowledge gaps in relation to pressures e.g. the survey and risk assessment of

landfills and contaminated lands. Summary findings from this research should be presented and the reader

directed to the relevant background documents.

While we acknowledge the addition of a new section, ‘Part 1: Water Framework Directive in Ireland’ after the

pre-consultation, it is regrettable that only two issues are identified under ‘Lessons learned from first round of

RBMPs’, and that the first of these is the excessively high ambition in the first cycle, which it seems to imply is

the reason water quality ‘falls well short of the targets set..’ and that we must now learn from this by being less

ambitious in the second cycle. Whilst SWAN agrees that the economic recession posed particular challenges

we take issue with this narrow interpretation especially in the context of references to affordability and

prioritisation, which we respond to next.

3.2. Excessively low ambition level and inappropriate pre-emptive discussion on affordability & prioritisation

The ambition level of the report is excessively low and of serious concern to SWAN. There is a highly

inappropriate discussion of affordability and the resultant need for prioritisation and strikingly this is set out as

the first issue, ‘Issue 1: Affordability and Prioritisation’. It is wholly unacceptable that the report should, in

advance of the characterisation and risk assessment, propose that ‘actions and measures’ will be selected ‘within

the constraints of available resources’. The issue of exemptions from meeting WFD targets is a matter to be

decided after the significant pressure / issues have been identified, and it has been demonstrated through a

strict justification process (set out in Article 4 of the directive) that all measures are disproportionately costly or

technically unfeasible and this has to be done for each water body. Prioritisation can only be undertaken for

each waterbody after this strict exemption criteria have been applied. General pre-emptive arguments around

affordability and financial constraints are not acceptable and are in fact of the gravest concern to SWAN. This

is compounded by the lack of reference to the mandatory economic analysis required by the WFD, which we

understand has yet to be done. (See also Section 5.1)

3.3. Lack of clear statement of significant pressures and associated sectors

Whilst there are some additions from the pre-consultation draft in the new section ‘Part 3: Pressures on our Water

Environment’, this document still does not set out the full range of sector-based pressure sources. This should

be the fundamental objective of this document. The very short additional sections on agriculture, urban waste

water treatment, forestry, homes and gardens, industrial discharges and invasive alien species fall far short of

identifying the issues presented by each sector. The reader has to drill down into the text under each impact-

based ‘environmental issue’ section in Part 4 to determine the sector-based pressures, and even then significant

pressures may not be mentioned. For example, aquaculture isn’t mentioned as a pressure under ‘Nutrient

Enrichment of Waters’, even though SWAN proposed its inclusion in the pre-consultation. Pressures should be

listed clearly and then presented with supporting text. We recommend the approach taken by SEPA in the first

Scottish SWMI Report where they present the pressure type and then each key sector under that. Even a quick

overview of the table of contents of the Scottish SWMI provides a clear indication of the issues in that RBD. E.g.

6

o Point Source Pollution

Collection and treatment of sewage

Aquaculture

Manufacturing

Refuse disposal

Mining and Quarrying

There is also inadequate identification of pressures. For example,

There is only a brief mention of aquaculture in ‘Part 2: Current Condition of Our Waters’;

There is no mention of the pressure from landfill sites, either legal or illegal;

There is only one brief mention of quarrying and it is not listed as a pressure;

There are only 3 mentions of mining embedded in the text; it is not listed as significant water management

issue;

Peat extraction is only briefly mentioned as a potential source of sediment and under ‘Land-use Planning

and Water’ and is not identified as a significant water management issue;

Unconventional Gas Exploration & Extraction (specifically extraction of shale gas by hydraulic fracturing) is

not identified as a potential future issue, despite ongoing research into its feasibility in Ireland and the

awarding of three onshore petroleum licensing options in 2011.

3.4. Inadequate & inaccurate water status reporting

Lack of reference to WFD requirements/baseline

In order for the public to understand the impact of significant water management issues, they need to know

what the current status of our waters is. For transparency, current water status should be presented against an

absolute baseline of WFD compliance rather than as a relative trend. Therefore the number of waterbodies at

each classification status should be clearly presented in addition to levels of deterioration or improvement since

the last cycle, if that data is available. If it is not, this should be clearly stated. It is particularly misleading to

present the status regarding nutrients as trends. It is of course a positive development that P and N levels are

‘mostly stable or decreasing’. However what is far more relevant in terms of assessing progress towards WFD

targets is whether absolute P and N levels are consistent with Good Status or better. When using graphics

therefore the colour coding should indicate high, good, moderate, poor and bad status. We strongly propose

that this form of trend reporting should be removed in future work on river basin management planning, except

for technical exercises where it is needed to assist in assessing risk.

Inaccurate status reporting

The current water status is also reported inaccurately, where it is stated that “The water status assessment for

2010-2012 shows that 48% of rivers, 57% of lakes, 55% of estuaries and 4% coastal waters (by area) assessed were

impacted”. This is in fact incorrect since these figures are for waters failing WFD standards. Reporting the waters

as ‘impacted’ is unclear and avoids a clear statement that these figures represent a failure to meet WFD legal

requirements (permitted exemptions notwithstanding). This failure should be clearly stated. Secondly, even

waters that are at good status, and thus not reflected in these figures, are clearly impacted, since they are defined

as demonstrating a deviation from reference conditions.

3.5. Excessively positive presentation of the current situation and misleading minimisation of pressures

Whilst it is important not to omit progress, the role of this document is provide a clear, objective, evidence-

based presentation of the issues that have been identified as presenting a pressure on the aquatic environment

either nationally or locally. There has been substantial work on this during the last phase of WFD and by the

7

EPA as part of its water quality monitoring and reporting and this should be reflected. The report omits a

number of significant water management issues or makes scant reference to them (See 3.4 above) and over-

emphasises progress.

It is important that we start the second WFD cycle with a clear and objective statement of the current situation

in so far as we know it and do not underplay the pressures presented by key sectors for socio-economic reasons.

To do so is not a logical approach if the objective it to achieve a true understanding within civil society of the

challenges in order to motivate them engage and change their behaviour where necessary.

3.6. Consistency with new WFD Application

The new EPA WFD app. will be an excellent public information resource when it is made public, for example for

showing the status of waterbodies against the WFD baseline and so the public can see what is posing a threat

to their local water body. That app has a drop-down list of significant water pressures several of which are not

listed in the draft SWMI e.g. urban runoff. For the sake of consistency, all of these pressures, identified by the

WFD Catchment Science and Management Unit should be included in the SWMI report.

3.7. SWMI consultation

While we discuss wider public participation in more detail in Appendix 3, it worth stating separately here that

SWAN sees significant and substantial deficiencies in the SWMI consultation exercise. The draft SWMI states

that “The consultation process initiated by this document is intended to encourage the active involvement of all

interested parties and identification of the key management issues”. It has clearly failed to secure such active

involvement. It also states that ‘the Minister is also anxious to engage with the general public and will, over the

six month period for consultation, take steps to raise awareness of this process..’ This has clearly not happened

and in this regard SWAN would deem the SWMI consultation to have failed in its stated objectives. In the

absence of an effective public engagement process the consultation questions are far too involved to answer in

the absence of necessary background information.

4. SECTOR-BASED (VERTICAL) SIGNIFICANT WATER MANAGEMENT

ISSUES (SWMIs)

4.1. AGRICULTURE

Almost half of our rivers and lakes (47% and 57%, respectively) are failing to meet the WFD target of good

ecological status and agriculture is the primary pressure, accounting for an estimated 53% of river

pollution and is the main contributor of nutrients: 88% of nitrogen and 49% of phosphorus2.

The addition of a new subsection on Agriculture in the draft SWMI is welcome, but it does not reflect the scale

of the challenge posed by agriculture currently nor by the productivity targets of Food Harvest 2020 and Food

Wise 2025. As is evidenced from the above figures, agriculture is currently making a significant contribution to

waterbodies failing WFD targets and the Agriculture Catchments Project has thus far failed to present empirical

evidence otherwise. Nor has it provided evidence to to support the argument that the proposed

2 Bradley C., Byrne C., Craig M., Free G., Gallagher T. , Kennedy B., Little R., Lucey J., Mannix A., McCreesh P., McDermott G., McGarrigle, M.

Ní Longphuirt S., O’Boyle S., Plant C., Tierney D., Trodd W., Webster P., Wilkes R. and Wynne C. (2012) Water Quality in Ireland 2010-2012.

Environmental Protection Agency.

8

agricultural expansion under ‘Food Harvest 2020’ and now ‘Food Wise 2025’ can be reconciled with the

need to reduce agricultural impact on water and meet WFD targets.

NUTRIENTS

Some of the findings in the interim report the of the Agriculture Catchments project (ACP) - Research

commissioned as a part of a commitment to the Commission to test the effectiveness of the Nitrates

Directive3 in protecting water quality – support SWAN concerns regarding the weaknesses of the current

regulatory measures under current conditions, not to mention with the additional 300,000 cows envisaged

under Food Harvest 2020:

Annual average P concentrations in three of the six catchment streams regularly exceeded the

Irish Environmental Quality Standard (EQS);

50-100% of sites were found to be at risk of not meeting WFD ecological standards for

macroinvertebrates;

Nitrate concentrations were over the EPA standard needed to support ‘Good status’4

The peer-reviewed papers emanating from the project further highlight the inadequacies in the current

regulations in protecting water resources. In particular:

Jordan et al. (2012)5 found that “Soil P index alone is an unreliable indicator of linking P in stream

water at the catchment scale…”; identifies the lack of a definition of transport risk as an important

omission in the regulatory framework and recommends the incorporation of a ‘transport metric’

into nutrient loss risk assessments, which is not currently required by the GAP regulations.

Wall et al. (2013)6, in an evaluation of the nutrient-related provisions of the Regulations at

different scales in five catchments, revealed that field-scale information on nutrients is crucial for

assessing risk of nutrient loss to water. This is currently not required by the regulations.

Buckley (2010)7 reports that on average, there is a tendency to over-apply chemical and organic

fertilisers to land on specialist dairy and tillage farms

A nutrient management plan is required for all farmers in the new Agri-environmental scheme GLAS

(Green, Low-Carbon, Agri-Environment Scheme) but these do not include any nutrient input limitations

beyond current regulations (the GAPP regs). In fact, Teagasc have stated that they will be advising farmers

to increase P levels on soil which is below Soil P 3, to bring it up to this level for optimum productivity, so

this requirement could actually add to the net amount of P being added to catchments. This is particularly

a threat in catchments of nutrient sensitive high status water bodies, which are the water bodies the

scheme is purportedly specially targeting.

Farms with high status water bodies (HSW) qualify for priority access to the scheme, and watercourse

fencing is mandatory for dairy and beef farms with HSWs, which is positive but there do not appear to

3 Transposed in Ireland as the Good Agricultural Practise For Protection Of Waters) Regulations 2014

4 It is not clear from the wording in the report whether this is for all 6 catchments

5 Jordan P., Melland A.R., Mellander P.E., Shortle G. and Wall D. (2012) The seasonality of phosphorus transfers from land to water:

Implications for trophic impacts and policy evaluation’. Science of the Total Environment. 434: 101-109

6 Wall D.P., Jordan P., Melland A.R., Mellander P.E., Mechan S. and Shortle G. (2013) Forecasting the decline of excess soil phosphorus in

agricultural catchments. Soil Use and Management. 29: 147-154

7 Buckley C. (2010) Nutrient management efficiency in the Republic of Ireland-saving the environment and reducing costs. IWA 14TH

International Conference Diffuse Pollution and Eutrophication, DiPCon 2010. Quebec

http://www.teagasc.ie/publications/2013/2000/ACP_Phase1_Report.pdf

http://www.teagasc.ie/agcatchments/

http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/farmerschemespayments/glas/glastranche1/

http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/farmerschemespayments/glas/glastranche1/

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2014/en.si.2014.0031.pdf

9

be any nutrient input restrictions beyond current regulations (GAPP regs) and low emission slurry

spreading is optional.

The scheme does have water protection measures e.g. Protection of Watercourse from Bovines but it was

designed with minimal input from catchment or aquatic scientists / ecologists and its exact water quality

and water status targets are unclear in relation to nutrient and other pollution. It is therefore difficult to

assess how the scheme was designed to meet these and whether it is ‘fit-for-purpose’.

SEDIMENTATION

Many agricultural activities drive sediment loss from agricultural soils to waters. Cultivation, especially

arable crops, land drainage and overgrazing, particularly in upland areas, result in the exposure of bare

soil which is vulnerable to erosion and sediment losses via overland flow. Overgrazing on upland

commonage areas can also cause soil erosion and sediment losses. Land drainage also increases

hydrological connectivity within the landscape which can facilitate the rapid transfer of sediments to water

bodies. Livestock access to stream and river banks can cause bank erosion and livestock poaching on

poorly drained soils generates muddy waters which can reach waters via overland flow8.

Sediment losses to waters and the risk of loss is exacerbated by inadequate maintenance of buffer strips

and riparian margins. Compaction by heavy machinery reduces soil porosity and permeability and

increases the likelihood of overland flow. Farmyard run off can also become a significant sediment point

source9.

Water pollution from sediments has both a chemical and a physical aspect. Sediments are a natural

component of river and lake systems however sediments lost from agricultural soils can carry harmful

substances such as nutrients, pesticides and metals. Sediments suspended in water can increase turbidity

which reduces light penetration which can negatively affect the composition of benthic communities (an

important ecological indicator), and visibility for fish. The physical settling of sediments can cover fish

spawning grounds and Freshwater Pearl Mussel (FWPM) gravel beds, smothering incubating fish eggs

and mussel larvae.

PATHOGENS

Contamination of rural groundwater supplies is an increasing problem. Archbold et al. (2010)10 provide a

comprehensive review of the sources (point and diffuse) and mobility of water-borne pathogens. Pig,

poultry and cattle housing units11 and unlined animal-waste storage units are primary point sources of

pathogens12. Grazed grasslands are the main diffuse source of pathogens13 and the magnitude of the

impact on water quality is a function of stocking density, length of grazing season and grazing practice14.

8 Archbold, M., Bruen M., Deakin J., Doody D.G., Flynn R., Kelly-Quinn M. and Misstear B. (2010) Contaminant movement and attenuation

along pathways from the land surface to aquatic receptors-a review. STRIVE Report Series No. 56, Environmental Protection Agency.

9 Harrod T. R. & Theurer, F. D. (2002) Sediment. In: Haygarth P. M. & Jarvis S. C. (Eds.) Agriculture, hydrology and water. CAB International,

Wallingford, UK.

10 Archbold et al (2010) As above

11 Edwards A.C., Kay D., McDonald A.T., Francis C., Watkins J., Wilkinson J. R. and Wyer, M.D. (2008) Farmyards, an overlooked source for

highly contaminated runoff. Journal of Environmental Management 87: 551-559.

12 Tymczyna L., Chmielowiec-Kovzeniowska A. and Saba, l. (2000) Effect of a pig farm on the physical and chemical properties of a river

and groundwater. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies 9: (2) 97-102.

13 Oliver D.M., Clegg C.D., Haygarth P.M. and Heathwaite A.L. (2005) Assessing the potential for pathogen transfer from grassland soils to

surface waters. Advances in Agronomy 85: 125-180 14 Ferguson C., Croke B., Beatson P., Ashbolt N. and Deere, d. (2007) Development of a process based model to predict pathogen

budgets for the Sydney drinking water catchment. Journal of Water and Health 5: 187-208

10

Land application of organic agricultural wastes is also a major diffuse source of pathogen contamination8.

Land spreading in wet conditions and in the vicinity of poorly constructed or improperly abandoned wells

increases the risk of pathogen loss to waters15. Pathogens can also be directly deposited to waters by

watering cattle. Livestock manure contains pathogens such as Escherichia coli 0157 and Cryptosporidium

which are a serious public health concern if they enter drinking water sources or recreational areas.

PESTICIDES

According to recent research16, there are 877 different types of pesticides used in Ireland and the control

of their use is a significant issue in terms of the water environment, especially the safety of drinking water.

In total, about 2 million kilograms of active substances are used each year in Ireland, with the largest

quantities used in the agricultural and forestry sectors17. Seed treatment chemicals, fungicides, herbicides and

insecticides are used to treat seeds, prepare ground for planting and to treat crops. Herbicides alone are used

in grassland management for the spot treatment of weeds18.

Arable land also receives greater amounts of pesticide per hectare relative to grassland19. Pesticides reach

surface waters via overland flow and leaching through soil to groundwater20. Surface waters can also be exposed

to direct spray drift21.

The main areas of pesticides usage are along the east coast of the country, with County Louth the greatest

contributor of pesticides with an average pesticides application rate of 146.7 kg/km22. The top six pesticides

used in ROI are MCPA, Glyphosate, Chlorothalonil, Mecoprop-P, Chlormequat and Mancozeb. Pesticides

become a potential pollutant in water environment following agricultural usage or accidental spills. The rates at

which pesticides enter water courses vary according to soil properties, prevailing weather conditions, aspect and

slope of the area of application and the chemical makeup of the individual pesticide. A number of cases of

pesticide contamination have been monitored in drinking water samples across the country23.

Pesticides and other chemical substances are also used in sheep dip to eliminate pests such as scab, ticks and

lice. In the UK, case studies have shown that sheep dips can be a point source of groundwater pollution and

similar problems are likely to occur in Ireland24. The active ingredient synthetic pyrethoid (Cypermethrin) in

sheep dip is extremely toxic for aquatic environments25 and was withdrawn from sale in the UK in 2010. Sheep

15 Misstear B. and Hynds P. (2007) Research into the health risks associated with private well supplies in Ireland. Geological Survey of

Ireland Groundwater Newsletter 46: 27-30

16 Zhao Y.Q., Singleton P., Meredith S., and Rennick G.W. (2013) Current status of pesticides application and their residue in the water

environment in Ireland. International Journal of Environmental Studies 70: 59-72

17CDM (2008) Risk to Groundwater from Diffuse Mobile Organics. Dublin City Council Further Characterisation/Programme of measures.

CDM, Dublin.

18 ibid



20 Reichenberger S., Hollis J. M., Jarvis N. J., Lewis K. A., Izilivakis J., Mardhol V., Francois O., Cerdan O., Dubus I. O., Real B., Hojberg A. L.

and Nolan B. T. (2008) Report on the Identification of Landscape Features and Contamination at Different Scales. Report DL25 of the FP6

EU funded FOOTPRINT Project.

21 CDM (2008) As above

22 Zhao et al. (2013) As above

23 ibid

24 CDM (2008) As above

25 Jahabakhshi A., Shaluei F. and Baghfalaki M. (2012) Acute toxicity of Cypermethrin on the Great Sturgeon (Huso huso Juveniles). World

Journal of Fish and Marine Sciences 4: 170-174.

11

dip is the suspected cause of the loss of some previously high status rivers and there is an urgent for the

complete ban on this substance in Ireland26. The continued use of this substance in Ireland is highly questionable,

especially given that undocumented land-spreading is the current disposal method of synthetic pyrethoid based

sheep dip27. Indeed this is the disposal method recommended in the handbook for farmers participating in the

fourth Rural Environmental Protections Scheme (REPS 4).

While the 2012 Sustainable Use Of Pesticides Regulations require that all farmers working with pesticides must

train as ‘professional users’ and have registered by 26th November 2015, they do not restrict sale to registered

users only. More research and monitoring is also needed on the ecological impact of pesticides on aquatic biota

in order to develop the necessary catchment management tools for pesticides28 and it is important that the

efficacy of agricultural pesticide controls are reviewed in light of water quality and WFD standards.

In relation to protected areas, the use of a given pesticide in an SAC or SPA is accepted, following a risk

assessment, if the person, can “show that there was no viable alternative and that appropriate risk management

measures were put in place”. The terms “risk assessment” and “risk management measures” are not clarified in

the Regulations. Assessing the risk of pesticide loss from soils to waters is notoriously difficult and further

research to enable the development of catchment management tools for pesticides29.

The absence of provisions for the regulation of sheep dip is a serious omission from the Irish regulatory

framework and SWAN believes that S.I. No. 155 of 2012 should be amended immediately to include provisions

for the regulation of sheep dip in Ireland, including an immediate prohibition on the use of synthetic pyrethroid,

Cypermethrin, in sheep dip.

SWAN also believes that that training should be compulsory in order for an individual to be allowed to

purchase, not just spray agricultural chemicals.

PHYSICAL MODIFICATIONS

Physical alteration of habitat structure and physical boundaries (banks and shores) can destroy aquatic

habitats such as fish spawning grounds and negate the buffering function of riparian margins. Riparian

margins are sinks for nutrients lost from agricultural soils and they protect river banks from erosion30. The

large weight and hoof pressures of cattle in particular can damage riparian soils and lead to river bank

erosion and inputs of sediment to water bodies. Unlimited cattle access also increases the ‘embeddedness‘

of in-stream gravels.31

The effect of livestock access on the aquatic ecology of surface waters is dependent on factors such as

bank steepness and length of the affected riparian area.32 The River Suir Surface Water Working Group, in

cooperation with the EPA, promotes the many water quality, biodiversity and socio-economic benefits of

26 McGarrigle M. (2010) Protecting High Status Water Bodies. Environmental Protection Agency National Water Event, June 9th-10th

2010, Galway.

27 EPA (2008) National Hazardous Waste Management Plan 2008-2012. A Report by the Environmental Protection Agency, Wexford.



29 Ibid

30 Mitsch W.J. and Gosselink J.G. (2000) Wetlands (3rdEd.) John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey.

31 Davies-Colley and Parkyn (2001) Effects of livestock on streams and potential benefit of riparian management. Aukland Regional

Council Technical Publication 351.

32 ibid

12

limiting cattle access to streams and rivers.33 The authors highlight Irish research that demonstrates that

fencing facilitates the recovery of riparian zones and promotes botanical and invertebrate diversity within

otherwise intensively managed farmland.34 The socioeconomic benefits include reduced risk of animal

injury and udder contamination and protection of drinking water supplies from pathogens.

WETLAND DRAINAGE

The reclamation of land for agricultural purposes is an ongoing pressure. The EIA (Agriculture) Regulations

and 2011 Planning & Development (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations have the potential to provide

additional protection if they are implemented correctly. However, the system is fragmented and confusing

for landowners, planning officials and other stakeholders and for this and other reasons is ultimately

ineffectual.

The EIA (Agriculture) Regulations are administered by the Department of Agriculture and govern drainage

works on lands used for agriculture, (excluding the drainage and reclamation of wetlands). The threshold

for required screening is above 15 hectares. If the proposed area for agricultural drainage (not wetland

drainage) is above 15 hectares an application for screening must be submitted to the Minister for

Agriculture, who considers whether the proposed activity is likely to inter alia have significant effects on

the environment or on a European site. Where s/he considers that the proposed activity is likely to have a

significant effect on the environment, or on a Natura 2000 site, the activity may not proceed “without a

consent given consequent to an application for consent accompanied by an environmental impact statement,

or a Natura impact statement, as the case may be”35.

The Planning & Development (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations control the drainage and reclamation of

wetlands (including estuarine marshes or callows), which is the only element of the activities covered by

the European Court of Justice judgment in Case C-66/06 remaining within the planning system. The

threshold above which a landowner must conduct a mandatory environmental impact assessment (EIA) is

2 hectares and the threshold above which they must apply for planning permission (& screening for EIA)

is 0.1 hectares.

There is much confusion and a lack of enforcement in this regime. The system has a built in temptation

for landowners carrying out drainage works in wet land in areas above 0.1 hectares to deem the land to

‘used for agriculture’ and not an actual wetland. This then leads to confusion regarding the definition of a

wetland. While this is defined in the regulations and guidelines, this is a sufficiently ambiguous area to

have facilitated many incidences of unregulated wetland drainage (i.e. without planning consent) of which

SWAN members are aware.

The separation of responsibilities between the DAFM and DECLG also leads to fragmentation in the system.

Under the current system, wetlands are at risk from cumulative effects as there is no centrally administered

system in place for cross-reporting or integrated assessment of proposed drainage works on agricultural

lands and within wetlands. In the absence of a clear strategy for cross-reporting, permission may be

33 Kilfeather P. and Feehan J. (2009) Guidance for the farming community on protection of water resources and habitat quality from

impacts due to livestock to waters. Environmental Protection Agency.

34 O`Grady (2006) Channels and Challenges: Enhancing Salmonid Rivers. Irish Freshwater Fisheries Ecology and Management Series. No. 4,

Central Fisheries Board, Dublin.

35 Department of the Environment (2011) Guidance for Planning Authorities on Drainage and Reclamation of Wetlands consultation draft,

September 2011

13

simultaneously granted for drainage both within a wetland and on adjacent agricultural land, the combined

effects of which may seriously damage the site.

SWAN members still regularly encounter unregulated wetland (riparian and other) drainage for agricultural

purposes both below and above these thresholds. For example, SWAN members An Taisce and Coastwatch

were involved in a case of infilling/reclamation of large areas of wetland in 2014 and 2015 adjacent to the R478

between Lahinch and Liscannor, Co. Clare, adjacent to the Inagh River Estuary SAC site code 000036). The An

Bord Pleanala decision was that drainage/infilling of a wetland had been carried out and thus that the works

were not exempted development and should not have been carried out without planning consent and the

appropriate environmental assessment.

At Tachumshin Lake in Wexford there are two large outflow pipes draining this priority habitat lagoon, with

very serious impacts. This is known to the authorities but to date has not been acted on. The Irish Wetland

Ramsar Committee is now looking at this with Wexford County Council but at time of writing the illegal

drainage continues. In a comparison review of satellite images on google maps between 2007 and 2015,

SWAN estimates the loss of over 100 acres from this important habitat.

The DAFM have developed a ‘Guide for Farmers’36 to support farmers in meeting the requirements of the

EIA (Agriculture) Regulation. This guidance document suggests that “professional advice may be required”

when making an assessment as to whether drainage or other works may have a significant effect on the

environment. This statement should be strengthened to “professional advice should be sought” to

encourage the fusion of the local knowledge of the farmer and the expertise of a wetland ecologist. This

would improve confidence in the initial assessments of whether drainage works may have a significant

effect on the environment and compensate somewhat for the lack of information on wetland connectivity

or broader wetland issues in the EIA (Agriculture) Regulation guidance document.

The DECLG in turn provide a guidance document ‘Guidance for Planning Authorities on Drainage and

Reclamation of Wetlands’ for determining whether activities might have a significant effect on a wetland37.

This document provides information on the environmental effects of drainage and reclamation of

wetlands and this should also be incorporated into the EIA (Agriculture) Regulation guidance document.

Assessing the potential effects of drainage on wetlands is extremely challenging, and even though the

difficulties are well outlined in the Planning and Development Regulations guidance document, they

overlook a conceptual model approach to describing the ecohydrogeology of different wetlands types

and for assessing drainage risk to wetlands. This approach is recognised as a useful communication tool

for identifying different wetland types and areas within wetlands that are most sensitive to drainage.

In summary, the guidance documents for both sets of regulations do not provide enough information on

the functions served by the different types of wetlands. There is also a heavy focus on NHA, SAC and SPA

habitat types and more attention should be drawn to undesignated wetland types such as riparian

margins and small ponds. Farmers are likely to be aware of NHA, SAC or SPA sites within the vicinity of

their holding but they might not be as aware of the functions served by local undesignated wetlands.

36 DAFM (2012) Environmental Impact Assessment (Agriculture) Regulations. Guide for Farmers. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and

the Marine, Dublin.

37 DECLG (2011) Guidance for Planning Authorities on drainage and reclamation of wetlands-Consultation Draft. Department of

Environment, Community and Local Government, Dublin.

14

A combined guidance document for the EIA (Agriculture) Regulation and Planning and Development

Regulations with a greater focus on wetland functions would potentially improve awareness of wetland

protection issues among farmers.

The role of the this combined regulatory system in protecting riparian wetlands, other Groundwater

Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTEs) from agricultural (and other) physical pressures, and in

supporting the meeting of WFD objectives for associated waterbodies must be reviewed as part of the

second cycle of river basin management planning.

The use of small water courses as drains38 is also an issue. It is often seen as insignificant and the impacts

on their use are not considered. The importance of these water bodies, for example for salmon spawning

is often not recognised, and as a result, they are not protected.

UPLAND BURNING

A new issue which has come to SWAN’s attention and which needs to be addressed in the river basin planning

process is the impact of upland burning on water resources. Illegal and prescribed burning in the mountainous

and hilly areas of the uplands has been increasing over the last 15 years. There is no register of the number of

fires that occur each year or the amount and type of habitat burnt or the intensity of the burn. The EPA has

stated that ‘the burning of biomass is a threat to (air) and water quality through the generation of pollutants

including Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)”39.

Other impacts on water and hydrology have been documented in a UK research report from the University of

Leeds40 looking at the effects of moorland burning on the ecohydrology of river basins, which has shown that

burning on peatlands has ‘clear effects on peat hydrology, peat chemistry and physical properties, river water

chemistry and river biota.’ It also found:

Rivers draining burned catchments were characterised by lower calcium concentrations and lower pH

relative to rivers draining unburned catchments. Rivers draining burned sites had higher concentrations of

silica, manganese, iron and aluminium compared to unburned catchments.

Burning vegetation alters the natural peat hydrology in the upper layers of the peat affecting the balance

of where water flow occurs.

Macroinvertebrate population diversity was reduced in burned sites where populations were dominated by

groups that are commonly found in higher abundance in disturbed river systems, such as (Chironomidae

and Nemouridae).

Particulate organic matter (predominantly peat) deposits were increased up to four-fold in the bed

sediments of burned rivers compared to unburned rivers.

Whilst this research is from the UK, the findings are cause for some concern in Ireland given the prevalence in

some areas of widespread upland burning. Research into the wider impacts, including on affected water bodies

is required.

In summary, agriculture presents the greatest breadth and depth of pressures on Ireland’s water environment,

in terms of the magnitude and variety inputs and pressures. The SWMI falls far short of reflecting this, and

38 This use of small watercourses as drains also applied to householders and industrial operations.

39 EPA submission to NPWS on the review of Section 40 of the Wildlife Act, January 8th, 2015

40 Brown L. E, Holden J. and Palmer S. M. (2014) Effects of moorland burning on the ecohydrology of river basins. Key findings from the

EMBER project. University of Leeds.

15

SWAN believes this must be remedied in order to provide the basis for a second cycle river basin management

plan with comprehensively addresses all pressures from agriculture with specific measures for each pressure.

4.2. URBAN WASTE WATER DISCHARGES

Urban Wastewater discharges are second only to agriculture as a significant pressure on the aquatic

environment. According to the EPA’s most recent report ‘Urban Waste Water Treatment in 2014’41 raw

sewage is still being discharged from 45 municipal areas and 20% of the 174 large urban areas non-

compliant with Directive’s effluent quality and sampling standards under the Urban Waste Water

Treatment (UWWT) directive. Because this includes large population areas, this comprises 53% of the

national waste water load (in p.e.).

15 large urban areas did not meet the UWWTD Directive requirement to either provide secondary

treatment or infrastructure to reduce nutrients and did not meet nutrient quality standards, with Ireland’s

largest waste water treatment plant at Ringsend in Dublin, which serves a population equivalent of over

1.7 million failing to achieve the UWWTD standards. Furthermore, only 24% of the total waste water load

(in p.e.) from the 33 large urban areas discharging to designated sensitive areas met all relevant nutrient

quality standards for phosphorus and nitrogen effluent quality.

There is also significant non-compliance with the statutory timelines specified in waste water discharge

licences for completion of improvement works: Waste water discharge licences include a requirement to

carry out infrastructural improvements within certain timeframes where they are necessary in order to

improve waste water discharges and reduce environmental risks. Approximately 54% of the improvement

works due between 2009 and 2014 were reported as outstanding.

The report also found inter alia that nine large urban areas did not meet the requirements of the directive to

provide the requisite secondary treatment or equivalent treatment:

Three of these sites should have been compliant by 31 Dec 2000 (Killybegs; Ringaskiddy/Crosshaven

/ Carrigaline; Arklow;

At least four should have been compliant by 31 Dec 2005 (Cobh; Clifden; Youghal; Passage

West/Monkstown);

In the context of this current unsatisfactory situation and the existence of the open European Court of

Justice case against Ireland regarding the UWWTD42, and the later infringement case 2013/2056, provision

of secondary or equivalent treatment for these areas and wider compliance with the UWWTD should

therefore be addressed as a matter of the utmost priority and this should be reflected in the draft SWMI,

and indeed in the Irish Water Water Services Strategic Plan (WSSP), published in October. SWAN does

not believe that the short paragraph in Part 3 in the SWMI draft nor the fleeting mention under Issue 8

Eutrophication reflects the urgency of the situation.

The significance of this pressure is of even more concern in the context of Irish Water investment targets

and priorities. SWAN has identified significant weaknesses in these in our submission on Irish Water’s 25

years Water Services Strategic Plan, (WSSP). Firstly, the deadline for full compliance with the UWWT

41 EPA (2015) Urban Waste Water Treatment in 2014. Environmental Protection Agency.

42 Case C316/06: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber); 11 September 2008; (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations -

Environment - Directive 91/271/EEC - Pollution and nuisance - Treatment of urban waste water)

http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/water/wastewater/2014%20waste%20water%20report_web.pdf

http://www.water.ie/docs/Draft-WSSP.pdf

http://www.water.ie/docs/Draft-WSSP.pdf

16

Directive has been extended out to 2040 in the WSSP and the target is 90% of the population (p.e.) to be

served by compliant UWWT plants by 2021. 10% p.e. still represents a large number of small-medium

discharges non-compliant with the UWWT Directive over the next 15 years.

In relation to the more exacting requirements of the WFD, UWWT discharge targets in the WSSP are not

ambitious enough: Only 60% of WWTPs for >500pe are proposed to be compliant with Emission Limit

Values (ELVs) to achieve WFD requirements by 2021, with full compliance not planned until

2040. Currently Irish Water estimate 33% compliance based on based on 2013 Annual Environmental Reports

(AER).

The Waste Water Discharge (Authorisation) Regulations of 2007 are an improvement on historical non

regulation of local authority discharges. However SWAN has concerns regarding this licensing system

which is circumscribed by a legacy of poor infrastructure investment in waste water treatment, leading to

the regulator being compromised by being in the invidious position of issuing licenses to certain

untreated wastewater discharges regardless of the impact on the aquatic environment, on the basis that

the discharge cannot go unlicensed, but yet cannot be treated to the requisite standard for the time

being, pending investment. This undermines the reputation of the EPA in the eyes of some SWAN

members.

It has also come to SWAN’s attention that the EPA operate a system whereby, when calculating the

assimilative capacity of a receiving water for an municipal wastewater discharge, a presumption of no

other discharges going to that waterbody is made, and thus that apart from the discharge under

consideration there is zero loading to the water body. This clearly demonstrates a regulatory system not

based on science but circumscribed and limited by practical, political and material factors. SWAN believes

this to be wholly unacceptable and calls for an immediate cessation of this flawed approach.

The regulations also suffer from low levels of compliance. According to the most recent report ‘Urban

Waste Water Treatment in 2014’43, of the 263 treatment plants at which the EPA conducted independent

effluent monitoring, more than a quarter (27%) failed to comply with effluent quality standards set in EPA

licences.

We welcome the statement in the draft SWMI that ‘Addressing locations where urban discharges are

causing water quality problems will be a key focus of the next cycle of RBMPs.’ and we hope that this focus

will include measures to address the cumulative effects of discharge consents along a watercourse/ within

a catchment which are currently not addressed, in addition to an extremely robust approach to UWWTD

non-compliance and a cessation of the practise of presuming a zero loading for receiving water.

There are some particularly notable and unacceptable cases of raw sewage being discharged into sensitive

environments which SWAN wishes to formally submit to the SWMI consultation, although we understand

that the EPA are apprised of them:

An entire town’s sewage is being piped raw into a Special Area of Conservation turlough in County

Galway. The sewage from Glenamaddy town - population c.700 - is being piped into Glenamaddy

turlough where it enters a swallow hole, before re-emerging at Lettera spring 3.5km west of the

town. The primitive, unlicensed sewage unit, which Galway County Council admits is “grossly

undersized”, has been in place since the 1950s. It has been a subject of internal discussions within

43 EPA (2015) Urban Waste Water Treatment in 2014. Environmental Protection Agency.



17

various public authorities for the best part of at least 20 years, yet the pollution and public health

hazard continues to this day.

There is a raw sewage outfall onto a rocky beach at Doldrum Bay on the south side of Howth,

which serves about 80 houses. When the Ringsend sewage treatment plant received its discharge

licence in July 2010 one of the conditions was that the Doldrum Bay untreated outfall be ended

by 31st December 2011. This condition has not been complied with and now SWAN is aware that

Irish Water may intend to seek a reviewed licence to allow raw sewage outfall to remain as is. This

discharge is occurring within the Howth coast SAC and into the North Dublin Bay area which is a

designated SAC, SPA and UNESCO Biosphere reserve.

Such cases are wholly intolerable and must be given the utmost priority as extremely significant and

pressing water management issues to be resolved without delay.

Sewage sludge

Irish Water’s waste water treatment plants produced a collective total of 53,543 tonnes of sewage sludge

(dry solids) during 2014, with 42,483 (79.3%) being spread on agricultural land. The issue of the disposal

of sewage sludge, with associated concerns around land-spreading and resulting potential contamination

with heavy metals and endocrine disruptors also needs to be, in the first instance identified as an issue,

and then addressed.

Cross border issues

Cross-border inconsistencies regarding UWW discharges and their impacts also cause problems.

Northern Irish authorities have agreed on a Grade A Shellfish Water standard in Lough Foyle. This

designation was one of the main reasons cited for bringing sewage from the new Magilligan treatment

system out of the lough. On the opposite side in Donegal the plan for Moville – Green castle sewage

treatment into the same Foyle waters is not taking this Grade A Shellfish Waters quality goal into account.

Not only is the planned discharge point too far inside the lough, but it is to go through a sea grass bed

(Zostera marina) which is a priority habitat and highly sensitive to disturbance.

4.3. INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES

SWAN welcomes the addition of a section on this in the revised draft after the pre-consultation, and in

particular the highlighting of the challenge of increased pressure from agri-food processing operations

in light of increased production targets in Food Harvest 2020 and Food Wise 2025.

As part of Article 5 requirements, Annex II of the directive requires an ‘Estimation and identification of

significant point source pollution’ and measures are required to address these point sources - including

industrial discharges - under Article 11 of the directive. Thus, these must be clearly identified and

assessed.

