7. Responsible and Competent Authorities Cost Assessment
7.1 Introduction
An assessment of the administrative costs to prepare and implement the RBMP has been completed. Administrative costs can fall on various public bodies including: Scottish Government, other public central and local government and non-departmental public bodies.
Section 2 of the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 (" WEWS") allows Scottish Ministers to designate public bodies as 'responsible authorities' under the Act. These take into consideration the aims and principles of the WFD in carrying out their statutory functions, where these duties have an impact on the water environment. In doing so, these responsible authorities support SEPA in their lead role for river basin management planning and will help secure a successful implementation of the Directive in Scotland.
Therefore cost may fall on:
- The Scottish Government and relevant executive agencies of the Scottish Government ( e.g. Fisheries Research Services) - on behalf of Scottish Ministers as WFD competent authority;
- SEPA - as WFD competent authority;
- Responsible authorities 22;
- Scottish Natural Heritage;
- Forestry Commission Scotland;
- British Waterways Board;
- Local authorities - represented through COSLA;
- Scottish Water;
- Fisheries Electricity Committees;
- District Salmon Fisheries Boards; and
- National Park Authorities.
7.2 Methodology
As a responsible authority, the organisation could incur costs due to assistance in the preparation of the draft RBMPs, planning the programme of measures and supporting implementation of the RBMPs. Responsible authorities, as operators and /or land managers, could also incur costs relating to the implementation of technical measures proposed in the RBMP to secure environmental improvements ( e.g. British Waterways in management of canals). The above organisations were therefore contacted for an appraisal of their costs in five areas identified in the box below.
Areas of Administrative Cost to Responsible Authorities |
|---|
Policy: input into development of draft RBMPs and Policy Framework | The organisation may be involved in policy development supporting design and implementation of WFD Environmental Objectives. Costs were assessed based on man-power requirements ( e.g. 1 Full Time Equivalent person as WFD co-ordinator for 3 years) for identifying objectives, measures, contributing to national and regional advisory groups. The organisation may also have incurred other costs supporting the development of the RBMPs and their implementation ( e.g. training of staff). |
Campaigns (information/ awareness) | The organisation may run campaigns for information/awareness raising to external audiences primarily for the purpose of supporting implementation of the final RBMP, or the organisation may provide advice (leafleting, conferences, workshops, one-to-one guidance) primarily for the implementation of requirements under final RBMPs or to explain actions/processes to deliver WFD. |
Administration of regulatory regimes: licensing, environmental permits, general binding rules associated with CAR | The organisation may have activities related to the preparation, issuing, inspection or enforcement of General Binding Rules or issue of licences. This activity could be a new requirement under WFD, or simply an adjustment to an existing authorisation system. It is considered that (other than SEPA) this would apply to the Fisheries Research Services. Administration of trade effluent licences to sewer by Scottish water is considered part of baseline and is not costed within the IA. In addition, the following organisations may provide support in terms of education, awareness, auditing and enforcement with respect to GBRs associated with diffuse pollution: - Scottish Government's Rural Payments and Inspection Division; and
- Forestry Commission Scotland.
|
Compliance | The responsible authority could have its own costs relating to the implementation of technical measures required under the RBMP when managing its assets. These might relate to the following: - Capital and operational costs and foregone profits if any measure results in a reduction in yield.
- Costs of delivery mechanisms and reporting of compliance in the implementation of measures to SEPA as the RBMP competent authority.
- Environmental and social costs.
Costs might also include other measures related to guidance, training and awareness-raising (non-regulatory) including a national approach of raising awareness, guidance and training. It is considered that compliance costs would principally apply to British Waterways, Local Authorities (for council owned property and development) and Forestry Commission Scotland (for state owned forests). |
Monitoring. | The organisation could be responsible for additional monitoring resulting from the requirements of the RBMP and this monitoring data could be reported to SEPA ( e.g. there may be additional parameters or monitoring locations which have been added to existing monitoring programmes). |
Within the cost assessment it is important to determine which costs within the organisation are recovered ( e.g. funded by Scottish Government or paid for through a licence fee).
