MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND WATER NATIONAL INSPECTORATE FOR ENVIRONMENT AND NATURE CONSERVATION

Institutional Strengthening of Environmental Inspectorates Twinning Project

Address: Mszros u. 58/a. Budapest, H-1012 Phone: +36 1 224 9268/9269/9270 Mail: POBox:675 Budapest, H-1539 Fax: +36 1 224 9262

SWOT ANALYSIS 12 Water Management Directorates

WMD

SWOT ANALYSIS (1) 20.02.2004 B. 12 WATER MANAGEMENT DIRECTORATES (WMDs)

1. ORGANIZATION, STRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES
STRENGTHS 1. In 2002 two ministries have been merged to one ministry for environmental, nature and water issues, the Ministry of Environment and Water (MoEW). 2. Environmental laws are more or less in line with EU Acquis . They are known by most (10/12) of the WMDs via publications of laws and decrees. The rest (2/12) says that it can read them in the official journal. 3. All the authorities report about shortcomings or deficiencies in legislation to the National Water Directorate (NWD). 4. In most cases the authorities get the drafts of the laws to look through and often their remarks are taken into consideration. 5. The responsibilities are precisely described in the law (100 %). 6. Water management is the main subject of responsibility in the WMDs and all are aware of that. 7. Most of the WMDs have annual work schedules (83%), regular meetings of leaders (92 %) and regular staff meetings (100 %). 8. The authorities take part as experts in almost all environmental issues ( >30). 9. A lot of other authorities also take part in the work of the WMDs. (>20). 10. Different subject-specified statements are usually integrated by site visits (100%), negotiations (83%) or meetings (42 %). 11. Differences are resolved by negotiations (100 %) and no ministerial decision is required. 12. Information to the public is given concerning water level, floods, access to water, water reserve and hydrological data. 13. Half of the WMDs have been involved in different EU projects already. 14. Regular meetings are held with different stakeholders: NGOs (75%), industry (50%) building enterprises, research institutes a.s.o. WEAKNESSES 1. There is no guidance on how to carry out the responsibilities/tasks. 2. More than half of the WMDs (58 %) also recognised water pollution as a part of their work although it is definitely defined as responsibility of the Regional Environmental Inspectorates (REIs). 3. Only sometimes the WMDs are involved in preparation of the new laws. 4. New recommendations are not spread quickly enough. Merely 17 % had heard of the EU Recommendation on Minimum Criteria for Inspections. 5. Only one WMD saw the possibility of becoming an authority-centre of excellence for water issues. 6. Guidance is given too seldom (33% get it). More guidance is required at least for the Water Framework Directive (33 % wish it). WMD 2

7. Training seems to be given twice a year in a form of consultation only for the heads of the directorates. 8. No guidance has been given how to implement the Aarhus Convention. 9. Different subject-specified statements are not handled by teamwork - only 25 % do so. OPPORTUNITIES 1. The experts of the WMDs should be involved stronger in the law-making process (preparatory working, they are the expert and know things best). 2. Training/information about new EU directives or recommendations should be given to the staff as early as possible - not only to the heads - for the sake of professional work in time. 3. To improve the knowledge about the Recommendation on Minimum Criteria for Inspections would avoid a lot of mistakes and thus double work. 4. It is an opportunity to combine the water management and water protection tasks once again in the same organisation in order to save money and time whilst improving integrated procedures. Work would improve even more if environmental and water issues became emerged in one authority as it was in former times. 5. To combine the WMDs wih the environmental and nature bodies could save money, improve work and support needed integrated green procedures. 6. The EU membership becomes easier the more the authorities got and will get involved in EU projects. THREATS 1. All the WMDs said that authority and expert work could not be separated. If you separate authority and expert work you really need a lot more staff. 2. If not enough guidance is given in different directives such as Water Framework Directive (WFD) and Aarhus Convention it turns out to become a risk that the practical implementation varies a lot in different directorates with the known follow ups.

