Committee Reports > List of Committees > Joint > 2002 > Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport > Report - Sub-Committee on the River Shannon - Report on issues relating to the Management of the River Shannon

TITHE AN OIREACHTAIS

An Comhchoiste um Fhiontair Phoiblí agus Iompar

An Fochoiste ar Údarás Abhainn na Sionainne

Tuarascál maidir le saincheisteanna a bhaineann le Bainistiú Abhainn na Sionainne

HOUSES OF THE OIREACHTAS

Joint Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport

Sub-Committee on the River Shannon Authority

Report on issues relating to the Management of the River Shannon

Márta, 2002

March, 2002

CONTENTS

Foreword by the Chairman, Mr. Sean Doherty T.D.

The Houses of the Oireachtas asked the Joint Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport to consider issues relating to the management of the River Shannon. The Joint Committee appointed a Sub-Committee to consider all aspects of this matter and to report thereon to the Joint Committee. The Sub-Committee has now completed its final report.

In accordance with its orders of reference, the Sub-Committee on the River Shannon decided to undertake research on the issues. Consultants were engaged to carry out the research on behalf of the Sub-Committee.

In considering the issues relating to the River Shannon, it became apparent early on that flooding is a major issue of concern. The Sub-Committee decided to look at this issue and published an interim report on flooding on the River Shannon in November 2000.

The objective of this final report is to come up with proposals on the optimum structure or structures to manage the River Shannon and its tributaries with particular emphasis being given to the sustainable development of the area and maximising the potential of the area.

At its meeting on 26 March 2002, the Joint Committee approved and adopted this final report, and agreed that it be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas.

__________________

Sean Doherty T.D.

Chairman

26 March 2002

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The River Shannon is at once one of the main natural resources of Ireland and a cause of innumerable and repeated problems. Repeated flooding, the importance of its callows as habitat and as a natural beauty attraction, the problems of its fisheries, the quality of its water and the adequacy of its provision for recreational activities have all been cited in support of claims that one or more groups involved in its management could be much more effective. Private Members’ legislation has been more than once introduced in the Houses. Against that background, the Joint Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport was asked to consider what might be done and it established this Sub-Committee to advise it in that task.

The Sub-Committee met on 17 occasions between February 2000 and March 2002, including 5 public sittings, at which relevant groups were invited to present their views to it. The Sub-Committee engaged consultants to undertake some analysis and offer advice. However, neither the Members not the consultants were in a position to undertake detailed surveys or to do field work, though a delegation of the Members visited Baden-Württemberg in Germany to discuss with officials there the integrated management programme for the Upper Rhine.

It is important to stress that, while the Sub-Committee felt in a position to reach conclusions and make some recommendations, it does not consider that, in the time and with the resources available, it could hope to have produced a definitive blueprint for the management of the Shannon basin.

Because of the urgency of the problem of alleviating the effects of winter flooding in the basin, an interim report was presented in November 2000 dealing with that aspect. The present report is mainly concerned with the organisational arrangements for the effective management of the catchment.

Chapter 2 reviews the present organisational arrangements, documents the Sub-Committee’s bodies at regional level and at least twelve government departments or public bodies at national level have some functions or responsibility for the management of the basin. Among those who appeared before the Sub-Committee or made submissions to it, opinions were divided on whether this pattern of organisational responsibility should be retained or changed. Many of the groups who expressed views did so in the context of commenting on the proposed Private Members’ Bills which sought to establish a Shannon Council or Authority. While there was widespread agreement that improvements in the management of the basin were needed, there was no such agreement on whether a new organisation should be set up to achieve that end. Indeed, many feared that such a body would usurp or conflict with the functions of existing statutory bodies (if it had powers under law), or that it would be merely a useless extra layer of administration (if it did not have powers).

On the basis of our own experience as public representatives and of the evidence before us, the Members of the Sub-Committee found that the present structures were not managing the catchment in an effective manner. The siltation of the river and its lakes, the poor state of its fisheries, the pollution of its waters and the inability of the organisations to avert crises or to respond effectively to them, all provided us with clear indications of the failure of the present institutional arrangements. (This issue is elaborated in section 2.3 in Chapter 2.)

The Sub-Committee therefore reached the conclusion that the management of the catchment could not be expected to improve as long as the present organisations operated without a co-ordinating framework and that some institutional change was therefore necessary. (section 2.4)

We explored (see section 3.3) the various options which had been put forward: a Shannon Council or Authority and variations on that idea; a scientific institute which would study the issues and make recommendations to the Government; an inter-Agency Committee or Commission as proposed in the Rydell Report in 1956. We also considered with great interest the experience of the authorities in Baden-Württemberg in implementing integrated management of the Upper Rhine basin (section 3.4).

This review enabled the Sub-Committee to reach some conclusions on the type of organisational change which might prove most effective. These are set out in section 3.5. The most important conclusion we reached was that only the absence of a viable alternative would warrant our recommending the establishment of a new organisation. We would confine ourselves to identifying how existing organisation resources could best be tapped to produce the required improvement.

We considered proposing that the co-ordinating role be assigned to one of the bodies at present active in the management of the Shannon or to the Regional Authorities, but decided against such a solution for reasons which are set out in section 4.2. The Sub-Committee’s preference is to assign the responsibility to the Western Development Commission, because of the centrality of the Shannon to the Western Region, the suitable structure and linkages which the Commission has and the relevance of the Shannon basin to its statutory remit. (Those points are more fully documented in section 4.2.)

The Sub-Committee recognised that the present statutory functions of the Commission are confined to counties which do not constitute the whole of the Shannon basin and, in part, do not come within the basin. We were also aware that the functions of the Commission as at present legislated for are oriented towards (though not confined to) the promotion of enterprise projects. The membership, staffing and funding of the WDC are also not geared to the functions we have in mind. For those reasons, the report proposes some adaptation of the Commission’s remit and structures, some of which would require amendment of the Western Development Commission Act and some which would not. Those proposals are set out in detail in section 4.3. In particular, the Sub-Committee proposes

•amending the Act to:

▸broaden the remit of the Commission to cover the functions and territorial area needed

▸enable it to co-ordinate the efforts of the public bodies involved in the management of the catchment

▸provide for consultation with relevant interest groups

▸require it to prepare a plan for the management of the catchment

▸broaden its membership;

•non-statutorily,

▸increase the Western Investment Fund and include in it provision for special emergency work in connection with the Shannon

▸establish additional consultative structures to enable the Commission to undertake its new task

▸increase and diversify its staffing.

1 CONTEXT OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE’S DELIBERATIONS

1.1 General background

The River Shannon represents a tremendous natural resource. The 340 kilometre-long waterway, with its tributaries, drains a catchment area of some 15,000 square kilometres. In addition to supporting a substantial share of the country’s farmers and farm workers, the river provides an essential part of the country’s energy, though far less than in previous decades. Its callows are internationally important, both in their own right and as habitat for wildlife. Angling and coarse fishing, boating and other water-based leisure activities are enjoyed along its length. And it supplies fresh water to innumerable towns and industries.

An indication that its potential is far from being fully realised lies in the fact that, in recent years, the river has too often made news more because of the problems which have arisen than for its inherent attractions. Every year, extensive flooding occurs, mainly along the central reaches of the river and the neighbouring tributaries. The flooding is most severe in winter, when it is not uncommon for households to be marooned for long periods without access by road. Substantial flooding also occurs in many years in summer/autumn.

The quality of water in the Shannon catchment is a cause for serious concern and has deteriorated in the past two decades. Of the ten areas designated in the EPA Act 1992 (Urban Waste Water Treatment) Regulations 1994 as national sensitive areas, five are in the Shannon catchment. Anglers complain that angling tourism is being ruined by the diminished catches resulting from polluted waters, while the explosion in the numbers of zebra mussel threatens to alter the ecology irrevocably. Eel fishermen are strongly critical of the management and rate of restocking of the fisheries by the ESB. Those most concerned about the conservation of animal, fish and plant life warn that measures to prevent flooding would destroy the essential character of the flood plain, which nurtures such life. Users of the river for boating and other water sports criticise the standard of access and facilities available. Many would convincingly stress the dangers which activities in the catchment pose to built as well as natural heritage. Some decry the impact on the river of economic development and recreational use, while others feel frustrated by the difficulty of obtaining planning permission for any building near its banks.

In short, the Shannon basin reflects the diversity of human and other activity carried on in an environment of great vulnerability. Inevitably, conflicts of interest and priority surface.

It is universally recognised that the root cause of the flooding is the minimal fall and consequent slow flow of the river. Nevertheless, many riparian dwellers feel that the risk of flooding must be greater because of the silt which enters the river from the Bord na Mona bogs, despite the Bord’s siltation traps. They also feel that the control of weirs and sluices by the ESB for their statutory purpose of generating electricity must exacerbate the flooding problem. The fact that the ESB can demonstrate that, for example, Ardnacrusha can allow more water to flow down-river than it receives from Lough Derg does not fully dispel this belief.

More generally, a widespread perception is that all the statutory agencies which perform functions in the Shannon basin are sincere, efficient and well-meaning in discharging their obligations, but that each is almost structurally insensitive to the requirements of the others. Those who express such perceptions recognise the good work done by the voluntary and other groups which have formed to try to achieve a more co-ordinated approach to some of the issues related to the Shannon catchment. Examples are the Shannon Forum and the Lough Derg/Lough Ree Monitoring and Management Group.

1.2 Initiatives

The Lough Derg and Lough Ree Monitoring and Management project is of particular interest. It was set up in 1997 to monitor water quality in those lakes. It sought to apply a catchment-based approach to reducing the inputs of phosphorus into the river and its lakes. Its method was to identify the instances and study the causes of such pollution and to propose management measures to counter it. Under the leadership of Clare and Roscommon County Councils, the monitoring and management group consisted of representatives of all the relevant local authorities, government departments and statutory agencies. Their function was informational and advisory; they did not have any executive powers. The Group produced an excellent report analysing the water quality problems of the area and proposing useful approaches. The Group was effectively the forerunner of the River Basin Management Project now established in this region (as in others) under the EU Water Framework Directive.

1.3 Initiatives by the Oireachtas

Despite the existence of those groups, many observers and individuals in the categories affected remain convinced that the approach adopted to planning and management in the Shannon catchment lacks executive co-ordination. Consequently, a Private members Bill was introduced in the Seanad by Senators Brendan Daly and Michael O’Kennedy in 1997 and re-introduced in the same house by Senators Kathleen O’Meara, Joe O’Toole and Madeleine Taylor-Quinn in 1999, as the original Bill lapsed with the demise of the Houses in 1997. The Bills proposed the establishment of a Shannon Council to “propose policies and priorities for the enhancement of the water quality of the Shannon River and for the protection and enhancement of the environment and of the natural habitats of bird life and fish life in that region”. Among other activities, the Council would “co-ordinate the activities of public authorities and other organisations and persons in the promotion of the functions of the Council” and “co-ordinate the activities of public authorities and other public organisations in matters connected with the management of the waters of the Shannon Catchment”.

The Bill was voted down in the Seanad after the Minister of State at the Department of Finance (who has responsibility for the Office of Public Works) had indicated his view that it would be undesirable to proceed with it, on two counts. First, the proposed Council would appear to interfere with the functions of Waterways Ireland, which had just been established as a North-South body under the British-Irish Agreement. And second, matters for which the Council would be responsible were among those being negotiated on in the process of agreeing an EU Framework Directive on Water Quality.

A further Bill was drafted by Deputy Willie Penrose in January 2000, proposing a statutory Shannon River Authority. This Bill would have given the Authority more wide-ranging powers than the Council proposed in the earlier Bill. The Authority would have a general duty “to develop plans which shall set out policies and priorities for the management and improvement of the Shannon Catchment, including its fisheries, navigation, the improvement by drainage of any lands adjacent thereto, the improvement of its water quality and the protection and enhancement of its environment and of the natural habitats of its bird life and fish life”. It would have power to “secure the implementation” of its plans and to ”secure the co-ordination of public bodies and other organisations and persons” involved. This Bill has not been introduced in either of the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Within weeks of the demise of the earlier Bill in the Seanad, Deputy Connaughton introduced a motion in Dáil Éireann calling on the Government to establish a Shannon River Authority. He made it clear that he meant an Authority which, unlike such discussion groups as the Shannon Forum, would have clear power to secure co-ordination among the various interests “in a way in which flooding can be controlled to some degree”. The motion, together with an addendum by Deputy Penrose seeking leave to introduce the Bill he had drafted, was debated by the House. On the motion of the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, the “issues relating to the management of the River Shannon” were referred to the Joint Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport.

The Joint Committee established a sub-committee to canvas the views of the individuals and organisations most closely concerned. The Sub-Committee invited submissions by press advertisement and, in the case of the major relevant organisations, by letter. In all, some 77 submissions were received and nine groups appeared before the Sub-Committee by invitation to elaborate on their views and to answer questions. Appendices to this report contains a list of the submissions received, and a record of the proceedings of the Sub-Committee’s public meetings.

In addition, the Chairman and two Members of the Sub-Committee visited Baden-Württemberg, Germany, for discussion with State Ministry officials on the management of the Upper Rhine basin. Despite the differences in scale and in administrative background, the visit proved most instructive. A brief report on it is included as Appendix 1.

