Ms Clare McGrath:

I thank the committee for the opportunity to make this opening statement concerning the Comptroller and Auditor General’s special report - Strategic Planning for Flood Risk Management.

First, I will outline for committee members the responsibilities of the Office of Public Works in the area of flood risk management. Following the strategic review of flood risk policy in 2004, the Office of Public Works was assigned the lead co-ordinating role for flood risk management in Ireland. At the core of the OPW's work is the objective of reducing, to the greatest extent possible, the level of flood risk to people, property, infrastructure and the environment. In the context of its role and responsibilities in respect of flood risk management, the OPW delivers services through the following four key areas: strategic planning to manage flood risk in future through the CFRAM programme in compliance with the EU floods directive and a strategic role to co-ordinate, for consideration by Government, cross-sectoral policies that mitigate flood risk now and in the future; a programme of capital investment to address existing flood risk to properties and infrastructure through major and minor flood relief projects, which are delivered in partnership with local authorities; programmed maintenance of 11,500 km of river channels, including 800 km of embankments of arterial drainage and urban flood relief schemes completed by the OPW under the Arterial Drainage Acts 1945 and 1995; and an advisory role to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and the general public to assist them in preparing for and responding to flooding. In carrying out these functions, the OPW works in close co-operation with other State bodies, principally local authorities, which also have key responsibilities in the area of flood risk management.

We welcome the Comptroller and Auditor General’s special report on Strategic Planning and Flood Risk Management. I have ensured that the OPW has in place appropriate structures to give effect to the three recommendations outlined in the report.

The Government’s flood policy involved developing a planned programme of prioritised feasible works, with a greater emphasis on non-structural measures. To deliver this required proactive assessment and planning for areas at potential risk from flooding. Ireland’s national flood risk policy corresponded with subsequent requirements of the EU floods directive.

Any investment to defend areas from flood risk that does not get it right first time can cost incrementally more to fix. Since 1995, the OPW has invested some €460 million in flood risk management measures including, in co-operation with relevant local authorities, the construction of 37 major flood defence schemes throughout the country at a cost of €348 million. In total, these major - and over 500 minor - flood mitigation works protect an estimated 12,000 properties and confer an economic benefit to the State in terms of damage and losses avoided estimated at some €1.2 billion.

No major flood relief scheme has been advanced to date without the benefit of highly detailed analysis, both at a scientific and engineering level, and economically in terms of cost benefit appraisal, with comprehensive stakeholder and public consultations to inform and support all decisions taken. All decisions taken to date in allocating funding to flood relief capital works have had clear and robust evidence to support the need and full justification for proceeding. Completed OPW schemes have performed successfully in protecting towns and communities concerned. They were tested in the events at the end of last year. From the its extensive experience in planning flood defence measures, the OPW builds in flexibility to respond to issues that can naturally arise due, for example, to local topographical issues or ground conditions. Where these arise we automatically evaluate the possible planning impact and, if required, reset our overall planning and delivery timelines. These events, while potentially extending the envisaged planning and delivery timeframe, provide valuable and necessary information to inform the optimum outcome - one that returns the greatest benefit to communities and homeowners from the proposed investment.

CFRAM is a planning vehicle and its outcome will have a positive impact for people and communities in areas at risk from flooding. The national CFRAM programme is without precedent in its scale and complexity. For example, the flood mapping exercise has involved detailed modelling and mapping in each of the 300 areas for further assessment, including surveying and modelling of 6,700 km of watercourse and 9,400 km2 of flood-plain. Given the importance and impact from the CFRAM programme, getting it wrong is not an option.

The task faced by the OPW was to assess Ireland's watercourses and coastlines for the risk of flooding, to map the flood extent and assets at risk in these areas, and to set out a plan of appropriate, co-ordinated and feasible measures to reduce and mitigate this flood risk. The OPW’s implementation plan recognised that there were a variety of opportunities and options that could help to inform delivery of the right solutions. The OPW, through subsequent discussions with local authorities, agreed that three pilots would provide the wealth of information and experience that would lead to the right approach to planning and governance for a national CFRAM programme.

A further CFRAM project, the Suir study, was commenced in-house to build the technical expertise to enable OPW staff to critically assess and work with CFRAM outputs, noting the OPW's responsibility to maintain and review the plans. The completion of the Suir CFRAM project is now, as mentioned by the Comptroller and Auditor General, aligned and co-ordinated with the south-eastern CFRAM project, given the overlap of membership between the steering groups for both projects. Comprehensive governance and management structures were put in place for each pilot. In terms of their planning, the initial plans and indicative estimated budgets formed part of the implementation plan. The Dodder and the Fingal-east Meath pilots were managed by the relevant local authorities.

The pilots to test and inform the best approach to undertake a national CFRAM programme were undertaken in parallel with the delivery and completion of flood defence schemes for these areas. For example: in parallel to publishing the River Dodder draft flood risk management plans in 2012 and finalised in November 2014, tidal and fluvial protection works have continued along the River Dodder since 2007 providing protection to a large number of properties; many elements of the proposed scheme for Cork city and the lower Lee as set out in the Lee flood risk management plan, FRMP, have been progressing through project-level development, with exhibition currently planned in the coming months; and Clonmel's flood defence schemes were completed in 2014, as were Waterford's, while Templemore's are in train.