7.3 RBMP Costing
The RBMP cost assessment for competent authorities and responsible authorities is presented in the sections below. On the basis of the FTEs required for implementation of policy, the estimate of additional costs for the draft RBMP option incurred by SEPA is £735k/yr (based on £35k per FTE). The additional costs for Responsible Authorities for the draft RBMP option is estimated at £400k/yr.
7.3.1 Scottish Government
Scottish Government takes a lead role in the development of the national policy framework for the WFD. Inherent in this role, is cross-government policy and liaison to achieve integrated policy delivery, including advice into the development of the draft RBMPs and future delivery. There are no additional costs incurred for the delivery of this function.
However, some divisions of Scottish Government will provide support in the implementation of new technical measures to achieve WFD environmental objectives - specifically the General Binding Rules to establish national standards of practice for diffuse pollution. The Rural Payments and Inspection Division ( RPID) will provide ongoing support through auditing, site inspections and enforcement on behalf of SEPA (as part of SEARS) and this role may incur new costs. The inspections will be aligned with the existing Single Application Form ( SAF) eligibility inspections, as these inspections also involve a detailed assessment of what is actually happening on the land. Although the inspectors will be considering additional aspects, it is not considered by SG that there is a significant increase in the time taken to complete the inspection on the ground and no direct cost recovery is sought for the additional work. RPID Inspectors will provide guidance on compliance to individual farmers.
7.3.2 SEPA
The advice from SEPA of costs incurred for the implementation of the WFD is as follows:
- SEPA activities with respect to river basin planning such as: preparation of the RBMPs; support for forums such as the National and Area Advisory groups; auditing of implementation of the RBMPs and future revision of the RBMPs are not cost-recovered and are accounted for as part of the administrative costs covered by SEPA.
- Costs incurred by SEPA that are directly attributable to CAR ( i.e. regulation of point source discharges; abstraction; impoundment and engineering) are recovered through the CAR charging schemes 23. These cost are incurred regardless of whether the RBMP is in place and are not included in the Impact Assessment.
- SEPA also undertake environmental monitoring, classification and objective setting under the WFD. The costs associated with environmental monitoring and the capital costs of the monitoring network are incurred irrespective of whether the RBMP is implemented. These are cost-recovered through the CAR charging scheme, except for environmental monitoring in relation to diffuse pollution and assessment of historic engineering impacts. Similarly, the same applies to classification and ongoing reporting of the state of the water environment. Setting objectives at a water body level for water resources and engineering is a new activity under river basin planning (target setting for pollution control and Protected Areas was set under previous legislation). It is recognised that to support auditing of actions to achieve these there may be a requirement for data systems, auditing etc. This should be accounted for as part of the Impact Assessment.
- SEPA does not plan to undertake or directly put in place technical measures that lead to improvement of the water environment ( e.g. installation of structures). However, it has in place programmes that will support other organisations to achieve compliance:
a) Activities that are identified as cost attributable to implementing the draft RBMPs:
- Funds under the current financial settlement supporting restoration activities associated with legacy of engineering impacts from past human activities ( i.e. restoration activities) under the current financial settlement will support implement the RBMP. Advice has already been provided that this should be allocated 50:50 for catchment projects: improvement to fish movement related activities and will be directed towards external partnership projects to undertake works on the ground. There is no accounting for administration costs as part of these funds and it is expected that SEPA will provide one FTE to support this work.
- Funds under the current financial settlement supporting implementation of diffuse pollution management activities are directly attributable to implementing the RBMPs as well as achieving obligations for Protected Areas. Advice has already been provided that this should be allocated 50:50 for implementing national measures: catchment related activities for those catchments likely to fail in WFD/Protected Areas. Administration costs are included as part the implementation of the national measure.
b) Activities that should be identified as supporting RBMP implementation but are a continuation of current SEPA operations and will not pose a significant additional costs:
- Awareness raising activities and development of best practice guidance.