1.4 The Sub-Committee’s approach

The Sub-Committee perceived two dimensions to its remit. First, at the most immediate level, was the need to address the perennial problem of flooding. It is our belief that this is a problem which shows no signs of alleviation. In our interim report on that problem, published in November 2000, we suggested that it would seem then that the very much increased frequency of severe flooding on the Shannon over the last decade is at least partly attributable to substantially increased winter rainfall. Whether this is part of a major climatic change, resulting from global warming or otherwise, or is simply a peak period within a longer weather cycle, is uncertain. If this trend were to continue, the impact of past flooding on the Shannon would be likely to be exceeded even further over the years ahead. Our November 2000 report made proposals for short-term action in relation to flooding.

The second dimension which we considered is the longer-term issue of how best to make structural provision for effective co-ordination and co-operation among the numerous statutory bodies which share responsibility for aspects of the management of the Shannon catchment. That is the issue which the present report addresses.

The submissions show that opinion is divided on whether or not a Shannon Council or Authority would be helpful. In general, those who favoured its establishment did so in the belief that it is proving impossible to secure voluntary self-orchestrated co-ordination of the activities of the many agencies with responsibility for the river basin. Those opposed considered that a new body would either represent an extra layer of bureaucracy without corresponding benefit, or that it would undesirably usurp statutory powers of existing bodies.

The Sub-Committee therefore approached its task by

•reviewing the existing arrangements, including the distribution of statutory functions and powers among all the bodies involved in the management of the Shannon basin, with a view to assessing how effective those arrangements have proved;

•exploring the options for structures to improve the effectiveness of the management of the Shannon basin (including the option to make no structural changes), taking into account the views expressed in submissions to us and in our public meetings; and

•developing recommendations.

We should stress that our study of the problem has been a limited one. We did not have the time or resources to engage in field-work or the undertake surveys or technical studies. We also viewed our effort as initiating a fresh, but not necessarily final, look at the long-standing problems of the Shannon basin. In short, the Sub-Committee does not consider that it is presenting a definitive document charting the future of the management of the Shannon, but rather a contribution to the improvement of that management.

The Sub-Committee greatly appreciates the assistance in reaching conclusions on those matters which we received from the organisations through their submissions and through the views they expressed when they appeared before us.

2 REVIEW OF EXISTING ARRANGEMENTS

2.1 Scope of this chapter

Innumerable groups have a major interest in how the Shannon catchment is managed and would have a legitimate expectation to be consulted on the process. These include bodies representing users of the amenity comprised by waterway and the neighbouring lands, such as boat users, fishermen and bird-watchers. They clearly include representatives of those whose lives are affected by how well the river is managed, farmers in the area being an obvious example. And they include those whose activities may assist or complicate the management of the river, such as Bord na Mona.

In this chapter, however, we confine ourselves to organisations discharging statutory functions which either are an integral part of the management of the Shannon catchment or make it easier or more difficult to manage the catchment effectively. We defined the catchment as the area drained by the Shannon, its lakes and its tributaries. On that basis, we reviewed the roles of the following organisations:

At local level

County Councils (13): Kerry, Limerick, Clare, North Tipperary, Offaly, Galway, Roscommon, Westmeath, Longford, Cavan, Mayo, Sligo and Leitrim.

City Council (1): Limerick

Town Councils (9): Listowel, Ennis, Kilrush, Nenagh, Birr, Tullamore, Ballinasloe, Athlone, Longford.

At regional level

Shannon Regional Fisheries Board, Regional Tourism Authorities (Midlands/East, North-West and Western), SFADCo.

At national level

Department of the Environment and Local Government, Office of Public Works, Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Environmental Protection Agency, ESB, Central Fisheries Board, Waterways Ireland, The Heritage Council, Bord Failte, Bord na Mona.

Appendix 2 describes in broad terms how the functions and powers of those organisations impinge on the management of the Shannon basin. In the remainder of the present chapter, we add a commentary indicating the strengths and weaknesses which those whom we consulted, and the Sub-Committee itself, perceived in the way in which these arrangements operated in managing the Shannon basin.

2.2 Commentary on the effectiveness of those arrangements

General comment

It is tempting - but would be mistaken - to conclude that the number of agencies involved in one way or another in the management of the Shannon in itself indicates inefficient organisation. On the contrary, the variety of organisations arises directly from the nature of our system of public administration. The business of government is organised almost entirely on a functional basis. That is to say, each government department or statutory agency, with very few exceptions, is responsible for the analysis, development or implementation of policy in a specific subject area, such as tourism, fisheries, agriculture, etc. It is inevitable that, when an issue arises which intersects with many of those subject areas (the management of the Shannon catchment being one of many examples), very many departments and agencies will have a role to play.

In some jurisdictions, the operational and managerial problems which such a form of organisation presents are addressed by a system consisting of multi-functional political and administrative bodies at regional or local level. In such systems, those sub-national bodies would have decision-making powers for their territorial area spanning the major aspects of public policy. That type of system ensures that, for any particular geographical area, an organisation exists which enables the various strands of public policy to be integrated when addressing the needs of the locality. That is not the type of system we have in Ireland. Here, local authorities have extremely limited powers and resources and, for the most part, their functions are those for which the policy locus is the Department of the Environment and Local Government. Regional government is even less well developed.

Under the system of public administration in Ireland, the task of integrating public policies and implementing them in a specific region or locality is rendered more complex. (This difficulty has been recognised in the report of the Task Force on Integration of Local Government and Local Development Systems and the establishment of the County Development Boards is a partial response to it.)

While the Sub-Committee was aware of those inherent structural issues, we decided that, in the interest of finding immediate, practical solutions to the problems of the Shannon, we should try to propose arrangements which would work within the present administrative system.

Summary of views expressed

The Sub-Committee therefore concentrated on attempting to establish how effectively the present organisational arrangements enabled the Shannon catchment to be managed and what might best be done to improve the process. Towards that end, it had invited the views of the main organisations involved and other interested persons. The invitation to the public in general took the form of a press advertisement, while a letter was sent to government departments and statutory and other key agencies inviting their views, specifically, on the draft Bills which had been published on the subject. It must be borne in mind, therefore, that the views of departments and statutory agencies were offered in the context of their perception of the merits or otherwise of a Shannon Council or Authority, as proposed in the Bills.

Opinion was divided on the question of how effective the present organisation structures are in managing the Shannon basin. In general (but not universally), the departments and statutory agencies were opposed to the establishment of an overarching Shannon Authority, for a variety of reasons, to which we return in the next chapter. In support of that view, they argued that, by and large, the present arrangements worked quite well and could be even more effective if the lessons to be learned from specific co-operative ventures could be taken on board.

More specifically, the main merits attributed to the present arrangements could be summarised as follows:

•Functional responsibility is clearly fixed by law. Each organisation has a precise remit, knows exactly what it is required to do and thus has its priorities clearly set. For example, the Department of the Environment and Local Government prescribes standards for water quality, local authorities enforce those standards and the Environmental Protection Agency oversees the performance of the local authorities in that respect. Bord na Mona harvests peat and seeks to minimise the damage which that operation could cause by the use of siltation ponds, while the grant to it of a licence by the EPA absolves the Bord from involvement in monitoring its effects on water quality.

•Communication and collaboration between the various agencies takes place using well established mechanisms: committees, working groups, partnerships, the co-ordinating role of departments in relation to the agencies within their individual areas of competence, etc. Furthermore, the absence of major conflict or tension between all the bodies concerned suggests that co-operation is voluntarily given. Examples are: the arrangements by the ESB and Dúchas (now Waterways Ireland) for the opening of sluices on the river to adjust water levels; and the collaboration between the Office of Public Works and local authorities in dealing with local drainage initiatives.

•Recent developments in consultation and co-operation have refined collaborative mechanisms to the point where they appear to suggest a model for any future measures to improve co-ordination of catchment management. The example most frequently given is the Lough Ree and Lough Derg Monitoring and Managing Project, which has enabled a wide range of public bodies to work productively together under the leadership of two local authorities. Some of those who were opposed to the establishment of a Shannon River Authority suggested the L.Ree/L.Derg group as a viable alternative model. The Shannon Forum was also mentioned as an example of getting the parties to an issue to work together, though the concrete achievements of the Forum were less convincingly presented.

•Policy developments were seen to provide means of further strengthening the effectiveness of co-operative mechanisms. An important development in that regard is the move by the Department of the Environment and Local Government to promote integrated catchment management. This approach will require all the agencies whose activities influence the catchment to work together, at least as far as water quality is concerned. (The Department does not envisage the creation of any new organisations to achieve that end.) Further, the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) was seen to provide a common agenda for the various bodies which influence water quality and so to make it easier to agree on measures which all those involved would observe.

Organisations representing users of the river, those at its mercy when it floods and those whose special interests are greatly affected by the river’s behaviour were, on the whole, much less convinced that present arrangements were working so well. The main evidence or allegations they adduced in support of this view could be said to be the following:

•In key areas, there is a lack of agreement over the actual targets which public policy should aim for and the measures used to assess their achievement. For example, Greenpeace criticises the EPA for not preventing the pollution of the Shannon and its lakes. It maintains that the Agency controls rather than prevents pollution; and that it uses measures which are uni-dimensional and not sufficiently sensitive, thus masking the decline in water quality. It also considers the fact that the EPA has no role in the planning process to be a handicap. Not surprisingly, the two organisations differ on the extent to which the waters of the Shannon catchment are polluted.

•In a similar conflict of views, angling bodies complain loudly of the deterioration in water quality and, in particular, of the failure (as they see it) of the Fisheries Boards to tackle the problem. They allege that the Boards do not police the waters effectively. The Shannon Regional Fisheries Board, for its part, says that only with the advent of the L. Ree/L. Derg Monitoring and Management Group did the local authorities begin to listen to the Board’s views and take them into consideration.

•Many groups were critical of the ESB for its interpretation of its role. The Heritage Council thought the Board could do more to control water levels and lamented the inadequate co-ordination between the Board and other interests. Farmers remain unconvinced that the ESB’s activities do not, to one degree or another, aggravate the tendency of the river to flood. Anglers expressed the view that the Board had no interest in fish conservation, while eel fishermen criticised it for failure to conserve or develop eel fisheries. It must be said, however, that the ESB put very convincingly before the Sub-Committee its claim to be strongly focused on its statutory function of providing electricity while utterly fulfilling its obligations to other interests, such as riparian dwellers and fishermen. There appears, however, to be no mechanism for reconciling those viewpoints.

•Siltation of the river channel as a result of peat harvesting by Bord na Mona was regarded by various groups as contributing to flooding and pollution. The Bord itself denied such assertions, though when questioned by the Sub-Committee they appeared to accept that past siltation - before the introduction or enlargement of the present siltation ponds - could have contributed to clogging of the channel, without accepting any responsibility for causing flooding. They pointed to the fact that they operate under a licence from the EPA. That Agency pointed out that only recently have they begun to assess the activities of Bord na Mona for licence purposes. Various groups pointed to the impossibility of sailing in certain narrow channels between the banks and islands due to silting, while others were convinced that such silting must have an impact on flooding. Again, the conflicting views simply hang in the air unresolved.

•A wide variety of groups asserted that it was not clear to what body one might have recourse in order to have specific action taken, such as the preservation of good water quality, the conservation of fish stocks, the prevention or relief of flooding, the maintenance of banks and installations, etc. They felt frustration that there seemed to be no obvious focus for representations, suggestions or complaints; what is everybody’s job is nobody’s job.

2.3 Findings of the Sub-Committee

The Sub-Committee took into account the experience of its members as public representatives from the Shannon basin, as well as the views expressed by the groups which came before us. Overall, we found clear evidence that the catchment is not being effectively managed in an integrated and co-ordinated manner and we identified two strands of explanation for this.

First, the contribution to the integrated management of the catchment by many of the individual organisations at present involved falls seriously short of what is required. There are many specific indications that major public authorities concentrate exclusively on their core functions without taking sufficiently seriously their responsibilities as partners in the management of the basin. For example:

•The operations of Bord na Mona have, for decades, produced fine peat dust which causes siltation. For more than thirty years (since 1970), the Bord has used siltation ponds to prevent siltation of the river. Such ponds, however, are only effective to the extent that they are well managed. The indications are that Bord na Mona has not managed them effectively for a long time. The effectiveness of the ponds can be judged from the fact that, in that period, siltation of the Shannon and its lakes has rendered some channels totally unusable. (It is only since 2000 that the ponds have been monitored by the Environmental Protection Agency.) Silt discharges from private peat production enterprises is not monitored. Peat, in addition to causing siltation, tends to increase the ammonium level in the river waters.

•The Electricity Supply Board has enjoyed a privileged position in relation to the Shannon for some seventy-five years. Because of the strategic importance of electricity generation, the Board’s position in law is very powerful. The Board is also given responsibility for managing the fisheries on the Shannon in trust for the nation and, to that end, the fishing rights on the river are vested in it. However, the Sub-Committee could not avoid the conclusion that, as regards fisheries, the ESB has done only the minimum statutorily required. Little has been done to reverse the substantial damage to fish life which such structures as the hydro-electric generating station necessarily inflict. Along the length of the Shannon (and, indeed, its tributaries) there is a lamentable lack of fish passes and such passes as exist are often inadequate or unusable. It is an implied criticism of the re-stocking policies of the Board that salmon and some other game fish are scarce or non-existent in the middle and upper reaches of the Shannon.