WMD

2. FINANCES
STRENGTHS 1. All get their budget financed to a certain degree (70-80 %) by the MoEW and they also get some money (7-30 %) from profit. 2. Almost every WMD foresees that other activities such as permitting, planning conciliation, providing data, urban planning and inspection could be charged. 3. Most (67 %) of the directorates say that the fees should reflect the amount of work carried out. 4. Penalties paid could belong to the budget of the WMD (50%) or it could perhaps be collected in a fund in order to finance water cases at least should it be available in the special area of responsibility. 5. The personal income has increased since year 2000 for 67 % of the directors. WEAKNESSES 1. The budget from the MoEW does not cover operational costs and is too low for maintenance. 2. Only dues and not real fees are charged for permitting procedures by 58 %. 3. Two authorities argue that the society cannot bear higher dues. 4. Almost all directors (83%) do not agree with the existing system of wages. Salaries only depend on degrees and age. They blame that system for not being flexible enough to appreciate efficient and well done work. OPPORTUNITIES 1. It is now the right time to get the budget on track. 2. You could change the system so that the fees from issued permits and other activities such as inspections, planning, providing data reflect the real work done. 3. The system of wages could be changed that it better reflects the efficiency of the individual employees. THREATS 1. In the future the state money will decrease and this will influence the work done by the authorities and their ability to finance the environmental investments to meet the EU requirements.. 2. If the system of wages wont get changed the people at work will not be motivated in their work. 3. There is a risk that the best skilled personnel will be bought up by the private sector.

WMD

3. NUMBER OF STAFF
STRENGTHS 1. In total about 5000 persons are working at the WMDs which really is a lot even in European context and should be enough. 2. Of the staff over 2000 are doing authority and expert work which should be enough too. 3. About 1500 persons are manual workers. WEAKNESSES 1. 67 % of the directors say that there is a lack of staff. 2. The biggest lack seems to be in flood protection (opinion of 75 %). 3. 58 % say that water management plus follow ups and implementing EU law needs more staff. 4. 50 % say that authority work needs more staff. 5. Although the number of staff is high enough there is a lack of qualified persons for new tasks. OPPORTUNITIES 1. It seems that the WMDs have far enough staff even for the future. 2. Now is the time to focus on training and further education of the staff. THREATS 1. For the authority work academic staff would be needed. 2. If the salaries are not high enough the most qualified staff could go over to the private sector.

WMD

4. QUALIFICATION OF STAFF
STRENGTHS 1. Academic degrees in many different subjects exist. There are engineers, hydrologists, geologists, lawyers, economists, environmental engineers, chemists, biologists and even a few forestry engineers. 2. The personnel has a long experience of working with authority work. 3. Often additional qualifications are required before practising permitting, inspection or enforcement mostly on-job-training (75 %) , mentoring is also used (33 %). 4. In 2/3 of the directorates some people are warranted or accredited for their special duties as quality surveyor, technical supervisor, weir-keeper, canal-keeper a.s.o. 5. Several different foreign languages are know to some of the staff. WEAKNESSES 1. Only 458 persons have a higher academic degree which is only about 9 % of the whole staff. 2. There are some more persons - in total 554 (11 %) - with a lower academic degree. 3. Most of the directors say they need more academic staff for various issues because of new tasks. 4. There are many persons without any degree (1.360). A quarter to a third (28 %) of the employees are without any degree. 5. Although a lot of foreign languages are known to the staff there are not many who really can speak and write foreign languages; 134 can English (2,7 %), 76 German, 20 Romanian, 25 Russian, 9 Croatian, 8 French and some persons can other languages as Slovakian, Polish and Spanish. OPPORTUNITIES 1. Now the priority lies on the qualification of staff. The employees should be given the possibility to take a higher exam. 2. During this twinning project there is a good possibility to get basic facts about several EU directives. 3. Even ongoing training in different new EU directives should be given and the MoEW should take part as trainers. 4. The staff could get an opportunity to learn foreign languages at work with perhaps foreign native speaking teachers. There could be courses for different levels. There could be discussion clubs or academic writing or some courses during which they can get a certificate. THREATS 1. If the staff is not well qualified it will be difficult to manage all the new EU requirements. 2. If the persons especially in authority work get not sufficiently trained in foreign languages it could become difficult to really understand the directives and take part in some important networks like IMPEL. WMD 6