- Research and development e.g. control of invasive species.
- SEPA has undertaken significant training of staff relating to implementation of WFD as part of equipping itself in the environmental protector role, but these costs are incurred regardless of the development of RBMP and not relevant to the Impact Assessment.
A summary of the estimated competent authority administrative costs for RBMP implementation is presented in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1 Estimated Competent Authority Administrative costs for RBMP Implementation
Organisation | 1. Policy | 2. Awareness | 3. Licensing | 4. Compliance | 5. Monitoring |
|---|
Scottish Government | No additional requirement | SEARS - to be advised | Rural Payments and Inspection Division provides support to roll-out and ongoing enforcement, and auditing of GBRs for diffuse pollution - to be advised | None | None |
SEPA | The policy input to RBMP is probably about 1 FTE. Additional input to defining the detailed programme of measures and setting objectives with respect to abstraction, flow regulation and morphological aspects. This work probably involves about 20 FTE. Not cost recovered. | Budget of £100k per year for campaigns on information and awareness. Not cost recovered | no additional significant cost specific to the RBMP. | None. | No additional monitoring beyond that identified as part of the monitoring network in 2007. |
Total Costs | 21 FTE @ £35k/ FTE £735k | £100k | | | |
7.3.3 Responsible Authorities and relevant Executive Agencies of the Scottish Government
A breakdown of administrative costs for draft RBMP for Responsible Authorities is presented in Table 7.2.
Table 7.2 Estimated Responsible Authority Administrative costs for RBMP Implementation
Organisation | 1. Policy | 2. Awareness | 3. Licensing | 4. Compliance | 5. Monitoring |
|---|
Scottish Natural Heritage | Estimated as WFD Coordinator - 0.75 FTE for 7 years. WFD assistant - 0.5 FTE for 4 years. Other Advisory Services, Policy and Advice staff - 4 people x 0.15 for 7 years. AAG/ NAG input - 11 people x 0.1 for 2 years. This works out at 13.65 FTE over the last 7 years or 2.95 FTE for last year. | None planned. | None | None | None |
Forestry Commission Scotland | 2.5 FTE on policy. Costs not recovered. | WFD objectives are being integrated into FCS policy and will be BAU on the National Forest Estate. Consideration will need to be given to how landowners can be encouraged to engage with WFD measures through the RDC process but this has not been costed to date. 5 seminars are planned for late 2008 to be run jointly between FCS and SEPA to raise awareness in the forestry sector about the WFD estimate of cost £3000. Not cost recovered. | GBR compliance checking on woodland grant inspection visits carried out by Woodland Officers. No additional costs. Start-up costs Training of Woodland Officers to undertake diffuse pollution GBR checks. Training for 30 woodland officers over 2 days. Costs not recovered. | None | None |
Local authorities - represented through COSLA | Attendance at NAG meetings (est. 10 man-days per year). Attendance by some LA environment officers at AAG meetings (est. 20 man-days per year). | None | None | Flood alleviation schemes
Urban land reclamation
Historical Restoration (Further details below) | Monitoring of engineering improvements. Monitoring of flood alleviation schemes. |
Fisheries Research Service | FRS has been involved in the technical groups such as UKTAG, morphology, alien species, MTT etc. but not directly in the policy development. Estimate to date around £90k in staff costs. | Plan for future for the implementation of standards such as the morphological and biological into the FEPA legislation, details to be decided. Not recovered. | FEPA currently licence in transitional waters: construction works, sea disposal of maintenance dredged material and reclamation. Receive licence applications which will be reviewed internally and externally before conditions are identified and licences issued. CAR requires a more rigorous assessment. Enforcement and monitoring will be decided on a case by case basis. Estimate of 15% increase on current administrative costs. | None | Expect to have to undertake a more rigorous assessment process as well as carryout additional monitoring and enforcement activity to satisfy the more rigid controls that will be necessary to protect water bodies. Some cost recovery from applicant via SEPA. |