•Local authorities have not proved effective in preventing the pollution of the Shannon and its tributaries or in preserving the amenity value of the waterway. Pollution has been widespread and is far from being eradicated, though the excellent work done by the Lough Derg & Lough Ree Catchment Monitoring and Management System shows what can be achieved through co-ordinated effort.

▸The River Hind (a tributary of the Shannon), for example, has deteriorated from being unpolluted in 1970 to being moderately to seriously polluted in 1999. This is partly due to the discharge from Roscommon town Wastewater Treatment Plant. (This plant has been recently upgraded and it remains to be seen how the effects of this improvement will be reflected in the pollution measures.) One consequence of this pollution is the almost complete absence of fish from stretches of the Hind and one of its tributaries.

▸Wastewater treatment plants discharge their effluent into the watercourse and are subject to a regime of monitoring of samples by the EPA. However, in many instances, the local authorities concerned either did not provide adequate samples or were revealed by the samples to have failed to meet the standards set. A significant amount of wastewater is discharged from Athlone untreated into the Shannon in the winter.

▸Industrial enterprises which are licensed by the local authorities subject to prescribed levels of pollution not being exceeded are not being properly regulated by the local authorities. As a result, some significant industries in the catchment are discharging pollutants far in excess of the permitted level.

▸The waterway is polluted also by agriculture, as a result of excessive use of phosphates and poor management of farmyard wastes, especially from intensive farming enterprises such as pig- and poultry-rearing.

▸There is no evidence that local authorities have comprehensively identified and delineated the natural flood plains of the Shannon. Such a step would appear to be necessary as a basis for any decisions on land use, environmental protection and alleviation of the effects of flooding.

▸Residential/commercial developments, sometimes of a most unsuitable nature, are permitted by some local authorities in areas of scenic beauty close to the river bank.

Second, we found a lack of co-ordination, or indeed of common purpose, among the organisations involved. For example,

•There is no organisation or agency which has a statutory duty to take initiatives to prevent or reduce the incidence of flooding or to alleviate its consequences. The ESB has a duty to generate electricity and, towards that end, powers to operate and manage works and installations which can have a bearing on water levels. Waterways Ireland co-operates with the ESB in opening and closing sluices and weirs and has a responsibility for ensuring certain water levels for navigation purposes. OPW and local authorities have duties and powers in relation to drainage, minor flood relief works, road works and other matters indirectly related to flooding. But no organisation is charged with taking steps, as a matter of course, to prevent or minimise the impact of the flooding which will inevitably occur, with assessing its scale and cost or with taking remedial action. Nor is any organisation given a budget within which to do all those things.

•Most initiatives, plans and activities are centred on the needs of particular localities or regions. To develop an integrated plan for such an area (e.g., Lough Derg, or the Estuary), covering economic development, planning, conservation, etc., fully taxes the managerial resources of the existing single-function agencies. It appears even more difficult to envisage planning embracing the entire Shannon catchment, with needs as diverse as those of the estuary and the upper reaches of the river. Yet it is in the nature of a river catchment that activities and controls at one point of the river can have far-reaching implications for those upstream or downstream. This organisational challenge will be faced by the catchment management plans and River Basin Districts which the Department of the Environment and Local Government is establishing, but only insofar as water quality is concerned. It is not yet clear that the present management structures will be able to cope with an integrated approach to the management of water quality. It is difficult to see how they might cope with the challenges of integrated catchment management if it were to embrace not only water quality but also planning and development, flood control, leisure use and conservation.

•Co-ordination of planning and implementation among organisations focusing on such diverse responsibilities has proved extremely difficult to achieve. Where difficulties arise - and they appear to be inevitable - no mechanism exists to resolve them.

2.4 Conclusions of the Sub-Committee

In summary, the Sub-Committee is satisfied that the system overall lacks the capacity to manage the Shannon basin in an imaginative and positive manner. From our discussions and analysis, we conclude that this is primarily an institutional deficit, by which we mean that it is primarily the performance of individual organisations and the co-ordination of the efforts of all the organisations involved which fall short of requirements.

There is no indication that the present institutional structures, left to themselves, can or will improve the situation. The development of policies is not, in itself, a sufficient response to the problems, as past experience shows. (The long lead-time for implementation of the Waste Water Directive of 1991 is an illustration.)

Institutionally, the present system has proved incapable of responding to such predictable events as the repeated flooding of roads and consequent restriction of access to dwellings and farms. It has failed to ensure good water quality, the survival and development of fish stocks and other needs, as detailed in the examples above. Most obviously, it seems clearly inadequate to deal with the more positive requirements of development and promotion.

The Shannon, as a major national resource, merits development, conservation, promotion and management of a high order. The Sub-Committee does not believe that the present organisational arrangements, designed to address issues in a compartmentalised way and to respond to problems rather than to forestall them, is geared to meet the needs of such a challenge. In particular, it seems difficult to envisage the present structures enabling an imaginative plan for the conservation, development and marketing of this major resource to be drawn up or implemented. Too many organisations have roles which should form part of such a process without having a formal responsibility for the wider picture.

For those reasons, we conclude that some institutional innovation is needed if the problems which led to the establishment of this Sub-Committee in the first place are to be effectively addressed. Specifically, some organisation must exist which can take an overall view of the needs and problems of the catchment and which can stimulate and co-ordinate the efforts of all the other organisations involved. In the following chapters, we explore possible institutional arrangements to achieve that goal, with due regard to the views expressed by those who made submissions or gave evidence before the Sub-Committee and drawing on the insights which we gained from our discussions and visits.

3 WHAT TYPE OF ORGANISATION MIGHT BE NEEDED?

3.1 Proposals in the draft Bills

Before the Sub-Committee began its deliberations, two proposals were in the public domain for the establishment of a new organisation to manage the Shannon catchment. The first was to establish a Shannon River Council, as proposed in the Shannon River Council Bill, 1997, by Senators Brendan Daly and Michael O’Kennedy and reintroduced in 1998 by Senators Kathleen O’Meara, Joe O’Toole and Madeline Taylor Quinn. The second was for a Shannon River Authority, as proposed in the Shannon River Authority Bill, 2000, and in the Motion moved in Dáil Éireann by Deputy Paul Connaughton on 18 April, 2000.

The Council would be a body of twenty members (including its Chair) appointed by the Minister for the Environment from among people who have “an interest in or knowledge of or experience in relation to matters connected with the Shannon catchment and adjacent lands”. Its functions would be to propose policies and priorities for the enhancement of the water quality of the river and its catchment and for the protection and enhancement of the environment and the natural habitats in the region. Towards that end, it would

•co-ordinate the activities of public bodies and others in matters related to the management of the catchment

•promote public interest in and respect for water quality and habitats in the region

•make recommendations for regulations to control pollution in the region

•make a plan, after consultation with relevant interests, for water management and pollution control and submit it to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. The plan would be available to the public.

The Authority would be a body similar in membership and constitution to the Council, but with a more interventionist role and more far-reaching powers. Its functions would be:

•to develop plans for the management of the catchment, covering fisheries, navigation, drainage of adjacent lands, improvement of water quality and the protection and enhancement of environment and habitats

•to secure the implementation of the plans

•to secure co-ordination of the activities of public authorities and others in the management of the catchment and

•to promote public interest in, respect for, access to and enjoyment of the catchment.

Towards that end, it would have overall responsibility for the planning and supervision of construction, maintenance and improvement works on the river or in the catchment. Such works would cover piers, locks, etc., as well as dredging, deepening and otherwise improving the navigation channel, drainage of adjoining lands and improvement of access facilities. The Minister could, by regulation, assign to the Authority functions currently assigned to another public body, if he considered that the functions could be more effectively performed by the Authority.

The authority would be required to prepare every five years a plan for the management and improvement of the catchment, consulting appropriately, and submit it for the approval of the Minister. The approved plan would bind both the authority and other public bodies. The Authority would be empowered to prepare (or have prepared), carry out (or have carried out) and provide specifications and funding for construction, maintenance and improvement works. It could perform any tasks required for that purpose, such as acquire lands. It would also be empowered to direct another public body to perform such functions.

3.2 Views on the Council and the Authority

A number of the comments made by the various organisations on both legislative proposals (i.e., for a Council and for an Authority) drew attention to certain legal/technical shortcomings in the draft Bills. These included such matters as failure to make reference to recent administrative developments or to specific provisions in other legislation, or omission of specific procedures to implement certain proposed powers. Those omissions, however, are inevitable in draft legislation prepared without the benefit of legal advice from the Attorney General’s Office and specialist help from the Parliamentary Draftsman and without detailed prior scrutiny by departments. We took the view that such details could easily be remedied if it were decided to proceed with the legislation and we therefore ignored those points in the present summary.

Among those who presented views to the Sub-Committee, the proposals to set up a Council did not provoke very much comment. Some expressed agreement with its central tenet, that co-ordination and co-operation should be achieved by consensus, not by the imposition of arrangements by a superior authority. A number of submissions stated that their authors had no objection to the establishment of a Council, but it was clear that, in some instances at least, this was because they considered that it would have little impact on the execution of their functions by existing organisations.

Those who favoured a strong body to manage the catchment saw little point in a merely consultative body without power to achieve results. Those who considered that present arrangements worked adequately did not see a need for an extra consultative body. A common view was that an additional body with merely advisory powers might well represent the worst of all worlds: an extra institution which would obscure the clarity of functional responsibility of the existing agencies, while itself remaining just a “talking shop”. Some said that a Council for the Shannon would duplicate the role of River Basin Districts to be established under the proposed Water Framework Directive (and possibly other structures). Others argued that it would have no teeth to get anything done and that the plan it would be required to draw up would simply be left in mid-air (as it were), since it would not be binding on anyone. It was also argued that a Council to co-ordinate the management of the Shannon would not be in the best interests of waterways in Ireland, since it would separate the management of this catchment from that of other waterways. This argument (which would apply also to an Authority) is difficult to support. It amounts to an assertion that nothing should be done to improve the management of the Shannon catchment unless and until it is done on a nationwide basis. While it is clearly desirable that policy should be made on as all-embracing a basis as possible, it is also undeniable that the very establishment of this Sub-Committee reflects the need to take action urgently on the special problems of the Shannon.

Opinion was more sharply divided on the question of establishing an Authority on the lines of that proposed in the Shannon River Authority Bill, 2000. Most of the departments and statutory authorities which made submissions opposed the idea, often on the grounds that it would duplicate, conflict with or subordinate the statutory powers of the present statutory bodies. On that basis, it was commonly asserted that it would simply constitute an extra layer of management, thus allegedly reducing efficiency. It was also thought that it could lead to confusion in the matter of standards, for example, if it were empowered to set standards for water quality which might differ from those laid down by the Environmental Protection Agency. Some commentators regretted the emphasis which they considered the 2000 Bill placed on improvement and maintenance works, feeling that the Authority could get tied up in drainage work, damaging the environment for little practical benefit. Others pointed out that the creation of an overall catchment management authority would represent a significant (and, they implied, unwelcome) departure from the present policy of placing responsibility for controlling pollution on local authorities.

Those who advocated the establishment of an Authority included some “users” of the waterway and its catchment, who saw in the concept of a strong management body a prospect of ending the frustration of being referred from one body without the power to take decisive action to another. Significantly, a number of local authorities were in favour of an Authority, though all added the rider that the present powers of local authorities should not be reduced in the process.

The organisations and individuals favouring the establishment of an Authority did not share a unified view of what the new body should do. Among the many functions which it was advocated that an Authority might perform were:

•to adopt a strategic approach to the management of the catchment; to be in sole charge; to achieve co-ordination among the other agencies and organisations involved;

•to deal with fish kills, pollution incidents and other crises;

•to control water levels; to clear and maintain channels;

•to license river users;

•to deal with compensation for those whose lands have been flooded;

•to resolve conflicts through its Chief Executive, on the basis of a recommendation that the latter would have direct access to the Department of the Taoiseach;

•to provide a coherent approach to nature conservation, using professional staff.

3.3 Alternative models

A number of ideas on the nature, functions and constitution of possible bodies to improve the management of the Shannon catchment were put before the Sub-Committee, either in the written submissions or in response to questioning. Three in particular merit exposition at this stage in our report, whether because they were particularly fully elaborated or because they touch on certain principles which the Sub-Committee considers important to our deliberations.

The first was presented by the Shannon Regional Fisheries Board, which took the view that the Council and the Authority proposed in the Bills would constitute unnecessary duplication and that an additional body of an administrative nature would not contribute to the solution of problems.

The Board proposed the establishment of a scientific institute to study the concerns arising in the management of the Shannon and to make recommendations to Government on the basis of its studies. The Institute would be charged with “finding environmentally sound and sustainable solutions to the problems of flooding, energy production, navigation, fishery development, environmental protection and other problems”. It would have professional staffing of the highest quality and independent funding.

BirdWatch Ireland, in their formal submission to the Sub-Committee, recommended the adaptation to the special needs of the Shannon of a proposal for a waterways authority originally made by The Heritage Council in their 1999 Policy Paper on the Future of Ireland’s Inland Waterways. The functions of such the authority proposed by The Heritage Council would include:

•management and maintenance of engineering aspects of inland waterways

•co-ordination between all relevant departments and agencies

•monitoring and advising on heritage issues

•education and promotion to develop understanding of all aspects of heritage along the waterways

•realising the socio-economic benefits of developing inland waterways using conflict management techniques to resolve differences

•strong central control of all aspects of waterways management.