Whilst maybe not one of the most significant issues on a national scale, discharges may have significantly

detrimental effects locally, especially in the context of cumulative impacts and assimilative capacity of

smaller and more vulnerable receiving waters. This issue is not addressed by regulation since there is no

assessment of cumulative impacts of industrial discharges on receiving waters and applications for

discharge licenses continue to be considered in isolation under Section 4 licensing.

18

The requirement for an examination of discharge licensing in the Surface Water Regulations 2009, as

required by Art. 11.3 (g) of the WFD is positive. However, it has become apparent that many licensing

authorities are not amending their licensing activities in line with the objectives of the directive, despite

the issuing of training and guidance on this for Local Authorities. A recent survey by SWAN member

VOICE, in press, shows a wide disparity in the Local Authorities’ understanding of the requirements of the

regulations and a lack of resources to review licenses. A number of Local Authorities have not altered any

of these licenses (‘Section 4 licenses’) and continue to issue them, with a policy of not refusing licenses,

because they believe that to limit the issuing of licenses or to amend existing licenses making them more

stringent is not politically palatable as it would (be seen to) curtail development and not support jobs in

their functional area.

In addition, research in relation to priority substances and priority hazardous44 substances found that not

all businesses in the study areas had applied for or secured trade effluent licences, indicating a cohort of

unlicensed industries discharging to water and found that these ‘unlicensed sources play a significant role

in the occurrence of certain pollutant groups.’

SWAN members are also aware of a serious flaw in the regulatory and planning system in relation to IPPC

licensed operation. As SWAN understands it, at present businesses, it, which have been granted planning

permission, are permitted to operate and to discharge to the environment, whilst in the process of

applying for a IPPC discharge licence, meaning their discharges are effectively unregulated. This

highlights a serious lack of co-ordination between the planning permission system and discharge

licensing system.

As is mentioned in the draft SWMI, the issue of the capacity of agri-businesses to adequately process

their waste in the context of the increased output envisaged in FH2020 and Food Wise 2025 is of

significant concern to SWAN. We welcome the fact that the SWMI highlights the fact that “The location

of some existing processing sites could reach a limit where the capacity of receiving water is at or near

capacity.”

While the draft SWMI states that “Data from water monitoring between 2010 and 2012 indicates that

industrial pollution is causing an issue at 5% of monitoring stations.” SWAN has some concerns regarding

the adequacy of monitoring of IPPC installations. These include the location of the effluent testing points,

some of which SWAN members are aware are located inappropriately e.g. too far downstream which

allows dilution of the effluent. It is vital to ensure that the monitoring programme is sufficient to pick up

all incidences of industrial pollution and is also adequate to detect cumulative impacts.

Whilst SWAN acknowledges that the contribution from industry to serious water pollution has diminished

due to regulation by the EPA under the IPPC, members are still aware of high risk situations and would

welcome a dialogue with the EPA on these. For example, it has come to SWAN’s attention that a plant in

Shannon is presently applying for an expansion to the area it uses to store spoil. This presents an increased

risk of contamination from water seeping through deposited muds.

4.4. FORESTRY

We welcome the additional section to the draft SWMI which recognises that “forestry activity

represents a potential source for sediment and for nutrients”. SWAN believes that coniferous

44 Regan F., Jones L. and Chapman J. (2013) Monitoring of priority substances in waste water effluents. EPA Strive Report No. 117,

Wexford.

http://www.environ.ie/en/Legislation/Environment/Water/FileDownLoad,20824,en.pdf

19

plantation significantly impacts both the quantity and quality of water passing through forest

stands. Good forest management can improve water quality and regulate the flow of water in the

landscape. Poor forest management can damage or destroy valuable aquatic habitats and

exacerbate local flooding. There are serious impacts on water quality from afforestation and forest

management, particularly in upland areas and areas with thin or otherwise fragile / erodible soils.

Impacts include nutrient enrichment, sedimentation and consequently loss of wildlife and

ecosystems services. The planned expansion in forestry is particularly worrying in light of the

recent increase in storm events and rainfall which would further increase the loading of nutrients

and sediments to streams/rivers/lakes and further increase acidity. These two factors combined

have the potential to significantly negatively impact water quality, high status and sensitive sites

in particular, and forestry should be emphasised more than it is in the draft SWMI report as a

highly locally significant water management issue.

Most forestry in Ireland relies on heavy use of artificial fertilisers, which then run off the forested

land in to waterways causing serious pollution (eutrophication). Nutrient loss to streams is

particularly evident after clearfelling and storm events45

Some types of forestry, spruce plantations in particular, acidify water making conditions

inhospitable for fish and aquatic invertebrates. The acidification of head water streams from

forestry has been shown to have localised impact on the entire macroinvertebrate community46.

Other forest management practices such as planting techniques, road and track building, and

clearfelling, cause soil erosion. This leads to heavy loads of silt entering waterways, thus

damaging aquatic wildlife and habitats. Conversely, good forest management can minimise soil

disturbance and help reduce sedimentation that is associated with other land uses.

Nutrient and sediment load is increased in streams both during and after harvesting operations

and management measures to mitigate this are not always implemented or implemented

adequately and can be ineffective after a large storm.47

Forestry on peat soils in particular causes a suite of environmental problems. All of these

problems described can and often do result in reduced water quality, loss of wildlife and

ecosystems services, damage to fisheries, and increased costs of treatment for drinking water.

Drinan et al. 2013 found elevated nutrient, iron, aluminium and DOC in lakes in afforested blanket

bog catchments with the highest concentrations recorded in lakes in clearfelled catchments. The

study ‘demonstrated a clear, deleterious impact of conifer plantations on the water quality draining

from blanket bog catchments, with major implications for the management of afforested

peatlands.48

45Rodgers M, O’Connor M, Healy M.G., O’Driscoll C, Asam Z, Nieminen M, Poole R, Müller M and Xiao L. (2010) Phosphorus release from

forest harvesting on an upland blanket peat catchment. Forest Ecology and Management. 260: 2241–2248

46 Feeley H. B., Kerrigan C, Fanning P, Hannigan E and Kelly-Quinn M (2011) Longitudinal extent of acidification effects of plantation

forest on benthic macroinvertebrate communities in soft water streams: evidence for localised impact and temporal ecological recovery.

Hydrobiologia 671:217–226

47 Clarke J and Bruen M. (2014) Clearfelling impacts in the East. Presentation at HYDROFOR End-of-Project Workshop, 8th April 2014,

University College Dublin

48Drinan T.J., Graham C.T., O’Halloran J, and Harrison S.S.C. (2013) The impact of catchment conifer plantation forestry on the

hydrochemistry of peatland lakes. Science of the Total Environment 443: 608-620

20

The 2009-2015 Plans accurately describe the very significant risk of many rivers ‘failing to achieve

the required standards due to potential impacts from forestry’ (Section 2.2.2 ‘Pressures’), as shown

by a risk assessment of acidification, eutrophication and sedimentation pressures. It is

unfortunate that that assessment is not reflected in the draft SWMI.

Approximately 10% of Galway-Mayo is afforested and the most recent Integrated Water Quality

Report49 from that region states ‘Many of these afforested areas are located in sensitive salmon

and trout spawning catchments, such as the Owenriff, underpinning the need for adequate

control of forestry operations in sensitive areas. The impact of forestry on water quality continues

to be an issue of concern in Galway and Mayo.’ Again this highlights how forestry is a highly

significant water management issue in our most vulnerable sites.

The Forest Water Quality Guidelines have not been amended since 2000. These guidelines

contradict each other, have significant inaccuracies, and in relation to certain issues are largely

ignored. This is resulting in negative impacts on aquatic environments. Set back distances of

15m are not being applied, and should be used as standard in all High Status Sites. A consistent

definition of watercourses is required. Some are not being identified as such and as a result are

not protected by set-back requirements. ‘Aquatic zones’ are only identified as such if they appear

on an Ordnance Survey 6 inch map.

The Article 17 Habitats Directive report cites forestry as one of the sources of sediment and

nutrients that enter freshwater pearl mussel (FWPM) rivers which results in serious impacts to their

recruitment and survival. The Overall Status of FWPM sites are assessed as being as bad and

declining50.

Concentrated periods of planting historically mean that extensive areas are likely to be felled at

one time, leading to an exacerbation in felling impacts. Appropriate actions to tackle these need

to be identified and applied.

The negative impacts of the planned expansion in forestry planting to 15,000ha/year by 2050 have

not been adequately considered, especially given that 75% of the proposed new planting is

anticipated to be of conifers. In addition, there is also no oversight of planting proposals by

National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) above local rangers level.

The planned expansion in forestry is particularly worrying in light of the recent increase of storm

events and increasing rainfall which would further increase the loading of nutrients and sediments

to streams/rivers/lakes and further increase acidity, these two factors combined have the potential

to significantly negatively impact high status and sensitive sites and could see forestry becoming

a more highly significant water management issue than it is currently considered in the draft SWMI

report.

Cypermethrin a Priority Substance pesticide which is highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates is

widely used by Coillte. The FSC has classed cypermethrin as highly hazardous and Coillte have

applied for a further derogation to continue to use it. The Environmental Pillar called for a ban

49 EPA (2013) Integrated water quality report 2012 Galway Mayo. Environmental Protection Agency.

50 NPWS (2013) The status of EU protected habitats and species in Ireland. National Parks and Wildlife Service, DAHG

21

on its use in its submission on the public consultation this year the continuation of the

derogation51.

4.5. AQUACULTURE

Aquaculture production is a source of a range of pressures in the coastal and estuarine environment.

However it is barely mentioned in the draft SWMI report. The EC commissioned report on sustainable

aquaculture development in the context of WFD and MSFD52 stated that ‘high quality aquatic

environments and the prevention of their deterioration are fundamental to the sustainable development of

European aquaculture’ and aquaculture was identified as a significant water management issue in the

2009-2015 River Basin Management Plans. The River Shannon RBD Plan states that ‘Aquaculture activities

(including harvesting) unless appropriately managed and controlled, can affect water quality, physical

habitat, biodiversity and indigenous species populations. Finfish farming can cause increased nutrient

loading and organic pollution around cages. Misuse of authorised chemicals and medicines to control

disease and possible infection of wild fish with sea lice if not appropriately managed are other concerns’.

FINFISH FARMING

Most recent figures available for 2012 put overall production of finfish at 13,880 tonnes, with a gross

value of over €86m (BIM Strategy 2013-2017). Over 90% of the finfish farmed in Ireland (and the value

of this sector) is generated by Atlantic salmon farming and Finfish aquaculture is associated with a number

negative impacts on the aquatic environment53. These include:

Waste inputs and nutrient enrichment

Waste inputs in the form of faecal or other excretory wastes and uneaten fish feed that commonly

contains carbon-based organic matter, Nitrogen and phosphorus. This results in nutrient

enrichment that may stimulate or exacerbates algal blooms of phytoplankton or algae which in

turn, when they die and decay, can significantly reduce the oxygen available in the water, resulting

in deaths of fish and other aquatic organisms.

High levels of nutrients can also increase growth of toxic algae (such as Pfiesteria) which causes

large fish kills, contaminates shellfish, and represents health risks for humans. It is not clear what

effects increased incidence (and duration) of phytoplankton blooms, including some toxin-

producing species, has on other aquatic organisms, but over time this will lead to changes in

marine plant and animal communities, with probably loss of species, possible colonisation by new

species or increased numbers of certain species, and degradation of habitats. Definitive links

between nutrient inputs from fish farms and increased incidence of Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs)

51 http://environmentalpillar.ie/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Cypermethrin-Consultation-July-2015.pdf

52Jeffery K.R., Vivian C.M.G., Painting, S.J., Hyder K., Verner-Jeffreys D.W., Walker R.J., Ellis T., Rae L.J., Judd A.D., Collingridge K.A., Arkell S.,

Kershaw S.R., Kirby D.R., Watts S., Kershaw, P.J. and Auchterlonie N.A. (2014) Background information for sustainable aquaculture

development, addressing environmental protection in particular. Sustainable Aquaculture Development in the context of the Water

Framework Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. CEFAS.

53 Silvert W. (1992) Assessing environmental impacts of finfish aquaculture in marine waters. Aquaculture 107: 67-71

http://environmentalpillar.ie/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Cypermethrin-Consultation-July-2015.pdf

22

are difficult to establish, but possible underlying causes may clearly arise from aquaculture

activities54.

Pathogen introduction

It is well established that finfish production can represent a source of pathogens, parasites and other

contaminants for wild fish populations. In Ireland the most significant of these relates to problems of

sea lice transfer from farmed fish to wild stocks, particularly to smolts journeying to sea. The Marine

Institutes Survey of Fish Farms 201455 found that average sea lice levels are increasing as levels in the

first half of 2014 were higher than the same periods in both 2013 and 2012.

While a Sea Lice Monitoring Programme was established by the then Department of the Marine

in 1991, and the Marine Institute, Bord Iascaigh Mhara and Dept. of Agriculture, Fisheries and

Food now undertake a (not-uncontroversial) sea lice control and management strategy to limit

sea lice amongst farmed fish, there is still no universal acknowledgement, or public recognition,

amongst state agencies involved in the regulation and development of aquaculture in Ireland of

the causal link between fish farms and increased incidence of lice amongst wild Atlantic salmon and

Sea Trout stocks. This has been well documented internationally.56, 57, 58, 59, 60

It has been demonstrated that infestation of young smolts with sea lice will increase fatalities and thus

ultimately threaten the survival of the wild stocks.61 Data shows that control of sea lice on fish farms has

been very variable over the past decade62 and according to the IFI ‘Following a sea lice infestation and a

resultant collapse in sea trout stocks in western fisheries during the early nineties, sea lice control protocols

were introduced in the mid 1990’s to control sea lice on salmon farms nationally. However, despite the

protocols in place, monthly lice monitoring shows that sea lice levels regularly breach protocol levels.’ 63

Chemical Inputs

Chemical inputs, such as antibiotics used for disease control amongst farmed fish, and pesticides

to control algae, weeds and parasites, have significant damaging impacts on non-target species64

54 Davenport J.,Black K., Burnell G., Cross T., Culloty S., Ekaratne S., Furness B, Mulcahy M and Thetmeyer H. (2003) Aquaculture: the

Ecological Issues. The British Ecological Society, Ecological Issues Series 11. Blackwell, Oxford.

55 O’Donohoe P., Kane F, Kelly S, McDermott T, Drumm A and Jackson D. (2015) National survey of sea lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis

krøyer and Caligus elongatus nordmann) on fish farms in Ireland – 2014 Irish Fisheries Bulletin no. 45. Marine Institute

56 Gargan P.G., Tully O. and Poole W.R. (2002) The relationship between sea lice infestation, sea lice production and sea trout survival in

Ireland, 1992-2001. In: Mills, D. (ed.) Salmon on the edge, pp. 119-135. Proceedings of the 6th International Atlantic Salmon Symposium,

Edinburgh, UK, 16-18 July 2002. Atlantic Salmon Trust/Atlantic Salmon Federation.

57 McKibben M.A. and Hay D.W. (2002) Planktonic distribution of sea lice Lepeoptheirus salmonis larvae in inter-tidal plankton samples in

Lock Shieldaig, Western Scotland in relation to local salmon farm production cycles. ICES Summer Meeting, Theme Session T, Paper

2002/T:06.

58 Penstan M.J., McKibben M., Hay D.W. and Gillibrand, P.A. (2002) (2004) Observations on open-water densities of sea lice larvae in Loch

Shieldaig, Western Scotland. Aquaculture Research 35: 793-805.

59 Ford J.S. and Myers R.A. (2008) A global assessment of salmon aquaculture impacts on wild salmonids. PLOS Biology 6: e33.

60 Thorstad E.B., Todd C.D., Ugle I., Bjorn P.A., Gargan P.G., Vollset K.W., Halttunen E., Kalas M.B. and Finstad B. (2015) Effects of salmon

lice Lepeophtheirus salmonis on wild sea trout Salmo trutta—a literature review. Aquaculture Environment Interactions 7: 91-113

61 Krkosek M., Lewis M.A. and Volpe J.P. (2006) Transmission dynamics of parasitic sea lice from farm to wild salmon. Proc. Royal Society.

62 O’Donoghue et al. National Sea Lice Surveys from 2003-2014

63 IFI Factsheet on the impacts of fish farms on wild salmon and sea trout stocks (accessed Dec 2015)

http://www.fisheriesireland.ie/fisheries-management-1/330-factsheet-on-salmon-farm-impacts-1/file

64 Burridge L.E. (2003) Chemical use in marine finfish aquaculture in Canada: a review of current practices and possible environmental

effects A scientific review of the potential environmental effects of aquaculture in aquatic ecosystems. Vol. 1., Fisheries and Oceans

Canada. 2003. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2450:ix + 131 p

http://www.fisheriesireland.ie/fisheries-management-1/330-factsheet-on-salmon-farm-impacts-1/file

23

(Burridge, 2003). An example of this is the use of copper-based products to prohibit algae which

are toxic to shellfish and to humans when residues are found in seafood. The effects of chemicals

used in fish farms on other crustaceans including lobster are poorly understood although recent

research has shown that their reproduction may be affected65 . There is little information on the

impacts of food and chemical inputs on the wider aquatic environment and species. The same is

true for outputs; particularly waste and dead fish in fish kill situations.

Waste water from well boats which have been using hydrogen peroxide to control amoebic gill

disease and sea lice is subsequently dumped into the sea and the waste water can have an

effect on other crustaceans.

Hydrogen peroxide is commonly used to treat amoebic gill disease in Ireland when freshwater is

not available66 which could have negative impacts on other marine organisms.

Cypermethrin, enamectin benzoate and teflubensuron are the active ingredients in the 3 products

licensed for use to control sea lice in Ireland. Contamination of wider water and the sea floor with

these controversial substances from the open net cages raises issues for the wider environment.

Escapees

Escapees present a several problems for native wild Atlantic salmon populations; competing for food,

spawning areas and space, These escapees dilute and may ultimately replace the genetic and locally-

specific gene pool of wild salmon, the characteristics of which may strengthen the species chances of

adapting to environmental changes (such as those related to climate change).67 Accidental or

intentional releases of farmed stock may also increase the risks of disease communication to wild

stocks through diseased stock or inoculated stock who can be still be carriers of the diseases.

Considerable international research has established these negative impacts and their potential long-

term consequences68 69. The problems with fin fish escapees and the defects of the regulatory system

to address this, including the criteria for Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) accreditation need

to be examined and shortcomings addressed. In February 2014 storm damage to a fish farm at

Gerahies in Bantry Bay led to the release of 230,000 adult salmon. Despite numerous requests, the

final report of this incident is awaited. This case also illustrates the lack of transparency within DAFM

with regard to aquaculture operations which must be challenged and resolved in order to facilitate

integrated management of transitional and coastal waters in the second RBMP cycle. DAFM refused

to release the information relating to incident. However after a successful appeal by SWAN members

Friends of the Irish Environment, the Information Commissioner ordered the State to release a report

into the incident and insisted there was a strong public interest in maximising "openness and

accountability" in relation to how the Department of Marine and the Marine Institute carries out their

65 Burridge L.E. and Van Geest J.L. (2014) A review of potential environmental risks associated with the use of pesticides to treat Atlantic

salmon against infestations of sea lice in Canada. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) Res. Doc. 2014 66 Ruane M.N and Jones S.R.M. (2013) Amoebic gill disease (AGD) of farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) ICES identification leaflets

for diseases and parasites of fish and shellfish..Leaflet no. 60. ICES

67 McGinnity P., Prodohl P., Ferguson A., Hynes R., O Maoileidigh N., Baker N., Cotter D. O’Hea B., Cooke D., Rogan G., Taggart J. and Cross

T. (2003) Fitness reduction and potential extinction of wild populations of Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, as a result of interactions with

escaped farm salmon. Proceedings of the Royal Society Biological Sciences 270: 2443-2450.

McGinnity P., Jennings E., Deeyto E., Allott N., Samuelsson P., Rogan G., Whelan K. and Cross T. (2009) Impact of naturally spawning

captive-bred Atlantic salmon on wild populations: depressed recruitment and increased risk of climate-mediated extinction. Proceedings

of the Royal Society of London B 276: 3601-3610

68 Ford J.S. and Myers R.A. (2008) A global assessment of salmon aquaculture impacts on wild salmonids. PLOS Biology 6: e33.

69 Heggberget, T.G., Bjørn O. Johnsen, B. O., Hindar, K., Jonsson, B., Hansen, L. P., Hvidsten, N. A. & Jensen, A. J. (1993) Interactions

between wild and cultured Atlantic salmon: a review of the Norwegian experience. Fisheries Research, Vol. 18, 1-2, pp.123-146.

24

functions. The DAFM has set the date of 31st December 2015 for the completion of the report into

this incident.

SHELLFISH FARMING

Since shellfish production less commonly involves feed inputs, fewer negative impacts tend to be

associated with this form of aquaculture. However, while the nature of the impacts and their relative

severity may vary, these may be nonetheless significant70. These impacts include:

Increased volumes of production may reduce nutrients in the water body available for other

aquatic organisms, thus altering the ecology of the water body. Overstocking can result in poor

growth or mortality of the farmed organisms, reduction in the food available for other organisms,

and risk high rates of parasite or pathogen infestation. High stocking levels may also mean that

young spat of other organisms are filtered out and so levels of other non-target species are also

affected.

Aggressive harvesting damages inter-tidal habitats and encroaches on wild oyster and other

indigenous fisheries.

Physical concentration of large volumes of production – such as mussel and oyster trestles, may

displace other organisms. This may be exacerbated if predators are actively controlled in the area.

The impact of oyster trestle tables in areas with flocking seabirds is only beginning to be

understood but studies have shown that there is a significant impact on bird assemblages in

Dungarvan Harbour SPA.71. Increasing the extent of trestles in Special Protection Areas (SPAs)

reduces foraging opportunities for birds and increases silt deposition. In addition traffic

associated with servicing these sites leads to damage and disturbance to the sea floor, and will

affect seal haul out areas.

Where non-indigenous species are farmed, there is a significant danger of introducing invasive

species that may ultimately out-compete indigenous ones (as the introduction of Pacific oysters

(Crassostrea gigas) threatens to take over the indigenous oyster and mussel habitats). Such

introductions once made are difficult, if not impossible, to contain. This problem may also be

associated with finfish aquaculture. Significantly around 40% of all known introductions of alien

or exotic species to aquatic ecosystems have been related to aquaculture.72

The introduction of imported seed also poses the risk of introducing non-native species that may

disrupt aquatic ecosystems. An example of this is Bonamia ostrea that devastated the native oyster

population in the 1970s. Factors such as climate change and the northward spread of species,

means that even with controls on imported seed, the risk of such introductions remains worryingly

high.73

70 Cranford P., Dowd M., Grant J., Hargrave B. and McGladdery S. (2003) Ecosystem level effects

of marine bivalve aquaculture. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences 2450

71 Gittings, T. and O’Donoghue, P.D. (2012). The effects of intertidal oyster culture on the spatial distribution of waterbirds. Marine

Institute.

72 Davenport J.,Black K., Burnell G., Cross T., Culloty S., Ekaratne S., Furness B, Mulcahy M and Thetmeyer H. (2003) Aquaculture: the

Ecological Issues. The British Ecological Society, Ecological Issues Series 11. Blackwell, Oxford.

73 EPA (2003) Climate Change: Scenarios and Impacts for Ireland. Environmental Protection Agency

25

ADEQUACY OF CONTROLS

Aquaculture is licensed by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and the Marine (DAFM) under the

Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1997 and thus is also subject to the requirements of the Surface Water

Regulations. Therefore all aquaculture licenses should have been examined and if necessary reviewed by

December 2012, as above for industrial point source discharges. There is no information in the public

domain as to whether this has been carried out. Indications are that it has not. This is particularly

pressing given the potentially significant impacts of the targeted increase in aquaculture production set

out in the National Strategic Plan for Sustainable Aquaculture Development 74 which projects ‘an increase

of 45,000 tonnes in the output from the sector by 2023’. This is an increase of 122% on the 2012 baseline

of 36,700 tonnes. This more than doubling of aquaculture output can also be anticipated to lead to new

and increased problems for the environment that are as yet poorly understood and worrying given failures

of existing regulatory regimes.

It is of significant concern that WFD officials in the Department of the Environment have expressed the

view to SWAN that aquaculture ‘is not their area” though it has been identified as a significant water

management issue under the WFD in the last cycle of river basin management plans and clearly presents

a pressure at local / bay level to transitional and coastal water bodies.

It is the responsibility of member states to ensure compliance in the planning, development, licencing and

regulation of aquaculture with WFD and MSFD in the overlap zone of these two directives and SWAN believes

that this obligation is not being fulfilled in Ireland. The planning and regulatory system for aquaculture

is deeply flawed and is not adequately addressing this pressure in terms of its impacts on achieving WFD

and MSFD targets. While the draft NSPA states that ‘Planning, licensing and regulation of the sector ensures

full compliance with relevant European and National legislation, including……legislation seeking to achieve

and maintain good environmental status of coastal and marine waters (Water Framework Directive, Marine

Strategy Framework Directive).’ SWAN does not believe this to be the case and would robustly challenge

it. In the first instance, it is clear from an examination of the NSPA that the correct monitoring is not in

place to ascertain this. According to the most recent EPA Environment Assessment Report75 ‘aquaculture

and fisheries measures implemented nationally should be monitored and reported on to ensure that they

bring about measurable improvements in the conservation status of species and habitats and in the

provision of ecosystem services’. The monitoring programme is based on risk assessments from 2005 which

as it stands is inadequate as the NSPA SEA states that in relation to finfish aquaculture they ‘do not

specifically deal with risk to the wider water body as a whole’ (SWAN’s emphasis) with shellfish monitoring

confined to human health issues and ‘there are no monitoring programmes that can define the impact on

the level of a water body as defined by the WFD’. (SWAN’s emphasis). It is also worrying that, ‘as a

consequence of the lack of distinct information pertaining to the wider impacts of aquaculture activities on

water bodies, at the time of the risk assessments in 2005, and acknowledging that aquaculture activities

have inherent risks associated with them, all water bodies having licensed aquaculture activities were classed

as 2a -probably not at risk but there is insufficient information to class as not at risk.’ It is vital especially

with the proposed increase in aquaculture that all current and proposed sites must undergo risk

assessment on a regular basis and that monitoring programmes are designed to determine the impact

on the level of a water body as defined by the WFD and sufficient resources are made available to do this.

74 DAFM (2015) Draft national strategic plan for sustainable aquaculture development.

75 EPA (2012) Ireland’s Environment, An Assessment. Environmental Protection Agency

http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/customerservice/publicconsultation/sustainableaquaculturedevelopment/NatStratPlanSustAquaculDevelopdraftconsult100615.pdf

26

Secondly, it is vital that DAFM liaise very closely with DECLG, other Departments State Agencies and

stakeholders to ensure that any aquaculture or other activities proposed in the NSPA is in line with WFD

environmental objectives for the transitional and coastal waterbodies in question. Currently such close

liaison is not taking place.

Further matters of concern regarding aquaculture as it relates to the achievement of WFD targets in

relevant waters:

There is no monitoring of the environmental impacts of shellfish aquaculture so no enforcement

of licence conditions is possible where operations are licensed. Where no license exists, the

operator can continue under Article 94a as if a license were in place, so that neither monitoring

nor enforcement is carried out. This is equally the case for inland aquaculture sites.

All applications for licenses refer to blanket appropriate assessments for waters and do not require

a re-assessment of the site. This results in individual applications not being considered in terms

of the cumulative impacts in a water body. This needs to be related to effective implementation

of the EIA Directive.

The Environmental Impact Assessment for the proposed Salmon farms in Galway Bay did not

adequately assess the negative impacts that could result and this was highlighted by State Agency IFI

who also stated that ‘the present proposal does have the potential to pose a risk to wild salmonid stocks

in the vicinity of Galway Bay’ they were particularly concerned about the impacts on the Salmon and

lamprey in the Corrib SAC.76

Freshwater abstraction for treatment of amoebic gill disorder in salmon farm stock is not

regulated and needs to be effectively controlled in the planning and licensing systems. For

example the unregulated (i.e. without the required planning or foreshore consents), abstraction

of water from two lakes in Connemara by Marine Harvest from Loughaunore Lake in July 2014

and by Bradan Bea Teo at An Muileann in July 2015.

Treatment of fish kill waste; its management and disposal, represents a potential threat for aquatic

environments which is not currently addressed in the monitoring or regulatory system.

An Taisce are the only statutory environmental NGO consultee for aquaculture licencing. They

receive no funding in order to fulfil this role which could be a full time job with the increased

production proposed. Other NGOs who are not statutory consultees are finding it virtually

impossible to get early notice of licence applications as they are not on the web, there is no local

site notice and often the local papers where an application is advertised is not the one read locally

– e.g. a recent Lough Swilly case in which the application was published in a newspaper with an

extremely small circulation and readership.

EMFF grants can only be accessed for operations and sites which have a full aquaculture licenses.

The majority of operations are in Natura 2000 sites and able to run without license if they had a

previous license based on article 194A of the Act - pending government work on appropriate

assessments and decision making

76 IFI (2011) Submission by Inland Fisheries Ireland on the Environmental Impact Statement for a Deep Sea Fish Farm Development in

Galway Bay. Inland Fisheries Ireland.

27

In the absence of effective regulations for finfish aquaculture it appears to SWAN that ‘proxy

regulation’ is being carried out by the Aquaculture Stewardship Council. This situation is

unacceptable since a food accreditation standard is obviously completely different from

environmental regulation. Even on its own merits SWAN members are extremely unhappy with

inaccurate accreditation by ASC of Irish farmed fish, leading to an unfounded green image for

farmed fish.

OTHER ISSUES

The promotion and development of new species aquaculture in both the freshwater and marine

environments, and the impacts of this, is a cause for concern.

Considerable concern is felt over developments in rearing and selling GMO aquaculture products

(as seen with salmon in North and South America). Bord Iascaigh Mhara is currently involved in

the development of GMO Gigas oysters in a lagoon in Galway Bay. There is a serious risk of escape

of tetraploids into the wider environment.

There is little, if any, research on the impacts of aquaculture on biodiversity.

Cross-border issues require attention. For example in Loughs Foyle and Carlingford Lough where

aquaculture in areas under Irish control have no licences or conditions and therefore essentially

no management despite being located in very important habitats.

In summary, there is wide range of pressures and impacts from aquaculture on the immediate waters and

wider bay/waterbody. Especially when taken cumulatively, the current planning regulatory system is not

fit for purpose in terms of assessing and controlling aquaculture impacts on WFD and MSFD targets. This

significant water management issue, because it falls within the remit of another government Department

has been effectively ignored in the WFD implementation process to date and the fact that it is not

identified as an issue in the draft SWMI suggests that there is an intention in the second cycle to continue

to ignore it. This is wholly unsatisfactory and it is the strong position of SWAN that it is imperative that

this glaring omission is addressed in preparatory work for the second cycle of RMBPs.

4.6. DISCHARGES FROM DOMESTIC WASTE WATER TREAT-MENT SYSTEMS (DWWTSs)

Whilst the risk from DWWTSs may not be highly significant at a national scale, they pose a serious risk

locally, especially to vulnerable water bodies. The draft SWMI report does not reflect this, with only a

short section under ‘Homes and Gardens’ which focuses more on contamination of private wells than on

environmental impacts. Discharges from unsewered domestic dwellings have been identified the in the

first River Basin Management Plans as a significant threat to meeting Water Framework Directive (WFD)

environmental objectives. For example, in the Shannon international River Basin District, 42 rivers have

been assessed as being at risk of failing to achieve the required standards due to unsuitable

hydrogeological conditions and the associated high density and location of unsewered properties in these

28

areas.77 In addition to the RBM Plans, there are numerous EPA publications and papers identifying

DWWTSs as a significant water management issue. For example:

the EPA State of the Environment Report 2012 identified ‘…tackl[ing] diffuse pollution (pollution

from agricultural activities and septic tanks)’ as one of the ‘three main challenges for water quality

management’ and further identifies ‘onsite waste water treatment plants’ as one of the pressures

for which ‘Special protection measures are needed to protect and restore high-status waterbodies of

all types….susceptible to degradation’;

The EPA 2013 Integrated Water Quality Assessment 2013 for the Western River Basin District

(WRBD) identified ‘emissions from domestic waste water treatment systems’ as a ‘key pressure’ in

the WRBD (in addition to agriculture, aquaculture & discharges from municipal waste water

works);

In a study commissioned by the EPA, Gill et al. (2005)78, stated that ‘the prevention of groundwater

contamination from on-site domestic sewage effluent is of critical importance’;

According to Daly et al (2012)79 ‘the risk arising from MRP and microbial pathogens [from

DWWTSs] is ‘very high’ in approximately 18% of the country’ (SWAN’s emphasis).

Furthermore, in the UK, Jordan et al. (2012)80 report that ‘P discharges from these sources [DWWTSs] may

have a significant impact on downstream water quality’ and ‘when the total number of STS is used in source

apportionment calculations, the apparent P input to the drainage system from agricultural sources may be

reduced by up to 20%.’ and ‘This provides an important insight into where mitigation measures should be

focused.’ Whilst this research is from the UK, it is interesting in the context of the contention in the

consultation document that the risk from DWWTSs is ‘relatively low in comparison to agricultural

activities….’ and it sounds a note of warning regarding underestimating the impact of DWWTSs versus

agriculture on water quality. In the absence of the load apportionment data that the WFD

Characterisation exercise will generate, SWAN believes it is unwise to underestimate the relative

contribution of DWWTSs to water quality impacts prematurely.

In the context of the WFD and significant water management issues, the unit of measurement is the

catchment or sub-catchment and it has yet to be determined the degree to which DWWTSs are presenting

a significant threat in particular catchments, either because they are particularly sensitive (e.g. catchments

of High Status Water Bodies); due to cumulative impacts or in catchments within ‘The area of the country

[39%] where there is ‘inadequate percolation’ for some or all of the year due to poorly permeable soil, subsoil

and/or bedrock’. According to Daly et al.81 ‘These areas present a significant challenge in terms of ensuring

77 Shannon International River Basin Management Plan 2009 – 2015. Limerick County Council, July 2010

http://www.shannonrbd.com/pdf/sea/ShIRBD%20RBMP%20Dec2010.pdf

78 Gill L., Ó Súilleabháin C., Johnston P. and Misstear B. (2005). An investigation into the performance of subsoils and stratified sand filters

for the treatment of waste water from on-site systems (2001-MS-15-M1). Synthesis Report. Prepared for EPA by the Environmental

Engineering Group, TCD, Dublin.

79 Daly D., Byrne C., Keegan M. and Meehan R. (2012) A risk based methodology to assist in the regulation of domestic waste water

treatment systems’ Paper for EPA International Symposium On Domestic Wastewater Treatment & Disposal Systems, Dublin.

80 Jordan P., May L., and withers P. (2012). Impact of on-site sewage treatment systems on river water quality in UK catchments’. Paper

for EPA International Symposium on Domestic Wastewater Treatment & Disposal Systems, Dublin.

81 Daly D., Byrne C., Keegan M. and Meehan R. (2012) A risk based methodology to assist in the regulation of domestic waste water

treatment systems’ Paper for EPA International Symposium On Domestic Wastewater Treatment & Disposal Systems, Dublin.

http://www.shannonrbd.com/pdf/sea/ShIRBD%20RBMP%20Dec2010.pdf

29

that discharges from DWWTSs are adequately treated such that they do not pose a risk to human health

and the environment.’

It is clear that the National Inspection Plan alone is not adequately controlling the impacts of DWWTS on

surface and groundwaters. In the first instance it does not input to planning controls and it has come to

SWAN’s attention that the lack of inspections for compliance with planning conditions for DWWTs for

new residential one-off development is also increasing the significance of this as threat to the aquatic

environment since Local Authority staff have reported to SWAN (anonymous, pers. comm.) that due to

lack of independent inspection, builders and engineers do not consistently build systems in compliance

with planning requirements so that either correct DWWTS are not put in place or are those that are, are

not functioning correctly. This is not being addressed since there is no systematic follow-up inspections.

Secondly, in relation to existing houses, SWAN is on the record as stating that we do not believe that the

National Inspection Plan is an adequate control and we wish to re-state this here formally as part of the

SWMI consultation.

Householders are largely unaware and untrained in how their domestic waste water treatment systems

work. They need to understand how these are effective and require guidance on how to manage them.

This information exists (EPA materials), but is not currently being widely used. SWAN fully supports all the

public awareness and other initiates put forward in the EPA NIP and compliments the EPA especially on the

‘Eco-eye’ coverage and the innovative multimedia and other material on the EPA website. However, whilst the

activities outlined in the draft NIP are entitled ‘Engagement’ strategies, SWAN would argue that most of those

described such as leaflets and website information comprise basic communication and awareness-raising.

Since the EPA is basing the success of the Plan on a ‘two-strand’ approach, with one strand being public

engagement and the other inspections, then it is important for us to clarify that we do not believe that

what is being described is for the most part active public engagement. This therefore questions the

assumption upon which the success of the dual-strand Plan relies.

In the absence of a comprehensive public engagement programme, we do not believe 1,000 inspections

is adequate to prompt and incentivise homeowners to ensure their DWWTSs are working in accordance

with regulations. We believe that the NIP constitutes a resource- rather than science-driven regime and that

economic considerations have led to system which may be excessively pared-down in terms of the temporal

and spatial frequency of inspections.

While SWAN warmly welcomes the EPA risk-based approach, the network has concerns regarding its

efficacy in detecting faulty sites and prompting expeditious mitigation measures:

Of the systems inspected under the first year of the NIP, 21% were still non-compliant more than 6

months after the end of the NIP period.

There are also the significant issues of DWWTSs on sites where soil conditions are unsuitable for

a septic tank but where planning permission for one was granted. SWAN calculated during an

assessment of the NIP that 71% of the 178 sites which failed due to unauthorised discharges to surface

waters/inadequate subsoil thickness remained non-compliant 6 months later. It would appear from

SWAN’s own reading and from consultation conversations with the EPA, that one of the main challenges

for managing DWWTSs impacts lies in this category

It is also unclear what action, and according to what timeline, is being taken for systems which

have been inspected and failed, especially in areas of unsuitable soil conditions highlighted above.

30

An extremely high level of oversight and regular auditing of the local authorities on the part of

the EPA is required in order to deliver a sufficiently consistent and robust standard across the

country. In order to achieve this, SWAN recommends that the Local Authorities’ inspection plans

be approved and sighed off by the EPA. If this is not feasible, then as a minimum, there should

be random audits of these, before implementation, to ensure rigorous application of site selection

criteria.