British Waterways Board | Attendance at NAG meetings (est. 10 man-days per year). Development of ecological assessment criteria for AWBs. Policy time est. at 0.3 FTE. No specific cost recovery. | Plans for information awareness on INNS through the BW website and through leafleting at relevant ports and waterways. BW staff training sessions (approx 2 per year). Est. at 42 man-days. | None. | Detailed in Section 5.9. | All additional monitoring relates to CAR licence implementation. Costs detailed in Section 3. No cost recovery. |
Scottish Water | Scottish Water has the equivalent of 2 FTE staff and 0.5 Manager posts involved in supporting WFD implementation. These costs are estimated as £150k annual employers costs. All other staff costs are capitalised within the SR06 and SR10 programmes. | None | It is presently a duty of Scottish Water's to licence discharges to sewer. All costs and charges would be part of the environmental baseline and are not a change that results from WFD. These charges are not related to CAR. | Detailed in Section 5.5.4. | Additional monitoring costs of £1m per annum are estimated for the costs arising from raw water monitoring for DWPAs. No cost recovery is proposed for DWPA monitoring. (It should be noted that the activity will be conducted between SEPA and Scottish Water, but no cost recovery is proposed.) |
Fisheries Electricity Committees 1 | Limited to commenting on matters that relate to hydropower schemes. FEC have identified corresponding member to each AAG as well as the 1 FEC member attending the National Advisory Group and advising on matters with respect to the drafting of the RBMPs. This is not viewed as significant work load. | None | FEC has the remit to provide comments on CAR applications related to hydropower. Prior to the introduction of CAR, the FEC would comment on schemes producing greater than 1 MW. Since 2005, they now review all hydro-schemes, an increase in workload of 6-8 times. The small scale schemes can be dealt with in streamlined fashion with standards conditions and do not normally require site visits or detailed analysis. This is viewed as moderate increase in workload. | None | None |
District Salmon Fisheries Boards | Attendance and contribution to AAG meetings (estimated at 10 days/yr FTE). Attendance and contribution to AAG sub-group meetings (estimated at 10 days per year FTE) | Organise joint sessions for the briefing of members on RBMP issues. | None | Provide support to land managers in the removal of barriers to fish passage and the appropriate maintenance of water courses. | No additional monitoring responsibilities. |
National Park Authorities | Attendance and contribution to AAG meetings (estimated at 10 days/yr FTE). | None | None | Provide support and advice to land managers implementing measures. | No additional monitoring responsibilities. |
Total Costs | Est. 8.5 FTE @ £35k per FTE plus £90 k ( FRS)
= £400 k | | | | |
1 FEC is supported by an ongoing £40k annualised budget (which supports, remuneration of FC members, travel and other expenses) and 0.75 FTE Secretariat. This is borne by Scottish Government. It is anticipated that secretariat function will be transferred to SEPA as of October 2008, with any remaining funds transferred to SEPA as part of the budget revision in October 2008/09. The secretariat function would be viewed as additional requirement for SEPA for the remainder 2008/09, but not viewed as significant. Future activities from April 2009 onwards will be covered by SEPA ongoing business activities, and recovered through the usual arrangements with CAR regulatory regime.
Local Authorities
Local authorities through their land management role could be responsible for the implementation of compliance measures within their functional area. These would be scheme specific and are not possible to cost but could include:
- Implementation of measures for flood alleviation schemes. Compliance costs would be scheme specific but would principally be additional measures required by CAR which would not have been included in earlier schemes. The administrative and design costs for this would principally form part of the planning environmental assessment process.
- Land reclamation and Historical Restoration of Morphological Alterations. Morphological alterations to water courses could result from land improvements for examples such as business parks or local amenity areas.