The BirdWatch proposal would modify the details for application to the Shannon basin, placing due importance on wildlife conservation. The Authority would be representative in its membership, with a chairperson genuinely independent of pressure groups. Its advisory sub-committees would also be representative of the broad interests involved, with conservation NGOs as members where appropriate. It would have professional staff in the areas of strategic planning; navigation and engineering; planning and development; natural and built heritage; and education, promotion and marketing.

Consultation would be the key to its effectiveness. It would draw up a strategic plan for the Shannon by a process of thorough consultation with all interests. The plan would be published only when an exhaustive process of consultation, including feedback and discussion of comments on the draft, had been completed. The eventual plan would be widely available to interested bodies and to local communities along the Shannon. The very openness and transparency of the Authority’s procedures, rather than any formal reporting arrangement, would provide the key to having its recommendations implemented.

The Heritage Council, in response to questions formulated by the Sub-Committee, considered that the most effective approach would be to return to the suggestion originally made by Mr L. E. Rydell, US Corps of Engineers, in his final report on the River Shannon Flood Problems in August 1956*. He proposed that an Inter-Agency Committee (or Commission) be established, representing national and local government agencies, “as a medium for correlating various points of view, advising on the procedures relating to the overall investigational program and co-ordinating its effective prosecution”. In endorsing this suggestion, The Heritage Council noted that the committee or commission would not have any executive functions and would not assume any role carried out by an existing agency, but would be advisory in nature. The areas in which the Council envisaged that the proposed agency might operate include:

•co-ordination of river basin management plans and of their implementation;

•co-ordination of monitoring of water quality and quantity;

•co-ordination of activities where there is an overlap or in times of serious flooding; and

•commissioning of studies on matters such as water levels.

3.4 Lessons of visit by delegation to Germany

Clearly, the situations of the Shannon and the Rhine are not comparable as regards scale, water volumes, history of major development and the international dimension. Nevertheless, aspects of the management of the Rhine seem to the Sub-Committee to have definite relevance to our deliberations.

The key element in the management of the Rhine appears to be the Integrated Rhine Programme (IRP). This Programme, commissioned by the State Government, was drawn up by the State environmental bodies in inter-disciplinary co-operation with other departments and experts. Its main thrust is the prevention, control and management (as appropriate) of major flooding and the restoration of ecologically important flood plains. It thus facilitates the alleviation of flooding, the possibility of industrial, commercial and leisure development in security from flood disruption and the restoration and conservation of plant, animal, bird and fish life.

The main interest of the IRP from our point of view lies in the processes involved. The Sub-Committee delegation found the following points most instructive:

•It is important to have an overall plan to which all interested parties subscribe. We found no hint that there was any problem getting the numerous departments and agencies in Baden-Württemberg to work in unison, in line with the Programme’s requirements. Indeed, even on the international level, the arrangements are facilitated by international agreement between France and Germany.

•The most effective arrangements to combat flooding are those which mirror nature, rather than conflict with it. Indeed, much of the emphasis in relation to the Rhine is currently on reversing the damage to natural processes inflicted over many years by human intervention (such as the elimination of flood plains and of the species which

•they support by the erection of dykes). Current practice appears to favour the use of polders to allow some measure of “natural” flooding, with re-located dykes possibly providing a more remote barrier.

•Social and economic development of areas close to a great river are not incompatible with environmental and conservation considerations. It is a matter of how one goes about catering for both. In the Rhine basin, for example, there is considerable industrial activity, leisure use is highly developed and river traffic is heavy. Yet, pollution of the water has been virtually eliminated, formerly threatened species are repopulating the flood plains and salmon and other fish swim far upstream. This situation is achieved by a combination of measures, including the identification and nurturing of flood plains; the restriction of some fertilizers; the provision of well-managed fish passes; and the decision not to grant planning approval for residential or commercial development at points along the river bank.

•The Rhine authorities have provisions in place to use pumping to protect inhabited areas from adjacent lakes which are in danger of flooding. It seemed to us that this is an initiative that should be further explored in relation to the Shannon.

•Good quality, frequent and timely information is key to the effective management of a river, especially in times of crisis. For example, in times of potential flooding on the Rhine, the Flood Forecasting Central Control Office (HVZ) updates its flooding forecasts at hourly intervals, based on readings at its numerous guages and on rainfall reports and forecasts by the Meteorological Service. There is permanent exchange of the latest information among the relevant agencies throughout any crisis.

3.5 Conclusions of the Sub-Committee

As indicated in Chapter 2, the Sub-Committee had concluded that the deficiencies of the present arrangements were such that some better structure had to be devised to enable the Shannon basin to be effectively managed. We considered with great care the variety of views expressed on the Council and the Authority proposed in the draft Bills and on the other organisational options discussed in our public meetings. As a result, we reached certain conclusions about the principles and criteria which might inform our recommendations for organisational change. We outline these in the following paragraphs.

First, we were persuaded of the undesirability of establishing any additional institution unless it could be clearly demonstrated that tangible benefits would flow, which could not otherwise be achieved. We were impressed by the cogency and range of arguments that an extra organisation might usurp or duplicate existing institutions or else be just a talking shop. We therefore concluded that the establishment of a new organisation would be something we would recommend only as a last resort.

Second, we were persuaded that the processes used to manage the Shannon more effectively are every bit as important as the formal structures of the organisation or organisations involved. We believe that consultation, openness and transparent planning and decision processes are the most effective vehicles for achieving common, concerted action. Where those qualities are present, consensus is considerably easier to reach. Where those qualities are absent, no amount of formal authority and structural prescription will achieve effective co-operation.

Third, the co-operative management which we aim to further in our proposals must emphasise practical policies, not mere principles, and focus on implementation rather than only on the drafting of programmes.

Fourth, any arrangements to be proposed should be comprehensive in three senses: coverage of the entire Shannon catchment; capability to address all issues from development through conservation to emergency action; and ability to involve all relevant agencies.

Bearing the above criteria in mind, we explored how the lessons to be learnt from recent administrative structures might be built upon. We studied with particular interest the remit and geographical coverage of the Western Development Commission and the mechanism by which the County Development Boards can ensure that existing statutory organisations take into account their views and plans on board.

In summary, the Sub-Committee concluded that our recommendations should aim at solutions which could

•improve co-ordination between the many agencies involved in managing the Shannon basin

•ensure more effective implementation of plans and programmes

•be able to respond to emergencies and urgent situations

•minimise the additional bureaucracy involved and respect the integrity of existing organisations.

In the following chapter, we put forward our recommendations based on the conclusions outlined in the above paragraphs.

4. PROPOSED INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

4.1 The task to be done

The primary task of whatever organisation would play the lead role in the integrated management of the Shannon basin is to further the promotion, protection, development, management and marketing of the Shannon as a major national resource. The organisation would not itself monitor or improve water quality, protect the environment, develop tourism or fisheries, or do any of the specific things which contribute to the day-to-day management of the Shannon. Organisations already exist which undertake those and other aspects of the management of the basin. The emphasis of the proposed organisation would be on prompting, supporting and co-ordinating those efforts.

In concrete terms, this task requires:

•A plan to be drawn up for the effective management of the Shannon basin

•The plan to be comprehensive in its coverage, both in the sense of catering for the entire Shannon basin and in the sense of providing for

▸protection of fish, flora and fauna and of built and natural heritage

▸avoidance of major flooding disasters and alleviation of the effects of flooding in ways that are compatible with nature

▸guidelines for residential, recreational, commercial and industrial development in the basin which are consistent with the above and which command widespread support

▸measures to promote the catchment as a significant natural and tourism attraction.

•Mechanisms to incorporate the views of all relevant bodies in the preparation of the plan and to provide for implementation action to be taken by each organisation, as appropriate.

•Adequate financial provision to implement the plan.

We should emphasise here that we saw the role to be played as primarily one of co-ordination, mobilisation of commitment and consensus-seeking. Better integrated management of the Shannon catchment cannot, in the Sub-Committee’s view, be achieved by edict or by imposition. Legislation, however well intentioned, will not prove effective unless those participating in the management of the basin are committed to the goals and to the methods.

4.2 Designating a suitable organisation

Since (as stated in section 3.5 above) the Sub-Committee was persuaded that it was undesirable to establish a new organisation unless such a measure proved unavoidable, we explored the possibility of having an existing organisation play the lead role in the integrated management of the Shannon catchment.

The task cannot, in the opinion of the Sub-Committee, be achieved by assigning a pre-eminent or overall planning role to one of the many organisations which are at present active in its management. No one of the local authorities, for example, could act outside its own territorial boundaries. Organisations engaged in fisheries management, environmental protection, navigation or electricity generation could not reasonably be asked to take on responsibilities far removed from their functions, and the same is true of all the other functionally specialised bodies. Furthermore, because of their deep involvement in the problems of the river and its basin, a number of those organisations would be regarded by other organisations involved as unacceptable in the role of “lead” or co-ordinating organisation.

We therefore explored the possibility of assigning the co-ordinating responsibility for the management of the Shannon to an organisation which is not at present involved in a specific way in contributing to either the problems of the Shannon or their alleviation.

The two Regional Assemblies and the eight Regional Authorities established under the Local Government Act, 1991 present a problem somewhat similar to that of the local authorities, in that the Shannon basin is territorially within the area of concern of both of the Assemblies and five of the Authorities. Furthermore, they would be seen to represent the local authority role in the management of the Shannon, and so might not be considered impartial brokers in situations involving potential conflict between local authorities and other organisations.

The organisation which seemed to the Sub-Committee to offer the best hope of playing the required role is the Western Development Commission. Despite some structural features not ideally suited to this role (a matter to which we return in subsequent paragraphs), the Commission is, in our view, the organisation best placed to take on the task of co-ordinating the management of the Shannon, for a number of reasons.

First, it is difficult to conceive of the comprehensive development of the Western Region without adverting to the importance of the Shannon in influencing and, to a large extent, defining the region. The development of tourism in large parts of Counties Leitrim, Roscommon, Galway and Clare (among the Counties for which the Commission caters) depends in substantial measure on the river and its wetlands. Residential development in the same areas must be influenced by the need to preserve the landscape and the wetlands and by the risk of flooding. Industrial development in the basin has major implications for water quality and fish stocks in the river and its lakes.

Second, the Commission has excellent mechanisms for, and experience of, networking with political, administrative and business interests to further the economic and social development of the region. Such networking would be a key element in the process of gaining consensus on planning and on commitment to plan implementation. In particular, it draws on the Forum of Ministers from the Western Counties, which includes all the Ministers and Ministers of State representing constituencies in the counties within which the Commission operates. In addition, there is a National Liaison Network, consisting of officials of all the relevant government departments and agencies.

Third, the Commission has a structure which is well designed to provide for consultation focused on specific aspects of its remit and which could relatively easily be adapted to deal with the management of the Shannon basin. It has established a number of Sector Councils, consisting of individuals from the public and private sectors, to provide for consultation on such topics as the marine, information technology, etc. In addition, the Commission sets up, as needed, specific Steering Groups to advise it on particular industries. These groups seek views from the public by holding workshops and inviting public submissions.

Fourth, the Commission’s statutory remit, as set out in section 8 of the Western Development Commission Act, 1998, includes the general requirement “to promote, and procure the promotion of, and assist in, foster and encourage economic and social development” in the Region. While the subsequent sub-sections of that section go on to specify particular ways in which the Commission should seek to achieve development of the region, these are set out “without prejudice to the generality of” the broad statement of remit cited. Furthermore, one of the specific duties laid on the Commission is “to make proposals for the further co-ordination of … the activities of the bodies in the Western Region in relation to such development”.

For those reasons, we considered that the use of the relatively new but effective mechanism of the Western Development Commission to co-ordinate the management of the Shannon basin should be considered. We recognised that some aspects of the Commission’s present remit and structures are clearly not well adapted to this task, but we believe that those difficulties can be resolved. In the following paragraphs we address the adjustments which would need to be made.

4.3 Adapting the Western Development Commission

The main respects in which the Commission is not at present in a position to oversee the integrated management of the Shannon are the following.

•The Western Development Commission Act, 1998, has as its title: An Act to establish a body, to be known as the Western Development Commission, to promote economic and social development in the counties of Clare, Donegal, Galway, Leitrim, Mayo, Roscommon and Sligo and to provide for matters connected therewith. Throughout the Act, the Commission’s functions are limited to the Western Region and that region is defined in section 8 (7) as consisting of the counties listed above.

•In establishing the Commission and defining its mechanisms, the Act clearly envisaged that its main thrust would be the encouragement and support of enterprise as a vehicle of development in the region. Towards that end, its main activities are defined in the Act as “to identify business and social enterprises and projects, and infrastructural projects related to those enterprises and projects”; “to identify the nature and extent of the assistance that should be provided for particular such enterprises and projects”; and other activities flowing from the general thrust of its support for enterprise.

•Its territorial limitation and the emphasis on its promotion of and support for enterprise are reflected in its structures. Its membership inevitably reflects its major concern with enterprise projects. Three Members are County Councillors, but only two of them from counties in the Shannon basin. Only a minority of the Members come from areas directly affected by the issues and problems of the Shannon. Apart from one Member each of Leitrim and Roscommon County Councils, none of the Members of the Commission is drawn from the organisations whose functions (as outlined in Appendix 2 to this report) contribute to the management of the Shannon. Its Sector Councils and other internal structures exhibit a similarly poor fit to the requirements of managing the Shannon, but those structures are not laid down by legislation.