5. RECRUITMENT OF STAFF
STRENGTHS 1. The WMDs always tender the new jobs, mostly they publish advertisements in newspapers (83 %), they also involve labour agencies (58 %) and national media (42 %). Even other sources exist as universities, colleges a.s.o. 2. Tendering replacements of persons is used by 42 % of the authorities and mostly they use regional newspapers or involve labour agencies. 3. The recruitment is always (100 %) based on precise task-description. 4. The selection of new staff is always based on written documents and interviews. 5. The director of the authority decides whether a person will be taken or not after that the head of department has suggested the person. The ministry does not play a role here. WEAKNESSES 1. No real weaknesses in the recruitment procedure. 2. The tendering of long lasting replacements happens seldom. OPPORTUNITIES 1. When recruiting new personnel it is good to remember the qualifications and the skills in foreign languages. THREATS 1. If not well qualified people are recruited it will be difficult to manage foremost the implementation of the Water Framework Directive and other new water directives as well. 2. If the salaries do not reflect the importance of the job the motivation of the staff will decrease.

WMD

6. TRAINING OF STAFF
STRENGTHS 1. Each authority has nominated a person being responsible for training. 2. All WMDs have regular professional training programmes. 5 of them (42 %) include training in IT. 3. Additional training is given in flood protection, technical inspection, fire prevention, work protection, new laws, Water Framework Directive and sewage water directive. 4. 83 % of the WMDs say that the training requirements of individual members are assessed against necessary qualifications, skills and experience. 5. Most training is required in the following directives: WFD 204, Dangerous Substances in Water 194, EIA 52, Urban Waste Water Treatment 51, IPPC and BAT 35, Reporting 27, Habitats 25, Waste Management 11, Minimum Criteria 10, Hazardous Waste Management 9 and Wild Birds 7 persons. 6. Training is also required in supervision procedures 370, integrated permitting 124, monitoring 73 and Aarhus Convention 70. 7. The need of training is recognised. For 1240 persons training is said to be necessary. 8. The success of training is assessed by 58 % of the WMDs; normally by the head of department and sometimes by the director or the training administrator. 9. All the directors say that relevant technical, policy and regulatory developments are maintained in the WMDs. 10. The skills of the staff is kept up by giving possibilities to take part in further professional education or training courses, have a completely updated CD Law collection and get access to the standards and EU directives. WEAKNESSES 1. Not every WMD has recognised the need of training in different directives as example for the WFD the need varies from 0 100 and for Dangerous Substances in Water from 0 150. 2. Only 3 (25 %) WMD offer regular training in English languages. 3. 0 % provide training in public administration. OPPORTUNITIES 1. As this twinning project is strongly focusing on training in different directives and permitting and supervision procedures the right time has come to take part in the training. 2. Parallel to the training programme concerning EU Directives there should also be offered a language training programme. THREATS 1. The amount of training given in this project will not be enough to get in-depth knowledge of all the EU directives that could need to be further declared. 2. The language training given is not enough for communication with EU officials and the networks such as IMPEL. 3. If there is not an ongoing training (ETA) after the project has been finished the results are not sustainable. WMD 8