Finalising the draft FRMPs in the pilot study areas has not been an impediment to the progression of significant flood risk management works in these areas. Moreover, lessons from the pilots have been invaluable to inform how to progress with the national CFRAM programme. The lessons, which I accept were not captured in a formal report at the time, significantly informed the published brief for the national CFRAM. These lessons can be categorised as: technical lessons that informed the approach and specifications for aerial survey requirements, survey work, defining the watercourses to be modelled and including stronger calibration of the hydraulic modelling to the outcomes of the hydrological analysis; programming lessons that informed governance and oversight structures, timescale for milestone delivery, approach to procurement, communication and engagement with the public and key stakeholders and data collection; and appraisal lessons by broadening the appraisal of options beyond purely economic cost-benefit analysis to include the assessment of possible measures against social, environmental, cultural and technical objectives.

It also included an assessment of the potential impacts of climate change.

As Accounting Officer and in terms of overall management, I am satisfied the pilot schemes informed our budgeting and project management for the national CFRAM programme. I acknowledge that Ireland did not report to the European Union in full to meet its flood map requirements by March 2014. As the Comptroller and Auditor General said, we reported and provided maps for 50 of the 300 areas at that stage. However, in referring to this, I point out that in 2014 the OPW could have reported and provided national predictive flood maps to comply with the EU deadline. However, these would have been indicative maps only and the OPW, while technically compliant, did not consider it to be of benefit to the European Union to report based on these maps for the sake of compliance, rather than wait to report and provide the more detailed and reliable maps being developed under the CFRAM programme.

It also has to be recognised that the flood mapping and plans developed by the OPW under the CFRAM programme exceeded the requirements of the EU floods directive. We have also completed an extensive and important public consultation process in which we had more than 350 consultation sessions with public representatives and communities to explain and seek their views on flood risk and the solutions for their areas. We also learned of the need to do this from the pilot projects.

Our maps fully inform feasible solutions to manage future flood risk, are a valuable resource used in planning and development decisions by local authorities and inform planning for emergency responses. Our plans are the outline design for preferred measures which can allow for a reduction of up to two years in completing future structural flood defence measures.

It is acknowledged that the implementation plan had estimated indicative budgets for the pilot schmes in the region of €3.5 million, which turned out to be far less than the sum required. Importantly, given their pilot scheme status, the lessons from these them have informed a more accurate estimate of the budget for the national programme which has been set at €30 million, excluding VAT.

Delays of approximately one year have been encountered in survey work. This was due to poor market response to a procurement process, despite the OPW publishing a prior information notice in the Official Journal of the European Union for the entire survey programme. It may have been due to heightened demand across the European Union at the time arising from the EU floods directive. While the OPW has managed the impact of this delay through proactive project management, there are some budgetary implications that are ongoing and commercially sensitive. I am satisfied, however, that they are not significant in the context of the overall budgetary figure of €30 million.

On final delivery, the EU floods directive requires each member state to publish its flood risk management plans by March 2016. Our plans are on schedule to be finalised for approval by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform by the end of 2016, about nine months beyond the reporting deadline for the six year programme. Managing flood risk has always involved a close working relationship between the OPW and local authorities. This relationship dates back as far as 1945 when the Commissioners of Public Works were assigned statutory responsibility for arterial drainage. In recent years this close and good working relationship has been set out in service level agreements. Prior to this our close working relationship was not formally set out, even though it was understood.

I have set out the governance structures for the pilot schemes in the briefing document I circulated to the committee in advance of today’s meeting. The long-standing constructive relationship between the OPW and the local authorities in flood risk management provided confidence and greater certainty that these structureswould be applied in full, particularly in the light of the awareness of their role in informing the planning of a national programme. The interdepartmental group met on four occasions between March 2006 and September 2009. During this period, many elements of the outline implementation plan that involved other parties in addition to the OPW were undertaken and-or completed. The Government reconvened the interdepartmental working group in July 2015 and it is preparing a report for the Government on other policy initiatives for consideration by it. The report is expected to be completed shortly.

The steering group to set the direction for the development of the national CFRAM programme was established in May 2009 and met, as the Comptroller and Auditor General said, on six occasions up to November 2010. During this period, the group provided an input into the preliminary flood risk assessment; the preparation of the CFRAM programme brief that was used for the appointment of engineering consultations through a procurement process for each of the study areas; and the preparation of the statutory instrument to transpose the EU floods directive. In this regard, the core elements of the national CFRAM programme had been set by the end of 2010. Therefore, the group had largely met its initial objectives in setting the direction of the national CFRAM programme.

The ongoing implementation of the CFRAM programme after the appointment of the consultants involved significant survey work and technical analysis such as hydrological analysis and hydraulic modelling. This work was being co-ordinated and overseen by the steering and progress groups for each of the six CFRAM study areas. These groups are represented by the key stakeholders at project level, including local authorities. During the period from 2011 to November 2014, when the national CFRAM steering group reconvened, there were in the order of 160 meetings of the oversight steering and progress groups established for each project. These groups have been invaluable in driving, steering and co-ordinating the work of the CFRAM programme locally and in providing the information for the OPW which is leading and monitoring the programme. During the intervening period there have also been multiple bilateral meetings with stakeholders and interest groups to inform the process, including the State bodies Waterways Ireland, the ESB and the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government, and other interested bodies.

The steering group was reconvened in 2014 with agreed terms of reference when the outcomes of the technical work were being prepared for public consultation and met again in June 2016 in advance of preparation for the public consultation process. As of tomorrow, 15 July 2016, flood risk management plans for two of the six areas will be put out for public consultation. We are beginning to roll out the public consultation process for the final plans, with a view to final reporting once approved by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform towards the end of the year.

I am happy to address these matters in more detail and other queries the committee may have.