•Neither the financing of the Commission nor its staffing has been structured with such a task as the management of the Shannon in mind. Its main financial mechanism is an investment fund to enable it to support development projects. The Commission has a small staff and they have, understandably, been recruited with the skills and experience needed for its current functions.

The Sub-Committee came to the conclusion, however, that those shortcomings (insofar as the needs of integrated management of the Shannon are concerned) could be remedied by fairly straightforward adjustments to the structures and functions of the Western Development Commission. We recommend that such amendments be considered.

Legislative change

Some of the adjustments which would be required would involve amending the 1998 Act. In setting out the proposed amendments in the following paragraphs, the Sub-Committee does not purport to produce a legislative draft in finished form, but merely to indicate the type of changes which we envisage as needing to be made in the Act.

•To extend the definition of its territorial limitation so as to include, solely for the purpose of co-ordinating the management of the basin, the entire Shannon basin, by

▸adding to the long title of the Act the phrase: and to promote the good management of the Shannon Catchment

▸amending the final definition in section 8 (7) to read: “the Western Region” means the region consisting of the counties of Clare, Donegal, Galway, Leitrim, Mayo, Roscommon and Sligo and, insofar as the management of the Shannon catchment is concerned, the area drained by the Shannon river, its lakes and tributaries (“the catchment”).

•To broaden the remit of the Commission so as to give it responsibility, within the scope of its general duty of promoting the development of the Western Region, for co-ordinating the management of the Shannon basin. This could be achieved by:

▸adding to section 8 (1) a new paragraph after the present paragraph (d): (e) to promote, and to co-ordinate the efforts of other bodies engaged in, the integrated management of the catchment. (The reference to “other bodies” is intended to relate to the many public authorities and bodies, such as local authorities, ESB, EPA, etc., which have specific functions in the management of the basin.)

▸amending the present paragraph (f) (i) of that sub-section so that the phrase paragraph (b)reads: paragraphs (b) and (e).(This would extend the provision for consultation to cover the bodies referred to immediately above.)

▸adding a new paragraph to the present section 8 (1) (f)* (which provides for consultation with relevant bodies), as follows: (v) organisations, whether financed out of public funds or otherwise, representing public concern for or interest in the preservation of good water quality, the protection of fish, fauna and flora and of built and natural heritage, the control of flooding and the organisation, development or control of social, sporting and recreational uses of the Shannon. Such a paragraph would provide for formal consultation with such bodies as Waterways Ireland, The Heritage Council, residents’ associations, IFA, angling clubs, etc.

•To require the Commission to prepare, in consultation with all relevant organisations, a plan for the integrated management of the Shannon catchment and to incorporate a mechanism to encourage such organisations to have due regard to the plan in performing to follow the new paragraph (e) suggested above, on the following lines: (f) to prepare, in consultation with the organisations referred to in paragraph (e) and the bodies referred to in paragraph (h) (v) of this sub-section, a plan to provide for all aspects of the integrated management of the catchment and to report each year and at other intervals as required to the Minister on the implementation of that plan by such organisations and bodies.

•To broaden its membership in line with its wider remit. To achieve this, it seems desirable to increase its membership from twelve to sixteen (both figures including the Chair). Such an increase would allow the inclusion of either a member or members who are local government representatives from those areas in the catchment east of the Shannon, or a member or members representing specialised expertise in matters of particular relevance to the management of the catchment (or both). Any change in the membership would require an amendment to section 9 (1) of the Act. The Sub-Committee considered whether particular categories of people or particular qualifications or background should be specified for the proposed new members. We decided that, since the Act does not at present prescribe how the members should be selected by the Minister, it would be anomalous to make such a provision in relation to the additional members.

Adaptation not requiring legislative change

The remaining adaptations which need to be made do not, in the opinion of the Sub-Committee, require amendment of the Act. They are:

•To make provision for the Commission to have available some financing which could be used to ensure that elements of any plan for the catchment need not fail to be implemented because of limitations on the original budgets of existing organisations. In general, actions to be taken under any plan for the management of the catchment would be financed by those organisations whose functional responsibility it is to take those actions. Occasionally, however, it might be necessary to take action which had not been envisaged when a particular organisation’s budget was being prepared, or emergency action which does not clearly fall within any single area of responsibility.

▸The Sub-Committee considered whether a special fund should be established under the Act, on the lines of the Western Investment Fund (WIF), but concluded that such an elaborate mechanism would be neither necessary nor desirable. Instead, we propose that the amount of the WIF be increased to provide a special reserve of about €25 m. specifically for special and emergency work in relation to the Shannon. The reserve should be topped up to that amount at the start of each year.

▸At present, the WIF is divided administratively into three funds: the Local Development Fund, the Business Fund and the Strategic Development Fund. While the management of the Shannon catchment might reasonably be considered part of the strategic development of the region, transparency and simplicity would be better served by the administrative designation of a fourth fund, to be possibly known as the Shannon Management Fund.

•To establish an additional Sector Council, to be known as the Shannon Management Sector Council, in order to provide the same level of consultation with relevant bodies in relation to the management of the Shannon as exists at present in such areas as tourism, natural resources, etc. This Council would provide the structure for consultation on the development and implementation of the integrated management plan.

•To establish an additional Steering Group, on the lines of those for organic farming and value added seafood, to facilitate wider consultation at the early stages of the development of the plan for the integrated management of the Shannon.

•To increase the staff complement of the Commission. The present staffing is minimal. There is a Chief Executive and staff whose job titles are clearly related to the present statutory tasks of the Commission. A number of additional staff – to a number which we are not in a position without detailed study to specify – would be needed to enable the Commission to cope with the proposed extension of its mandate. The additional staff would clearly need to be specialists, administrators and managers with competence in the areas of expertise relevant to the management of the Shannon catchment.

4.4 Preserving the integrity of the Commission

The Sub-Committee was mindful of the good work being done by the Western Development Commission since its establishment so recently. We were reluctant to propose any course of action which would unduly distort its structure, dilute its sense of purpose or blur its focus on the Western Region as at present defined. As far as possible, therefore, we strove to keep to a minimum the legislative and structural changes which we proposed and to preserve as far as possible the present “shape” of the Commission. The proposals made in this report would, we believe, enable the Commission to retain its clarity of purpose, its ethos and, most importantly, its effectiveness. We considered that the assignment to it of a somewhat extended remit, requiring some amendments to the 1998 Act and expanding the Commission’s financing and staffing, was preferable to establishing a new organisation with extensive powers and considerable potential for overlap with existing organisations.

Appendix 1

Summary Report on visit by the Sub-Committee

Delegation to Baden-Württemberg

Joint Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport

Sub-Committee on River Shannon Authority

Report on Visit to Germany

29 July to 3 August 2001

The delegation comprised Mr Seán Doherty TD, Chairman of the Joint Committee, Mr Donal Carey TD and Senator Peter Callanan. Mr Richard Manley acted as Secretary to the Delegation and Mr. Peter E. Smyth, Irish Embassy, Berlin accompanied the delegation which also had the services of Mr Patrick Bracken, an interpreter engaged by the Embassy on behalf of the delegation.

Monday, 30 July 2001

The initial session was devoted to an orientation session at the Baden-Württemberg Ministry of the Environment, in Stuttgart. Mr Klaus Röscheisen, Head of Administration, welcomed the Delegation on behalf of the Minister, who was on vacation, and the State Secretary, who had prior commitments. A presentation on the Rhine was given, with particular emphasis on the Upper Rhine, by Mr Hofmann on water and soil elements, and Dr Engler on transportation and navigation matters. The responsibilities of the International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine, located in Strasbourg, were clearly established and an overview was given of “The Integrated Rhine programme: Flood Control and Restoration of Former Flood Plains on the Upper Rhine”.

The floods which have occurred on the Rhine during the 1990s have underlined the need for action. The safety and functioning of installations and dikes as well as the creation of retention areas by setting aside and restoring former river flood plains have constituted necessary and suitable measures for improving flood control on the river and its tributaries. However, there is never going to be 100% protection against floods; nonetheless, if action with regard to the future is taken, damage may be contained effectively in the event of a disaster. Several major floods have taken place in recent decades and in 1988 and 1990 they also resulted in the use of the existing Baden-Württemberg retention areas i.e. the Kehl cultural weir as well as the Altenheim polders; by doing so it was possible to reduce the water level of the Rhine, in Karlsruhe, by nearly 25 cms during the 1988 flood. Due to the construction of the barrages on the Upper Rhine, nearly all flood plains existing on the Rhine between Märkt and Iffezheim prior to the establishment of the barrages were cut off from any flooding caused by the Rhine. The Integrated Rhine Programme is an appropriate plan for flood control and the restoration of the former flood plains on the Upper Rhine.

Details of theBaden-Württemberg General Transport Plan 1995 were provided with particular reference to inland waterways’ transport which is an ecological, well-developed and highly efficient system. River-barges carry c. one-fifth of Baden-Württemberg’s long distance freight. In order to maintain this high level, inland waterways’ shipping must adapt to meet the changed freight structure of the specialised economy in the Federal State. In parallel, international competition must be harmonised in order to safeguard the economic survival of independent barge owners and shipping companies. In 1994, Baden-Württemberg’s inland waterway ports turned over 41 million tonnes of cargo and this is expected to increase to 58 million tonnes by 2010. Public ports need to be upgraded to interface for fast, economic transfer of freight from rail, road, and ship. Container and roll on/roll off terminals and logistic services with electronic data exchange have become standard features of the major inland waterway ports. As a result of its widely varied landscape, Baden-Württemberg ranks second in tourism amongst Germany’s 16 Federal States. It wishes to maintain this “capital” through “soft tourism” by giving ecologically sensitive areas, and certified recreation, the protection they deserve ensuring that the environmental impact of access is minimised. Lake shorelines are in particular need of protection.

Mr Röscheisen, who has visited Ireland, was host at a working dinner at which the Delegation availed itself of the opportunity to continue the discussion in relation to the presentation and to raise matters of particular interest to individual Members.

Tuesday, 31 July 2001

[The Parliamentary Delegation was accompanied by the following Ministry representatives: Mr Rainer Sailer [Deputy to Mr Willner who was indisposed] and Ms Kerstin Garn.]

A visit was arranged to the State Institute for Environmental Protection [LfU], in Karlsruhe, where a presentation was given by Mr Scholz of the hydrology and flood forecasting department [HVZ] which detailed the use of high technology and telecommunications in gathering information and in making timely information available to all persons concerned regarding flooding forecasts. A study of the data used by HVZ attests to the accuracy of actual flood forecasts in recent times. A video in English was made available to the Delegation providing highlights of the work undertaken by the HVZ.

There followed a visit to the first national German Measurement Station on the Rhine, at Karlsruhe, above the French border. This station, which cost DM 2 million, provides both accurate flood measurements and takes regular automatic samples of the water in the Rhine the analysis of which are electronically relayed to the LfU. A detailed description of the scientific analysis equipment at the station was provided.

Next on the programme was a visit to the Hydroelectric Power Station at Iffezheim. A short description was given of the power station by Mr Urban of EnBW, which has four turbines, and which does not intrude too intrusively on the landscape as most of the plant, including the turbines, are located underground. Iffezheim, constructed in 1977, is the last in a row of ten barrage weirs, with locks, from Basel to Karlsruhe which have been constructed since 1932. The major element of interest to the Delegation at Iffezheim was the fish pass which has recently been constructed to facilitate the return of fish to the upper reaches of the Rhine. Apparently there are acute difficulties in relation to the existing fish pass at Ardnacruscha on the Shannon and the German example at Iffezheim would appear to be a perfect example of what might be considered for the Shannon. The Delegation are to be provided with a copy of the video in English on the fish pass.

The visit continued to the Kulturwehr Kehl-Strasbourg [Kehl-Strasbourg Cultural Weir] where the Delegation were met by the Chairman of the Environment and Transport Committee of the Baden-Württemberg Landtag [Parliament], Dr Caroli MdL, who has been a frequent visitor to Ireland and the Shannon over the past twenty years. A representative of the Mayor of Kehl also welcomed the Delegation. Mr Bohlen of the Water Authorities of the Southern Upper Rhine explained about the use of the weir and the long history of the Franco-German project since it was proposed some twenty-five years ago. Essentially with the help of the Rhine weirs, the water level of the river bed as well as that of the flood plains upstream from the weir may be controlled in accordance with a set of stipulated rules and regulations, First of all, the floodwater is being retained in the river itself via the weir (river retention), while it is subsequently allowed to run off into adjacent flood areas due to the increased water levels upstream from the weir. After lowering the weir locks, the water is once again removed from the retention area. Just like polders, weirs may be utilised for the purpose of flood retention in a targeted and highly efficient way. It was possible for some members of the Delegation to walk from Germany to France in a concrete passageway underneath the weir.

The final plant visit of the day was to the Pump House at Goldscheuer which provides protection to inhabited areas by pumping water from adjacent lakes which are in danger of flooding.

That evening, over a working dinner, it was possible to continue to exchange views in relation to the various installations visited during the day.

Wednesday, 1 August 2001

[The Parliamentary Delegation was accompanied by the following Ministry representatives: Mr Urban [no relation of the EnBW official mentioned above], Ms Karin Braun-Bachert, and Ms Kerstin Garn.]