7. PERMITTING, LICENSING PROCEDURES

STRENGTHS 1. All the WMDs say that there are sufficient instructions in the decree how to make an application. 2. Most of the WMD say that there is guidance how to write permits it is in the law. And they add that the water permits are 100 years old - so tradition exists in writing permits. 3. All authorities are easily able to describe the necessary steps in permit procedures. 4. More than half of the authorities (58 %) think that the licensing procedures are in line with EU requirements. 5. An appeal address exists always in the permit so that the persons concerned can send in their appeals. 6. Written statements from parties involved are given in 75 % of the WMDs. WEAKNESSES 1. Only 2 WMD could imagine that competencies could be divided into two levels, regional and local, if the local level was getting better qualified. 2. Internet is used in less than half of the WMDs to inform the applicants about their responsibilities. 3. The instructions in the decree for the applicants could need some supplement in application forms. That is still missed in Internet. 4. No real guidance for permit writers exist - it is only mentioned in the decree. At least guidance about the integrated permit procedure is required. 5. Even if the authorities think their permitting is in line with EU requirements there has still much to be done at least for the IPPC permits which shall contain specific limit values and be based on Best Available Techniques (BAT). Even the use of water is going to be a part of these permits. 6. In the description of the permit procedure there is no clear place for the involving of the public. 7. Almost every WMD (92 %) says that the time limit given in the law is insufficient at least in complex cases with a lot of documents and if the documents are not complete. Also the involvement of expert authorities needs more time. 8. No knowledge of BAT at all could be recognized. 9. Making of integrated permits is not known. Only one WMD says there are statements from expert authorities. Anyhow, only a statement is not what EU means with an integrated permit procedure. 10. The Aarhus Convention is not really taken on board yet. Only 4 WMD said it has been implemented in the permit procedure. Information in the newspapers is given in 42 % and meetings are held only in 17 % of the WMDs. OPPORTUNITIES

WMD

1. It could be of advantage to elaborate application forms combined with some guidance on how to fill them in for the operators. They could be put in Internet. 2. It could be helpful to support the permit writers with guidance. In addition there should be found a way to ensure a unified permitting practice in the country e.g. via elaborating permit models. 3. There should be offered a special training program for practising integrated permit procedures. The first step had been made by the Twinning Project on IPPC. Unfortunately this training had been provided for only a few number of persons. THREATS 1. If there is no connection between the REI and the WMD in cases of IPPC permits Hungarian authorities will not achieve integrated permitting procedures. 2. If the Aarhus Convention is in practice not considered in the permit procedure the public wont get involved in the right way and there will be no sufficient transparency in the procedure.

WMD

10

8. APPEALS Deleted 9. MONITORING SYSTEM

STRENGTHS 1. Data base for monitoring water exists. 2. Quality of data taken by the agencies is acceptable. 3. There are practical guidance for carrying out the monitoring such as technical instructions made by VITUKI and NWD; they even have a handbook on it. 4. Data from monitoring water are used both in permitting and inspection work and additionally in planning, for water supply, for flood forecast, research and development and other needs. 5. The operators make self-monitoring of emissions. 6. The monitoring results have been used for further enforcement actions as penalties, fines or introducing water restrictions. 7. There is a system for monitoring the impact on both water quantity and water quality. 8. The degree of compliance by controlled installations after they got their license is good (50 %) or feasible (42 %). WEAKNESSES 1. In the monitoring of water there are overlapping systems so that both the WMDs and the REIs take samples of water. 2. Only 58 % of the WMDs monitor emissions to water. 3. 42 % of the WMDs argue that the data from operators self-monitoring is not always available and reliable. 4. Merely in 30 % of the cases the results of self-monitoring can get verified by the authority. OPPORTUNITIES 1. Monitoring of both the state of the environment and the emissions to the environment is very important also in the future and now is the time to make good integrated monitoring programmes so that you can have reliable results to report. 2. The monitoring could be done in an electronic form so that reporting e.g. to EU becomes easier in future times. 3. The system of monitoring of impacts of installations can be improved by developing methods for the assessment of impacts on soil and by data exchange on soil qualities.

WMD

11

THREATS 1. If the monitoring results are not controlled regularly and thus in a reliable way you will not gain a sufficient picture of what the state of environment is and what the emissions from different operations are. 2. The different authorities involved in monitoring and data collection must be willing to co-operate and to provide their data to the other agencies. 3. If the technical provisions for a data exchange are not developed, the exchange will raise a lot of additional work and thus create resistance in the participants. 4. The development of practical guidance that are not too complex and that can be used without practical problems needs a lot of experience and competence. Some answers of the agencies suggest that this expertise is not available in the inspectorates. 5. The lack of soil data will make it impossible to fulfil the obligations of the EU-Water Framework Directive.

