EX POST EVALUATION OF INVESTMENT PROJECTS CO-FINANCED BY THE EUROPEAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND (ERDF) OR COHESION FUND (CF) IN THE PERIOD 1994-1999 DUBLIN WASTE WATER TREATMENT PREPARED BY: DKM ECONOMIC CONSULTANTS, DUBLIN IN PARTNERSHIP WITH CSIL, CENTRE FOR INDUSTRIAL STUDIES, MILAN Prepared for: European Commission DIRECTORATE-GENERAL REGIONAL POLICY POLICY DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION MILAN, SEPTEMBER 5, 2012 This report is part of a study carried out by a Team selected by the Evaluation Unit, DG Regional Policy, European Commission, through a call for tenders by open procedure no 2010.CE.16.B.AT.036. The consortium selected comprises CSIL – Centre for Industrial Studies (lead partner – Milan) and DKM Economic Consultants (Dublin). The Core Team comprises: - Scientific Director: Massimo Florio, CSIL and University of Milan; - Project Coordinators: Silvia Vignetti and Julie Pellegrin, CSIL; - External experts: Ginés de Rus (University of Las Palmas, Spain), Per-Olov Johansson (Stockholm School of Economics, Sweden) and Eduardo Ley (World Bank, Washington, D.C.); - Senior experts: Ugo Finzi, Mario Genco, Annette Hughes and Marcello Martinez; - Task managers: John Lawlor, Julie Pellegrin and Davide Sartori; - Project analysts: Emanuela Sirtori, Gelsomina Catalano and Rory Mc Monagle. A network of country experts provides the geographical coverage for the field analysis: Roland Blomeyer, Fernando Santos (Blomeyer and Sanz – Guadalajara), Andrea Moroni (CSIL – Milano), Antonis Moussios, Panos Liveris (Eurotec - Thessaloniki), Marta Sánchez-Borràs, Mateu Turró (CENIT – Barcelona), Ernestine Woelger (DKM – Dublin). The authors of this report are John Lawlor and Rory Mc Monagle of DKM. The authors are grateful for the very helpful comments from the EC staff and particularly to Veronica Gaffey, José-Luís Calvo de Celis and Kai Stryczynski. They also express their gratitude to all stakeholders who agreed to respond to the team’s questions and contributed to the realisation of the case study. The authors are responsible for any remaining errors or omissions. Quotation is authorised as long as the source is acknowledged. Cover: Dublin Bay. Source: Dublin City. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 1 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 7 1.1 KEY FEATURES OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICE DELIVERED............................................................... 7 1.2 CONTEXT ...................................................................................................................................... 11 1.3 TARGET POPULATION ...................................................................................................................... 12 1.4 CURRENT PERFORMANCE ................................................................................................................. 16 2 ORIGIN AND HISTORY ............................................................................................................... 23 2.1 CONTEXT FOR THE PROJECT .............................................................................................................. 23 2.2 KEY STAKEHOLDERS AND MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES ............................................................................ 33 2.3 MAIN DEVELOPMENTS SINCE COMPLETION .......................................................................................... 41 2.4 HAS THE PROJECT STABILISED? .......................................................................................................... 46 3 LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS ........................................................................................ 49 3.1 KEY FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................... 49 3.2 DIRECT ECONOMIC GROWTH ............................................................................................................ 53 3.3 ENDOGENOUS DYNAMICS ................................................................................................................ 55 3.4 SOCIAL COHESION .......................................................................................................................... 56 3.5 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ............................................................................................................... 58 3.6 TERRITORIAL COHESION ................................................................................................................... 58 3.7 INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY .................................................................................................................. 58 3.8 SOCIAL HAPPINESS .......................................................................................................................... 60 4 DETERMINANTS OF PROJECT OUTCOMES .................................................................................. 61 4.1 KEY FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................... 61 4.2 APPROPRIATENESS TO THE CONTEXT .................................................................................................. 62 4.3 PROJECT DESIGN ............................................................................................................................ 64 4.4 FORECASTING CAPACITY .................................................................................................................. 64 4.5 PROJECT GOVERNANCE .................................................................................................................... 65 4.6 MANAGERIAL RESPONSE .................................................................................................................. 66 4.7 INFLUENCE OF AND INTERPLAY BETWEEN DRIVERS ................................................................................. 67 4.8 THE ROLE OF THE EU ...................................................................................................................... 68 5 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................... 69 ANNEX I. METHODOLOGY OF EVALUATION .................................................................................. 73 ANNEX II. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 79 ANNEX III. GLOSSARY OF TERMS .................................................................................................... 99 ANNEX IV. LIST OF INTERVIEWEES ................................................................................................ 101 ANNEX V. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 103 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ABP An Bord Pleanála/Planning Appeals Board AD Anaerobic Digestion BOD5 Biochemical Oxygen Demand CAW Celtic Anglian Water, the DWWT concessionaire CBA Cost-Benefit Analysis CF Cohesion Fund CFU Colony Forming Unit COD Chemical Oxygen Demand CSO Central Statistics Office DBO Design Build Operate DBWQMP Dublin Bay Water Quality Management Plan DCC Dublin City Council DDDA Dublin Docklands Development Authority DOE Department of the Environment (now the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government, DECLG) DG Regio Directorate General for Regional Policies DWWT Dublin Wastewater Treatment EAP Environmental Action Programme EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EC European Commission EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERDF European Regional Development Fund ERU Environmental Research Unit EU European Union EUR Euro FF Fíanna Fáil, Irish Political Party GDA Greater Dublin Area GDP Gross Domestic Product GVA Gross Value Added IFSC International Financial Services Centre IPPC Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Km Kilometre(s) m Metre(s) MACL McCarthy Acer Consultants Limited mm Millimetre(s) M&E Mechanical & Electrical MSW Municipal Solid Waste MW Megawatts NUTS Nomenclature of Territorial Statistical Units NPV Net Present Value PE Population Equivalent PDs Progressive Democrats, Irish Political Party R&D Research and Development SBR Sequencing Batch Reactors ToR Terms of Reference TSS Total Suspended Solids WtE Waste to Energy (i.e. incineration) WTP Willingness to pay EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This case study analyses the construction and operation of the Dublin Waste Water Treatment plant (DWWT). The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the socio-economic long-term effects generated by the project and to disentangle the possible determinant factors that may have contributed to producing these effects. More details on the overall evaluation approach are presented in the following Box and, more extensively, in Annex I. OVERALL APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY The Conceptual Framework delivered in the First Intermediate Report has been developed from the evaluation questions included in the ToR1, and further specified and organised in accordance with the study team’s understanding. In particular, the Team identified three relevant dimensions of analysis: a. The object of the evaluation (the ‘WHAT’): this relates to the typologies of long-term contributions that can be observed. Starting from the typologies identified in the ToR (socio-economic development and