The morning was spent as guests of the inland harbour authorities at Mannheim on board the M.S. Oberrhein where the Director of the Harbour Administration, Mr Hörner, was the host. Mr Hörner provided a presentation on the importance of water traffic and freight to the harbour at Mannheim emphasising the use made by large industrial concerns, including the chemical giant BASF, of the waterways. Mr Seitz, Deputy Director of the Water and Shipping Office at Mannheim, and Mr Kunzmann of the Water Authorities for the Northern Upper Rhine provided short further presentations and answered a variety of questions including the following matters: regulations affecting Lake Constance, recreational sports on water, planning permission for housing close to water, sewerage regulations etc. The harbour facilities including the new container facilities and the locks were visited.

In the evening, dinner facilitated a round-up discussion on the experience of the programme between the Parliamentary Delegation and their German interlocutors including a series of residual questions.

Thursday, 2 August 2001

The delegation and secretary followed the course of the Rhine by train from Mannheim through Mainz, Koblenz, Bonn, Cologne to Düsseldorf, from where the delegation returned to Ireland the following day.

The officials at the Baden-Württemberg Ministry of the Environment and Transport, as well as the representatives of the all of the facilities visited by the Parliamentary Delegation indicated their willingness to provide any further technical assistance or information which might be required in future.

CONCLUSIONS

The delegation was agreed that the visit had been most informative and that a most useful programme had been put in place, at very short notice, by Mr Smyth. In this regard, it wishes to place on record, its sincere thanks. The delegation also wishes to place on record its deep appreciation of the assistance offered by the Baden-Württembergauthorities and recommends that the offer of future technical assistance so generously offered be availed of by the appropriate personnel.

A video together with a considerable volume of written material (in English and German) is in the custody of the Committee Secretariat and is available for consultation, including the following.

•Leaflet on The Rhine-Neckar-Triangle – Facts and Figures (1998 Edition)

•Leaflet on The Future of the Environment in our Hands (produced by LFU)

•Brochure on Mannheim and its economic experience

•The Integrated Rhine Programme – Flood control and restoration of former flood plains on the Upper Rhine

•Baden-Wurttemberg – General Transport Plan 1995 (summary)

Appendix 2

Main Organisations Involved in the Management of the Shannon Basin

MAIN ORGANISATIONS INVOLVED IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE SHANNON BASIN

Local level

Local authorities in all three categories (county, city and town councils) are the relevant authorities for housing, roads, sanitary services, planning and environmental protection. Clearly, however, not all are equally important in the context of the management of the Shannon Basin. For example, the activities of Listowel or Kilrush Town Council in areas which drain into the Shannon estuary, have relatively little bearing on the overall management of water quality in the basin as a whole. They are relatively unaffected by, and not causatively linked to, the problems of flooding in the Shannon plain. Similarly, among the county councils, only small portions of the counties Kerry, Mayo and Sligo are in the Shannon basin.

The main statutory responsibilities of the local authorities which have a bearing on the management of the Shannon are:

Water quality and pollution

Under the Water Pollution Acts, 1977 and 1990, the Local Government Sanitary Services Acts, the Air Quality Act 1990 and the Waste Management Act 1996, the local authorities

•make water quality management plans;

•grant (or refuse) licences to discharge effluent into sewers or waters;

•require persons to take action to prevent or to remedy the effects of water pollution;

•make bye-laws prohibiting or regulating farming practices which would have adverse effects on water quality;

•monitor water quality;

•prosecute offenders against the provisions of the Acts; and

•provide drinking water, waste water treatment facilities and controls on the abstraction of waters.

Planning

Under the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts, 1963 to 1999, the local authorities process and grant (or refuse) planning permission for structures and activities, subject to appeal to An Bord Pleanala. However, under the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992, the local authority is precluded from taking the risk of pollution into account in considering an application for planning permission. (The same restriction applies to An Bord Pleanala.) Certain changes have been made to this restriction in the Planning and Development Act 2000.

The planning and development function has a significant bearing on the siting of dwellings in relation to areas which are subject to flooding, as well as to the more general question of the range of activities encouraged or permitted in a particular neighbourhood. The development plans made by local authorities under this legislation determine land use policy within their jurisdiction, and provide the framework within which, in principle, decisions are taken on planning applications.

Roads

Responsibility for the construction and maintenance of public roads is vested in road authorities (county, city and town councils - subject, in the case of national roads, to the statutory work of the National Roads Authority). This responsibility is relevant, inter alia, to the provision of access to river-based amenities.

Regional level

A number of statutory bodies are organised in a regional structure, notably (for the purposes of the present report) fisheries and tourism. In addition, the local government structure has been given a regional dimension since the establishment in 1994 of Regional Authorities, composed of representatives of the local authorities in their region. The main purpose of these Regional Authorities is to provide an element of co-ordination and co-operation among the constituent local authorities. They have, however, no executive powers and relatively modest budgets.

A further regional dimension was created in 1999 with the establishment of Regional Assemblies by Order under the Local Government Act, 1991. Their functions include the promotion of co-ordinated public service provision in their areas and their membership is drawn from the members of local authorities and Regional Authorities in those areas. However, the entire country is served by only two such Assemblies and the authorities involved in the Shannon catchment management include some in both. Therefore, they may be seen as relevant to issues arising in the management of the catchment but not well placed to play a significant part in integrated catchment management.

Fisheries

The Shannon Regional Fisheries Board is unique in being the only body whose territorial jurisdiction covers the entire Shannon catchment. In fact, its area of operation includes most of County Clare and extends to the coastal waters off the Clare and north Kerry coasts.

Under the Fisheries Acts 1959 to 1999, the Board is responsible for the protection, conservation, development, management and promotion of inland fisheries and the sea angling resources within its region. Like other regional fisheries boards, it is the main law enforcement agency for fishery matters in its region. Its functions as set out in the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1999 might be summarised as follows:

•to protect fisheries in its region and enforce the Fisheries Acts

•to prepare a development plan for inland fisheries and submit it to the Central Fisheries Board

•to ensure that any fishery which it owns or occupies or which is under its care or management is managed, conserved, protected, developed and improved in accordance with the development plan

•to promote and encourage similar management and care of fisheries which are not under its control. (The Board has become the licensing authority for eel fishing in the Shannon region.)

•to ensure that any oyster or other mollusc fishery in the region is protected in accordance with applicable ministerial directions

•to encourage, promote, market and develop angling for salmon, trout, coarse fish and sea fish and provide such amenities and facilities for this as its thinks necessary

•to encourage, organise, promote and co-ordinate together with inland fisheries owners, bodies and organisations in the region the voluntary development of inland fisheries catchment management plans, involving local authorities and other interested bodies

•to co-operate and co-ordinate with the Central Fisheries Board and other Regional Boards to ensure effective and efficient deployment of resources, performance of functions, etc.

•to have regard in its operations to the need for sustainable development of the inland fisheries resource, including conservation of habitats, bio-diversity and eco-systems, and generally protect the national heritage.

Tourism

Although the Regional Tourism Authorities (RTAs) were not established by specific statute, they are included here because they are the regional structures established by Bord Failte, which is itself a statutory body. They are companies limited by guarantee and membership is open to all in the region, especially those involved in tourism activities, and to local authorities. Their function is to support the efforts of Bord Failte in marketing Ireland as a tourist destination by promoting their own regions and servicing visitors in those regions.

There are six RTAs, of which three - the Midlands/East, the North-West and the Western - operate in the Shannon catchment.

Shannon Free Airport Development Company (SFADCo, or Shannon Development)

SFADCo is Ireland’s only regional development company. It was established in 1959 to promote Shannon Airport and now has the function of promoting industry, tourism and rural development in the Shannon Region (an area of some 10,000 sq. kilometres in Clare, Limerick, North Tipperary, South Offaly and North Kerry). A wholly owned subsidiary, Shannon Estuary Development Ltd (SEDL) was set up in 1997 to formulate a strategic planning framework for the lower estuary. In addition to Shannon Development, Limerick City Council, Limerick, Clare and Kerry County Councils, the two estuary posts companies and the IDA are represented on SEDL’s board.

Shannon Development (either directly or through SEDL) performs a number of functions which are central to the management of the Shannon catchment and, in discharging them, has engaged in a variety of activities including:

•development of industry in the Shannon Region, with particular emphasis on the technology and aviation sectors

•development of tourism in the Region, including managing certain commercial tourist attractions

•definition of principles to inform a model Coastal Zone Management plan for the Estuary and taking the initial steps towards implementing it. (The plan would comprehend business, tourism, aquaculture and recreational elements.)

•formulation, jointly with the Western Development Commission and Bord Failte, of proposals to the Minister for Finance for the regeneration of the Shannon Corridor, involving its designation as a Special Economic Development Zone with favourable tax provisions

•in co-operation with Bord Iascaigh Mhara and with assistance from the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, commissioned an aquaculture study pointing the way to maximising the potential of aquaculture industrial activity in the estuary

•participated with a variety of local and community groups and local, regional and State agencies in the Lough Derg Working Group, aiming to develop the potential of Lough Derg as a natural tourist resource.

National level

Five Government departments and seven other organisations at national level exercise functions which have a bearing, to varying extents, on the management of the Shannon catchment.

Department of the Environment and Local Government

Given that some 90% of the expenditure of the department is channelled through the local authorities, it is not surprising that the relevant aspects of public policy administered by the Department of the Environment and Local Government closely mirror those described above for local authorities. The principal areas are water quality and pollution, planning and roads. In broad terms, the department provides the policy and financial framework and the international dimension, while the activities are carried out or administered by the local authorities.

Any work which local authorities do to mitigate the effects of flooding is financed out of the sums they set aside for contingencies out of the Department’s bloc grant. The department is not directly involved in either the prevention of flooding or the alleviation of its effects.

In practice, the department does not typically view either its planning (land-use policy) activities or its road-planning role in the context of the management of a river catchment, which it sees overwhelmingly in terms of water management.

Under the Local Government (Water Pollution) Acts, 1977 and 1990, the Minister can direct local authorities to make water quality plans, require local authorities to co-ordinate their plans, prescribe standards for waters, effluents and treatment methods and make regulations under the Acts. The department gives guidance to the local authorities on the development of Water Monitoring and Management Systems (WMMS) and promotes water quality projects such as the Lough Derg/Lough Ree Catchment Monitoring and Management Project. It also encourages a wider total catchment approach to water management, consistent with the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD). (It should be noted that the term “water management” in the context of the activities of the department refers to water quality only and not to water quantity.)

Office of Public Works

The Office of Public Works (OPW) under the Minister for Finance has two statutory responsibilities in relation to the Shannon catchment:

•to maintain those tributaries where the Office had carried out arterial drainage under the Arterial Drainage Act 1945 (and to ensure that those drained before the 1945 Act are maintained by local authorities); and

•to maintain the 67 hydrometric stations on the Shannon.

The Office also has power under the 1945 Act to prepare drainage schemes to prevent or reduce flooding. However, it would do so only if a cost-benefit analysis showed such a measure to be economic. No such scheme has been considered to be justified on the River Shannon. The Office also has power under the Arterial Drainage (Amendment) Act 1995 to carry out localised flood relief schemes. Its practice in such instances is to take guidance from the local interests (especially the local authority) and seek Government approval where justified. At the time of our enquiries, twelve small schemes were in progress, at costs varying from just over €100 to more than €13,000.

Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands

The role of the department in relation to the management of the Shannon catchment has been greatly reduced by the establishment of Waterways Ireland, a North-South body under the British-Irish Agreement. Until April 2000, the department had had responsibility for the Shannon Navigation, a function transferred to it from OPW four years earlier. This responsibility now rests on Waterways Ireland.

The department’s Heritage Service, Dúchas, is responsible for securing the conservation of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) designated under the EU Habitats Directive and Special Protection Areas (SPAs) designated under the EU Birds Directive, in accordance with the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations, 1997. More generally, Dúchas is responsible for the conservation of wildlife under the Wildlife Act, 1976. The Shannon, and in particular L. Ree and L. Derg and much of the callows, contain a number of important SACs and SPAs.

In practice, the effect of the designation of such sites as SACs or SPAs is that any activity likely to have a significant effect on them must be the subject of an assessment of the implications of the activity on the site. The Minister or other relevant authority must have regard to the conclusions of such an assessment.

Department of the Marine and Natural Resources

The department is involved in policy development and management initiatives related to the Shannon catchment in three ways: through its coastal zone administration activities; in its role as the policy-making body for inland fisheries; and in its statutory functions in relation to harbours in the Shannon Estuary. The department also undertakes a general supervisory role in relation to the performance by the ESB of its functions under the Shannon Fisheries Acts.

It is currently encouraging the development of an integrated coastal zone management plan for the Shannon Estuary by the public bodies active in the area. (These include the SFADCO and the Shannon Foynes Port Company.) There is also an intention to replace existing legislation (the Foreshore Acts, 1933 to 1998) with a Coastal Zone Management Bill.

The department provides the policy framework within which the Central Fisheries Board and (as far as the Shannon is concerned) the Shannon Regional Fisheries Board administer and manage the fisheries in the region. In the context of its concern for fisheries, the department is consulted by the Department of the Environment in regard to the development of a catchment management plan for the Shannon Basin in relation to the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive. Part of the department’s own Water Quality Action Plan involved the establishment of an Inland Fisheries Environmental Forum to exchange information, review strategy and promote co-ordination among the agencies involved in water quality issues. The department has also been the licensing authority for eel fishing but this function has now passed to the Shannon Regional Fisheries Board.