WMD

12

10. INSPECTIONS
STRENGTHS 1. The inspection can be done either by an individual inspector or by a team of inspectors depending on the case. 2. All authorities underline the quality of their annual plan for inspections. 3. Site visits are common in specific cases (sewage canal works, water works, and when a plant start to work) they control regularly. 4. The WMDs always write protocols of the site visits and the protocols get even signed by both the authority and the operator. 5. The WMDs are used to have extra meetings and negotiations with the applicant. The meetings can be held at the site or at the directorate. Many different issues can be discussed as: clearing of facts, informing the applicant or the authority, conciliation, planning, permission problems, anything in connection with the application, irrigation, pumping, water supply, canalisation a.s.o. 6. The WMDs report annually on their inspections to the NWD. The reports are quite large and contain a. o.: number of permits (new, modified, withdrawal, corrections, ceasing the procedure, appeals) and expert opinions, carrying out of plans, unusual inspections, fulfilment of the annual inspection plan, statistical data of inspections, experiences and proposals. 7. In 92 % data system exists for the reports of inspection . WEAKNESSES 1. Only 25 % of the authorities have a practical guidance for carrying out inspections elaborated by the NWD; some 30 % elaborated their own ones. That means that there is no unified practice in carrying out of inspections across the country. 2. With one exception the WMDs could not imagine involving e.g. local bodies in order to overtake inspection work to a certain degree. 3. Only one of 12 WMD was informed about the EU Recommendation on minimum criteria. OPPORTUNITIES 1. Now is the right time for a national institute to provide the WMDs with inspection guidance. 2. The data system for inspections exists and will be helpful to support the Hungarian reports on Minimum Criteria required by the EU after accession. THREATS 1. If there wont be delivered nationwide guidance differences will occur in how the inspections are carried out with all bad follow ups to the environment and the competitive situation of Hungarian firms.

WMD

13

11. ENFORCEMENT
STRENGTHS 1. The instruments of enforcement in cases of non-compliance are in all WMDs fines, enforcement notices, offences and criminal procedures. 2. A lot of enforcement actions had taken place in 2002: in total 894 cases: 381 fines, 461 enforcement notices, 52 offences and 0 criminal procedures. WEAKNESSES 1. The WMDs were not able to imagine that competencies for enforcement could be divided into several levels. 2. In spite of the high numbers of enforcement actions it is not certain that they are leading to more environmental protection because it is easy for the companies to pay fines which are too low. 3. The authorities enumerated a lot of problems linked to enforcement procedures: lack of money, lack of law, foreigners cannot be enforced, penalty is not strong enough, long appeal and court procedures, lack of successful enforcement instruments, lack of intention to follow the law and last but not least too complicated procedures. OPPORTUNITIES 1. The whole scale of enforcement instruments exists. Authorities should be encouraged to realize them for the sake of water protection. 2. A nationwide guidance on how to run enforcement successfully would help the authorities. 3. The laws about enforcement should be changed in order to increase fines and turn procedures less complicated. 4. The necessary change of attitude among the operators could be reached by more cooperation between authorities, operators, NGOs and citizens. THREATS 1. If the operators get away with only small fines they do not realise the importance of the compliance with the permits. 2. If the enforcers were not provided with intelligent guidance and were not skilful enough they would not win the enforcement and appeal battles.

WMD

14

12. REPORTING
STRENGTHS 1. All of the WMDs report about their work in annual work reports. Additionally occasional reports are given by 75 % and quarterly reports by 33 %. 2. The activities are published to the public quite often (83 %) in occasional reports (42 %), press conferences (67 %) and Internet presentations 42 %. 3. Data on water quality is reported in 33 % from the WMD to the NWD. 4. Data on water quantity is reported by most WMD to either VITUKI or NWD. 5. 50 % of the WMDs say that data reported to the national Authorities are put in a common report. The press gets also a report about the impact on waters. WEAKNESSES 1. With one exception the authorities have not set up a public service office. 2. Internet is only used by 25 % of the WMDs! 3. Meetings and press conferences about their work are given only by half of the authorities. 4. Only one WMD says that the annual report is available for the public. 5. Without one exception the WMDs had never heard of the EU-Directive on freedom of access to information on the environment. 6. It seems as if there exists a bit of confusion to whom the WMDs have to report data and what kind of data should be reported. OPPORTUNITIES 1. It is the right time to develop the reporting in order to install a functioning electronic data base which is continuously available to everybody. 2. The authorities own image could be improved by developing a reporting system in order to inform to the public about their water protecting work. THREATS 1. The EU demands cannot be fulfilled if the commission does not get data concerning water from the WMDs. This might provoke severe difficulties with European bodies and in some cases even penalties.