SLUDGE MANAGEMENT

There is a wider issues of national strategic importance regarding DWWTSs and that is the issue of national

capacity to treat sludge; specifically the 50% volume deficit in current urban wastewater treatment (UWWT)

infrastructure to treat sludge from DWWTSs. This poses a serious sludge management issue, especially in

light of the recommendation for ‘connection to municipal systems’ for certain clusters, as recommended

in the WFD 2008 Programmes of Measures Study on Unsewered Wastewater Treatment Systems82. There

needs to be a commitment that the EPA and DECLG liaise closely with Irish Water on this matter, as such

an integrated and strategic approach is crucial to finding a solution.

ISSUES WITH PROPRIETARY SYSTEMS

Difficulties with biocycle units, which are now commonly installed at the instigation of planners and

engineers, are not addressed in the report. Biological wastewater treatment systems are completely

unsuited to use in irregular habitation situations (i.e. holiday homes), as they are subject to “shock loading”

when suddenly used, and then don’t function correctly. As holiday homes are often on lakeshore margins

or other sensitive sites, this is a particularly significant problem for fisheries lakes and coastal

eutrophication. Moreover many modern wastewater treatment systems for individual dwellings need an

electric pump to operate effectively. There is anecdotal evidence that these are often only switched on

for building inspections (of new properties) and thereafter switched off to save money, or in some cases

because homeowners did not realise they needed to be switched on. This type of problem needs to be

acknowledged and addressed. Research in Monaghan and Armagh83 found that 43% of proprietary

systems were not operating correctly at the time of inspection and had either malfunctioned in some way

or were not switched on.

4.7. DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES / HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS

Hazardous chemicals originate from many sources and are transferred to waters via a number of

pathways. Large installations may emit hazardous substances originating from production processes

directly into surface waters, under licence from the EPA or local authorities. Gaseous emissions of priority

substances from combustion and other industrial sources may be deposited on surrounding land, and

washed into surface waters directly after rain. Accidental or deliberate dumping of waste materials - both

82 Western RBD / ESBI, WYG (2008) Programme of Measures: Unsewered Wastewater Treatment Systems. National Study. Final Report

83 Linnane S., Jordan S., McCarthy V., Jennings E., Carson, A., Sweeney, N., Wynne, C. and McDonald B. (2011) National source protection

pilot project final report 2005-2010. Centre for Freshwater Studies Department of Applied Sciences Dundalk Institute of Technology.

http://www.wfdireland.ie/docs/23_UnseweredWasteWaterTreatmentSystems/Programme%20of%20Measures%20Unsewered%20Wastewater%20National%20Study_v2.pdf

31

legally and illegally - onto land may also lead to run-off of hazardous chemicals into surface waters, or

leach into groundwater.84

While the draft SWMI reports that ‘The level of non-compliances with Environmental Quality Standards as

assessed at several hundred sites for hazardous chemicals is low in Irish rivers.’ it does not comment on

standards in transitional and coastal waters which are major recipients of municipal waste water discharge

and these UWWT plants are according to the EPA STRIVE report on the topic ‘major potential point sources

of PSs [priority substances]’ because they ‘combine direct inputs from domestic, industrial and commercial

effluent with diffuse inputs from surface runoff of land-deposited PPs [priority pollutants]’. In addition

Regan et al. identify weaknesses in the current monitoring system of priority substances and priority

hazardous substances, including the fact that it only ‘identifies compounds present at a single point in

time’; it recommends how monitoring should be improved and finds that ‘Many knowledge gaps exist in

relation to managing PSs and PHSs in Irish waters.’ and that the ‘unlicensed sources play a significant role

in the occurrence of certain pollutant groups.’.

SWAN is also aware that the process of updating the lists of priority substances and priority hazardous

substances at EU level is highly politicised and subject to aggressive lobbying from industry. We would

therefore strongly recommend that Ireland proceed with its own identification and control of relevant

pollutants, rather than only subjecting EU lists chemicals to control. We welcome the commitment to

review and if necessary add to the current list of 16 specific pollutants for which national EQSs have been

established.

One area of emerging concern, which the draft report does not emphasise sufficiently is the potential

problems posed by pharmaceuticals, especially endocrine disruptors, present in trace amounts and not

removed by municipal wastewater treatment and thus being discharged constantly to our waterbodies.

Please refer back to Sections 4.1 and 4.4 for comment on hazardous substances used in agriculture and

forestry.

Microlitter as a hazardous substance

Microlitter both itself and when mixed with dangerous oil based substances which attach to plastics and

bioaccumulate as ingested by aquatic life are of particular concern. Research has conclusively shown that

microplastics ingested by marine wildlife can transfer toxic pollutants to their tissues85 . Internationally,

standards are only now being considered for regulation. There has been significant recent growth in the

unnecessary inclusion of microlitter in products. All products should be required to declare if they contain

any microbeads. The presence of microbeads/micromaterial (including nanomaterials) of 5mm and less

should be clearly indicated on packaging labels in terms that can be clearly understood by the general

public, and with an indication of their negative environmental impacts.

In summary, SWAN believes that much more work needs to be done in relation to the monitoring and

management of hazardous substances before any final conclusions can be drawn regarding the

magnitude of the pressure they represent.

84 Regan F., Jones L. and Chapman J. (2013) Monitoring of priority substances in waste water effluents. Monitoring criteria for priority

chemicals leading to emission factors. EPA STRIVE Report 85Browne, M.A., Niven, S.J., Galloway, T.S., Rowland S.J. and Thompson R.C. (2013) Microplastic moves pollutants and additives to worms,

reducing functions linked to health and biodiversity. Current Biology. 23:2388-2392.

32

4.8. DISCHARGES FROM MINING, QUARRYING, LANDFILL & CONTAMINATED LANDS

The 2007 SWMI reports contained separate sections dealing with the above pressures. However, in this

SWMI report none of these are identified as significant pressures, which is a serious omission. Landfill

pressures are not mentioned at all. Quarrying is mentioned briefly once under planning, but not identified

as a pressure and mining is mentioned briefly under Issue 13: Hazardous Chemicals and in reference to

historic issues. This is not satisfactory in SWAN’s view since any of these activities may well be posing a

significant pressure at local level.

LANDFILL & CONTAMINATED LAND:

According to the draft 2008 RBM Plans, more than 200 groundwater bodies nationally are deemed to be

at risk from contaminated sites. It is well documented that leachate from landfills – licensed and illegal -

pose a significant threat to some ground and surface waters in Ireland. Many SWAN members have been

reporting such sites for many years with inconsistent results due to authorities often being slow to act in

a significant proportion of cases. Many illegal sites persist, despite their existence being highlighted by

eNGOs and being well known to Local Authorities. Despite this, the draft SWMI does not recognise these

as significant issues.

According to the 2010 RBM Plans86, “Pollutants (mainly metals and fuel) from landfills and urban areas

can seep into the ground and travel through groundwaters to enter surface waters, affecting their quality,

damaging aquatic plants and animals and impairing water uses.” There are a significant number of both

privately owned landfills and municipal landfills licensed by the EPA and currently operating, that have, in

breach of their license requirements, polluted groundwater and surface water in the last five years. There

are 30 known landfill sites adjacent to the marine environment, some of which include asbestos as in Bray,

where monitoring occurs, but other such as Ringsend in Dublin Bay, Coolmore and Lough Foyle are not

monitored.

A serious issue of which SWAN is aware is inadequate regulation of waste operators leading to threats to

water resources. Small waste collectors are obtaining waste permits through their local authority rather

than waste licenses which are issued by the EPA, and these are not being adequately monitored or

enforced. These waste permits are attractive as the regulation is less stringent than an IPCC license.

Consequently, even when licensed weight limits are exceeded, these may be under-declared. Such small

collectors may still collect dangerous materials some of which are going to landfill unmonitored and

untreated. Fines, particularly from cement, limes and other reactive additions to building materials can

present serious threats to aquatic environments.

The 2007 Significant Water Management Issues Report stated that ‘All Local Authorities must have

completed a survey of all contaminated sites in their jurisdiction by the end of 2008 and must have plans

developed and in place to address associated threats to water bodies by the end of 2009 to be incorporated

into the River Basin Management Plans.’ Clarification on the status of these surveys should have been

included in the draft SWMI.

QUARRYING

Threats from quarrying activities on water status include discharge of polluted waters, contaminated with

suspended solids and chemicals and lowering of the water table at some quarry sites which can affect

86 Shannon River Basin Management Plan 2009-2015

33

nearby wetland areas. Sediment and rock dust emanating from quarrying operations pose a significant

local pressure as can oils used in quarrying equipment and processes. As reported in the 2010 RBM Plans,

“Water table lowering at some quarry sites can affect nearby wetland areas, and the transfer of groundwater

to surface waters can change water chemistry.”

While new quarrying developments are now restricted and it is now a requirement to register quarrying

activities, lack of implementation and enforcement of these regulations means the problems persist and

there is an increasing phenomenon of “reclamation” of waste hard materials. Processing and washing of

these may present problems for aquatic environments if not managed and regulated carefully.

In light of these issues, with which SWAN members have experience, the draft SWMI should set out how

the recent changes has altered their impacts on the water environment. If this information is not available,

this should be reported.

In relation to all three of the above pressures, the 2010 RBM Plans stated that because the impact of these

pressures are ‘site specific’; ‘knowledge of these sites . . . is being updated by the Environmental Protection

Agency and local authorities to assess the extent of the pressures and confirm the scale of any problems or

impact’ and that inventories and risk assessments for landfills and mining sites were to be conducted. It

is vital that summary results of these assessments be presented as part of the summary of significant

water management issues. And it is certainly unacceptable that the issues are not identified as significant

water management issues at all. It is important that the following information is made available:

Are the risk assessments complete for all these sites and if not what is the timescale?

Have mitigation actions been carried out to address negative impacts of these and by whom?

SWAN believes that the EPA or other independent agency should oversee the assessments of

contaminated sites by the Local Authorities to ensure that the assessments are of an appropriate

standard, the proposed actions appropriate, and that they are carried out;

Have all closed down landfills been “capped” to prevent additional wash through and leaching to

groundwater?

4.9. PHYSICAL MODIFICATIONS

The hydromorphology of surface waters encompasses a broad range of physical characteristics including

hydrologic regime, habitat structure and physical boundaries (banks and shores), all of which determine

the ecological health of surface waters, coastal waters and wetlands. The maintenance of natural physical

conditions within rivers and streams and associated riparian zones are of particular importance.

Article 5 of the WFD, as detailed in Annex II requires the ‘Identification of significant morphological

alterations to water bodies.’, while Article 11 requires ‘measures to ensure that the hydromorphological

conditions of the bodies of water are consistent with the achievement of the required ecological status’ for

water bodies. The 2010 RBM Plans87, recognise that physical modifications of water bodies ‘…can reduce

the diversity of plant and animal communities either directly by affecting habitats or indirectly by changing

natural processes.’ and that ‘Land drainage and development, overgrazing, deforestation and cattle access

can cause impacts such as bank erosion and siltation or increased risk of flooding due to faster runoff.

Overgrazing can increase erosion rates, significantly disturbing siltation and hydrology regimes, and can

cause physical damage and loss of habitat in rivers.’

87 Shannon River Basin District (2010) River Basin District Management Plan for the Shannon. Limerick County Council, Limerick.

34

In light of the significant issue that such physical modifications pose for the aquatic environment, and the

fragmented nature of controls for example for wetland drainage (See Section 4.1) it is extremely worrying

that the required regulatory system for their control has not been introduced. The RBM Plans further

state that ‘…proposed authorisation regulations for … physical modifications’ ‘are under preparation’ and

that a ‘formal legal mechanism’ to address morphological pressures on the coastal environment including

‘coastal defence, built structures (urbanisation and ports and harbours) and dredging’ will be provided by a

‘proposed amendment to the legislative framework, to regulate physical modifications having an adverse

impact on the water environment”. However, these regulations have yet to be introduced five years later.

With regard to integration of RBM Planning and land use planning, they further state that the (then)

Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government ‘will issue Section 28 guidance to planning

authorities on the new Planning Bill and its relationship with the implementation of the RBMPs, after

enactment and not later than 2011’. These, also, have yet to be introduced. For more detailed

recommendations regarding river basin and land-use planning, please see the response to the specific

consultation question in Section 6: ISSUE 5: How can objectives of river basin (catchment) plans be included

in land-use plans in a way that is effective? How can the requirement of land-use plans influence river basin

plans? How can planning policy and practise be improved so as to enhance our water environment?

The lack of this new single comprehensive regulatory framework and the fact that this represents clear

non-compliance with the WFD should be emphasised much more in the draft SWMI, especially in the

light of the particular interest which the EU Commission is taking in this situation.

(See Section 4.1 for the specifically agricultural aspects of this issue.)

4.10. FRACKING

Shale gas production, including horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing of shale layers, entails a range

of activities with environmental impacts. Following the identification of potential reserves, three onshore

petroleum licensing options were awarded in licensing areas within two Irish sedimentary basins in

February 2011: Tamboran Resources PTY Ltd and the Lough Allen Natural Gas Company Ltd were awarded

blocks in the Northwest Carboniferous Basin, while Enegi Oil PLC was awarded a block in the Clare Basin88.

Licenses were originally granted for a duration of two years, but following public opposition a moratorium

has been put in place. Nonetheless, the proposal to extract shale gas in Ireland poses a potential risk to

water resources and as such it should be included in the draft SWMI report as a significant potential water

management issue.

In the last five years, many studies have begun to emerge, mostly from the US, detailing the environmental

impact of hydraulic fracturing to surface- and groundwaters. A review of this available scientific peer-

reviewed literature89 identifies four main concerns for water bodies related to shale gas production using

hydraulic fracturing:

i) water abstraction;

88 Geological Survey of Ireland (GSI) 2015. Shale Gas. Available at: https://www.gsi.ie/Shale+Gas.htm. Last accessed (1st May 2015)

89 Craven et al, SWAN report on Fracking and the WFD, in press

https://www.gsi.ie/Shale+Gas.htm

35

ii) Contamination of surface water and groundwater via production activities;

iii) disposal of wastewater and

iv) Legacy impacts of hydraulic fracturing.

These impacts are a cause for serious concern and are set out comprehensively in the SWAN report on

hydraulic fracturing and the WFD which is in press and which SWAN will formally submit to the EPA and

the Department of Environment in January 2016.

While SWAN believes that our upcoming report will go some way to identifying gaps, there are still many

knowledge gaps with regard to the shale gas industry in Ireland and its potential impact on water

resources. There is a lack of baseline water monitoring information at sufficient spatial frequency in the

proposed areas. In addition, there exists much uncertainty as to how the industry will be regulated,

whether the current regulatory structures would be capable of effective regulation and the capacity of

the regulators to effectively manage this emerging and novel industry.

A study conducted for the European Commission investigated risks associated with the potential

development and growth of high volume hydraulic fracturing associated with unconventional natural gas

operations. It was found that there is a high risk of surface and groundwater contamination at various

stages of the well-pad construction, hydraulic fracturing and gas production processes, and during well

abandonment. Cumulative developments from multiple well pads could further increase this risk.

It is SWAN’s assessment that a pollution event is quite likely and would take the form of contamination

of shallow aquifers by fugitive gases and saline intrusions and/or contamination of water bodies from

infrastructure development, spills, leaks, and disposal of inadequately treated fracturing fluids or hyper-

saline wastewater, via well-casing failure, spillages or inadequately treated discharges. Were such a

pollution event to occur, it could lead to a deterioration of the status of the affected water body and thus

this proposed activity poses a risk to achievement of WFD targets in the affected areas.

For this reason, we believe that it is very important that fracking is identified a potential significant water

management issue at this stage, with a view to discussing, with public engagement, how to address it in

the draft RBM Plans.

4.11. ABSTRACTIONS

Water abstraction represents a significant pressure on some of Ireland’s inland surface waters,

groundwaters and GWDTEs. As explained in the South Eastern River Basin Management Plan (SE RBMP)

(2009-2015), ‘too much abstraction reduces flow in springs and rivers and lowers water levels in lakes,

wetlands and wells. That can make water supplies unsustainable and adversely affect aquatic plants and

animals and wetland areas. In extreme cases river beds may dry up, lake shores can become exposed and,

in coastal areas, salt water may seep into groundwater.’

The Water Framework Directive identifies abstraction as a ‘significant anthropogenic pressure’ and requires

inter alia:

‘Estimation and identification of significant water abstraction for urban, industrial, agricultural and

other uses, including seasonal variations and total annual demand…..’;

36

The identification of all waterbodies abstracted for human consumption90 (Art. 7);

The establishment of ‘controls over the abstraction of fresh surface water and groundwater, and

impoundment of fresh surface water, including a register or registers of water abstractions and a

requirement of prior authorisation for abstraction…’ (Art. 11.3(e))91.

The 2009 ‘PoMs report’ (Programme of Measures) carried out by the Eastern RBD, ‘National

POM/Standards Study Revised Risk Assessment Methodology for Surface Water Abstractions from Lakes’

identified 79 lakes nationally at high risk from abstraction pressures and stated that ‘basic measures will

not be sufficient to address abstraction pressures in some lakes and site-specific (supplementary) measures

will be needed.’ The accompanying 2008 report ‘Revised River Risk Assessment for Abstraction Pressures’

found 237 river water bodies to be ‘at risk’ or ‘probably at risk’ from abstraction (ref. Table 3.1).

There can also be significant cumulative and upstream impacts of abstractions, especially on the re-charge

implications which may see feeder streams run dry. These may be vital habitats, spawning grounds, etc.

Similar concerns exist for aquifers, where there is not awareness or research into recharge issues.

Controls for abstractions are limited and inadequate. At present only abstractions exceeding 10m3/day

require licensing. And with no system of prior authorisation, there is no method by which the cumulative

impact of unregistered smaller abstractions can be assessed. The SE RBD SWMI report, Water Matters -

Have Your Say stated that ‘Abstraction legislation is dated and needs to be updated and extended to protect

waters adequately, with a modernised system of registration and prior authorisation for significant

abstractions.’ Similarly, the 2008 Programme of Measures (PoMs) report ‘Revised River Risk Assessment

for Abstraction Pressures’ states that ‘Ireland’s current institutional arrangements to support the evaluation

of the effects of surface water abstractions need to be modernised. The primary governing legislation for

water supplies (Water Supplies Act, 1942) does not consider environmental issues.’

The implications of abstraction from the Shannon to supply the greater Dublin area is of particular

concern, and merits specific mention in the draft SWMI, given the scale of the project and abstraction

involved. The draft SWMI states that ‘The linkages between aquatic ecology and river flow / lake level are

not well understood, and research has been initiated to establish criteria for ecological flows and lake levels

in our surface waters.’ On the basis of this lack of scientific understanding, SWAN would argue that

insufficient information is available on which to assess the potential ecological impacts of this project and

a final decision on it should not be made until such understanding of the linkages are determined.

SWAN believes that the issue of reducing abstractive pressure by reducing demand for water, as required

by the Directive92 is also important and should be mentioned in the draft SWMI. e.g. supporting and

promoting rainwater harvesting; grey water use and other water conservation measures in the home and

in businesses; pricing incentives to reduce water consumption.

90 providing more than 10 m3/day as an average or serving more than 50 people, and those bodies of water intended for such use

91 Member States ‘can exempt from these controls, abstractions or impoundments which have no significant impact on water status’.

92 Recital 23; Article 1; Article 9

http://www.wfdireland.ie/docs/24_Abstractions/Abstraction%20Lakes%20Final%20Report%20Jan09.pdf

http://www.wfdireland.ie/docs/24_Abstractions/Abstraction%20Lakes%20Final%20Report%20Jan09.pdf

http://www.wfdireland.ie/docs/24_Abstractions/Revised%20River%20Risk%20Assessment%20Final%20Rev%2002_without%20appendices.pdf

http://www.wfdireland.ie/docs/26_Water%20Matters%20-%20Have%20your%20say!%20Significant%20Water%20Management%20Issues/South%20Eastern%20Water%20Matters%20Booklet.pdf

http://www.wfdireland.ie/docs/26_Water%20Matters%20-%20Have%20your%20say!%20Significant%20Water%20Management%20Issues/South%20Eastern%20Water%20Matters%20Booklet.pdf



37

An additional issue identified by SWAN members is that anti-foulant chemicals used to clear discharge

pipes of clogging organisms such as at Ardnacrusha are not controlled. Nor is the disposal of spoil

generated from pipe cleaning operations. In Lough Larne this activity wiped out oyster beds.

4.12. INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES

Invasive species are acknowledged to be one of the major causes of extinction of species in aquatic

ecosystems. They can impact on native species by, for example, competition for resources e.g. food and

space and the alteration of the natural aquatic or riparian habitat. For example, Japanese knotweed

Fallopia japonica is significantly impacting indigenous native flora and consequently fauna along our

rivers. Stream and river banks infested with Japanese knotweed are more prone to erosion as it dies back

in winter leaving the soil exposed. It also impacts on fish life due to the impact on riparian ecology,

changes in shading regimes and increased sedimentation due to erosion.

Many of Ireland’s freshwater ecosystems are dominated by invasive species which according to the EPA

‘has clear implications for the management of aquatic ecosystems and for the attainment of good ecological

status under the Water Framework Directive (WFD).’93 The NBDC have identified that, in Ireland, since 1980

the rate of introduction of alien species is greatest for freshwater ecosystems and that freshwater alien

species are likely to have a high impact where introduced94. Dr Joe Caffrey from the IFI describes the

introduction of aquatic non-natives in Ireland as an ‘Environmental disaster waiting to happen’95. Coastal

non-natives are also having an impact.

Although aquatic invasive species are identified as a SWMI there is still no single guiding policy or

legislation dedicated to invasive species in Ireland96 and the EU has stated in an assessment that ‘The

provisions for management of invasive species (in Ireland) are divided between several different Acts that

are focused on different policy areas with relevance to the problem97.

The EU Commission has passed regulations98 and work is now ongoing on a list of recognised invasive

alien species. However, in Ireland we need to be concerned with potentially more than the contents

of that list. The existing list for Ireland of invasive alien species needs to be maintained and updated.

There is a need for ongoing maintenance of management of invasive species in water bodies, such as

in Lough Corrib.

It is unclear who/ what agencies have responsibility for action to control or eradicate invasive alien

species.

93 Maguire C, Gallagher K. , Maggs C, Dick J. , Caffrey J., O’Flynn C., Fitzpatrick U., Kelly J. and Harrod C. (2011) Alien invasive species in Irish

water bodies. EPA Strive Report 2007-W-MS-2-S1

94 O’Flynn C, Kelly J. and Lysaght L. (2014) Ireland’s invasive and non-native species – trends in introductions. National Biodiversity Data

Centre Series No. 2. Ireland

95 Caffrey J. (2008) Aquatic invasive non-natives in Ireland – An environmental disaster waiting to happen. Inland Fisheries Ireland.

96 Turner, S., 2008. The control of invasive alien species. A review of legislation and governance for

Ireland and Northern Ireland.

97 EC (2011) A comparative assessment of existing policies on invasive species in the EU member states and in selected OECD countries.

European Commission DG Environment

98 EU Regulation number 1143/2014 European Parliament and Council on the prevention and management of the introduction and

spread of invasive alien species

38

The latest Coastwatch data indicates a spread of Japanese seaweed, and other invasives. It is

important to be clear about the role of the water in the spread of these; whether the plant lives in the

water, or is carried by it.

The Gigas oyster, the monitoring of which is the responsibility of the Marine Institute, has been

identified at an increasing number of sites. If action is not taken to counter its spread it will become

a problem. The Spanish have introduced restrictions as has Northern Ireland.

Watercourses are transport mechanisms for invasive species and need to be considered as such. It is

proposed that garden centres have a prescribed list of recognised invasive species.

4.13. PEAT EXTRACTION

According to the 2010 Shannon RBM Plan, ‘Peat harvesting is one of the pressures contributing to

the loss of high quality and protected areas’ in the Shannon catchment. However, peat extraction is only

briefly mentioned as a potential source of sediment in the SWMI draft under ‘Land-use Planning and Water’

and is not identified as a significant water management issue. It is given only a ‘slight’ classification for

pollution on the basis of the study quoted. In fact, it is well established that drainage of peat soils causes

a suite of environmental problems. As noted in discussing drainage of peat soils in Forestry above [4.4],

‘All of these problems described can and often do result in reduced water quality, loss of wildlife and

ecosystems services, damage to fisheries, and increased costs of treatment for drinking water.’ In order to

extract peat it is drained. Drainage of peat causes degradation of the peat, reduction of water storage

capacity in catchment, release of nutrients99 , heavy metals100, dissolved organic carbon101, and

sediments102.

The main threats to water quality posed by large-scale peat extraction sites are suspended solids

deposited as silt downstream, and oil and fuel leakages from harvesting equipment. Elevated levels of

dissolved organic matter, nutrients and metals are also observed in run-off from these sites. The sediment

transport of silt and suspended solids results in lasting damage to aquatic organisms e.g. deposition of

fine peat silt on river beds (impacting on salmonid spawning beds, clogging gills and their food chain in

rivers), increased turbidity in lakes and rivers (resulting in a reduction in light penetration and primary

productivity), coating of aquatic plant surfaces with fine particles (inhibiting photosynthesis) as well as

nutrient enrichment103. The impact on receiving watercourses is site-specific and depends on the scale of

operation versus the size and quality of the receiving watercourse. Peat sedimentation in salmonid and

pearl mussel rivers is detrimental. There are thousands of hectares of Ireland’s midland raised bogs that

are being actively and increasingly destroyed without controls or protection and without monitoring of

99 Bowman J.J., McGarrigle M.L. and Clabby K.J. (1993) Lough Derg an investigation of eutrophication and its causes. Part 1 Water quality

assessment, nutrient sources, conclusions and recommendations. A report to the Lough Derg Working Party, Environmental Research Unit.

100 Rothwell J., Evansa M.G., Danielsa S. and Allotta T.E.H.(2008) Peat soils as a source of lead contamination to upland fluvial systems

Environmental Pollution.153: 582-9.

101Holden J., Shotboltb L., Bonne A., Burtd T.P., Chapmana P.J., Dougille A.J., Frasere E.J.D., Hubaceke K., Irvinea B, Kirkbya M.J., Reede M.S.,

Prellf C., Staglg S., Stringerh L.C., Turnera A. and Worralli F. (2007) Environmental change in moorland landscapes. Elsevier Earth-Science

Reviews 82: 75–100

102BanaS K.and GOOS K. (2004) Effect of peat-bog reclamation on the physico-chemical characteristics of the ground water in peat. Polish

Journal of Ecology 52: 69-74

103 Ibid

39

the impacts of such activities on adjoining watercourses. Future assessment of the contribution of peat

extraction to water quality must be based on continuous monitoring, due to the episodic nature of the

rainfall incidents of increasing intensity linked to climate change.

The drainage of peatlands can have serious impacts on adjoining lakes, for example Fin Lough SAC in

County Offaly which the NPWS have stated that “Drainage works to facilitate peat milling activities

adjoining the site have reduced the extent of open water in the site, and large areas of the former lake basin

are now overgrown by reedswamp and scrub woodland.” 104This site is also listed for its fen habitat and the

WFD requires the prevention of further deterioration of groundwater fed wetlands such as fens.

There is a lack of peatland stewardship or regulated extraction and concerns over acidification. There is

currently no monitoring to assess this unregulated extractive activity, and its effects, for example on Lough

Derg. Regulation of this should be linked to policy and Common Agricultural Policy eligibility. Another

impact related to activities on peatlands is the effect of burning of upland peatlands on the ecohydrology

of river basins as has been shown by a recent study in the UK. The study found that prescribed burning

on peatlands was shown to have clear impacts on river water chemistry and river ecology105.

High levels of organic colour produced are difficult to treat for potable water supplies and chlorination can

lead to the production of carcinogenic total trihalomethanes (TTHMs)106. Waters containing algae are also

prone to TTHM formation107.

The EPA have identified 425,000 supplies receiving water above the WHO EH permitted levels of TTHMs in

2015 as part of PILOT proceedings against Ireland for failing to inform the consumer of chemical

exceedances in drinking water supplies.

According to a survey of Local Authorities’ Planning Sections in 2009, no local authority held any record of

peat extraction. Thus the statement in this document ‘Moreover planning encompasses many sectors

including agriculture, forestry, peat & extractive industries and commercial and industrial development’

cited as ‘Issue 5: Land-use Planning’ does not reflect this reality. Under ‘What is being done’ the document

offers a promise of unspecified ‘changes to planning legislation limiting extraction practices (e.g. peat)’. In

fact peat extraction is to be removed by legislation from the Planning and Development system and

transferred entirely to the EPA for the IPC licensing system for sites over 50 hectares.

A satellite survey of exposed Irish Peatlands in 2010 commissioned by Friends of the Irish Environment

from UCC and funded in part by the DoE, revealed thousands of hectares of exposed peatlands across the

raised bogs of the midlands. With a cut-off point of 30 hectares, 125 sites of over 30 hectares – 2 or 3 more

than 150 hectares - were identified and site reports sought from the 19 Local Authorities concerned under

a DoE ‘Peatlands Survey 2013’ This confirmed that 50% of the sites were active, with 35% of the sites clearly

requiring further action by the planning authorities [EIA/AA].

104 http://www.npws.ie/sites/default/files/protected-sites/synopsis/SY000576.pdf

105 Brown L.E., Holden J. and Palmer S.M. (2014) Effects of moorland burning on the ecohydrology of river basins. Key findings from the

EMBER project. University of Leeds

106Jennings E., Nic Aonghusa C. Allott N., Naden P., O’Hea B., Pierson D., Schneiderman E. (2006) Future climate change and water colour

in Irish peatland catchments: results from the CLIME project.

107 Binnie C., Kimber M. and Smethurst, G. (2002) Basic Water Treatment Thomas Telford Publishing, London.

40

Management of a problem of this scale can only take place at catchment level, and to date the scale of the

issue or the changes in legislation due imminently are not reflected in this document. Catchment

management planning will be particularly critical for sites of less than 50 hectares, as while agreement has

been reached with the principle 8 – 10 commercial extractors, no such agreement or consultation process

is in place for the operators of sites of less than 50 hectares.

In light of these potentially very significant impacts on drinking water sources and quality and significant

local impacts especially on high status sites, it is regrettable that peat extraction is not identified as a

significant water management issue in the draft SWMI report and is only briefly mentioned as a potential

source of sediment and under ‘Land-use Planning and Water’. If the second cycle of river basin planning

is to be effective, particularly in preventing the deterioration of high status sites, then all significant issues

much be clearly identified at this stage. This omission must be addressed in the next stage of WFD

implementation. The measures needed to achieve the environmental goals outlined in this document by

the end-2021 will not be met if the current categorisation of the impact on water quality and the

environment of peat extraction continue to be evaluated as ‘slight’.

It is critical that this section of the Significant Water Management Issues in Ireland is rewritten before the

draft plans are published for further public consultation in 2016.

41

5. HORIZONTAL SIGNIFICANT WATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES

These are broadly analogous to Section 2, River Basin Management Planning and the Challenges Ahead

in the draft SWMI report.

5.1. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; AFFORDABILITY & PRIORITISATION

As set out in Section 3.2 above, it is of the utmost concern to SWAN members that the first issue identified

is ‘Affordability and prioritisation’. It is of course of great significance, as noted in the consultation draft,

that the WFD ‘is the first piece of European Community legislation that seeks to express legally binding

objectives with reference to social and economic considerations.’ This highlights the need for a

comprehensive and meaningful public engagement programme (see Section 5.2) in addition to a rigorous

economic analysis and clearly supports SWAN’s call for these.

It is correct to interpret this element of the directive as meaning that more ‘consideration’ must be ‘given

to the socio-economic context’ of implementation. However to interpret this as a justification for an

foundational assumption for cycle two that measures will need to be prioritised based on the ‘constraints

of available resources’ is to misunderstand the requirements of Article 4 of the directive entirely.

This is especially the case given that there is little mention of the ‘economic analysis of water use’ required

under Article 5 of the WFD which is now nearly 10 years overdue. The timeline for delivery of this analysis

should be set out. Under Annex II, this analysis “shall contain enough information in sufficient detail . . . in

order to . . . make judgements about the most cost-effective combination of measures in respect of water

uses to be included in the programme of measures . . . .” Only after this is done, with the inclusion of

environmental and resource benefits and costs and the characterisation and risk assessment has been

carried out, can the discussion regarding application of exemptions or ‘prioritisation’ take place.

Furthermore this must be fully transparent, actively involve the public as part of the environmental

objective-setting process, with full public participation during the public engagement on the draft RBM

Plans and it is imperative that it be conducted for each waterbody in full compliance with the provisions

of Article 4.

5.2. PUBLIC CONSULTATION, PARTICIPATION & ENGAGEMENT

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE SWMI

There has clearly been no active participation of the public in the SWMI, beyond the seminar last May,

which happened before the consultation had actually opened. This is a significant worsening of the

approach taken in the last cycle when at least the SWMI were discussed at the WFD stakeholder Advisory

Councils in each River Basin District. This regression is of extreme concern to SWAN and in our view this

issue of complete absence of public participation thus far in the second RBM planning cycle is an issue

which must be addressed urgently.

In terms specifically of the consultation on the SWMI, this was extremely minimalist also. In addition, it is

unclear who the document is aimed at. It has too much detail for a member of the general public and

not enough for an engaged/ ‘expert’ sectoral stakeholder. The questions are much too complex for

ordinary members of the public to answer and it is unrealistic to expect them to do so. In our response

on the pre-consultation, SWAN proposed two documents: A robust SWMI with sufficient detail, as

proposed in this submission, to facilitate the engagement of informed sectoral stakeholder

42

representatives and a second document aimed at the general public. It is regrettable that this proposal

was ignored.

It is unclear from the consultation document whether there is an intention of publishing a revised SWMI

report, based on the input from the public consultation. If so, SWAN notes that the consultation on the

SWMI runs from July 2015 to December 2015 and that the revised SWMI is also scheduled to be published

in December 2015. Depending on the actually dates, this appears to allow very little time for the

competent authorities to review in detail submissions from the public, discuss these if necessary with

consultees, and to incorporate feedback from the public into the final SWMI report. SWAN recommends

that at least 2-3 months should be allowed for this exercise if authorities propose considering and

incorporating public responses in a meaningful way. If authorities do not intend to issue a revised SWMI,

then the process by which the responses to this consultation will be integrated into the next stage of river

basin planning must be clarified. We do not consider a written digest of comments and departmental

responses alone to be satisfactory.

Wider public participation in WFD implementation

In terms of public participation as a key component of WFD and thus a crucial horizontal issue, a key

weakness is the fact that there is no strategic, co-ordinated approach to public participation outlined

either in the draft SWMI or in the earlier Work Programme and Timetable. Likewise, there is no specific

commitment to a public awareness campaign nor is the need for such a campaign even mentioned.

SWAN believes that a well-resourced citizen engagement initiative led by suitably qualified professionals

is central to the delivery of sustainable water management and integrated water management and it is

regrettable that such a strategy is not committed to.

We welcome the statement that ‘the Department is eager to support an Integrated Catchment Management

(ICM) approach, whereby policy, research and community action are brought together’, However it is

SWAN’s position that in addition to the ‘local level’ there must also be a stakeholder forum at national

level – a National Stakeholder Forum which would facilitate policy input. This high level policy advisory

group should focus on issues at the national scale, where the best sector-specific policy expertise in the

country from stakeholder representative groups with in-depth policy knowledge work together to

generate options to address SWMIs that have the support of all stakeholder groups.

Discussion on the key elements of successful public participation / engagement is beyond the scope of

this submission, but these are well-rehearsed in the literature and have been set out by SWAN in various

submissions to the Department of Environment108,109 including most recently our paper ‘Delivering

meaningful public participation in water governance and Water Framework Directive (WFD)

implementation’. We submit this in full in support of this issue as a formal contribution to the SWMI

108 Sustainable Water Network (SWAN), 2012. SWAN Recommendations for Public Participation Mechanisms in the Department of

Environment Community & Local Government (DECLG) 4-Tier Water Governance Proposal.

109 Sustainable Water Network (2012) Getting It Right or Getting It Right Ticking boxes vs. delivering genuine public participation in

water management in Ireland. Presentation to The joint meeting of the Task Force on Public Participation in Decision-making of the

Aarhus Convention & the Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol on Water & Health on ‘Public Participation in Environmental Decision

Making: Focus on Water and Health’, June 2012.

43

consultation, attached as Appendix 3. A very brief of summary of the features of an effective public

participation programme is as follows110:

early engagement, that is well-planned & designed and has been well publicised in advance;

appropriate mechanisms, structures & processes, that genuinely facilitates the participation of

those affected (stakeholders), and enables them to influence the outcome(s);

adequate resources to conduct effective public participation, and to enable stakeholders to fully

realise the potential of each engagement opportunity;

evaluation of operation and outcomes, to inform improvements in how engagement continues;

specially qualified & trained professionals.

The most unfortunate and avoidable situations of trenchant public opposition in the cases of both the

peat cutting and Irish Water demonstrate the extremely damaging consequences of failing to engage

meaningfully with the public on water and wetland issues and SWAN would urge competent authorities

to develop and begin delivering a programme of public participation in WFD implementation as a matter

of urgency.

5.3. IMPLEMENTATION & INTEGRATED GOVERNANCE

The identification of ‘Organisational Coordination’ as Issue 3 is to be welcomed, as is the information regarding

new structures. However, given the consensus assessment that the failure of the first cycle was due to lack

of implementation as a result of fragmented, ineffective governance, there should be a

dedicated ‘implementation’ section where it is set out how the new system will address those

shortcomings. In July, SWAN made a submission to DECLG in relation to public participation, integrated

catchment management and governance. We attach this in full as Appendix 3 to support this section in

addition to the preceding section on public participation.