The Harbours Act 1996 corporatised the Shannon Estuary Ports Company and the Foynes Port Company, enabling them to function as commercial State-sponsored companies to manage, control and develop the harbours. The Harbours (Amendment) Act, 2000, provided for the amalgamation of the two companies into one, known as the Shannon Foynes Port Company. The new legislation provides for a more dynamic and integrated approach to the management of traffic coming into the estuary.

Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation

The department’s functions have relevance to the Shannon catchment in a number of ways. It is responsible for the development of national policy on tourism, to which the Shannon region must make a substantial contribution. It is charged with co-ordination of local development policy and, in that capacity, is the governmental focus for the work of SFADCO, the development corporation for counties Clare, Limerick, Tipperary, Offaly and North Kerry.

The department has drawn up a list of tourism priorities for water, waste water and roads investment in consultation with RTAs and local authorities. This list identifies nine towns in the Shannon catchment where upgrading of sewerage facilities is a priority.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Under functions and powers conferred by the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992, and the Waste Management Act, 1996, the EPA

•has power to grant licences to those undertaking industrial and other potentially polluting activities which are listed in the first schedule to the Act. (This includes large-scale harvesting of peat.)

•has power to grant licences to waste operators (landfill, transfer stations, etc.)

•monitors environmental quality

•promotes and co-ordinates research

•publishes reports on the state of the environment

•promotes environmentally sound practices

•advises public authorities and assists local authorities in relation to environmental protection

•oversees the performance by local authorities of their functions on environmental protection.

•prepares and implements a national hydrometric programme for the collection, analysis and publication of information on the levels, volumes and flows of water in rivers, lakes and groundwater.

Electricity Supply Board (ESB)

The statutory functions, powers and obligations of the ESB in relation to the Shannon are contained in the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1927, as amended by the Acts of 1932, 1934 and 1954, and in the Fisheries Act, 1935. In broad terms, under the legislation the Board

•must generate electricity and, towards that end, control, manage and maintain in good repair the weirs, sluices and other works which are vested in the Board

•is authorised to develop the water storage capacity of Loughs Allen, Ree and Derg and to operate the works mentioned

•is required to manage, conduct and preserve the fisheries of the River Shannon and to maintain a minimum discharge of water through Parteen weir.

In practice, the ESB assists in the management of water levels in the lakes throughout the year. The legislation specifies the upper and lower water levels for Lough Allen and Lough Derg. In L. Ree, the Board is authorised only to lower the lake to a minimum level. The only points at which the ESB has statutory power to control lake levels are at the L. Allen sluices, Athlone weir and Parteen weir and sluice barrage. The Board monitors and maintains records of flows along the Shannon on a daily basis and obtains similar data from Waterways Ireland (formerly from Dúchas).

All fishing rights on the Shannon are vested in the ESB. The principal concern of the Board is to manage stocks of salmon and eel, migratory species which could be affected by the operation of hydro turbines at Ardnacrusha. Monitoring and restocking programmes are carried out under special research authorisations controlled by the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources.

Central Fisheries Board

In accordance with the Fisheries Acts, the Central Fisheries Board advises the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources on fisheries policy and co-ordinates its implementation by the Regional Boards. It shares with the Regional Boards the statutory function of protecting, managing, developing and promoting fisheries. Under the legislation, fisheries include the physical habitat, the quantity and quality of water, the plant and animal life supporting the fish and the spawning gravels. Fisheries management is greatly affected by land use practices, because fish communities are an integral part of the aquatic ecosystem.

Under the Fisheries Acts, each regional fisheries board is required to prepare an inland fisheries plan and submit it to the Central Fisheries Board. The Central Board co-ordinates and consults with the regional boards on the preparation of a national inland fisheries development plan and submits this to the Minister. The Central Fisheries Board has leased from the ESB the fishing rights on the Inny, the Brosna, the Suck and the Little Brosna.

Waterways Ireland

Waterways Ireland is a North/South Implementation Body, established on 2 December, 1999, under the British-Irish Agreement Act, 1999, with responsibility for the management, maintenance, development and restoration of certain inland navigations, principally for recreational purposes. Its statutory responsibility for the Shannon Navigation dates from 1 April 2000. The Body has a duty to ensure that there is adequate depth of water in the navigation channels and this includes the operation of sluices in weirs under its control, operating lock gates and opening bridges, maintaining structures such as harbours and public moorings and enforcing the bye-laws regulating the use of the Navigation. The Body will operate within the statutory and regulatory framework in place in both jurisdictions on the Island, including obligations relating to habitat, heritage and water quality. It reports to the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands and to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure in Northern Ireland. Ultimate responsibility for the Body rests with the North/South Ministerial Council.

The Heritage Council

Established under the Heritage Act, 1995, the Council is an independent body with a statutory duty to propose policies and priorities for the identification, protection, preservation and enhancement of all aspects of the national heritage. This duty covers flora, fauna, wildlife habitats, landscapes (including built heritage) and inland waterways. The Council’s relevance to the management of the Shannon catchment is illustrated in two sets of activities:

•It produced a policy paper on the future of Ireland’s inland waterways in June 1999 in which it addressed the issue of resource management and drew attention to the problems created by the multiplicity of agencies involved; and

•It facilitated meetings at which were represented the Department of Finance, the Department of the Environment and Local Government, the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands and County Councils and development groups from Cavan, Leitrim, Roscommon, Sligo and Longford. The meetings resulted in agreement to use the Heritage Council methodology for heritage appraisals to monitor the effect of the Rural Tax Incentive Scheme in this area.

Bord Failte

Bord Failte’s statutory remit is to market Ireland as a tourism destination. The Shannon catchment represents some 13% of all visitors to Ireland, generating some £282 m. in 1999. The Bord does not directly take part in the management of the catchment, though it has a major interest in how effectively and sensitively it is managed by the various agencies involved. It uses its regional authorities to implement policies designed to attract tourists to the region.

Bord na Mona

Bord na Mona’s statutory function is the harvesting of peat from its bogs, some 10,000 hectares of which lies within the Shannon catchment. In doing so, it necessarily produces fine peat dust, which, if not properly managed, seeps into the river as silt. The Bord’s operations are carried on under the safeguard of a licence from the Environmental Protection Agency, which should ensure that damage is not caused to the river. However, it is only since the year 2000 that the Agency has begun to assess and license the operations of the Bord and peat has been harvested in large volumes for decades before that. Since in or about 1970, Bord na Mona has used siltation ponds to trap silt which would otherwise be carried into the river. The Bord’s contribution to the good management of the catchment lies in the effectiveness of its management of the siltation ponds.

Appendix 3

List of Submissions Received

LIST OF SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED BY THE

SUB-COMMITTEE ON THE RIVER SHANNON AUTHORITY

1.Mr. A.H. Downing, 151 Stockport Rd. West, Bredbury, Cheshire SK6 2AN, England.

2.Mr. Niall Reddy, Irish Tourist Board, Bord Failte, Baggot St. Bridge, D. 2.

3.Ms. Helen Nugent, Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Kildare Street, Dublin 2.

4.Mr. John Hurley, Sec. General, Department of Finance, Upper Merrion St. D. 2.

5.Mr. Alan Forrest, Angling in Ireland, Stablecroft, Gortnalamph, Mohill, Co. Leitrim.

6.Mr. Michael Ganly, Chairman, Athlone Anglers Assoc., Bullet Road, Cornamaddy, Athlone.

7.Mr. Pat O’Rourke, President, ICMSA, John Feely House, Upper Mallow Street, Limerick.

8.Mr. John Sadlier, Water Quality Section, Dept. of the Environment and Local Government, Custom House, Dublin 1.

9.G. Lambden, Acting County Secretary, Westmeath County Council, County Buildings, Mullingar, Co. Westmeath.

10.Ms. Sara White, Ass. Secretary, Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, Leeson Lane, Dublin 2.

11.Ms. Shirley Clerkin, Co-Ordinator, An Taisce, The Tailor’s Hall, Back Lane, Dublin 8.

12.Mr. John Tiernan, Leitrim County Manager, Leitrim County Council, Co. Managers Office, Áras an Chontae, Carrick-on-Shannon, Co. Leitrim.

13.Dr. P. Fitzmaurice, Director of Research, Central Fisheries Board, Bainagowan, Mobhi Boreen, Glasnevin, Dublin 9.

14.Mr. Eamonn Cusack, Chief Exec. Officer, The Shannon Regional Fisheries Board, Thomond Weir, Limerick.

15.P.M. Mullally, Chief Officer, An Bord Pleanála, Floor 3, Block 6, Irish Life Centre, Lower Abbey Street, Dublin 1.

16.Ms. Lorrainne Dufficey, Irish Wildlife Trust, 107 Lower Baggot Street, Dublin 2.

17.P. O’Brien, Club Sec., Ballykeeran & Killeenmore Anglers Assosication, Laubaun, Mt. Temple, Moate, Co. Westmeath.

18.Mr. Michael. N. Gill,The Castle Hill, Tomona, Dromineer, Nenagh, Co. Tipperary.

19.G. Gough, Manager Fisheries Conservation, ESB, Fisheries Conservation, Hydro Group, Ardnacrusha, Co. Clare.

20.B. Kinsella, County Secretary, Offaly County Council, Courthouse, Tullamore, Co. Offaly.

21.Mr. Tom Costello, Principle Officer, Engineering Services, OPW, Head Office, 51 St. Stephens Green, Dublin 2.

22.Ms. Patricia Gavin, Secretary, Clonown Residence Association, Carricknaughton, Athlone.

23.Mr. Larry Donald, Secretary, ESB, Lower Fitzwilliam Street, Dublin 2.

24.Ms. Anne McDonagh, Carnadoe Cottage, Lavagh, Rooskey, Co. Roscommon.

25.Mr. James Stone, Director, Midland Regional Authority, Bridge Centre, Bridge Street, Tullamore, Co. Offaly.

26.County Secretary, Roscommon County Council, Courthouse, Roscommon.

27.The Inland Waterways Association of Ireland.

28.Mr. Patrick W. Guinan, B.H.M. Development Group Belmont & Member Small Farm Advisory Group Br/mont, Moystown Demense, Shannon Harbour, Birr, Co, Offaly.

29.Mr. Paul Byrne, Company Secretary, Coillte Teoranta, Lesson Lane, Dublin 2.

30.Mr. Michael Clancy, A/County Secretary, Longford County Council, Great Water Street, Longford.

31.Ms. Catherine Casey, Habitat Managaement Officer, BirdWatch Ireland, Crank House, Banagher, Co. Offaly

32.Mr. John Madden, Chartered Engineer, John Madden & Associates, 2 Dominick Place, Mullingar, Co. Westmeath

33.Mr. Gabriel Cox, Shannon Eel Fisherman’s Association, Farmogh, Leitrim, P.O. Carrick-on-Shannon.

34.Mr. Stephen Heery, Laurencetown, Ballinasloe, Co. Galway

35.Mr. John Crudden, Hon. Secretary, Pike Angling Clubs, Oldcastle Road, Ballyjamesduff, Co. Cavan.

36.Mr. Robert Hall, Battery Road, Longford.

37.Mr. Derek Dann, Executive Secretary, (IBRA), Irish Boat Rental Association, “Karersee”, 2 Granville Road, Blackrock, Co. Dublin

38.Mr. Bernard Chadwick, Joint Hon. Sec., Save Our Lough Derg, 22 St Patricks Terrace, Nenagh, Co. Tipperary.

39.Mr. Raymond McKenna, Portumna Barefoot Water-ski Club, 54 Sandyford Downs, Sandyford, Dublin 18.

40.William O’ Connor, Fishfact Ltd., Tait Business Centre, Dominick Street, Limerick.

41.Mr. Gerry Gunning, Executive Secretary, IFA National Rural Development Committee, The Irish Farmers Association, Irish Farm Centre, Bluebell, Dublin 12.

42.Mr. Joe O’Donoghue, Chairperson, Lough Derg Anglers Association, “Cameron” Gortlandroe, Nenagh, Co. Tipperary

43.Mr. Michael Fitzpatrick, Ballina, Killaloe, Co. Clare

44.Mr. Peter Reynolds, Annacullen, Barnacoola, Co. Leitrim

45.Mr. Patrick Corr, Mt. Trenchand, Foynes, Co. Limerick

46.Ms. Olivia Loughnane, Planning & Communication Manager, Shannon Development, Shannon, Co. Clare.

47.Mr. Jim Beecher, Ass. Sec., Office of the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Dublin 2

48.S. Ó Cofraigh, Ass. Sec., Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, 43/49 Mespil Road, Dublin 4.

49.Mr. Paddy Boyd, Sec. General, Irish Sailing Association, 3 Park Road, Dun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin.

50.Mr. John Mahony, Interim Chief Exec. Officer, Waterways Ireland, 17/19 Lower Hatch Street, Dublin 2.

51.Bord na Móna, Main Street, Newbridge, Co. Kildare

52.Mr. Donal Carey T.D., Dáil Éireann, Dublin 2.

53.Dr. Frances Lucy, Environmental Services Ireland, Aughamore, Lough Allen, Carrick-on-Shannon, Co. Leitrim.

54.Dan Flinter, Chief Executive Officer, Enterprise Ireland, Glasnevin, Dublin 9.

55.Sean Doherty T.D, Cooteball, Boyle, Co. Roscommon.