WMD

15

13. INFORMATION + DATA

STRENGTHS 1. 92 % of WMD have got or are planning a web site. 2. The web sites are used for a wide variety of information (news 90%, organisational 83%, tasks 60%) 3. 92% of WMD use online data collecting systems. The systems are widely used in daily work (75 to 100%), mainly databases of water flow. 4. There is a data exchange between the authorities under the umbrella of the MoEW 83% local and regional only 58% national. 5. They get enough information of neighbouring authorities for prevention of environmental impacts, accidents etc. (92%). Interactions between public and WMD per email takes place partly. WEAKNESSES 1. 2. 3. 4. 92% of the WMD say, web sites are not continuously updated. Plans are not published. The domestic EIONET-Network and its rules are unknown. WMD-Data are not involved in Integrated Environmental Economic Information System. 6. Only in 50% they have access to factory-own results of measuring. 5. 6. Only one WMD benefits from the combined system of EIONET Network +UNEP/GRID-Budapest and only 2 WMD use databases for air quality. 7. No WMD uses databases for Waste. 8. There is no data base for soil treatment and soil protection. 9. Although there is some information from neighbouring authorities, it is not enough; it should improve. 10. An IT-data base for the factory-own results of measuring is lacking. 11. Web sites need components for public interaction. OPPORTUNITIES 1. Web-Information should be managed in a central way. 2. All data collecting systems should be transformed into electronic online-systems. 3. Data exchange on a national level is needed. THREATS 1. The optimal way to fulfil the EU-requirement for reporting is to improve and complete electronic-based and online-based data collecting systems. 2. The data exchange especially in a local and national way must to be improved to get an environmental overview in Hungary.

WMD

16

14. IT-EQUIPMENT
STRENGTHS 1. There is the awareness, that it would be necessary to built up a modern and powerful ITequipment-system for daily work. 67 % of the WMDs say their IT-Equipment meets the demand of the daily work. 2. The necessity for general user knowledge (100 %), further knowledge (75 %) and special knowledge (67 %) is acknowledged. WEAKNESSES 1. The IT infrastructure is not sufficient for comprehensive IT Management like unified databases and data conversion. 2. Hardware doesnt get modernised and software doesnt get updated. OPPORTUNITIES 1. The improvement of the IT infrastructure should be prepared by an IT conception which fits to the actual needs, makes use as far as possible of the existing infrastructure and is intensively negotiated with the recent IT users. 2. Public information on internet should be done by help of a software and web server suitable for group work. 3. Many data are already available in the WMDs. Growing data stock will immediately give rise to the need for a registry of these data in order to sustain the overview and the availability of appropriate data for a given purpose. A meta data system should be developed (or adopted e.g. from the German Environmental Information Register [Umweltdatenkatalog, UDK]) in order to support the work. 4. A modern and powerful IT-equipment must be built up for the different authorities, because that is the main base for handling data in the daily work. This will be the rules having an unified database and the ability to make any decision on the same information and data status. THREATS 1. Aarhus convention and EU Freedom of Information guideline require a free access for every person to a wide range of information about nature, the environment, legislation and organisational data, using digital media as far as possible. The existing IT infrastructure obviously does not support this. 2. The reporting and monitoring obligations of the EU, especially those laid down in integrative directives like Natura 2000 or Water Framework Directive describe the need of data from other fields (soil, air, nature protection, waste)! These data are not present and not used in the work of the WMDs so far and so these obligations can hardly be fulfilled in this moment. One major reason is the lack of possibility to get a digital access to these data.

WMD

17