It is SWAN’s firm contention that the Integrated Catchment Management model being proposed by the

EPA Catchment Science and Management Unit and by DECLG will not succeed without an effective

programme of public participation AND improvements in the new governance arrangements, still in

development: “Solutions [to water management issues] will only be viable if policies are consistent and

coherent; if stakeholders are properly engaged across levels of government, if well-designed regulatory

frameworks are put in place, if capacity of institutions and stakeholders is strengthened, and if integrity and

transparency are fostered. These goals are all about governance, and require robust and agile institutions

that can adapt to new conditions, taking into account the specificities of each community and of its culture

and history.” (SWAN’s emphasis).111

Water governance may be defined as 'the range of political, social, economic and administrative systems

that are in place to develop and manage water resources, and the delivery of water services, at different

levels of society'112 and the OECD sees governance as including administrative systems, formal institutions

(incl. laws & policies) and information institutions such as power relationships and practices.113

110 Please note these should not be read in isolation from the full suite of recommendations in Appendix 3

111 OECD (2015) Draft Principles on Water Governance. Public Governance and Territorial Development. Water Governance Initiative,

Directorate Regional Development Policy Committee, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, GOV/RDPC/WGI(2015)1

112 Global Water Partnership (2002) Introducing Effective Water Governance, Mimeo.

113 OECD (2011) OECD Studies on Water: Water Governance in OECD Countries — A Multi-Level Approach. Organisation for Economic Co-

operation and Development, Paris.

44

Given the key elements of effective water governance set out above and in more detail in Appendix 3,

with reference to extensive OECD and European Environment Agency (EEA) work in this area, SWAN has

serious concerns regarding the adequacy of current and proposed governance provisions.

For Integrated Catchment Management to work, and the stakeholder engagement to be worthwhile,

governance must support and integrate both. By governance here we are not focusing on general

implementation arrangements such as technical working groups etc. We mean the governance structures

where responsibility for decisions on the selection and implementation of WFD measures, resides. The

2014 regulations114 give responsibility for implementation of the RBM Plans to the Local Authorities. In

examining the proposed new system as we understand it, several fundamental issues emerge that SWAN

is extremely concerned will persist in whatever the final governance details are, undermining ICM overall.

They can be categorised broadly as problems for delivering both the catchment and integration aspects

of the ICM approach. These are set out in full in Appendix 3. Concerns about these fundamental issues

have been exacerbated by presentations and bilateral conversations with a wide range of delegates at the

2015 Catchment Management Network Meeting where it was clear that agencies outside of the EPA,

DECLG and Local Authorities do not feel they are being involved in key decisions regarding catchment

planning.

In essence, firstly there is are no evident structures, vested with the necessary authority which will provide

catchment based management, where decisions are taken regarding the selection and implementation

of measures, at a catchment level. Furthermore it is not apparent how this can be done in collaboration

with stakeholders. Secondly, despite acknowledged criticism regarding the persistent lack of integration

in the first iteration of River Basin Management Plans, what is proposed is not a streamlined, integrated

or fit to incorporate stakeholder engagement. Furthermore there is no indication that they are adequate

to ensure that a collaborative culture of working between all relevant Government Departments, public

authorities and other agencies. This is not always evident even within local authorities or other state

bodies, and is even rarer between them. It is apparent from conversations with officials at the recent

Catchment Network event that already officials from outside Local Authorities and the EPA are feeling

excluded from the process.

SWAN urges the Department and Local Authorities to serious consider the issues raised in SWAN’s paper

submitted as Appendix 3 before finalising governance arrangements if the second cycle of RBM planning

is to successfully deliver integrated catchment management and WFD objectives.

114 European Union (Water Policy) Regulations (S.I. No. 350 of 2014).

45

5.4. HIGH STATUS SITES

It is to be welcomed that a dedicated section on these important sites has been added to the draft SWMI

since the pre-consultation draft. However more emphasis is needed on the protection of these sites, in

line with the ‘no deterioration’ clause of the WFD, and in the context of the dramatic decline by 40% of

high status river sites since 1987: from 30% to 18%. Between the last two reporting periods of 2007-2009

and 2010-2012 there was a loss of 57 high status water bodies and a worrying continued decline in Q5

high status reference sites.115. The EPA report on High Status sites emphasises the importance of this by

stating that ‘the degradation of high status sites merits high priority’ and points out that ‘To date, the key

focus in the implementation of the WFD has largely been on the objective that all water bodies meet at least

good status by 2015. The WFD environmental objective that specifies no deterioration has received far less

attention’.116 This may be one of the greatest challenges of the next cycle and its importance should be

clearly stated in the SWMI report.

The majority of Ireland’s habitats, including water and wetland habitats, which are listed under the

Habitats Directive are reported to be of poor or bad conservation status117. Only 7% of listed habitats are

considered to be in a favourable state. In Ireland 61% of species listed under the Habitats Directive are

in an un-favourable state. Species particularly of wetland and freshwater environments are reported to

be of poor or bad conservation status, including a number of species of fish (e.g. Atlantic salmon),

molluscs (e.g. freshwater pearl mussel) and the natterjack toad.

While it is true that ‘The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is giving priority access to the

GLAS agri environmental scheme to farmers in areas with high status waters’ there do not appear to be

any nutrient input restrictions beyond current regulations (GAPP regs) and low emission slurry spreading

is optional. Also while the scheme does have water protection measures e.g. Protection of Watercourse

from Bovines, it was designed with minimal input from catchment or aquatic scientists / ecologists and

its exact water quality and water status targets are unclear in relation to controlling nutrient and other

pollution in high status catchments. It is therefore difficult to assess how successful this scheme will be

in preventing the deterioration of further high status sites.

Small-scale pressures, which can be extensive in nature have a greater impact in high status catchments

and it is important to conduct investigative monitoring of existing high status sites, with the aim of

identifying impacts or sources of potential impacts that could lead to the loss of the high status

classification for that site in order to come up with mitigation measures118.

It is also vital to integrate protection of high status sites into planning controls as recommended by Ní

Chathain:

115 Bradley C., Byrne C., Craig M., Free G., Gallagher T. , Kennedy B., Little R., Lucey J., Mannix A., McCreesh P., McDermott G., McGarrigle,

M. Ní Longphuirt S., O’Boyle S., Plant C., Tierney D., Trodd W., Webster P., Wilkes R. and Wynne C. (2012) Water Quality in Ireland 2010-

2012. Environmental Protection Agency.

116 Ní Chatháin B., Moorkens E. and Irvine K. (2012) Management strategies for the protection of high status water bodies. Environmental

Protection Agency

117 EPA (2012) State of the Irish Environment 2012. Environmental Protection Agency

118 Ni Chathain et al (2012) as above

46

Each application for planning/licensing should be screened to see if it is located within the

catchment of a high status surface water body or high status river site.

Consideration of the application of an AA style screening approach could be adopted for high

status catchments, to improve the assessment of cumulative impacts within these catchments,

and to trigger the requirements for EcIA or EIA.

Each local and public authority should review existing environmental assessment guidelines

which they have in place to account for the protection of high status waters, and to ‘WFD-proof’

such guidelines.

SWAN recommends the implementation of all the recommendations in the Ni Chathain report. We believe

these are a priority and that the assessment of the proposed strategies, as set out in the draft SWMI is

conducted solely on scientific grounds.

5.5. COASTAL AND TRANSITIONAL WATERS

There is little mention of coastal/transitional water issues or the need to integrate the implementation of

the Marine Strategy Framework Directive with the WFD in the draft SWMI report. A dedicated section

covering this issue should be added. There are numerous coastal-specific issues which should be

highlighted as significant with a summary review of action to address these since the last cycle, where this

occurred. Transitional and coastal waters were almost completely neglected in the last RBM plans;

monitoring was delayed and there were no new dedicated measures proposed for the coastal zone. The

draft SWMI does nothing to indicate that there are plans to address this. In order to achieve WFD targets

and integrated catchment management through the entirely of the catchment, this situation must not

persist into the second cycle.

Impacts on coastal and estuarine habitats in Ireland relate to physical habitat loss, disturbance,

displacement and change; biological pressure from introduced non-native species and chemical pollution

from discharge and run offs. The most direct and permanent impacts to the extent of coastal habitats are

caused by physical pressures such as habitat loss, change and disturbance. These pressures originate from

sectors such as fisheries and aquaculture and the construction industry especially in relation to coastal

development and defences119 and also include harbour developments, land reclamation projects, and

green energy structures which cause physical changes on the shore and in the coastal zone through

associated works including dredging, sediment mining, wetland infill, erosion/flood control measures,

bottom trawling, installation of aquaculture structures and other activities.

The main sources of water pollution from the shore and at sea (as opposed to land-based pressures

discussed earlier such as agriculture and urban waste treatment discharges) are from harbours, ships and

large vessels, recreational craft, aquaculture, dredging and spoil disposal and oil and gas platforms. The

pollution is mainly in the form of oils, sewage, port-associated industrial discharges, pesticides, silts and

contaminants such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Fine silt, faeces, nutrients and fish treatment

residues also tend to accumulate under and around aquaculture cages. (See Section 4.5) There is little data

or monitoring for many of these pressure sources and substances.

119 O’Mahony C., Kopke K., Twomey S., O’Hagan A.M., Farrell E. and Gault J. (2014). Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Ireland -

Meeting Water Framework Directive and Marine Strategy Framework Directive targets for Ireland’s transitional and coastal waters

through implementation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management. Report prepared under contract for Sustainable Water Network

(SWAN).

47

Macro and micro litter are now recognised as one of the most significant coastal and marine water

pollution issues120. The main sources of solid macro- and microlitter and waste are landfill sites, harbours,

sewage plants, metal recycling yards, aquaculture, fisheries and diffuse background litter. Landfill sites and

sewage treatment are now better controlled but microplastics from these and other sources have yet to

be addressed. According to recent international research, ‘Plastic is the primary component of litter and

‘forms sometimes up to 95 % of the waste that accumulates on shorelines, the sea surface and the seafloor’.121

Waste management in harbours is extremely inconsistent, ranging from good to non-existent and there is

little information available on ship waste management. Litter control in official bathing areas is now a focus

of significant effort on the part of Local Authorities. However, litter in non-designated bathing areas is still

a significant problem and the occurrence of drinks containers, fishing gear and ‘pretty litter’ such as

balloons, remains high.

Litter presents a number of problems for wildlife. These include entanglement causing injury, death by

starvation, drowning or suffocation. Discarded fishing nets effectively continue “ghost” fishing, plastic

binders around 6-packs of cans may have the same effect, as can anglers fishing line and similar items122.

The number of species known to have been affected by either entanglement or ingestion of plastic debris

has doubled since 1997, from 267 to 557 species among all groups of wildlife.123 Increasing levels of

microscopic plastic fibres in sand and the water column may leach out toxins which in turn enter the food

chain and bioaccumulate in higher organisms, including fish destined for human consumption.

Part of the challenge of achieving WFD standards in the Coastal Zone is the large body of legislation which

relates to its use and protection. These include: The Shellfish Regulations; Bathing Water Regulations;

Foreshore Licensing and Leases; Urban Waste Water Regulations; Surface Water Regulations and the

Fisheries Acts124. There is furthermore a range of special conditions and exceptions under which a given

agency may be (co-) responsible for law enforcement. Even for state authorities, it can be almost

impossible to obtain a quick and accessible overview of which agencies are managing certain activities or

combinations of activities in different areas of the coastal zone and under whose jurisdiction they fall. While

some regulations are effective and well publicised and implemented, like sea bass fishing controls, too

often laws are ineffective due to lack of enforcement, in addition to a lack of integrated management, with

no one overarching body with ultimate responsibility for the coastal zone.

The combination of this absence of an integrated approach, with the lack of an adequate overview of

coastal quality, lends itself to uninformed and fragmented decision making. There is also a lack of easily

accessible information and a low level of public awareness on many coastal issues. Although our coastal

120 Galgani F., Hanke G and Maes, T. (2015) Global distribution, composition and abundance of marine litter. In Bergmann M., ·Gutow L.

and Klages M. (eds) (2015) Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland. (Open Access)

121 ibid

122 Kühn. S., Bravo-Rebolledo E.L and van Franeker J.A. (2015) Deleterious effects of litter on marine life. In Bergmann M., ·Gutow L. and

Klages M. (eds) (2015) Marine Anthropogenic Litter, Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland. (Open Access)

123 ibid

124 O’Mahony C., Kopke K., Twomey S., O’Hagan A.M., Farrell E. and Gault J. (2014). Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Ireland -

Meeting Water Framework Directive and Marine Strategy Framework Directive targets for Ireland’s transitional and coastal waters

through implementation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management. Report prepared under contract for Sustainable Water Network

(SWAN).

http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/96/bok%253A978-3-319-16510-3.pdf?originUrl=http%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2Fbook%2F10.1007%2F978-3-319-16510-3&token2=exp=1450390740~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F96%2Fbok%25253A978-3-319-16510-3.pdf%3ForiginUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flink.springer.com%252Fbook%252F10.1007%252F978-3-319-16510-3*~hmac=2d01fdfb04ecd1308365f6a0aebd395b11e3eeb7dbb7d5beb936ffd7083f04f9

48

waters are largely in public ownership, public information and participation is much weaker than on land.

Many local authority field staff and citizens alike are not familiar with the implications of Special Areas of

Conservation or Special Protection Areas, nor even where they are located. In contrast with the Bathing

and Shellfish waters, which often have information signage by the shore, coastal Nature designation is

rarely sign-posted or explained.

In that context, the 2012 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Marine (DAFM) document ‘Our Ocean

Wealth-Towards an Integrated Marine Plan for Ireland,’ which focuses on the marine environment as an

economic resource to be exploited, compounds these problems as it envisages a range of further economic

developments without putting forward any mechanisms or strategies to improve implementation of

current environmental legislation and compliance.

Further issues of current significant concern are:

The lack of baseline data for the marine sector is a major concern, compromising the ability to

deliver WFD objectives

Larger fishing vessels fishing within the 1 mile limit; impacting on nursery areas. Small inshore

fishermen, in addition to environmental groups would like this activity restricted. This area is the

most productive nursery and spawning area for biodiversity and fisheries is most at risk. It is

targeted by both the entire inshore fleet (c. 2000 vessels) pushed to margins and more damagingly

by offshore fleet boats over 15m (c 200) in operations such as pair trawling , dredging for seed

mussel, scallops and non-quota species. These areas in total should really constitute a continuous

mile MPA/SAC around the coast allowing only artisanal and sustainable fisheries operations. Heavy

trawling, passive and tangle nets should be excluded from this area as most damaging in terms of

bye catch and stock recovery.

Landings and discards need to be handled in such a way that they don’t negatively impact on WFD

requirements. This requires integration with the Harbours Directive. The introduction of the

Landing Obligation signals the need for closer monitoring of the inshore sector with the discards

of the wild fisheries formerly dumped at sea now to be brought to land within the WFD area.

Without reception facilities at most ports for oil, debris etc. and now the burden of receiving

discards, the overlapping obligations of WFD and CFP become of increasing importance and create

a case for converging interests and synergies to collect baseline biodiversity and fisheries

management data, resourced jointly by DG Mare and DG Env; DAFM and DECLG. SWAN members,

the Irish Seal Sanctuary (ISS), has long made the case for Fully Documented Fisheries and proposed

this as an opportunity more than a problem. An integrated approach to the coastal zone is needed;

historically this area has fallen between the cracks of overlapping competence. To achieve cross

compliance of WFD/MSFD, good baseline date for determination of GES in this area of overlap is

needed and decisions regarding measures will require integrated coastal zone management,

including harmonisation of agencies and resources.

The development of the Alexander basin is proposed to involve moderately contaminated

extracted spoil being dumped at sea. This is an illustration of the overlap between the MSFD and

WFD Directives, which if not handled properly, will result in gaps and objectives not be reached

under both Directives.

49

There is a consensus view amongst SWAN members, based on years of cumulative experience that

there is parallel but disconnected treatment of agriculture and fisheries vs activities and priorities

of NPWS and the Department of Environment, rather than any meaningful communication and

collaborative effort between these respective responsible agencies. Furthermore there is no

nationwide approach, but only piecemeal responses to issues arising in coastal and transitional

waters.

There is evidence of farmers increasing the height of coastal embankments in response to water

level rises (resulting from climate change) and the risk zoning appearing in newly developed flood

risk maps. This in combination with additional investment in ‘hard’ coastal protection will both

lead to physical changes affecting coastal geomorphology, sediment transport regimes and how

water reaches coastal wetlands. There has been no assessment of this, or its subsequent impacts.

Actions by farmers to displace flooding from their lands and also removal of vegetation, land

drainage and other land alterations such as infilling of natural coastal reed beds and salt marshes

often to gain eligibility for CAP payments results in loss of biodiversity, in addition to loss of their

function as carbon sinks and buffers to water pollution and wave erosion. They may also quickly

render flood risk maps out of date. This is likely to mean a lack of updated information amongst

authorities and of initiatives that work with nature for managed coastal retreat.

The River Basin Management (RBM) Plans required under the WFD, were to provide the key legislative

tool for integrated spatial action plans that would ensure good status for all estuaries and coastal waters

by 2015 (with some limited exceptions). Unfortunately, the 2009-2015 Plans are inadequate. Apart from

an unfulfilled commitment to introduce regulations to control physical alterations by the end of 2012, not

done), the RBM Plans as they apply to transitional and coastal waters are ineffective. The draft SWMI

indicates that there are no current plans to address this shortcoming

The implementation of both the WFD the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) offer an ideal

opportunity to foster coordinated planning and adaptive management for coastal and inshore marine

waters. However, the omission of coastal issues from the draft SWMI, suggests that there are no plans to

take this approach and SWAN strongly proposes that this is redressed in the second cycle.

5.6. CLIMATE CHANGE

Climate change is the greatest global environmental threat facing humanity. Ireland’s climate is changing

and the impacts are already being felt. Over the last century our average temperatures have risen and

regional rainfall patterns have changed,125,126 with more significant changes predicted by scientists in the

coming years127. Extreme weather events are expected to become more frequent and more intense.

Climate change and water management are inextricably linked: Increased flooding in some areas and

longer droughts in others, rising sea levels and a decline in water quality all pose significant challenges

for Ireland. Water management planning requires a long-term approach which must consider climate

change projections, particularly with regard to infrastructure development. The reform of water

management required by the Water Framework Directive (WFD), which focuses on an integrated

125Sweeney J., Donnelly A., McElwain L.. and Jones M. (2002) Climate Change: Indicators for Ireland, EPA, Wexford.

126 McElwain L. and Sweeney J. (2007) Key meteorological indicators of climate change in Ireland. EPA, Wexford.

127 Sweeney J., Albanito F, Brereton A., Caffarra A, Charlton R, Donnelly A, Fealy R, Fitzgerald J, Holden N, Jones M & Murphy C. (2008)

Climate Change-Refining the Impacts for Ireland. EPA, Wexford.

50

catchment management approach, presents the ideal opportunity to build resilience to climate change,

cut energy consumption and protect our water resources128,129.

Key issues of concern regarding climate change and water management

Flooding: Average annual national rainfall is increasing130 with the west, southwest and north of

the country experiencing more frequent and intense rainfall131. Winter rainfall is projected to

increase by 10% by 2050 leading to a rise in river flow132. Many densely populated areas of high

economic activity are located in floodplains. These will be increasingly exposed to flooding,

resulting in higher damages and re-construction costs. Extreme weather events increase the risk

of environment and social stress. Wetlands, lake and river systems will be disturbed - either

through flooding or drying out133and could result in some loss of their related tourism and

amenity benefits. 134

Decline in water quality and quantity: Increased winter rainfall leading to increased run-off will

cause soil erosion and washing of pollutants from farming and forestry into rivers and lakes. Flood

run-off from urban areas and more frequent overflows of drainage systems will cause pollution if

raw sewage overflows from sewage treatment plants. Incursion by seawater into groundwater

reserves due to sea level rise will also be a threat.

Increasing temperatures135 will mean warmer summers, which in turn will increase water demand,

leading to higher water extraction pressure during periods of low water levels136. This along with

a projected decrease in summer rainfall (12-17% by 2050) will lead to water shortages. Lower

water levels and higher water temperatures will result in reduced dissolved oxygen in water, with

associated algal blooms and increased concentrations of pollutants and bacterial content. The

warming of lake and river waters may also endanger species that require cooler water such as

salmon and Arctic Char.

Conservation status of protected species: Atlantic salmon is legally protected under the EU

Habitats Directive and is classed as vulnerable in Ireland under the ICUN Red List of species.

Climate change effects on Atlantic salmon are: reduced marine survival because of food chain

effects, reduced survival and growth in summer because of poorer feeding conditions resulting

from increased summer temperatures and reduced flows, possible adult migration delays due to

128 WRBD/ESBI (2008) Draft River Basin Management Plans-Adapting the Plans to Climate Change. WRBD, Galway

129 EC (2009) River Basin Management in a Changing Climate. Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive

(2000/60/EC). Guidance Document No. 24. Technical Report-2009-040.

130 Walsh S. (2012) A summary of climate averages for Ireland 1981-2010. Met Éireann, Dublin.

131 McElwain L. & Sweeney J. (2007) Key meteorological indicators of climate change in Ireland. EPA, Wexford.

132 Sweeney J., Albanito F, Brereton A., Caffarra A, Charlton R, Donnelly A, Fealy R, Fitzgerald J, Holden N, Jones M & Murphy C. (2008)

Climate Change-Refining the Impacts for Ireland. EPA,Wexford.

133 Ibid

134 Bullock C., Stack M. & Mathews P. (2008) Implications for tourism and amenity in Ireland. In Kelly B. & Stack M. (eds.) Climate Change,

Heritage and Tourism: Implications for Ireland’s Coast and Inland Waterways. The Heritage Council, Kilkenny.

135 See Walsh (2012) above

136 Murphy C. and Charlton R. (2006) The impact of climate change on catchment hydrology and water resources for selected catchments

in Ireland. In Proceedings of the National Hydrology Seminar, Water Resources in Ireland and Climate Change, Tullamore

51

reduced flows and increased temperatures and decreased spawning success because of increased

sedimentation and scouring’137.

Climate change driven extreme weather is also likely to threaten the quality of drinking water

supplies, resulting in increased rates of water-borne illnesses (e.g. Cryptosporidium) and pushing

up the costs of water treatment.

Coastal areas: The waters around Ireland are rising by 3.5cm per decade and studies have

predicted a rise in global sea levels of up to 60cms by the end of the 21st century138. The flood

impacts of this will be most felt in the major coastal cities of Cork, Dublin, Galway and Limerick

along with other low-lying areas. Increasing water temperatures139 may result in algal blooms in

coastal bays and on beaches and pollution will affect wildlife and a range of economic and leisure

activities such as bathing, angling, water-sports and aquaculture.

Invasive species: Climate change is likely to trigger species migration across the globe. As an

island, Ireland’s ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to an influx of alien species and pathogens

which can rapidly invade aquatic ecosystems, destabilising habitats and threatening human

economic activity.

6. SPECIFIC QUESTIONS POSED IN THE DRAFT SWMI

It is notable that there are only consultation questions in relation to the ‘Issues’ in Part 4 but not the

vertical issues listed in Part 3, which we would argue are just as in need of stimulated feedback.

SWAN believes that most members of the public will be ill equipped to answer these questions since

many are extremely complex and technical in nature. Furthermore most would need some background

information about progress on the issues under consideration during the first RBMP cycle. Without that

vital context and an active programme of public participation in which the issues are fully explained to

them, SWAN believes there will be a poor response to these questions, as a result of the inadequacies of

the consultation process.

ISSUE 1: What are the issues you believe we should prioritise for the next cycle of river basin

management plan, e.g. protection of high status water bodies, improved management of bathing

waters, the protection of drinking water sources?

SWAN believes that it is inappropriate to begin a discussion regarding prioritising issues in the absence

of the required economic analysis. See Section 3.2 for more.

ISSUE 2: What recommendations do you have to improve public participation in water

management?

137 The Heritage Council, (2009) Climate change, heritage and tourism: implications for Ireland’s coast and inland waterways, In Kelly B. &

Stack M. (eds.) Climate Change, Heritage and Tourism: Implications for Ireland’s Coast and Inland Waterways. The Heritage Council,

Kilkenny.

138 IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007. Fourth Assessment Report. A Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

139 Olbert A.I., Dabrowski T., Nash S. & Hartnett M. (2012) Regional modelling of the 21st century climate changes in the Irish Sea.

Continental Shelf Research 41: 48-60

52

See Section 5.2 and Appendix 3.

ISSUE 3: Are other coordination mechanisms in addition to the above required?

See Section 5.3 and Appendix 3 for detailed feedback on this.

ISSUE 4: What other plans and programmes do you think have a material impact on water

management? How do you suggest we seek to improve coordination of activities between the various

plans?

In terms of seeking coordination of activities between plans, please see SWAN’s detailed

recommendations for an integrated catchment management approach set out in Section 5.3 and in

Appendix 3. In relation to relevant plans and programmes, SWAN puts forward the following non-

exhaustive list:

Regional Waste Plans Common Agricultural Policy

Development Plans (local, regional, spatial) Common Fisheries Policy

Climate Change Plans Aquaculture Development Plan

Flood Risk Management Plans Forestry Programme 2014-2020

Harvest 2020 National Pesticides Action Plan

Food Wise 2025 National Biodiversity Plans

Harnessing our Ocean Wealth Habitats Directive

Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) Birds Directive

Marine Spatial Plans Harbour Waste Management Plans

ISSUE 5: How can objectives of river basin (catchment) plans be included in land-use plans in a way

that is effective? How can the requirement of land-use plans influence river basin plans? How can

planning policy and practise be improved so as to enhance our water environment?

SWAN believes inadequate information has been provided in the consultation document on which base

an informed response to this. In order to have a meaningful consultation regarding measures to integrate

land use planning, it would be necessary for the public to be presented with a summary assessment of

the efficacy of measures to date, which is not provided. Secondly, this question goes beyond the scope

of the SWMI consultation, the objective of which is to identify a thorough and complete suite of issues

facing the water environment. It is for the consultation on the draft River Basin Management Plan process

to initiate public input regarding measures.

Thirdly this is a highly specialised question. The capacity for the public, other than those with specific

training in planning in SWAN’s view is limited, especially given the dearth of information in the draft

report.

Notwithstanding the above misgivings, see SWAN puts forward the following brief proposals:

Forward Planning

1. To regain public confidence in the planning system following the findings of the Mahon Tribunal,

a separate independent oversight authority should be established to ensure that national

53

planning policy is correctly implemented and to oversee complaints against planning authorities.

The proposed Office of the Planning Regulator has the potential to carry out this role, but it must

be provided with full independence and adequate powers and resources to do it. Its functions

must also be fully transparent. (See more on this under ‘Enforcement’)

2. It is imperative that the DECLG publish Section 28 Planning Policy Guidance for Local Authorities

on integrating development planning and river basin planning, as committed to in the 2010

RBMPs. These Guidelines should include detailed technical guidance on utilising the SEA process

to properly integrate water management planning with development and spatial planning;

3. Until data from RBM Plans and spatial mapping tools become available to planners, the

‘Precautionary Approach’ must be applied against new development where there is an absence

of evidence demonstrating that the area has the capacity to accommodate new development. In

the interim, RBM Plans and relevant background information on local water quality should be

available on www.Myplan.ie, the online public information system on local development plans

and local area plans;

4. More stringent planning requirements should be introduced for catchments of ‘high status’,

pristine rivers and lakes, and these areas should be mapped and included in local authority

development plans;

5. A national strategy for promoting compact settlement forms in small towns and villages should

be developed to achieve more centralised cost-effective provision of water and wastewater

services, including the use of serviced-sites initiatives;

6. Zoning policy and development control must be fully integrated with the Office of Public Works

Flood Risk Hazard Maps and Flood Risk Management Plans due in 2013 and 2015 respectively.

Historical flood mapping should be utilised in the interim;

7. Reform the Foreshore Consent Process: The existing Foreshore Licence/lease process is outdated

and the delayed Bill is urgently required to provide for a plan-led approach to foreshore

development and to achieve integration with Water Framework Directive and Marine Strategy

Framework Directive requirements.

Development Control

8. A revised Circular Letter should be issued to all local authorities reminding them of their statutory

obligations to implement the ‘Combined Approach’. This is crucial as Local authorities are under

pressure to grant permission for development regardless of waste water treatment plant capacity;

9. The required rigorous implementation of the EPA Code of Practice for Wastewater Treatment and

Disposal Systems Serving Single Houses by Local Authorities is inconsistent. An assessment of

local authority performance in this regard in addition to ongoing training of local authority staff

is required;

10. Where local authorities have not prepared a Groundwater Protection Scheme (GWPS) they should

be instructed to do so as a matter of urgency;

11. Implementation of the new legislation for the control of on-site private waste water treatment

systems must ensure that these systems no longer represent a significant threat to water,

especially in sensitive catchments. The National Inspection Plan must be significantly expanded

to ensure adequate levels of inspections and detection of faulty systems. Systematic and swift

54

follow-up checks are vital to ensure that the necessary remediation work on faulty systems has

been carried out and guidance on doing this provided where necessary;

12. The Government must urgently ensure that Section 261 A of the Planning and Development

(Amendment) Act 2010 to regulate quarries is fully implemented and all unauthorised quarries

must be immediately enforced against.

Enforcement

13. Proper enforcement of planning legislation is essential to water quality management and the

government must ensure that local authorities undertake their enforcement role effectively. The

General Policy Directive PSSP PD 1/12 of 2013 issued by DECLG is welcomes in this regard as it

reiterates the statutory obligations of local authorities with regard to planning enforcement140.

14. In order to achieve better enforcement the following is recommended:

The proposed Office of the Planning Regulator must be provided with a very strong mandate

to oversee the enforcement function of all statutory bodies involved in the planning system,

including full and independent investigation of public complaints and the undertaking of

audits, performance monitoring and issuing sanctions to local authorities.

There must be adequate resources and expertise in Local Authorities to check on and ensure

compliance;

Fines should be imposed at levels which act as an adequate deterrent, including accumulating

fines and the recovery from offenders of the profits resulting from unauthorised activity, using

the Criminal Assets Bureau model;

Public education and access to information in relation to planning compliance and

enforcement must be facilitated through full implementation of the Aarhus Directive

The Constitution should be amended to enable the Oireachtas to establish specialist courts

to deal with environmental law,

Adequate resources must be provided for Gardaí, especially ‘out-of-hours’, when many

unauthorised developments/actions take place

ISSUE 6: What else is needed to align flood risk mitigation and water quality management?


an informed response to this. In order to have a meaningful consultation regarding measures to align

flood risk mitigation and water quality management, it would be necessary for the public to be presented

with a summary assessment of the efficacy of measures to date, which is not provided. Secondly, this

question goes beyond the scope of the SWMI consultation, the objective of which is to identify a thorough

and complete suite of issues facing the water environment. It is for the consultation on the draft River

Basin Management Plan process to initiate public input regarding measures.

Notwithstanding the above misgivings, SWAN puts forward the following:

There has been an enormous amount of work done at EU level on the integration of flood management

with Water Framework Directive implementation. Much of this focuses on the multiple benefits for water

status, flood protection and biodiversity of natural flood retention measures. A prime example is the

reclamation of floodplains which helps to re-establish their functions as buffer zones and water storage

140 http://www.antaisce.ie/Portals/0/Newsletters/feb2013/images/20130111154852006.pdf

http://www.antaisce.ie/Portals/0/Newsletters/feb2013/images/20130111154852006.pdf

55

areas during flood and dry periods and as a purification medium by trapping pollution or water run-off

from hill slopes. SWAN proposes the following actions which fulfil this function:

Protect and restore wetlands, especially in floodplains

Ensure the establishment of optimum river bank vegetation cover to increase resistance to water

flow in river channels and floodplains

Promote soil conservation best practice in agriculture and forestry, which assist in decreasing

erosion and run-off and increasing water retention

Remove or block obsolete drainage systems to further promote attenuation

Prohibit construction on flood plains or areas at risk of inundation

Improve the regulation of private road construction in rural areas (such as to access forestry, peat,

and mobile phone masts, etc.), as these have the capacity to reduce natural attenuation and

increase sediment run-off in high rainfall

Implement better slurry management practices to lower the risk of nutrient and bacterial

contamination from run-off

Expand the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) to manage storm water and minimise the

risk of overflow from sewer systems. SuDS ponds can provide the added benefit of creating

amenities for local communities e.g. Camac Valley in Dublin

In order to implement natural flood retention measures very close integrated working relations are

required between the OPW, the EPA, DECLG and LAs in order that all flood management decisions are

made in a collaborative way taking into account catchment-based solutions. Secondly, in order for this

to succeed the dominance of the engineering-led approach in the OPW must be addressed with the

recruitment of suitably qualified catchment managers to lead this new approach.

SWAN recommends the following useful tool on natural flood retention measures:

http://www.nwrm.eu/measures-catalogue

The EU Commission have stated that the inclusion on such measures in the Flood Risk Management Plans

will be a priority for them when assessing implementation of the Floods Directive.

ISSUE 7: What if any are the major concerns you would have in relation to our aquatic biodiversity

in Ireland?

See Section 5.4 and throughout the submission.

ISSUE 8: What other actions do you think could be put in place to reduce the pollution of waters

caused by nutrient enrichment?


an informed response to this. In order to have a meaningful consultation regarding measures, it would

be necessary for the public to be presented with a summary assessment of the efficacy of measures to

deal with eutrophication to date, and all its sources, which is not provided. Secondly, this question goes

beyond the scope of the SWMI consultation, the objective of which is to identify a thorough and complete

suite of issues facing the water environment. It is for the consultation on the draft River Basin

Management Plan process to initiate public input regarding measures.

Notwithstanding the above misgivings, please see Section 4.1 for recommendations on Agriculture and

See attached Appendix 2: the SWAN submission on the review of the GAPP Regulations in 2010.

http://www.nwrm.eu/measures-catalogue

56

ISSUE 9: What further actions would you suggest be taken to reduce health risks from waters?

As a public health issue, this is outside of SWAN’s remit. However we would recommend the introduction

of regulations to protect drinking water sources which are required under Art. 11 of the WFD and which

have yet to be introduced, in contravention of the directive.

ISSUE 10: How do you think this issue [fine sediment] should be tackled?




date, which is not provided. Secondly, this question goes beyond the scope of the SWMI consultation,

the objective of which is to identify a thorough and complete suite of issues facing the water environment.

It is for the consultation on the draft River Basin Management Plan process to initiate public input

regarding measures.

ISSUE 11: Are there other issues regarding physical modifications on waterways that should be

highlighted now?

See Section 4.9 for a response to this.

ISSUE 12: Is the abstraction of waters a significant issue in your area and, if so, do you have views

on how this might be addressed?

SWAN believes that most members of the public will be ill equipped to answer this question and without

an active programme of public participation in which the issue is fully explained to them, there will be a

poor response to this question.

The main issue at a regional and national level is the lack of regulations despite the WFD legal

requirement. See Section 4.11 for full treatment of this.

ISSUE 13: Are you satisfied with the existing approaches taken to control and prevent chemicals in

the environment? Are there any additional chemicals of concern that are currently not being

considered in Ireland?




date, which is not provided.

Secondly, this question goes beyond the scope of the SWMI consultation, the objective of which is to

identify a thorough and complete suite of issues facing the water environment. It is for the consultation

on the draft River Basin Management Plan process to initiate public input regarding measures.

Notwithstanding the above misgivings, SWAN puts forward the following preliminary proposals……

See Section 4.1 for recommendations regarding Cypermethrin and Section 4.7 for other chemicals.

Issue 14: How can we best plan to ensure the climate resilience of our water resources and aquatic

ecosystems?



57


date, which is not provided. Secondly, this question goes beyond the scope of the SWMI consultation,

the objective of which is to identify a thorough and complete suite of issues facing the water environment.

It is for the consultation on the draft River Basin Management Plan process to initiate public input

regarding measures.

Notwithstanding the above misgivings, SWAN puts forward the following:

Measures to mitigate climate change, but also to adapt to it, must be fully integrated with water

management. The 2009-2015 RBM Plans missed the opportunity to do this so it is imperative that the

next cycle of Plans (2016-2021) do so. SWAN proposes a suite of measures including an Action Plan to

meet multiple objectives for flood and drought risk alleviation and adaptation; for water quality and for

biodiversity.

1. Monitoring

A strategic national network of continuous aquatic monitoring stations to measure the nature and

rate of climate-derived change in water systems must be urgently put in place, focusing on

indicators of climate change e.g. lake and river temperatures. This information is necessary to

detect changes and as the basis for future planning.

A ‘Strategy to Alleviate the Impacts of Climate Change on Ireland’s Water Resources’ should be

developed as a matter of urgency. This should contain:

A list of measures already in place for the mitigation of climate change-related pressures on

water resources and the associated monitoring programme

Targets for climate impact alleviation measures to be achieved by 2015 (before the beginning

of the next RBM Planning cycle 2016-2021)

Cost/benefit analysis to select measures for dealing with both intermittent and long-term

impacts of climate change on aquatic ecosystems. The analysis should be done with public

participation and should include environmental and resource costs to ensure that selected

options are in the best interests of society as a whole

Details of all the responsible agencies, their respective roles and mechanisms for co-

ordination and integration of work

2. Action Plan to address climate change impacts on water management

Using the cost-benefit analysis above, the Action Plan should prioritise the following measures to

determine those that must be carried out immediately (pre-2016) and which should be included

in the 2016-2021 RBM Plans.

Increase natural water retention and cleaning capacities:

o Protect and restore wetlands, especially in floodplains

o Ensure the establishment of optimum river bank vegetation cover to increase

resistance to water flow in river channels and floodplains

o Promote soil conservation best practice in agriculture and forestry, which assist in

decreasing erosion and run-off and increasing water retention

o Remove or block obsolete drainage systems to further promote attenuation

o Prohibit construction on flood plains or areas at risk of inundation

58

o Improve the regulation of private road construction in rural areas (such as to access

forestry, peat, and mobile phone masts, etc.), as these have the capacity to reduce

natural attenuation and increase sediment run-off in high rainfall

o Implement better slurry management practices to lower the risk of nutrient and

bacterial contamination from run-off

o Expand the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) to manage storm water and

minimise the risk of overflow from sewer systems. SuDS ponds can provide the added

benefit of creating amenities for local communities e.g. Camac Valley in Dublin

Increase ecosystem resilience and manage invasive species: In order to increase the

resilience of ecosystems, the landscape must offer functioning habitats. Aquatic habitats, if

in ‘good status’ will provide refuges for native wildlife and crucial migration corridors. Actions

to promote this objective:

o Protect wetlands and riparian ecosystems, which support species threatened by

climate change

o Prohibit the construction of new barriers to migration like dams and require the

removal or modification of obsolete barriers to facilitate the passage of fish

o Actively manage invasive species via measures to minimise the risk of new arrivals and

to prevent their spread

Integrate water, climate and energy policy objectives: Tackling water scarcity and floods

is best done by reducing water use and adapting land use particularly in floodplains. Such

strategies help reduce our exposure to water scarcity and extreme flood events and at the

same time help to achieve legal environmental targets. Reducing water and energy use is the

most cost-effective approach to achieving multiple objectives. Therefore, SWAN proposes the

following actions:

o Plan for extreme weather conditions when planning or upgrading existing water and

wastewater systems and also identify the means to flood-proof current waste water

treatment plants

o Urgent attention must be given to under-capacity/non-compliant waste water

treatment plants

o Introduce measures to reduce pressures on water supplies and to encourage water

conservation including a public awareness campaign; promote the uptake of efficient

devices and the introduction of metered domestic water charges as soon as possible

(which are designed sensitively to address social concerns); identify and implement

wide measures to effect behavioural change

o Support ambitious water and energy standards for buildings

o Support rainwater harvesting which could feed into domestic non-drinking water

supplies for toilet flushing and would reduce run-off from buildings.

o Investigate the feasibility of dry toilets

o Conduct analysis of all locations for which engineering works for flood protection are

proposed and investigate the feasibility of better environmental alternatives e.g.

floodplain reclamation, especially when flood protection works will impair the wildlife

or amenity value of a waterway

o Introduce measures to ensure that the water sector itself reduces greenhouse gas

emissions. The water and energy saving potential is very significant (see example).