56.Ms. Beatrice Kelly, Director, The Heritage Council, Kilkenny

57.Mr. Paddy Mackey, Voice of Irish Concern for the Environment, 7 Upper Camden Street, Dubin 2.

58.Mr. Brian Tabiner, Chairman, Lanesboro and District Coarse Angling Club, Brimar, Strokestown Road, Ballyleague, Lanesboro, Co. Longford

59.Mr. Anthony Geraghty, Kiltoom, Athlone, Co. Roscommon

60.M. McNamara, County Secretary, Clare County Council, New Road, Ennis

61.Mr. Paul Kidney, Era Maplec Ltd., 36 Dame Street, Dublin.

62.Dr. Padraic Larkin, Director, Environmental Monitoring and Laboratory, EPA, PO Box 3000, Johnstown Castle, Estate, Co. Wexford.

63.T. Kavanagh, County Secretary, Galway County Council, PO Box No. 27 County Hall, Prospect Hill, Galway.

64.Mr. Neil Mc Garry, Kilnamanagh, Frenchpark, Castlerea, Co. Roscommon

65.Margaret Power, Secretary Clarecastle Harbour Trustees, ‘Knockfune’, Patrick Street, Clarecastle Co. Clare.

66.Mr. Donnaca Kennedy, Corryolus, Carrick on Shannon, Co. Leitrim.

67.T.P. Murphy, 10 Fingal Place, Dublin 7.

68.Mr. James C Barry, 6 Woodlawn House, Lower Mounttown Road, Dun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin

69.Mr. Maurice F. Cowhey/Bridget Cowhey, Castlematrix, Rathkeale, Co. Limerick.

70.Mr. Edward Reynolds, Cadamstown, Brodford, Co. Kildare

71.Ms. Louise Farrell, Templeton, Killashee, Co. Longford

72.Mr. Geoff Cooper, The Coopers Lodge, Ballytoohey, Tarmonbarry, Co. Longford.

73.A. Coghlan, Harbour Master, Shannon Estuary Ports, Harbour Office, 3 Pery Square, Limerick

74.Mr. Ronald C. Cox, Executive Director, Irish Organisation for Geographic Information, Museum Building, Trinity College, Dublin 2.

75.T. Kirby, Director, Mid West Regional Authority, Friar Court, Abbey St., Menagh, Co. Tipperary.

76.Mr. Seán Gilroy, Director of Administration, Teagasc, Head Office, 19 Sandymount Avenue, Dublin 4.

77.Mr. John Martin, Director, (Waterways), Dúchas The Heritage Service, 17/19 Lower Hatch Street, Dublin 2

Appendix 4

Record of Proceedings of Public Sessions

Sub-Committee on River Shannon Authority

Draft Minutes of Proceedings

Wednesday, 11 October, 2000

1.The Sub-Committee met in Private Session at 7.01 p.m. and in public session at 7.05 p.m. in Room G5, Kildare House, Kildare Street, Dublin 2.

2.Attendance

Deputies:- Sean Doherty (Chairman), Paul Connaughton, Willie Penrose

Senator:- John Cregan.

3.Public Session

(i)Discussion with the Heritage Council.

The Chairman welcomed the following representatives of the Heritage Council to the meeting:

Ms Beatrice Kelly, Education and Communication Officer and

Ms Ruth Delaney, Member of the Council.

Ms Kelly responded to questions put by the members of the Sub-Committee in relation to the content of the submission lodged by the Council.

The Chairman thanked the delegation representing the Heritage Council for attending the meeting.

(ii)Discussion with Waterways Ireland.

The Chairman welcomed the following representatives of Waterways Ireland to the meeting:

Mr John Martin, Deputy Chief Executive and

Mr Martin Denneny, Assistant Principal.

Mr Martin answered questions from members with regard to the content of the submission which had been lodged by Waterways Ireland.

The Chairman thanked the representatives of Waterways Ireland for attending the meeting.

(iii)Discussion with the Shannon Regional Fisheries Board.

The Chairman welcomed the following representatives of Shannon Regional Fisheries Board to the meeting:

Mr Eamon Cusack, Chief Executive Officer,

Mr Michael Callaghan, Chairman of the Board,

Mr Niall Collins, Deputy Assistant to Mr Cusack, and

Mr Sean Young, member of the Board.

Mr Cusack responded to questions from the Sub-Committee with regard to the submission which the Shannon Regional Fisheries Board had forwarded to it.

The Chairman thanked the representatives of the Board for attending the meeting.

4. Adjournment

The Joint Committee adjourned its deliberations at 8.21 pm.

______________________

Sean Doherty T.D.

Chairman

21 March 2002

Sub-Committee on the River Shannon Authority

Draft Minutes of Proceedings

25 October, 2000.

1.The Sub-Committee met in private session at 7.10 p.m. and in public session at 7.15 p.m. in Room G5, Kildare House, Kildare Street, Dublin 2.

2.Attendance

Deputies:- Brendan Daly, Seán Doherty (Chairman), Paul Connaughton, Willie Penrose.

Senator:- John Cregan.

Apologies were received from Deputy Trevor Sargent.

3.Private Session.

4.Public Session.

(i)Presentation by the Irish Farmers’ Association.

The Chairman welcomed the following representatives of the Irish Farmers Association:

Mr Gerry Gunning, Executive Secretary, IFA Rural Development Committee.

Mr Adrian Leahy, IFA Development Officer (Roscommon).

Mr Charlie Killeen, and Mr Michael Silke, IFA Galway.

Mr Paddy Halligan and Louis Martin, IFA Roscommon.

Mr James Kane, IFA Offaly.

Mr Fintan Nally, IFA Westmeath.

There was a short presentation by Mr Halligan which was followed by a question and answer session. The Chairman thanked the IFA for attending the meeting.

(ii)Presentation by the Electricity Supply Board.

The following representatives of the ESB were welcomed by the Chairman to the meeting:

Mr Larry Donald, Company Secretary.

Mr Gerry Gough, Fisheries Manager.

Mr Paddy Stapleton, Generation Manager,

Mr Jack O’Keeffe, Chief Civil Engineer, Hydro Stations.

Mr Bob Cullen, Manager of Ardnacrusha and Lee Stations.

Mr Donald made a brief presentation to the Sub-Committee. This was followed by a question and answer session. It was agreed that the ESB would supply the Sub-Committee with details of water levels above Parteen weir. The Chairman thanked the ESB for attending the meeting.

5.Adjournment.

The meeting adjourned at 8.20 p.m. until Wednesday, 8 November, 2000.

Seán Doherty T.D.,

Chairman.

21 March 2002

Sub-Committee on the River Shannon Authority

Draft Minutes of Proceedings

Wednesday, 1 November, 2000.

1.The Sub-Committee met in private session at 4.05 p.m. and in public session at 4.10 p.m. in Room G2, Kildare House, Kildare Street, Dublin 2.

2.Attendance

Deputies:- Seán Doherty (Chairman), Paul Conaughton, Willie Penrose.

Senator:- Madeleine Taylor-Quinn(substituting for John Cregan).

Apologies were received from Deputy Brendan Daly and Deputy Trevor Sargent.

3.Private Session.

4.Public Session.

Presentation by Bórd na Móna.

The Chairman welcomed Mr. John Gallagher, Assistant Secretary and Solicitor to Bórd na Móna and Mr. Tom O’Donnell, Senior Engineer.

Mr. Gallagher made a short presentation to the Sub-Committee. There followed a question and answer session with members.

Mr Gallagher and Mr O’Donnell agreed to supply the Sub-Committee with details in relation to the amount of sludge produced per annum by Bórd na Móna from their silting ponds.

It was agreed to invite representatives of the following bodies to attend the next meeting of the Sub-Committee:

The Environmental Protection Agency,

The Department of the Environment and Local Government and

The Department of Finance.

5.Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 5.05p.m. until Wednesday, 15 November, 2000.

_________________________

Seán Doherty T.D.,

Chairman.

21 March 2002

Sub-Committee on River Shannon Authority

Draft Minutes of Proceedings

Wednesday, 15 November, 2000.

1.The Sub-Committee met in Private Session at 6.50p.m. and in public session at 7.15 p.m. in Room G5, Kildare House, Kildare Street, Dublin 2.

2.Attendance

Deputies:- Sean Doherty(Chairman), Brendan Daly, Paul Connaughton(in substitution for Donal Carey),Willie Penrose (in substitution for Emmet Stagg).

Senator:- John Cregan.

Apologies were received from Deputy Trevor Sargent.

3.Private Session

Approval of Draft Interim Report on Flooding on the River Shannon.

4.Public Session

Meeting with the Environmental Protection Agency.

The Chairman welcomed the following representatives of the EPA:-

Mr Padraig Larkin, Director

Mr Jim Bowman, Senior Scientific Officer.

There was a short presentation by Mr Larkin which was followed by a question and answer session.

Meeting with Representatives of the Department of the Environment and Local Government.

The Chairman welcomed the following representatives of the Department:-

Ms Geraldine Tallon, Assistant Secretary,

Mr John Sadlier, Principal Officer, Water Quality Section,

Mr Tony Boland, Principal Officer, Fire Services.

There was a short presentation by Ms Tallon which was followed by a question and answer session.

Meeting with Representatives of the Department of Finance.

The Chairman welcomed Dr. John Thompson, Principal Officer. There was a short presentation by Dr Thompson which was followed by a question and answer session.

5.Next Meeting.

It was agreed to meet the next body listed which had lodged submissions with the Sub- Committee.

6.Adjournment.

The Sub-Committee adjourned at 8.30 p.m. until 22 November, 2000.

________________

Seán Doherty T.D.,

Chairman.

21 March 2002

Sub-Committee on River Shannon Authority

Draft Minutes of Proceedings

Wednesday, 22 November, 2000.

1.The Sub-Committee met in Private Session at 7.15p.m. and in public session at 7.17 p.m. in Room G2, Kildare House, Kildare Street, Dublin 2.

2.Attendance

Deputies:- Sean Doherty (Chairman), Brendan Daly, Billy Kelleher (in substitution for Donal Carey),Willie Penrose (in substitution for Emmet Stagg), Matt Brennan (in substitution for Brendan Daly).

Senator:- John Cregan.

Apologies were received from Deputy Trevor Sargent.

3.Public Session

The Sub-Committee held a brief discussion in Private Session on some points to be covered with Bord Failte before going into Public Session.

The Minutes of the meeting of 15th November, 2000 were agreed.

Meeting with Bord Fáilte.

The Chairman welcomed the following representatives of Bord Fáilte:-

Mr Niall Reddy, General Manager - Enterprise Support.

Mr Harry Lynch, Regional Tourism Manager, Midlands East Tourism Authority.

There was a short presentation by Mr Reddy which was followed by a question and answer session.

4.Adjournment.

The Sub-Committee adjourned at 7.42 p.m. until 13 December, 2000

_________________________

Seán Doherty T.D.,

Chairman.

21 March 2002

Appendix 5

Terms of reference of the Sub-Committee

Joint Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport

Revised Order Establishing sub-Committee, 4 May, 2000.

Ordered:-

1.“That-

(a)a sub-Committee (to be called the sub-Committee on River Shannon Authority) be established to consider issues relating to the Management of the River Shannon and report to the Joint Committee thereon;

(b)the sub-Committee shall consist of 6 Members of whom 5 shall be Members of Dáil Éireann and 1 shall be Members of Seanad Éireann;

(c)the quorum of the sub-Committee shall be three, of whom at least 1 shall be a Member of Dáil Éireann and 1 a Member of Seanad Éireann;

(d)in relation to the matter specifically referred to it in paragraph (a) above, the sub-Committee shall have only those functions of the Joint Committee which are set out in sub-paragraphs (2)(a)(i) and (ii) (Dáil) and in sub-paragraphs (1)(a)(i) and (ii) (Seanad) of the Joint Committee’s Orders of Reference1; and

(e)the sub-Committee shall have all the powers of the main Committee, namely, those contained in Standing Order 78A(1), (2) and (4) to (9) (Dáil) and in Standing Order 65A (1), (2) and (4) to (9) (Seanad)2: provided that the powers to print and publish evidence, to travel and to engage consultants shall, in each case, be subject to the approval of the Joint Committee.”.

Appendix 6

Membership of Sub-Committee

JOINT COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ENTERPRISE AND TRANSPORT

Sub-Committee on the River Shannon Authority

List of Members

* The conclusions and recommendations in the Rydell report are summarised in the Sub-Committee’s Interim Report.

[*Note: As a result of renumbering consequent on the suggestions in this report, paragraph 8 (1) (f) would be 8 (1) (h) and the proposed addition would thus be 8 (1) (h) (v).]

1 Key to subparagraphs of Joint Committee’s Orders of Reference referred to: (i) = public affairs administered by Department; (ii) = matters of policy for which Minister is officially responsible; (iii) = strategy statements; (v) = other matters referred by the Dáil/Seanad.

2 Key to paragraphs of Dáil/Seanad Standing Orders referred to: (1) = take evidence; (2) = invite submissions; (3) = establish sub-committees; (4) = draft legislative change; (5), (6) = meet Minister re policy/proposed legislation; (7) = meet principal office holders in State Bodies; (8) = consultants; (9) = travel.

* Deputy Carey appointed in substitution for Deputy Hogan June 2000

** Deputy Rabbitte replaced Deputy Stagg in March 2001