Ms Clare McGrath:

There was considerable learning from the surveys conducted. This learning happened between the various teams involved. There were multiple reviews and I accept that many of them related to the manner in which we were specifying for the national CFRAM programme. One of the technical areas of learning from the pilot projects was the need to include and specify bespoke aerial survey requirements to ensure products would be suitable for all intended uses under the CFRAM programme. It was also learned that there was a need to specify the survey work to be done to ensure bespoke outputs that could be adapted for inclusion in the hydraulic models and to define the watercourses to be modelled within the areas to be assessed to ensure the inclusion of relevant smaller channels that could cause flooding, as well as main areas. That came from the pilot projects.

We also engaged in development testing of a new multi-criteria analysis framework to broaden the appraisal of options beyond purely an economic cost-benefit analysis. When we are looking at potential solutions, we can avail of this system of multi-criteria analysis within each area for further assessment to determine the best solution. That also came from the pilot projects. We determined our definition of future scenarios to provide for the assessment of the potential impacts of climate change and other possible future scenarios on the basis of the pilot projects. It was not an EU requirement. We also provided for the inclusion of assessments of geomorphology.

If the Deputy wants more details of any of these matters, my colleagues can give her more detailed descriptions. There was stronger calibration of the hydraulic modelling to the outcomes of the hydrological analysis. That came from the pilot projects, particularly the River Lee project. The EPA reviewed our strategic environment assessment report from the pilot projects and worked with us to ensure a transfer to the national CFRAM consulting group. That is what we were doing in that space on foot of the pilot projects. I acknowledge that procedures were developed within the organisation. We took the lessons on board and developed our procedures for our own project management. This was done in-house. We then sought ISO accreditation in 2008. We developed our own internal procedures.

I have mentioned some of the lessons we learned on the technical side. We learned in the time we were involved in the pilot projects that the work involved was more substantial and was going to be more substantial than had initially been estimated and that for that reason longer project periods were required. This lesson is reflected in the programmes set for the national CFRAM programme. We learned from the pilot CFRAM programmes that the work involved was more substantial than had initially been estimated, that our initial budgetary estimates were too low and that our programme budgets needed to be reviewed. A figure of €30 million was set in the review and that has remained the budget.

We refined the project brief. A large number of technical issues which arose in the pilot projects needed to be clarified. By engaging with the external consultants involved in the pilot projects, we found out things that were happening in these projects and translated them into the briefs and specifications for the subsequent national CFRAM programme. We refined the procurement process to provide for a greater level of detail in the tender brief to permit more efficient tender preparation and review and more accurate pricing of the work involved. We refined things like payment schedules where we had been operating purely on a milestone basis. We needed to engage in blending to make sure there was greater competition when arranging the competition nationally.