59

There is potential to reduce the carbon footprint and energy bill of water treatment

plants as up to 40% of water is being lost from the distribution network.

Issue 15: What actions do you think we need to take to manage alien species in Ireland?




date, which is not provided.

Secondly, this question goes beyond the scope of the SWMI consultation, the objective of which is to

identify a thorough and complete suite of issues facing the water environment. It is for the consultation

on the draft River Basin Management Plan process to initiate public input regarding measures.

Issue 16: How can we better protect High Status Waters?

This question is comprehensively answered in the EPA STRIVE report on High Status sites141. SWAN

recommends the full implementation of all the recommendations in that report.

141 Ní Chatháin et al (2012)

60

APPENDICES

61

Appendix I: SWAN Member Organisations & Board of Directors

SWAN National Groups SWAN Regional & Local Groups

1. An Taisce 16. Carra Mask Corrib Water

Protection Group 2. Bat Conservation Ireland

3. Birdwatch Ireland 17. Cavan Leitrim Environmental

Awareness Network 4. Coastwatch Europe Network

5. Coomhola Salmon Trust Ltd. 18. Celebrate Water

6. Eco-UNESCO 19. Cork Environmental Forum

7. Friends of the Earth 20. Longford Environmental Alliance

8. Friends of the Irish Environment

9. Irish Doctor's Environmental Association 21. Macroom District Environmental Group

10. Irish Peatland Conservation Council 22. Save Our Lough Derg

11. Irish Seal Sanctuary 23. Save Our Lough Ree

12. Irish Water and Fish Preservation Society 24. Save The Swilly

13. Irish Whale and Dolphin Group

14. Irish Wildlife Trust 25. Shannon Whale & Dolphin

Foundation

15. Voice Of Irish Concern for the

Environment (VOICE)

26. Slaney River Trust

SWAN Board of Directors:

Mark Boyden, Chair Coomhola Salmon Trust

Mindy O’Brien, Vice-Chair Voice of Irish Concern for the Environment (VOICE)

Geoff Cooper, Director Irish Water and Fish Preservation Society

Karin Dubsky, Director Coastwatch Europe

David Healy, Director Friends of the Irish Environment

David Lee, Director Cork Environmental Forum

Elaine Nevin, Director EcoUNESCO

Joachim Schaefer, Director Cavan Leitrim Environmental Awareness Network

Appendix II: SWAN submission on GAPP Regulations


Second Review of Ireland’s Nitrates Action Programme

- Response to Public Consultation -

June 11th 2013


9 Upper Mount Street,

Dublin 2

[email protected]

(01) 642 55 83

mailto:[email protected]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION TO SWAN ............................................................................................................. 1

2. BACKGROUND & CONTEXT TO SWAN SUBMISSION ................................................................. 1

3. TECNICAL REVIEW – INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 2

4. EXISTING ELEMENTS OF THE REGULATIONS IN NEED OF CLARIFICATION OR CHANGE .......... 5

4.1 Silage clamps ........................................................................................................... 5

4.2 Poaching ................................................................................................................... 5

4.3 Nutrient Management ............................................................................................... 6 4.4 Buffer Zones for use of Chemical Fertilisers ............................................................. 9 4.5 Buffer Zones for Potable Water Sources .................................................................. 9 4.6 Buffer Zones for Lakes .............................................................................................. 10 4.7 Buffer Zones for use of Organic Fertilisers beside Watercourses ............................. 10 4.8 FYM Heaps ............................................................................................................... 11 4.9 Buffer Zone and Field Size ....................................................................................... 12 4.10 Conditions for Prohibition on Landspreading .......................................................... 13 4.11 Landspreading Methods ......................................................................................... 14 4.12 Records .................................................................................................................. 14 4.13 Enforcement of the GAP Regulations 2010 ............................................................ 15

5. OMISSIONS FROM THE REGULATIONS ....................................................................................... 16

5.1 Nutrient Transport Pathways .................................................................................. 16

5.2 Derogation Farms ................................................................................................... 17

5.3 Definition of a watercourse ..................................................................................... 17

5.4 Hydraulic Load ....................................................................................................... 18

5.5 Pollution Caused by Silt Runoff .............................................................................. 18

6. SUMMARY OF KEY LIMITATIONS OF THE REGULATIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS THESE ................................................................................................................................................... 21

7. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 23

8. PHOTOGRAPHS............................................................................................................................... 28

Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... I

I. SWAN Member Organisations ............................................................................... I

II. SWAN Board of Directors ..................................................................................... II

1

1. INTRODUCTION TO SWAN

The Sustainable Water Network (SWAN) is an umbrella network of 25 of Ireland’s leading environmental NGOs, national and regional, working together to protect and enhance Ireland’s aquatic resources through coordinated participation in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and other water-related policy and legislation. SWAN member groups are listed in Appendix l. SWAN has been actively engaged in Water Framework Directive (WFD) and other water policy implementation at both national and River Basin District (RBD) level since 2004, responding to water-related public consultations and representing the environmental sector on WFD River Basin District (RBD) Advisory Councils, the South Eastern RBD Management Group and other water policy-related fora. In 2012 SWAN published the report ‘The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP): Interactions with the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and implications for the status of Ireland’s waters’.

2. BACKGROUND & CONTEXT TO SWAN SUBMISSION

SWAN’s welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Second Review of Ireland’s Nitrates Action Programme. This response follows SWAN’s comprehensive 2010 response to the Consultation on the Draft European Communities (Good Agricultural Practice for Protection of Waters) Regulations 2010. Many of the recommendations in the current document are a reiteration of those set out in our 2010 submission, since all the substantive points made by SWAN during that consultation are still pertinent and are not reflected in the current Regulations. This document has been updated to include inter alia a review of recent research on nutrient transport pathways, including from the Agricultural Catchments Project and an increased focus on high status sites. Reservations regarding the consultation

As set out in correspondence with the Department of Environment, Community & Local Government (DECLG), SWAN believes that the consultation period of 6 weeks was too short for an issue as technical as the review of the Nitrates Action Plan and that all the necessary information was not available for a sufficient length of time to facilitate stakeholders making a fully informed response. SWAN acknowledges that the Department made the first stage report of the Agricultural Catchments Programme ACP report (and the EPA Article 29(2) report) available to us as soon as possible. However, this was midway through the consultation period and did not allow adequate time for full consideration of this substantial report. We wish to reiterate our position that the consultation ran counter to the spirit and letter of the Aarhus Convention which requires that ‘Each Party shall make appropriate practical and/or other provisions for the public to participate during the preparation of plans and programmes relating to the environment, within a transparent and fair framework, having provided the necessary information to the public’. SWAN presents this document as the most comprehensive response possible given the above constraints.

2

3. TECHNICAL REVIEW OF IRELAND’S NITRATES ACTION PROGRAMME:

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to provide a review of the agri-environmental elements of Ireland’s Nitrates Action

Programme, which is implemented through the current European Communities (Good Agricultural Practice for

Protection of Waters) Regulations 2010 S.I. No. 610. Therefore, an assessment and critical analysis of the

effectiveness of the GAP Regulations in protecting the aquatic environment under the requirements of the Nitrates

Directive and Water Framework Directive (WFD) was conducted to form a technical submission on this

consultation.

In Ireland, water quality of ‘seriously polluted’ and ‘polluted’ stretches of rivers have been gradually improving

over the years (Lucey, 2007; Clabby et al., 2008; McGarrigle et al., 2010). However, as the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) state in the most recent report on biological water quality (for the 2007-2009 reporting

period), only 52% of rivers and 47.3% of lakes attained the Good or High Ecological Status required under the

WFD (the EPA’s 2010-2012 Water Quality Report has not yet been published). These low percentages are of

grave concern, considering that the WFD minimum objective of Good Ecological Status is not being attained in

approximately half the rivers and lakes of the country. Examination of the EPA results for the Corrib Hydrometric

Area (HA 30), available on http://www.epa.ie/qvalue/webusers, shows that at 18.8% of the sites assessed in 2012,

the biological water quality had dropped from that recorded on the last monitoring occasion, in 2009, which runs

counter to the WFD requirement for no deterioration.

In addition to the WFD, which applies to all waterbodies, the European Communities Environmental Objectives

(Freshwater Pearl Mussel) Regulations 2009 (S.I. 296 of 2009) applies to 27 river catchments listed in the First

Schedule 1 of these regulations. Under the Fourth Schedule of these regulations, the ecological quality objectives

set for freshwater pearl mussel habitat is a high Ecological Quality Ratio of 0.9 EQR (equivalent to Q4-5 on the

EPA Q-scheme). The Freshwater Pearl Mussel Regulations 2009 require the Minister for the Environment,

Heritage and Local Government to prepare a programme of measures for the attainment of the ecological

objectives in the appropriate rivers, or stretches of river.

The EPA’s Article 10 report concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from

agricultural sources states that there is an ‘overall improvement in nitrate concentrations’ in Ireland, with

reductions attributed to ‘large rainfall, reduced fertiliser applications, improvement in storage facilities and

implementation of landspreading restrictions’ (EPA, 2012a). However, within the same document it is reported

that 34% of national sampling stations are still polluted and of poor-moderate status regarding nitrate levels. The

http://www.epa.ie/qvalue/webusers

3

most recent Integrated Water Quality (IWQ) reports show that the south-east region of the country is suffering

from high phosphate and nitrate levels (EPA, 2012b). Forty-five percent of rivers did not attain good status for

phosphate and 57% did not attain good status with respect to nitrates. Similar was reported in the

Louth/Monaghan region with only 5 river sites obtaining high quality status, with elevated levels of phosphate and

nitrate being of particular concern in the remaining areas (EPA, 2012c).

A common pressure identified among the three IWQ reports and McGarrigle et al. (2010) was diffuse emissions

from agriculture to surface and ground waters resulting in nutrient enrichment. In Ireland, agricultural land covers

63% of the land area, dominated by grassland based farming, and is accountable for 70% of phosphorus and

82% of nitrogen in surface waters (Humphreys, 2008). Consequently, due to these pressures, high ecological

status sites are in decline. Since 1987, high status sites have fallen from 30% to 17% for the period 2006-2008

(McGarrigle et al., 2010). The deterioration of these high status waters is not permitted under the WFD. The

current review process of the European Communities (Good Agricultural Practice for Protection of Waters)

Regulations 2010 (GAP Regulations 2010) is an opportunity to make the essential improvements and

modifications required to ensure compliance with the WFD and prevent deterioration of Irish waters. The GAP

Regulations 2010 are not designed to protect our high status waters and may actually increase pressures on

these sites. This is because many high status watercourses run through rural unimproved lands that under these

Regulations can be subject to fertilisation. The GAP Regulations 2010 are aimed at maximising agricultural gains

and this is not the manner in which Ireland can protect its high status waters and bring all other waters to good

ecological status.

Diffuse pollution and nutrient enrichment from the agricultural sector are of major concern for all waters in the

coming years as the Food Harvest 2020 strategy will promote extra production and yields. The main targets of

this strategy are to increase milk production by 50%, increase beef and sheep outputs by 20%, and increase pig

outputs by 50% (DAFF, 2011). The increase in dairy production will potentially pose a significant threat to water

quality, as expressed by the EPA (2012d). Therefore, it is imperative that this is carried out in a sustainable

manner that will not negatively impact on the quality of Irish waters and thus, the measures of the NAP and their

review are timely and pertinent.

The main problem areas in the Regulations that have been identified in this report are:

Use of imprecise terms and definitions that would make enforcement difficult.

Agricultural requirements taking precedence over water quality needs.

Insufficient buffer zones to protect waters.

4

Inadequate methods of assessment of the risks of nutrient runoff.

Omission of a well established major source of pollution.

The review of the regulations is divided into three main sections. Report Section 1 contains existing elements of

the regulations that are of concern, accompanied with an explanation of the issue and suggested remediation.

Report Section 2 includes topics that have been omitted from the regulations which are considered to be of

importance in the protection of waters from current agricultural practices. Section 3 provides a summary of the

limitations and weaknesses of the Regulations and corresponding recommendations.

5

4. EXISTING ELEMENTS OF THE REGULATIONS IN NEED OF CLARIFICATION

OR CHANGE

4.1 Silage Clamps

In the Regulations, silage clamps should be mentioned as a structure that is required to be maintained in good repair to

prevent runoff to waters that causes water pollution. In Part 2, Farmyard Management, under Articles 5, 6 and 7 that refer

to the collection, holding, management and storage of certain substances, structures such as dungsteads, manure pits and

silage pits are mentioned, for example:

5.(1) Livestock manure and other organic fertilisers, soiled water and effluents from dungsteads, farmyard manure pits

or silage pits arising or produced in a building or yard on a holding shall, prior to its application to land or other treatment,

be collected and held in a manner that prevents the run-off or seepage, directly or indirectly, into groundwaters or surface

waters of such substances.

Silage clamps differ from silage pits, which have built sides, whereas a silage clamp consists of a solid base on

which the harvested forage is placed and covered with black polyethylene sheeting (O’Kiely & Forristal, 2003).

The edges are sealed by weighting them with items such as soil or sandbags and the remainder covered with a

layer of tyres. Runoff from silage clamps poses a threat to waters, especially in karst areas (Drew, 1996). To

avoid ambiguity, both terms should be included in these Regulations. Anywhere the term silage pit is used, the

term silage clamp should be added to the text.

4.2 Poaching

A precise definition of ‘severe poaching’ should be included. In Part 2, under Reduced Storage Capacity in Certain

Circumstances, Article 3(d) states that poaching of land must not be severe:

(3) Sub-article (2) shall apply only in relation to a holding where all the following conditions are met—

(a) all the lands used for out-wintering of the livestock are comprised in the holding,

(b) the out-wintered livestock have free access at all times to the required lands,

(c) the amount of manure produced on the holding does not exceed an amount containing 140kg of nitrogen per hectare per annum,

(d) severe damage to the surface of the land by poaching does not occur, and

(e) the reduction in storage capacity is proportionate to the extent of out-wintered livestock on the holding.

The term ‘severe damage’ is very vague and does not quantify the damage resulting from the poaching of land

by livestock. This poaching may be uniform throughout the field or may be isolated to areas along river banks due

to livestock access for a drinking water supply and centred around feeding units or by gateways. Therefore, the

6

Regulations should clarify whether the damage refers to the average over the entire plot, or within given areas.

The degree of poaching should be specified by the percentage of bare soil, for which there could be a classification

system or a stated unacceptable percentage cut-off point. For an unacceptable degree of poaching in plots

adjoining watercourses, lakes or wells, the following cut-off points are suggested: 30% bare soil over an entire

plot and 50% bare soil in a 100m² area.

4.3 Nutrient Management

To avoid contamination of waters with nutrients, changes to the Nutrient Management section of the Regulations

are needed. In Part 3, under Article 15, maximum levels of nutrients to be applied to land are specified, in order

to avoid contamination to waters. A fundamental flaw in the Regulations is that the assessed risk of nutrient loss

from soils to water is based almost entirely on soil phosphorus levels measured by the standard test carried out

by Teagasc which was developed for the purpose of giving agricultural recommendations and not for assessing

the desorption of phosphorus from soils.

Although originally designed as an agronomic indicator of P requirements for crop growth, soil test Phosphorus

is often used to indicate risk of P loss from agricultural areas (Daly, 2005). However, phosphorus

sorption/desorption processes in soils are affected by a number of factors, including soil phosphorus

concentration, soil type, water content, pH, organic carbon content, iron and aluminium ion concentrations and

redox potential. Drying/re-wetting cycles in soil also increase the quantity and change the forms of phosphorus

available as potentially mobile phosphorus in soil (Doody et al., 2006). The results of tests published by Hooda

et al. (2000) showed that the amount of P desorbed had no relationship with total soil P content, and that the most

significant property was the extent of P saturation. Börling et al. (2004) also found that extractable phosphorus

could not be used alone for prediction of potential P release. Schedule 1 of the Regulations specifies soil

phosphorus testing, using Morgan’s extractable P test on soil samples taken to 100 mm depth. This is the standard

phosphorus test carried out for many years by Teagasc. Measuring dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP) in

overland flow and Morgan’s P values at two sites, Daly (2005) concluded that “Morgan’s P to 10 cm gave a good

indication of the relative difference in DRP loss between the two sites”. However, in a study of eleven sites in the

UK, Hooda et al. (2000) found that soil test phosphorus values extracted with water correlated best with the

amount of phosphorus desorbed, while values obtained using acidified ammonium oxalate proved to be least

effective. Morgan’s extractable P test, which uses acidified ammonium acetate, was not included in the study.

The degree of phosphorus saturation (DPS) has been suggested as a method to characterise the potential for

phosphorus loss from agricultural soils. Soils with a higher DPS are considered to pose a greater risk of

phosphorus loss because they maintain higher solution phosphorus concentrations, and eroded soil particles will

be enriched in potentially desorbable phosphorus (Pautler and Sims, 2000). The DPS can be calculated from the

7

P, Al, and Fe removed in a single acid ammonium oxalate extraction (van der Zee and van Riemsdijk, 1988).

Upper DPS limits can then be set to prevent soil phosphorus levels from increasing to the point where they

represent a risk of excessive phosphorus loss. Critical DPS values of 25% to 40% in the soil profile to the depth

of the mean high water table have been proposed for protection of surface and groundwaters in the Netherlands

and Belgium (Breeuwsma et al., 1995; de Smet et al., 1995).

Soil type was found by Jordan et al. (2004) to be an important factor when linking phosphorus transfer process

to catchment patterns in three lowland Irish grassland catchments. Daly and Mills (2006) concluded that soil type

in Irish catchments can be described in terms of P desorption risk and run-off risk and these risk factors can be

used to define areas of low to very high risk. Yet, in the Regulations, the only differentiation between soil types is

between those above or below 20% organic matter. Daly et al. (2002) associated STP levels with river

concentrations of MRP and found there was a significant difference between the risk of diffuse P emissions

between peatland dominated soils compared with well drained, predominantly brown earth, soils. Thus, high

production grassland on peatland soils poses a significant risk to water quality. Many high status sites are located

in catchments dominated by peatlands (Irvine & Ní Chuanigh, 2011) and the application of P to peatland soils

would negatively impact on these high status sites, contrary to the objectives of the WFD. The application of P to

peatland soils (organic content >20%) should not be permitted unless soil tests and a risk analysis are conducted

of the potential impact area.

Under Part 3 Article 16.2(a) the Regulations state that ‘the phosphorus index for soils shall be deemed to be a

phosphorus index 3 unless a soil test indicates that a different phosphorus index is appropriate in relation to that

soil’.

The current soil test method in the Regulations, Morgan’s P, categorises soil P into four levels. The Regulations

currently permit application of fertilizer to Index 3 soils (5.1-8 mg/l P). However, Tunney et al. (2010) showed that

maximum beef production occurred at 4.1-6.4 mg/l Morgan’s P. Applications of P to soils with P concentrations

towards the upper boundary of Index 3 are incompatible with the protection of high status water (Irvine & Ní

Chuanigh, 2011). The presumption made in the Regulations that untested soils are Index 3 is a serious flaw, as

this potentially allows application of fertilizer to Index 4 soils, which have excessive P for agricultural production

and would dramatically increase the risk of nutrient transfer to waterbodies. Wall et al. (2013) states that 32-34%

of grassland samples (n=45113) in Ireland fall into the P index 4 category. Thus, the Regulations must not

presume the P index level of soils and should require the occupier/landowner to provide a soil test inventory for

farms as ‘the risk with absent soil P test data is high application in already high soil P status soils’ (Jordan et al.,

2012). The absence of soil tests is not acceptable and currently the requirement in the regulations is testing only

8

at a six year interval. This interval must be reduced as soil P can build up in the intervening time (Irvine & Ní

Chuanigh, 2011). Currently, under Teagasc’s Code of Practice for Soil Sampling it is stated that soil sampling

should be conducted ‘every 3 years in intensive farming’ (Teagasc, 2010). It is therefore recommended that the

soil testing interval in the Regulations be reduced to every three years and that a requirement be added to the

Regulations that this soil test data be used to employ a farm-scale nutrient plan.

In Schedule 2 of the Regulations, pertaining to nutrient management, the following statement permits over-

fertilisation of soils which are already high in phosphorus: ‘Manure produced by grazing livestock on a holding

may be applied to Index 4 soils on that holding in a situation where there is a surplus of such manure remaining

after the phosphorus fertilisation needs of all crops on soils at phosphorus indices 1, 2 or 3 on the holding have

been met by the use only of such manure produced on the holding.’ This statement does not allow for the

protection of waters and would only be of benefit to a farmer for the disposal of excess animal waste. Excess

nutrients would enter waterbodies, which, if this were to lead to a deterioration in water quality, would be contrary

to the aims of the Water Framework Directive. This provision for spreading organic fertiliser on Index 4 soils must

be removed from the Regulations.

In a situation where there is a surplus of manure remaining after the phosphorus fertilisation needs of all crops

on soils at phosphorus indices 1, 2 or 3 on the holding have been met by the use of such manure produced on

the holding, under the current Regulations, the excess manure would be allowed to be spread on other previously

unimproved land. Given that many of the high status sites on watercourses monitored by EPA are clustered in

lands of low agricultural intensity of the south-west and west (McGarrigle et al., 2010), if previously unimproved

lands are allowed to be fertilized in this way, deterioration in water quality caused by nutrient runoff is likely in

sensitive catchments. This would be non-compliant with the no-deterioration clause of the WFD. Furthermore, as

the majority of the river catchments listed in the First Schedule of the Freshwater Pearl Mussel Regulations 2009

are located in areas of low agricultural intensity in the west and south-west, fertilizing of unimproved lands in

these catchments is in direct conflict with the ecological quality objective of High Status for these rivers, as set

out in the Fourth Schedule of these regulations.

For compliance with the WFD and the Freshwater Pearl Mussel Regulations 2009, the GAP Regulations 2010

must be changed to prohibit the spreading of fertiliser on previously unfertilised and unimproved soils.

9

4.4 Buffer Zones for use of Chemical Fertilisers

Distances from watercourses and lakes for the spreading of chemical fertilisers need to be amended to protect

water quality of aquatic habitats. In Part 4, Prevention of Water Pollution from Fertilisers and Certain Activities,

under Article 17(1) the buffer zone specified between watercourses and areas for spreading chemical fertilisers

if far too small:

17. (1) Chemical fertiliser shall not be applied to land within 2 metres of a surface watercourse.

Partinson et al. (2000), looking at runoff from grassland in southwest England, treated with both inorganic and

organic fertiliser, concluded that ‘an untreated buffer zone at least 10m wide is an important management tool for

the control of N losses to water courses’. Stream-side buffer zones of 10m width, in which activities including

application of inorganic fertiliser are prohibited, are also specified in the Forestry and Water Quality Guidelines

(Forest Service, 2000) for moderate slopes (0-15%), with the width increasing for highly erodible soils and steeper

slopes. The Regulations should specify a buffer zone of 10m along surface watercourse, within which inorganic

fertiliser should not be spread.

4.5 Buffer Zones for Potable Water Sources

Distances from potable water supplies for the spreading of organic fertilisers and soiled water need to be amended

to protect human health. In Part 4, Prevention of Water Pollution from Fertilisers and Certain Activities, under

Article 17(2) the distances that must be kept from waters intended for human consumption when applying organic

fertiliser or soiled water to land decrease as the volume of water and number of people being supplied also

decrease:

(2) Organic fertiliser or soiled water shall not be applied to land within—

(a) subject to sub-article (5), 200m of the abstraction point of any surface watercourse, borehole, spring or well used for the abstraction of water for human consumption in a water scheme supplying 100m3 or more of water per day or serving 500 or more persons,

(b) subject to sub-article (5), 100m of the abstraction point (other than an abstraction point specified at paragraph (a)) of any surface watercourse, borehole, spring or well used for the abstraction of water for human consumption in a water scheme supplying 10m3 or more of water per day or serving 50 or more persons,

(c) subject to sub-article (5), 25m of any borehole, spring or well used for the abstraction of water for human consumption other than a borehole, spring or well specified at paragraph (a) or (b),

In rural Ireland many people depend on group water schemes or private wells for a drinking water supply, many

of which are at risk from contamination and often not treated or treatment in not consistent (Cormican et al., 2012).

Many pathogens, such as Escherichia coli 0157:H7, Salmonella sp., Campylobacter sp., Yersinia sp.,

10

Cryptosporidium sp. and Giardia sp., are present in organic animal manures and can impact on human health

and well-being (LeChevallier & Au, 2004). All of the latter mentioned pathogens are listed as notifiable infectious

diseases under the Infectious Diseases Regulations 2011. In Ireland, faecal contamination of waterbodies rapidly

increases after rainfall events (Cormican et al., 2012) as pathogens can remain viable and survive on grass and

in the upper layers of soil for greater than one week (Fenlon et al., 2000). Group water schemes, especially in the

west of Ireland, have ruminant faecal contamination numerous times a year (Cormican et al., 2012) and 12% of

group water schemes were contaminated at least once in 2010 (EPA, 2010). In order to protect human health,

the distance of application of organic fertilizer or soiled water from a drinking water abstraction point should be

the same regardless of the number of people the drinking water scheme serves. The risk of contamination to a

drinking water source and to an individual’s health does not increase as the volume of water being abstracted

increases. Therefore, the distance maintained from a well supplying a single household or from a source supplying

greater than 500 persons should be equal and of 200m.

4.6 Buffer Zones for Lakes

Distance from lakes (including turloughs) for the spreading of organic fertilisers and soiled water need to be

clarified. In Part 4, Prevention of Water Pollution from Fertilisers and Certain Activities, under Article 17(2)(d) the

distances that must be kept from lake shorelines when applying organic fertiliser or soiled water to land is 20m.

Lake surface levels in Ireland can fluctuate considerably. The Regulations should specify clearly that what is

meant by the shoreline is the normal high water level. Lands flooded regularly above this level would be covered

under Article 18(2).

Turloughs should be specifically referred to in the Regulations, particularly because they are listed in Annex I of

the EU Habitats Directive as a priority habitat. Spreading of organic fertilisers or soiled water should not be

allowed at any time within the area covered in winter by a turlough, nor within 20m of the winter water level at any

time of year where the slope of the land around the turlough is greater than 10%. Where the slope is less than

10%, spreading of organic fertilisers or soiled water should not be allowed within 10m of the winter water level

from April to August, inclusive, and within 20m of the winter water level at other times of year when land spreading

is permitted.

4.7 Buffer Zones for use of Organic Fertilisers beside Watercourses

Distances from watercourses for the spreading of organic fertilisers need to be amended to protect water quality

of aquatic habitats. In Part 4, Prevention of Water Pollution from Fertilisers and Certain Activities, under Article

17(2)(f) the distances that must be kept from watercourse when applying organic fertiliser or soiled water to land

11

is 5m. The Regulations also state that ‘Notwithstanding sub-articles 2(f) and 13, organic fertilizer or soiled water

shall not be applied to land within 10m of any surface waters where the land has an average incline greater than

10% towards the water’.

Kronvang et al. (2003), examined runoff from grassland in Denmark with slopes varying from 2% to 20%, with an

average of 7%. The median buffer zone width between grassland and watercourses was 8.3m and resulted in

median dissolved phosphorus concentration in surface runoff being 0.18 mg/l P. Therefore, a designated buffer

strip should also include land with a slope of less than 10%. Heathwaite et al. (1998) found that a 10m buffer strip

between a watercourse and grassland plots with a 10% slope on which slurry was applied only resulted in a 10%

reduction in export of phosphorus. In light of this, the specification if Article 17(9) of the Regulations needs to be

revised. Plots with a slope less than 10% should have a minimum distance of 10m and those with a slope of

greater than 10%, a minimum distance of 20m between a watercourse and spreadlands should be imposed.

In relation to buffer strips and the application of inorganic or organic fertilisers near waterbodies, their

effectiveness is dependent on the buffer zone width and nutrient transfer pathway within that catchment

(Mellander et al., 2012). In catchments with permeable soils and geology, separate mitigation measures of both

diffuse N and P delivery for subsurface pathways will need to be considered as measures that target surface

transfer pathways, such as buffer strips, may be ineffective. Nutrient transfer pathways are not addressed within

the GAP Regulations and this is a serious omission that will be dealt with in Section 2 of this report.

4.8 FYM Heaps

The acceptable size of farmyard manure heaps stored in fields needs to be specified. Under article 17(3) the

regulations require farmyard manure that is stored in a field to be held in a compact heap and distances from

where this can be placed in relation to waters are stated:

(3) Where farmyard manure is held in a field prior to landspreading it shall be held in a compact heap and shall not be

placed within–

(a) 250m of the abstraction point of any surface watercourse or borehole, spring or well used for the abstraction of water for human consumption in a water scheme supplying 10m3 or more of water per day or serving 50 or more persons,

(b) 50m of any other borehole, spring or well used for the abstraction of water for human consumption other than a borehole, spring or well specified at paragraph (a),

(c) 20m of a lake shoreline,

(d) 50m of exposed cavernous or karstified limestone features (such as swallow-holes and collapse features),

(e) 10m of a surface watercourse (other than a lake or a surface watercourse specified at paragraph (a)).

12

The volume, weight or dimensions of this compact manure heap is not stated and therefore, a farmer could store

a manure heap of unrestricted size 10m from a surface watercourse. A categorised system should be introduced

where increasing volume or weight of the manure increases the distance from a watercourse or lake that the

manure heap could be stored on the land prior to land spreading. As with Article 17(2), Article 17(3) also

distinguishes between water supplies providing different water volumes and serving different numbers of people

in relation to the proximity of a manure heap from a water abstraction point. Once again, the risk of contamination

of a source drinking water supply is not influenced by the number of people the water scheme serves. Thus, the

Regulations should specify that all manure heaps should be stored at least 250m from an abstraction point

intended for human consumption.

4.9 Buffer Zone and Field Size

Reduced distances from watercourses for the spreading of organic fertilisers and soiled water should not be

included in the Regulations. Article 17(8) outlines circumstances where the allocated 5m distance that must be

kept from a surface watercourse when applying organic fertilisers or soiled water to land can be reduced to 3m:

(8) The distance of 5m specified in sub-article (2)(f) may be reduced to 3m where one of the following conditions is met—

(a) the watercourse is an open drain, or

(b) the area of land adjacent to the watercourse is a narrow parcel of land not exceeding one hectare in area and not more than 50m in width.

Article 17(8)(a) highlights the need for a clear definition of the term ‘watercourse’ (see Report Section 2, below).

Even if the channel is a man-made drain, if water is flowing, contaminants could enter a more significant and

important waterbody, possibly only a short distance downstream.

This compromise presented in 17(8)(b) is evidently made for agricultural purposes. For protecting the aquatic

habitat, the size of a field should not influence the distance that should be kept from a surface watercourse when

applying such matter to land. Irrespective of the area or width or an adjoining field, reducing this distance to 3m

significantly increases the risk of contamination of a surface watercourse. The distance from which land

applications should be kept from all surface watercourses should nowhere in the Regulations be reduced to less

than 10m.

13

4.10 Conditions for Prohibition on Landspreading The specifics of the conditions when landspreading is prohibited are too vague and need to be elaborated upon.

Article 18(2) details conditions when organic fertilisers or soiled water cannot be applied to land:

18. (2) Fertilisers or soiled water shall not be applied to land in any of the following circumstances—

(a) the land is waterlogged;

(b) the land is flooded or likely to flood;

(c) the land is snow-covered or frozen;

(d) heavy rain is forecast within 48 hours, or

(e) the ground slopes steeply and, taking into account factors such as proximity to waters, soil condition, ground

cover and rainfall, there is significant risk of causing water pollution.

The terminology used in parts (b), (d) and (e) of ‘likely to flood’, ‘heavy rain’ and ‘significant risk of causing water

pollution’ respectively are very vague and, in their present form, leave the interpretation to a decision made by

the farmer. What may be considered as significant risk by one individual may not be by another. Farmers who

might want or need to apply organic fertilisers and/or soiled waters to land that is unsuitable, might be able to

justify a decision to do so and avoid being penalised because the wording of this Article is too loose.

Land that is ‘likely to flood’ should be defined, possibly by reference to where the wording ‘Liable to Floods’

appears on the OS 1:1560 maps. In areas that are so depicted, organic fertiliser and soiled water should not be

spread at times when there is insufficient plant growth to take up the nutrients before the next flooding event

occurs. In such areas, no landspreading should be allowed from October to March, inclusive, to avoid nutrients

and organic matter being washed off.

‘Heavy rainfall’ should to be defined as a specific number of millimetres of rain during a set time period, forecast

by Met Éireann. Over 8mm in a 3 hour period, or over 24mm in a 24 hour period is suggested.

Too many factors are involved in part (e) to make tighter definitions to the current wording possible. In Article 3(1),

‘steep slope’ is defined as ground which has an average incline of 20% or more in the case of grassland or 15%

or more in the case of other land. It would be best if the Regulations simply prohibited any spreading of organic

fertilisers or soiled water on such steeply sloping land if there are any waters within 100m downhill of the

spreadlands.

4.11 Landspreading Methods

14

Landspreading practices need to be better controlled to avoid accidental contamination of watercourses. Article

18(4) details restrictions of methods by which organic fertilisers or soiled water can be applied to land:

(4) Organic fertilisers or soiled water shall not be applied to land—

(a) by use of an umbilical system with an upward-facing splashplate,

(b) by use of a tanker with an upward-facing splashplate,

(c) by use of a sludge irrigator mounted on a tanker, or

(d) from a road or passageway adjacent to the land irrespective of whether or not the road or passageway is within

or outside the curtilage of the holding.

The use of an umbilical system is presented in these regulations as an acceptable method for applying organic

fertilisers and soiled water to land. However, codes of good practice do not exist for this application method, only

that it cannot be used with an upward facing splashplate. The umbilical system is one which operates with the

pump in the effluent/slurry tank and a long flexible pipe rolled out, often very long distances, from the tank to the

tractor which is dispersing the effluent on the land. Problems can arise in a number of ways. The joints can pull

apart or be blown apart under pressure especially if the effluent being spread contains solids, which can block

the pipe. Another source of problem is when the pipe splits, due to it being dragged around repeatedly, when it

can catch in objects such as rocks, hedges and branches of trees. If these problems occur in the vicinity of a

surface water, this can lead to an immediate water pollution incident. Therefore, there is a need to specify in the

Regulations that the umbilical system should be constantly kept in good repair, not be laid out within specified

distances of surface waters (20m would seem reasonable) and that the pipe is kept under constant surveillance

while in use.

4.12 Records

In Part 5, General, under Article 23(k) only the location of water abstraction points for human consumption must

be recorded by the occupier:

(k) the location of any abstraction point of water used for human consumption from any surface watercourse,

borehole, spring or well.

The Regulations should specify that the location and course of all surface waters on an occupier’s land should be

mapped and recorded so as to facilitate the inspection of farmlands. In this process, consulting the Ordnance

Survey of Ireland website (http://maps.osi.ie/publicviewer), on which identified watercourses are marked in blue

on the 1:25000 scale map, is recommended.

15

4.13 Enforcement of the GAP Regulations 2010

Many of the findings from the Agricultural Catchments Programme provide strong evidence of real flaws in relation

to nutrient management (Buckley, 2010; Wall et al. 2012b), risk assessment of nutrient losses from agricultural

soils (Jordan et al. 2012) and slurry application methods (Hennessy et al. 2011). The argument that the GAP

Regulations 2010 are excessively onerous has little merit, given their weaknesses in relation to water protection,

as outlined in this review. It is clear that the provisions not only need to be broadened, strengthened and clarified

but also rigorously enforced.

DAFM carry out nitrates inspections, mostly on intensive farms, on behalf of the Local Authorities from early

January. Cross-compliance checks are carried out later in the year. Twenty three percent of farmers who received

a nitrates inspection in 2009 suffered a penalty (www.farmersjournal.ie) however there is little readily available

information on the magnitude of the penalties imposed or the specific causes of the breaches. Of 1,599 farm

inspections finalised by DAFM on behalf of the Local Authorities up to mid-May 2011, 35.5% received a penalty

for non-compliance, mostly (98%) related to the farmyard and failure to minimise soiled water (Irvine & Ní

Chuanaigh, 2011). It is suspected that the nitrates inspections are inadequate for detecting poor slurry spreading

practices given that only one visit is conducted early in the year when most slurry is spread. Furthermore, it is

impossible to enforce the buffer strip requirement unless an inspection occurs either at the time, or with 48 hours,

of slurry spreading. The lack of annual reporting on regulation compliance and on the application of compliance

penalties hinders assessment of the implementation of the GAP Regulations 2010 in Ireland.

A provision in the Regulations for an annual compliance assessment report, which is publicly available, is

recommended, which includes data on inspection and compliance rates and enforcement sanctions.

The Regulations should also be amended so that additional spot-checks are provided for, especially during slurry

spreading season, without prior notification to the landowner.

16

5. OMISSIONS FROM THE REGULATIONS

5.1 Nutrient Transport Pathways

The current measures in the Regulations aim to mitigate nutrients at source in order to reduce the risk of diffuse

nutrient loss to water, while allowing soil phosphorus levels across all catchments to increase to Index 3. A

significant omission in the action programme is the consideration of nutrient loss risk from these soils based on

soil hydrology and transfer pathways. This was highlighted by the Agricultural Catchments Programme as a major

factor in determining the risk of nutrient loss to waters. There is a high risk of nutrient loss from agricultural soils

when pressures from nutrient sources coincide with pathways of nutrient transfer. Schulte et al. (2006) has

identified the elements that influence the risk of nutrient loss from Irish soils; soil nutrient levels, land use, grass

growth season and droughts, and the key pathway factors are soil drainage capacity and the quantity, seasonality

and intensity of rainfall. Therefore, further limiting the timing, magnitude and placement of fertilizer applications in

conjunction with the above nutrient pressure and pathway factors would reduce diffuse nutrient loss to water.

Currently, the regulations do not incorporate all these factors and have included measures that place further

pressures from nutrient sources on waterbodies. These have previously been highlighted in Section 1 of this

report and include:

Sole use of the soil test method Morgan’s P to characterise the potential for phosphorus loss from

agricultural soils,

Only one soil type differentiation of less than or greater than 20% organic matter,

Allowing all soils to increase to Index 3,

Allowing application of manure to Index 4 soils,

Allowing previously unimproved land to be subject to fertilization,

Inadequate soil testing intervals,

Inadequate buffer zones,

Inadequate specifications of definitions pertaining to fertilizer application regarding rainfall events,

soil conditions and sloping lands.

Nutrient source pressures and transfer pathways vary considerably throughout different regions of the country

(Schulte et al., 2006) and Archbold et al. (2010) has defined hydrological pathway categories for the Irish

landscape. Nitrate is highly mobile in soil water and is typically leached from a surface source to groundwater and

enters a waterbody via subsurface pathways (Jioa et al., 2012). Phosphorus transfer pathways are dominated by

overland flow, but may also leach to groundwater, and are very much dictated by diffuse sources from rainfall-

events (Jordan et al. 2007; 2012). Transfer pathways within a catchment depend on soil permeability and geology.

17

In a study of five Irish catchments of varying soil type, and P and N transfer risk, significant differences were found

in P attenuation and loss between catchments (Wall et al., 2012). The less intensive catchments that had a lower

proportion of Index 4 fields, and therefore may be considered less risky, in conjunction with their soil hydrology

properties actually posed a greater risk to waterbodies (Jordan et al., 2012). The catchments with permeable soils

were dominated by subsurface N transfer pathways and those of poor-moderate drained soils were characterized

by near-surface and surface P pathways (Mellander et al., 2012). Thus, from the above research it is evident that

P indices are not sufficient to indicate the risk of P loss from agricultural soils and that the aforementioned nutrient

sources and transfer pathways must be considered in nutrient loss risk assessment since the management of

source pressures alone will not yield the expected reductions in P loss from land to water (Jordan et al., 2012).

This is essential if the requirements of the WFD are to be met because there is a 7-15 year time lag between

implementation of mitigation measures and desired outcomes (Schulte et al. 2010; Wall et al., 2013).

To this end, a defined nutrient transport risk assessment should be included in the regulations to be carried out

at farm and catchment level. This should include a transport metric with transfer pathways. Jordan et al. (2012)

recommend the use of a runoff flashiness metric (Jordan et al., 2005), which incorporates flowpath measurement

in P transfer risk assessment. The nutrient transport risk assessment should be coupled with an annual fertilisation

farm plan. Nutrients should not be applied to land at times when the nutrient transport risk assessment indicates

that nutrient loss pathways are present. This farm and catchment scale management approach would be more

beneficial and effective than a national ‘one rule fits all’ method.

5.2 Derogation Farms

Derogation farms are required under the GAP Regulations to submit fertilisation plans, however the risk of nutrient

loss is based on soil P indices. As mentioned above, there are many factors that influence the loss of nutrients to

water and these must be incorporated in the risk assessment of derogation farms. Currently, these plans are not

sufficient at assessing the risk to waterbodies. It is recommended that farms which apply for derogation should

be required to consult with National Parks and Wildlife Service for approval, as these farms may be near to or

within Special Areas of Conservation and could put their conservation status at risk.

5.3 Definition of a Watercourse

Although ‘waters’ is defined a watercourse is not. The definition of a watercourse should be added to the current list of

definitions in the Regulations because, although the word watercourse is specifically used in these regulations, no

explanation of the term watercourse is given, for example:

17(1) Chemical fertiliser shall not be applied to land within 1.5 metres of a surface watercourse

18

(8) The distance of 5m specified in sub-article (2)(f) may be reduced to 3m where one of the following conditions is met—

(a) the watercourse is an open drain, or

(b) the area of land adjacent to the watercourse is a narrow parcel of land not exceeding one hectare in area and

not more than 50m in width.

The definition of a watercourse could be from the REPS 4 Planner Specification (Dept. Agriculture and Food, 2007), which

states: a watercourse is defined as a channel that in the average year conveys water throughout 9 months. This definition

is, however, made somewhat vague by the term ‘average year’. It would be best if all waterbodies were mapped on an

individual farm basis, as outlined under the recommendations for changes to Article 23(k) above.

5.4 Hydraulic Load

The maximum hydraulic load for landspreading should be specified in the Regulations. The preparation of a Code of Good

Agricultural Practice to protect waters from pollution by nitrates was a requirement under the Nitrates Directive (DoE and

DAFF, 1996). Part of this code, implemented by farmers on a voluntary basis, was that the maximum hydraulic loading per

single application of organic fertiliser and soiled water should not exceed 50m³ per hectare or 25m³ in karst areas (Brogan

et al., 2002). These maximum hydraulic loads should be made compulsory.

5.5 Pollution Caused by Silt Runoff

The problems caused by silt runoff from agricultural land to waters is not dealt with in the Regulations. This is a

very serious omission, considering that in an EPA press release on 16 December 2009 silt is identified as being

one of the major causes of water pollution

(http://www.epa.ie/newsandevents/news/previous/2009/name,48028,en.html):

30% of our rivers sampled were of high ecological status in 1987. By 2008 this has dropped to 17%, located in

less densely populated, less developed and less intensively farmed areas. The suspected causes of this dramatic

loss are nutrient inputs, siltation, and acidification associated with activities such as forestry, agriculture and

housing development.

Phosphorus attached to eroded sediment is transferred from agricultural lands to water bodies (Lemunyon and

Daniel, 2002). In Ireland, where over 90 percent of agricultural land is devoted to grassland, most of the

phosphorus from fertiliser and animal manures tends to accumulate in the top couple of centimetres of soil

(Tunney, 2002). Erosion of the top layer of grassland therefore can add significant amounts of nutrients to waters.

This can result from cattle access to watercourses (Photo 1) or by a feeding point being located close to a

watercourse, which, in addition to siltation, can cause direct runoff of dung (Photo 2). Cattle access to streams

for drinking water places pressure on streams and increases sedimentation and embeddedness in the substrate

19

(Kyriakeas & Watzin, 2006). Cattle overgrazing stream banks cause bank instability and subsequent access

causes poaching and trampling of the stream bed (Photo 3). This in turn produces physical disturbance and the

addition of dung, thereby increasing the nutrient concentrations and BOD (Belsky et al., 1999). Other farming

activities that cause sediment runoff to watercourses include drainage works, deposition of soil by riverbanks

(Photo 4) and tillage too close to banksides. Hutchins et al. (2002) found higher sediment-flow ratios in stream

water in an area where land use is arable than was the case in an area of pasture land. Apart from associated

nutrients, the sediment particles themselves cause degradation of biological quality of streams and rivers. Prior

to sedimentation, the sediment particles increase turbidity in the water column. Once deposited they limit light

penetration for primary producers and therefore decrease food availability to macroinvertebrates, alter the surface

of substrates and in some cases coat the entire river bed, thus changing the channel morphology (Wood &

Armitage, 1997). This blocks interstitial spaces between cobbles and pebbles which reduces habitat accessibility

for invertebrates and fish spawning.

The GAP Regulations must give effect to Directive 2000/60/EC of 23 October 2000 (the Water Framework

Directive). Under Article 11 (3) of this Directive, the basic programme of measures to be complied with includes

those measures required under the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), which include, in Article 2 (2): Measures

taken pursuant to this Directive shall be designed to maintain or restore, at favourable conservation status, natural

habitats and species of wild fauna and flora of Community interest. Species of Community interest, listed in Annex

II of the Habitats Directive, include the freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera and M. margaritifera

durrovensis), Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), river lamprey (Lampetra

fluviatilis), brook lamprey (Lampetra planeri), Twaite shad (Alosa fallax) and Allis shad (Alosa alosa), all of which

are found in Irish waters and all of which could be negatively affected by siltation. Curtis et al. (2009), reviewing

the ecological requirements and vulnerability of water-dependant habitats and species designated under the EU

Habitats Directive, state that the freshwater pearl mussel is extremely vulnerable to siltation and eutrophication,

with the major cause of decline being deterioration of water quality. They also state that Atlantic salmon is

vulnerable to sedimentation/fine siltation at spawning and that the three species of lamprey are vulnerable through

smothering of spawning gravels and nursery silts. Therefore, the Regulations cannot ignore silt runoff.

To avoid pollution of waters by silt and associated nutrients, the Regulations should:

Specify a minimum distance of 10m from tilled land to the top of the bank of a watercourse.

Prohibit the locating of a feeding point within 20m of a watercourse or lake.

Prohibit free access to watercourses by bovines.

Prohibit the deposition of soil within 20m of a watercourse.

20

Prohibit opening of new drains flowing to streams.

Specify that if existing drains flowing to streams or rivers are being mechanically cleaned, the machinery

must start at the end farthest from the larger watercourse in order to reduce the input of silt. This method

of drain cleaning is recommended by staff of Inland Fisheries Ireland. Furthermore, if such works are to

take place within a proposed or designated Special Area of Conservation, the National Parks and Wildlife

Service must be consulted. In any event, such works should not take place from October to April,

inclusive.

Limit access for cattle to drinking points on watercourses.

Ideally all cattle should be watered with a piped supply to drinking troughs. However, it is acknowledged that in

practice this can be difficult on some farms. The drinking points for cattle as specified in REPS do not prevent

contamination of watercourses with dung. They also result in poached areas that give rise to inputs of nutrients

and silt when water levels rise (see Photo 5).. Therefore, the Regulations should only allow use of restricted

drinking points on rivers or streams if stocking density is below a specified level. Maximum levels of an average

of 5 livestock units per hectare in one week and an average of 0.5 livestock units per hectare per year are

suggested.

21

6. SUMMARY OF KEY LIMITATIONS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

(GOOD AGRICULTURAL PRACTICE FOR PROTECTION OF WATERS)

REGULATIONS 2010 & RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS THESE

LIMITATION RECOMMENDATION

Current P soil indices are inadequate to assess the risk of nutrient loss from land to water.

A defined nutrient transport risk assessment should be included in the Regulations to be coupled with an annual fertilisation farm plan.

The assumption that soils are P Index 3, with testing every 6 years allows for the fertilization of P Index 4 soils, which is excessive for agricultural production and increases the risk of nutrient loss to water.

Mandatory soil testing every 3 years in intensive farmland, as per Teagasc’s ‘Code of Practice for Soil Sampling’.

Spreading of organic fertiliser permitted on Index 4 soils in certain other circumstances

Provisions for spreading organic fertiliser on Index 4 soils must be removed from the Regulations.

The fertilisation of unimproved and previously unfertilised soils, which poses a threat to high status sites, risking contravention of the Nitrates Directive and Water Framework Directive and the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Freshwater Pearl Mussel) Regulations.

The fertilisation of unimproved and previously unfertilised soils must not be permitted.

Soil type is not considered and the only differentiation is for soils either less than or greater than 20% organic content.

The application of P to any peatland soils (organic content >20%) should not be permitted unless soil tests and a risk analysis are conducted of the potential impact area.

Buffer zones are too narrow to provided adequate protection to the aquatic environment, drinking water supplies and public health

Buffer zones must be increased as specified (see relevant section)

The dimensions of farmyard heaps are unspecified and can currently be stored within 10m of a surface water body, posing a risk to water quality.

A categorised system should be introduced where increasing volume or weight of the manure increases the distance from a watercourse or lake that the manure heap could be stored on the land prior to land spreading. There should be a minimum distance of 250m for the storage of any manure heap from an abstraction point intended for human consumption.

Conditions are not specified for landspreading using the umbilical cord system

It should be specified that the umbilical system should be constantly kept in good repair, not be laid out within specified distances of surface waters and that the pipe is kept under constant surveillance while in use.

22

Silt runoff from agricultural land and consequent pollution by silt and its associated nutrients is not dealt with, contrary to the requirements of the Water Framework Directive.

The regulations should put in place measures to adequately deal with silt pollution. (See relevant section).

Imprecise terminology needs to be clarified. This includes ‘poaching’, ‘watercourses’, and the elements for the conditions for prohibition of landspreading hydraulic load. ,

The terminology should be clarified and defined, where necessary, as specified in the relevant sections.

The Regulations are not adequately enforced.

An annual publicly available national compliance assessment report should be required by the Regulations. Additional spot-checks, without prior notification to the landowner should be provided for.

23

7. REFERENCES

1. Archbold, M., Bruen, M., Deakin, J., Doody, D., Flynn, R., Kelly-Quinn, M., Misstear, B. and Ofterdinger,

U. (2010) Contaminant movement and attenuation along pathways from the land surface to aquatic

receptors-a review. STRIVE Report No. 56. Environmental Protection Agency, Wexford.

2. Belsky, A.J., Matzke, A. and Uselman, S. (1999) ‘Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian

ecosystems in the western United States’, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 54, 419-431.

3. Börling, K., Otabbonga, E. and Barberisb, E. (2004) ‘Soil Variables for Predicting Potential Phosphorus

Release in Swedish Noncalcareous Soils’. Journal of Environmental Quality. 33, 99-106.

4. Breeuwsma, A., Reijerink, J. And Shoumans, O. (1995). ‘Impact of manure on accumulation and leaching

of phosphate in areas of intensive livestock farming’. In: K. F. Steele (ed.). Animal waste and the land-

water interface. New York, NY: Lewis Publishers–CRC Press. p 239–251.

5. Brogan, J., Crowe, M. and Carty, G. (2002) ‘Setting Environmental Quality Objectives for Soil. Developing

a Soil Protection Strategy for Ireland’ EPA

6. Buckley, C. (2010) ‘Nutrient management efficiency in the Republic of Ireland-saving the environment

and reducing costs’. IWA 14TH International Conference Diffuse Pollution and Eutrophication, DiPCon

2010. Quebec.

7. Clabby, K.J., Bradley, C., Craig, M., Daly, D., Lucey, J., McGarrigle, M., O’Boyle, S., Tierney, D. and

Bowman, J. (2008) Water Quality in Ireland 2004-2006. Environmental Protection Agency, Wexford.

8. Cormican, M., Cummins, E., Morris, D., Pendergast, M., O’Donovan, D. and O’Flaherty, V. (2012)

Enhancing Human Health through Water Quality. STRIVE Report (2005-CD-H1-M1). Environmental

Protection Agency, Wexford.

9. Curtis, T., Downes, S. and Ní Chatháin, B. (2009) ‘The ecological requirements of water-dependent

habitats and species designated under the Habitats Directive.’ Biology and Environment: Proceedings of

the Royal Irish Academy 109B, 261–319.

10. Daly, K. (2000) ‘Quantification of Phosphorus Loss From Soil To Water – Phosphorus Desorption from

Irish Soils (Section B).’ Teagasc - Project Report - 4365

11. Daly, K. (2005) ‘Evaluating Morgan’s Phosphorus Test as an Environmental Indicator’. Teagasc - Project

Report - 4976

24

12. Daly, K. and Mills, P. (2006) ‘Eutrophication from Agricultural Sources – Relating Catchment

Characteristics to Phosphorus Concentrations in Irish Rivers’. EPA

13. Daly, K., Mills, P., Coulter, B. and McGarrigle, M., (2002) ‘Modelling Phosphorus Concentrations in Irish

Rivers Using Land Use, Soil Type, and Soil Phosphorus Data’. Journal of Environmental Quality. 31: 590-

599.

14. De Smet, J., G. Hofman, J. Vanderdeelen, M. Van Meirvenne, and L. Baert. (1995). ‘Phosphate

enrichment in the sandy loam soils of West-Flanders, Belgium.’ Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems. 43,

209-215.

15. DEFRA (2009) Protecting our water, soil and air. A code of good agricultural practice for farmers, growers

and land managers, Edinburgh: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

16. Department of Agriculture and Food (2007) Specification for REPS planners in the preparation of REPS

4 plans. Dublin, Ireland: Depart of Agriculture and Food.

17. Doody, D., Moles, R., Tunney, H. and Kurz, I. (2006) ‘Eutrophication from Agricultural Sources –

Phosphorus Concentration and Flow’. Environmental Protection Agency, Wexford.

18. Drew, D. (1996) ‘Agriculturally induced environmental changes in the Burren Karst, Western Ireland’,

Environmental Geology, 28(3), 137-144.

19. EPA (2011) The Provision and Quality of Drinking Water in Ireland. A Report for the Year 2011.

Environmental Protection Agency, Wexford.

20. EPA (2012a) Council Directive of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution

caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (91/676/EC). Article 10 report for Ireland for the period 2008-

2011. Environmental Protection Agency, Wexford.

21. EPA (2012b) Integrated Water Quality Report 2011, South East Ireland. Environmental Protection

Agency, Wexford.

22. EPA (2012c) Integrated Water Quality Report Monaghan and Louth 2011. Environmental Protection

Agency, Wexford.

23. EPA (2012d) Ireland’s Environment- An Assessment. Environmental Protection Agency, Wexford.

24. Fenlon, D.R., Ogden, I.D., Vinten, A. and Svoboda, I. (2000) ‘The fate of Escherichia coli and E. coli

O157 in cattle slurry after application to land’. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 88: 149S–156S.

25

25. Forest Service (2000). Forest and water quality guidelines. Forest Service. Department of Agriculture,

Food and Forestry.

26. Heathwaite, A. (1994) ‘Chemical fractionation of lake sediments to determine the effects of land-use

change on nutrient loading’ Journal of Hydrology, 159, 395-421.

27. Heathwaite, A., Griffiths, P. and Parkinson R. (1998). ‘Nitrogen and phosphorus in runoff from grassland

with buffer strips following application of fertilizers and manures’ Soil Use and Management. 14, 142-148.

28. Hennessy, J., Buckley, C., Cushion, M., Kinsella, A. and Moran, B. (2011) National Farm Survey of

Manure Applications and Storage Practices on Irish Farms. Teagasc, Wexford.

29. Hooda, P., Rendell, A., Edwards, A., Withers, P., Aitken, M. and Truesdale, V. (2000) ‘Relating Soil

Phosphorus Indices to Potential Phosphorus Release to Water’. Journal of Environmental Quality,

29,1166-1171.

30. Humphreys, J. (2008) Nutrient issues of Irish farms and solutions to lower losses. International Journal

of Dairy Technology. 16(1): 36-42.

31. Hutchins, M., Anthony, S., Hodgkinson, R. and Withers, P. (2002). ‘Modularised process-based modelling

of phosphorus loss at farm and catchment scale’. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 6, 1017–1030

32. Irvine, K. and Ní Chuanigh (2011) Management Strategies for the Protection of High Status Water Bodies:

A Literature Review. STRIVE Report (2010-W-DS-3). Environmental Protection Agency, Wexford.

33. Jiao, P., Xu, D., Wang, S., Wang, Y., Lin, K., and Tang, G. (2012) ‘Nitrogen loss by surface runoff from

different cropping systems’. Soil Research. 50: 58-66.

34. Jordan, P., Arnscheidt, A., McGrogan, H. and McCormick, S. (2007) ‘Characterising phosphorus transfers

in rural catchments using a continuous back-side analyzer’. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences. 11(1):

372-381.

35. Jordan, P., Melland, A.R., Mellander, P.E., Shortle, G. and Wall, D. (2012) ‘The seasonality of phosphorus

transfers from land to water: Implications for trophic impacts and policy evaluation’. Science of the Total

Environment. 434: 101-109.

36. Jordan, P., Menary, W., Daly, K., Kiely, G., Morgan, G. and Byrne, P. (2005) ‘Patterns and processes of

phosphorus transfer from Irish grassland soils to rivers-integration of laboratory and catchment studies’.

Journal of Hydrology. 304: 20-34.

26

37. Kronvang, B., Anker Laubel, S., Larsen, H., Andersen, H. and Djurhuus, J. (2003) ‘Buffer Zones as a

Sink for Sediment and Phosphorus between the Field and Stream: Danish Field Experiences’. Diffuse

Pollution Conference Dublin 2003 3A: Agriculture. Online,

www.ucd.ie/dipcon/docs/theme03/theme03_02.PDF

38. Kyriakeas, S.A. and Watzin, M.C. (2006) ‘Effects of adjacent agricultural activities and watershed

characteristics on stream macroinvertebrate communities’, Journal of the American Water Resources

Association, 42(2), 425-441.

39. LeChevallier, M.W. and Au, K.K. (2004) Water Treatment and Pathogen Control. World Health

Organisation, Cornwall, U.K.

40. Lemunyon, J. and Daniel, T. (2002) ‘Quantifying phosphorus losses from the agricultural system’. Journal

of Soil and Water Conservation 57, 399-401

41. Lucey, J. (2007) Water Quality in Ireland 2006. Key Indicators of the Aquatic Environment. Environmental


42. Lucey, J. (2009) Water Quality in Ireland 2006-2008. Key Indicators of the Aquatic Environment.

Environmental Protection Agency, Wexford.

43. McGarrigle, M., Lucey, J. and O Cinneide, M. (2010) Water Quality in Ireland 2007-2009. Environmental


44. Mellander, P.E., Melland, A.R., Jordan, P., Wall, D.P., Murphy, P.N.C and Shortle, G. (2012) ‘Quantifying

nutrient transfer pathways in agricultural catchments using high temporal resolution data’. Environmental

Science and Policy. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.06.004.

45. Mulqueen, J., Rodgers M. and Bouchier, H. (1999) ‘Land Application Of Organic Manures And Silage

Effluent’. Teagasc Project Report 4025.

46. O’Kiely, P., and P. D. Forristal (2003) An alternative plastic film for sealing ensiled forage, Online,

www.agresearchforum.com/publicationsarf/2003/page029.pdf

47. Parkinson R., Griffiths, P. and Heathwaite, A. (2000). ‘Transport of nitrogen in soil water following the

application of animal manures to sloping grassland’. Hydrological Sciences Journal. 45, 61-73

48. Pautler, M. and Sims, J.T., (2000). ‘Relationship between soil test phosphorus, soluble phosphorus and

phosphorus saturation in Delaware soils’. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 64: 765–773.

http://www.ucd.ie/dipcon/docs/theme03/theme03_02.PDF

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.06.004

http://www.agresearchforum.com/publicationsarf/2003/page029.pdf

27

49. Schulte, R.P.O., Melland, A.R., Fenton, O., Herlihy, M., Richards, K. and Jordan, P. (2010) ‘Modelling

soil phosphorus decline: Expectations of the Water Framework Directive policies’. Environmental Science

and Policy. 13: 472-484.

50. Schulte, R.P.O., Richards, K., Daly, K., Kurz, I., McDonald, E.J. and Holden, N.M. (2006). ‘Agriculture,

Meterology and Water Quality in Ireland: A regional evaluation of pressures and pathways of nutrient loss

to water’. Biology and Environment. 106B(2): 117-133.

51. Teagasc (2010) Code of Practice for Soil Sampling. Teagasc, Wexford.

52. Tunney, H. (2002) ‘Quantification of Phosphorus Loss From Soil To Water’. Teagasc Project Report 4365.

53. Tunney, H., Kirwan, L., Fu, W., Culleton, N., and Black, A.D. (2010) ‘Long-term phosphorus grassland

experiment for beef production-impacts on soil phosphorus levels and liveweight gains’. Soil Use and

Management. 26: 237-244.

54. Van der Zee, S. and van Riemsdijk, W. (1988). ‘Model for Long-term Phosphate Reaction Kinetics in

Soil’. Journal of Environmental Quality.17, 35-41.

55. Wall, D.P., Jordan, P., Melland, A.R., Mellander, P.E., Mechan, S. and Shortle, G. (2013) ‘Forecasting

the decline of excess soil phosphorus in agricultural catchments’. Soil Use and Management. 29(1): 147-

154.

56. Wall, D.P., Murphy, P.N.C., Melland, A.R., Mechan, S., Shine, O., Buckley, C., Mellander, P.E., Shortle,

G. and Jordan, P. (2012) ‘Evaluating nutrient source regulations at different scales in 5 agricultural

catchments’. Environmental Science and Policy. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.06.007.

57. Wood, P.J. and Armitage, P.D. (1997) ‘Biological effects of fine sediment in the lotic environment’.

Environmental Management, 21(2), 203-217.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.06.007

28

8. PHOTOGRAPHS

Photo 1. Eroded banks of Brogeen R., Co. Cork, at cattle crossing point.

Photo 2. Round feeder by Glenary River, Co. Waterford

Photo 3. Cow in Burren River, Co. Carlow

29

Photo 4. Dumped soil by the Lingaun River, Co. Kilkenny

Photo 5. Cattle drinking point on the Owveg River, Co. Kilkenny

30

31

Appendix III: SWAN Recommendations on Public Participation

Delivering meaningful public participation in water governance and Water Framework Directive (WFD) implementation: SWAN

Recommendations SWAN has been making the case for meaningful public engagement in water management and the

implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) for almost a decade, and it is regrettable

that there is less provision for this public participation now than there was nine years ago.

The constituent characteristics of good public participation have not changed over this period (Jansky

& Uitto, 2006; OECD, 2011a; Nabatchi & Leighninger, 2015; Smith et al, 2015), although new

techniques may be employed to deliver it (Goldsmith & Crawford, 2014). However, for it to take place,

the public must have the genuine ability to influence outcomes. This did not happen in the first round

of River Basin Management Plan development and implementation in Ireland. SWAN sees the current

finalisation of arrangements for governance and public engagement in Water Framework Directive

(WFD) implementation as the “last chance saloon” for the agencies concerned to ensure effective

engagement in the second and future cycles. This paper presents the basis for why and how it can be

done, given the administrative arrangements SWAN understands have already been agreed.

There are 4 objectives in this paper. These are to explain:

1. What meaningful (worthwhile) public participation can contribute to securing Water

Framework Directive (WFD) objectives;

2. SWAN’s recommendations for how this can be done alongside the known 3 Tier

administration structure;

3. By example, how this would work and support delivery of Integrated Catchment Management;

4. What governance challenges need to be addressed, and what is needed, for this public

participation to be successful.

Before proceeding, it is important to be clear that public participation in relation to state

implementation of the EU’s WFD relates to all those outside the administration of the state who have

a “stake” in the issues; otherwise known as the “stakeholders”. In relation to aquatic environments

this includes the general public, although many may be unaware of their own interest or stake in these

issues. This wider citizenry can be reached through groupings that exist; voluntary, community,

environmental, groups etc. (as the Public Participation Networks in Local Authorities are intended to

identify), but “stakeholders” also includes interest groups representing industry, business, agriculture,

and so forth. What is put in place to deliver public participation must accommodate all of these, and

strive to do so fairly.

1. What meaningful public participation can contribute to securing WFD objectives

SWAN has repeatedly highlighted the overarching benefits of public participation, drawn from

international experience142. In brief summary these include:

142 See SWAN paper “SWAN Recommendations for Public Participation Mechanisms in the Department of Environment,

Community & Local Government 3-Tier Water Governance Proposal.” (attached as appendix) for further details and references.

32

1. Increased public awareness of issues;

2. Better outcomes and management decisions, as more perspectives are addressed;

3. Encouragement of positive action by citizens;

4. Increased public support for (and engagement in) outcomes/ decisions taken;

5. Creating a culture of co-operation, embedding longer-enduring outcomes, and delivering

sustainable change.

A recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development publication (OECD, 2015) on

water governance principles captures effectively the huge potential for involving the public: “Engaging

stakeholders provides them with opportunities to be part of the solution and share views and priorities,

which can help increase the willingness to pay, raise awareness on water risks and costs, …… and prevent

or solve conflicts over water use.…... Participation of informed stakeholders is a condition sine qua non

to ensuring trust. Stakeholders can act as third-party mechanisms to ensure that decisions with

significant infrastructural and economic consequences are shielded from short-term political

considerations and not captured by specific interests.” (emphasis added).

In relation to costs and benefits, the report says “Proper stakeholder engagement may be costly (in

terms of logistics, process, reputation, delays in decision-making), especially at the beginning, but

evidence shows it can lead to more effective implementation of water policies and projects. By allowing

testing and refining decisions, stakeholder engagement is likely to yield short and long-term benefits in

terms of acceptability and sustainability (e.g. enforcement of regulation, political acceptability,

ownership of decision and outcomes); in terms of social equity and cohesion (e.g. trust, confidence,

customers’ satisfaction, corporate social responsibility); in terms of capacity development (e.g.

awareness-raising, information sharing, opinion forming, and social learning); and in terms of economic

efficiency (e.g. cost saving, value for money, time saving, broader economic benefits as policy coherence,

synergies across projects). Managing the trade-offs between different costs and benefits accruing to

different stakeholder groups at different times is key to ensure successful stakeholder engagement

processes and outcomes.” (p.30, OECD, 2015).

This potential fully applies to WFD implementation in Ireland. However because some of these

benefits may appear rather generic, it is possible to focus on some of the explicit and concrete

‘services’ of real value that stakeholders can collectively contribute specifically to WFD implementation

and Integrated Catchment Management. These beneficial roles fall into two categories:

1. Local Action and

2. Policy input.

These roles are not mutually exclusive. A single stakeholder group may be involved in both, but as

will be apparent, certain types of stakeholder groups may tend to lend themselves to one more than

the other. Vitally BOTH categories must be supported by the administration to enable meaningful and

effective engagement and importantly to secure the optimum results possible for delivery of WFD

objectives.

Local Action

The European Environment Agency (2014) review of case studies of public participation in WFD

implementation indicates that the public’s knowledge about and interest in water management issues

tend to be focused locally, and the activities that appear to have been most successful in engaging

members of the public have been at the local scale. Capturing maximum benefits in water

management from the widest possible number of stakeholders therefore requires that people have

the opportunity to become involved at the local level.

Local action requires autonomous stakeholder initiatives focused on aquatic environments at

catchment or sub-catchment level, such as the Rivers Trusts. Stakeholders involved are empowered

to come together in an organised way at local level to identify and raise awareness locally of the value

of their local river stretch, lake or bay, identifying the pressures on it and agreeing actions in response

33

to those pressures to achieve healthy water and WFD objectives. They would also involve citizen

surveys and monitoring such as those organised by several SWAN members, for which training would

be provided.143 Such groups would engage in, amongst other things:

engagement with, and openness to, all stakeholders in the sub-catchment (including land-

owners), seeking to secure buy-in from all parties to address pressures;

engagement/collaboration with relevant authorities/agencies through clear channels;

flora & fauna surveys and water quality monitoring;

identifying pressures on waters within the relevant sub-catchment/ Water Management Units

WMU(s) through, for example, land use surveys;

actions to achieve and/or maintain good ecological status;

clear identification of resource allocations of voluntary support and commitment, e.g. local

volunteer working parties, FÁS workers, monitoring and recording duties, etc. and staff time

where required (possibly shared between groups);

training (in aquatic environment ecological, water quality, sampling, SSRS (Small Stream Risk

Score), macro-invertebrate index, etc.); and

communication and awareness-raising efforts, including links with schools and media.

The benefit of this type of stakeholder work and participation is of direct economic value and genuine

benefit to all those agencies tasked with delivering WFD objectives, since it is effectively doing work

which could not otherwise be done. Firstly because the resources are not available, and secondly

because, by its very nature, this community-based catchment work can only be delivered by members

of the community. With effective communications, adequate support, guidance and training, the

quality and consistency of the work of these groups can be assured and represents a tangible

contribution of voluntary resources to supplement those of the state agencies involved in

implementation. These projects are effective “delivery partners” for implementing agencies, and as

such are worthy of investment and support. There is a now wide body of work that looks at what is

necessary for such local action to be effective (Muro & Jeffery, 2012; Rees et al, 2005; Soriani et al,

2015).

Such local initiatives are based on local people’s appreciation for what they have – their local river,

lake or bay and their knowledge of it. People’s ongoing interest in their local environment, means

such initiatives are likely to endure and generate sustainable and increasing benefits. These are the

people most immediately concerned with the local environment, and often they have the capacity to

undertake the positive management actions needed to restore, maintain or enhance it.

While such groups often carry out work that there simply are no other resources to do, there will be

issues that they cannot address. However, having directly engaged with tackling their local situation,

these local groups are in an ideal position to distil persistent or intractable challenges clearly and

identify what policy or regulatory areas need to be addressed at another level.

Policy input

Policy input is the other main area of stakeholder engagement. Stakeholder representatives facilitated

to do so in appropriate fora can make extremely constructive contributions to deliberations on water

related policy and regulations assisting in the understanding of complex significant water

management issues. The benefits of this type of engagement are that:

143 See SWAN paper “SWAN Recommendations for Public Participation Mechanisms in the Department of

Environment, Community & Local Government 3-Tier Water Governance Proposal.” (attached as appendix) for further details and references.

34

The depth and breadth of stakeholders’ extensive sector-specific expertise and specialist policy

knowledge are harnessed.

Engaged stakeholder groups develop a thorough understanding of the issues and what

needs to happen to address these, through which they can be part of designing and

negotiating optimum measures, and will have a greater acceptance of the “asks” that

may be made of them, thus securing greater support from within their constituencies.

Providing the opportunity for stakeholder groups to discuss matters amongst

themselves (i.e. not within a wider committee of officials, etc.), enables them to

o develop an understanding of one another’s interests and concerns and reach

agreed positions on the issues arising (whether consensus or qualified agreement)

which they can then

o communicate to the relevant state agencies involved in WFD implementation AND

to their own constituency

Where focused and productive dialogue between the WFD staff and stakeholder policy

groups (or forums) takes place, it contributes a clear understanding of what the

regulatory challenges are for implementation, and allows the stakeholders to take this

into consideration in their deliberations.

(Participants would include environmental NGOs, academics, civil society/community, agriculture,

industry/commerce, SMEs, marine interests, recreation, consumers, youth, that have demonstrable

experience, expertise and interest in water issues.)

The “win-win results” of such policy input are also very well-articulated in the recent OECD report

(2015) on water governance: “On the one hand, participative and engaged stakeholders understand

better the solutions that need to be adopted and the compromises that need to be made to overcome

various conflicting interests that are the essence of many water resources management decisions. This

means that by participating, stakeholders become less “self-centred” and understand better the full

range of the problems at stake. On the other hand, stakeholders contribute with a type of on-the-ground

and experienced knowledge that no institution can acquire by itself, as they tend to be the most direct

beneficiaries of water policies. Obviously, this knowledge needs to be blended and enlarged by broader

views and long-term considerations that direct and immediate experience does not always reveal.” (p.30,

OECD, 2015)

SWAN’s communications with various agencies suggests that there is a broad agreement regarding

the benefit of stakeholder groups engaging in local action. However, there also appears to be active

resistance at senior level to the establishment of stakeholder fora for policy input. It is regrettable that

the potential for stakeholder groups to contribute specialist policy inputs to WFD implementation

deliberations is so underestimated particularly at national level and in light of the OECD findings

above. SWAN hopes to make the case convincingly that both elements are equally important and

need to be supported.

2. What are SWAN’s recommendations for stakeholder engagement in the second

WFD cycle in order to achieve these benefits?

Given the accepted 3 Tier governance strucuture being applied, what is necessary for stakeholders to

contribute fully in the sort of ways outlined above? (This section is based on a paper submitted by

SWAN to DECLG and the EPA in August 2013.144) The following outlines how stakeholder engagement

144 “SWAN Recommendations for Public Participation Mechanisms in the Department of Environment, Community &

Local Government 3-Tier Water Governance Proposal.” (attached as appendix)

35

structures could work alongside this three tier structure, in the simplest possible ways starting at the

most grassroots level.

Below Tier 3

SWAN recommends support from the administration for the establishment of Stakeholder

Catchment/sub Catchment Groups. At this grass roots sub-catchment level stakeholders are able to

carry out the most effective direct local action for their immediate environment as described above

Groups, pilot schemes, or other initiatives may be initiated and supported in a number of ways, but

local stakeholder buy-in is key to their success.

In order to secure state support, such groups MUST have the quality of aquatic environments as their

clear priority. In other words, whilst other groups e.g. Tidy Towns may be supported in other ways to

enhance the water environment, such structured Catchment Groups must exist with the clear goal of

protecting the water environment. The stakeholders themselves conduct the work at this level, with

additional inputs from public authorities where needed and sought. This might include surveys,

training and direct interventions, on, for example a local pollution source, as agreed by the group.

In such groups hard work goes into building relationships, and a genuine understanding of the needs

and interests of different stakeholders. This is the basis for effective collaborative work; to identify

issues that need addressing, to consider the ways this may be done, and reach agreement on how to

do this, before finally carrying out agreed actions, and evaluating the success of measures taken

(Koontz & Thomas, 2006; Carr et al, 2012). These groups are likely to become increasingly

sophisticated over time, as expertise, experience and knowledge grows. Those involved become

powerful and effective advocates and deliverers of WFD objectives, and can wield considerable local

WFD Implementation Tiers with

Recommendations for Public Participation

Figure 1 WFD implementation tiers with SWAN recommendations for public participation

36

influence. The Community Water Officers that we understand are being recruited should be in an ideal

position to support these groups, if they are equipped with the appropriate skills.

As we have hinted at already these local action groups can only fully contribute to WFD

implementation and Integrated Catchment Management if they are part of a wider integrated

stakeholder engagement structure. For this reason, SWAN makes the following further proposals.

At Tier 3

SWAN recommends Regional Stakeholder Fora. At this level stakeholders can consider responses to

persistent significant water management issues (SWMI) issues that are not able to be successfully

resolved at grass-roots sub catchment level and which may be common across a region. Such fora

represent the opportunity for divergent interests - in terms of both sectors and geographical area -

to develop a clear understanding of one another’s positions and concerns, and to work together to

identify the optimum ways in which issues can be addressed.

These groups importantly also represent a forum for stakeholder participation in areas where no

Stakeholder Catchment Group may exist, which at present is most of the country, a situation which is

likely to remain the case for the majority of the country for the coming RBM Plan cycle. Work at this

level is likely to focus particularly on the practical implementation of the WFD by various state

agencies, in addressing significant water management issues (SWMIs). Stakeholders, having reached

agreed positions amongst themselves, would communicate issues of concern and through brokered

dialogue with agencies, suggest ways of addressing them, collaboratively where possibly. Where

issues arise that fall within the remit of national policy/regulation (e.g. Aquaculture licensing or

planning regulations) and thus cannot be resolved at regional level these would need to be referred

further to a national stakeholder forum.

At Tier 2

A National Stakeholder Forum would provide a high level policy advisory group, focusing on issues

at the national scale whether referred upwards from the Regional Fora or from the EPA/WFD office.

Here the best sector-specific policy expertise in the country from stakeholder representative groups

with in-depth policy knowledge come together to generate options to address SWMIs that have the

support of all stakeholder groups.

Consensus on all issues will not be possible, but the extent of agreement between stakeholders that

can be established is also a valuable contribution to inform policy decision makers. Organisations

engaging at this national stakeholder level bring with them infrastructure and communications

networks which can help to engage increasing numbers of stakeholders from within their respective

sectors and raises the potential to win wider support for agreed policy options and WFD measures

within those sectors.

It is important to understand that this group is not proposed as a political lobby-type structure where

each representative’s objective is to ‘defend the turf’ of their interest group and fend off the

requirement for action from their sector. The group’s terms of reference would be clearly focused on

the agreed common goal of WFD delivery, it would need to be facilitated by an independent expert

and it would be designed and integrated to work with the administrative structures.

The precise articulation of these structures for active stakeholder engagement, and how they can be

integrated with planned governance structures etc. must be left to the administration, providing they

meet widely accepted criteria for effective public participation that are identified in the literature.

Finally in this section, SWAN also recommends that annual regional and national meetings or

conferences of involved stakeholders are held to ensure that the stakeholder elements of

37

implementation are themselves integrated, communicate well, understand one another’s roles and

support these effectively.

3. How would such structures work and support delivery of WFD and Integrated

Catchment Management?

A hypothetical case of a significant water management issue can be used to illustrate how these

structures for stakeholder engagement might work.

High Status Sites example

High Status Sites, the loss of which has been highlighted in several EPA reports as a serious issue, has

had a clear set of management recommendations identified in the EPA STRIVE Management

Strategies for the Protection of High Status Water Bodies Report (EPA, 2012). This report examined

the challenges for Ireland in preventing the loss of any more of our High Status Water Bodies and

managing them so as to maintaining them in this state. As we begin to tackle this issue, it is possible

to imagine the following scenario, under SWAN’s recommended structure:

Here two of the possible management recommendations which have been identified in the STRIVE

report as necessary to secure the protection/ maintenance of High Status Sites are considered.

In some cases it may be necessary to prevent livestock access to waterbodies. At individual catchment

levels, looking at specific High Status Sites, this could be effectively tackled through the local

Stakeholder Sub-Catchment Group, with communications between group members and relevant

landowners. It might subsequently be possible, or considered necessary, for Bye-Laws to be brought

in formalising this, which could be achieved through collaborative work between the stakeholder

group, landowners and Local Authorities, with appropriate measures taken to deal with exceptions of

non-co-operation, etc. Whilst it is not suggested that this would definitely be the case, there is the

potential at least for this to be dealt with at catchment level in this way, co-ordinated through the

WFD office Community Water Officer.

In other instances, it may be necessary to prevent the introduction and/or spread of invasive alien

species, and the principal sources of concern may be recreational activities (such as canoeing and

angling boats, etc.) and road works (where contaminated gravel is introduced to an area). The local

Stakeholder Catchment Group may get agreement from the local authority on protocols to prevent

introduction of contaminated gravel, etc., and may also engage in extensive voluntary removal efforts,

depending on the species, but it may become apparent that the issue cannot be dealt with in isolation

and that it is necessary for them to refer the issue to the Regional Stakeholder Forum for a more

strategic engagement with the Regional National Roads Authority (NRA) Office and/or Forest Service

on the same issue. This may be successfully addressed at that point, and an agreement effectively be

adopted by the NRA or Forest Service with national effect. If this were not to happen, then the matter

could be referred to the National Stakeholder Forum.

Similarly, while the relevant local Stakeholder Catchment Group may secure agreement from local

recreational groups to ensure preventive measures are taken with canoes, boats, etc. and put up signs

at key points to reduce the risk of alien species being brought into the water body, this may not fully

address the problem. They cannot effectively communicate with all potential visitors, which is a

national, even international issue when tourist visitors are considered. This might be referred up to

the Regional Forum and then the National Forum and specifically to the relevant stakeholder groups

represented there for example Canoeing Ireland and the angling and coarse fishing national bodies,

who can work on how best to communicate the risks, and change behaviours, and if necessary to

regulate (and enforce) appropriate conduct amongst their constituents. In this way considerable work

is done at the appropriate level on how the problem may most effectively be addressed by those who

are best equipped to facilitate the solution.

38

While it may well require that an issue at national level is referred to the EPA and ultimately the Water

Policy Advisory Group (WPAC) and the Minister, the preferred options to effectively deal with a

situation will have been identified more efficiently, and outcomes are likely to have far greater support

amongst relevant stakeholders who can have been kept informed by their representative bodies. The

key here is that issues are dealt with at the lowest appropriate level, in keeping with the bottom-up

approach and only those issues requiring a national response will be filtered up to the National

Stakeholders Forum. This represents the most resource and time efficient for both stakeholders and

officials.

Stakeholder engagement as part of Integrated Catchment Management

What is described and illustrated above can deliver the meaningful public participation which it

appears is agreed by all to be vital, and can meet the public participation requirements of the WFD.

Crucially, it also provides the vital public engagement element of Integrated Catchment Management

(ICM). ICM is now the internationally accepted best practice model for managing our aquatic

environment and ‘Building Partnerships’ is the very first of 6 recognised steps145 in ICM (as set out in

the ‘US EPA Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans’ (USEPA, 2015)). Its basic principles are to:

take a holistic and integrated approach to the management of land, biodiversity,

water and community resources at the water catchment scale;

involve communities in planning and managing their landscapes and aquatic

resources; and

find a sustainable balance between resource use and resource conservation.

The ICM approach has been adopted by the Irish EPA, which has invested significantly, with the

support of the Department of the Environment, in the new EPA WFD Integration and Coordination

Unit which is working to the ICM model and delivering the science needed to achieve WFD objectives

using this model. This is an extremely welcome development.

Since the EPA is already working this way, if the stakeholder structures proposed here that conform

to the ICM model are added, why might this participative ICM approach not work in Ireland? In

considering this question, what emerges is that the third leg of the stool - one that must function in

a complementary manner for ICM to work - is missing. This is the governance element, where

responsibility for the actual management and implementation of River Basin Management Plans rests.

“Solutions [to water management issues] will only be viable if policies are consistent and coherent; if

stakeholders are properly engaged across levels of government, if well-designed regulatory frameworks

are put in place, if capacity of institutions and stakeholders is strengthened, and if integrity and

transparency are fostered. These goals are all about governance146, and require robust and agile

institutions that can adapt to new conditions, taking into account the specificities of each community

and of its culture and history.” (p. 5 OECD (2015).

145 1. Build Partnerships; 2. Characterize the Watershed; 3. Set Goals and Identify Solutions; 4. Design

Implementation Program; 5. Implement Watershed Plan; 6. Measure Progress and Make Adjustments. (US EPA Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans) 146 Water governance may be defined as 'the range of political, social, economic and administrative systems that are

in place to develop and manage water resources, and the delivery of water services, at different levels of society.' (The Global Water Partnership (GWP)) The OECD sees governance as including administrative systems, formal institutions (incl. laws & policies) and information institutions such as power relationships and practices. (OECD, 2011b) A recent European Environment Agency Report states that”…water governance is about the relationships for water management within the RBM system rather than simply about government-led processes. Moreover, stakeholders are not simply 'water users' or 'interests': some are major elements of local economies and societies, as in the case of agricultural interests in farming areas, and as such are part of water governance. Moreover, the 'active involvement' of these stakeholders — as per the WFD — is a key element in terms of integrating water management across economic sectors and consequently for the success of water management goals.” (EEA, 2014, p.31)

39

Concerns over the adequacy of governance provisions are now considered in the last section of this

paper which asks whether the governance arrangements are fit for this purpose.

4. What governance challenges need to be addressed, for this public participation

to be successful?

For Integrated Catchment Management to work, and the stakeholder engagement to be worthwhile,

governance must support and integrate them. It is worth re-iterating that by governance here we are

not focusing on general implementation arrangements such as technical working groups etc. We

mean the governance structures where responsibility for decisions on the selection and

implementation of WFD measures, resides. The 2014 regulations147 give responsibility for

implementation of the RBM Plans to the Local Authorities.

The very busy diagram (below) is the latest information shared with SWAN as to the proposed

governance structures for WFD implementation.

Figure 2. Public participation and Regional Implementation (Source: CCMA)

This represents part of what many have been wondering about for the past number of years: which is

just how this new revised governance system is going to deliver integration, and how it is going to

work in practise. No details being available, this critique must necessarily be general, but it is

nonetheless valid. Looking at the diagram, several fundamental issues emerge that SWAN is extremely

concerned will persist in whatever the final governance details are, undermining stakeholder

engagement and ICM overall, and these must be addressed. They can be categorised broadly as

problems for delivering both the catchment and integration aspects of the ICM approach.

147 European Union (Water Policy) Regulations (S.I. No. 350 of 2014).

40

A. The catchment focus is missing

Looking at the diagram in Figure 2 above the first striking issue of concern is that there is no evidence

of a catchment focus. Apart from a reference to the feeding in of Catchment Management Plans, none

of the structures or arrangements within the administration tasked with implementation of the WFD

at this Tier 3 reflect or apply a catchment approach. There are no evident structures, vested with the

necessary authority which will provide catchment based management, where decisions are taken

regarding the selection and implementation of measures, at a catchment level. Furthermore it is not

apparent how this can be done in collaboration with stakeholders.

There is a fundamental challenge, specific to WFD implementation, to successfully mesh together

environmentally determined catchment and sub-catchment areas, when responsibility for the

implementation of measures falls to local authorities whose boundaries are not coincident with these

catchments. Similarly, the administrative boundaries applied by other state agencies involved are not

determined by catchment. If WFD is to be delivered on a catchment basis, this challenge has to be

acknowledged and adequately addressed (OECD, 2015).

Rather than any meaningful attempt to introduce structures that can work on a catchment basis, there

is evidence that the catchment units are in fact to be broken down to reflect the existing administrative

boundaries. This can be seen in the introduction of County Water Management Plans, which have

been explained to SWAN as articulations of the River Basin and Catchment Management Plans.

The questions that this retrograde step throws up are numerous and some very profound: Who

produces which Plan? Who executes which measures in each? How is synchronisation ensured and

who ensures it? In the event that it isn’t, which Plan trumps which? This has all the appearance of a

bureaucratic fudge to get the square peg of river basin management to fit into the round hole of

traditional government administration structures, and it is the antithesis of the ICM and WFD

approach. This creates challenges for officials working in implementation and is likely to frustrate, any

attempt to allow the public to contribute meaningfully. Perhaps most worryingly it implies that the

reality of planned WFD implementation in Ireland for the second cycle will NOT be integrated

catchment management.

In the case where a Stakeholder Catchment Group is initiated, whose catchment boundaries cross

local authority boundaries, there will be multiple relevant local administrations each working to their

own separate County Water Management Plans, none of which align with the catchment of concern

to the local action group. The Community Water Officer who has to liaise with this group whilst

navigating 2-3 County Water Management Plans and a Catchment Management Plan would not be

in an enviable position.

B. The lack of integration

The second major cause for concern is the messy, fragmented and “structure heavy” nature of the

governance arrangements this diagram outlines. Despite acknowledged criticism regarding the

persistent lack of integration in the first iteration of River Basin Management Plans, what is proposed

is not a streamlined, integrated or fit to incorporate stakeholder engagement.

As stressed previously, if there is to be no change to the fundamental administrative structures, then

the challenges of these structures and boundaries NOT aligning with catchment units mean there

MUST be radical institutional cultural changes from public authorities’ to their current ways of working

to implement Integrated Catchment Management and effectively deliver WFD objectives.

The structures proposed need to ensure that all relevant Government Departments, public authorities

and other agencies are tasked from the highest level and adequately resourced to actively co-operate

in water management issues, including those raised by stakeholder groups. Fundamentally, this

involves a collaborative culture of working, which is not always evident even within local authorities

or other state bodies, and is even rarer between them. This cultural change is vital if we are to

successfully implement the WFD. Specifically the following are required:

41

o collaborative engagement of neighbouring authorities in managing shared

catchments (for example, when a river flows across local authority boundaries

the catchment involved requires more than the separate and individual work

of the 2 or more local authorities; it necessitates their collaborative work to

deliver management of the river catchment);

o positive collaborative engagement between state agencies (for example, local

authorities and NPWS working together to manage High Status Sites) with

clear direction to staff at all levels of all relevant state agencies that an

important element of their work and responsibilities is now to participate in

WFD delivery and to respond to significant water management- issues where

appropriate when requested. For example DAFM staff in the Forest Service

and Aquaculture & Foreshore Management Division should be directed to

fully co-operate with the EPA, DECLG and Local Authorities in relation to

measures applying to these sectors. Such increased institutional integration

is already being led by public participation requirements of the WFD in France

and Germany (EEA, 2014);and

o necessary resources to do the above.

SWAN has four further recommendations to make in order to improve governance for stakeholder

engagement:

1. Hire staff with appropriate skill-sets and equip existing staff with appropriate skills andsupport

To support this cultural shift towards real integrated collaborative working, including with

stakeholders, staff will need support to establish the necessary close productive relationships between

agencies. Similarly, if WFD staff in the WFD National office and local authorities are to integrate

stakeholder engagement, such as Stakeholder Catchment Groups, they will need a very specific social

science/community development skill set to support these initiatives; and to act as an effective link

between these groups and official implementation structures. The extent of the communication and

conflict resolution skills that will need to be provided here should not be underestimated. Similarly,

neutral facilitation and advice and expertise on engagement structures and processes must be

engaged from the beginning, and as necessary thereafter.

The challenges of developing capacities for effective water governance are real and widely recognised:

“Developing and strengthening capacity throughout the policy cycle can be a daunting and resource

intensive task. A primary challenge is that organisations often fail to recognise the wide range of

characteristics that make up effective capacity. Among these are ‘hard’ aspects related to tangible

‘deliverables’ and associated technical skills. But there are also softer, more intangible aspects, such as

leadership, staff motivation, shared values, integrity, coordination, social expertise, communication,

facilitation, and knowledge. Both hard and soft capacities148 should receive attention….. Special attention

should also be devoted to capacity needs of the civil society and the support that governments can bring

in this regards” (OECD, 2015, p. 20).

Within the WFD Implementation Office and amongst all those tasked with implementation, the role

of these staff in engaging stakeholders needs to be seen as an integral element of the process.

2. Adopt a culture of openness & transparency

Transparency and openness at all levels both between agencies and with stakeholders is vital (OECD,

2015). This is not a naïve proposal to disclose sensitive information, but to keep people in the loop,

148 The OECD includes inter-agency communication, negotiation and consensus-building among “soft” capacities.

42

reduce the risk of conspiracy theories developing, support collaborative working and a growing

partnership between officials and stakeholders. It will require leadership, which must come from the

top (WPAC level) down starting with WPAC releasing information about its workings such as

committee membership, its terms of reference and meeting agendas and outputs.

3. Review the new governance structures put in place

Whatever governance arrangements are put in place represent a new and relatively complex attempt

to integrate agencies and structures and are the result of more than 2 years of bureaucratic

negotiations. Therefore SWAN recommends that an independent review of implementation structures

is scheduled at 5 years, midway through the River Basin Management cycle, to identify strengths and

weaknesses and to ensure they are fit for purpose, including for facilitating and responding to

stakeholder engagement.

4. Raise awareness and provide information

A strong strategy to develop and deliver enhanced public awareness must be a priority and the clear

responsibility of a single entity, with an emphasis on encouraging stakeholders to engage. Easy access

to clear information is vital and an important first step is provision of a comprehensive website

providing information, updates and notifications from both the administrative agencies involved, but

also from the stakeholder groups, at catchment, regional and national level. Such a website, that is

easily navigable but nonetheless allows users to explore detailed background and technical

information, is achievable and of immense value to all concerned with WFD implementation.

The rapid development of information technologies and social media significantly enhance the

possibilities for communicating with citizens. There are many techniques and approaches that can be

employed, but it is vital that these are planned well in advance, appropriate to task, and fully

integrated into the wider task of WFD implementation.

One other issue very specific to public participation emerges in the complex diagram of structures

that are currently proposed, which needs to be addressed. This involves the incorporation and reliance

on the new Public Participation Networks established (or being established) by Local Authorities.

Public Participation Networks – a powerful resource for public participation, but not sufficient

for WFD implementation

There is an over-reliance on the new Public Participation Networks at local authority level which

illustrates well the challenges of ensuring an integrated catchment approach to aquatic environmental

management and deserves special comment.

The Public Participation Networks (PPN) were established to facilitate the engagement of citizens with

local government. They consist of a nominating network from which stakeholder representatives

would be nominated onto LA committees and other local government bodies, and are based on the

three pillars of community and voluntary, social inclusion and environmental organisations. According

to the ‘Guidelines for Public Participation Networks’ issued by the Department in its May 2014 Circular

Letter “The PPN facilitates input by the public into local government through a structure that ensures

public participation and representation on decision-making committees and bodies within local

government”. (emphasis added).

However, there are severe limitations to the role that the PPN can fulfil in relation to public

participation in WFD implementation:

While the PPN represent an entirely appropriate source of representatives from the

3 pillars to stakeholder bodies such as our recommended Regional Stakeholder Fora,

we need to stress that they cannot constitute, replace or be nominated to local citizen

action groups, such as Stakeholder Sub-catchment Groups since this is not a function

of PPNs, which are purely representative.

43

The PPN are Local Authority bodies and so don’t align with catchment units, which

constitutes a fundamental mismatch between the PPN as a source of stakeholder

representatives and the focus of concern, namely the catchments.

The PPN do not represent all stakeholders. PPNs can represent the community and

voluntary, social inclusion and environmental organisations, but does not fulfil this

function for commercial interests such as business, industry and farming. Provision

must be made to integrate all stakeholder elements, in a fair and transparent manner

– so reliance on PPN is insufficient in this regard.

While the proposed reliance of Public Participation Networks may reflect a genuine desire not to re-

invent the wheel, it is vital to recognise that the PPN are not what is required under WFD for public

engagement; limiting engagement to these groups will effectively limit the public stakeholder

engagement and cannot deliver what is envisaged in WFD or ICM.

Conclusion

SWAN’s aim is not to discourage senior officials by highlighting the serious challenges and risks

evident in the proposals for governance for supporting effective stakeholder engagement and ICM.

However, it is necessary to challenge key decision-makers to ensure that the governance structures

proposed are fit for this purpose. What has been presented are not, not least because there is no clear

provision for autonomous stakeholder structures. The very simple recommendations for 3 Tiers of

stakeholder engagement that have been outlined above, and the benefits that these can bring both

for officials, for stakeholders, and for the aquatic environment, remain achievable. The question that

remains is, “Is there a genuine commitment to meaningful public participation in the administration

or simply an abstract notion that it’s probably a good idea?” And even more fundamentally, “Is there

the necessary commitment to delivering integrated catchment management in governance, of which

stakeholder engagement is a key part?”

Unless the governance structures address the shortcomings outlined here in relation to catchment-

based management and integration, - and it is not too late to do so - then putting in place the 3 Tier

stakeholder proposals made by SWAN cannot deliver optimal stakeholder and will lead to immense

frustration on the part of stakeholders and, very probably, staff tasked with implementation of ICM

also.

Integrated Catchment Management is a simple concept to grasp; it is being applied by the EPA, and

it is straightforward to deliver the public participation element - that is the stakeholder structures

encompassing both local action AND policy input that SWAN is proposing, if the commitment is there

to do so. It is not appropriate or acceptable that State agencies responsible for WFD implementation

(or similar) respond to requests and proposals for public participation by identifying flaws or pointing

to the complexities of government and administration which make delivering this challenging. The

onus should not be on stakeholders to present an unassailable or perfect model/proposal for public

participation. Rather it is the State’s responsibility to look at the key characteristics of the public

participation that require to be delivered and to facilitate its delivery by setting up a structure and

mechanisms that allow and support it to happen. In addition to the extensive literature on engaging

the public, there are increasing studies specifically related to the experience of WFD implementation

(Pahl-Wostl et al, 2008; Van der Heijden & ten Heuvelhof, 2012; WRc plc, 2012). The test for any

structure/processes that ARE put in place is whether they DO deliver the key characteristics or not. If

they do not, the prime responsibility must rest with the authorities as they have the power to enable

effective public participation to occur.

There is a significant challenge in addressing the mismatch between existing traditional administrative

structures and the natural boundaries needed for a catchment management approach and it is an

effective response to that challenge that is needed for success.

44

Failure to provide the opportunity to capture the benefits of stakeholder engagement reduces

Ireland’s capacity to achieve WFD objectives with maximum efficiency and effectiveness. SWAN has

have provided robust recommendations - and the basis for these - on how to implement public

participation in catchment management and WFD implementation in Ireland in a variety of forms and

fora over the past 10 years. The choice now rests with the State agencies involved, to enable

participative catchment-based management to take place.

END

45

References

Carr, G., Blöschl, G. and Loucks, D. P. (2012) Evaluating participation in water resource

management: A review., Water Resour. Res., (48)

Dept. of Environment, Community & Local Government (2014) Guidelines for Public Participation

Networks. Dept. of Environment, Community & Local Government Circular, May 2014

European Environment Agency (2014) Public participation: contributing to better water

management. Experiences from eight case studies across Europe. Report 3/2014, Luxembourg:

Publications Office of the European Union, Denmark

Goldsmith, S. & Crawford, S. (2014) The Responsive City: Engaging Communities Through Data-

Smart Governance. Jossye-Bass (Wiley), USA

Jansky, L. & Uitto, J.L. (eds) (2006) Enhancing participation and governance in water resource

management: conventional approaches and information technology. United Nations University Press.

Koontz, T. M. and Thomas, C. W. (2006) What Do We Know and Need to Know about the

Environmental Outcomes of Collaborative Management?, Public Adm. Rev., (66) 111–121.

Muro, M. and Jeffrey, P. (2012) Time to Talk? How the Structure of Dialog Processes Shapes

Stakeholder Learning in Participatory Water Resources Management. Ecol. Soc., (17)

Nabatchi, T. & Leighninger, M. (2015) Public Participation for 21st Century Democracy: Engaging

Citizens in Government Decision-Making. Bryson Series in Public and Nonprofit Management,

Jossey-Bass (Wiley), USA

Ní Chatháin, B., Irvine, K and Moorkens E. (2012) Management Strategies for the Protection of

High Status Water Bodies. STRIVE Report Series No.99 Environment Protection Agency, Wexford,

Ireland

OECD (2011a) OECD Studies on Water: Stakeholder Engagement for Inclusive Water Governance.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.

OECD (2011b) OECD Studies on Water: Water Governance in OECD Countries — A Multi-Level

Approach. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.

OECD (2015) Draft Principles on Water Governance. Public Governance and Territorial

Development. Water Governance Initiative, Directorate Regional Development Policy Committee,

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, GOV/RDPC/WGI(2015)1

Pahl-Wostl, C., Mostert, E. and Tàbara, D. (2008) The growing importance of social learning in

water resources management and sustainability science, Ecol. Soc., (13).

Rees, Y., Searle, B., Tippett, J. and Johannessen, A. (2005) Good European Practices for Stakeholder

Involvement — Lessons from Real Planning Processes. Case studies and Experiments. Harmonising

Collaborative Planning (HarmoniCOP), WRc plc, Swindon, United Kingdom.

Smith, L., Porter, K., Hiscock, K., Porter, M.J. & Benson, M. (eds) (2015) Catchment and River Basin

Management: integrating science and governance. Earthscan Studies in Water Resource

Management. Earthscan, Routledge, UK

Soriani, S., Buono, F., Tonino, M. & Camuffo, M. (2015) Participation in ICZM initiatives: Critical

aspects and lessons learnt from the Mediterranean and Black Sea experiences. Marine Pollution

Bulletin 92 (2015), 143-148

US Environment Protection Agency (2015) US EPA Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans. US

EPA Office of Water, Nonpoint source control branch, Washington.

Van der Heijden, J. and ten Heuvelhof, E. (2012) The Mechanics of Virtue: Lessons on Public

Participation from Implementing the Water Framework Directive in the Netherlands. Environ. Policy

Gov., (22) 177–188

WRc plc (2012) Comparative Study of Pressures and Measures in the Major River Basin

Management Plans: Task 1 — Governance. Report for the European Commission, European

Commission, Swindon, the United Kingdom.

46

APPENDIX I

47

SWAN Recommendations for Public Participation Mechanisms in the

Department of Environment, Community & Local Government 3-Tier Water

Governance Proposal149 In response to the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government’s (DECLG) 3-tier proposal for water governance, SWAN is making a recommendation for public participation mechanisms within this. SWAN’s recommendation is derived from the original comprehensive 2010 proposal it made to the DECLG on the necessary reform of water governance in Ireland150, and is based on the same fundamentals for best practice in public engagement. SWAN does not see this recommendation as ideal, but rather a pragmatic response to the likely governance landscape as presented by DECLG. To be effective, the proposal should be delivered as part an integrated catchment management approach which provides a collaborative, adaptive and integrated planning framework151.

Before presenting the various elements of this recommendation, it is useful to review why public involvement in water governance is desirable, and to consider some of the key criteria that must be met if such engagement is to be effective.

1. Why engage with the public? Besides a requirement in the Water Framework Directive (WFD) that the public be informed, consulted and actively involved in delivering the objective of “good ecological status” for all water bodies, there are a number of other valuable benefits that can be achieved through meaningful participation by stakeholders. Many detailed analyses of the value of engaging the public have been conducted152. However, in summary, when done well, public participation:

supports and enhances democratic society and accountability;

increases legitimacy of processes and outcomes;

generates better outcomes, as more perspectives are addressed;

encourages positive action of citizens;

embeds longer-enduring outcomes, and sustainable change;

creates a culture of co-operation, growing the capacity to handle change, tensions and disputes and invest in social structures, institutions and relationships that deliver other knock-on benefits.

It is important to stress that only well planned, designed and executed public participation will deliver these outcomes. Performed badly, a cumulatively reinforced negative feedback loop occurs where little or nothing of value is added by the stakeholder engagement, and costs (of time, resources, goodwill, etc.) and difficulties encountered damage commitment on the part of both the agencies and stakeholders concerned to future initiatives. (See figure below)

149 In response to a request from DECLG, SWAN re-submitted this document in August 2013 as a 4-Tier proposal, with stakeholder

engagement at the sub-catchment / Water Management Unit (WM) as the 4th tier, but ultimately this 4th tier was rejected by the CCMA. 150 Sustainable Water Network (SWAN) (2013) Proposal for a New System of Water Governance. Submission to DECLG. 151 Daly, D. (2013) A Healthy Catchment Initiative for Ireland: Making Integrated Catchment Management Happen. Presentation to IAH (Irish Group) Conference: Groundwater & Catchment Management, Tullamore, April 2013 152 E.g. Cooper, T. L., Bryer, T.A. & Meek, J.W. (2006) Citizen-centered collaborative public management. Special issue, Public Administration Review 66: 76–88. Delli-Priscoli, J. (2004) What is public participation in water resources management and why is it important? Water International, 29(2), 221-227 Yang, K. & Pandey, S.K. (2011) Further dissecting the Black Box of citizen participation: when does citizen involvement lead to good outcomes? Public Administration Review 71(6): 880–92.

Low/no positive value

outcomes from stakeholder

engagement

Poorly designed &/or

executed public participation

undertakings

48

It is also important to recognise the significance of the intention of any agency undertaking such initiatives. If an agency engages reluctantly; seeing it as an obligatory requirement, or as a distraction, with little potential benefit, then it is indeed unlikely that the initiative will be well carried out or that anything of value will result. “Participatory tools and approaches are often used simply to extract information from stakeholders and often to dress autocratic decisions in the clothes of participatory democracy. Without the cultural and political decision to share power, participation is simply public relations at its most cynical.”153 Moreover, as has been seen with WFD implementation in Ireland, often the governance system itself can hinder or frustrate the best efforts of officials committed to genuine public participation154.

Unfortunately, poor past experiences of stakeholder involvement or an absence of such participation opportunities, often results in antagonistic engagement on the part of stakeholders; looking to air or address grievances in other areas, and suspicious of the motives of the agency concerned in seeking to involve them.

There is a real challenge for all parties where there is no strong track record of positive public engagement to change this experience and achieve the potential benefits for all concerned. However, in relation to securing good ecological status for Ireland’s waters, it seems clear that “the functioning of government requires public support both for a common perception of a problem definition and for the nature of the likely solutions”155 As water is a common, shared, resource affecting all our society, and in which every member of the public is a stakeholder, it is abundantly clear that only a collaborative response will achieve the desired objectives under the WFD. This is equally true in relation to related areas on water management including the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Integrated Coastal Zone Management and flood risk management under the Floods Directive. It is therefore incumbent upon the DECLG to invest in the development of strong and effective public participation in this area.

2. How can we engage effectively with the public? To be valid, public participation needs to facilitate the achievement of genuine results that are congruent with the objective of the engagement. In this case, this is the ability of the public to have influence in achieving “good ecological status” in Ireland’s water bodies.

Assuming a desire to engage meaningfully with the public, there is an extensive literature on the characteristics of successful public participation156, as well as on the detailed structures and processes that may be involved as appropriate, including an integrated catchment management approach. However, it is important to recognise that skill and experience is required to design processes suited to each unique context, and that this investment in skilled professionals is necessary to realise the full value of the engagement.

It is widely agreed that a number of core criteria need to be met to enable effective stakeholder participation:

early engagement, that is well-planned and designed, so that participation is not rushed or compromised, and involves initiatives appropriate to the task or objectives set (type of engagement, timing, organisation, resources, etc.);

153 Harrison, A. Schmidt, G. Avis, C. Hauser, R. (2001) WWF's preliminary comments on Public Participation in the context of the Water

Framework Directive and Integrated River Basin Management. WWF European Freshwater Programme, WWF

154 Getting it Right or Getting it Right ? Ticking boxes vs. delivering genuine public participation in water management in Ireland. SWAN

presentation to The joint meeting of the Task Force on Public Participation in Decision-making of the Aarhus Convention & the Meeting of the Parties to the Protocol on Water & Health on ‘Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making: Focus on Water and Health’

155 J.F. de Leeuw, Director General, LNV, in Dirven, J.M.C & Kusiak, L.J.H. (1999) A concern and a dream, Ministry of Agriculture, Nature

Management and Fisheries (LNV), Cabinet Directorate, The Hague, The Netherlands

156 e.g. Grant, A. & Curtis, A. (2004) Refining Evaluation Criteria for Public Participation Using Stakeholder Perspectives of Process and

Outcomes Rural Society, Vol 14 ,no.2 . 142-162; The Co-intelligence Institute. (2008) The principles of public participation. http://www.co-intelligence.org/CIPol_publicparticipation.html; Jansky, L. & Uitto, J.L. (eds) (2006) Enhancing participation and governance in water resource management: conventional approaches and information technology. United Nations University Press.

Negative feedback loop of poor public participation initiatives resulting in poor results, reinforcing negative perception of value of such initiatives.

49

clear objectives, establishing a common understanding of the nature and potential of the engagement, and of all parties’ roles involved in the process, and hence realistic expectations as to possible outcomes;

appropriate mechanisms, structures and processes, that genuinely facilitates the participation of those affected (stakeholders), and enables them to influence the outcome(s);

open, transparent processes, that have been well publicised in advance, and characterised by efficient and effective communication, including good feedback to all parties;

flexible processes and mechanisms that can be responsive to uncertainties, and allow for learning and change by all parties;

adequate resources to conduct effective public participation, and to enable stakeholders to fully realise the potential of each engagement opportunity;

evaluation of operation and outcomes, to inform improvements in how engagement continues. Beyond such over-arching requirements, delivering effective public participation demands a consideration of the unique context in which it occurs. In relation to water governance and management a number of questions need to be addressed.

Who should be involved?

This is more complex than perhaps it first appears. In the first instance this is because of the low level of awareness of water issues amongst the general public which means that they often do not identify themselves as stakeholders. Since there is both a requirement in the WFD Directive (amongst others) to involve stakeholders, and a huge potential dividend from doing so, this would suggest that it is imperative that a comprehensive public awareness campaign be carried out as an urgent priority to address this information deficit. Until there is a greater awareness of the WFD and water issues, generating interest and involvement amongst the general public will be difficult, and providing mechanisms for stakeholders to engage at that scale is unlikely to prove productive.

Secondly, the public agencies concerned often do not recognise the potential of public participation, and for these it is not subsequently embedded within their deliberations on governance structures and mechanisms. As a result they do not identify the relevant stakeholders or encourage them to engage, so that outcomes will not achieve the potential benefits and may indeed enflame situations.

However, there are pockets within society where there exists a high level of awareness, and considerable expertise, in relation to water issues. In a number of cases individuals and sectors have actively engaged in participation exercises on WFD implementation (e.g. consultations and Advisory Councils) to date. It is reasonable to assume that these and others with expertise (specialist professional bodies, academics and technical experts, etc.) would wish to be included in an increasingly integrated and productive manner in the future.

The degree to which individuals or groups and their representatives engage, and how productively, will depend on the opportunities provided and their own capacities. It is essential that the relevant stakeholders are engaged, appropriate to the tasks involved in governance at each of the Tiers. To be effective, public participation needs to be established at all levels of planning and river basin management157, and it is important that connections be established, developed and sustained between stakeholder engagements undertaken at different levels, as each is valuable and should inform one another.

How should stakeholders be involved?

The full potential of the WFD definition of active involvement should be applied, in order to identify the most effective way of securing the benefits of public participation. The HarmoniCOP Handbook158, set out an indication of what “active involvement” can mean:

“The public may:

157 RhineNet (2008) A guide to public participation according to Article 14 of the EX Water Framework Directive (WFD): RhineNet Project

Report. RhineNet, European Water Protection.

158 HarmoniCOP (2005) Learning together to manage together: improving participation in water management. HarmoniCOP, Osnabruck

50

have discussions with the authorities be involved in taking decisions

help to determine the policy agenda participate in implementation

help to develop solutions become fully responsible for (part of the) river basin management”

Initially it is important to ensure that mechanisms for stakeholder participation are realistically capable of delivering good quality engagement, in order to generate positive experiences and capacities of engagement amongst both the public and the relevant implementation bodies. As benefits from collaborative engagement are secured, so the value of this will become apparent to all parties, and improved opportunities for stakeholder engagement emerge.159

The vehicle for stakeholder engagement needs to be appropriate both to the level or scale at which this is happening, and to the stakeholders concerned.

When should stakeholders be involved?

The public need to be involved immediately. As outlined above, there is an urgent need for a public awareness campaign to alert the public to water issues and enable them to determine their level of interest and desire to become involved. Simultaneously, mechanisms for stakeholders to engage need to be provided. These need to recognise and respond to the nascent interest amongst those previously unaware of how they are affected or of their ability to get involved. There also needs to be meaningful engagement for those who are already well-informed, have considerable expertise and/or experience, and are able and willing to engage deeply. Such mechanisms must enable citizens to influence outcomes as appropriate; for example through input into the development of policy and implementation on particular management challenges, or direct actions. This requires a variety of means of engagement at a range of levels, reflecting in this case the 4-Tier government proposal.

As familiarity with collaborative engagement increases, and positive outcomes are demonstrated, the potential for involving the public will be recognised and opportunities increased. As a result, it is appropriate that additional structures and processes for public participation should be anticipated as required within a relatively short time frame.

3. DECLG’s 3 Tier Water Governance Proposal The diagram below briefly outlines the DECLG 3 Tier proposal for water governance, in response to which SWAN makes its recommendation. (In response to a request from DECLG, SWAN re-submitted this document as a 4-Tier proposal.) While the recent RBD Boundaries Report has been considered in the development of this recommendation, the status of the proposals it contains remains uncertain at this time. Therefore it is not assumed that the proposed administrative areas will necessarily be as the Report suggests.

159 See, Arnstein, A. (1969) A ladder of community participation. Amer. Inst. of Planners Journal, 35, 216-224

51

4. Proposals for Public Participation Outline SWAN proposals for the public participation elements in the new water governance structure, and their relationships to the Department’s proposed governance tiers, are summarised in the diagram on the following page. SWAN also proposes the addition of a 4th tier in public participation, which is included in the diagram and detailed later in this document also. It is important to note that some of these elements would be developed sequentially for reasons outlined above. The second timeline diagram illustrates the likely progressive development of the different elements. Further details are given below of the purpose, membership and operation of these different elements as well as an indication of whether they would be initiated immediately (Phase I) or at a somewhat later date (Phase II).

52

(M= multiple

structures) Tier 1: National Management &

Oversight

Led by DECLG

Policy, regulations & resources

Sign-off of RBM plans

Tier 2: National Technical Implementation &

Reporting

Led by EPA

Monitoring, assessment & reporting

Evaluation & implementation of measures

RBM plans

Monitoring of enforcement tasks & environmental

outcomes

Tier 3: Regional Implementation via Water

Networks

Led by the lead Co-ordinating Authority

Local authority monitoring, licensing & enforcement

actions

Implementation of Prog. of Measures by relevant public

bodies, tracking & reporting, in consultation with EPA

Proposed 4 Tier Water Governance

Structure

National Stakeholder Water Forum

Stakeholder groups representatives.

Bring sector expertise to inform efforts to achieve “good

status” of Ireland’s waters.

Scrutiny of implementation, environmental outcomes

achieved & enforcement undertaken

Ability to establish sub-groupings with particular

expertise/relevance to consider specific areas of concern

Clear mechanism for recommendations to Tier 2.

No dedicated places for elected members.

Regional Stakeholder Water Forum M(3)

As for Tier 2 but with regional focused brief to assist in sector-

specific challenges in implementation

Realistic expectations & clear role needed,

Mechanisms for communications, recommendations, feedback

WMU Stakeholder Delivery Partners M

Network of approved stakeholder initiatives with focus on good

ecological status for water fundamental to groups’ purpose,

working alongside authorities to deliver WFD objectives, with

clear communication & collaboration mechanisms

Public Awareness Campaign

Relevant for individuals, communities, enterprises, sectors,

and promoting citizen involvement

Single “Go- to” (portal) website

(Begun at public awareness campaign), with

information on water, WFD & implementation,

supporting active involvement at household &

community level, with links through to local

stakeholder initiatives, etc.

National Annual stakeholder meeting

Representatives from delivery partners & other

stakeholder initiatives, Regional Water Forum

& Tier 3 administration

Opportunity to share experiences, highlight

issues, agree collaborative actions, etc.

Single reporting mechanism to Tier 3 and

Regional Water Forum

Issue specific Water Forum Working

Groups

Members of National & Regional Water Forums,

as appropriate, plus seconded experts.

Mechanism to collaborate with relevant expert

personnel in EPA & make recommendations. M

Public Participation (Phase I) Public Participation (Phase II)

Tier 1

Tier 2

Tier 3

Recommended public participation elements

for Water Governance and WFD

implementation

Tier 4

Network of Groups involved in water

projects

Linking all stakeholder groups engaging in

water-related works, informing on WFD &

related measures, sharing experience, promoting

joint efforts, etc. M

53

Approximate timeline for various elements of public

participation

Present Time

Tier 1

Tier 3

Tier 4

National Stakeholder Water

Forum

Phase I Phase II

Issue-specific Water

Forum Working Group(s)

3 Regional Stakeholder Water

Forums

National Annual

Stakeholder Meetings

WMU

Stakeholder Delivery Partners

Public Awareness Campaign

Single “Go To” (portal) website Expanding functionalities

WMU

Stakeholder Delivery Partners

Wider water-related

Stakeholder Network

Tier 2

54

Tier 2 proposals (National level)

National Stakeholder Water Forum (Phase I)

This body would involve representatives of stakeholder groups or sectors, such as environmental NGOs, academics, civil society/community, agriculture, industry/commerce, SMEs, marine interests, recreation, consumers, youth, that have demonstrable experience, expertise and interest in water issues. Representation would be made up of 5-7 members from each of the three pillars of sustainability (economic, environmental and social). There would be no dedicated seats for elected representatives on the Forum.

Members of the Forum would undertake to apply their knowledge and expertise (both in their sector’s interests and in water issues) to inform and support efforts to achieve “good ecological status” across Ireland’s waters. The Forum’s objective would be to support WFD implementation efforts through collaborative engagement with the EPA (who will be leading this ‘tier’). In participating, each member would undertake to work constructively in the interests of this objective. The Forum would receive regular timely communications from the EPA on implementation, environmental outcomes and enforcement action, with clear opportunity at regular scheduled meetings to develop positions in relation to matters raised, and mechanisms to permit responses including recommendations as part of a two-way dialogue. As familiarity with the working arrangements and potential for the Forum to provide support to the EPA grows, it is envisaged that the Forum would have an increasing role in developing solutions (measures), and in taking decisions between these and on the operation of these WITH the EPA. Such a development requires the building of trust between both bodies, and evidence of positive outcomes from collaborative efforts, but has the potential to significantly enhance WFD implementation.

In addition, the Forum would receive communications from Regional Water Forums (Tier 3) and from stakeholder initiatives (proposed Tier 4, see below), and could in turn communicate these, or their deliberations on these, to the EPA, as well as make responses to these bodies.

The Forum would have the ability to establish limited-term Working Groups with particular expertise/relevance to consider specific water issues of concern (see below).

There would be clear criteria set out for membership of the Forum, and applications/nominations would be sought publicly. The selection process would be transparent, with each member of the Forum demonstrating proven competence in areas which can contribute towards the attainment of the Forum’s (and WFD) objectives. A maximum of 3 members of the Forum (one in each of the three pillars) could be selected from Northern Ireland, in recognition both of the presence of the two International River Basin Districts, and the possible value of the contributions these members may bring.

The Stakeholder Water Forum would be supported by an independent facilitator, who would also liaise with the EPA in relation to communications, and there would be provision for the Forum to initiate additional, innovative, mechanisms for public participation when appropriate.

Issue-specific Forum Working Groups (Phase II)

The National Implementation Stakeholder Forum would have the ability to establish Working Groups of limited duration to examine specific issues. As with the Forums, the Working Groups’ objectives would be to assist in addressing challenges in the area of particular concern, in order to support the effective implementation of the WFD, through the application of their skills and expertise. These Working Groups would liaise closely with the relevant expert personnel in the EPA.

Membership of these Working Groups could be drawn from both the National Water Stakeholder Forum and the Regional Forums, and could also include co-opted members, in order to establish the best possible degree of expertise in the area concerned.

Tier 3 proposals

Regional* Stakeholder Water Forums (x3) (Phase I)

55

The Regional Forums would be established and constituted along similar lines as the National Forum, but would have the more focused brief to assist in addressing sector-, and region-, specific challenges in implementation at Tier 3 level. They would work with the WFD Office in their respective Region.

To carry out their task the Regional Forums will receive regular reports from the relevant Regional RBD Offices, be given the opportunity to discuss matters of concern at regular scheduled meetings (with others arranged as necessary), reach positions on these, and communicate their deliberations to the Regional RBD implementation teams. A focused and productive dialogue between the WFD Office and the Forum would be fostered (this involves intention and effort from all parties). Specifically, the public participation officers at each Regional Implementation Office160 would be responsible for facilitating dialogue and meetings between groups of Forum members and relevant Tier 3 officials (e.g. local authority staff), concerned with a specific water management issue, where solution-focused discussions will aim to secure improved implementation results through pragmatic collaborative action.

The Regional Water Stakeholder Forums would receive communications from stakeholder initiatives within the Region and in time would participate in the National Annual Stakeholder Meetings, particularly considering feedback from these. The Forum would act as a mechanism through which issues raised can be taken up with the Regional WFD Office and addressed. It is important that this communication is a two way dialogue, with timely feedback to stakeholder groups. Facilitating this dialogue and communications would be a function of the public participation officers proposed in the RBD Boundary Report if these posts are established. Staff in these positions must be suitably skilled and experienced in public participation.

Representation on the Forum will be made up of 5 members from each of the three pillars of sustainability (economic, environmental and social). Each member must clearly demonstrate their ability to contribute valuable skills and experience, with proven competence in areas which will assist in the attainment of the objectives of the Forum. There would be no seats for elected representatives as their input comes in the approval of plans at local authority level. However, opportunities for dialogue with elected representatives would be provided.

* The term “Regional” is taken from the DECLG “3 Tier Water Governance Proposal” document. It is as yet unclear whether this is aligns with the proposal Regional Assembly areas, but these Forums should be considered to relate to the administrative areas as ultimately determined.

International River Basin Districts (IRBDs)

It is not clear at present how the IRBDs will be addressed in the proposed 3/4 Tier governance system. When this is known, SWAN will be in a position to recommend a means of involving the public in WFD implementation. However, whatever the administrative arrangements decided, tangible support is needed for cross-border collaborative stakeholder initiatives (as discussed in the section below). Consistency in approach and management can be delivered locally in such cases, if careful investment is made in these initiatives, so that work to secure WFD objectives can be carried out; for example, in the development of a compatible Rivers Trust model similar to that being expanded in Northern Ireland. (Provision for public participation in IRBDs is not specifically referred to in the preceding diagram, for the reason explained above. However, IRBDs ARE addressed through the Stakeholder Initiatives discussed below.)

Tier 4 proposals

It is proposed that a separate Tier (4) be recognised, specifically focused on stakeholder action in support of delivering WFD objectives as part of an integrated catchment management approach. Within this are included both significant delivery partnerships with groups that have achieving good water status as one of their primary purposes, as well as a wider communications network with all catchment stakeholder groups that engage in positive actions for local aquatic environments.

160

Ó Breasail, S. & Mills, P. (2012) A Review of the Number and Boundaries of River Basin Districts and Administrative Areas for

WFD Implementation. Report to the Department Of Environment, Community and Local Government and to the Environmental Protection Agency.

56

An integral part of mobilising this work is the roll out of an effective public awareness campaign. Both the awareness campaign and the ongoing stakeholder initiatives require to be supported by a “go- to” website facility, with expanding functionalities, which shares information on all aspects of WFD, water management, the activities of involved State agencies and of stakeholder projects on the ground.

These coherent elements of Tier 4 are set out below.

WMU Stakeholder Delivery Partners (Phase I & II )

Support for water-focused stakeholder initiatives that deliver WFD objectives at sub-catchment level effectively supplements measures specified in the River Basin Management Plans, adding considerable potential for Ireland’s progress towards securing WFD objectives.

It is important that such initiatives be clearly focused on water and aquatic environment quality. They will be established on a not-for-profit basis and, while they might generate both direct and indirect economic benefits (via enhanced ecosystem services etc.), it is vital that these be achieved as a result of (i.e. are dependent upon) the attainment of good ecological status. In essence, local communities would be enabled to identify pressures on their local water resources, to develop appropriate responses to these, and to participate in delivering these solutions practically. Where possible, it is recommended that cross-border synergies and consistency should be sought.

These “delivery partners” will be locally-based (although they may be part of national organisations), and clearly “bottom up” in nature. They may be existing or new groups, but each will share a clear priority in their objectives and activities to achieve good ecological status water AND they will be able to demonstrate that they hold no objectives that compete, or conflict with, securing WFD objectives in their area. It is likely that they will have one or more water bodies that are a focal point of the group’s attention, and they will demonstrate a clear appreciation of wider water-related issues.

At present the River Trust model, which is very successfully applied in the UK, is not widely used in Ireland. However, this model may well represent opportunities for cross-border co-operation and delivery of shared goals for water status, and subsequently be of interest in other areas of the country. Support for the establishment of Rivers Trusts (similar to that which is in place in Northern Ireland) could assist groups in building capacity, professionalising organisational structures and sourcing outside funds etc., benefiting from River Trusts’ extensive expertise and experience in collaborative integrated catchment management. Similarly, networks of coastal units, or groups concerned with groundwater may be appropriate to local circumstances (both hydrological and social).

To be recognised as a Tier 4 Delivery Partner, a group will be required to submit an acceptable project proposal. As part of this, each group must set out a plan with clear aims and objectives, which will be assessed against straightforward key criteria, by a panel of relevant experts. Plans should include proposals for the following:

a land use survey, clearly identifying pressures on waters within the relevant WMU(s), and linked to WFD plans;

engagement with, and openness to, all stakeholders in the sub-catchment (including land-owners), seeking to secure buy-in from all parties;

engagement / collaboration with relevant authorities;

flora & fauna survey & water quality monitoring;

actions to achieve and/or maintain good ecological status;

clear identification of resource allocations of voluntary support & commitment, e.g. local volunteer working parties, FÁS workers, monitoring & recording duties, etc. and staff time where required (possibly shared between Delivery Partners);

57

training (in aquatic environment ecological, water quality, sampling, SSRA score, macro-invertebrate index, etc.);

communication and awareness-raising efforts, including links with schools and media.

Successful groups will undertake an agreed evaluation of performance, relative to WFD objectives. These plans and evaluations will be available publicly.

Plans will be of a minimum of 1 year’s duration, and a maximum of 3 years. They may involve collaborative elements with other groups (also submitting plans in the tender process). The tenders are not to be considered in competition with one another, but evaluated against whether they demonstrate compatibility with WFD objectives. Financial assistance will be necessary to realise the project aims and objectives. The level of support extended to any one group will reflect the extent of work involved and the value of this in meeting WFD objectives as assessed against pre-determined indices established by the expert panel.

WFD Offices will need to provide:

a good communications system & working relationships between the relevant authorities and stakeholders (everyone living in the catchment);

links to higher tiers of both public participation and administration (as set out in this proposal), that also provide the opportunity to make inputs on policy.

It is vital that the regional Water Networks (Tier 3) and all the local authorities involved in these recognise the stakeholder delivery partners as central to the new integrated catchment management approach and appreciate how collaborative or complimentary actions might create efficiencies or added value, especially in the current budgetary climate.

Where a prospective Delivery Partner initiative seeks such funding then it must demonstrate that it operates with financial and operational probity; be established as a limited company or co-operative, with charitable status, not operate in deficit, and provide copies of annual accounts be submitted to the Regional WFD Office, etc.

A wide range of personnel within existing public bodies may be able to provide assistance to these groups, and also to secure shared objectives through collaborative efforts. Such individuals would include local authority Heritage Officers, Environmental Awareness Officers, IFI staff, etc.

It is envisaged that an initial 3-5 pilot projects be initiated in the first year of operation of the revised water governance structure.

Public participation officers (in WFD Regional Offices)

The role of the (Tier 3) public participation officers needs to be clearly set out, and unequivocally dedicated to the facilitation and support of public participation both at Tier 3 and Tier 4 levels, as described in this document and individuals recruited to these posts should have demonstrable skills and experience and a proven track record in facilitation and support of public participation. They should be involved in all of the elements outlined here, and in facilitating the necessary bilateral communications and interactions between stakeholder groups and relevant Tier 3 Water Networks and local authority staff that are mutually beneficial in supporting the delivery of WFD objectives.

Network of groups involved in water-related projects

It is important to accommodate groups of different (often smaller and more local) scales, and those that engage in water-related initiatives although water issues may not be one of their principal interests. (e.g. Tidy Towns

58

groups; residents’ associations) It is vital to tie in the efforts of such groups, so that they can benefit from the experience of others, and optimum results can be achieved for water bodies. Monitoring can accurately assess the efficiency and effectiveness of such initiatives.

A national network (and database) of all stakeholder groups engaged with water issues should be created, and a register of all their water-related initiatives may accessed via the website (see below). It was seen as important not to discourage smaller groups where water may be one of a range of interests, as well as working with key delivery partners for whom water concerns are fundamental. There should be a register of all initiatives established, and an annual conclave for networking etc. between groups. In addition, an award for achieving “good status” should be developed, whether in tandem with an established award system (Pride of Place, Tidy Towns, etc.) or independently. There should be specific recognition for innovative ideas and initiatives, whether these originate from Stakeholder Delivery Partners or other stakeholder groups.

Public Awareness Campaign (Phase I)

As with most common and environmental goods, each citizen is a stakeholder in relation to water, although the level of their interest may vary. However, it has been recognised that the general public in Ireland needs to be informed about water issues in order to identify their stake in this area, irrespective of the extent to which they subsequently choose to actively engage in it. Similarly, any worthwhile public participation initiative must identify potential stakeholders to be invited to participate, in order to then apply the appropriate mechanisms to enable them to engage.

Thus the conduct of an effective public awareness campaign on water is a pre-requisite to wider public engagement in WFD implementation. Without it, the DECLG will have failed to take the most fundamental step to engage the relevant stakeholders, and arguably negate all other participation measures that may be put in place.

The WFD is concerned to deliver “good ecological status” in our waters, it represents a process and tools by which EU member states are to achieve this, but the focus of attention is on water and aquatic environments. It is these that the public needs to be more aware of, rather than the WFD itself.

The Public Awareness Campaign must be relevant to individuals, communities, enterprises and different sectors of society; raising awareness not just of the water-related concerns, but also of people’s ability to act to address these. The public awareness campaign should be linked with the initiation of a single “Go To” water website (see below) that fosters open information on water, integrated catchment management, WFD implementation, stakeholder action, etc.

National Annual Water Stakeholder Group Meeting (Phase II )

As stakeholder awareness grows, and grass roots initiatives become established (whether formal Delivery Partners or those for whom water may be one of a range of interests), it is vital that these projects have the opportunity for dialogue with others, and also that other interested parties can take part. For this reason it is recommended that there be a National Water Stakeholder Group meeting hosted annually. Responsibility for organisation of this independently facilitated event will rest with the regional WFD offices (working together), in consultation with the Delivery Partner projects.

This allows for a sharing of concerns and responses regarding water matters, discussion of possible (joint) responses, communications from and to the WFD Offices about actions under WFD implementation, and development of collaborative/co-ordinated actions between WFD Offices and stakeholder initiatives.

Tier 3 RBD staff would attend these meetings, as would members of the Regional Water Stakeholder Forums where possible, given that these will be individuals giving their time freely on a voluntary basis.

Single “Go To” Portal Website (Phase I & II )

59

A single website which is accessible to stakeholders interested in engaging to different degrees is a vital, efficient and cost-effective means of raising awareness of water issues and the WFD. However, it can be far more than that. It can:

communicate the importance of our aquatic environments, and water quality;

outline the issues related to water management;

provide up-to-date information on the state of Ireland’s water bodies, and trace change over time;

put Ireland’s performance in an EU, even global, context;

provide information on how the WFD is being implemented, by whom and how, and give details of what progress is being made, and challenges encountered;

provide information on stakeholder initiatives and how to get involved, from individual actions to local groups;

provide both summary information and routes to further detailed information for those interested in any particular aspect of water issues or WFD implementation. (etc.)

As public participation increases, the functionalities of this site can be enhanced, so that is allows greater dialogue etc. There is a growing body of literature that discusses how ICT can be most effectively used to support participation initiatives161 and some of the pitfalls to be avoided.162

Implementation The public participation measures set out above represent a complete co-ordinated package, where elements relate clearly to one another, and the engagement is enhanced over time as relationships are built, trust established and progress made. In concert, they represent cumulative benefits and need to be executed in full with the genuine intention on the part of all parties of fostering positive collaborative engagement.

SWAN’s recommendation acknowledges the realities of the current context: the proposed 3/4 Tier governance structure; the present economic climate; and the weak record of collaborative approaches to water governance and management to date. In response to this, the proposal outlined here is designed to create the opportunities to efficiently deliver positive and productive engagement, building capacity amongst both the agencies and the stakeholders involved. With commitment to meaningful participation, increasing value will be achieved for all parties through the involvement of the public in water governance as part of an integrated catchment management implementation approach.

161 Peng, Z, R. (2001) Internet GIS for public participation. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol.28, pp.889-905

162 Hansen, H.S. & Maenpaa, M. (2008) An overview of the challenges for public participation in river basin management and planning.

Management of Environmental Quality, Vol 19, No.1, pp.67-84

60

Appendix IV: Friends of the Irish Environment Peat Information Reference Document

Peat soil/Bog definition

Blanket bogs originally formed in shallow lakes but then spread over the land like a blanket. They are up

to 85% water. Raised bogs formed in shallow lakes but did not spread, and in their natural state are

composed of up to 98% water. Both bog types have formed over the last 10,000 years (Foss. P, O’Connell.

C 1998).

There is no agreed minimum depth of peat which can support blanket bog vegetation (O’Brien 2007 et

al).

Exploitation of Peat Bogs

In order to extract peat it is drained. Drainage of peat causes:

– degradation of the peat

– reduction of water storage capacity in catchment

– release of

o nutrients (Bowman et al 1993)

o heavy metals (Rothwell. et al 2007)

o dissolved organic carbon (Holden, et al 2007)

o sediments (Banna et al 2004)

– high levels of organic colour which are difficult to treat, for potable water supplies and

chlorination can lead to the production of carcinogenic trihalomethanes (THMs) (Jennings E

et al.2006); Waters containing algae are also prone to THM formation. (Binnie, C. et al 2002)

[In their latest EPA water quality report, THMs are identified as the major threat in 55 public

drinking water supplies]

– sediment transport results in damage to aquatic organisms, e.g. deposition of fine peat silt on

river beds (impacting on salmonid spawning beds and their food chain in rivers), increased

turbidity in lakes and rivers (resulting in a reduction in light penetration and primary

productivity), coating of aquatic plant surfaces with fine particles (inhibiting photosynthesis)

and nutrient enrichment (Banaa, K, Krzysztof Goos, K. 2004)

– emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. (Renou-Wilson, F 2008)

The solution is to block the drains. (Wallage. Z E,. et al 2006).

Additional Information

Nutrients

Shannon International River Basin District Project Peatlands Report (2008)

U.V. radiation from sunlight on silt deposits, contained in the shallow waters of the rivers, causes the

release of organically bound and bio available orthophosphate to the waters. This will increase the amount

of eutrophication in the water.

3.2 Phosphorus

61

Phosphorus is important in freshwater ecosystems since it is always the nutrient in shortest supply

controlling the rate of eutrophication. There is a strong statistical relationship between the biological

quality of rivers and MRP concentrations in Irish rivers (McGarrigle et al 1992; Lucey et al, 1999). The

empirical relationship suggests that once annual median MRP values exceed 30 ugP/l, there is a strong

statistical likelihood that the river reach will have water quality issues (Clenaghan, 2003).

Phosphorus in the soil can be found in dissolved, colloidal or particulate forms. As phosphorus

has an affinity to bind to particulates, especially organic matter, wetland areas such as bogs are generally

considered as phosphorus sinks, as they have the ability to encourage siltation of suspended solids and

hence retain the phosphorus. Generally, considerable amounts of phosphorus are contained at the top

layers of soil and it is susceptible to being transported with the surface water runoff. Thus, peat bogs can

also be sources of nutrients as they can input phosphorus to water courses. Two forms are usually found

in the surface water runoff: the dissolved soluble phosphorus, and the phosphorus removed with

sediments, particularly the lighter and finer-sized particles such as humic materials in peat.

Surface waters draining peat catchments are coloured due to the presence of high concentrations

of dissolved organic matter. Natural decomposition of peat releases dissolved organic matter into the

surface waters. However, peat decomposition rates may be altered by future climate change as modeled

by Jennings et at 2006. Decomposition rates may be accelerated by changes in temperature and soil

moisture, while precipitation will also drive the washout of organic matter, increasing the possibility of

both higher suspended solids and phosphorus concentrations being released to the aquatic environment.

Dissolved humic materials (DHM’s) are naturally occurring biogenic chemicals which can impart colour to

water. In lakes, DHM may originate from peat bogs or other wetlands in the lake catchment or they may

come from the vegetation in the littoral areas around the lake. Research has shown that DHM may absorb

phosphate in the presence of iron. Once DHM-iron phosphate complexes absorb phosphate, they reduce

its bioavailability to algae (McGarrigle et al, 1992). It has also been shown that UV light in sunlight can

release the phosphorus bound to dissolved humic substances released from bogs. Therefore, a

combination of dissolved humic substances from bogs and natural UV-sunlight could increase phosphate

levels in freshwaters. Hence, the DHM in rivers and lakes in the Shannon catchment is a potentially

significant source of phosphorus. In 1992, McGarrigle at al., published an investigation into the effect of

UV light on peaty or humic waters in North Mayo and on the River Shannon at Lough Derg. This

investigation concluded that UV light does have an effect on phosphorus released from Irish peaty waters.

Water Quality/DOC

J. Holden, Corresponding Author L. Shotboltb, A. Bonne, T.P. Burtd, P.J. Chapmana, A.J. Dougille, E.D.G.

Frasere, K. Hubaceke, B. Irvinea, M.J. Kirkbya, M.S. Reede, C. Prellf, S. Staglg, L.C. Stringerh, A. Turnera and

F. Worralli (2007) Environmental change in moorland landscapes Elsevier Earth-Science Reviews 82 (2007)

75–100

‘. . . the decomposition of peat into dissolved organic carbon which is then released in runoff.’ (Worrall et

al., 2005). [p 83]

Under normal peat temperature ranges, CO2 production increases by threefold for every 10 °C

increase, but this varies with depth and it is not clear what controls the temperature dependency of carbon

mineralization rates (Blodau, 2002). Equally, there is evidence that losses of dissolved organic carbon will

increase with increasing temperature (Freeman et al., 2001). [p 83]

‘. . . implications of the increase in dissolved organic carbon are wide ranging, from local effects on water

transparency, acidity and metal toxicity through to effects on drinking water quality, and possible

62

destabilisation of terrestrial carbon stores, increasing fluxes into more reactive (riverine, marine and

ultimately atmospheric) pools.’[p 83]

(Jennings, E. et al.2006)

Eleanor Jennings, E., NicAonghusa., C. Allott N, Pamela Naden, P. , O’Hea, B., Pierson, D., Elliot

Schneiderman, E. (2006) Future climate change and water colour in Irish peatland catchments: results from

the CLIME project.

The projected increases in DOC concentrations would have implications for water managers in both study

catchments and in similar catchments throughout Ireland. L. Leane is not presently used as a source of

potable water. However, L. Guitane, 10 km west of the Upper Lake in peat area of the Leane catchment,

is the water source for the towns of Killarney and Tralee. The Feeagh catchment provides a source of

water to approximately 50 households. The projected increase in DOC concentrations would require

additional investment in water treatment while the depletion in water availability in the early autumn

could lead to difficulties in meeting water supply requirements. Difficulties in treating water could also be

exacerbated due to the increased variability in DOC concentrations, particularly in autumn. The EPA has

noted that compliance for THMs continues to be a problem in Ireland (Page et al., 2005). Improved

removal will be required from 2008 when more stringent standards for THMs are introduced. Examination

of drinking water quality results for 2004 in the context of this standard showed that 12% of public

supplies and 11% of private group schemes would not be compliant (Page et al., 2005). However, breeches

of the aluminium standard, due to problems in gauging the correct coagulant dose, were also noted (Page

et al., 2005). Higher DOC concentrations could also have implications for the ecology of both lakes. Fifty

years of data are available for salmon, trout and eel populations in the L. Feeagh catchment and it is

evident that they are declining. Increased summer temperature and the decrease in streamflow could

have negative effects on populations and on spawning habitats. The projected lower flows in autumn

coincide with the movement of salmon upstream to their spawning grounds. An increase in water colour

in both catchments would also lead to a reduction in light penetration and result in a decrease in primary

productivity and zooplankton activity (Wissel et al., 2003) and would also reduce the area of the littoral

zone, an important habitat for juvenile salmonids. In addition to these catchment-scale effects, the

increases in DOC export represent a major transfer of organic carbon from terrestrial stores to more active

dissolved forms, and ultimately to the atmosphere as CO2.

(Kirschbaum, 1995; Evans et al., 2005). The possibility of a positive feedback mechanism between peat

decomposition and climate change has been postulated, with climate change leading to increased

decomposition of peats and a further increase in greenhouse gas concentrations (Kirschbaum, 1995; Knorr

et al., 2005). Such a feedback mechanism could lead to an acceleration of the phenomena outlined in the

paper.

63

Climate Change - Emissions to Atmosphere

Renou-Wilson, F (2008)., Peatlands: Here Today, Gone Tomorrow? EPA Presentation 6th February School of

Biology and Environmental Science University College Dublin

Total emissions = 0.97+0.17 +0.5+0.9 = 2.54 mt = 2 540 kT

Although bog of all types accounts for only 17% of land use by area, it accounts

for nearly two thirds of soil organic carbon stores in Ireland. We now know from recent EPA research that

carbon gases are taken in by intact bogs but are released by cutover or degraded bogs and this flux is

greater even than emissions from peat power stations; .97 Mt as compared to .9Mt ; nearly twice as much

as emissions from domestic turf heating at .5 Mt.

Traditional turf cutting has been undergoing a revival; it appears that 544,000ha of bogs have been

destroyed by owners of turbary rights

Affect on Aquatic organisms

Banaa, K, Krzysztof Goos, K. (2004) Effect Of Peat-Bog Reclamation On The Physico-Chemical

Characteristics Of The Ground Water In Peat POLISH JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY [file

ref:peat_status_groundwater_quality_2004.pdf]

‘Peat-bog degradation, mainly as the result of drainage, is a commonly known process that concerns both

the peat deposit and the vegetation which develops on it. It has, however, much wider impacts, because of

the carrying of water out of swamp areas. The matter released during peat-bog reclamation, primarily in

the form of humic substances, is transported along ditches to lakes or rivers, which brings about far reaching

changes in the water and sediments. Light intensity under water then lowers, which affects the primary

production of plankton and macrophytes (Effler et al. 1985, Wojciechowski 1997, Bociag 1998, Gos et al.

1998). Recognition of the properties of the waters deposited in the top layer of peat in various kinds of peat-

bogs, and of the changes in these properties resulting from peat-bog drainage is therefore of great practical

importance, connected with the preservation of swamp and aquatic ecosystems’.

Heavy Metals

64

Rothwell. J,.. Evansa. M G,., Danielsa. S M,. and Timothy E.H. Allotta. T E H ,.(2007) Peat soils as a source of

lead contamination to upland fluvial systems Upland Environments Research Unit, School of Environment

and Development, The University of Manchester a Elsevier accepted 9 September 2007. Available online

18 October 2007. http://www.sciencedirect.com/

Upland peat soils are generally regarded as effective sinks of atmospherically deposited lead. However,

the physical process of erosion has the potential to transform peat soils from sinks to sources of lead

contamination. Lead input and fluvial lead outputs (dissolved + particulate) were estimated for a

contaminated and severely eroding peatland catchment in the southern Pennines, UK. Lead input to the

catchment is 30.0 ± 6.0 g ha−1 a−1 and the output from the catchment is 317 ± 22.4 g ha−1 a−1. Suspended

particulate matter accounts for 85% of lead export. Contaminated peat soils of the catchment are a

significant source of lead to the fluvial system. This study has demonstrated strong coupling between the

physical process of erosion and the mobilization of lead into the fluvial system. The process of peat

erosion should therefore be considered when estimating lead outputs from peatland catchments,

especially in the context of climate change.

Sediments

Fitzsimons. M., and Igoe, F. (2004) Freshwater Fish Conservation In The Irish Republic: A Review Of

Pressures And Legislation Impacting On Conservation Efforts BIOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT:

PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL IRISH ACADEMY, VOL. 104B, NO. 3, 17_/32

This overexploitation of a natural resource has had dramatic effects on watercourses in many parts of

Ireland: these include deposition of fine peat silt on river beds (impacting on salmonid spawning beds

and their food chain in rivers), increased turbidity in lakes and rivers (resulting in a reduction in light

penetration and primary productivity), coating of aquatic plant surfaces with fine particles (inhibiting

photosynthesis) and nutrient enrichment (Bowman et al . 1993).

The state company Bord Na Mo´na was, until recently, the sole commercial operator with large operations

on raised bogs in the Irish midlands and is exempt from prosecution and licensing under Sections 3 and

4 of the Local Government (Water Pollution) Acts 1997_/1990. Increasingly, private operators are also

harvesting peat. The initial phase of the peat extraction process involves drainage of the bog. This process,

and subsequent extraction, results in the discharge of large quantities of peat silt to the aquatic

environment. The deposition of peat silt is particularly acute in parts of the River Shannon, e.g. in the River

Suck, the Little Brosna and the Inny.

Siltation ponds

Chymko. N,. (Editor) Oil Sands Wetlands Working Group (2000), Guideline for Wetland Establishment on

Reclaimed Oil Sands Leases. Report # ESD/LM/00-1, Alberta Environment, Environmental Service.

Appendix G http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/6854.pdf

Traditional mitigative measures employed to reduce negative impacts on downstream water quality from

peat harvesting have centered around the creation of siltation ponds for the trapping of suspended solids.

The effect on removal of suspended solids is a function of pond maintenance, with occasional removal of

solids from siltation ponds making them effective overall (Joensuu 1992, Wynne 1992). Failure to dredge

can result in ponds acting as a suspended solids source and in some cases have been shown to decrease

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VB5-4PXP0Y6-B&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=76104cc523e252bd13e42cde4af5e13c

http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/6854.pdf

65

downstream water quality significantly (Wynne 1992, Joensuu 1992). Siltation ponds do not mitigate the

amount of dissolved nutrients that can lead to eutrophication (Heikkinen 1990, Selin 1996).

Peat and forestry

McDonnell. R,. Holden. N.M,.. Ward. S.M,. Collins. J.F,. Farrell. E.P,. Hayes. M.H.B,. (2001). Characteristics Of

Humic Substances In Heathland And Forested Peat Soils Of The Wicklow Mountains Biology And

Environment: Proceedings Of The Royal Irish Academy, Vol. 101b, No. 3, 187–197 Royal Irish Academy

http://www.ria.ie/cgi-bin/ria/papers/100291.pdf

At each altitude sampled, the percentage OM in the soil was lower under forestry than under the

corresponding non-forested land use (heath, blanket bog or fen). This reduction in the organic content

of soils under conifer plantations has been well documented but is as yet little understood (Alfredsson et

al. 1998; Condron and Newman 1998). At all elevations, both the HA and FA mass extracted was greater

for the forested sites than for the heathland. This pattern suggests that the HS content of soil as a

percentage of OM is greatly increased under forestry.

References

(Banaa, K, Krzysztof Goos, K. 2004) Banaa, K, Krzysztof GOos, K. (2004) Effect Of Peat-Bog Reclamation

On The Physico-Chemical Characteristics Of The Ground Water In Peat POLISH JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY

(Binnie, C.et al 2002) Binnie, C. Kimber, M., Smethurst, G., (2002) Basic Water Treatment Thomas Telford

Publishing London.

(Bowman et al 1993) Bowman, J.J., McGarrigle, M.L. and Clabby, K.J. (1993) Lough Derg an investigation of

eutrophication and its causes. Part 1 Water quality assessment, nutrient sources, conclusions and

recommendations. A report to the Lough Derg Working Party, Environmental Research Unit.

(Foss. P,. O’Connell. C,. 1998) Foss. P,. O’Connell. C,. (1998) The IPCC Peatland Conservation and

Management Handbook Irish Peatland Conservation Council

(Jennings, E. et al.2006) Eleanor Jennings, E., NicAonghusa., C. Allott N, Pamela Naden, P. , O’Hea, B.,

Pierson, D., Elliot Schneiderman, E. (2006) Future climate change and water colour in Irish peatland

catchments: results from the CLIME project.

(O’Brien 2007 et al) O’Brien. H .,, J C Labadz, J C., & Butcher, D P., (2007) Blanket Bog management and

restoration [p 13] TECHNICAL REPORT TO DEFRA PROJECT No. CTE0513 Nottingham Trent University

(source http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=BD1241_6832_FRP.pdf accessed 14 June

2009 )

(Renou-Wilson, F 2008) Renou-Wilson, F (2008)., Peatlands: Here Today, Gone Tomorrow? EPA

Presentation 6th February School of Biology and Environmental Science University College Dublin

(Rothwell. J,. et al 2007)

Rothwell. J,.. Evansa. M G,., Danielsa. S M,. and Timothy E.H. Allotta. T E H ,.(2007) Peat soils as a source of

lead contamination to upland fluvial systems Upland Environments Research Unit, School of Environment

http://www.ria.ie/cgi-bin/ria/papers/100291.pdf

http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=BD1241_6832_FRP.pdf

66

and Development, The University of Manchester a Elsevier accepted 9 September 2007. Available online

18 October 2007. http://www.sciencedirect.com/

(Wallage. Z E,. et al 2006) Wallage. Z E,. Holden. J,. McDonald. A T,. (2006) Drain blocking: An effective

treatment for reducing dissolved organic carbon loss and water discolouration in a drained peatland Elsevier

accepted 4 February 2006. Available online 5 April 2006 Earth and Biosphere Institute, School of

Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VB5-4PXP0Y6-B&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=76104cc523e252bd13e42cde4af5e13c

67

Peat drainage, diffuse pollution, water quality and the Water Framework Directive.

Holden, J. et al (2007) Environmental change in moorland landscapes Elsevier Earth-Science Reviews 82 75–

100

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000/60/EC) defines pollution as “the direct or indirect introduction as

a result of human activity of substances or heat into the air, water or land which may be harmful to human

health or to the quality of aquatic ecosystems

or terrestrial ecosystems” (Article 2.33).

Eroding peat causes reservoir infilling and severe management problems (e.g. Fig. 2) and is also associated

with release of heavy metals that have been deposited from the atmosphere since the industrial revolution

(Rothwell et al., 2005; Shotbolt et al., 2006).[page79]

Furthermore, moorland managers are assessing the implications of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD).

This requires inland waters to achieve ‘good ecological status’ by 2015 (i.e. good chemical, morphological and

biological status). Significant changes in management practices will be required to deal with nonpoint- source

pollution (e.g. from fine organic sediment release, fertilisers and pesticides) on a catchment-wide basis. This

is particularly important because there have not previously been any legal instruments requiring the control of

diffuse pollutants. Landowners will, in future, be required to take action to ensure that diffuse pollution of water

meets WFD standards. In UK uplands, water discoloration is a major issue since moorlands[peat], particularly

when degraded, tend to produce more discoloured water with higher concentrations of dissolved organic

carbon (Driscoll et al., 2003). This is not only a WFD problem but one for raw water treatment because

chlorination of highly-coloured water releases trihalomethanes, which are potentially toxic and carcinogenic

(Kneale and McDonald, 1999). This may have an economic impact for water companies, and provide another

driver of land management.[p 80]

Solutions to dissolved organic carbon

Wallage. Z E,. Holden. J,. McDonald. A T,. (2006) Drain blocking: An effective treatment for reducing dissolved

organic carbon loss and water discolouration in a drained peatland Elsevier accepted 4 February 2006.

Available online 5 April 2006 Earth and Biosphere Institute, School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds,

LS2 9JT, UK

Abstract

Peatlands are an important terrestrial carbon store. However, heightened levels of degradation in response to

environmental change have resulted in an increased loss of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and an

associated rise in the level of discolouration in catchment waters. A significant threat to peatland sustainability

has been the installation of artificial drainage ditches. However, recent restoration schemes have pursued

drain blocking as a possible strategy for reducing degradation, fluvial carbon loss and water discolouration.

This paper investigates the effect of open cut drainage and the impact of drain blocking on DOC and colour

dynamics in blanket peat soil–water solutions. Three treatments (intact peat, drained peat and drain-blocked

peat) were monitored in an upland blanket peat catchment in the UK. DOC and colour values were significantly

higher on the drained slopes compared with those of the intact peat, which in turn had greater DOC and colour

values than the drain-blocked slopes. Consequently, drain blocking is shown to be a highly successful

technique in reducing both the DOC concentration and level of discolouration in soil waters, even to values

68

lower than those observed for the intact site, which suggests a process of store exhaustion and flushing may

operate. The colour per carbon unit (C/C) ratio was significantly higher at the drain-blocked site than either the

intact or the drained treatments, while the E4/E6 ratio (fulvic acid/humic acid) was significantly lower at the

blocked site compared to the two other treatments. The high C/C and low E4/E6 ratios indicate that drain

blocking also modifies the composition of DOC, such that darker-coloured humic substances become more

dominant compared to the intact site. This implies disturbance to DOC production and/or transportation

processes operating within the peat.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V78-4JN2NPD-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a9df338de2c3e79c7ff6062d036c82d9

Date post:	26-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	truongthien
View:	215 times
Download:	2 times

Sustainable Water Network (SWAN) consultation SWAN Response.pdf · Sustainable Water Network (SWAN)...

Documents